The Astral Pulse
News: http://www.astralpulse.com/aup.html. Acceptable Use Policy for the forums. Please read and ensure that you respect these policies. Thank you.

If you wish the join The Astral Pulse, please create an account and then email myself or one of the moderators your username and email address (do not send us your password please) and we will activate your account for you. 
If it's been over 24 hours and you still haven't been approved, please send another email, we are just people too and sometimes we get busy.
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/member_registration_requiring_approval-t42962.0.html

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. June 22, 2021, 15:28:25


Login with username, password and session length


  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3
26  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / The 10 Dimensions. on: January 17, 2004, 01:10:18
A "whoosh" is definitely not a "slam." Period. You are simply WRONG Ybom ... WRONG. As much as you would like to do so, you cannot make a "whoosh" equate with a "slam."

Unless, of course, you got it spinning really fast and then jumped in front of it. Then it would slam into your 3rd density body, while your subtle body "whooshed" on into never-never land ... [Tongue]

RE: triangle

It has to do with Euclid's 5th postulate, and is rather technical if you don't have a background in math. It has to do with parallel lines.

But in a nutshell, traditional Euclidean geometry, the angles add to 180 because the figure is assumed to be on a flat, 2D plane, and that the physical space respresented by Euclidean geometry is assumed to be "straight," for want of a better term. In non-Euclidean geometries, which  more accurately dipict the nature real space-time, such "figures" are distorted to some degree because the space-time continuum "curves" and "bends," so to speak.

It's a little bit like the difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics, in that the Newtonian model is accurate enough for everyday observations but breaks down when attempting to describe what happens at the sub-atomic level.
27  Energy Body and The Chakras / Welcome to Energy Body and The Chakras / Heat getting hotter. help on: January 16, 2004, 01:47:30
Try warming them up with a cup of hot chai ... [Cheesy]

Along the lines of what matrox said ... perhaps lay off the hands bit and concentrate on working the whole body circuits to acheive more balance, then slowly start to work the hands again.
28  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / I think I am going crazy. on: January 15, 2004, 13:33:07
Ah, yes, post-cognition - know it well! [Wink] (Although, my teacher called it "anti-cognition.")
29  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / FORUM INTRUSION on: January 14, 2004, 01:06:48
quote:
don't think the NSA takes job applications (they recruit), ditto the FBI


Well ... here's a link to the NSA "Careers" homepage:

http://www.nsa.gov/programs/employ/homepage.cfm

and the FBI's:

https://www.fbijobs.com/

oh! don't forget the CIA ...

http://www.cia.gov/employment/index.html

LOL ... [Cheesy]
30  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Reincarnation in Judaism and Christianity on: January 13, 2004, 16:46:03
While I personally give room for the doctrine of reincarnation in my beliefs, Beth, PLEASE don't be mislead and confuse others into believing that it was a commonly held belief in the early Christian church! It was not even close to being universally accepted and their was much debate among the very early "Fathers" of the Church - contemporaries, or predecessors even, to Origin - the majority of which DENIED the doctrine, far earlier than 600 AD.

For example, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in the latter half of the 2nd century (circa, AD 180), denies it in his work "Against Heresies" in Chapter XXXIII. - "Absurdity of the Doctrine of the Transmigration of Souls," in which he analyzes Plato and Pythagoras. Again, Tertullian, writing around 160 AD, at Carthage, argues againts the doctrine in his "A Treatise on the Soul," also referring to the "philosophers" and the Pythagoreans - specifically in chapters XXVIII and following.

Justin Martyr, one of the earliest "Fathers" (c. 100-165), is often claimed to have supported the notion of reincarnation. This is a prime example of how people who wish to bolster their argument for the doctrine misinterpret, or deliberately take out of context, the writings of early Christian apologists. In chapter IV of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, reincarnationists claim that "he taught that human souls inhabit more than one body in the course of their earthly pilgrimage."  

What does Justin actually say? He does present a dialogue in which he discusses with Trypho the question of reincarnation; at the end of this discussion, the dialogue concludes as follows (note that "I" is Justin and "he" is Trypho, the Jew with whom he is debating; Trypho speaks first):
 
quote:

"Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honorable, I also quite agree with you," said he.

"You are right," I replied.


You also mention Jerome - please give me the original source for the statement you quote. Well, don't bother, because you will never find it! What you WILL find is Jerome, in a letter to Avitus, in about 409 or 410, accusing Origen of holding to the "transmigration of souls." Again, in Letter CXXX, paragraph 16, to Demetrius, he condemns the doctrine as a "godless and wicked teaching" which "lurks secretly like a viper in its hole."  

There are others, but I hope this illustrates the point.

If you wish to believe in and espouse the doctrine of reincarnation, fine. That is your prerogative. As I said, I personally am not opposed to it. Just don't make things up (or believe what others have made up) about what the "early church" did or did not believe, and that there was widespread agreement early on.

With regards to esoteric Judaism, in the tradition of Zohar and Kabalah (derived from the earlier Merkabah school), you are correct.
31  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Kabbalah on: January 13, 2004, 02:54:17
... And then they give you the Key. [Tongue]
32  Spiritual Evolution / Welcome to Spiritual Evolution! / Facing Doubts... on: January 13, 2004, 02:02:58
I've been through the cycle now many a time. Each time of doubt has caused me to question more deeply, to seek with more fervor and has built character in the process. In the end, I have gained a richer understanding, come to a greater inner peace and have often been humbled as well. But during the termoil, it can be a little unsettling. Trust that whatever really IS, remains, regardless of how you perceive or interpret IT, and that you are rooted in that REALITY and that if you are internally honest and humble, you WILL move through to a higher place.

Ever read "A Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyon? Perhaps you should.
33  Magic / Welcome to Magic! / a brief analysis of "love under will"? on: January 12, 2004, 19:24:45
Xander, my Thelemite friend (may I so presume?) ...

Why is your reply no surprise? [Wink] (As mine is probably likewise to you) For what it's worth to you, my opinion IS the result of almost 20 years of direct investigation and research - I'm not some mindless "fundie xian," as you so lovingly like to say. (Don't   quite understand why you can't just say Christian, except that you must have a desire to blot out the name of Christ ... ah, so THAT's what they mean by "anti-Christ!")

I am not ignorant of the basis of magic - in theory and practice - but view what Valentin Tomberg terms "arbitrary personal magic," (Crowley's "thelema," or personal will, in your terms) as far inferior to "divine" magic, where the individual will is aligned with and directed by, through the union of love, the Divine Will, and power and knowledge is excercised in that context.

If you wish to understand my views, Tomberg, in his anonymous magnum opus, "Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism," pretty much sums them up. Of course, you'll have to wade through the 600+ pages ...

True justice is the integration of Mercy with Severity, Love and Law, Force and Form, applied with wisdom and insight. As Eliphas Levi wrote in "The Magic Ritual of the Sanctum Regnum:"
 
quote:
Liberty, Power, Despotism. Power is correct equilibrium between Despotism and Liberty. This is the solution of the Enigma of the three letters that Cagliostro the Initiate formulated to represent the Kabalah of political and social stability.
You, it seems, would have all Liberty with no constraint of Law.

Laws are necessary in society because their are MANY who would, as you rightly indicate, impose their wills upon others who are vulnerable. Yours, like communism, may be a lovely ideal, were all humans perfectly enlightened (and at this point, our definitions of "enlightened" would surely differ!). But alas, we see the REALITY of how the ideal of communism actually manifests - it degrades into despotism and totalitarianism, because there are always those whose base selfishness, greed and corruption - the "will to power" - leads to that end. In an analogous way, "Love under Will," on a large scale as a philosophy of societal structure, would truly collapse into anarchy.

Thus, society, rightly places Law into place to restrain lawlessness for the protection of its people - kind of a babysitter for those who need it. When individuals are truly enlightened, they have the Law withing themselves, live accordingly and look to the good of others, often sacrificing their own desires and passions for the greater good.

"Will under Love" is, imo, a superior motto.
34  Magic / Welcome to Magic! / a brief analysis of "love under will"? on: January 12, 2004, 13:16:49
Imo, "love under will" is simply a euphemism for arbitrary, self-willed anarchy! "'Do what thou wilt'" shall be the whole of the law."  Just as bad as despotism at the other end of the pole. No balance of personal rights with responsibilities to the greater good. "Self-will run riot," as the 12-step programs put it.

I agree with you in that it is an inversion of the proper order, "will directed by love." People fear to "lose" their "freedom," but in reality, the will always remains free, and the choice to submit the will to love is freely done and brings true joy and fulfillment to the soul.
35  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Jesus on: January 10, 2004, 03:42:27
With all due respect to Buddha ... to present a quote like that is a little misleading, imo, because it's out of the larger context (just like taking a verse from the bible to make some point). If we follow that logic to the extreme, we have no "economy" of knowlege, i.e., we can never build upon what others have learned because we are continually reinventing the wheel.

He does not say "don't believe anything that others say or what has been passed down or what is written in religious books." He is saying, listen, learn, gather the info, take others experience onto consideration, then find your own way - a balanced approach should be used. Keep what is useful and what resonates with your personality, discard that which does not move you forward.

The accumulated wealth of experience that has been written down and reflected on through the centuries has great value and merit. Reading and contemplating what others have learned through collective experience can be extraordinarily enlightening and stimulating. But one must take it and use it as a springboard into their own experience and discovery!

Regarding your question:
A "Christian" is one who follows or belongs to Christ. This means that a Christian is one who seeks to know the teachings of Christ and who seeks to know the person of Christ. His teachings can be knows through 1) the recorded words in the Gospels 2) the reflections on his teachings by his earliest and closest followers, the apostles, contained in the other letters of the New Testament, and 3) through the various Christian churches (especially, imo, those that have an unbroken succession of teaching and reflection passed down from the apostles to their successors, ie, the Roman Catholic church, the various Othodox churches.)

He can be know in his person through 1) prayer - start talking to him and ask him to reveal himself to you in a personal way, then listen and try to be aware of how he might be trying to do so, and 2) through your fellow human beings, especially other Christians who seem to have a deep peace and warmth radiating from them.

If you truly seek to know him, he will clarify these other issues for you as you learn to communicate with him and open yourself to his tender love and compassion.

Good luck and God's blessing in your journey!
36  Spiritual Evolution / Welcome to Spiritual Evolution! / Use this AGAINST those nonbelievers of chi !!!!! on: January 08, 2004, 20:05:08
I believe that the "universal life energy," chi (or ki, if your Japanese) and the "power of God" is one in the same thing - God's life-giving/sustaining energy. How we direct this energy and how much access we have to it is dependent upon our spiritual/mental/physical development. If we train, for example, in the martial arts (which I do), or in "personal magic" (which I don't, but I understand the principles), we can more effectively direct this "resource" that God has provided, even to the point of effecting the "miraculous."

If one is self-centered and attempts to use it only for their own selfish persuits (or worse, to harm others), they dishonor themselves, their fellow humans and God. At some point, they will become a victim of their own device, and make true that perenial warning about the Devil overcoming the Sorcerer, reaping what they sow.

If, on the other hand, one commits themselves to the service of others and allows their actions and intentions to be directed for the good of others under the guidance of God (as Jesus did), then one can truly work wonders and an abundance of life will be his reward - maybe not in this life, but at the higher spiritual levels.

In any case, I personally don't even know what the heck DBZ is, and the only kiddy programs I watch are Dragon Tales, Barney and Rescue heros! I'm more of a "Law and Order" kind of guy ... [Wink]
37  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Did Peter turn Magdeline into a Prostitute? on: January 08, 2004, 19:38:22
LH -

 
quote:
So how does your post prove that Peter did not have his own agenda? Certainly you don't believe that there were 2 different guys named Peter in those accounts.


This is a good question that leads to a more fundamental issue in my mind. Does the "Gospel of Mary" really record the words of the historical figures it portrays? You are assuming it does, I am questioning that.

What I mean is that I believe, based on a number of factors that would take too long to type here, that the Gospel of Mary is an example of first or second century pseudepigrapha, or "false writings." During this time, many writings were produced under the names of apostles that introduced a wide array of ideas not always consistant with what Jesus actually taught and that was transmitted via the apostles. Thus, it is my opinion that the Gospel of Mary is simply a device by which traditional gnostic themes of the day were put into the mouths of Jesus and his disciples as a kind of mythos.

So, in essence, I do believe that the "Peter" (and Jesus, Mary and others) in the Gospel of Mary is not really Peter the apostle, but rather simply the device of the writer to transmit gnostic philosophy.

You raise the issue of the history of these writings and in that regard, I would simply say that it is a MUCH debated issue - not so much as to their authenticity (i.e., they are not middle-age forgeries), but rather regarding if they represent, with any accuracy, the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. My opinion as I have stated, based on years of personal research and looking at the issue from various angles, is that they do not.

Not to say that some truth and insightful reflections can't be gained by reading them, but I do believe that to pick them up and say "Ah ha! THESE are the REAL teachings that were suppressed ....", and throw out the traditional canon of the New Testament as some conspiratorial revision, is erroneous based on weight of verifiable historical evidence.

Regarding the church, it has certainly been less than perfect in many ways and many times. That, unfortunately, is the nature of humans when they are involved in a group of more than one, and even a group of one can be problematic! I will repeat my opinion, though, that it has indeed held up the ideal of the nobility of every human being and the sacredness of life, based not on their utility, but their humanity. How well that is reflected in action varies and is imperfect, but we see examples of the ideal being lived to some high degree in people like Mother Theresa, St. Francis and many other unnamed, unknown mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who follow Christ under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, because like your Mary, they have encountered the Risen Christ.
38  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / When God was a Woman on: January 08, 2004, 17:46:20
Gandalf - you are right on topic ...

While I agree that the feminine has not always been integrated well into our understanding of God, I thinks it's a huge mistake to swing from one pole to the other, in a reactionary mode, which is what, imo, the author has done. Talk about bias! ... "This, these homoerotic, testosterone-ridden zealots did."

Here, you've got a woman doing the very thing she is accusing the "these homoerotic, testosterone-ridden zealots" of doing, just in reverse! Namely, she is fanatically attempting to stamp out the Male aspect of Deity and reestablish (if you can really call it that, as gandalf pointed out) the Female Goddess as supreme!

Everything in nature speaks of dynamic interplay of male/female, hard/soft, active/passive, force/form - syzygies. The Jewish scripture tells of God creating humans in "His" image. But what is that image? "Male and Female they were created!" Male AND Female is the image or reflection of God. In all the various mystery and esoteric traditions, you have this truth respresented - the Sun is male, the moon (or earth) is female, the Yin and Yang, etc. Even Christianity (admittedly biased toward the male aspect) recognizes the fact, however obliquely, in venerating Mary (the mother of Jesus and the Church), MOTHER church, the church (or body of believers) as The Bride and God as the Bridegroom.

The Jewish name of God, the Tetragramaton, Yod-He-Vod-He, represents this fundemental truth. Looking at the first two letters, the "Yod" is the male principle, or active force, and the "He" (ironically enough with the english spelling of the letter) represents the female principle, or contstraining form. Together, they generate manifested existence. Also, the Yod (male principle) combines with "he-vod-he," EVE, the female principle to form the complete Name.

Thus, perhaps the best anthropomorphism would be androgynous. Or, you can simply look at the imprint of God in Nature and find the same thing. Why do we pit one against the other?
39  Spiritual Evolution / Welcome to Spiritual Evolution! / Use this AGAINST those nonbelievers of chi !!!!! on: January 07, 2004, 20:35:44
From the Gospel of Mark, chapter 5:

When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. ...
A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.

At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, "Who touched my clothes?" "You see the people crowding against you," his disciples answered, "and yet you can ask, 'Who touched me?' "

But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering."
**********************

Whatever name you wish to use, Jesus felt the energy go out from him and into the woman to heal her.




40  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Did Peter turn Magdeline into a Prostitute? on: January 07, 2004, 18:50:13
quote:
Here is a quote from the Gospel of Thomas;
Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

That's affording women High Honor???


Thanks for affirming my point! The so-called Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic writing that does not reflect the view of Jesus or of traditional Christianity. The gnostic thought was that "female" represented all that was earthly, material and thus corrupt. "Male" represented that which was heavenly, spiritual and thus pure. This stems from the gnostic dualism that pits the matter against spirit and calls matter evil, per se.

Thus, in the gnostic scheme and not the traditional Christian one, we see that womanhood is associated with evil matter and women are only saved by becoming "male." This is the very same "liberation" that we see in the last century under the guise of "woman's liberation." Woman has not really been liberated or esteemed for her innate womanhood, but rather has been forced to "become male" to have validity! What I mean is that in order to "be somebody," woman now feel they must attain positions of POWER, i.e., become "man," since these positions were traditionally held by men. If that logic is followed to the extreme, then the only way to "be somebody" is to have power.

The traditional Christian view is that every person has inherent worth, not because of their sex or position, but because they are made in the image and likeness of God. Thus, all human life is sacred, valued and esteemed, regardless of gender, race, physical stature, etc., and manhood and womanhood are regarded with awe and wonder for their unique inner essence that combines and conjoines in harmony, each playing its role in creative and salvivic life.

Of course, regarding the quote, one could interpret it allegorically or symbolically to simply mean that that which is earthly must be transformed and lifted up into that which is spiritual, in which case the whole discussion becomes moot! [Wink]
41  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Did Peter turn Magdeline into a Prostitute? on: January 07, 2004, 16:58:20
For economy of time, I'm copying my other post and adding to it:

After studying the issue for many years now, I am of the opinion that the whole line of gnostic tradition about Mary Magdalene and Jesus being married and having offspring was simply an attempt to "gnosticize" Jesus. In other words, the various gnostic groups at the time of Jesus wove him into their mythos in a way that would "legitimize" their existence. Thus, the gnostic archtypes are projected onto Jesus and Mary Magdalene, regardless of any historical veracity or factual basis.

As to the "royal bloodline" of Jesus that we read so much about these past few years, I believe much the same thing happened (i.e., if I claim to be descended from Jesus, I have "legitimized" my claim to "divine aristocracy.") Jesus made it clear that his "kingdom" what not of this world (i.e., it was of a spiritual nature), when his disciples thought, as other Jews of the time did, that Messiah would drive out the Romans and re-establish an earthly throne.

Yeh, go ahead and reply that the "Roman Church/State, etc." supressed the "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, .... If that is the case, why do the Eastern Orthodox churches, like the Syrian or Indian Orthodox rites, hold to essentially the same "orthodox" teachings of the Roman Church? The Syrian Othodox church in Antioch was founded by Peter and The Malankara Orthodox Church was founded in Kerala, India, by St. Thomas the Apostle around AD 52. These churches remained autonomous from the beginning, meaning they were never "Roman." Yet, amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly), their foundational beliefs are almost identical to Roman Catholic beliefs and their sacraments are the same seven as the Roman Church!

With respect to women and the early church (and by this I mean the traditional church, not some gnostic variant), women were accorded honor and a role as teachers. Paul, whom you accuse with Peter of being a misogynist, clearly states in his leter to the Galatians, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This approach to women was radically superior to the common view of the time. In fact, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is held up in VERY high esteem among both Orthodox and Roman Catholics, not just because she bore Jesus, but because of her great virtue and openess to God. In traditional Christian though, without her (a woman) fiat, or "yes," to God, Jesus, the Christian Savior, would not have been incarnated! Thus, her role (in the Christian theology) is right up alongside of Jesus'!

Contrary to what you imply, I believe that it can be easily shown that traditional Chistianity has afforded high honor and esteem to women. In contrast, when one studies much of the gnostic writings and beliefs, they, in reality, reduce woman to a mere tool for men to use in their rites, much like Alister Crowley's view in the last century.
42  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Did Jesus have Sex?? on: January 07, 2004, 16:28:35
After studying the issue for many years now, I am of the opinion that the whole line of gnostic tradition about Mary Magdalene and Jesus being married and having offspring was simply an attempt to "gnosticize" Jesus. In other words, the various gnostic groups at the time of Jesus wove him into their mythos in a way that would "legitimize" their existence. Thus, the gnostic archtypes are projected onto Jesus and Mary Magdalene, regardless of any historical veracity or factual basis.

As to the "royal bloodline" of Jesus that we read so much about these past few years, I believe much the same thing happened (i.e., if I claim to be descended from Jesus, I have "legitimized" my claim to "divine aristocracy.") Jesus made it clear that his "kingdom" what not of this world (i.e., it was of a spiritual nature), when his disciples thought, as other Jews of the time did, that Messiah would drive out the Romans and re-establish an earthly throne.

Yeh, go ahead and reply that the "Roman Church/State, etc." supressed the "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, .... If that is the case, why do the Eastern Orthodox churches, like the Syrian or Indian Orthodox rites, hold to essentially the same "orthodox" teachings of the Roman Church? The Syrian Othodox church in Antioch was founded by Peter and The Malankara Orthodox Church was founded in Kerala, India, by St. Thomas the Apostle around AD 52. These churches remained autonomous from the beginning, meaning they were never "Roman." Yet, amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly), their foundational beliefs are almost identical to Roman Catholic beliefs and their sacraments are the same seven as the Roman Church!

Some food for thought.

Did Jesus have sex? No, I don't believe so. Not because sex is "evil," but rather that the sexual act is reserved for use within the context of marriage and family, and I don't believe Jesus was married. Was Jesus "sexual?" Of course ... we are all sexual beings and sexuality pervades our human nature. But one can embrace their sexuality while being celibate. In fact, that is the only TRUE celibacy that harnesses the sexual vitality, lifts it up in love to a higher vibration and performs great works of charity.
43  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Question about Kabbalah on: January 07, 2004, 14:21:18
I would also suggest Colin Low's "Notes on Kabbalah" for a good, relatively easy to understand primer. Many Jewish authors seem to jump into the middle without systematically explaining some fundamental principles, like the dynamic relationship between force and constraint and the need for integrating complimentary but opposite polarities to achieve balance. He also does a good job of explaining the concept of "qlippah" or "husk" in relationship to the sephiroth. (I.e., creative impetus without constraint of law is simply dissapation - wasted, unfocused release of energy that may give a warm fuzzy feeling, but that does not bring about any meaningful effect. On the othe hand, law, or constraint, when applied too unmercifully and without wisdom, becomes an unyeilding iron fist of authoritarion rule that chokes off the flow of life ...)

Then get a few Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's books. He offers solid practical books with underlying theory. Also, for wider philosophical and historical aspects, Gershom Scholem is recommended. These are respected Jewish authors.
44  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Does God/Jesus Exist? on: January 07, 2004, 01:17:12
In lieu of spending a bunch of time typing, I'm copying my post from another thread that gives just a few of my thoughts ...

Fundamental to my belief (and Christianity) is the Incarnation - that is, that the transcendent Unknowable God was incarnated in space/time, our material world, as man, first in a special way in the person of Jesus, and more generally, in every human. It speaks to the mystery of our existance, which involves an intimate connection with the God who is beyond all knowlege, names and images, yet Who is at the same time, completely present at the core of all that exists, including each of us.

The Gospel of John, for example, starts by referring to the Logos and saying that this Logos became flesh (incarnated) in the person of Jesus. The Logos, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, would have been a well-understood Greek philosophical concept that referred to the power, pattern, order and intelligence that pervades and underlies the universe,through which created things came to be and by which they are sustained in their existence. Logos, for example, is where our word "logic" is derived from. Logos, in the Gospels is usually translated as "Word," implying the Creative Word continually issuing forth from God, creating and sustaining all things.

John, then, takes this concept and says it is embodied, enfleshed and revealed to us in the person of Jesus - that Jesus is the "Word" or manifestation of the unseen, unknoweable God. It is indeed a paradox, in that one the one hand, we say (just as the Cabalist does) that God is beyond all knowlege and names (thus the Jews' prosciption against pronouncing God's "name" or making "graven images" in that all names and images are incomplete with respect to who or what God is), yet God is known through his Word, which reveals that which is hidden.

Now John goes on to say that this Logos is the very thing that gives light to every person, i.e., that while the Logos is incarnated in a unique revealatory way in Jesus, that same reality of union of God and Man is present in every person - a universal or "catholic" truth. So, in some way, we are all part of this eternally dynamic Word that continually issues forth from God.

Of course, attempting to define this exactly has been the core of thousands, probably millions of debates! How can we say on the one hand that God has always existed and is totally "apart from," yet totally "united to" what He has created?!? (Simultaneously transcendant and immanant.)

One the one hand, we can take the pantheistic (or closely related monistic) approach where God and the Universe are equated - all is ONE. Pantheism, then, is reductionist in that there is no room for God as anything other than the sum of the parts. Pantheism is really abstracted atheism where "god" is impersonal force. Pantheism is the attempt to bring unity into the diversity of things, but at the cost of reducing God to fit into our limited minds.

On the other hand, we can go the dualistic route - a sharp division between spirit and matter, God and Man. Never shall the twain meet! This gives us some obvious difficulties, like "if matter and mind are completely seperate, how does the mind apprehend the material world?"

Both systems of thought give rise to difficulties and in the end, I believe that this is where words simply break down in their ability to transmit an accurate picture of reality. Thus, we come to symbols. In this regard, I think that math can give some clues as to how things can be both separate and unified simultaneously!

Take, for example, the "Golgen Ratio" Phi, or more generally, irrationaly numbers. First, natural numbers are so name because they denote the material world and it's plurality - things can be enumerated, counted. 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. Rational numbers are defined as ratios of natural numbers. Again, these are directly related to enumeration - 1/2, 2/3, 5/8, etc.

Irrational numbers, however, present an intriguing phenomenon - they are not "rational" in that they cannot be expressed in terms of natural numbers, thus they in some way related to a higher realm than that which can be counted (the material world). They are defined in terms of intrinsic characteristics and relationships of one thing to another. They hint at non-enumerated unity.

So, pi is defined by the inner relationships of the aspects of the circle. Phi is defined by a recursive relationship. These "numbers" bridge the gap between mind and matter, hence the reverence bestowed them throughout the ages. Phi, for example, while being an irrational number, is integral to the forms of growth and reproduction. For me, it speaks then of how that which is above enumeration (unity) can unfold into diverse forms.

This gives rise, by the way of analogy, to an understanding, at least to some degree, of the paradox of how God could be both transcendent or "apart" and apprehendable or immanent.

On a personal note, I have had a very profound and intimate relationship with God and Jesus for many years (in fact, in retrospect, from before I was born), so it goes far beyond some intellectual pursuit or philosophical inquiry or "being told" what to believe. (Just a preemptive parry to the inevitable accusation ... [Wink])
45  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / God is a male or a female? on: January 06, 2004, 23:45:50
So was there a question in there? Or just a rhetorical springboard into your rant against Jews, Christians and their forebearers?

If you can penetrate no deaper than that into these writings, then perhaps you are blinded by your own prejudices.


46  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Help, I'm stuck in my bedroom wall! on: January 06, 2004, 19:44:28
Try a window - the mind doesn't seem to object as much to passing through glass. Then you say "Hey, I passed through glass, and that's solid, so why not other solids!"
47  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Jesus - Result of Alien Abduction? on: January 06, 2004, 14:34:10
lullabi,

THAT is a very good question, and the one that cuts to the chase in regard to Christian belief - namely, the Incarnation. It speaks to the mystery of our existance, which involves an intimate connection with the God who is beyond all knowlege, names and images, yet Who is at the same time, completely present at the core of all that exists, including each of us.

The Gospel of John, for example, starts by referring to the Logos and saying that this Logos became flesh (incarnated) in the person of Jesus. The Logos, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, would have been a well-understood Greek philosophical concept that referred to the power, pattern, order and intelligence that pervades and underlies the universe,through which created things came to be and by which they are sustained in their existence. Logos, for example, is where our word "logic" is derived from. Logos, in the Gospels is usually translated as "Word," implying the Creative Word continually issuing forth from God, creating and sustaining all things.

John, then, takes this concept and says it is embodied, enfleshed and revealed to us in the person of Jesus - that Jesus is the "Word" or manifestation of the unseen, unknoweable God. It is indeed a paradox, in that one the one hand, we say (just as the Cabalist does) that God is beyond all knowlege and names (thus the Jews' prosciption against pronouncing God's "name" or making "graven images" in that all names and images are incomplete with respect to who or what God is), yet God is known through his Word, which reveals that which is hidden.

Now John goes on to say that this Logos is the very thing that gives light to every person, i.e., that while the Logos is incarnated in a unique revealatory way in Jesus, that same reality of union of God and Man is present in every person - a universal or "catholic" truth. So, in some way, we are all part of this eternally dynamic Word that continually issues forth from God.

Of course, attempting to define this exactly has been the core of thousands, probably millions of debates! How can we say on the one hand that God has always existed and is totally "apart from," yet totally "united to" what He has created?!? (Simultaneously transcendant and immanant.)

One the one hand, we can take the pantheistic (or closely related monistic) approach where God and the Universe are equated - all is ONE. Pantheism, then, is reductionist in that there is no room for God as anything other than the sum of the parts. Pantheism is really abstracted atheism where "god" is impersonal force. Pantheism is the attempt to bring unity into the diversity of things, but at the cost of reducing God to fit into our limited minds.

On the other hand, we can go the dualistic route - a sharp division between spirit and matter, God and Man. Never shall the twain meet! This gives us some obvious difficulties, like "if matter and mind are completely seperate, how does the mind apprehend the material world?"

Both systems of thought give rise to difficulties and in the end, I believe that this is where words simply break down in their ability to transmit an accurate picture of reality. Thus, we come to symbols. In this regard, I think that math can give some clues as to how things can be both separate and unified simultaneously!

Take, for example, the "Golgen Ratio" Phi, or more generally, irrationaly numbers. First, natural numbers are so name because they denote the material world and it's plurality - things can be enumerated, counted. 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. Rational numbers are defined as ratios of natural numbers. Again, these are directly related to enumeration - 1/2, 2/3, 5/8, etc.

Irrational numbers, however, present an intriguing phenomenon - they are not "rational" in that they cannot be expressed in terms of natural numbers, thus they in some way related to a higher realm than that which can be counted (the material world). They are defined in terms of intrinsic characteristics and relationships of one thing to another. They hint at non-enumerated unity.

So, pi is defined by the inner relationships of the aspects of the circle. Phi is defined by a recursive relationship. These "numbers" bridge the gap between mind and matter, hence the reverence bestowed them throughout the ages. Phi, for example, while being an irrational number, is integral to the forms of growth and reproduction. For me, it speaks then of how that which is above enumeration (unity) can unfold into diverse forms. It gives rise, by the way of analogy, to an understanding, at least to some degree, of the paradox of how God could be both transcendent or "apart" and apprehendable or immanent.

I think my post also addresses the "alien" issue.
48  World Cultures, Traditions and Religions / Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! / Jesus - Result of Alien Abduction? on: January 05, 2004, 19:56:19
Jesus claimed to be "the son of man" ("ho huios tou anthropou") no fewer than eighty-one times in the New Testament. "Man" is from earth. Jesus claimed he was a man.

Hmmm, seems we can force the bible to support whatever what wish ...

That being said, "I know that my Redeemer lives," as I have walked and talked with Him daily for 15 years, and have known His presence with me from before my birth. (That, by the way, was a tad over 40 years ago ...)

49  Psychic and Paranormal / Welcome to Psychic and Paranormal! / 72 Names of God did something on: January 04, 2004, 18:47:21
I'll second the recommendation for Kaplan's works. Kaplan presents a good, solid foundation, in contrast to much of the more dubious interpretations and interpolations presented in the name of "Kabbalah" by practitioners of Western occultism.

By the way ... 72 names = lifetime of learning ... I've spent days, weeks and years just meditating on and gaining understanding from the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, and AHYH, in the context of God's dialogue with Moses (MShH = HShM, Moses reveals The Name, God and Man meet on the mountain ...). I could write page upon page based solely on my meetings with The Name!

And then there's YHShVH, a whole new book (or New Testament) ...
50  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Astral Projection Experiences! / Frightening experience on: December 30, 2003, 20:48:15
Sounds more like a lucid dream to me, but I can't speak for you... In any case, I will relate to you a personal story. Perhaps it is pertinent.

Many years ago, when I was in my mid-20's and going through an intense time of spiritual transformation and growth, I had a very powerful dream, very similar to yours. At the time, I believed that it was the work of a "demon" or in the parlance of this board "Neg."

The details are slightly muted with the passing of years, but I'll try ... In it, I was with my father, in a living room. I was trying to discuss some spiritual topic with him. Suddenly, we got into an argument, at which point he transformed into a demonic beast and started attacking me. I began stabbing him with a dagger, then awoke very disturbed and sensing a high state of energy.

In retrospect, after some time had elapsed (perhaps a couple of years), during which much inner healing took place, I realized that the dream was the "tip of the iceburg" of repressed anger and resentment that I had toward my father. It was bubbling up from the depths of my soul into my conciousness via this dream and a few others that followed. In the end, a great healing and release from the past took place regarding my feelings toward my father and the hurts I had suffered as a child. The dream was the initial inner rumblings of what I could not encounter and deal with all at once, but gradually came to peace with.

I have no idea what your relationship is with your dad and am not implying that it is bad. What I am suggesting, however, is that it is not uncommon for a young man of 20 years old to have conflicted feelings toward his dad - feelings of love, mixed with feelings of being "trapped" or not being free to be your own man - still "under the yolk," so to speak, of the old man! Often these feelings are repressed because "I shouldn't feel this way about my dad" guilt. Perhaps, this manifested in your dream/trance state, projecting some of these negative feelings into the situation onto the image of your father?

Just a thought ...
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums


The Astral Pulse Copyright 2002 - 2014
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM