Christian God theme debunked.

So in order to debunk the Christian elevation of Jesus Christ as anything unique, say, that we claim Eve of "Adam and Eve" is analogous to Satan of Jesus and the other One, Nature for evolution is claimed by God and the Other somewhere, anywhere on Earth: the Bride of Spirit, and thereby there is the revealing of Nature in all it's glory of interpretation. The fact of revelation itself though can be dispensed with in favour of self-delusion of the Laws of Nature working as they always did.

 

I haven't said 'why' I agree with Storch, other than to say that I think there is a greater problem with the crucifixion which I have written of in other threads, but I choose not to write about here. To many people it may not be a big issue, but to others it may very well be. Considering that there are Christians like yourself and happilyinlove participating in this thread, and many more possibly reading it and not participating, I chose not to share it. If it is a big thing to someone else who is serious about their faith, I don't want to share something that may be like seeing a picture of your parents naked. You try to get that picture out of your head, but once you saw it, you can't just undo it. Again, it may mean nothing to many people. But I have studied religions, world myth and traditions, cultures, psychological motifs, and so on, for much of my life, and to me it is a critical thing.

But I do disagree that what Storch is offering is a juvenile and simplistic comprehension and conclusion. For me juvenile and simplistic would be to accept and not question.

I was raised a Christian but there were things that I questioned from the standpoint of my own morals and ethics. I don't recall specifically that I questioned the crucifixion in this manner, but I certainly could have. But the questions I did raise were along the same lines. More than the crucifixion was the problem of the apocalypse and a God who would help his chosen people kill off other people who might have a different view of who or what they feel god is, and even a God who would condemn me to Hell.

If you start to raise these questions then you may not have the all the facts and concrete evidence, but you are discovering something that you feel in your heart does not make sense. And if you ask me, it is at that point that you are really heading down your own spiritual path.

And what do you have as proof that such things are the way it should be? You have scrolls written thousands of years ago from the Middle East, Southern Europe, from India, from China, and traditions, customs, and beliefs that go back to a more superstitious and unscientific time. Then you have what has been written today, or in the past several hundred years which is based almost entirely on those very same old scrolls, documents, and traditions.

To me it is juvenile and simplistic, or at least a sheep-like conformity to just accept such things without question. To me this is the true issue of being reborn that is found in every religion and spiritual tradition. It is a part of a rapture that happens psychological and can also happen physically and has affected humans since even before the paleolithic.

Baptism is an experience that represents this process symbolically. It is a death and rebirth experience if people take it all the way to its conclusion. In philosophy or psychology, it is the existential crisis.

To go all the way is scary. Storch may or may not want that. To go all the way means to have no idea what you will be when you come out the other end, and it means questioning everything you have been taught, and everything that people around you, including your own parents and family believe. It means risking eternal damnation. You may end up as an atheist, or you may come out Christian or the lone believer of something totally unique---who knows? Storch may come out of it with an incredibly strong belief in the crucifixion, and a very good argument for why it must have happened, or he may come out of it with an equally strong and clear understanding of why it could have never happened. That is for him to find out. But taking this process to its conclusion will leave someone with these kind of ethical and spiritual problems resolved. You will know to the core of your being that you have found what you believe. You will be reborn.

Some people, like myself, truly needed to go all the way. And I sincerely believe that if it is truly important to you that you have something to believe in and that you ask for proof---you will be given that proof---God will provide it. I got proof after proof, but I questioned each time and even though I wanted to believe, I could still discount it as coincidences and materialist workings of the mind. I still needed more until late one night I was given something that try as hard as I could to deny it, I couldn't.

But before I reached that point, I had stepped pretty far down the path of atheism. I didn't like atheism, but it seemed the most rational conclusion.

On the other hand, some people do not need to question their faith, or question it anymore. Perhaps you might fit into this category NG. If you have experienced the kind of things in your life that tell you that your faith is true, then there is no need for you to be reborn in that sense. If you have had that ecstatic spiritual experience that has left you with no reason to question your beliefs, then you are already there---you are right on the path you need to be. People can give you all kinds of reasons to believe differently----but you can confidently see no other way---because you know what is right for you---this is the true logos... It is the truth behind the statement---the truth shall set you free.

If that is you, then you may not be able to understand people like Storch that are questioning, trying to make sense of the world, and still seeking that truth. Why would a loving God who thinks of us as his children want to kill all of us, or allow us to kill ourselves, all except for the few that have acted truly as he commanded? And after everyone else dies they will all suffer eternal damnation? The only logical conclusion (from our physical perspective) to this is that God is either not a loving god, or he does not exist. You can't truly and confidently answer this question in any other way until you have had that ecstatic experience. But that doesn't mean that your answer will fit someone else's. After all people have been fighting over the Bible since it was written. If you read News of the Weird on the internet, you will see that people are still killed, even in America, over their difference in opinions of the Bible.

There are those who question, and do not go all the way. They turn back before taking that final plunge into the scary abyss of existential crisis. But they too find ways of resolving their heart with their spiritual beliefs, and that probably accounts for many of those that you see as having a liberal, and what you may call a semi-Christian belief. But at least they have something to believe in. At least they have found a truth for themselves even if it leaves them with a bit of doubt. They still have a God to turn to for help and guidance. They have at least resolved these questions to the point where they can have faith that sits right with themselves in their own heart.

I was raised Christian. But from the time I was 8 years old (taking the class for my baptism), I had questions and saw things that did not make sense to me. Things that would even make me cringe. I studied all kinds of religions, and discovered that the biggest difference between them is cultural. But they all seek essentially the same thing. But none of them provided me with anything earth shattering. And----they were all just a bunch of institutions. Not to mention the fact that I did not like the hypocrisy, manipulation, and control that is found in every last one of them. I traveled the world searching for meaning---even lived with, 'them there heathens.' I had experienced too many weird things to accept that when I die, there will be nothing left but a rotting corpse. But I still needed to find the truth.

It wasn't till I had come back to America that I realized that my search for meaning meant I had to question everything I had learned and been taught---to break everything down to nothing, and then see what was left to reconstruct the truth from. Like I said it was scary---even a sense of alienating self-exile from my own family and ancestors. But I did find that truth, that undeniable proof, and for me it wasn't exactly from a Christian source. And when I looked back at my life, I realized that everything I did, everywhere I traveled took me right up to that point. And for me it was a necessary path to break all the Modern, academic, and cultural barriers for me to experience the world I now experience fairly regularly.

People label me as Christian, and I will go to church with my parents or if someone else invites me. I will pray with them. I will say grace when I'm asked to---to our 'heavenly father,' with an, 'in Jesus name I pray.' But if they really want to question me, I will answer that I am not Christian. But I believe that Christianity is a good thing and is full of truth. I certainly believe that Jesus lived and did amazing and wonderful things.

And when I pray by myself I will start with, "Mitakuye Oyase, Tunkashila, ate' Wakan Tanka..." Or if I am holding my pipe I will start with. "Wiyokhpeyata, wochekiye kin unshimalaye..." And just these words alone almost open up a different state of consciousness for me---something that cannot be explained, only experienced.

None of this has to do with why I question the crucifixion. And I think I made it clear in my first post that the crucifixion, whether it happened or not, had a very significant purpose, and it played a major role in mankind's development. Prophecy is something that comes from the spiritual realm. And sometimes prophecies play out in the physical world in ways that are different from the actual prophecy. An iron horse, for example, does not look like an actual horse. Other times prophecy plays out in symbolic ways, reflecting the way nature or culture moves and changes. But then too, unexplainable miracles happen too.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you; you don't interest yourself by any chance in the Mormon church's idea of Jesus Christ, or some son of God coming from South America?

 

MVW, well your reply has reclaimed my respect. (as if you desire or need it).

I fully understand all that you say concerning a person's search and fully recognize that Storch may be sincerely asking/searching, but you will have to admit his delivery does leave a bit to be desired if intelligent dialogue on the topic was the desired result.

I think I have been misunderstood here, definitely.
My issue with Storch and others who author these types of threads is that upon close examination, it quickly becomes apparent that the author knows little of the subject matter, yet is ready to make final proclamations concerning it which are based an a lack of information rather than an abundance of it.
The reason I pointed in the direction of the scriptural basis concerning the resurrection and "how's that work" is because the starting point to understanding is with the source material and any topic with such a heavy historical or cultural significance, considering it within it's cultural framework is vital to any understanding.
That is the essential first step if a person is honestly interested.
Do you not agree?

If I were interested in the Lakota beliefs system and pursued that interest by watching westerns from the '50's, talk to a couple of Indians, think about it then go on to proclaim it's all bullshit and worthy of nothing more than derision and ridicule, you would take issue with my CONCLUSIONS and METHODOLOGY at arriving at those conclusions, wouldn't you?

That is what I have stated from the beginning and have reaffirmed in every post, that Storch doesn't know what he is talking about to a degree that he could make such final proclamations.

If I am curious about some topic, the first place I want to go is the source material.
Isn't that what you do, MVW?
So why am I being ridiculed and chastised for suggesting that Storch start his investigation with the source material?

Remember the Bible is a rather deep book. much more so than it would first appear.
It teaches via history, allegory, metaphor, all simultaneously. As I mentioned, even seemingly trivial things such as the materials used for the building of the Temple, the measurements, etc., all had significance that when we start to look at it as a complete tapestry, a rather intricate story unfolds that doesn't present itself when taking the works piecemeal or via a "pic -n- choose" methodology.
That is the reason why discussing such things in any intelligent fashion is out of the question here at Hip Forums because in so doing one would be in violation of site guidelines and risk banning.

You are correct about "where I am" in my personal journey.
Via study and personal experience I'm at a place of confidence in my beliefs.
I have experienced things that span many "areas" of mysticism, occult, religion, etc. that have brought me to where I currently am.
Some of which would be considered very "supernatural" and occult, some are straight out of the book of Acts. Some no longer are present or manifested, some are daily occurrences.

The sum of it all has been that I have come to a place that I believe the core tenants of Christianity, Jesus, resurrection, Holy Spirit, yada, yada, but, now here is the important part, my beliefs are not constrained nor restricted by the Bible.


I guess you could say that having tapped into what lies beneath the Biblical religions and many other belief systems, I see, appreciate and revere the truth present in the Bible, but I am not limited to it or by it.
Hope that makes sense, because it is the antithesis of being a "sheep".

I believe Storch mentioned that he has come to where he is via his experiences, as have you.
So please explain to me why my or any person professing themselves to be Christian experiences are any less valid or valuable?????

 

I'll just add for the point that I make that the Christian God develops a universal Religion for interpretation of Belief systems. Belief systems are a subjective thing accompanied by one's religious affiliation. It is the internal value systems which is existent objective and unconscious for the social cohesion (at this point the un-debunkable Trinitarian concept ).

 

NG,

For I say unto you: It is clear that you have attempted to use guilt as a way to punish those whom you have judged as siding with me. And it wasn't really that as much as it was that you felt that they had sided against you. Was it the reborn NG who did that, or was it NG's ego? You call people your friend, but when they step out of the straight and narrow path of belief that you have identified as "the way," you lose respect for them. Hopefully, you will surely see that you only really allowed them to serve you in the capacity of an ally, and not a friend. I'm sorry that your understanding of spirituality has brought you to a place where you see religion in the context of a contest--a contest to be won on the basis of consensus or popularity.

What I see is you launching a campaign against something you hate, and you see me as the personification of that thing you hate. That thing you hate is not me, but rather any opposing view. You, like anyone else, have no idea where I've been and what I've come to know, and what I've come to do. The fact that you demand that the resurrection be a physical event is very telling. And perhaps you also feel that way about Jesus having walked on water and changed the water into wine. If Jesus did resurrect himself, it was not for the purpose of validating, or otherwise proving, that his words were true. If that's what it took to validate his message, then the message couldn't have been very memorable. But we know that his words, according to the Bible, were memorable indeed.

In parting, let me tell you what helped me when I came to hate those who dared to interpret things differently than I did. If I tell you that your car is green, but you know that it is blue, will you become angry with me? And if your friends tell you you that, in the right light, it looks a little green, will you lose a bit of respect for them?

It is finished.

EDIT: No one is saying that your, or any other christian's experiences are less valid or valuable than anybody else's. We all have our personal experiences that we base our ideas on. But when you believe that the validity of your ideas hinge on whether or not a certain event occurred, then you will eventually find yourself fighting to make it true. I don't doubt your experience. But because I don't agree with you on something is no call for you to conclude that I'm not a real christian.

 

... ans Shakespeare shall commence. The play-writes shall be inspired.

 

Please show me where I demanded anything?
I have been very clear about saying ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US numerous times and yet you continue with this bullshit about me "demanding" something or demanding people agree with me. All I demand is you have some idea what the fuck you are talking about before you make asinine proclamations based an utter lack of knowledge rather than an abundance of it.
If you posses the knowledge about the topic you claim, then you would not have issue with some of the things I have pointed out.

The section underlined yet again indicates that you don't possess the knowledge concerning what the damn book says that you claim.

Matthew 12:38-40
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 16
Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites![a] You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet[b] Jonah.” And He left them and departed

Luke 11:28-30
29 And while the crowds were thickly gathered together, He began to say, “This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.[a] 30 For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation.

Those all seem pretty clear to me that Jesus said the only sign to be given as a validation of who/what he was would be the resurrection.

I don't care what you believe or don't believe, I just get annoyed at persons such as yourself who possess no knowledge of the topic they wish to "debunk".



p.s. Meagain, sorry for posting scriptures, I just did it to illustrate a point.

 

NG,

I remember you telling about some of the paths you have taken so I understand.


Storch,

Let me just say, I have gotten the exact same reaction out of people. And I have journals that go back to probably every decade of my life, and I know how the exploration and thought process goes. I also know how if you come across a realization or new understanding that you want to try to defend it. Or you want to get others thinking about it too. But if you start out with the assertion (and I have too) that you are going to debunk this particular element of faith---you have to be ready for a fight, and you are going to be dealing with people who have probably argued similar points before. While it can be fun to have those fights, it often leads to people getting their feelings hurt and you not getting your points across properly, or it lessens the opportunity for a chance to, as thedope had commented, we all learn something from it.

Of course, with religion and politics, someone is always going to get defensive, and so forth.

But I have found that it is usually more constructive to start with a question or a neutral title, or at best a mild assertion rather than coming out with a blatant assertion that you are going to prove people wrong.

As I write this I had to laugh as I just remembered someone that a few years ago posted a thread where he proclaimed to have the 'proof' that god exists. (I apologize if that was anybody here, but it was pretty funny). He did have a well thought out proof that meant something to him, even if it was a bit innocent. But his argument was ripped to shreds for several years. I felt sorry him, because he was clearly on his own path and found something that was important to him. He certainly needed to go a little further down that path before he made that crazy assertion. I hope that thread did not stop him in that way.

I remember how I wrote, "You stupid, stupid idiot! What? Did your mother drink Drano when she was pregnant to make you such a moron?! Were you raised in the barn by barn animals and rats, and schooled in a meth lab by a janitor that spoke only a few words of English?!" (I'm just kidding-----I never said that to him!!!)

Seriously though, there are more subtle and productive ways to get such points across or at least open them up for debate.

Now watch as I shred Anaximenes into little pieces in my next post in about an hour or so...

 

Flatly and I can assure you unremarkably save for the purpose of this discussion, I have had communications with persons thought to be dead. On two occasions with others present and one episode as I was learning about this involved a transfiguration. Our incorruptible spirit we share as we do our thoughts. The physical body is a communication device and not your reality at all. No creature, is resurrected. If there is a resurrected body, what purpose it not be visible now? It is not shared now because it doesn't represent the truth and it is the body that stands between us, what you call your personal space. That it existed at all was for the purpose of communication because the world could not hear him without it but having heard now you know you are real and seeing the reality of spirit you see him very much risen among us. Wherever two or more are gathered in my name I am there among you. When we see christ we shall be like him.

We know not of loved ones past because we insist that they are dead based on evidence of the body. The evidence of the body however is that you can keep the machine running as long as you supply spark and fuel even though no person that you know whatsoever be present.

Having said this communing with people thought to be dead is not at all the point and is really a boring proposition. Most of us don't want to spend our time transcending the veil of abstraction preferring the denser experience of meat and potatoes. The point is our lives are boundless in truth.

No one knows the hour of his coming because love does not await time but invitation as we let the mind be in us that is in christ.

 

I always get a blank stare from people when I tell them that when Jesus is said to have given up the ghost, the ghost was the body. It's the same for everyone here, too; when you die, you'll give up this ghost of a body.

 

NG,

When you make comments to others, like: "Sure, so that's one from column A, one from C and one from L. Would you like any critical reading skills on the side with that?", you are demanding that they accept your interpretation of the subject, or be labeled as one without critical thinking skills. And when you tell another that your respect for them has gone down a notch or two because they didn't seem to side with you one hundred percent, you are making a demand, and using guilt in an attempt to achieve that demand. Who in hell are you if you love only those who love you?

But the bottom line is that no one can prove that the resurrection was a physical event. No one can prove anything about their belief. You say that the resurrection is at the heart of the christian faith. When asked for proof of this event, you say that it's in the Bible. If I ask you how you know that the Bible is accurate, you will probably say that that, too, is in the Bible. I see where you're coming from.

 

MVW,

I think more people are done a disservice by not shining a light on ideas such as the one that promotes the idea that man is bad and is in need of redemption in the eyes of God, and therefore needed to be cleansed by the spilled blood of a sacrificial lamb without blemish. Is it really necessary to scare children in the pursuit of keeping an unsavory and distasteful tradition alive? We shouldn't recreate the notion that God is a terrorist-type being, even if it--ironically--offends the proponents of that outdated depiction. Indeed, it's hard to get through the day without offending someone. When people are ready to drop such ideas, then they might find themselves here reading this thread. If you think that they should be spared the thought of this because it might anger them, then you don't understand the process of evolution very well. Pressure moves us. Pressure has an effect. If we don't like the pressure, then we ignore it and go back to where we were. I'm not so egotistical that I believe I'm the only one saying these things. I'm just the guy who's saying it like this.

And you are mistaken if you believe that I am proving people wrong. I'm proving an idea wrong; that idea is the one that portrays God as the kind of character who goes on a rampage in the storm, and the kind of being whose moods are subject to my actions and whims.

 

Once a guy from the local Baptist church came to my door to save me. At that time, I was far less patient with fear peddlers than I am today. Eventually, we got on the subject of Hell. I asked him why God would put us in a place of eternal torture. He replied that God is a loving God, but he is a just God as well. To further explain, he went on to say that if his child runs out into the road, he punishes him as a method of correction. He said that his son must understand that there is a price to be paid for disobedience. So, I said to the preacher, sure, but in the case of your son, the puishment is designed to cause him to act correctly in the future, whereas in the case of a dead sinner, the punishment is not designed to influence future behavior, but rather to inflict pain for the sake of pain since the sinner is not going to have an opportunity to exercise his new found lesson since he's not coming back from Hell. The preacher immediately cast his eyes downward and was silent. Defeated. Probably ruined his day. Perhaps caused him to slip into a state of doubt. Or, he might have concluded that I just don't understand God. But what he ended up doing was bringing his eyes back up level to mine, and started talking about the reason we needed Jesus to die for our sins. He chose denial.

If I had cared about the guy's feelings, I wouldn't have done that. I would have humored him and just let him have his fill of . . . himself, really. But he was at my door, and we both shared our offerings. We were both at the right place at the right time.

 

All I can say for sure is that, "God works in strange and mysterious ways."

In case there are any Mormons or any others of other sects that use the Book of Mormon, let me start by saying the following:

1.) If Joseph Smith really did have the genuine ecstatic experience that he claimed, then it was just that an ecstatic experience, and God did have a purpose in it. But he is the only one that truly knows if this happened to him----and that is the problem with subjective spiritual experiences.

2.) When I say that it had a purpose, this does not mean that Jesus literally came to the Americas. What happens in the spirit world is not always reflected in the same manner in the physical. Maybe Jesus did appear in the Americas as Viracocha and Quetzalcoatl, or maybe it was someone reborn with the same soul, or someone simply born with the same or similar message. But the purpose of Joseph Smith's experience (if it is true) was intended for people living in Modern Times, not for those that lived way back when.

3.) There are fascinating coincidences: The Viracocha myth involves a bearded white man and his followers. Quetzalcoatl was a bearded white man (though he returns (or his evil twin brother) each time the calendar resets, which is why Cortez was confused as Quetzalcoatl (and in an amazing replay of the whole myth---the effect of the arrival of Cortez was exactly what one could expect if it was in fact the evil twin that had returned). The Mayans had a cross too (though it had nothing to do with the crucifixion, it did have everything to do with the much older and universal motif of the cross as World Tree/axis mundi). In North America there was also the arrival of the Pale One (whose name is so sacred it is not spoken), who taught peace, reconciliation and love (but the years don't match up. He came much later----or maybe---oh no! They already had his second coming!).

4.) But now we know Jesus is not white---even if Fox News proclaims it so! (But white didn't necessarily mean Caucasian----what about the White Buffalo Calf Woman that came to remind the Lakota of the Sacred pipe and to teach them the sacred ways so that they would walk in a good way---that didn't mean she was Caucasian).

5.) Thor Heyerdahl has even shown how ancient people could have successfully sailed from Egypt or the Middle East to the Americas. His theory is controversial, but he did it himself with a crew on a reed raft similar to what was used in Egypt, and identical to what is found in Lake Titicaca in Central America. But his focus was on the connection to Egypt and the pyramids. But pyramids are actually found world wide and come from a much older motif of the World Mountain/axis mundi, and are also deeply connected to the dolmens and menhirs which are even more common around the world.

So if you believe in the Book of Mormon, I am NOT going to tell you it is false or wrong. There is even evidence that you could fall back on to plead your case.

If Joseph Smith fabricated this story as a genius marketing ploy, there is no way we could know any different. I have met the Smiths who are his great grandsons. The one son is head of another church that uses the Book of Mormon but thinks the Mormon church is a little drastic in its beliefs. They are very good people and feel very strongly that they are doing God's work, as I believe they are.

But personally, I have not had any experience in the Native ways that has suggested to me that I follow that church any more than any other church. The church headed by Joseph Smith's grandson is fairly liberal and not very fundamentalist which would appeal to me, but... Mormonism is just as alien to indigenous people as any other Christian or other institution of religion.

I am strongly against Mormon missionaries, just like any other missionaries, converting indigenous people to their faith. These are all major forces in destroying cultures, languages, connection to ancestors, connection to the land and nature, and so forth. Natives understand the whole world as sacred so learning a new religion to them is like riding someone else's bicycle for an afternoon. But the institution cannot see life in that way, and will turn around and destroy what these tribes naturally have for beliefs. This is the weak side of multiplicity when faced with a dualistic belief.



Speaking of other religions with Christian motifs (Yes, the Mormon church does more than use motifs---I would call it a sect of Christianity), I also want to add something about the Native American Church. This church uses Christian motifs and prays to Jesus and so forth in their peyote ceremonies, and things they put out to the outside world. The truth is (and many of today's followers are forgetting) that the Christian motifs were used for three reasons: 1.) that it was illegal until the 1970's to practice Native spiritual ceremonies, and so this church was created under the auspices of Christianity to provide a place for Natives to practice their own spiritual ways without having to go to prison. 2.) What difference does it make to call the Great Spirit, God, Jesus, our Lord in Heaven, or anything else? Prayer is between you and the creator---as the Natives always say----he knows what you are saying and meaning, 3.) The NAC follows the peyote road, so if there is any possibility of falling for the dogmatic trappings of Christianity, the peyote is there to break one free to focus purely on the Spiritual.

Now, if you are wondering if I have gone to NAC meetings the answer is no---not yet.

In Colorado, the law does not specify that only Native Americans can participate in peyote meetings. It does specify that you have to believe in the tradition. I have followed the Red Road for a good number of years and even have a peyote bird tattooed on my foot. I am sure I can make the case.

I have been invited to ceremonies several times. But there is something I take very seriously: on the Red Road you are told that there are two paths---the chanunpa path and the peyote path. (The chanunpa is the sacred pipe). You are typically told that they do not cross. The reason you are told that is that in today's world drug abuse is a serious problem. Things like peyote are given by spirit as a very sacred and very powerful gift---not to be played with, or experimented with---it is only for sacred use.

The NAC uses the pipe in their ceremony, but only with tobacco. People that follow the chanunpa path may also go to peyote ceremonies, and that includes people that have invited me. But there is a time for them to walk both roads.

When you carry a chanunpa, as I do, you don't mix it with drugs and alcohol. You hear stories of people putting weed in the chanunpa, but this is a very serious thing. The chanunpa is not a tool, or an object for you to use as you please---it is literally a living piece of the sacred World Tree. People that mix drugs and the chanunpa are always having a struggle in life. I could tell you some stories about a well known Medicine Man who used to let his kids smoke weed in the house near his chanunpa. I heard these stories from a family member, but he is well known, so I won't pass them along. But as soon as that started happening bad things came to be.

I will tell you another story about the chanunpa---I was in a board meeting for the White Horse Creek Council. (BTW: Check out my post in Events!) I am the 'token white boy' in this non-profit to protect native traditions, spirituality, and culture. We were in the basement of 4 Winds, a building that is for the use of Indians, but used to be a church. Our spiritual adviser was with us, Lee Plenty Wolf, and the caretaker knew he was with us. Suddenly the door opened and the caretaker walked in with another Native Gentleman. Immediately there was a bad feeling that fell over our group. The gentleman was carrying a chanunpa, and they wanted to give it to Lee to find out what to do with it. As everyone turned they immediately knew there was something bad about that chanunpa. The man who had carried it (as in pipe bearer, not the gentleman who had it that day) had apparently gotten in a bad way, and left his wife or girlfriend---and left the chanunpa with her who wanted nothing to do with it. It was treated very poorly. Lee wouldn't take it. And insisted that it had to go back to the man who carried it---it is his responsibility. If he doesn't want it then he needs to take it to a medicine man and have it taken care of properly. If any of you are wondering if the chanunpa was evil or had an evil spirit---you are completely wrong. But whatever this pipe bearer was doing was certainly wrong, and the chanunpa was 'unhappy.'

Since I started carrying the chanunpa I have had practically nothing to do with drugs. I did have a San Pedro growing in my house---not to consume as a drug----but because it was powerful----I could feel the energy radiating from it. I have mescal bean necklaces and bracelets, and I have mescal beans for future jewelry---not to consume as a drug---but because it too has sacred power.

I drink occasionally and, when I do, I set my chanunpa in a safe place where I will not be. I keep people that are smoking weed or using meth away from my chanunpa. If I did smoke a little weed, I would set my chanunpa away and stay away from it for a few days, but as of yet I don't really do that. I am allergic to aspirin so I have taken percocet or vicodin and not worried about my chanunpa (The Black Elks told me that is ok---spirit knows when you need it for a valid reason).

One reason you are not supposed to do that kind of thing when you are carrying a chanunpa is because you are not carrying it for you. You carry it for the people. When someone comes to you asking for prayers, you are obligated to pray for, or even with, them. It doesn't matter what time of day or night---you are their so the chanunpa can serve the people.

But I haven't gone to an NAC meeting yet----because peyote is bad? No. Because my understanding from my chanunpa is that the time is not now. I suppose it is a matter of me having to see and experience enough of the sacred without any possibility of a narcotic to question---did this really happen or am I hallucinating or having a flashback? Perhaps there is more to it than just that. Time will tell.

 

LOL!!! I can sure relate to that! If you read my previous post about Mormonism you can see how respectful I am to others regarding Mormonism.

On the other hand if you come to my door and try to force it upon me---I will have some fun with you. There were some Mormon missionaries that would come to my house and talk to my oldest stepson. A few times I even sat at my dining room table working on my books while they sat in the living room talking to my son. I could tell they wanted to include me, and I was just dying to have them invite me in----but I sat and let them talk. (In fact, my oldest stepson was a complete pain and a freeloader. I would have done anything to get him out of my house. So when the missionaries would come, I would tell them that he was there, and then run downstairs to tell him that, "his friends were at the door." I would laugh quietly to myself when he came upstairs.)

But one day they came by and he wasn't home. They asked if I wanted to talk with them. "OK." I said and sat on the front porch. We talked for a good hour. The older one was well trained and kept responding, "Well but in the bible..." or, "But in the Book of Mormon..." and proceeded to open up his book or a pamphlet. I didn't give him much of a chance to finish his point before I twisted it back to my points. I wasn't as mean as I could have been----just gave them a few things to think about.

About an hour later I saw them bicycling down our street. The older well-trained one, was bicycling ahead, as if nothing ever happened. The younger one was just kind of weaving back and forth---looking down, deep in thought. It was the same look that he had after leaving our discussion, and was quite different from the look when he first came to my door happy and ready to proselytize. I never did see them again.

Yes----if anyone comes to my door and wants to push religion you better be ready for a little sharing of my own. There are a couple of Jehovah witnesses, but they always interrupt me when I am asleep, so I will take their literature and groggily go back to sleep.

In response to your previous post-----it is a bit of a decision whether or not to candy-coat---which is why I said if you want to take that route, be ready for a fight.

But I think the same points can be made in a little less blatant manner and bring the same effect to those that are open to them. In a conciliatory manner those that are not open to them, are either, 1.) not ready and you will touch upon their own subconscious doubts and they will respond defensively; or 2.) are beyond such questions and may be ready to spar tooth and nail over them with you (and those arguments are fun as long as people don't take anything personally---I had a great time with this thread). But----a shock-statement argument may stick in someone's mind better, meaning they are more likely to come back when they are ready.

One friend of the family when I was a teenager, was a theologian and we would have some really good conversations. He was very impressed with me and encouraged me to continue down my path----whatever it was, even if it wasn't Christian which he was. He made some very good points in our conversations, without the shock value, that certainly made me think---he cut through the dogma too.

But I enjoy the shock element too. And I understand your point. That is why I used to ask people, 'Where is God?' in college. In fact I think I asked those Mormons that too.

Nietzsche wrote in that manner too---inflammatory and with the purpose of shock value. 'God is Dead,' he declared, and ever since, most people have focused on his atheism. When the real point is what he said next in one of his books that was basically, 'and it was Christianity that killed him.' And what he said was very true. It was Christianity and its twin Western philosophy that led man into the Enlightenment, and destroyed the church as the unifying myth of western culture. He recognized that it was replaced by the cold, dead, objectivistic rationalism of science. He was one of the first ones to foresee, and recognize the ills, of the Modern Age.

I love Nietzsche, but I have trouble reading him---as his efforts to shock and go back and forth make him seem more like a strict objectivistic, stuck-in-the-box, rationalistic German----but in fact he is all about the creative, explosively free flowing, forces of Dionysus. He was a hippy well before his time. I have suggested more than once that the hippies were in fact the manifestation of Nietzsche's Super Man (or Ubermensch). People disagree, but I have a good argument in favor of that.

 

Ahh the traditionalists and the keepers of letters.

Where would the traditionalists practice be if he were realized?

Where would the keeper of letters be if he were realized?

The traditionalist would not be waiting on a more auspicious time and the letter keeper would be speaking the contents of his own mind.

Give me a re-searcher any day over an academic.

 

You missed the point yet again.
I haven't offered an interpretation to anything, I merely pointed out that what he said didn't agree with what was written.
Who cares what is or isn't the truth here and I'm not demanding anyone agree with me at all, just READ THE DAMN MATERIAL BEFORE YOU GO ABOUT TELLING PEOPLE THAT IT SAYS THIS OR THAT!!!!!
Why on Earth is that such a difficult thing to grasp????
I do finding critical reading and comprehension is something that is woefully lacking at HF and the world at large.


No I'm not using circular reasoning, using the Bible to validate itself.
I'm not asking anyone to prove anything about their faith, just that if you are going to profess Christianity as your faith, or attempt to "debunk" it, then at least know what it teaches.
As my last post in reply to you demonstrated, it isn't a matter of my or your interpretation, it's a matter of what is actually written or not.
I don't care what you believe concerning the written material, but damn, you keep saying things like "I don't think the crucifixion was bla bla bla" So in response I posted some of the scriptures that clearly demonstrate the opposite of what you thought.
You understand the difference?
You can go ahead and think about things all day long, it still doesn't change what is actually written in the damn book.

My point about "buffet religion" is that, as you guys all know, Christianity is an "exclusive" religion with specific tenants of faith.
When a person calls themselves a Christian but does not accept some of the core tenants of the faith, are they truly to considered a practitioner of that faith?

It's kinda like proclaiming that your vegan, but hamburgers are ok.

AGAIN, all I'm saying is if you are going to take on a topic, especially with the intention of "debunking" it, you should probably have a better working knowledge of the topic in question.
That applies regardless if we are discussing airplanes, armpits or crucifixions.




not really sure how one would go about debunking armpits, but the principle still applies.

 

A sign form the prophet Jonah; that is interesting. We can all live our own personally impressed lives, each one of us, or anyone by him/her-self. The sign of the times are not important to the justice of the universal mindedness, as the word for the incarnate trust amongst the people are not important to the threatened "situations" of modern man for the terms of fellowship. Perhaps the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood is such a flawed substitute in the democratic conscience. Jonah only wanted to realize justice within the constance of overcoming wickedness and the flaws of capacity for Freedom of a wholly general group of people organized to compassion.

Thus Jesus as the son of Man as the son of God may appear and re-appear anywhere in space and time. A sign needs to be made; for otherwise how is it to believe in a miracle? Be happy; don't worry.

 

Was jonah killed by his experience in the whale?

Conquered death meaning not killed?

If jesus is in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights then this must not represent being in the tomb or even being dead. According to the timeline that has been established jesus is crucified on friday and risen on sunday which comes to three days and two nights. Of course if we are going to be loosey goosey about the math then what is the point?