the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

affa wrote:

Chris wrote:isn't it all relative?

i think it's not so much that all relative viewpoints are capital-T true... it's more like EL Numero Uno is so confoundingly non-relative that each of our infinitesimally feeble attempts to cognize such singularity is equally idolatrous. not to say that there is no way out of this cognitive bind, though...

+1

That which is infinite cannot be cannot be grasped by that which is finite. While I do believe the depth and breadth of our reality is far more expansive than we (most) care to experience, the logos we use to attempt to quantify the boundlessness of existence is grossly inadequate to express it. How can one bind that which is borderless, effortless, and inexorable into words, symbols, or statues?

In essence the way out is not through cognition at all. You cannot look at a mirror and through a window simultaneously.

This post just turned into a small minded Christian fundamentalist calvary chapel, ex drug user convention, AA meeting hippy guitar playing Christian Rock holier than thou all of you are going to hell because you dont believe in what I believe in my righteous fake made up I have a spiritual connection to my god new age Christian bullshit!


Sad, Im out...

Nah, say what's on your mind, Methods! More the merrier. Why not?

As Paul the Apostle noted, the gospel stinks to some people. And that's a quote. (Second Corinthians.)

But what is it the Christian is saying, in essence? God, insofar was possible, made his nature known to man, in the form of a man.

While the infinite attributes of God could not be placed on earth, because nothing messes up our Sunday brunch like our next door neighbor lighting off a supernova in his back yard, God's attributes of mindset toward earthly matters and attitude toward earthly malefactors could certainly be brought down to our level.

At this point the discussion usually goes to: Well, if Christianity is such a great religion, why have some Christians acted very badly? It is a fair question, in a sense, but a straw man argument in another. For which of Christ's teachings were they following when they did X bad thing?

"That which is infinite cannot be cannot be grasped by that which is finite."

You know, I'd probably agree with you more completely if I was born in Old Testament times, if I was one of the children of Israel wandering in the wilderness following this pillar of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night, wondering why the hell we were brought out of Egypt in the first place, getting scared shitless when some of my buddies tried to take things over and got swallowed up by the earth by the hundreds, not knowing what the fuck is going on when this Rock with water pouring out of it keeps showing up no matter how far we travel and nobody carrying it, and getting even more scared shitless and clueless when our el presidente gives us these rules straight from God and then it seems like we are all about to be destroyed by God when we say "all you say we will do".

See I've never thought of it quite like that before, that it seems that most people are in an Old Testament thinking when it comes to God, that God must be forever abstract (even though He really wasn't utterly abstract in OT times) and unknowable. It seems like a "new age" thought too--the thought that we are somehow right and knowing and "on the right track" when we say "oh God is unknowable". It's too much of a crutch, too much of a laziness, and potentially a devilish teaching in and of itself. Yes certainly, God being infinite will never be fully grasped, yet this teaching implies a kind of "meh, so don't bother, just repeat this teaching as if THAT is some kind of HIGHER insight in and of itself".

When you have God Himself, the Creator of the entire universe, the awesome Initiator of time itself who is by definition outside of time, the vast unsearchable source of ALL LIFE becoming the Logos, the Word!--the Expression!--the Essence! becoming a MAN, becoming a lowly creature, becoming the life giving Spirit to dispense Himself into and dwell within man... ... ... ... ... I'd say that definitely shows that God not only is knowable but wants and desperately desires to be known and apprehended. Like an Eve to an Adam, which is a type of the whole fricking thing, how can God have a counterpart unless that counterpart is fully constituted of Him, coming out from Him and matching Him?

In the Incarnation He was coming to meet us. God only knows what He has concluded since.

As regards most of the "stuff" before this post.... sure, if that's what you BELIEVE. Otherwise... um.... maybe not...

This is a first! I agree with Cerebus. (Sound the drums! Beat the cymbals! Let all be awed!)

Thing is, religion is not man's thoughts about God. Or that is not what is should be about; Christ taught about God's thoughts toward man. So quite a number of Christians have it backwards.

Ralteria wrote:

affa wrote:

Chris wrote:isn't it all relative?

+1

That which is infinite cannot be cannot be grasped by that which is finite.

there is space between spaces
where life energy flows
abandon spaceship universe
only the concept is fallible

Edit: On reflection, I'm now pretty sure I don't understand the above post, so I've withdrawn my comment and substituted:

Chris Fleming,

I know his story wasn't the cool, new age, follow-your-bliss-maaaaaan story you might typically find regarding Eastern religions but I am astounded that this isn't talked about MORE.

These things are "new-age" and "hippy" type for at least 2-3 thousand years for the Easterners.

Chris Fleming,

I know his story wasn't the cool, new age, follow-your-bliss-maaaaaan story you might typically find regarding Eastern religions but I am astounded that this isn't talked about MORE.

These things are "new-age" and "hippy" type for at least 2-3 thousand years for the Easterners.

And still wildly popular. Pbffttt.

What people want is easy answers. What they need is...Well, even Jesus admits this varies, but not in the way you might think.

Chris Fleming wrote:"That which is infinite cannot be cannot be grasped by that which is finite."

You know, I'd probably agree with you more completely if I was born in Old Testament times, if I was one of the children of Israel wandering in the wilderness following this pillar of smoke by day and pillar of fire by night, wondering why the hell we were brought out of Egypt in the first place, getting scared shitless when some of my buddies tried to take things over and got swallowed up by the earth by the hundreds, not knowing what the fuck is going on when this Rock with water pouring out of it keeps showing up no matter how far we travel and nobody carrying it, and getting even more scared shitless and clueless when our el presidente gives us these rules straight from God and then it seems like we are all about to be destroyed by God when we say "all you say we will do".



See I've never thought of it quite like that before, that it seems that most people are in an Old Testament thinking when it comes to God, that God must be forever abstract (even though He really wasn't utterly abstract in OT times) and unknowable. It seems like a "new age" thought too--the thought that we are somehow right and knowing and "on the right track" when we say "oh God is unknowable". It's too much of a crutch, too much of a laziness, and potentially a devilish teaching in and of itself. Yes certainly, God being infinite will never be fully grasped, yet this teaching implies a kind of "meh, so don't bother, just repeat this teaching as if THAT is some kind of HIGHER insight in and of itself".

I see where you are coming from and how it could be easy to misinterpret what I was saying. I wasn't trying to say that the source is unknowable, but our attempts to quantify it into some other form of expression (symbols for example). In other words, that things like medallions, talisman, statues, are only given power if we give it to them. A person's connection with the divine is far more powerful than anything second hand like that. It's apparent to me that knowing that which is eternal is possible. I'd even go so far as to say it's vital.

When you have God Himself, the Creator of the entire universe, the awesome Initiator of time itself who is by definition outside of time, the vast unsearchable source of ALL LIFE becoming the Logos, the Word!--the Expression!--the Essence! becoming a MAN, becoming a lowly creature, becoming the life giving Spirit to dispense Himself into and dwell within man... ... ... ... ... I'd say that definitely shows that God not only is knowable but wants and desperately desires to be known and apprehended. Like an Eve to an Adam, which is a type of the whole fricking thing, how can God have a counterpart unless that counterpart is fully constituted of Him, coming out from Him and matching Him?

If I go any more in depth in regards to the expression of words and "The Word" than I'm fairly certain we will clash in terms of faith. I'm not trying to get into that debate. It's fairly obvious that you are strong in your faith, Chris, and it's something I respect and enjoy despite our differences in specifics. Suffice it to say that I don't think desire comes into play as I view it as a misinterpretation of something deeper and more intrinsic to the nature of humanity as opposed to a characteristic that reflects through perfectly as a foil for man.

Coiled_Spring wrote:Chris Fleming,

I know his story wasn't the cool, new age, follow-your-bliss-maaaaaan story you might typically find regarding Eastern religions but I am astounded that this isn't talked about MORE.

These things are "new-age" and "hippy" type for at least 2-3 thousand years for the Easterners.

No doubt. I was mainly referring to the Western buffet style of picking apart the "cool" things of Eastern "mysticism" and yet not understanding the whole.

But you introduce another idea, something I've thought a lot about in the past--just because something is old, does that make it good/right/safe/valid/etc BY VIRTUE of it's oldness? I think not. That sounds like a logical fallacy to me, a derivative of Appeal-to-authority perhaps.

I do not bow down to a cross or an idol of "jesus". I do not know who that figure is.

and

Chris Fleming wrote: Jesus Christ is Lord and God. I make no secrets about that. Take it or leave it and I won't be ashamed of saying so.

Essentially i was refering to the reverence/belief/following of jesus which i figured was pretty obvious. So like i said, to the followers of alternate deities, your god may also be an evil demon to them.


So can this thread be put back on topic or is this going to continue to melt into a christian thread as usual? Guys, if you want to talk about christianity you're quite welcome to, but start a different thread please and lets keep this about defense against spirits/psychic attacks in a MA or qi gong context.