Knowledge Instead Of Faith, Direct Experience Instead Of Dogma

[Thomas]

"All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice... "
2 Timothy 3:16

 

[Ciel]

I see....................yet do not comprehend because it was not the answer to the question...................

- c -

 

[Raksha]

Linda — I make no claims for spiritual mastership, so you can stop threatening me — but I do make a claim to basic humanity, and as such, there is so much violence and bitter poison in your heart ... I don't see how there's room for anything else.

There is a lot more, but maybe I'll just let you think that. But you could avoid provoking it, you know. I absolutely cannot stand that smug, superior, patronizing tone of the Catholic apologist. I'd say you have no idea how it enrages me, but I think you do because you've been on the receiving end of it. You're just ever-so-patient to correct the "misconceptions" of us poor ignoramuses who "don't understand" Catholic dogma. Did it ever occur to you that maybe we understand but reject it?

The bottom line: You can't expect to engage in dialogue with people unless you respect them, and you can't fake it. Tolerance means a lot more than biting your tongue and refraining from telling people to their faces what benighted ignoramuses they are. If you really want to know where someone is coming from...ASK THEM! If you presume you know more about where they're coming from than they do, they will straighten you out damn fast, although I guess most people are a little more tactful about it than I am.

As for the Raksha test to measure the worth of a spiritual master — I dread to think. Bare-knuckle?

He insulted me, and it was a specific "esoteric" type of insult that is very difficult to explain but I recognize it immediately when I see it. I've been on the receiving end of it before. It remains to be seen what I'm going to do about it. I don't think there is anything I CAN do about it, and that drives me crazy!

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Raksha'a posts to me serve no good end, nor is their intent to produce good, they hardly edify the author, and they certainly don't edify the recipient.

Thomas,

And you know what exactly about my intent? I posted some pretty long notes yesterday on a pretty wide range of topics. The intent varied depending on what the subject was. Most often, my intent is to wake people up to what they are doing. In your case, it's to try--if possible--to make you understand that when you declare someone an enemy, an outcast, or anathema--and when you keep it up for 1500 years or more, relentlessly, as the Catholic Church did with the Jews, or the Gnostics--then you have by God got yourself an enemy!

Okay, now suppose you're having second thoughts. Suppose you want to make peace, come to some kind of an understanding. How exactly would you go about that...what approach would you take? Do you pontificate to your enemies about their "errors"? Do you preach to them about "Christian love" when they are seeing in their minds' eye the flames of Montsegur?

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Thomas,
In all truth see...... is there not something to be seen in this bringing forth from your own sentiments towards Raksha.

Can the church also let go, forgive, allow compassion to flow without grandiloquence. After all you are right aren't you.

- c -

- c -

Thank you, Ciel. The gradiloquence sort of gives him away, doesn't it?

 

[Thomas]

... and when you keep it up for 1500 years or more, relentlessly, as the Catholic Church did with the Jews, or the Gnostics--then you have by God got yourself an enemy!

We have apologised ... but I fear that whatever we do, you will always want to be my enemy.

Okay, now suppose you're having second thoughts. Suppose you want to make peace, come to some kind of an understanding.

Not really. I've been working from a standpoint of peace and understanding all the way through. I won't buckle at the knees though, just because someone browbeats me.

How exactly would you go about that...what approach would you take? Do you pontificate to your enemies about their "errors"? Do you preach to them about "Christian love" when they are seeing in their minds' eye the flames of Montsegur?

So basically, any rapproachment is out of the question? I am held guilty for something that happened ovr 700 years ago ... and you are never going to forgive

OK

 

[Raksha]

Maybe it has a lot to do with being a Wiccan.

Saltmeister,

Not at all. Please don't embarrass my Wiccan daughter by saying that, any more than she'd be embarrassed if she read some of those posts I wrote yesterday.

I remember some of the metaphors she used about what she would like do with you in the Judaism forum. I thought her metaphors were pretty gruesome. They were probably too gruesome, too extreme and exaggerated. She was using hyperboles and making her feelings seem really dramatic.

I haven't looked at the post you're talking about recently, but I remember it. I'm pretty sure it was addressed to Avi, who was egging me on to go after some atheist who was giving him a hard time. Considering the context, I was probably hamming it up a little--or a lot!

I don't think I was even seriously angry at the time, just being bombastic and melodramatic. Now I WAS angry yesterday, and your post indicates that you can tell the difference.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

We have apologised ... but I fear that whatever we do, you will always want to be my enemy.

Thomas,

The Church has not apologized. Pope John Paul II apologized on behalf of "some Catholics," NOT on behalf of the Church. Even though it was understood that "some Catholics" included several Popes, it won't be good enough until a pope apologizes on behalf of the Church as an institution, and particularly to the Jews. Claiming the "few rotten apples" defense, even when those few rotten apples can be measured by the barrel, isn't going to cut it. You have probably heard that from others besides me.

I don't particularly want to be your enemy, but neither do I have any interest in being your friend. And I have ZERO interest in being preached at or "enlightened" by you, as I think you know by now.

Suppose you want to make peace, come to some kind of an understanding.

Not really.

That's what I thought.

I've been working from a standpoint of peace and understanding all the way through.

No you haven't.

How exactly would you go about that...what approach would you take? Do you pontificate to your enemies about their "errors"? Do you preach to them about "Christian love" when they are seeing in their minds' eye the flames of Montsegur?

So basically, any rapproachment is out of the question?

Not out of the question, but the first move WILL NOT come from me. And it had better be sincere, because I'll know if it isn't. If not, don't bother because I truly don't give a damn whether the Catholic Church lives or dies. I think I prefer to watch it die unless it starts showing some REAL moral and spiritual leadership. But that's not something I have any control over, and it's not my problem either.

I am held guilty for something that happened ovr 700 years ago ...

No, absolutely NOT! I am not that unfair. You aren't held guilty for anything unless you try to defend it or whitewash it, and to your credit you have never even tried to do that. But if you do, you become an accessory to the crime after the fact, and I promise you that I'll treat you accordingly.

and you are never going to forgive

Forgive who or what? You or the Church?

The Catholic Church...never. Why should I?

You? That's easy...drop the pontificating tone and stop pretending to concern yourself with my spiritual health or lack of same, which is really none of your business. It's patronizing and insincere and I doubt if you really care. Mostly I bruised your ego and you're mad at me. That's understandable, but don't make a mountain out of molehill.

--Linda

 

[Ciel]

If there is anything all encompasing, as far as observation shows, it is simply awareness. That continues, even in deep dreamless sleep it is there.

I also notice that when I put my attention on the feelings of anger, or fear they begin straightaway to fade. Yet when I put my attention on the feeling of love it deepens and widens somehow.
This leads me to think that love has a greater reality than does anything else.

But as for that I really don't know. Since I have come to the end of the spiritual search there is contentment, and the activity of life goes on but the colors are more vibrant, the sounds more noticeable. Little things are more noticeable too, as if everything is salient.

Sometimes I get caught up in the role I play like watching a really exciting movie but being quiet brings back an awareness of equanimity.
Now there is nothing to get and nowhere to go

There is simply isness, aliveness and yes a sense of gratitude for the simple reality the great and wonderful, awe inspiring ordinariness of life.

And of religion? Well, when I see a person's head bent in ernest and genuine prayer, when they have approached their idea of what God must be with nothing to bring but an open heart and empty hands, I am most deeply touched. Have you ever seen or heard something so beautiful it made you cry?

So this is what I am left with now, and it is much more than I ever imagined.

Namaste Paladin,
And for this I do bow to you, knowing this sense of place well,here lives the light of illumination for truth and yes above all love in all it's reality.
The place of no questions and no answers, the place of grace.

- c -

 

[Dogbrain]

Persona means mask

I see, that is the ONLY definition that the LATIN word has, not the English word, right?

 

[Dogbrain]

Dogbrain,

No I'm not, and I'm very tired of hearing that.

As, over the years, I ceased being a child and became an adult. It finally occurred to me that critiques that many other people made of me, over many years, if repeated many times, were far more likely to be valid or based on valid observation rather than "everybody else is wrong about me".

You use the language of crusades and crusaders. You might merely be just another keyboard crusader instead of someone who backs up their hatemongering with fire and cold steel, but you are of an identical mindset. You are so dogmatic and and extremist that you cannot even admit to the theoretical possibility of this.

Complete denial that you could ever become your enemy is a sure path to becoming your enemy. Virtue is not self-perpetuating. It requires watchfulness. To paraphrase an old German: Whoever fights monsters must be very careful to not let the battle turn him into a monster.

 

[Dogbrain]

[/COLOR]
Dondi,

Very good! I really like the Book of James, but it's my understanding it almost didn't get included in the canon of the NT because it was too "Jewish."

--Linda

The Epistle of James was never controversial for being "too Jewish" when the Canon was worked out.

The only wannabe Canonist of any stature who rejected the Epistle of James was Marcion, and he was denounced as a heretic. Other canons assembled in reaction against Marcion included the Epistle of James. The first canon that was generally accepted by Christian communities across the Empire (and on its peripheries) was probably the one that was recorded (although not necessarily created) by Athanasius. It included the Epistle of James. The only controversy over James was a question of whether or not he was the actual author of the book, not over it being "too Jewish". Whoever told you it was over being "too Jewish" was lying, ignorant, or both. You should note that the third Epistle of John, the Epistle of Jude and Revelation were also controversial at that same time because of a question of authorship.

Of course, admitting to such a possibility might damage your great edifice of hatred and bigotry, so you'll either dismiss or ignore me.

 

[Raksha]

Of course, admitting to such a possibility might damage your great edifice of hatred and bigotry, so you'll either dismiss or ignore me.

Dogbrain,

I'll ignore you, because I really dislike your assumptions about me. I especially dislike being called a bigot, although I will admit to having tremendous intolerance for the intolerant.

--Linda

 

[shawn]

I see, that is the ONLY definition that the LATIN word has, not the English word, right?

No, that is merely one but it forms the basis for that word in typical usage.

From Encyclopedia Brittanica:
......in psychology, the personality that an individual projects to others, as differentiated from the authentic self. The term, coined by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, is derived from the Latin persona, referring to the masks worn by Etruscan mimes. One of the Jungian archetypes, the persona enables an individual to interrelate with the surrounding environment by reflecting the role in life that the individual is playing. In this way one can arrive at a compromise between one’s innate psychological constitution and society. Thus the persona enables the individual to adapt to society’s demands.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ​

:
The Latin word persona was originally used to denote the mask worn by an actor. From this it was applied to the role he assumed, and, finally, to any character on the stage of life, to any individual.

Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."

Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -

Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -

Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]

legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Hence the mask.



Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

Creation and history of the doctrine

In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. This was not a problem in the era before the Industrial Revolution, when the typical business venture was either a sole proprietorship or partnership—the owners were simply liable for the debts of the business. A feature of the corporation, however, is that the owners/shareholders enjoyed limited liability—the owners were not liable for the debts of the company. Thus, when a corporation breached a contract or broke a law, there was no remedy, because limited liability protected the owners and the corporation wasn't a legal person subject to the law. There was no accountability for corporate wrong-doing.

To resolve the issue, the legal personality of a corporation was established to include five legal rights—the right to a common treasury or chest (including the right to own property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e., the right to make and sign contracts), the right to sue and be sued (to enforce contracts), the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to make by-laws (self-governance).

Since the 1800s, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation's State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations.

I was trying to be brief with the previous post, but you concluded falsely that such was all.

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

I have a lot of friends in several different cyber-circles on the Internet, and when I post on one forum it inevitably means I'm neglecting someone else or leaving some other topic hanging. For example: Gabriel Wilensky over on the Amazon Judaism board. He just posted a new note tonight, which I haven't responded to yet. And I promised to help him in his cause, which is also very much my cause

You might be interested in the book he just published, which is also the topic of the Amazon debate I just mentioned. It's called Six Million Crucifixions: How Christian Teachings About Jews Paved the Road To the Holocaust.
http://http://www.amazon.com/Six-Million-Crucifixions-Christian-Teachings/dp/0984334645/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3QMEJCVEGZF7J&colid=J6K5KUFNU1L1

Hi Linda. Wonderful ! Just terrific reading. So, who are your favorite philosophers ? { : - 0 }

If just the title alone enrages you--IT'S SUPPOSED TO!!! It wasn't intended to prop up the Church's endless whitewashing rationalizations about itself but to tear them to shreds--and it does. It's very well documented, and the author can back up every one of his assertions. I've seen him hold his ground against some of the slickest Catholic apologists in the world on a couple of discussion boards, one of them being the Amazon board I mentioned earlier.

That might not seem to have a whole lot to do with Gnosticism or with spiritual development. It is basically just a warning to you not to underestimate your enemy, and make no mistake about that, Thomas: I AM YOUR ENEMY!

I love this spirit ! Now here is a real fighter !!

The Roman Catholic Church is my detested enemy on three fronts: As a JEW, first of all. And then as a GNOSTIC. And finally as a Pagan, which is to say AS A WOMAN.

Ummm, I think that makes four reasons (lol). I love this passion.

I stand for the Goddess against the most overbearing and tyrannical of all patriarchal institutions.

It sounds like the Catholic Church is the Walmart of religion (lol).

These are the three major strands of my particular form of syncretism, and they also just "happen" to be the three groups that suffered the most from the spiritual and temporal tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church: Jews, heretics and women. I didn't exactly plan my life that way but it worked out that way, and I certainly accept my karma as an instrument of our collective revenge.

Make yourself an apologist for the Church, and you put yourself in the cross-hairs. Your choice. But don't snivel and whine about it--and don't expect any mercy either....

...and wouldn't recite the Nicene Creed except under threat of death...which has been the case with Jews and heretics in the past often enough, and you know it!

--Linda

This is fantastic !! You are the biggest rebel on this board, I love it !! Ever considered atheism as another group to align with ........they are hated by most as well {: - 0 }

 

[Raksha]

This is fantastic !! You are the biggest rebel on this board, I love it !! Ever considered atheism as another group to align with ........they are hated by most as well {: - 0 }

Bertrand,

LOL! Your compliments are much appreciated. As you see, my rebellious spirit and in-your-face style aren't to everybody's taste. There's only one slight problem with aligning myself with atheists, though...I'm not an atheist! They are one of the few groups I usually don't argue with, unless they are so militant they seem like the flip side of Christian fundamentalists. But in general, I prefer being around people who don't believe in God at all to "true believer" types.

I am definitely a secular humanist, though. In fact, that is my litmus test as to whether or not I vote an individual for public office. The person MUST be a secular humanist before anything, regardless of what else he or she believes. I don't know what country you live in but I'm in America (California). The separation of church and state written into our Constitution is currently under assault by the forces of stealth theocracy, with school textbooks being rewritten to reflect an anti-evolution, anti-Enlightenment agenda. We have a Supreme Court stacked with Opus Dei types. Therefore I will not vote for a Mormon, a Protestant fundamentalist, or a conservative Catholic (liberal Catholics are okay). I figure it's better to be safe than sorry!

--Linda

 

[Dogbrain]

I'll ignore you, because I really dislike your assumptions about me. I especially dislike being called a bigot, although I will admit to having tremendous intolerance for the intolerant.

You are a bigot--you presume that "Catholic" is identical to "intolerant". I have made no assumptions, only reasonable conclusions based entirely upon the hate speech you are spewing and ignorance you continue to drip.

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

Muslims are all sex crazed. I can see a woman in a bikini and not be overcome with lust. Muslims, on the other hand, are so lustful and sex crazed that they require laws preventing them from seeing a woman in such an outfit.

Nothing I love more than seeing tolerance in action { : -o ) .

 

[Dogbrain]

Nothing I love more than seeing tolerance in action { : -o ) .

I'll presume you are merely pretending to have an IQ of less than 85. I was illustrating the stupidity of claiming that Westerners are "sex crazed" and Muslims are not, because Muslims insist that women must be completely covered--under penalty of imprisonment, beating, or possibly even death, and the "reasoning" used to justify this is that, were these women to be uncovered in front of Muslim men, the Muslim men would not be able to control themselves, and the women would automatically be in danger.

I just spelled out exactly what was being claimed by the people defending the Muslim policy--in more direct terms than what they want to use.

I realize that it is fashionable among leftists and other varieties of idiot to ignore, excuse, or otherwise condone excesses made by Muslims while whining, puling, and making stink noises about excesses of the West. I don't adhere to that fad.

Tyranny is tyranny, no matter who does it. Theocratic tyranny may be the worst form of all.

PS: GW Bush was a wannabe theocratic tyrant.

 

[shawn]

Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man")

And what was "man" cast out of the garden for??
Eating from the tree of knowing.
So,......what exactly do you know?
Is it powerful and grand?
or is it heresay?