posted October 09, 2007 11:07 PM         

I thought you were objective...

why?

posted October 09, 2007 11:32 PM         

I'm done with this place.

I understand how you feel, goatgirl. No need to apologize for being caring. I felt that way from the start, distressed, caught in the middle, unsure if I should interfere...feeling it best if I didn't....then things kept spiraling onto further horrors out of control...beyond any hope.

Vengence took over.

Image before others became what was most meaningful.

More meaningful than compassion.
More meaningful then humility.
More meaningful then Innocence.
More meaningful than Love.

Who is for real?

Carry on with your mission.

posted October 10, 2007 12:04 AM         

what does it mean "the hardening of the categories"

posted October 10, 2007 12:10 AM         

I guess Karma returned to her Good and Kind as she had to provide explanation here.

Shouldn't we rejoice as it proves God is living not dead.

I also believe that you must not let this affect you so much. She may be your mom but everytime I responded to her assuming my mom in her place. And believe me I do speak rubbish with my Mom. But I never dishonor her. Thats just how I am. Thats my true side.

I am not sure if you will read this. Hope you will forgive me if i hurt you in anyway.

quote:

---

Is it possible to be everything to all people all the time?

---

posted October 10, 2007 01:55 AM         

That is a simplified way of explaining what is meant by "hardening of the categories." Because Fayte ( along with some others here at LL) think they are the only ones who question and who have an open mind.

I went to seminary therefore I am a brain washed, dogmatic Christian fanatic. That is what those who push the dogma of "hardening of the categories" accuse the Hebrews of doing and all those who study any form of organized religion. Mine being Roman Catholicism. Though what she says is not true. I wouldn't be here at LL if I had a closed mind. The RC Church sees astrology as an occult practice. I don't. Nor am I a rigid Catholic in any other sense of the word. It is the basis of my faith though. So?

Well, where did they learn? Where did they get their information? I am certain it wasn't infused. They get it from reading books by authors who are really just giving their opinions. Why? Because those authors reflect what they think about religion and spirituality. So are they also not brainwashed by what they study and it is also not something that coincides with the faith and beliefs that they hold fast to? How is it any different than one who attends a seminary of any particular Faith?

Fayte and some others here lump all Christians into a neat little box. We are all like Jerry Farlwell and Pat Robinson or their great aunt susie or some other relative they know or some other Christian weirdo they have encountered. That does not support an open mind. What it does support is religious bigotry and intolerance towards anyone who thinks or believes differently than they do.

All religions have their fanatics. Even astrology has it's fanatics. The world has it's fanatics. Lumping people and labeling people is not supported by any form of spirituality.

posted October 10, 2007 02:16 AM         

quote:

---

We humans like to make it seem more complicated than it actually is because it makes us look smart.

---

posted October 10, 2007 03:05 AM         

I for one am not necessarily concerned with finishing the puzzle. I see the sky. I see the trees. I see the animals. I see the farm. I have a good general sense of how the puzzle is going to turn out, so I'm not terribly fixated on it. Other people may see these things, but they're looking for Waldo in particular, so they're going to keep putting together the pieces of the puzzle even beyond the finished puzzle. This puzzle being just a piece of another puzzle. If puzzles are your hobby, that's cool, but if you want to tell me about the puzzle...you know, the one with the sky, the trees, the animals, and farm...well I already saw the point of that puzzle (and I see even greater pictures than that puzzle conveys all around me each day). If I missed a detail so be it. The picture is already clear to me. I may go back to it from time to time to fill in some more pieces, but I can already read the outcome. I have no need to make it more complicated. I can even see some beauty in the unfinished puzzle that I can derive joy from. My favorite piece is the one that seems to frame the pink flower. So simple and poetic in itself I could remove it from the puzzle, and it's beauty would be enough for me.

posted October 10, 2007 06:30 AM         

quote:

---

Fayte and some others here lump all Christians into a neat little box. We are all like Jerry Farlwell and Pat Robinson or their great aunt susie or some other relative they know or some other Christian weirdo they have encountered. That does not support an open mind. What it does support is religious bigotry and intolerance towards anyone who thinks or believes differently than they do.

---

I'm not practicizing nor religious but I'm sick to death of people around here talking of wanting to be tolerated for their beliefs and not persecuted yet turning around and discriminating against those who do follow a religion by lumping them all together to fit their own schema. Its the most annoying double standard around here and pure hypocrisy IMO.

posted October 10, 2007 07:47 AM         

You guys brought TEARS to my eyes this morning!!! No Really!!!

What you wrote they AG, just blew me on my @ss!!! Your such a SWEETHEART AG!!! Your heart is in the right place!!!

posted October 10, 2007 08:30 AM         

I want to be a DEAD HEAD also!!! LOL!!!

Is this the right term Mirandee??? LOL!!!

DEAD HEAD!!!

posted October 10, 2007 08:48 AM         

I'm a fairly simple man. I forget a lot of things, and hence act in the moment and with each thought and energy in motion that I feel. (Anyone seen Momento?) Anyhow, there are lots of things I could say to reply to a lot of post in this one thread, but that takes a lot of time, and seems to single people out and ignore others, so instead, I won't mention names and ignore everyone, but try to comment on the "puzzle" or bigger picture. Ultimately, there are several reasons people "fight". The ones that apply here (IMHO) are communication, ego, history, and as a result from judgments.

The act of judging stems from many facets - our inner insecurities, history, ego, self-worth-belief, etc. Sometimes, we can judge when we mean to be teaching, but it is always pretty much a laying-down of ego. As soon as you judge someone, you are saying you are better, they are flawed, and everyone should do things your way. You may not mean to do this, and hence, should probably work on your communication if that is so, but if you do, then try to refrain from saying anything, as your judgments are not warranted nor wanted. They do not teach anyone, except maybe yourself later on when you regret it and the words come back (then use the cancel technique to reduce this effect (used twice for most power), or apologize if you feel you are right).

I do not mean to judge anyone here, but sometimes we need to realize how we present ourselves to the world, and this is what I'm picking up. Sometimes alliances and groups create their own courts. Democracy is a good thing but all votes are equal - none are worth more than the rest, but when it comes to opinion (and not law), then all are equal without caring about democracy. The person that has a solitary opinion that all humans are pathetic will live life alone, and so be it, for all other humans would not like to feel pathetic by this person.

So all I ask is that everyone respect other people's beliefs, ask openly for clarity if desired (with an open mind and no judgment) and reply if you have anything to add, etc. and preferably if constructive (but this is subjective and not really required). I don't really feel as though anyone is openly attacking anyone else, it feels more like a squabble and lack of communication. Sometimes this can take a long time to overcome. Especially if people are on completely different wavelengths and have history in which case, only time can heal (and non-judgmental openness, etc).

I truly hope that people can learn to tolerate one another and form a peaceful and loving Lindaland, so the Waters of this Well may run deep and smooth.

Anyhow, stepping off my soap-box,
Heaps of Love,
Dean.

------------------
I realized it for the first time in my life:
there is nothing but mystery in the world,
how it hides behind the fabric of our poor,
browbeat days, shining brightly, and we don't even know it.

Sue Monk Kidd, "The Secret Life of Bees", p79

posted October 10, 2007 09:08 AM         

I see words which may be taken in different ways. I see that the person who wrote them may or may not be aware of a variety of ways in which her words may be taken. I see people jumping to conclusions, convinced that there is only one way to interpret the words, or, else, convinced that, even though there are other ways to interpret the words, this or that way is, without a doubt, the correct way to interpret them.

The truth is that an overwhelming number of things we do or say are unconscious, and, often, we ourselves are not entirely conscious of our motives and intentions. When I seek to interpret a person's words, I bear in mind the knowledge that I am really reading the words of "two people" - the conscious person and the unconscious person, - and that figuring out which one is talking is not easy, as they frequently tend to finish eachother's thoughts and sentences. In other words, something may be written with multiple intentions, some conscious, some unconscious; there may be an intention to hurt, but it may still be unsconscious. I'm surprised people dont know or don't mention this, with the result that they accuse the person of ill-intent, the person denies it, and then we all conclude that either the first person is mistaken or the second person is lying. Some conclude one way, some the other. But the truth may be that both are wrong, and that there was no conscious intent to hurt, but a very real unconscious intent. In any case, when it comes to words that are intended to hurt others, I find that the chances of unconscious expression are much higher.

That people can be so convinced that they are right is the only thing here that really boggles me. We are assuming knowledge about people's intentions, which even the people themselves probably do not possess! Mirandee's conscious intention may very well be exactly what she stated it was. Her unconscious intention may be exactly as Fayte and Mannu concluded. But, in my opinion, it is impossible, or near impossible, to know for certain what the truth of this matter is. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable not knowing, so they rush to judgement. Or maybe they are just short-sighted and cannot imagine more than one or two points of view. Or maybe its something else. I dont know.

In response to the topic:

I have said similar things here in the past. That we often make things more complicated than we need to. I have said that the truth is as simple as: LOVE. I have said that, for whatever reason, we reject this as too simple. We need it put to us in more complex and elaborate ways. But, what I mean is not that this complication is unnecessary. On the contrary, I think that, from where we stand, here on earth, there are very understandable reasons for why we are unreceptive to love, in its unadorned simplicity. There are good reasons for making it complicated, in order to get the message across to people who would not otherwise be receptive to it. It is not a case of complicating the basic truth, by adding impurities to it, or by fragmenting it, but, of observing and gathering together the already fragmented truth, piece by piece (that is, the numerous manifestations of it in the world), and polishing and preserving those pieces, like artifacts, like fossils, with, one hopes, an eye toward increasing (our own and our neighbors') undertanding of the whole.

There are the basic building blocks of wisdom, being the essential and eternal principles and laws of the universe, which are everywhere the same, and then there are the innumerable exemplifications of these principles at work in the world. Seeing and understanding the principles helps us to recognize the examples, and vice versa. The greatest teachers would present a universal principle, and then give an analogous example of its existence in the world. If they spoke of something in the world, they would then give the principle behind it. One was never offered apart from the other. This is one path upon which it is good to gather the knowledge of many things, because the more knowledge one has, the more grist one has for the mill of understanding. As Plutarch wrote, "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." So, knowledge of particulars is useful, not to fill the mind, but, to feed the fire. And a complex vision of the whole, which conforms to the blueprint provided by the fundamental laws of the universe, allows those eternal principles to shine through and be reflected in the third dimension, in many places at once. Here we see the beauty of a truly elaborate design alongside the beauty of a truly humble simplicity; humble because it does not disdain to be reflected in the world; in "rags of light".

In a sense, the truth is very simple...
it is like a straight line,
like a thread, but it has been tied into knots...

some people speak about the thread as it is without the knots; as it was before, as it will be after, and as it continues to be, although we cannot see it through the knots... They speak the truth, and those with ears to hear will hear them, but there are many who cannot hear them, being fixated on the knots...

some people speak about the knots as they are, but with an understanding of the thread, and an eye toward untangling the knots, for themselves and for others; they speak more facts than truths, but they deal directly with the nastier complications that have arisen, and if the journey gets very complicated, it is only for the sake of resolving the complications which they discover along the way (and did not create).

Both have their place.

I think the spiritual life is a constant process of simplifying, trying to get back to the One Love, but, that, at the same time, it is a deepening. The abstract universal truth of God is ONE, and it is simple, but its manifestations in the world are myriad. God, in a sense, must descend, become small, and appear in many masks, if "He" is to be seen and understood by the likes of us; The Sun is a brilliant light, but light must be carried underground, and only a candle can serve. Some teachings are too simple, too pure, too lofty to be embraced by many people. Some teachings are too complex, too worldy, too entrenched in the nitty-gritty to be embraced by many people. Everything is needed; words find the ears for them. In order to communicate the whole truth, all of our voices must be heard, individually and in chorus. Some of us are sopranos, some are altos, some are tenors... Every note has its place in the great symphony, the high and the low. What is most divine about the divine message, is that it is not wholly divine, but, that it takes part in the divine drama that is the descent into matter, and the work of transcendance made possible thereby. In a sense, we may say that there is a Father in Heaven, and a Christ upon the Earth, and the two, together, complete a circuit capable of conducting the Holy Spirit. I think there are a variety of valid spiritual paths, each suited to a particular type of person. We are "called" to minister in different ways, according to the particular talents we are graced with, and we are all members of the one body of Christ, with one common spirit, and one common source.

I do admire the simplicity of the Indian saint who fasted for many years, and, when questioned about the workings of certain highly complex metaphysical laws which explained her ability to survive without food, giggled, and replied in the spirit of a child, "Baba knows". (("Baba" meaning "Honored Father"))

It was not necessary for her to know and understand the detailed operations of those laws. She had power to manipulate those laws even though she was ignorant of them, because she immersed herself in the simplicity of Oneness/God/Love. This was her path. It worked for her. How many of us are fit to embrace such a path? We have more circuitous routes to follow on our way to God, but they are not unnecessary. What we learn on those journeys will not technically strengthen our faith. What it will do is gradually replace that faith with something far superior to it; direct knowledge. Faith goes nowhere without its shadow of doubt. The greater the faith, the greater the shadow. But the more you know and understand, the less you believe and take on faith. The person who attains intimacy with God without going by the path of direct knowledge may do it by relying on faith, but, as they develop, faith is replaced, in this case not by knowledge, but by experience. Experience can be the fruit of either faith or knowledge, but, ultimately, it does away with both of these.

It's true, we all make things (spirituality included) more complicated than they need to be at times, for a variety of reasons, one of which is our egoistic desire to feel and appear intelligent. Even if it happens rarely and in subtle ways, I do think it is something we humans are all guilty of, as Mirandee said. At the same time, we often err in the opposite direction, making things appear more simple than they are, or, rather, simple in a way that they are not. Again, this happens for a variety of reasons, one of which is the desire to appear wise; to have it all figured out and boiled down, while others are still lost in a labrynth of questions and answers with loose-ends.

I have more to say,
but I've said enough for now.

hsc

posted October 10, 2007 12:33 PM         

quote:

---

Religion or Spirituality is really not all that complicated.

---

quote:

---

The study of it is very complex however. The etymologies, the histories etcetera.

---

quote:

---

We humans like to make it seem more complicated than it actually is because it makes us look smart.

---

quote:

---

That can be taken as an insult to all scholars and translators and those who wish to learn of and study all religions and the histories and archaeologies of them.
Would you say the same of a Physicist or Astronomer, or even an Astrologer?
Folks do love to delve deeper and learn the nuances and details of the subjects which interests them.
They are NOT doing it to:

---

quote:

---

We humans like to make it seem more complicated than it actually is because it makes us look smart.

---

quote:

---

There would be no translations of Religious texts, scrolls, codexes, etcetera, into English if folks were doing those translations to simply;

"make them look smart"

Just because there are folks who want to delve deep into any subject does not make them a bunch of show offs trying to look smart. Folks possessing intelligence and curiosity simply "love to learn and study". Showing off is not what is on their minds.

---

quote:

---

Incidently, while I am at it. What I said regarding humans making things more complex regarding spirituality:

1. When I stated " we humans" I would think that anyone could assume that I am including myself along with the rest of humanity since I am a human being. Or a human just being as the case may be.

2. When I was studying theology at the seminary I told my pastor one day, " Spirituality is simple. The Church makes it all so complex."

He laughed and said, " Of course we do. That's because we like to make ourselves appear smart." Then he tapped on his chest by his heart and said, " but really it is all about what is in here."

---

quote:

---

We humans like to make it seem more complicated than it actually is because it makes us look smart.

---