Religion II

[Hank]

I just noticed boxcar's "rep power" is higher than Gus and Hcap. This sums up pa ot quite nicely.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

I just noticed boxcar's "rep power" is higher than Gus and Hcap. This sums up pa ot quite nicely.

Haaaa....are you feeling rep-deprived? Are you stressing out because of rep-envy?

Perhaps I could soothe your uber-sensitive ego and low self-esteem by contributing all my "reps" to you, Hank.

PA, why don't you give poor Petty Hankie Pankie my reps and make his day?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Hank

I just noticed boxcar's "rep power" is higher than Gus and Hcap. This sums up pa ot quite nicely.

I choose to call it "God's will". Boxcar's got friends in high places.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Haaaa....are you feeling rep-deprived? Are you stressing out because of rep-envy?

Perhaps I could soothe your uber-sensitive ego and low self-esteem by contributing all my "reps" to you, Hank.

PA, why don't you give poor Petty Hankie Pankie my reps and make his day?

Did you miss my very simple question #8304?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Hcap...are you being truthful with us when you say that these exchanges with Boxcar are a pleasurable experience for you? Because, I can't possibly see how that could BE.

Of course they are not. I got really pissed off watching him support Luterr's antpi-semitism, and then to boot, totally misunderstand my more humanistic, spiritual explanation for infanticide in the bible. And then mindlessly and mechanically try to use that more spiritual approach to DEFEND Luther although it was meant only for his "god" murdering children using a non literal approach.

I knew he could not defend any of his nonsense, but thought vainly I could shut him up. I also knew he would obfuscate and deflect away from the topic at hand.

Kept hoping he would be honest eventually
As I said, either his Alzheimers is worse or his deceptiveness is.

Guess we found out which.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Of course they are not. I got really pissed off watching him support Luterr's antpi-semitism, and then to boot, totally misunderstand my more humanistic, spiritual explanation for infanticide in the bible. And then mindlessly and mechanically try to use that more spiritual approach to DEFEND Luther although it was meant only for his "god" murdering children using a non literal approach.

I knew he could not defend any of his nonsense, but thought vainly I could shut him up. I also knew he would obfuscate and deflect away from the topic at hand.

Kept hoping he would be honest eventually
As I said, either his Alzheimers is worse or his deceptiveness is.

Guess we found out which.

I don't support any antisemitism. Never have. Never said I did. All I'm suggesting is the real possibility that you're misunderstanding Luther's spiritual writings since you're an inconsistent allegorist by taking Luther literally.

What objectively and logically determines when you deem religious/spiritual works worthy of allegory and when you don't?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed-up-car

I don't support any antisemitism. Never have. Never said I did. All I'm suggesting is the real possibility that you're misunderstanding Luther's spiritual writings since you're an inconsistent allegorist by taking Luther literally.

That's why I asked you repeatedly to show how NOT to take Luther literally. Instead you appropriated a psycho-spiritual allegory/metaphor I intended solely for explaining how to explain infanticide non-literally, and mangled it in an effort to discount allegory/metaphor in general and ducked my specific questions.

You think your gold's justice is easily explained literally in the act of murdering children. Some of us have a hard time buying that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

That's why I asked you repeatedly to show how NOT to take Luther literally. Instead you appropriated a psycho-spiritual allegory/metaphor I intended solely for explaining how to explain infanticide non-literally, and mangled it in an effort to discount allegory/metaphor in general and ducked my specific questions.

You think your gold's justice is easily explained literally in the act of murdering children. Some of us have a hard time buying that.

You left out of your non-response the question I asked. Here it is again:

What objectively and logically determines when you deem religious/spiritual works worthy of allegory and when you don't?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Did you miss my very simple question #8304?

Actually, I did. But since you have followed up to your earth-shattering question with another question, you must be chompin' at the bit to get down and dirty with me. Okay...I'll play.

No, I do not hold to the RCC doctrine of the "immaculate conception".

Your turn.

[boxcar]

Hcap, did you miss my question in 8316 and 18?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't support any antisemitism. Never have. Never said I did. All I'm suggesting is the real possibility that you're misunderstanding Luther's spiritual writings since you're an inconsistent allegorist by taking Luther literally.

What objectively and logically determines when you deem religious/spiritual works worthy of allegory and when you don't?

Just because we can uncover somewhat hidden truths by using allegory and metaphor as a means of "exegesis", it is not useful unless we start with a proper grounding.

In Zen Buddhism there is a koan in which the roshi (teacher)points to the moon with his finger. If the student gets lost gazing at the master's finger, he gets "whacked" with the master's staff.

The student must realize the "moon" is the object to be understood, not the "pointing" done by his instructor. There is a body of knowledge that prepares the student to begin to grasp the subtleties of how the moonlight manifests within him/her.

In your case of alleging Martin Luther's antisemitism was some sort of real moon, and to tell us not look at your frantic pointing and hand waving, it became readily obvious that your moon is a goddam fake.

Your continuous deflections using my metaphorical attempts at pointing at a real "moon" were a cheap shot to dodge the deep debating and polemic hole you sunk yourself in. Your attack on my means of pointing versus yours, was totally inappropriate and was only a device you created to avoid supporting your claim that Luther's antisemitic moon was real. Rather a stinking foolish attempt to point at a mound of horse shit.
How useful is the method of pointing, if we refuse to perceive what our noses and other senses are telling us?

Having said that, I am assuming your question...

What objectively and logically determines when you deem religious/spiritual works worthy of allegory and when you don't?

is genuine. I must reiterate, there is a body of knowledge that we need to begin to grasp the subtleties involved.

But if you refuse to be open to the the crucial elements of the world's other religions, and philosophies, and the possibility of knowing oneself PRACTICALLY, and being honest about what you see in yourself, that rather large body of knowledge is of no use, and will not work.

However if you are still interested we can discuss that body of knowledge

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Just because we can uncover somewhat hidden truths by using allegory and metaphor as a means of "exegesis", it is not useful unless we start with a proper grounding.

In Zen Buddhism there is a koan in which the roshi (teacher)points to the moon with his finger. If the student gets lost gazing at the master's finger, he gets "whacked" with the master's staff.

The student must realize the "moon" is the object to be understood, not the "pointing" done by his instructor. There is a body of knowledge that prepares the student to begin to grasp the subtleties of how the moonlight manifests within him/her.

In your case of alleging Martin Luther's antisemitism was some sort of real moon, and to tell us not look at your frantic pointing and hand waving, it became readily obvious that your moon is a goddam fake.

Your continuous deflections using my metaphorical attempts at pointing at a real "moon" were a cheap shot to dodge the deep debating and polemic hole you sunk yourself in. Your attack on my means of pointing versus yours, was totally inappropriate and was only a device you created to avoid supporting your claim that Luther's antisemitic moon was real. Rather a stinking foolish attempt to point at a mound of horse shit.
How useful is the method of pointing, if we refuse to perceive what our noses and other senses are telling us?

Having said that, I am assuming your question... is genuine. I must reiterate, there is a body of knowledge that we need to begin to grasp the subtleties involved.

But if you refuse to be open to the the crucial elements of the world's other religions, and philosophies, and the possibility of knowing oneself PRACTICALLY, and being honest about what you see in yourself, that rather large body of knowledge is of no use, and will not work.

However if you are still interested we can discuss that body of knowledge

Okay...so there's a "moon" to be seen in the Amalekite account but no moon to be seen in the different Judas accounts? In the former case, the "moon" speaks to you (?) and sez, "Okay, time to allegorize up". But in the latter, there's no moon, therefore, those accounts must be taken literally which is why you don't jump through allegorical hoops to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile their differences?

Am I warm here?

[hcap]

What does this mean? Judas?

"but no moon to be seen in the different Judas accounts"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What does this mean? Judas?

"but no moon to be seen in the different Judas accounts"

Well...with the two different Judas "death" accounts, you take them literally and made zero effort to reconcile their differences. Conversely, you have jumped through all kinds of hoops to reconcile your personal idea of an "all loving god" with his judgment against the Amalekites, thereby preserving the image of a god you have created in your own mind and image.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...so there's a "moon" to be seen in the Amalekite account but no moon to be seen in the different Judas accounts? In the former case, the "moon" speaks to you (?) and sez, "Okay, time to allegorize up". But in the latter, there's no moon, therefore, those accounts must be taken literally which is why you don't jump through allegorical hoops to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile their differences?

Am I warm here?

Ok I kinda figured out your question.

However you are jumping around trying to analyse too much without the underlying "body of knowledge" In my metaphorical understanding of god eradicating the Amalekite infants and farm animals, I drew upon an ancient tradition spoken about in many "paths" . That is the warning against the devious illusion that we are already of one mind, one identity.

We are not.

Lower Self: The Ten Thousand I`s
http://dangxia.org/englishfile/lower...nthousand.html

The lower self is a collection of attitudes, dreams, and mechanical habits that dwell within a man. There is not an unchangeable ‘I’ that is always the same. Rather, a man's many thoughts, emotions and sensations are his ‘many I`s’, which are traditionally numbered as ten thousand. As the ten thousand I's randomly assert themselves, each one mistakenly takes itself to be 'real I', and moreover, constantly interferes with the effort to simply Be Present. Jesus Christ said, "Thine enemies shall be they of your own household."

So the "principle" behind using the allegory/metaphor of using external events, and many characters to point to those "fragments" within our psyche is one of the most basic ways to understand scripture metaphorically.

Christian tradition--The Bible, Mark 5 - 9: And Jesus asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

So the Amalekite "children" are inner fragments retaining leftover harmful characteristics of their "parents". The danger is we do not recognize they have the potential to grow and as I said "re-infect" us. In the simplest case if we try and stop a bad habit like smoking, or overheating, when we manage a small success and cut down on that habit, we forget how devious that habit may be. Walk into a room with a lot of smoking and after quitting, the smell alone opens a door for that "memory" just a tiny bit and for one instance for that sneaky "infant" to sneak back in.

"Oh maybe I can take a drag on a friends cigarette? Just one, just one drag" .

Or let med try a bite of that doughnut I just gave up. "Just one teny, tiny bite.Then I'll be good again"
.................................................. ..............

Zen Buddhist tradition-- Bodhidharma (First Partriarch of Chinese Zen Buddhism. 6th c.): Near and yet you cannot see them. This is the nature of the ten thousand things.

Sufi tradition -- Hafiz (14th c. Persian Sufi poet): It is always a danger to the aspirant on the path when one begins to believe and act as if the ten thousand idiots who so long ruled and lived inside have all packed their bags and skipped town or died.