I usually stay away from topics like this, but when I noticed that according to Oobie Doodie the Dalai Lama has been recast into "God's Lamb" I couldn't resist.

First, Dude, the Dalai Lama was set up as a head of state by the Great Khan. The various names used over the ages vary, for example the Sixth Dalai Lama was Gendrun Drub, and the present is Tenzin Gyatso. They identify themselves (himself) by recognition of artifacts from the prior Dalai Lama's belongings.

The term "dalai" means circular or rotating, in the sense of seasons or a wheel. And of course a Lama is a monk, not an Andean camel nor a mountain goat, and certainly not a sheep. Thus, the name "Dalai Lama" means "rotating monk", or if you prefer, "self-recycling monk". Truly a modern concept.

I recall when I was young. I was important. I knew everything. The only problem was that the world always seemed to be wrong. Now I'm old. I am nothing and nobody, I know very little. But I am at one with the world, and with the exception of the occasional braying of distant jackasses, and at times the excessive sound of what sometimes passes for music, nothing is wrong. Chumley had it right - no substitute for experience.

Obviously, anything written down more than a week or two after the fact is inaccurate. So what? Aside from numerous Roman historians etc, and the assorted beliefs of millions of people that are based in tradition (which is another word for applied social mythology), there was obviously some basis for all the  formal and informal information pointing to Jesus' life. And there's a vast amount of superstitious nonsense as well - in fact sometimes we see it here.

Beyond this, unless you were doing some preparatory research because you were planning to take Tim F's advice and go channel Jesus for a discussion, I kinda wonder what your purpose in that thread was.

As an experienced OBE adventurer, you have certain views not shared by anyone else on this planet. That's because your experiences were private. We might suggest that because nobody else can share your experiences, you are a figment of our collective imagination. It looks like the light's on, but nobody's home. It's just a mirage. Someone else wrote your post - or was it a merely a fortuitous glitch in the machine - eg: noise?

Confronted on that basis YOU can't even prove YOU exist, much less that you had ANY experiences. In the same way, experiences of the man Jesus, and experiences of the spiritual Christ, can never be fully, properly and accurately known. So what?

What we have is a rich tradition and heritage, plus occasional sightings by inner world travellers. Somehow it seems to make people happy to have those beliefs, and to attempt to emulate the sacrifice Jesus made (or, if you prefer, the sacrifice that Jesus is said to have made), and amazingly it seems to make the world a bit brighter.

Of course, as a seasoned spiritual traveller, you have doubtless mastered all that - assuming, of course, that you actually exist, and can prove it to someone other than yourself.

With palms together, I bow at your lotus feet.

PUL
dave

Dave,

It had to be done, and I'm glad it was you and not me.  In some ways, it was nice being an observer and watching young Dude delve further and further into the conspiracy theories about JC, intent on debunking the entire religion.  He gave Don a run for his money, and probably converted several readers to his own stubborn view.  To him, it appears bold, noble and fearless to think outside the box and risk eternal damnation (the website won't let the D word in) for the freedom to shout "The emperor has no clothes!" at the top of his lungs.  A deeper understanding of consciousness sees all of this, the dichotomy between Dude and Don, between the argument of proof on each side as an exercise in futility.  And of course there is name calling thrown in when "sides" are taken.  Remember Dan Akyroyd on the original Saturday Night Live, debating Jane Curtain?  He used to rebut her claims starting out with "Jane, you ignorant sl*&#^"  Some debate, but it was funny on those shows.

You mention to Dude that he can't really prove his own existence to us (maybe not even to himself), so how can he dispute the earthly existence of JC so vehemently?  I'm not sure if Dude has had his noodle baked that way yet.  It starts with the realization that all that we accept as unchanging in the "real world," all sensory input, are actually renditions by our own mind of input from our personal senses and not constants in some fixed reality.  Studies have shown that even when we walk in a beautiful woodland, that our brains are constantly painting the scenery through sensory input and not experiencing an objective reality.  Sure, in this physical world, we all tend to agree on things such as what the color red is in a global sense, yet that does not mean that the color red seen through your eyes is the same as mine.

When Descartes was faced with the existential problem of what is real, and how does he know he exists, he came up with  "Je pense, donc je suis" - cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore, I am.  As he said in his splendid treatise: "But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

As human beings though, or sentient spiritual beings, we yearn for the absolute, to feel we are anchored and grounded.  Right vs. wrong.  Good vs. evil, us vs. them.  This is the place where debunking a perceived falsehood resonates with Dude.  

There clearly is no way to prove that JC did not walk the earth.  Don's counter challenge is equally daunting, and so ultimately, these threads must fizzle out; but Don has one advantage, and that is the spiritual experience of JC in people's hearts, minds and lives in history and right now, in NDEs and in our shared consciousness.  

Ultimately then, although Dude gets points on debating style and intelligence, he loses in being so one sided that he insists on the absolute truth behind his statement that JC never existed - which can not be proven by parallels, inconsistencies, creations in christianity by Paul or the historical record.

Matthew

Dude,

I don't feel you risk eternal "D" (website restricts the word), for saying what you say.  I only imply that your need to debunk is based in part on a quest or cause that believes in the nobility of being right, even in the face of closed minded people on the other side invoking the big D.


If you read my posts on this forum, you'll see that I believe that Hell is of a person's own making.  It comes from a closed mind, and closed belief systems, or from what Swedenborg called a person's true nature - that in spirit if one can not grow toward PUL and God, that one seeks out people of one's own kind and voluntarily enters a hell.

So, no I don't believe in the big D, but used it in a colorful attempt to be eloquent and make a point.

DOc

 Btw Dude, i admire your passion and zeal and your intense curiosity and willingness to go against convservative belief systems.  I also admire Don's passion and zeal.  But perhaps Don isn't quite as conservative and dogmatic as many seem to pigeon hole him as here?  Maybe like you, he also tries to think out of his respective box?  How many Christians read Swedenborg?  I haven't met too many.

 Yet, belief systems are boxes in the end and we're ALL stuck in them to varying degrees (until fully White Lightized, lol got White Light?), nothing wrong with that either, but maybe ultimately its how a person lives their beliefs that really matter, how you apply your ideals and strive towards them that either brings spiritual growth and expanded awareness/consciousness or deeper unhappiness, suffering, and a narrower consciousness frequency band?

 What i would love to see happen:

 I would love to see you and Don both do meditations (or for Don prayer?) holding each other in White Light, seeing, knowing, and feeling the ultimate perfection in each, or at least see the good and ignore the seeming bad for a bit.  Feel love for each other, realize how much you are connected to each other.  Then maybe send a little bit of this energy to all of us too!  I sure could use some right now.

 I fall often, i choose unreality often, but this is one of the best methods i've found to help pick myself back up again.  It works, but don't take my word for it.

 

lol I wish the taxman was a non-myth!

Quote:


I believe all spiritual expressions and truths from God are only different in the languages and names. Saying this the name Christ is a major expression but other expressions of the same belief might call Him a different name.  Personally I find it important to call this major expression one name as a symbol of truth in its consistency.

OK Dude-

I apologize for being a smart ass - an oxymoron.

My point, and I think that Doc will agree on this, is that I can convince myself of something, merely because the evidence of the Here and Now is so emphatic, especially when I stub my toe. But I have no way to reach beyond my own skin. To "prove" an historical or mythic concept is simply not possible in a rigorous sense, nor is it possible for me to set up any kind of epistemic test of YOUR beliefs because I can't get to them. So we take it on faith that certain common experiences might have occured, some must have occured, and some never did. But that is not proof, and any such beliefs are always open to criticism.

If we really get involved in the epistemology, the best that we can say is "something seems to be happening", and everything after that is an interpretation, an abstraction, a matter of faith, or, in actual fact, a dream.

Proof, in the formal sense, requires demonstration of necessity and sufficiency. These are inaccessible in absolute terms, and I can only deal relatively. We can now go two ways - we have solipcism, a total agnosis of anything but the world of self. Or, we can (as Dude has stated) proclaim our oneness with everything and accept all potentialities. In the latter case, we must admit of the possibility of literally anything that can be logically defined. (After all, we have all the stars in all the galaxies to consider, and somewhere, somehow, everything is likely to occur. Maybe even twice.) So to argue against this or that perspective simply means that we are putting aside as invalid some of our own valid potentialities, which is a logical non sequitur. In other words, anything beyond sense data that convinces me personally is a matter of faith - including the existence of all the avatars of all religions of the cosmos - and to either project or restrict options is simply arbitrary.

Given that all of this is arbitrary, and that it cannot be tested beyond the decision that "something is going on" (or, if you prefer, "je suis une chose pensante"), which is an internal and self referential observation, I again wonder at the value of questioning other belief systems.

Conversely, were you to suggest to me a useful way to do something, I do not need to prove that it is really YOU, or that the idea came from Jesus etc, or that it was merely a brain-fart. If it's useful, it's useful. If not, then not. I'll try it out and see. But that is an activity inaccessible to you, and to question my internal states simply makes no sense.

Personally, I don't think anything exists. I think it's all a chimera, "a dream flitting through the Mind of Brahm". And that can't be proven either.

dave

As for being "eternally darned" (I have some socks that could use a little of that) that comes back to life as a BST.