You understand this and yet you continue to believe such simple minded drivel based on nothing but blind faith? How?!
The lunatics have taken over
- Thread starter Joe Bagadonuts
- Start date
You understand this and yet you continue to believe such simple minded drivel based on nothing but blind faith? How?!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...not that bad, is it?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Would you like to get "blown out of the water" too? You pick the subject!
Any subject you like, as long as you're not one of the judges. You know, since you would literally be the only person on Earth who thought he'd won that debate.
Red
Well-Known Member
I'm always surprised when you start off with a reasonable tone, lol. But I appreciate it.
For myself, this all develops from your proclamation that yoga was dangerous, originating in sorcery. Since I already understood that the inner traditions of the world's major faiths all have institutions that allow individuals compelled to seek a closer relationship with that which men call God, the means to facilitate that quest, and that meditative techniques are a part of each faiths inner tradition designed to aid in that facilitation, then you should understand that as well, and therefore realize your proclamation dismissing yoga is based on ignorance on your part.
Eckhart is simply a superb example to illustrate an individual who had the ability to put in very few words a description of the unitive state that is both the goal of the Christian contemplative and the goal of yoga when utilized to facilitate quieting the mind, etc, in pursuit of that state. I'm not saying Eckhart is a piece of cake to understand. Ultimately words will always fail to describe these states attained through spiritual practice, but for those who have ears to hear:
“The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.”
Consider this description of yoga:
"The most important teaching of yoga has to do with our nature as human beings. It states that our "true nature" goes far beyond the limits of the human mind and personality--that instead, our human potential is infinite and transcends our individual minds and our sense of self. The very word "yoga" makes reference to this. The root, "yuj" (meaning "unity" or "yoke"), indicates that the purpose of yoga is to unite ourselves with our highest nature. This re-integration is accomplished through the practices of the various yoga disciplines. Until this re-integration takes place, we identify ourselves with our limitations--the limitations of the body, mind, and senses. Thus we feel incomplete and limited, and are subject to feelings of sorrow, insecurity, fear, and separation, because we have separated ourselves from the experience of the whole."
From: https://www.swamij.com/yoga-meaning.htm
In the quote above, Eckhart is describing that experience of "the whole". The goal of yoga, the goal of Christian contemplative practice is absolutely identical. Yoga=yoke=unity. Exactly what Eckhart describes above, as best as words allow him to describe that which cannot truly be put in words.
The very word yoga itself denotes yoke, unity. Yoga is not a religion. But it can be utilized by those seeking a closer relationship with a power higher then themselves. Again, for some, that may seem more a mental illness then a valid way to orient one's entire life, but some people are so compelled to walk these paths. And you will find such people in all faiths. There's a reason Eckhart says the mystics of all times and place speak the same language. The truth they experience is the same. And really, for the very reason you state. There can only be one Truth.
All this was simply in response to your ignorant proclamation that yoga could be dismissed as dangerous and akin to sorcery. I was not suggesting here that Eckhart is a greater truth then your truth. I'm reasonably sure the man utilized the Bible in his sermons, after all. I'm sure he found solace there, as you do.
But, you do speak from the position of a Christian ideologue. Ultimately, you're going to claim that the only true religion is Christianity. So it can't be a surprise that you all but condemn yoga. I decided to attempt to point out that you do so out of ignorance. You decided it was dangerous, and then went in search of quotes by others that would support your claim. It's called cherry picking. You do it frequently, because your mind is made up and you are spared the task of actually thinking.
The fact is that people who walk these paths, whether in the East or the West, do walk a dangerous path. One only has to read St. John of the Cross's "The Dark Night of the Soul" to see it is certainly not for anyone, and it takes tremendous courage. To truly let go of one's self can be a terrifying thing. Losing the self can seem akin to death. I spent years of my life reading the works of the great mystics of all faiths. It was part of the journey I took as I emerged from atheism. And yet, somehow, I'm still not sure any god exists at all.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
For centuries, based on the book that you are so certain is the one truth, Christianity taught that the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat. How did that turn out? Was your truth proven false, or did religion simply discover a new way to interpret the gobbeldy goop wording of the Bible?
It appears to me that you and ISIS extremists have something in common. You both value your particular interpretations of ancient writings (which have gone through multiple translations and revisions at the hands of people who had plenty to gain by manipulating what those words say) more than any actual evidence.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Well, to win a debate, provable facts of truth and provable facts of science must be used. So to have a person "judge" who won or who lost would be next to impossible, since you would want "judges" who accept neither! Of course, winning a debate on any subject would be predicated on the judges being "fair" "impartial" and "unbiased". Picking out such ones on this board would be impossible! Your retort would be "since it's a debate....whatever judges are used will suffice". Not true! I do remember debating in High School the subject of the benefit and usefulness of the "United Nations" as a peace keeping organization. I was up against just one individual and the "class" had to judge or vote who won. I argued that the UN could NEVER be a true source of peace and security. I won that one hands down!
Actually, on this board I've broken a very important "rule" from my source of truth on numerous occasions! 1 Timothy 6:4 points out not to be . . ."obsessed with arguments and debates about words"...because "they give rise to envy, strife" etc. That being said, it was just too tempting not to chime in on some topics that have been raised by offering an alternative observation based on truth and facts.....not conjecture, assumption and theory!
By the way, what do you think the chances are that the Jazz make the playoffs this year?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Hey donuts...hold on to your horse, there! It seems to me that you are just "parroting" or repeating something someone told you about in connection with what they THOUGHT the Bible actually says, rather than checking it out for yourself! So let me correct you in a kind and mild way with some simple copy and paste material!
The Encyclopedia Americana said: “The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe. .*.*. The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance.” Some early navigators even feared that they might sail off the edge of the flat earth. But then the introduction of the compass and other advancements made possible longer ocean voyages. These “voyages of discovery,” another encyclopedia explains, “showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed.”
Yet, long before such voyages, about 2,700 years ago, the Bible said: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word here translated “circle” can also mean “sphere,” as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and, “the round earth.”—Moffatt.
Thus, the Bible was not influenced by the unscientific views prevalent at the time regarding the earth’s support and its shape. The reason is simple: The Author of the Bible is the Author of the universe. He created the earth, so he should know what it hangs on and what its shape is. Hence, when he inspired the Bible, he saw to it that no unscientific views were incorporated in it, however much they may have been believed by others at the time.
And then we have THIS as well: When the Bible was being written, there was speculation regarding how the earth was held in space. Some, for example, believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Yet rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at its time of writing, the Bible simply stated: “[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) Yes, over 3,000 years ago the Bible correctly noted that the earth has no visible support, a fact that is in harmony with the more recently understood laws of gravity and motion. “How Job knew the truth,” observed one religious scholar, “is a question not easily solved by those who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture.”
I am waiting to accept your apology, thank you very much!
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I can't help but notice that CJ has avoided responding to my question, so here it is again. And anyone else who is a self-proclaimed follower of Christ, but who holds racist/bigotted views, is free to answer:
How do you square your racism/bigotry with Christ's injunction to "do unto others what you would have them do to you" and to "love on another"?
Sorry, CJ, but you don't strike me as a true follower of Christ, but rather as one who claims to follow Christ, but picks and chooses his teachings consistent with your pre-existing biases, prejudices and limited intellectual understanding.
Show me I'm wrong.
How do you square your racism/bigotry with Christ's injunction to "do unto others what you would have them do to you" and to "love on another"?
Sorry, CJ, but you don't strike me as a true follower of Christ, but rather as one who claims to follow Christ, but picks and chooses his teachings consistent with your pre-existing biases, prejudices and limited intellectual understanding.
Show me I'm wrong.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You just proved my point. Everything you said above is the result of reinterpretation of the bible now that the scientific truth cannot be disputed. In Galileo's time he was branded a heretic for saying the very things that you now interpret the bible to prove. In other words, your modern interpretation is in direct contradiction to the interpretation that your church was once willing to put people to death for disagreeing with.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Siro wins the debate. Carolina KO's himself before the opening round bell has even rung.
Translation: It is true that everyone on here thinks I'm an idiot, so only me and my mom should be used to judge the debate. Now here's a Bible quote.