In the image of the Father...

[Brugmansia]

Perhaps 10 years ahead of now when I'm content enough with my written English.

 

[Dantediv86]

Didjeridon't you sound like one of the few who actually understood the message of Christ. Congratulation it is very hard. however returning to your initial post:
semitic monotheistic religions have this fixation about god having created man in his image, ok let's assume it's so. for what i read (the old testament and the new one and the Koran) the image of God is not necessarily god itself, like in a mirror one sees an image of one's self it's not a replica of yourself.
but i don't believe in the vision of modern religions. too much humanity for such a "superior" God, even hinduism (one of my faveorite) has too much of a human element.
if God was so good he wouldn't have created such a stupid animal as man for a pet or he'd be a crappy god, not to mention him being extremely mean.
what i see (simply put, because my vision is far FAR more complicated) is an underlying energy that has a certain vibration and that vibration, like a melody, is influenced by "good vibrations" and "bad ones" and every object is subjected by hes own nature to a certain degree of these vibrations. Mankind apparently seems to be the only animal who does not accept his own and surrounding nature, thus broke free of the shackles of "savagery" this allowed for a heightened sense of self awareness that he connected (in all religions) to the original sin. intelligence being our only weapon we got pretty self confident too and suddenly feeling lonely decided to create a God to keep us company. not only that the struggle to find that bond you previously talked about (which could be seen as the ancient bond with nature) made us envious of nature and the equilibrium it has, the envy turned us against nature and towards a vision of God that is of a being superior to everything even nature itself...yet when we pray we don't realize we are only trying to regain that bond with nature that was complete right before we were born and that closes the loop when we die. the Truth is that the bond was never broken in the first place, because we are convinced of being the perpetrators of the original sin we never realize that we are part of nature, the only sin we commit is that of considering ourselves superior.

P.S. Voltaire said: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him"
and Dante (not me) said through the mouth of Ulysses "Consider your origins: you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge." so to speak we were made to eat that fucking fruit!

 

[IJesusChrist]

What did you hope to accomplish with this thread?

But here, I'll partake anyways.

If there is a "god"

1. He is far, far beyond comprehension. The simple "he" I have put blatantly describes my ignorance to his real existance. Along with "his" - God is not to be encompassed by neurons.

2. We create him and he is therefore real.

3. We create him and he is therefore unreal.

I am very unbiased when speaking of god. The fact, however, that people try to imagine god simply brings [false] hope. No, god would most likely, to the slightest percentage look like a fleshy up-right ape.

If he feels emotion, it would be interesting to me, but I wouldn't understand it. If he has morals, it would be interesting to me, but I wouldn't understand it.

That is my point though: we can't understand "him". And that is to say, we REALLY. CANT. UNDERSTAND. God.

Do not invision a man, a woman, a being, and object, an idea, because if you are - you are being too specific.

 

[st.bot.32]

i've always liked that voltaire quote.

i was reading a really interesting book this winter, can't remember the name of it. it was discussing the development of the monotheistic god and the written language.. and how conceptually the monotheistic god was only possible once humans (like the ancient hebrews with their written language) started writing pronouns like "i" ..aka you can pick up the word of god and read "him" saying "i am that i am". god becomes self-aware in text.

 

[Dantediv86]

also this gets me thinking of "i think therefore i am" ....mmm very entheogenic...

 

[Didjeridon't]

Perhaps 10 years ahead of now when I'm content enough with my written English.

There is no need to be concerned with your writing. Thats the beauty of it, it's all a manner of expression, and it is always correct as long as it reflects and channels the true emotion you intended. Which I truly feel you did. Besides, if your native tongue is not English, and I attempted to converse so eloquently in that language, I would easily embarrass myself. Don't worry~

 

[Didjeridon't]

What did you hope to accomplish with this thread?

But here, I'll partake anyways.

If there is a "god"

1. He is far, far beyond comprehension. The simple "he" I have put blatantly describes my ignorance to his real existance. Along with "his" - God is not to be encompassed by neurons.

2. We create him and he is therefore real.

3. We create him and he is therefore unreal.

I am very unbiased when speaking of god. The fact, however, that people try to imagine god simply brings [false] hope. No, god would most likely, to the slightest percentage look like a fleshy up-right ape.

If he feels emotion, it would be interesting to me, but I wouldn't understand it. If he has morals, it would be interesting to me, but I wouldn't understand it.

That is my point though: we can't understand "him". And that is to say, we REALLY. CANT. UNDERSTAND. God.

Do not invision a man, a woman, a being, and object, an idea, because if you are - you are being too specific.

Honestly, my original effort with this thread was to simply share my view, and things I had experienced. I do agree though, which may have been rather unclear, that any divine entity (God) would not appear physically as humans. I never believed that man was created in the physical image of God's flesh. I interpreted it to be that we were created in the psychical image of God, as though He were a consolidation of ideas and emotions, a formless entity if you will, comprised solely of psychical properties.

 

[ochho]

To the OP: I thought it would be relevant to link to this thread :
http://www.psychonaut.com/index.php?opt ... t=&lang=nl

It is a collection of talks held by Alan Watts, and no matter what you believe in, it is worth reading/listening to, as he provides some very nice insight on how our mind works and thinks.

At the very least, read the part that "????????" quoted!

And share your thoughts on it please!

 

[Didjeridon't]

Personally, I feel a "guru," or any teacher, is never needed. Psychonautics and exploration of self is an inward journey; the only real guide is yourself. Having another man to teach me to explore my own mind would be like having another man show me around my childhood home. Its an inward journey, and it's ones own duty to explore. While a slight push in the right direction may assist in the beginning of this journey, it is ultimately up to the individual to find out for himself. After all, that's what makes psychonautics fun.

 

[magickmumu]

Watts is not a guru he is a writer.
He may be a teacher but I don't believe he is a guru.

 

[Jelleb]

I'm sorry, my English isn't that good, so if someone could translate this text for me:

thanks


Godsdienst Belemmert verstandelijke ontwikkeling bij kinderen

Duitse psychologen hebben aangetoond dat het bijbrengen van godsdienst op jonge leeftijd nefaste gevolgen heeft op de verstandelijke capaciteiten van kinderen. Dit zou te verklaren zijn door zogenaamde incognitieve restricties, of de onbewuste afbakening van het denkpatroon.

Als een kind op jonge leeftijd geconfronteerd wordt met godsdienst, dan leert het onbewust ook om bepaalde logische denkpatronen te vermijden. Deze afwijkende patronen kunnen lang tot zelfs levenslang meegaan. Zelfs als de persoon niet meer gelovig is, kan zijn religieuze verleden de manier van redeneren blijven bepalen. De mate waarin een godsdienstig verleden bepalend is voor het denkvermogen hangt van persoonlijke, culturele en opvoedkundige factoren af.

 

[Didjeridon't]

Watts is not a guru he is a writer.
He may be a teacher but I don't believe he is a guru.

No I'm agreeing with his statement. He states himself that he is no guru. However, I do believe a teacher, much in his manner, is highly beneficial to one beginning this inward psychological journey, seeing as it is such a long, arduous, life-devoted quest.

 

[Didjeridon't]

I'm sorry, my English isn't that good, so if someone could translate this text for me:

thanks


Godsdienst Belemmert verstandelijke ontwikkeling bij kinderen

Duitse psychologen hebben aangetoond dat het bijbrengen van godsdienst op jonge leeftijd nefaste gevolgen heeft op de verstandelijke capaciteiten van kinderen. Dit zou te verklaren zijn door zogenaamde incognitieve restricties, of de onbewuste afbakening van het denkpatroon.

Als een kind op jonge leeftijd geconfronteerd wordt met godsdienst, dan leert het onbewust ook om bepaalde logische denkpatronen te vermijden. Deze afwijkende patronen kunnen lang tot zelfs levenslang meegaan. Zelfs als de persoon niet meer gelovig is, kan zijn religieuze verleden de manier van redeneren blijven bepalen. De mate waarin een godsdienstig verleden bepalend is voor het denkvermogen hangt van persoonlijke, culturele en opvoedkundige factoren af.

(DISCLAIMER: Rough Translation, I do not speak Dutch!!)

Religion obstructs intellectual development at children German psychologists have shown that imparting religion on young age has (???) impact on the intellectual capacities of children. This would explain be by so-called incognitieve the restrictive, or unconscious demarcation of the (???
). If a child on young age is faced with religion, then it learns unconsciously also certain logical avoid (???). These derogatory patterns can go along long to even for life. Even if the person is no longer religious, can reason be religious past the manner of to continue stipulate. The degree in which a religious past is determinative for mental faculty hangs factors of personal, cultural and educationist finished.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Summarization:
You get taught religion, you gonna be dum fowevah!

 

[magickmumu]

Filling in the ???

1 Negative

2 Thinking pattern.

3 to avoid certain types of logical thinking.

 

[Didjeridon't]

Filling in the ???

1 Negative

2 Thinking pattern.

3 to avoid certain types of logical thinking.

Thank you for your addition!

 

[IJesusChrist]

WOW!!! GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS.
I was just exiting this post and realized. Oh yeah. Physics Class.

Here's the scoop, my physics class in highschool was not a physics class, the teacher was WAY out there, very psychonautical, but more about reality and consciousness than spirituality and connectedness.

He talked alot about our persceptions of reality, everything we thought was 'true' and really wasn't, or thought was 'fake' and really wasn't. Most of the stuff I had already read about so the class was kind of boring, but I realized (since it was an honors class) alot of preppy students were in it, that were also very christian, they wore crosses on necklaces and talked openly about church in class.

One day the teacher talked about God, and I was iffy cause I didn't think he should be doing that. Anyway. He decided to give us a paper on purpose, what we believe purpose is, god is, and reality. We had to tie in string theory, physics amongst other things. My speech at the time was extremely negative and I felt bad for anyone who had to listen to me.

But after this post i realized every christian in the class basically had this, atleast 3 of the 4 or 5 in the class had this almost exact sentance: "For me religion is faith, and even though you cannot prove your faith correct, you learn not to question it."

Me being an extreme atheist at the time kind of giggled in my head when they said that. I thought it was the stupidest thing. (kind of still do) but it brings up the point

People raised to believe in faith also learn not to question it.

 

[Didjeridon't]

WOW!!! GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS.
I was just exiting this post and realized. Oh yeah. Physics Class.

Here's the scoop, my physics class in highschool was not a physics class, the teacher was WAY out there, very psychonautical, but more about reality and consciousness than spirituality and connectedness.

He talked alot about our persceptions of reality, everything we thought was 'true' and really wasn't, or thought was 'fake' and really wasn't. Most of the stuff I had already read about so the class was kind of boring, but I realized (since it was an honors class) alot of preppy students were in it, that were also very christian, they wore crosses on necklaces and talked openly about church in class.

One day the teacher talked about God, and I was iffy cause I didn't think he should be doing that. Anyway. He decided to give us a paper on purpose, what we believe purpose is, god is, and reality. We had to tie in string theory, physics amongst other things. My speech at the time was extremely negative and I felt bad for anyone who had to listen to me.

But after this post i realized every christian in the class basically had this, atleast 3 of the 4 or 5 in the class had this almost exact sentance: "For me religion is faith, and even though you cannot prove your faith correct, you learn not to question it."

Me being an extreme atheist at the time kind of giggled in my head when they said that. I thought it was the stupidest thing. (kind of still do) but it brings up the point

People raised to believe in faith also learn not to question it.

Personally, I was raised to believe the Christian Faith. However, as a young man, I came to realize it was an authority, and ALL authority should be questioned, lest it become corrupt and create a control over it's subordinates that is unstoppable. I question it daily. The Church was created by man, not God. Man is sinful. Therefore, according to the religion itself, the church is sinful.