outer-theism for servants, inner-theism for leaders

reply to post by Student X


And what would I do with that? Being born in a rich family? Become the president of the NWO? The best parts of life would not probably be possible to "stage". I still would not control people in the way I would like to and I really would not like to. Having staging love would take all the fascinating factor out of it

reply to post by ghaleon12


There are 2 types of Theism and Atheism, one more honest, one more dishonest

Agnostic Atheism - The stance that there (currently) is no empirical or logical evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, and thus does not believe in any man-made ideas of God. (I.E THEY DON'T KNOW)

Gnostic Atheism - The belief that there is definetly no God. (i.e. they KNOW there is no God)

Agnostic Theism - The faith or belief in a deity, but the inability to consider this truth as there is currently no conclusive evidence. It's simply a belief, the subject does not KNOW there is a God.

Gnostic Theism - The subject claims to KNOW there is a God.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism - About what you KNOW.

Theism/Atheism - About what you BELIEVE.

reply to post by krzyspmac


Well thats the kind of thing you decide when you get to Buddha-hood. Maybe compassion would motivate you to come back to the Wheel, and if so naturally you would have some of the benefits of your Buddha-hood in life to enable you to ease suffering. There are many Buddhas that are living now out of a sense of compassion for this age of fear. They are here to joyfully participate in it. And there is nothing inherently wrong with being born into a rich family.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Gnostic Atheism - The belief that there is definetly no God. (i.e. they KNOW there is no God)

I think this is a misuse of the word gnostic. Instead, maybe you could use pathological? A pathological atheist is an atheist who has deluded himself into thinking he knows there is no God. Whereas, a gnostic is a person who has had a particular kind of mystical experience.

So in order for an atheist to be a "gnostic atheist" he would have to have had a certain kind of mystical transpersonal experience. As an expert in comparative mysticism I would need to meet and question several such atheists before I could accept a phrase like gnostic atheist.

Have you ever had a mystical experience?

reply to post by Student X


I have to admit that after my little transformation I tend to see more calm, peaceful and compassionate people than before. Funny I didn't see then before.

This includes my mother, when I was younger, kind of a reformists, who when asked what god is, said "it's in you". It seems even in the outer-theistic religions you find inter-theistic opinions.

reply to post by Student X

So in order for an atheist to be a "gnostic atheist" he would have to have had a certain kind of mystical transpersonal experience.

I don't think anyone who is honest can be a Gnostic Atheist, there currently is no evidence to say there is or isn't a God. On this basis, how to Theists reason their beliefs? They assume reality was created? That's a current assumption.

What seems evident looking at reality is; IF there is a God, he does not "care", he does not "intervene" - 99.8% of species on earth have died. The Andromeda gallaxy is on a collision cause with our own. Supernovas occur throughout the universe, destroying planet systems and life on them (if any)

Children are born deformed, sometimes birth killing mothers in the process.

Even if this God did exist, i would not worship him, I wouldn't respect his right to "own" me, as any Father does not deserve the right to "own" his children. I would still believe God to be a less than pleasant character.

And judging by his "creation" - He's certainly an incompetent designer. This is evident in evolution too.

Please see the design of the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe



REALITY COULD BE INFINITY, IT COULD BE A GOD, IM BEING HONEST IN SAYING I DON'T KNOW.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I don't think anyone who is honest can be a Gnostic Atheist, there currently is no evidence to say there is or isn't a God. On this basis, how to Theists reason their beliefs? They assume reality was created? That's a current assumption.

A gnostic doesn't need objective evidence and doesn't need to reason their beliefs. A gnostic has experienced God directly, through mysticism. Thats why a gnostic atheist is as rare as hair on a billiard ball.

Please see the design of the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe

Thanks, but you are attacking the exoteric god. I am an esoteric mystic, so you are attacking a strawman if you think such things counter my position.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


clearly you can accept a belief system without logic or reason. Otherwise how did you come to believe in logic and reason.

reply to post by renegadeloser


Logic and reason doesn't require a belief. Mathematics doesn't require a belief. They are tools of rationalisation.

Study any modern or ancient philosopher.

Illogical is just a word for something that is unessarily assumed, or performed in an inefficient manner. Like taking the long route instead of a shortcut. It would be illogical to travel further than needed.

reply to post by Student X


Esoteric? Well pray tell and explain how you came to reason your belief in a supernatural deity.

How are your more enlightened than me? What evidence do you have that i cannot see that lead you to that belief structure?

You say i'm arguing against a stance that you do not hold. Then what is your stance on God? Why do you believe that there is a God? Perhaps reality is infinity, is that not a possibility you are willing to consider before asserting one particular theory of reality?

Really seems that your stance on God is simply the unknown, the God of the Gaps. God is a volcano because we don't know any different, heaven might be above the sky because we don't know any different. Because we don't know the source of creation, it must be God?

Who is irrational? Someone who claims to know that "GOD" is the cause before having any knowledge? Or someone who is skeptic until evidence is provided?

I'll let you decide, be honest with yourself though.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

Esoteric? Well pray tell and explain how you came to reason your belief in a supernatural deity.

How? By going beyond reason.

How are your more enlightened than me?

How? Because I can go beyond reason. You can't. Yet.

What evidence do you have that i cannot see that lead you to that belief structure?

The evidence is that you still think its about belief structures, reason, evidence. Such things are for the blind, so you "cannot see".

You say i'm arguing against a stance that you do not hold. Then what is your stance on God?

My stance on God is that most atheists are basing their atheism on a rejection of the exoteric God. I have never met an atheist who understands the esoteric God well enough to reject it. Its not that they can't understand it, its that they don't know where and how to look. They think to look in evidence and reason and structure.

Why do you believe that there is a God?

Because I have met Her many times.

Perhaps reality is infinity, is that not a possibility you are willing to consider before asserting one particular theory of reality?

Sure, I consider it all the time. So what? Perhaps you are attacking another strawman.

You can't attack me with the conventional bag-of-tricks that atheists use against conventional religious folk. But it does amuse me to watch atheists try. For a while. Then after a time they usually get frustrated and annoying.

Originally posted by krzyspmac
reply to post by lowki

 

You have it wrong when it comes to Buddism. Budda is not one man. Anyone can be budda.

When I was a buddhist monk in Thailand, which is the most Buddhist nation on earth,

When I said I had achieved enlightenment,
they said "you can't say that, only other people can"

I was told by my Dhamma teacher a common saying.
"If you see a Buddha walking on the road, kill them, and throw them in a ditch,
lest they distract you from your path"

Budda is a state of being, of knowing all and self. Siddhartha Gautama is considered to be the first Budda.

Actually he witnessed other Buddha's a long time ago in a galaxy or star system far away.
He was merely recreating what he had witnessed there.

The reason no Buddhist can surpass Gautama is because he founded Buddhism,
and no Buddhist can do so, thereby will always be inferior.


Also Buddism should not be considered a theistic religion since even Siddhartha Gautama said that there is no creator of the universe. That is why Buddism is considered to be a atheistic religion.

I know this because I am a buddist.

A New Age, North American Buddhist.
Have you even lived at a monastery?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by lowki

 

I need a reason to assert a belief structure. I don't know the cause of the universe so i'm not going to assume. I'm not empty and i don't feel down just because i don't have evidence to assert a belief.

Atheism is the polar opposite to Theism.

Theism - "This is the story of how you and the earth came to be, i have no evidence, please have faith."

Atheism - "I won't believe in that Story until you provide me with logical or empirical evidence."

So why have you not replied to my empirical or logical evidence?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

REALITY COULD BE INFINITY, IT COULD BE A GOD, IM BEING HONEST IN SAYING I DON'T KNOW.

Many mystics can't say that. They don't follow a particular religion due to dogmas which contradict their own expierences. Since they have experienced oneness/God/god/enlightement/awakening they cannot say they don't know. But what they know is complicated. They cannot dismiss it as pure delusion. Some attribute their expiernce to god some don't. They are gnostics, they know, and they know they cannot transfer that knowledge. One of the most complicated bunch of poeple out there.

The question wheather they are delusional or not is another issue.

Since my, let's say "experiences", I came to the same conclusion as Budda. Nagajurna said quite well:

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods

This does not negate the inner-god, the divine, the "stuff" of the universe which you are and you it itself is you.

reply to post by Student X

How? By going beyond reason.

Beyond reason? You mean faith? You don't have evidence to reason so you NEED faith.

Again, i don't think faith is an admirable trait. We should be honest with what we currently know.

I don't preach fairies and goblins, because there is no evidence for them.

How? Because I can go beyond reason. You can't. Yet.

I don't admire faith, i don't respect it, The majority of scientists don't form theories on faith, the same rationale applies to their stance on religion "Know one knows, YET"

The evidence is that you still think its about belief structures, reason, evidence. Such things are for the blind, so you "cannot see".

Evidence is what is allowing you to type now, evidence is what allows for clean water, evidence is what allows for new medicines to improve health.

Any theory of God is speculation, no one knows."Going beyond reason" is philosophical nonsense, it's intellectually bankrupt.

Philosophy doesn't deal in revealed wisdom, but religion does. No single man can have knowledge that isn't available to him.

My stance on God is that most atheists are basing their atheism on a rejection of the exoteric God.

That's your stance on Atheism, not God. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural deity. We reject the idea because there is no evidence, mathematical, empirical or logical.

So far no theologian, mathematician, scientist, philosopher, archaeologist or historian has ever been able to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural deity.

Because I have met Her many times.

Her? The guys in the bible definetly got it wrong then. I'm sure you'll understand that i'm sceptical of your claim.

That's what it means to be rational. To value the pursuit of truth, to wait for evidence before making a judgement. Scientists don't claim truth before they have evidence, they have a theory, and that theory has to stand the test before being considered truth.

I hope you understand that i can no longer debate with you. You cannot convince me with your argument nor can i with mine.

Nice debating with you, goodbye.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

How? By going beyond reason.

Beyond reason? You mean faith?

No, I don't mean faith. I mean mysticism. The atheist-on-the-street with a conventional bag-of-tricks has a LONG way to go before he can understand that. To that end, I would recommend a few books for you to read, if I thought for a second that you would actually read them.

Her? The guys in the bible definetly got it wrong then. I'm sure you'll understand that i'm sceptical of your claim.

You continue to provide me with evidence that you are hooked on a superficial exoteric understanding. It all boils down to the Bible with you guys, doesn't it?

I hope you understand that i can no longer debate with you. You cannot convince me with your argument nor can i with mine.

I most certainly do understand. Goodbye and good luck.

Originally posted by lowki
The reason no Buddhist can surpass Gautama is because he founded Buddhism,
and no Buddhist can do so, thereby will always be inferior.

Never heard that from my teachers but I guess it depends on the person.

As I know it, he didn't found buddism. His followers did. As with Jesus and almost any other big figure. He was talking to people trying to alievate fear and pain. And many times he said against joining him because poeple in his time (and in ours apparently) jump to conclusions too early.

And, in buddism, you don't have to surpass anything. If you are trying to do so - you are not a Buddist Trying to surpass anything is attachment. This leads to suffering and further gets you away from elightenment.

What you said is kind of a buddist philosopy wrapped in western dualism as in: x is either true or false, since you cannot surpass budda, he is better and therefore buddism must be outer-theistic because you are trying to be like him, and cannot.

Buddist philosophy is non-dualistic. You cannot wrap it around aristotelian logic.

reply to post by Student X

The atheist-on-the-street with a conventional bag-of-tricks has a LONG way to go before he can understand that.

Nice chatting to you, goodbye.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

How? By going beyond reason.

Beyond reason? You mean faith? You don't have evidence to reason so you NEED faith.

Again, i don't think faith is an admirable trait. We should be honest with what we currently know.

I don't preach fairies and goblins, because there is no evidence for them.

Not faith, mysticism, it's not faith. It is a direct expiernce and a number of experiments that you conclude later to lest your expiernces. It does not require any faith or belief.

The world does not work this or that way. It's not science agains belief. It's like the scientists of old that completely ignored non-local interactions between particles until proven. And even after that the old league didn't change their opions (remember EPR paradox problem?). They were stuck in the same thinking pattern. Like todays atheists who completely ignore experiments into PSI.

Mysticism is quite well put by Russell Targ (laser scientist, one of the guys that were probing remote-viewing for the army) in his book "The End of Suffering" if anyone want to check on it.

reply to post by krzyspmac


Mysticism can exist without the need to invoke the supernatural.

Toaism for example, is a great communal understanding of ways of life and ethical/moral philosophy.

Like i've said, so is Bhuddism.

Just take the metaphysical claims away "GOD" "Heaven" "Hell" "Sins" "Prayer" - Taken the deceptive elements out and you have a great source of human understanding and cooperation.

Nice talking to you anyway, laters.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by lowki

 

Good post. I believe that deity lives within, and not without. Just a few days ago I am taking to a Christian woman. She asked the standard, "have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?" I asked her where is God, and she points up to the sky, "he is in Heaven," she says. Well, my God, my Goddess, lives right in here, inside this body I see in the mirror. My God/Goddess is not a man, and does not live in some "out there" place.

That's great :-).

Everything is surrounded by nothing, Nuit, zero-mother, the dark emptiness of outer-space.
The core of everything is the ever-father, Hadit, the shining stars.
And we are sandwidched in between,
personality, memory, skills.

inner-guides can also be spiritual entities which you ally with.
they are usually far more dedicated that bodied people,
since they can best use their abilities,
to assist someone with a body.

They may have higher-demensional bodies,
which allows them to have a greater perspective of any situation,
as they can look at alternate possibilities like you would look across a room.

Originally posted by ghaleon12
That's true that outer-theism applies to most religions and people, atheists included. Many atheists seem to just "move" from an outer-theism when they were religious to an outer-theism of atheism...

agreed.

However I do believe it was created,
to move the public towards accepting the luciferian elite.

Since atheism typically emphasizes the humans single incarnation,
it leads people to believe there are no consequences for their actions,
making it much easier to revert to a form of hedonism or pleasing of the senses.

Since satanism/luciferianism is hedonistic,
and also disregards potential consequences of harm,
or telling people they will be exonerated or even rewarded.

Atheists have few qualms about making oaths to satan,
since to them it's imaginary, fake or non-existant triviality.
and are willing watch luciferian rituals at music award ceremonies.
as exemplifeid by this series "Satanic Cult behind the Music Industry"
www.youtube.com...

.nothing much really changed, yet they are so determined that change has occurred. And then often will leverage their own "enlightenment" to attack others who were once in the same position as the atheist. All on the same level though.

I'm pretty sure that is part of the programming of any atheist.
they watch other atheists attack "religion" usually meaning Christianity,
as if all religions were the same,
and then they do likewise,
observational learning.

verbatimly reiterating the arguments of their teachers.
just as fundamentalists of any faith.

once people have inner-dialogues or interactions,
then can form their own beliefs and ideas,
based on their own observation,
and internal contemplation.