...but in practice...

[BillD]

hello, all!

i've been reading david's work and i must say that it's brought me many personal affirmations and more than a few epiphanies. this is great stuff, and i sincerely hope he and others like him continue.

i do, however, have one small point i'd like to make...i'm sure that many will jump to a defensive standpoint, so i ask that you please read carefully and understand that my aim is to help this effort, not hinder it.

as a "recovering christian", i must state that david's apparent understanding of the christian "plotline" is inaccurate and seriously flawed...but that is not my real bone of contention, merely a statement of fact.

the real problem, as i see it, is the writing style and wording chosen in this article:
http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=401&itemid=70

if we are all one, we are all to love one another accordingly, as well as see ourselves in each other and all other things..."there's only one of us here"...then why the attack? surely even those who have been "inculcated within the fundamentalist christian system" deserve more respect than what is being put forth in that article? should we not be treating our blinded siblings with great care and respect? don't we demand the same for ourselves?

there seems to be a very prevalent trend in today's western society...one where it's not ok to attack or belittle or insult any faith or religion...unless it's christian. that one seems to be fair game for anybody.

do we truly have a universal standard, or are we just as guilty as those we accuse?

where is the love and compassion in that article? where is the light? all i see is condemnation and sarcasm, and if this kind of attitude is not kept in check, then i fear that this may all lead down a very dangerous road for any who are unwary.

[moderator would like to ask that we all endeavor to avoid presenting personal subjective opinion as incontovertible fact]

[AL_EMT]

consider the phrase "there's only one of use here"; you are all and all is you. now imagine that the christian religion with all its members and deeds as a part of you too. lets say it is a part of your personality, not literally but metaphorically. everybody has flaws in their personalities, and action must be taken to correct those flaws. one cannot simply ignore what is detrimental to him/her; one must take a righteous approach to one's self sometimes. by critizising and demanding positive change is a flawed system we better the world. weeding out the corrupt to make room for the pure.

i respect christianity. in the law of one series, ra stated that the bible is the best book we got going for us. but can you honestly defend christianity from verbal assault when it has brought down a hell of alot more fire and brimstone to every other religion, then any other religion?

[Enkidu]

i have not read the article, nor will i. from what you have said it is a bit harsh, and if that is the case remember we all are human. david is not an "ascended master" nor does he claim to be.

in his book reincarnation of cayce it talks a lot about his human struggles, struggles most of us have. he isn't the dhali llama, and his words should not be viewed as such.

does that mean its okay to do?no.

does that mean it takes away from the validity of all his messages?no.

we all have slips of the tongue/mind every now and then. if that particular peice made you shake your head in disapproval, then disapprove with that peice. if something doesn't resonate with you then that is that, end of story.

personally i dont even read the blogs, or the "project camelot" stuff, as they seem to be more opinion/speculation/conspiracy than focus on fact. project camelot especially, everytime i read an article on there all i feel is negative manipulation, fear mongering, etc. i loved his books, i loved the science behind them. that is why i am here.

continue spiraling ever upwards,
austin

[billybobbutterball]

hello, all!

i've been reading david's work and i must say that it's brought me many personal affirmations and more than a few epiphanies. this is great stuff, and i sincerely hope he and others like him continue.

i do, however, have one small point i'd like to make...i'm sure that many will jump to a defensive standpoint, so i ask that you please read carefully and understand that my aim is to help this effort, not hinder it.

as a "recovering christian", i must state that david's apparent understanding of the christian "plotline" is inaccurate and seriously flawed...but that is not my real bone of contention, merely a statement of fact.

the real problem, as i see it, is the writing style and wording chosen in this article:
http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=401&itemid=70

if we are all one, we are all to love one another accordingly, as well as see ourselves in each other and all other things..."there's only one of us here"...then why the attack? surely even those who have been "inculcated within the fundamentalist christian system" deserve more respect than what is being put forth in that article? should we not be treating our blinded siblings with great care and respect? don't we demand the same for ourselves?

there seems to be a very prevalent trend in today's western society...one where it's not ok to attack or belittle or insult any faith or religion...unless it's christian. that one seems to be fair game for anybody.

do we truly have a universal standard, or are we just as guilty as those we accuse?

where is the love and compassion in that article? where is the light? all i see is condemnation and sarcasm, and if this kind of attitude is not kept in check, then i fear that this may all lead down a very dangerous road for any who are unwary.

[moderator would like to ask that we all endeavor to avoid presenting personal subjective opinion as incontrovertible fact]

well certainly billd's reprimand and positive suggestions above deserve careful consideration by all ...from leaders to followers. and of course we don't want our re-processed edgar cayce spokesperson to be hauled off in violation of that damanable and soon ubiquitous hate/thought crime law.

as an ex-christian myself (now by several orders removed, thanks to some years of books and study and exposure to the loo ) i can still recall my mind-set as an avid apologist and defender of the true faith. i'm not kidding...i was on evening news brandishing a poster demeaning the lack of spirituality attending a world conference of atheists in denver; another time i had a slightly differently worded poster that i waved in prophetic-like warning midst a crowded convention of obviously hang-nail demon-possessed new ager's.:eek:

back to the point

i read and re-read david's comments that dramatically pointed out the lacking of resonance between several fundamental orthodox christian doctrines and ordinary, uncorrupted common sense. in contrast to bill d i thought that on the whole david had a pretty good handle on that kettle of fish (lame pun intended...ithcus, you know :o) david did make a point that the real and essential doctrine associated with the figure that most of us call "jesus" too oft gets lost in the hectic shuffle of pushing and selling corrupted theology.

time after time we find staggering into to the sacred halls of divine cosmos "semi-recovered" alienated christian's suffering through various stages of spiritually desperate, apostic disbelief.

time after time we see them struggling with still implanted doctrinal themes causing cognitive dissonance hangovers.the tipoff is that they desperatly try to blend together unblendable theological oil and water...and only manage to synthensize some very unpalatable and undefendable splwodidg gunk stuff.

i guess we could try to put up a requirement such as, "empty your minds all ye who enter here" or, ""suspend disbelief"...or perhaps in extreme cases "go back! start over! reincarnate;come again later.":)

was david being sarcastic? well, yeah. mortally nasty? unredeemingly sacrastic? nah! no way. i thought he got one's attention and it made for a humorous learning experience. but then i have a thick skin and i naturally tend to be humourous -- if not downright silly (exibit "a" billybobbutterball ...who the hell would name their kid that!)

exhibit "b" in defense of david's conversational style:

satire. a manner of writing that mixes a critical attitude with wit and humor in an effort to improve mankind and human institutions. ridicule, irony, exaggeration, and several other techniques are almost always present. the satirist may insert serious statements of value or desired behavior, but most often he relies on an implicit moral code, understood by his audience and paid lip service by them. the satirist's goal is to point out the hypocrisy of his target in the hope that either the target or the audience will return to a real following of the code. thus, satire is inescapably moral even when no explicit values are promoted in the work, for the satirist works within the framework of a widely spread value system. many of the techniques of satire are devices of comparison, to show the similarity or contrast between two things. a list of incongruous items, an oxymoron, metaphors, and so forth are examples.

i think the above fits this case pretty well. however the spirit of the warning is well taken.

thanking all for your voluntered jurist service, b.b.butterball, esq.:rolleyes:

[Tenet Nosce]

hi billd,

i think your views are certainly welcome here.

it is well to make a distinction between christianity as practiced by your average well-meaning person and as practiced as a form of fundamentalism and thinly disguised bigotry. i believe it is the latter flavor of christianity to which those comments were directed.

best,

tenet

[KassandraLoves]

i think religion now comes with a lot of baggaed due to those who have "weighed down" its beauty and purity with insane dogma and repressing rules.

i was baptized as a mormon when i was young and am "recovering" from that also. and i even get frustrated with some of their "values."

just the simple fact that it was frustrating to those involved makes it easier to see how frustrating it may be to those from an outside standpoint.

i dont believe david is attacking anyone or anything. maybe his frustration with the things that religious dogma and fanatacism does to people is just showing on paper...