The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

What do you base your belief of god on, if you have a belief of a god?

If you do not believe, what do you base it on?

I neither believe, nor not-believe. That way, I am free from having to take up a position either for or against. Reality is not something that requires you to choose sides, simply because there are no such sides. 'Sides' is merely a concept of the thinking mind, and has no basis in reality.

If you do not even believe that you exist, than how can you talk about existence?

I don't. I talk about being. Abraham existed in time and space, and was subject to birth and death. Jesus (Yeshu) is in the living here and now, outside of history, time, and space. "I AM". When you awaken from the dualistic illusion of existence/non-existence, you will simply be.

My belief system is that god is our creator of all, and that we apart of that creation.

OK. So what exactly do you base your 'belief system' upon?

 

[Thief]

I neither believe, nor not-believe. That way, I am free from having to take up a position either for or against. Reality is not something that requires you to choose sides, simply because there are no such sides. 'Sides' is merely a concept of the thinking mind, and has no basis in reality.
I don't. I talk about being. Abraham existed in time and space, and was subject to birth and death. Jesus (Yeshu) is in the living here and now, outside of history, time, and space. "I AM". When you awaken from the dualistic illusion of existence/non-existence, you will simply be.


OK. So what exactly do you base your 'belief system' upon?

No lines in the sand?
And have you not quoted a prophet?

All prophets draw lines.

"I AM" is a line drawn into existence.
You allow this for Him...and not yourself?
No one else?

 

[godnotgod]

No lines in the sand?
And have you not quoted a prophet?

All prophets draw lines.

"I AM" is a line drawn into existence.
You allow this for Him...and not yourself?
No one else?

You are quite mistaken, Thief.

Prophets do not draw lines. The unenlightened do. Prophets only take note of that fact, pointing it out. For a prophet, the world is singular and seamless; it includes everything. There are no lines in the sand; no borders; no limits. That is the nature of the essence of the prophet: he emerges from the Infinite, where there are no limits; no boundaries; no lines drawn in the sand. That is why he can say 'I AM', and not 'I WAS', or "I WILL BE'. To be here, fully aware in the Present Moment is everything. There is nothing else. Nothing.

 

[Thief]

You are quite mistaken, Thief.

Prophets do not draw lines. The unenlightened do. Prophets only take note of that fact, pointing it out. For a prophet, the world is singular and seamless; it includes everything. There are no lines in the sand; no borders; no limits. That is the nature of the essence of the prophet: he emerges from the Infinite, where there are no limits; no boundaries; no lines drawn in the sand. That is why he can say 'I AM', and not 'I WAS', or "I WILL BE'. To be here, fully aware in the Present Moment is everything. There is nothing else. Nothing.

Are you sure you believe that?
The teachings of Jesus have lines drawn throughout.

The past and the future are not one.
They happen to be two sides of the line known to be...'now'.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you sure you believe that?
The teachings of Jesus have lines drawn throughout.

Aren't they in response to lines already drawn by men?

The past and the future are not one.
They happen to be two sides of the line known to be...'now'.

There is no past or future; there is only now. The lines you refer to are only in your head as concepts. They don't exist in reality.

 

[Prophet]

You are quite mistaken, Thief.

Prophets do not draw lines. The unenlightened do. Prophets only take note of that fact, pointing it out. For a prophet, the world is singular and seamless; it includes everything. There are no lines in the sand; no borders; no limits. That is the nature of the essence of the prophet: he emerges from the Infinite, where there are no limits; no boundaries; no lines drawn in the sand. That is why he can say 'I AM', and not 'I WAS', or "I WILL BE'. To be here, fully aware in the Present Moment is everything. There is nothing else. Nothing.

You just drew a line between the enlightened and the unenlightened--a line which you have claimed on multiple occasions does not exist. Your hypocrisy is powerful.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You just drew a line between the enlightened and the unenlightened--a line which you have claimed on multiple occasions does not exist. Your hypocrisy is powerful.

He said... "Prophets do not draw lines. The unenlightened do.", and so far as my understanding goes, he doesn't claim to be a Prophet, unlike some unenlightened like to claim...

 

[godnotgod]

You just drew a line between the enlightened and the unenlightened--a line which you have claimed on multiple occasions does not exist. Your hypocrisy is powerful.

And your misunderstanding is beyond the pale.

You have not been paying attention!

To say that someone is 'unenlightened' simply means that they have not yet realized it.

If you had realized your own enlightenment, as you so claim and proclaim, you would have known that.

Instead, it appears that there is just another ex-Christian fundie moralist parading as an 'Enlightened Being', wagging his finger at every imagined infraction of the rules, while disregarding the actual content of the message he is denegrating.

Christian fundie moral toxic residue is indeed a stick-to-the-ribs disease.:biglaugh:

 

[Prophet]

It is then a line you draw between those who have realized Enlightenment and those who have yet to. You are playing word games. You are blowing religious hot air that means nothing. You are a blind guide.

You move the line, disguise the line, and claim to everyone, "What line?" This strikes me and I am sure many others as a dishonest tactic.

 

[Prophet]

He said... "Prophets do not draw lines. The unenlightened do.", and so far as my understanding goes, he doesn't claim to be a Prophet, unlike some unenlightened like to claim...

He dispenses knowledge about Enlightenment. Is there a difference between being a Prophet and being able to teach about Enlightenment from experiential knowledge? I see none.

If you teach Enlightenment, either you are doing it from experiential knowledge and you are a Prophet, or you are doing it from feigned knowledge and you are a hypocrite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He dispenses knowledge about Enlightenment. Is there a difference between being a Prophet and being able to teach about Enlightenment from experiential knowledge? I see none.

If you teach Enlightenment, either you are doing it from experiential knowledge and you are a Prophet, or you are doing it from feigned knowledge and you are a hypocrite.

Hmmm,..will let that go through to the Divine-keeper.

 

[godnotgod]

It is then a line you draw between those who have realized Enlightenment and those who have yet to. You are playing word games. You are blowing religious hot air that means nothing. You are a blind guide.

You move the line, disguise the line, and claim to everyone, "What line?" This strikes me and I am sure many others as a dishonest tactic.

You are missing the point: whether some have realized their enlightenment or not does not dismiss the fact that everyone is already enlightened, and it is here that there are no lines drawn, none of which has anything to do at all with religion or any associated hot air, for the simple reason that enlightenment has no doctrine to push.

Thief was originally referring to 'lines drawn in the sand', which separates people in hostile terms. The distinction between realized people and unrealized ones has no hostility, or 'sides' associated with it. In fact, realized individuals have compassion on those who are unrealized and still in the world of suffering, while it is common that the unrealized look to the enlightened for guidance.

But speaking of hostility, you seem to exude quite a bit of it, ever since the first day you responded to my posts. Here again is one further clue as to your unrealized state, and how you have carried over your hostiity from your Christian upbringing. Enlightened Beings are generally not hostile as you exhibit yourself to be. I suspect you are still clinging to your Christian morality and black and white ideas of right and wrong, where lines drawn in the sand are of paramount importance. A truly enlightened being would never take up either side, but chooses instead to stand squarely on the line itself, leaning neither to the right, nor to the left, because he knows that they are simply mirror images of each other.

When I say the line is non-existent, what I mean is that it is drawn by those under the sway of delusive thought, of those who are attached to ideas of right and wrong, yours and mine, this and that, self and other, good and evil. The deluded are not the prophets. The prophets have told us to be kind to those who do evil against us, and to have compassion on those who suffer, so if anything, they avoid drawing lines. You must understand that the so-called teachings of Jesus as handed down to us have been corrupted, and so you will find in them what appears to be the teaching to take up sides, even arms, against those who do not measure up to certain moral standards. These are not authentic spiritual teachings.

So men can draw all the lines they wish, but their very nature is still illusory. Both the realized and the unrealized must still live in the world such men have created. We are as a world, consequently, experiencing a 'troubled voyage in calm weather.'

 

[godnotgod]

If you teach Enlightenment, either you are doing it from experiential knowledge and you are a Prophet, or you are doing it from feigned knowledge and you are a hypocrite.

No. An enlightened person is not necessarily a prophet. A prophet is one who comes with a message from God, even foretelling the future, ie; 'to prophecy'.

An enlightened being may not hold any belief in a God, or even come with any message or even to teach others. He may choose to simply and quietly shed his light on others, never calling attention to his enlightenment. After all, the truly enlightened see their own enlightenment as something quite ordinary; as our natural way of being. Why make a fuss? They see no reason to hang placards over their door announcing the fact that they are 'Enlightened Beings'. Such a practice obviously smacks of feigned knowledge and hypocricy. Besides, no one can teach enlightenment from feigned knowledge. In fact, no one can teach enlightenment at all. Enlightenment is not knowledge or doctrine that can be so taught. It is something you already have. But then again, you would have known that, being the 'Enlightened Being' that you are.

Even hypocrisy has a hard time being attached to enlightenment, as hypocrisy comes about when someone is pretending to be what they are not, and that usually involves feigning moral goodness. Enlightenment, being a state beyond duality, is beyond morality, which is about good and evil.

So, you see, Senor Prophet, not being a teacher of Enlightenment, nor making any such claims to such a state, I cannot possibly be a hypocrite.

All I can do is eat when hungry, and sleep when tired, with an occasional finger pointing to the moon.

You?

Now, if you wish to push the envelope, which you seem to constantly be doing at every ringing of the proverbial Pavlovian bell, I would suggest you bring forth incriminating hard evidence and examples to show exactly how I 'teach enlightenment from feigned knowledge'.

Otherwise, you might choose instead to take a glance at the lovely moon.

 

[Prophet]

But speaking of hostility, you seem to exude quite a bit of it, ever since the first day you responded to my posts. Here again is one further clue as to your unrealized state, and how you have carried over your hostiity from your Christian upbringing. Enlightened Beings are generally not hostile as you exhibit yourself to be. I suspect you are still clinging to your Christian morality and black and white ideas of right and wrong, where lines drawn in the sand are of paramount importance. A truly enlightened being would never take up either side, but chooses instead to stand squarely on the line itself, leaning neither to the right, nor to the left, because he knows that they are simply mirror images of each other.

Christian fundie moral toxic residue is indeed a stick-to-the-ribs disease.:biglaugh:

If my hostility towards you or your message disqualifies me as a teacher, your hostility towards me or mine should do the same to you. If you are able to mock my upbringing one moment and loudly decry me as a false prophet the next because I mock you right back, you do little but improve my case that you are indeed a hypocrite.

 

[godnotgod]

If my hostility towards you or your message disqualifies me as a teacher, your hostility towards me or mine should do the same to you. If you are able to mock me one moment and loudly decry me as a false prophet because I mock you right back, you do little but improve my case that you are indeed a hypocrite.

Except for the fact that I hold no hostility whatsoever toward you, plus the fact that you prop yourself up as an authority.

I'm just telling it like it is. YOU are the one who keeps jumping up at every queue to cry 'hypocrite!' and 'false teacher'. All I ask of you is to put your money where your mouth is, and stand behind what you claim.


Bottom line: if you insist that I am a hypocrite, then come forth here and present your case. Show me exactly where what I am posting is a falsehood. I have shown you exactly that in your case several times.

What I REALLY suspect is that my message goes against what you have been indoctrinated to believe, and you simply cannot deal with the resulting friction.

 

[Prophet]

No. An enlightened person is not necessarily a prophet. A prophet is one who comes with a message from God, even foretelling the future, ie; 'to prophecy'.

An enlightened being may not hold any belief in a God, or even come with any message or even to teach others. He may choose to simply and quietly shed his light on others, never calling attention to his enlightenment. After all, the truly enlightened see their own enlightenment as something quite ordinary; as our natural way of being. Why make a fuss? They see no reason to hang placards over their door announcing the fact that they are 'Enlightened Beings'. Such a practice obviously smacks of feigned knowledge and hypocricy. Besides, no one can teach enlightenment from feigned knowledge. In fact, no one can teach enlightenment at all. Enlightenment is not knowledge or doctrine that can be so taught. It is something you already have. But then again, you would have known that, being the 'Enlightened Being' that you are.

Even hypocrisy has a hard time being attached to enlightenment, as hypocrisy comes about when someone is pretending to be what they are not, and that usually involves feigning moral goodness. Enlightenment, being a state beyond duality, is beyond morality, which is about good and evil.

So, you see, Senor Prophet, not being a teacher of Enlightenment, nor making any such claims to such a state, I cannot possibly be a hypocrite.

All I can do is eat when hungry, and sleep when tired, with an occasional finger pointing to the moon.

You?

Now, if you wish to push the envelope, which you seem to constantly be doing at every ringing of the proverbial Pavlovian bell, I would suggest you bring forth incriminating hard evidence and examples to show exactly how I 'teach enlightenment from feigned knowledge'.

Otherwise, you might choose instead to take a glance at the lovely moon.

Ah, so a Prophet is an Enlightened being with the added bonus of supernatural abilities such as futuretelling. This is super interesting to me.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah, so a Prophet is an Enlightened being with the added bonus of supernatural abilities such as futuretelling. This is super interesting to me.

Not necessarily, but you should'nt be surprised. After all, you label yourself both prophet and enlightened being.

 

[Prophet]

Except for the fact that I hold no hostility whatsoever toward you. I'm just telling it like it is. YOU are the one who keeps jumping up at every queue to cry 'hypocrite!' and 'false teacher'. All I ask of you is to put your money where your mouth is, and stand behind what you claim.


Bottom line: if you insist that I am a hypocrite, then come forth here and present your case. Show me exactly where what I am posting is a falsehood. I have shown you exactly that in your case several times.

What I REALLY suspect is that my message goes against what you have been indoctrinated to believe, and you simply cannot deal with the resulting friction.

What does it mean when you use :biglaugh:? In your culture, do you laugh and pound on the floor to show how much you respect someone else's upbringing? Because if that is the case, you are certainly right, and I apologize.

However, I have strong suspicions that I read your message correctly as a display of disrespect in a transparent attempt to anger and marginalize me. Back then, I ignored your "zinger" in favor of staying on point, and that's something you can count on me continuing to do. I didn't complain about it until you started spouting off about how I have nothing to teach about Enlightenment because I'm so hostile.

Hypocrisy, at its core, is acting. You are pretending to take issue with hostility in general in a cheap attempt at scoring points. However, it can be demonstrated that you do not really take issue with hostility in general. You only ACT as if you do when you are the offended party. When you, yourself, are hostile and others are the offended parties, you turn a blind eye to it.

 

[godnotgod]

What does it mean when you use :biglaugh:? In your culture, do you laugh and pound on the floor to show how much you respect someone else's upbringing? Because if that is the case, you are certainly right, and I apologize.

However, I have strong suspicions that I read your message correctly as a display of disrespect.

I am laughing in hilarious fashion because I also was brought up a Christian fundie. I have earned that right, and make no bones about it. In short, much of the indoctrination is laughable when you really see what it's really about.

I didn't cry about it until you started spouting off about how I have nothing to teach about Enlightenment because I'm so hostile.

It's your pattern, repeated over and over again.

Hypocrisy, at its core, is acting. You are pretending to take issue with hostility in general in a cheap attempt at scoring points. However, it can be demonstrated that you do not really take issue with hostility in general. You only ACT as if you do when you are the offended party. When you, yourself, are hostile and others are the offended parties, you turn a blind eye to it.

I am not offended since I am not attached to any doctrine that must be personally defended. This is not about any personal view I may hold and need to feel hostile about when it is attacked.

The reason I take issue with your hostility is that it shows that you are personally attached to your view, and that usually translates as being a distorted one. I think in your case you have brought over your Christian moral teachings and condemnations of others, neither of which serve the enlightened state.

But once again, if you see something you think is a falsehood that I have presented, all you need do is to challenge me on it so we can have a discussion. Discussion is the point, is it not, of this forum, and not indulging in pointing the finger at others and labeling them as hypocrites without supporting your accusation with evidence.

You see the problem you have? You cannot claim hypocrisy since I am not making the claim to either enlightenment or being a teacher. I'm simply trying to have a discussion.

 

[Prophet]

What you call "having a discussion" I would call "holding court".

For example, if you were having a discussion, you would've asked me what I meant by "possess". Since you were holding court, you corrected me before you tried to understand me.

There's no discussion with you. It's just you correcting me. Not even on a level as deep as understanding either. You just want to ban a word.

And in spite of this one-way flow of information, you STILL are trying to say that you're not attempting to teach here?

Hypocrisy, at its core, is acting. You are pretending to take issue with hostility in general in a cheap attempt at scoring points. However, it can be demonstrated that you do not really take issue with hostility in general. You only ACT as if you do when you are the offended party. When you, yourself, are hostile and others are the offended parties, you turn a blind eye to it.

Do I say anything about you claiming to be Enlightened or a teacher here? Even if I couldn't easily demonstrate that you fancy yourself a teacher of Enlightenment as I just did, how would that have anything to do with my debunking my claim that you are a hypocrite?