Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I may...I'd like to see if I can summarize this thread with a few key concepts, and then offer a modest suggestion.
I'm sure MPhD will correct me on a few points, but my understanding is this: MPhD had a mystical experience. He did some digging in various spiritual traditions and decided that the Christ narrative offers the best overall explanation/expression of what he experienced. He knows that the Christian bible, in general, is not a reliable sources of historical or natural science information, but his mystical experience has convinced him that there is a core of truth in the Christ narrative - specifically, there was a human being alive around the time of Jesus whose life resonated in a perfect way with the essence of God. I think he would also say that this spirit of Jesus is essentially alive today and human beings today can connect - get roughly "in tune with" - this spirit, which makes us more in tune with the essence of God. Or, to put it another way, by "tuning in" to Jesus we are, in effect, coming to recognize the spirit of God within ourselves.
Personally, I don't disbelieve MPhD's claim about having a mystical experience. I do tend to believe, in general, that genuinely mystical experiences do happen, so MPhD's claim does not trigger any need to totally reshape my worldview. I tend to doubt that his connection was specifically with the historical Jesus, but since I'm not in a good position to evaluate the subjective experiences of another human being, I don't feel justified in saying, flat-out, that he is wrong. IF he claimed that his experience confirmed every jot and tittle of the Bible as a historically accurate document revealing God's role in human life and God's desires for humanity, etc., then I would say, flat-out, I don't believe it. But what MPhD is claiming not so logically challenging as all that.
On a purely personal level, I suspect that his "zeroing in" on the Christ narrative is colored a bit too heavily (for my tastes) by the fact that we all tend to be steeped, to some extent, in Christian traditions. Without that particular historically-rootedness, he might have come up with a different interpretation of the same experience, and this other interpretation would probably have been just as good or better than the one he has been offering here. In other words, I don't think that any experience (including mystical experiences) come to us with clear-cut ontological implications built into them. We, ourselves, always, always, always, without exception, build ontology into our interpretations. ("ontology" = "what exists", in contrast to "epistemology" = what is believed/experienced)
Just to be clear: Ontology definitely does powerfully SEEM to come always already built-in to our perceptions but, philosophically, we can (when in the right mindset) "step back" from these seemingly built-in ontological commitments and come to realize that there is always room for doubt about the ontology. The feelings of ontological commitment (e.g., "That definitely exists" or "That is real") are unconsciously constructed within us in every moment of perceptual experience. In light of this, notice the ontological commitment in MPhD's experience: "Jesus appeared." Now contrast this with the phenomenological bedrock of experience itself: "I had an experience that I interpreted as Jesus appeared." The experience itself is just brute-fact reality; the interpretation, on the other hand, is nuanced by countless unconscious subjective beliefs, desires, expectations, memories, etc. None of this means that his interpretation is wrong. I'm simply explaining some aspect of my own skepticism concerning the interpretation.
Personally, I (like everyone) experience my perceptions as being "ontologically pre-loaded" but, as a philosopher confronted by a extraordinary ontological claims, I try to step back and question the ontological aspects of interpretations. It can often seem powerfully important to believe the ontology that we feel presented in perception, and there are good biological reasons for this. If you think you see a lion, you are well advised to behave as if there is a lion. So the feeling "I met Jesus" can be just as psychologically powerful as "I see a lion." Feelings of ontology are powerful. But they can also be wrong.
MPhD has been trying to give us scientific reasons for thinking that his interpretation could be correct. He knows that he can't prove to us that he really met Jesus. All he is trying to do is give us logical reasons for thinking that his interpretation is not inherently contradictory or blatantly unscientific. And therein lies the debate. To what extent is there room in science for a modern day person to meet the spirit of Jesus? I say not much but (given some appropriate modifications to the claim) there could be some kernel of insight - some underlying truth that is worth knowing - something that, if true, would serve to shatter the claims of standard materialism.
however his interpretation and his posts ARE inherently contradictory.
and his flawed logic is also inherently contradictory.
over and over and over again.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-28-2018 at 04:47 PM..
Bravo. As an ex-Christian who no longer "believes in Jesus", not even in the way that Mystic presents him, nonetheless I have always appreciated and found resonance with his understanding of what the Jesus narrative represents.
Again, all good, if that's the way it's presented: this is an idea, an archetype.
This is THE LITERAL TRUTH is where we all start to get into trouble. You can see that all throughout history in all sorts of religions and cultures. It's never good to bow down to someone else's reported revelation and agree with it, especially if we question it...and if we do, we should say so, IMO.
No matter how sweet and lovely single-minded "I know THE way" statements may seem on the surface, just that rigidity alone, along with "no, this is literally the truth, I'm not speaking in examples here" is problematic. Until someone shows me THE religion that covers actual quantifiable bases, I can't in any way get behind what someone believes s/he saw or heard. That's the problem I have with the whole Paul thing too, BTW.
So, yes. I continue to ask for evidence and SOLID backup when someone says s/he has the actual single truth about esoteric/religious/spiritual beliefs/practices. If you're saying "this was just my thing, it was great," then...great. But that's very different. Christianity is rarely that quiet and that non-intrusive. Rarely. When it is, magically, others have no problem with it. See how that works?
Again, all good, if that's the way it's presented: this is an idea, an archetype.
This is THE LITERAL TRUTH is where we all start to get into trouble. You can see that all throughout history in all sorts of religions and cultures. It's never good to bow down to someone else's reported revelation and agree with it, especially if we question it...and if we do, we should say so, IMO.
No matter how sweet and lovely single-minded "I know THE way" statements may seem on the surface, just that rigidity alone, along with "no, this is literally the truth, I'm not speaking in examples here" is problematic. Until someone shows me THE religion that covers actual quantifiable bases, I can't in any way get behind what someone believes s/he saw or heard. That's the problem I have with the whole Paul thing too, BTW.
So, yes. I continue to ask for evidence and SOLID backup when someone says s/he has the actual single truth about esoteric/religious/spiritual beliefs/practices. If you're saying "this was just my thing, it was great," then...great. But that's very different. Christianity is rarely that quiet and that non-intrusive. Rarely. When it is, magically, others have no problem with it. See how that works?
Again, thoughtful, intelligent post. I loved it.
if they dumped the "go out and save others no matter what." we would't give them much thought.
however his interpretation and his posts ARE inherently contradictory.
and his flawed logic is also inherently contradictory.
over and over and over again.
Since there are over 4500 posts, this might be a good time for some people to summarize a few of the most blatant or egregious contradictions and/or logical flaws in MPhD's claims. At the moment I can't think of any examples, but once I see a clear list, I might chime in and agree with a few of them. I'm especially interested in what you see as a contradiction in his interpretation of his experience (i.e., in what way does his belief that he encountered the spirit of Jesus involve a contradictory claim or logical flaw?).
Since there are over 4500 posts, this might be a good time for some people to summarize a few of the most blatant or egregious contradictions and/or logical flaws in MPhD's claims. At the moment I can't think of any examples, but once I see a clear list, I might chime in and agree with a few of them. I'm especially interested in what you see as a contradiction in his interpretation of his experience (i.e., in what way does his belief that he encountered the spirit of Jesus involve a contradictory claim or logical flaw?).
I haven't seen any besides the conclusion that it HAS to be an outside (of himself) sentient being he was keying in on. It could be and it also could be his own mind. I was interested in his answer to why it couldn't have been all him because of his experience + extensive education. I haven't gotten an answer from him I could understand.
If I may...I'd like to see if I can summarize this thread with a few key concepts, and then offer a modest suggestion.
I'm sure MPhD will correct me on a few points, but my understanding is this: MPhD had a mystical experience. He did some digging in various spiritual traditions and decided that the Christ narrative offers the best overall explanation/expression of what he experienced. He knows that the Christian bible, in general, is not a reliable sources of historical or natural science information, but his mystical experience has convinced him that there is a core of truth in the Christ narrative - specifically, there was a human being alive around the time of Jesus whose life resonated in a perfect way with the essence of God. I think he would also say that this spirit of Jesus is essentially alive today and human beings today can connect - get roughly "in tune with" - this spirit, which makes us more in tune with the essence of God. Or, to put it another way, by "tuning in" to Jesus we are, in effect, coming to recognize the spirit of God within ourselves.
Personally, I don't disbelieve MPhD's claim about having a mystical experience. I do tend to believe, in general, that genuinely mystical experiences do happen, so MPhD's claim does not trigger any need to totally reshape my worldview. I tend to doubt that his connection was specifically with the historical Jesus, but since I'm not in a good position to evaluate the subjective experiences of another human being, I don't feel justified in saying, flat-out, that he is wrong. IF he claimed that his experience confirmed every jot and tittle of the Bible as a historically accurate document revealing God's role in human life and God's desires for humanity, etc., then I would say, flat-out, I don't believe it. But what MPhD is claiming not so logically challenging as all that.
On a purely personal level, I suspect that his "zeroing in" on the Christ narrative is colored a bit too heavily (for my tastes) by the fact that we all tend to be steeped, to some extent, in Christian traditions. Without that particular historically-rootedness, he might have come up with a different interpretation of the same experience, and this other interpretation would probably have been just as good or better than the one he has been offering here. In other words, I don't think that any experience (including mystical experiences) come to us with clear-cut ontological implications built into them. We, ourselves, always, always, always, without exception, build ontology into our interpretations. ("ontology" = "what exists", in contrast to "epistemology" = what is believed/experienced)
Just to be clear: Ontology definitely does powerfully SEEM to come always already built-in to our perceptions but, philosophically, we can (when in the right mindset) "step back" from these seemingly built-in ontological commitments and come to realize that there is always room for doubt about the ontology. The feelings of ontological commitment (e.g., "That definitely exists" or "That is real") are unconsciously constructed within us in every moment of perceptual experience. In light of this, notice the ontological commitment in MPhD's experience: "Jesus appeared." Now contrast this with the phenomenological bedrock of experience itself: "I had an experience that I interpreted as Jesus appeared." The experience itself is just brute-fact reality; the interpretation, on the other hand, is nuanced by countless unconscious subjective beliefs, desires, expectations, memories, etc. None of this means that his interpretation is wrong. I'm simply explaining some aspect of my own skepticism concerning the interpretation.
Personally, I (like everyone) experience my perceptions as being "ontologically pre-loaded" but, as a philosopher confronted by a extraordinary ontological claims, I try to step back and question the ontological aspects of interpretations. It can often seem powerfully important to believe the ontology that we feel presented in perception, and there are good biological reasons for this. If you think you see a lion, you are well advised to behave as if there is a lion. So the feeling "I met Jesus" can be just as psychologically powerful as "I see a lion." Feelings of ontology are powerful. But they can also be wrong.
MPhD has been trying to give us scientific reasons for thinking that his interpretation could be correct. He knows that he can't prove to us that he really met Jesus. All he is trying to do is give us logical reasons for thinking that his interpretation is not inherently contradictory or blatantly unscientific. And therein lies the debate. To what extent is there room in science for a modern day person to meet the spirit of Jesus? I say not much but (given some appropriate modifications to the claim) there could be some kernel of insight - some underlying truth that is worth knowing - something that, if true, would serve to shatter the claims of standard materialism.
Thank you. I agree with that totally. Mystic and I agree that the crucifixion really happened (not everyone does). I think that real explanation of what was behind this in inherent in the narrative - but covered up (the aspect of 'fiction' -and what the writers had in mind when they did so is irrelevant -as I said) with Christian invention. Which (the claim of s deliberate act of self sacrifice) Mystic takes (perhaps not as pre-arranged, but at least done as an exhibition of Love -and for all I know he damned the Romans' eyes until he passed out) as a cue for glueing Christianity onto the faith he got through his experiences.
And I also accept his experiences. He could have picked Allah, or Buddha or Krishna and probably would have done so if he'd been born elsewhere or elsewhen. We could easily agree to differ on this, but Mumph here insists on slapping down his beliefs as true and slapping us down in the most uncompromising manner is we disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
I haven't seen any besides the conclusion that it HAS to be an outside (of himself) sentient being he was keying in on. It could be and it also could be his own mind. I was interested in his answer to why it couldn't have been all him because of his experience + extensive education. I haven't gotten an answer from him I could understand.
Do you know why he is so adamant ?
Have you ruled out Faith in his own rightness? A conviction that (I believe) powers pretty much all Theistic apologetics from First - cause - God to why atheists are disrespectful for pointing up flaws in the Bible. I might claim Mystic's Faith in his own Rightness as being at an extraordinary level. But in fact the symptoms of deflecting all Doubt is the same - inverting logic and scientific thought. Ignoring contradictions and even this fascinating phenomenon of selective memory, which i thought was deliberate impudence, but I now begin to believe is a mental mechanism that actually blocks out anything they don't want to acknowledge - even if it is at the top of the same page.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-28-2018 at 07:17 PM..
If I may...I'd like to see if I can summarize this thread with a few key concepts, and then offer a modest suggestion.
I'm sure MPhD will correct me on a few points, but my understanding is this: MPhD had a mystical experience. He did some digging in various spiritual traditions and decided that the Christ narrative offers the best overall explanation/expression of what he experienced. He knows that the Christian Bible, in general, is not a reliable source of historical or natural science information, but his mystical experience has convinced him that there is a core of truth in the Christ narrative - specifically, there was a human being alive around the time of Jesus whose life resonated in a perfect way with the essence of God. I think he would also say that this spirit of Jesus is essentially alive today and human beings today can connect - get roughly "in tune with" - this spirit, which makes us more in tune with the essence of God. Or, to put it another way, by "tuning in" to Jesus we are, in effect, coming to recognize the spirit of God within ourselves.
Personally, I don't disbelieve MPhD's claim about having a mystical experience. I do tend to believe, in general, that genuinely mystical experiences do happen, so MPhD's claim does not trigger any need to totally reshape my worldview. I tend to doubt that his connection was specifically with the historical Jesus, but since I'm not in a good position to evaluate the subjective experiences of another human being, I don't feel justified in saying, flat-out, that he is wrong. IF he claimed that his experience confirmed every jot and tittle of the Bible as a historically accurate document revealing God's role in human life and God's desires for humanity, etc., then I would say, flat-out, I don't believe it. But what MPhD is claiming not so logically challenging as all that.
I wish I had your facility with explanations, Gaylen. I have no real quarrel with your general summary, but it lacks context. There was nothing in my experience that identified Jesus, specifically. It was the descriptions in the Jesus narrative of His consciousness that led me to attribute the consciousness I experienced with His. That was the result of my separate quest into what I call the spiritual fossil record about God. But it was preceded by my search for grounding in science to assure me that it was at least possible for this to have been a real experience. All of my subsequent meditation experiences seemed to confirm but they were subjectively determined.
You have to understand that the experience of encountering a separate consciousness that permeates all of reality was unsettling beyond belief. My entire connection to reality was drastically altered as everything I thought I knew and had confidence in was literally ripped from me. That was the impetus for my decades-long search for answers as to HOW it could even be possible. I had no preference or preconceptions about any of it. I had to determine if what we DO know about science has room enough for the possibility of it. Plausibility is all I sought initially but the more I learned the more likely it seemed.
Your explanation of Jesus as essentially the "tuning fork" for the human species conforms to my views but without the serious disruption of your sense of a physical reality, as I had, it is unlikely to resonate with you. Everything is composed of vibratory manifestations of the unified field, what I call God's consciousness field. Our species' collective consciousness actually resides in and has the capability to resonate with the unified field at least harmonically. But as long as it is not perfectly resonant, it cannot completely merge with it. That is the role of Jesus in my version. His HUMAN consciousness achieved "perfect resonance" (Identity) with God's consciousness thereby merging ALL the collective human consciousness with God's consciousness.
His achievement essentially rendered all our individual failures irrelevant to our species' role. But individually, we need to achieve as much harmonic resonance as possible with Christ's consciousness because all dissonance will be refined out as dross. Essentially, our individual "soul songs" must harmonize with the Cosmic Symphony in the Human orchestral section, to be overly allusory and symbolic.
Quote:
On a purely personal level, I suspect that his "zeroing in" on the Christ narrative is colored a bit too heavily (for my tastes) by the fact that we all tend to be steeped, to some extent, in Christian traditions. Without that particular historically-rootedness, he might have come up with a different interpretation of the same experience, and this other interpretation would probably have been just as good or better than the one he has been offering here. In other words, I don't think that any experience (including mystical experiences) come to us with clear-cut ontological implications built into them. We, ourselves, always, always, always, without exception, build ontology into our interpretations. ("ontology" = "what exists", in contrast to "epistemology" = what is believed/experienced).
Just to be clear: Ontology definitely does powerfully SEEM to come always already built-in to our perceptions but, philosophically, we can (when in the right mindset) "step back" from these seemingly built-in ontological commitments and come to realize that there is always room for doubt about the ontology. The feelings of ontological commitment (e.g., "That definitely exists" or "That is real") are unconsciously constructed within us in every moment of perceptual experience. In light of this, notice the ontological commitment in MPhD's experience: "Jesus appeared." Now contrast this with the phenomenological bedrock of experience itself: "I had an experience that I interpreted as Jesus appeared." The experience itself is just brute-fact reality; the interpretation, on the other hand, is nuanced by countless unconscious subjective beliefs, desires, expectations, memories, etc. None of this means that his interpretation is wrong. I'm simply explaining some aspect of my own skepticism concerning the interpretation.
Personally, I (like everyone) experience my perceptions as being "ontologically pre-loaded" but, as a philosopher confronted by extraordinary ontological claims, I try to step back and question the ontological aspects of interpretations. It can often seem powerfully important to believe the ontology that we feel presented in perception, and there are good biological reasons for this. If you think you see a lion, you are well advised to behave as if there is a lion. So the feeling "I met Jesus" can be just as psychologically powerful as "I see a lion." Feelings of ontology are powerful. But they can also be wrong.
MPhD has been trying to give us scientific reasons for thinking that his interpretation could be correct. He knows that he can't prove to us that he really met Jesus. All he is trying to do is give us logical reasons for thinking that his interpretation is not inherently contradictory or blatantly unscientific. And therein lies the debate. To what extent is there room in science for a modern-day person to meet the spirit of Jesus? I say not much but (given some appropriate modifications to the claim) there could be some kernel of insight - some underlying truth that is worth knowing - something that, if true, would serve to shatter the claims of standard materialism.
You truly have a gift for explanation. I will engage the debate in bold directly, but it requires that you entertain the idea that our consciousness is itself composed of Spirit which no materialist seems willing to do. Let me ask you since your consciousness knows of Jesus, what does that mean phenomenologically regarding His existence within those things that comprise the totality of our reality? IOW, do you consider constructs of our consciousness as comprised of genuine ontological phenomena or will-o-the-wisp illusions having no subtantive reality?
If you believe that the products of our consciousness do not exist within our reality and are mere phantasms or worse, we have no basis upon which to seriously engage the debate. You see, I am certain that our consciousness has a separate and distinct ontological existence within the unified field from the physical brain that produces it, but you likely do not. The physical frequency aggregate that manifests as our physical body is separate from the frequency aggregate in the "EM-like" spectrum that comprises our consciousness and manifests as our actual discernible personal identity via our posts. IF we can get on the same page regarding this, the debate might prove fruitful.
Since there are over 4500 posts, this might be a good time for some people to summarize a few of the most blatant or egregious contradictions and/or logical flaws in MPhD's claims. At the moment I can't think of any examples, but once I see a clear list, I might chime in and agree with a few of them. I'm especially interested in what you see as a contradiction in his interpretation of his experience (i.e., in what way does his belief that he encountered the spirit of Jesus involve a contradictory claim or logical flaw?).
Asking Tzaphkiel to back up her claims with actual THOUGHT? Good luck with THAT.
Bravo. As an ex-Christian who no longer "believes in Jesus", not even in the way that Mystic presents him, nonetheless I have always appreciated and found resonance with his understanding of what the Jesus narrative represents.
That is no problem, Pleroo. I do NOT insist everyone must believe as I do. In fact, I am convinced it doesn't matter at all. In my view, the reality trumps any beliefs pro or con because it is all moot. AS I said, the ONLY reason I chose to identify the consciousness I encountered as Jesus is because its nature perfectly matched the descriptions provided in the Jesus narrative so without any other evidence your lack of acceptance is understandable. The consciousness never identified itself to me. There was no such separation other than the fact that its subsuming character and nature convinced me beyond any doubt that it was definitely not ME or anything close to me. My explanatory skills are wanting but even if they weren't I cannot imagine a way to verbally convey what was such an overwhelming and immersive experience.
I haven't seen any besides the conclusion that it HAS to be an outside (of himself) sentient being he was keying in on. It could be and it also could be his own mind. I was interested in his answer to why it couldn't have been all him because of his experience + extensive education. I haven't gotten an answer from him I could understand.
Do you know why he is so adamant?
As is true of so many of my explanations, I have endeavored to explain it many times with little success. In the development of my meditative practice, I had devised ways to distinguish content in an altered state. Any content I could manipulate during the altered state I attributed to my subconscious. Any content I could NOT alter or manipulate, I considered as an external part of our reality. I initially made this distinction midway during the development of my practice when I occasionally began to encounter what I call "transients."
Transients are strong emotionally significant visual representations of faces that seemed to intrude into my meditation as if personally directed at me. The emotional content is striking but the faces are not recognizable and usually more primitive and ancient in appearance. The strange thing about them is I seem to "know" who they are without actually knowing. I know it makes no sense. When I think about them after my session, I can usually identify someone who I have interacted with and evoked a strong emotional reaction from the preceding day. It is my inability to alter the transients in any way that convinces me they are an external part of reality. That is why I began to use my ability to control content as a test of what is from my subconscious and what is external. I have no scientific way to support any of my conclusions about this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're saying "this was just my thing, it was great," then...great. But that's very different. Christianity is rarely that quiet and that non-intrusive. Rarely. When it is, magically, others have no problem with it. 
See how that works? 
