Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

And, wait again, how does egolessnes differ from being born again.....?  

It differs only superficially.  The form may appear very different, but not the underlying cause.

Personal realization of truth.........?

I’m arriving back in Baltimore.........

Wei Wu Wei is what I call it Cy, I am not wrong about anything.

It is simply my experience I describe.

Name it what you like.

We have a problem of terminology.

But it’s a big tent.

No one Cy for me is wrong or right.

Origen in Alexandria (original seat of the seeds of the Papacy) predates Rome and the final choosing of the canon.

On Relationship between Grace and Free Will
https://books.google.com/books?id=TPJfaMnMofYC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=origen+alexandria+portal&source=bl&ots=Y2qD-G8XNR&sig=dB8a3iRZVnlb_VU0ZUzbFcE_oyE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlltL6ksfYAhUEfVMKHR0yDdQQ6AEIUjAH#v=onepage&q=origen%20alexandria%20portal&f=false

This is where the Celtic and the Alexandrian clashed until the fight over Pelagianism and Gnostic elements settled who'd rule the roost.

I don’t think I defined synchronicity Cy.

But I’m wrong anyway to you.

You send me mixed messages.

Shrug.

Is the source of synchronity just a human mental trick or is it a sign of some force acting with agency?

Whatever fate, nature, no-Self be, it be a mystery ultimately to me.

Origen maintained the perennial tradition of initiation and he setup many schools that have persisted to today.

He seeded the world with Truth.

All roads lead here now.

Garz,

That's the problem with Christianity as practiced today?

Or do you mean for the last 2000 years?  Christianity has been pretty exclusive, proclaiming the sufficiency of Christ, the God-man, and his saving work, since the get-go brother...

And Jesus was not a teacher of the TAO.  Sorry.  

Jesus claimed to be Israel's Messiah, the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the Savior of the world, and the Eschatological God-man.  He inaugurated the New Heavens and the New Earth with his first coming, especially through His incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection into glory/the heavenly realm.  He promised to return and unite the realms, resurrect and judge the dead, and consummate the New Heavens and the New Earth that He already inaugurated.  Before that occurs, there are to be many parodies of this reality, and cheap deceptions from the one He went head to head with in His wilderness temptations.

Whether you believe this to be actually true or not, these basic articles are what all the evidence points to as being the belief of early Christianity.

Virtually all scholars (even non-believing scholars) agree that the vast majority of the New Testament documents were written before 80 AD, though some are dated around 90-100AD, which places them in the context of when the Apostles and and those who knew Christ were still alive.  Therefore, since they were all written within, and to the community that called themselves His Church - they clearly reflect the beliefs and traditions that originated in the first decades after Jesus' ministry was complete.  It was clearly a Jewish movement, not a gnostic one, with some modifications (i.e. a suffering Messiah who is resurrected before the final resurrection at the end of time).  Most of them were willing to die for such claims, and often did.

So the Jesus you have constructed is literally conjured out of thin air.  

I also fail to see how Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung can teach us how to set aside our own views, and immerse ourselves in the writings of the past - whether it be the Ancient Near East, or Second Temple Judaism - for both of those authors had a very strong *eh hem*, might I say, Dogma, which they forced upon the ancient writings.  Their psychologizing of religions, according to their own theories, is recognized as interesting, but not of serious value by most academics in the historical fields.  From what I've seen, both liberal and evangelical scholars in these disciplines have been the best at presenting ancient teachings in the context of the contemporaries who understood them.

But we are getting way off topic.  So...

1) Can you all define for me what a Portal exactly is?

2) Dan, do you have any insight into an upcoming NYT article, and/or when it might be released?

I’ll respond later dd.

Good stuff.

dd, Dan was saying it’s beyond conception and Logos.

The Tao that can be described or memed, is not the Tao.

Christ taught Tao.

Sorry

See Cy and Dan, I can dialogue.

—

Some interesting dialogue with my good gnostic shaman friend in parallel to this thread...

I will cross connect the streams now....one moment...connecting....got it!

the earth symbol suggests that one could move along the cross, I treasure both movements.

horizontal fire experience is to learn how much nature has to offer

vertical progression is gnosis thus ultimately liberation/freedom from conditioning and the wheel.

Until you connect that horizontal line...my experience is you are just tossed on the waves like an atom.

Convo refers to the Solar Cross symbol below.



—

Thanks hobbit, I like you too.

Dd, read Bicameral Mind and have you heard of the inklings?

Have you studied literature, devoured it?

You can certainly do as I decribe and have done, as have they.

Christ taught you are Enough.

That is Tao.

I don’t think it would be productive to dialogue about the points with me dd.

Dan can speak to them better with you.

It’s beyond words thankfully.

You just have to be here and until you are, you aren’t, or what I say would be self evident to you.

Cy,

The Canon was virtually settled by the time of Origen, believe it or not.  Aside from popular lore, there never was a council that "determined" what the Canon would be.  There were two regional councils that addressed the issue (Synod of Hippo Regius in 393, Council of Carthage in 397), but those occurred some time after virtually all Christians across the known world had settled on the Canon.  The Canon was determined based upon a few basic criteria.  

1)  Was the teaching orthodox?  In other words was it in line with what the Church taught and believed as passed down to her, and more importantly was it consistent with the theology of the Old Testament, which had already been accepted as canonical by the Church (i.e. did it teach Creation, a Creator/creature distinction, monotheism, sin, redemption, etc..., as the Old Testament did).  This is why the Gnostic texts were NEVER seriously considered by the Church, and why virtually no Church Father quotes from them.  As a side note, yes, Origen called himself a Gnostic, but we have to remember "gnosis" is just a word for knowledge.  What Origen meant was that he was basically a "theologian."  He wanted to "systematize" and come to "understand" what the faith truly "meant" (i.e. gnosis).  But his writings go against those whom we commonly call "Gnostics."

2)  Was it written by the Apostles or those under their ministry?  This is why certain books, like 2 Peter, 2 and 3rd John, and Revelation were debated at times, as there were various doubles about their authenticity.  However, the Church dud eventually settled on them, after corresponding with one another, and determining that they were handed down from the Apostles.  The Gnostic Gospels were not acceptable according to this criteria, because they were all written in the 2nd century or later (and thus couldn't have been written by an Apostle). This is incontrovertible.  Again, the Church did not have some dogmatic council where such things were determined, and then somehow "burned" every book they disagreed with.  Even after Constantine, the Church did not have that kind of universal power until a few centuries later.  The Canon was virtually settled on by the time Constantine came to power (i.e. Origen's day).  Anyone who says otherwise, is probably reading to much from the New Age section at Barnes and Noble.

3)  Was it in common use and edifying to the Church?  This makes sense if they are purported to be inspired by the Spirit for the edification of the Church's faith and practice.

The Canon came about through principled debate, not through tyrannical interference as is often dogmatically presumed.

I will say though, that Origen is one of the more interesting Church Fathers, though he is a bit weird at times.  If you ever have a chance, read his De Principiis.  It is very interesting...  I would post links, but I can't yet...

Garz,

I have heard of the Inklings. C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, along with the rest of them. What of them though? I could believe that if there are portals, that they walked through them. lol.

They did.

Owen Barfield is the one to read.

Through looking at literature in different ages of written history, you can see the evolution of Humanity’s consciousness from the first written story of Gilgamesh to now.

We rose over that time, from puppets of inner gods/forces,  to our current mind.

It’s a theory, one I put a lot of weight in.

This evolution of consciousness is the thread that connects jung, Campbell, inklings.

Materialists buried them, but they were some of the best modern open minds in my opinion.

They saw the undercurrent of our deep unconscious projecting into material world through our thoughts and feelings

We are filled with common symbols.

I recommend the Symbolism of the Cross by Guenon.

Do you Guenon dd or Schuon?

The Symbolism of the Cross https://www.amazon.com/dp/0900588659/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_ilTuAbK37W5K2

Do you know Metaphysics?

dd, have you studied other religions and the occult?

Do you know Sacred Science?

Cy, practices an ancient sacred science I suppose.

Also I recommend this for Christians,

Symbols of Sacred Science

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0900588772/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_HmTuAbTW3DH3S

Garz,

No I have not read Guenon or Schuon.

If by Metaphysics, you mean a subject in philosophy dealing with the nature of reality - then, yes.

If by Metaphysics you mean New Age mumbo jumbo... not so much...

The fairies of old are now UFOs, coming full circle for OMF.

We discussed this way back before you all joined us here.

Jung and Campbell thought so and the inklings too.

The UFOs are from us, it’s a new step in consciousness.

It’s a big tent and a big story.

Syncretic study is required to get a sense of it.

Nothing I mentioned has anything to do with spiritual materialism, New Age. Prosperity gospel.

Every religion is materialistic.

Zen and other systems are not religious or materialistic.

Garz,

Can you give me a reference for the inkling's thought on UFOs? I know that CS Lewis drew on some themes in the Space Trilogy. Any others you can point me to?

A Secret History of Consciousness

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-Consciousness-Gary-Lachman/dp/1584200111/ref=nodl_

I have to look up more references.

I had some in the book above.

Lachman is one of the best occult consciousness writers on Earth in my opinion.

Christians have turned mythology into faery stories.

http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien.pdf

A characterization of Barfield’s views below....

“When Barfield looks at our assumptions about thinking, here, too, he notes historical changes operating beneath the level of reason and logic. We today cannot help regarding our thoughts as "things" in our brain; our long-established habits of mind and the unexamined meanings of our words almost force this upon us, and our assumptions are now woven inextricably through our experience of ourselves and the world. But the situation several hundred years ago was the reverse of this: it was then impossible to picture thoughts as the product of a stimulated brain, whereas it was quite natural to picture the brain as the product of thought. (4)

Until we recognize how the possibilities of our thinking are culture-bound -- until we gain some understanding of the evolution of consciousness operating beneath the surface glitter of clashing ideas -- we cannot be wholly free in our thinking. I am convinced, for example, that the cognitive scientist's triumphal confidence in the computational paradigm as a solution to the long-standing mind-body conundrum results much less from new, revolutionary understandings than from the nearly universal inability today to experience the earlier terms of the problem. It is much easier to explain away, or "implement," a mind whose essential knowing activity has faded from direct experience than it is when that activity presents itself with Cartesian insistence. But cognitive scientists, with little apparent interest in the historical dimensions of their subject matter, do not much inquire into such things.”

dd, I’m tired. That’s enough from me for now.

Talk to Dan. Please.

It is all about direct experience and only there.

You can’t decribe it in words.

I’m sorry, I told you I can’t help you.

@DesertDweller, I'm not arguing for Gnostic teachings...not even arguing. I know the history. I'm pointing out the root of a very old argument over FREE WILL. Pelagianism or Celtic Christianity was a long-running argument over free will. This is an old debate between me and Dan. Dan does not believe in Free Will whilst I as an apprentice to Synchronicity do. Dan's thinking and take on things is syncretic. Mine is archaic. Shrug. I don't ascribe to new age feel good thinking like Garzparz.

Cy

Cy, you don’t know me at all.

Sigh.

I ascribe to nothing new age.

Zen, Stoicism, mysticism, perrenialism.

I don’t understand you.

So what?

It doesn’t matter if you understand my words.

They aren’t for you.

Or anyone.

Just clanging symbols in the wind, as everyone’s are.

Apparently Cy doesn’t know what Wei Wu Wei is.

She has to tell me I’m wrong about something or other.

Action without action.

Action that does not involve struggle or excessive effort.

Effortless action, my expertise.

Ummmm Eric, news-flash, 'no-being' IS new age.

Edit to add: Eric you are cherry-picking what I said. I ONLY said you were wrong about Synchonicity. I have direct experience.

You asked if we're using the same definition of Synchronicity. You may be right to ask that, we may well have different definitions. I didn't respond on that. You did. You asked questions then created your own answers and slapped my name to it.

This is what 99 got unhappy with you about. Earlier. Remember?

I left you to think whatever you wish to think. I didn't tell you how or what to think. I have better things to do with my time than pick your posts apart for some nebulous argument over who is wrong or more right than the next person. Not my style, kid.

Cy

Cy,

Sorry for jumping to conclusions

Do you happen to come from an Eastern Orthodox background?

Also, I would probably agree more with Dan on Free-Will, though I am not a determinist. I side with Augustine on this issue, as well as John Calvin.

Man this is an interesting group...

Cy,

Also, I see you are from Montana. Do you happen to be Dan's sister?

Dd, bahahahahaha.

It is indeed.

Cy you have made quite a few assumptions and statements I don’t want to engage with, so I won’t

Anyone’s problems with others are entirely theirs.

I have none with anyone here.

Perhaps people took things personally, shrug.

Tell 99 and I tell you, I aim to disappoint and I will do so many many more times.

Ignore everything I say.

I have no opinion about anyone’s particular beliefs, just belief in general.

It’s a game to transcend.

Take what resonates, leave the rest.

I’m sorry you can’t see what I’m doing Cy.

I know why, but you won’t budge, so I’m not going to engage with you.

People can judge for themselves.

And I really don’t care what anyone does.

desertdweller wrote:Cy,

Sorry for jumping to conclusions

Do you happen to come from an Eastern Orthodox background?

Also, I would probably agree more with Dan on Free-Will, though I am not a determinist.  I side with Augustine on this issue, as well as John Calvin.  

Man this is an interesting group...

No problem Desertdweller. No not Eastern Orthodox. I'm Old Irish. My family have been part of a relatively closed cultural group since arrival in 1623 Laconia. We don't practice a religion. We loosely use the term Celtic Christianity by way of explanation because there's still some frames of reference extant for Alexandrian Christians. Branches of philosophy that belong to the Celtic Christian genre include Culdees, Ceili Dei, Cistercians, original not modern Mason/Templar...although this last we really don't have anything other than a historical relation to. We don't do ceremonies. We're strictly immersed in ancient and experiential knowledge. IT's a 10,000 year old tradition: Aes Dana. Dananns are going extinct except perhaps for my immediate family...long story for a different place. You may see our culture in action by following the "Natural Crowd and Son's of Liberty" in Colonial Period. The Colonists were declared the heirs to the Aes Dana of Feara Maighe Eire, because like us they are 'beloved of knowledge' and as the Romans described us in ancient times: neurotic about truth, justice, and liberty.

Synchronicity: The hand of Source moving with both physical & metaphysical results in our landscape.

Cy

Lol, no I am not Dan's sister. I came to OMF in February 2008 when Synchronicity directed me to leave Ghosttroops effort at locating the loose nukes in CONUS to contact Dr Michael Salla about a 'disclosure dialog' attempt which turned out to be the UN Meeting Thread here at OMFv.1

I was on the direct periphery of the prior 'disclosure dialog' event in the 1990s that resulted in the chosen communicator's 'suiciding' thus terminating that event. Synch wanted me involved for some reason here in case it 'went-live' and assistance was required toward course correction. I arranged in the 2008-2010 time period a variety of persons well connected to potentially needed groups including the national militia network to standby for safe-haven, security, rescues from hostile parties etc. The persons involved chose CYA and they allowed discreditation of their chosen communicator as part of fail-safe.

Eric wrote:Anyone’s problems with others are entirely theirs.

I have none with anyone here.

Perhaps people took things personally, shrug.

Tell 99 and I tell you, I aim to disappoint and I will do so many many more times.

Eric you could have fooled me. You sling mud with rocks in the middle and then tell the victim: "awwwwh that didn't hurt! Did it?" and run off on you're merry way laughing like it's funny, fun and games. My biggest issue with you is not philosophical...you're welcome to believe whatever. My biggest issue with you is your interpersonal skills. They suck.

Cy, I put every foot down spontaneously, but with a certain tone.

I’m sorry you don’t get the beat.

Ignore me.

Respectfully, I don’t care what you or anyone’s problems are with me

That’s for you to work out or ignore.

It’s entirely irrelvant to me.

I think we have been clear with each other and funny thing, we don’t even disagree.

And I have brought light to something if you can see it.