Okay. I got my physical bible out

[shmogie]

How does it stand on its own?

To me it's like

1. God told jesus to save others
2. Jesus died and bled
3. People believed and had faith in what jesus said
4. Poof by their FAITH they are saved
Not by jesus sacrifice but by their faith in his death.

How does jesus death a sacrifice without a persons faith making it a sacrifice to see themselves saves by christ?

Can't figure how to phrase it. How is jesus physical death since spirits can die save you apart from your faith?

Nope faith has no power to do anything If it isn´t interconnected with an actual cosmic event.

The event saves, your faith allows you the benefit of the event.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nope faith has no power to do anything If it isn´t interconnected with an actual cosmic event.

The event saves, your faith allows you the benefit of the event.

How so?

How does a written event, someone dying, Dave christians?

Is it a magic power that came from jesus when he died?

I'm trying to vision a supernatural event in reality since 2000 ago is not that long ago. Its still in the same laws of physics in regards to supernatural claimed events. If someone can rise up 2000 years ago, it should be written in history as a fact. It also should be written as a scientific fact. It's not.

So, how does jesus save just by dying?

 

[shmogie]

How so?

How does a written event, someone dying, Dave christians?

Is it a magic power that came from jesus when he died?

I'm trying to vision a supernatural event in reality since 2000 ago is not that long ago. Its still in the same laws of physics in regards to supernatural claimed events. If someone can rise up 2000 years ago, it should be written in history as a fact. It also should be written as a scientific fact. It's not.

So, how does jesus save just by dying?

He didn´t just die, he was resurrected from the dead. The laws of physics has nothing to do with it.

t is a fact. there were numerous witnesses

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex

It confuses the mess out of me. Just because it is spiritual does not mean it needs to mystic and complicated. Pet peeve.

So to really understand what Logos means, you have to understand philosophically, or metaphysically how it was being used and how it would have been understood. What I say of it being the "Manifestor" of God is fully in keeping with the above.

For example (reference above)

So closes I got is logos is the metaphysical nature of and is god who is the foundation and within what god creates. I call it energy; but, some say thats a dry word.. So...

Logos "in the beginning with God," through which all creation comes into being, this same Logos "became flesh and dwelt among us".

Yeah. God is energy. Energy creates and sustains and is manfested in the natural world to bring it into being.

So to really understand what Logos means, you have to understand philosophically, or metaphysically how it was being used and how it would have been understood. What I say of it being the "Manifestor" of God is fully in keeping with the above.

I honestly dont think so. Philosophers are very hard to understand their writting (not their concepts). Once you get their point together and relate it to what you know, its eaiser to understand. Take Plato and the Myth of the Cave. If I remember its also has a political interpretation. But, what makes it interesting is how we observe it now, at present, in our daily lives.

Myth of the Cave tells about prisioners in a dark cave chained by hands and feet and facing a blank wall. There is a fire burning behind them and people walking behind which they only know are shadows. Thats their reality all their lives. One day a man breaks free and goes from the cave. He comes back down to tell people the-light and no one believes him.

You can take this a couple of ways. A sinner breaks free, sees god, and comes back to the sinners and blinded to tell them about god. He feels they dont know the truth cause they dont believe him.

Another way to see it is we, as humanity, are chained and see the shadows as our-each of us-as presenting the real world. One person breaks free and comes back down to tell the others the real reality (not religious, just in general) no one believes him. We are living in illusions. There is a TedTalk video and videos on this. Very interesting.

Of course it depends on your point of view. Philosophy isnt fixed.

And?

My prologue above

Christ is in God and God is in Christ simply means they are inseparable realities of the divine Reality, not two beings.

Trinity?

So yes, "with God" and also "God". That is exactly what John says in his prologue.

Sounds like you are explaining the concept of the trinity.

You simply cannot do that with God, without turning God into "god" with a small g, which is a projection of the human mind. If you define God, that's not God. That's your mind.

Youre complicating things again.. ...

Big G, little LG
Cant define god (because it is supernatural and not supposed to be described because it is supernatural? Why are mystics seen special? To me, its part of life. The explanations are by culure)

God is in all, through all, and is All. You can't slice off an ear and call that God.

The last part is poetry. No biggie. I understand the first part. Very direct. Reminds me of pathenenism or however they explain it.

So God is all of us, but not all of us see that or realize that about ourselves because we are lost inside the worlds of our own minds. We don't see what really is there, because reality of us consists of a house of mirrors insides of our heads we look at all day, out of the corners of our eyes to see how things fit into that world we created and lost ourselves within. Any true artist should understand this, hence the reason for art, to break free from the confines and restictions of our "thought" reality.

I disagree. I dont see people in chains cant see reality. Maybe illusions arent just the shadows. No one is excluded in being blinded-if you like. No one is special. So, that view puzzles me.

But, yeah. How do you know we are not seeing the wrong reality (if that is true)? The cave man can build culture and write books but it is still bias to their own experiences and understanding, nothing more.

To break free from this, often takes something to "wake" you up. Otherwise, we're all just safe and secure in our ideas of reality, which really have our own ego as the wall that separates us from actual Reality.

Why do you believe we are sleep?

So you don't separate anything out. You simply transcend the ego defining reality for you. You're already separated. What needs to happens is to bring the whole thing together. And that, is salvation.

Basically, live an open and full life with all your senses open to the understanding of reality and life itself. Holistic view, I guess you can say. The Dharma speaks a bit about this but more direct.

Doesnt sound like christianity, at least not mainstream.

Yes. You could use those words or other words, such as when you see beyond seeing-as-ego, when the ego is left on the floor like the clothes you take off before a shower, then you see what simply I

Metaphysics talk. translate?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He didn´t just die, he was resurrected from the dead. The laws of physics has nothing to do with it.

t is a fact. there were numerous witnesses

How?

2000 years ago isnt that long ago. How did the laws of physics change and why isnt written as a scientifc study and not just a part of mythologically, culture, and written history?

Explain the logistics of the ressurection using todays terminology, study, and explanations. We came so far in science and understanding; there should be some idea of how someone can be resurrected if in deed a part from the people who believeit.

 

[shmogie]

How?

2000 years ago isnt that long ago. How did the laws of physics change and why isnt written as a scientifc study and not just a part of mythologically, culture, and written history?

Explain the logistics of the ressurection using todays terminology, study, and explanations. We came so far in science and understanding; there should be some idea of how someone can be resurrected if in deed a part from the people who believeit.

It was a miracle from God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It was a miracle from God.

That does not explain how. Unless miracles happen today in the same way, explain how the laws of physics changed (and when) that we dont have it writtened and studied in our books.

We get scientific foundations (US) from our religious philosophers that gave us insight and knowledge into scientific laws of this earth. If miracles were isolated they would be recorded.

Since they are not, explain the miracle. How does the resurrection happen in reality then and when did it stop dead in the past thousands of years?

 

[shmogie]

That does not explain how. Unless miracles happen today in the same way, explain how the laws of physics changed (and when) that we dont have it writtened and studied in our books.

We get scientific foundations (US) from our religious philosophers that gave us insight and knowledge into scientific laws of this earth. If miracles were isolated they would be recorded.

Since they are not, explain the miracle. How does the resurrection happen in reality then and when did it stop dead in the past thousands of years?

You are asking the impossible, as you know.

Science will never understand anything of the power and all of the attributes of God. So, your questions are actually a total dead end.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are asking the impossible, as you know.

Science will never understand anything of the power and all of the attributes of God. So, your questions are actually a total dead end.

Miracles of god are claims until you can explain the logistics behind the claim instead of depending on faith.

Take science out of the picture.

Forget science.

Explain the logic behind the miracle to take it into consideration as fact and not a claim, belief, or faith.

Its like you are beating around the bush. What is a miracle to where if i wanted to experience your claim I know exactly what I am supposed to experience.

You can believe in anything fact or fiction. Without knowing about the nature of the miracle, how do I know what you are saying is fact and not fiction?

 

[`mud]

All from the mind of Moses !
And an encore from Saul !

 

[Windwalker]

Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex

Or not any of that at all.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics

1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics,’ referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’


^^^^^^^ The above, is not "flowering things up", with magic fairies and whatnot. Give me more credit than that, thank you. It is deeply philosophical, not the fantasies of children's imaginations. It is actually taking the reasoning mind to the limits of its capacity to penetrate further, without direct apprehension through experience. As Zen Buddhism puts it, "fingers pointing at the moon". Do you consider Zen to be "flowery rhetoric"?

It confuses the mess out of me. Just because it is spiritual does not mean it needs to mystic and complicated. Pet peeve.

It doesn't need to be complex at all. I've said this many times. Once you've had experience with it, then such language makes sense. But before said experience, it "confuses the mess out of me", because we are trying to use the reasoning mind to penetrate the ineffable with logic arguments. Of course you'll be confused! You're confusing yourself.

For example (reference above)

What? I'm talking basic academic principles here, not metaphysics. In order to understand what the author of an ancient text was probably getting at, you have to understand the use of the words in the context of the culture and mindsets of the intended audience. How is that "mystical"? Would you consider a college course in ancient literature, "metaphysics"?

So closes I got is logos is the metaphysical nature of and is god who is the foundation and within what god creates. I call it energy; but, some say thats a dry word.. So...

Energy works, but that word itself is metaphysical, if you don't know that. There is no "energy" as a thing in itself. It's simply a catchphrase for something that is the potential for doing work. What exactly is that "potential". Can you explain that?

Yeah. God is energy. Energy creates and sustains and is manfested in the natural world to bring it into being.

And so when scripture says "he upholds all things by the power of his Word," you cannot hear a poetic expression for what you just said? Must it be literal and scientific for it to be heard?

I honestly dont think so. Philosophers are very hard to understand their writting (not their concepts). Once you get their point together and relate it to what you know, its eaiser to understand. Take Plato and the Myth of the Cave. If I remember its also has a political interpretation. But, what makes it interesting is how we observe it now, at present, in our daily lives.

Myth of the Cave tells about prisioners in a dark cave chained by hands and feet and facing a blank wall. There is a fire burning behind them and people walking behind which they only know are shadows. Thats their reality all their lives. One day a man breaks free and goes from the cave. He comes back down to tell people the-light and no one believes him.

Yes, exactly. It sounds a lot like them saying in response to him, "Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex". If on the other hand, they had a least a glimpse of what he describing, then they wouldn't be so cynical about something that doesn't easily fit into their reality.

You can take this a couple of ways. A sinner breaks free, sees god, and comes back to the sinners and blinded to tell them about god. He feels they dont know the truth cause they dont believe him.

That is certainly the ego-eye view of him, that he makes it about them "believing him" personally, which of course is a projection on him. He could just recognize why they can't see it, because he can empathize having been a cavedweller looking at shadows his whole life too. He understands that without actual experience, they won't every really understanding, and saying they "believe him" would mean nothing actually if they didn't actually step outside the cave itself.

Another way to see it is we, as humanity, are chained and see the shadows as our-each of us-as presenting the real world. One person breaks free and comes back down to tell the others the real reality (not religious, just in general) no one believes him. We are living in illusions. There is a TedTalk video and videos on this. Very interesting.

Exactly. Then what I am saying should not be confusing to you.

Of course it depends on your point of view. Philosophy isnt fixed.

Again, exactly right. Trying to place a boundary around "God" or that which transcends yet includes the physical (metaphysics), crushes it into some "fixed reality". That's what the mind fixated on "thinkingness" wants and craves however in order to feel it has some handles on reality. All of that, as I've been saying, is what is the illusion.

My prologue above

I assumed so. You view metaphysics as "magic" not philosophy. It is not invalid at all to speak in those terms. In fact it can be quite helpful in moving beyond this "fixed" reality you speak of. That "fixed reality" is an illusion of the mind as it categorizes everything into boxes and puts it into containers that the mind can look at and process. But that is just a system of categorizations for the mind, not actual, real, reality.

Trinity?

Add the "Holy Spirit" in there in exactly the same way I detailed, and sure. Same thing. It's "three" only in the sense of how we separate things out for the mind to "think" about things. It's actual reality however is inseparable into "parts". "It" is a "WHOLE". Trinity is just a mind device, not an actuality. Same thing with anything we "name" in this world.

Sounds like you are explaining the concept of the trinity.

That is what those who came up with that "formula", and that is what it is, a formulation, we seeing. I'm just parsing it apart from my perspectives and experience with the nature and Truth of the Divine. There are no Answers with a capital A, only perspectives, and systems of language to try to talk about these.

Youre complicating things again.. ...

Big G, little LG
Cant define god (because it is supernatural and not supposed to be described because it is supernatural? Why are mystics seen special? To me, its part of life. The explanations are by culure)

I think your idea of what mystics are and mine, are entirely different realities. First of all, I don't see God as "supernatural". I believe everything is "natural", which is itself, the best word to use is "Divine". Reality is a Divine Reality, and the physical world is one manifestation of That. Supernatural is a pointless term, as the Divine goes all the way up and all the way down. The physical world is is Divine. So is the mental world. So is the spiritual world. So is every other aspect of Life we have yet to identify. All of it is Divine.

So yes, absolutely the spiritual is part of Life! That is its nature. It's all spiritual. It's all Spirit. So you see, when I say if you "define God", what happens is you limit God, and it is now no longer God, but an expectation of the mind to "find" this elusive, "transcendent" whatever up in the heaven or somewhere. Follow? It takes the Whole, and tries to make it as "something", which is impossible! If it can be identified as "that" and "not this", then it's not the Whole anymore!

Now, where the mystic comes in here, which you don't appear to understand from my perspective at the moment, is simply someone who has had, or pursues, or actually realizes experientially that Divine Reality that is everything you are looking at everyday the same as them, but only see a limited view, and consequently, a very partial, limited, bounded relationship with it as a result. The mystical is to "open up" our realities, to Reality. It simply lets in what is already there, which previous was unseen by the mind.

I keep coming back to the artist, as they have the soul of one who needs and is compelled to "see beyond" what just appears to us. They wish to reach into the heart and soul of the senses and express something far deeper, more penetrating, more insightful, more liberated, more true, more genuine, and more real than just this stuff you touch and move around, and respond to day after day. The artist wants to touch the soul of reality, to feel beyond the surface, to reach into that "something" that cannot be described, but is as a Fountain, a Wellspring of Life, Creativity, and Love.

Now, that is what the mystic is. The artist, the poet, the musician, the lover, except fully devoted to penetrating and emptying themselves into that Source from which all love, art, music, creation, and reality flow from. The mystic seek to Unite with the Divine, to Become the Divine.

That's what a mystic is. And metaphysics is simply a language, a tool-set to try to talk about something beyond, far, infinitely beyond its finest conceptions. The mystic moves beyond the concepts, into the Reality itself, and then tries to describe it, the world of Light to the those dwelling in shadow, if they choose to speak at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Or not any of that at all.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics

1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics,’ referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’


^^^^^^^ The above, is not "flowering things up", with magic fairies and whatnot. Give me more credit than that, thank you. It is deeply philosophical, not the fantasies of children's imaginations. It is actually taking the reasoning mind to the limits of its capacity to penetrate further, without direct apprehension through experience. As Zen Buddhism puts it, "fingers pointing at the moon". Do you consider Zen to be "flowery rhetoric"?


It doesn't need to be complex at all. I've said this many times. Once you've had experience with it, then such language makes sense. But before said experience, it "confuses the mess out of me", because we are trying to use the reasoning mind to penetrate the ineffable with logic arguments. Of course you'll be confused! You're confusing yourself.


What? I'm talking basic academic principles here, not metaphysics. In order to understand what the author of an ancient text was probably getting at, you have to understand the use of the words in the context of the culture and mindsets of the intended audience. How is that "mystical"? Would you consider a college course in ancient literature, "metaphysics"?


Energy works, but that word itself is metaphysical, if you don't know that. There is no "energy" as a thing in itself. It's simply a catchphrase for something that is the potential for doing work. What exactly is that "potential". Can you explain that?


And so when scripture says "he upholds all things by the power of his Word," you cannot hear a poetic expression for what you just said? Must it be literal and scientific for it to be heard?


Yes, exactly. It sounds a lot like them saying in response to him, "Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex". If on the other hand, they had a least a glimpse of what he describing, then they wouldn't be so cynical about something that doesn't easily fit into their reality.


That is certainly the ego-eye view of him, that he makes it about them "believing him" personally, which of course is a projection on him. He could just recognize why they can't see it, because he can empathize having been a cavedweller looking at shadows his whole life too. He understands that without actual experience, they won't every really understanding, and saying they "believe him" would mean nothing actually if they didn't actually step outside the cave itself.


Exactly. Then what I am saying should not be confusing to you.


Again, exactly right. Trying to place a boundary around "God" or that which transcends yet includes the physical (metaphysics), crushes it into some "fixed reality". That's what the mind fixated on "thinkingness" wants and craves however in order to feel it has some handles on reality. All of that, as I've been saying, is what is the illusion.


I assumed so. You view metaphysics as "magic" not philosophy. It is not invalid at all to speak in those terms. In fact it can be quite helpful in moving beyond this "fixed" reality you speak of. That "fixed reality" is an illusion of the mind as it categorizes everything into boxes and puts it into containers that the mind can look at and process. But that is just a system of categorizations for the mind, not actual, real, reality.


Add the "Holy Spirit" in there in exactly the same way I detailed, and sure. Same thing. It's "three" only in the sense of how we separate things out for the mind to "think" about things. It's actual reality however is inseparable into "parts". "It" is a "WHOLE". Trinity is just a mind device, not an actuality. Same thing with anything we "name" in this world.


That is what those who came up with that "formula", and that is what it is, a formulation, we seeing. I'm just parsing it apart from my perspectives and experience with the nature and Truth of the Divine. There are no Answers with a capital A, only perspectives, and systems of language to try to talk about these.


I think your idea of what mystics are and mind, are entirely different realities. First of all, I don't see God as "supernatural". I believe everything is "natural", which is itself, the best word to use is "Divine". Reality is a Divine Reality, and the physical world is part of that manifestation. Supernatural is a pointless term, as the Divine goes all the way up and all the way down. The physical world is is Divine. So is the mental world. So is the spiritual world. So is every other aspect of Life we have yet to identify. All of it is Divine.

So yes, absolutely the spiritual is part of Life! That is its nature. It's all spiritual. It's all Spirit. So you see, when I say you "define God", what happens is you limit God, and it is now no longer God, but an expectation of the mind to "find" this elusive, "transcendent" whatever up in the heaven or somewhere. Follow? It takes the Whole, and tries to make it as "something", which is impossible! If it can be identified as "that" and "not this", then it's not the Whole anymore!

Now, where the mystic comes in here, which you don't appear to understand from my perspective at the moment, is simply someone who has had, or pursues, or actually realizes experientially that Divine Reality that is everything you are looking at everyday the same as them, but only see a limited view, and consequently, a relationship with it.

I keep coming back to the artist, as they have the soul of one who needs and is compelled to "see beyond" what just appears to us. They wish to reach into the heart and soul of the senses and express something far deeper, more penetrating, more insightful, more liberated, more true, more genuine, and more real than just this stuff you touch and move around, and respond to day after day. The artist wants to touch the soul of reality, to feel beyond the surface, to reach into that "something" that cannot be described by is a fountain, a wellspring of life, creativity, and love.

Now, that is what the mystic is. The artist, the poet, the musician, the lover, except fully devoted to penetrating and emptying themselves into that Source from which all love, art, music, creation, and reality flow from. The mystic seek to Unite with the Divine, experientially, and become the Divine.

That's what a mystic is.

Really???

Context/intent not context/symantics

Edit aka: Did you get my point?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

​

Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex

It confuses the mess out of me. Just because it is spiritual does not mean it needs to mystic and complicated. Pet peeve.

Whatever the "real" definition is, I think of tarot cards and wands and things like that. Pretty much magic.

he branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Yeah. They are usually abstract concepts used or named as magic of some sort. Experiences that cant be named but real. New age.

^^^^^^^ The above, is not "flowering things up", with magic fairies and whatnot. Give me more credit than that, thank you. It is deeply philosophical, not the fantasies of children's imaginations. It is actually taking the reasoning mind to the limits of its capacity to penetrate further, without direct apprehension through experience. As Zen Buddhism puts it, "fingers pointing at the moon". Do you consider Zen to be "flowery rhetoric"?

But they do sometimes use flowery language. Some Buddhist mixed in with other esoteric religions.

What? I'm talking basic academic principles here, not metaphysics. In order to understand what the author of an ancient text was probably getting at, you have to understand the use of the words in the context of the culture and mindsets of the intended audience. How is that "mystical"? Would you consider a college course in ancient literature, "metaphysics"?​

​

How I see things it seems like metaphysics or new age or something. Examples above.

Energy works, but that word itself is metaphysical, if you don't know that. There is no "energy" as a thing in itself. It's simply a catchphrase for something that is the potential for doing work. What exactly is that "potential". Can you explain that?

Yes. A lot of people dont like energy because it is a dry word. Energy is more of a physics thing. Dont have details in my noggin.

What do you mean by that is potential?

And so when scripture says "he upholds all things by the power of his Word," you cannot hear a poetic expression for what you just said? Must it be literal and scientific for it to be heard?

Of course I hear poetry in scripture. I just made it short and simple. Whatever poetry, mystics (abstract), cultural concepts you use to explain god is fine. The only people I know that uses the energy, though different named, is Hindus. Its not a bad word just more direct.

Yes, exactly. It sounds a lot like them saying in response to him, "Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex". If on the other hand, they had a least a glimpse of what he describing, then they wouldn't be so cynical about something that doesn't easily fit into their reality.

Huh?

That is certainly the ego-eye view of him, that he makes it about them "believing him" personally, which of course is a projection on him. He could just recognize why they can't see it, because he can empathize having been a cavedweller looking at shadows his whole life too. He understands that without actual experience, they won't every really understanding, and saying they "believe him" would mean nothing actually if they didn't actually step outside the cave itself.

Shrugs.

Again, exactly right. Trying to place a boundary around "God" or that which transcends yet includes the physical (metaphysics), crushes it into some "fixed reality". That's what the mind fixated on "thinkingness" wants and craves however in order to feel it has some handles on reality. All of that, as I've been saying, is what is the illusion.

Im more direct in the god-things. But, yes, you can use that to explain the function of life and its importance to our wellbeing etc.

I assumed so. You view metaphysics as "magic" not philosophy. Yes. explained above.

It is not invalid at all to speak in those terms. In fact it can be quite helpful in moving beyond this "fixed" reality you speak of. That "fixed reality" is an illusion of the mind as it categorizes everything into boxes and puts it into containers that the mind can look at and process. But that is just a system of categorizations for the mind, not actual, real, reality.​

I just dont use poetry to describe it. Doesnt mean its less deep etc. Different modes of expression.

Yeah, our definitions of mystics are different. The definition you provided above is closest. I use my art to express myself within life; but, to call it a work of god (which is the closest I understand what you are saying) is probably something I wouldnt do. The word god has too many connotations that I dont like using it.

 

[David T]

He sacrificed His entire weekend.

Just friday and saturday he came back back for sunday football. Since this after all a star trek question........Jedi is a secret code word for christian.. I would like to believe they are praying but who knows.

 

[InChrist]

With old notes and online. I have not read a distinct answer to this repeated question. Normally it's in the middle of other topics.

How is jesus a sacrifice when he does not die?

A sacrifice is when you give something up of value for another person's wellbeing. Jesus said he sacrificed himself for your wellbeing. But what exactly did he loose in order to relate to you so that you are saved?

Edit. Actually, below are better questions: what's the definition of sacrifice and is there a higher one than giving up ones life.

Is there another definition of the Highest sacrifice that is beyond giving up ones life? (Probably a better question )

What' the definition of Christian sacrifice to where jesus can give himself up without dying?

I think the sacrifice of the Son (Jesus) was tremendous, beyond even our human ability to comprehend. Not only that of Jesus', but the Father and Holy Spirit as well. Imagine the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit existing in perfect love, joy and fulfillment one with another...eternally... no separation, no discord, no pain ever. Then the Son leaves this perfect loving, heavenly environment and comes to earth to dwell in human flesh to limit Himself, living and suffering as human being, dying a cruel and painful death in the flesh on the cross, but the worst of all His suffering was as He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself the Father who turned away from His beloved Son. This was the greatest pain and agony for both Father and Son, a separation they had never endured before. This sacrifice was costly to the extreme and was all for the purpose of providing the opportunity for forgiveness and reconciliation for the broken relationship between a Holy Creator God and sinful humanity, with the gift of eternal life.

I think God for such mercy and love.

 

[Windwalker]

Really???

Context/intent not context/symantics

Edit aka: Did you get my point?

Clearly not. You mention "Metaphysis" as a response to the things I'm says as if that somehow invalidates it? You then cite magic belief systems as examples of what you see metaphysics best represented by? Perhaps you should explain in plain language what you mean.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Or not any of that at all.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˌmedəˈfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics

1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika ‘the things after the Physics,’ referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural.’


^^^^^^^ The above, is not "flowering things up", with magic fairies and whatnot. Give me more credit than that, thank you. It is deeply philosophical, not the fantasies of children's imaginations. It is actually taking the reasoning mind to the limits of its capacity to penetrate further, without direct apprehension through experience. As Zen Buddhism puts it, "fingers pointing at the moon". Do you consider Zen to be "flowery rhetoric"?


It doesn't need to be complex at all. I've said this many times. Once you've had experience with it, then such language makes sense. But before said experience, it "confuses the mess out of me", because we are trying to use the reasoning mind to penetrate the ineffable with logic arguments. Of course you'll be confused! You're confusing yourself.


What? I'm talking basic academic principles here, not metaphysics. In order to understand what the author of an ancient text was probably getting at, you have to understand the use of the words in the context of the culture and mindsets of the intended audience. How is that "mystical"? Would you consider a college course in ancient literature, "metaphysics"?


Energy works, but that word itself is metaphysical, if you don't know that. There is no "energy" as a thing in itself. It's simply a catchphrase for something that is the potential for doing work. What exactly is that "potential". Can you explain that?


And so when scripture says "he upholds all things by the power of his Word," you cannot hear a poetic expression for what you just said? Must it be literal and scientific for it to be heard?


Yes, exactly. It sounds a lot like them saying in response to him, "Hm. When I think of metaphysics, I think of a couple of things: 1. neopaganism and modern witchcraft 2. Gothic or mystic 3. Flowering up reality to make it mystic and complex". If on the other hand, they had a least a glimpse of what he describing, then they wouldn't be so cynical about something that doesn't easily fit into their reality.


That is certainly the ego-eye view of him, that he makes it about them "believing him" personally, which of course is a projection on him. He could just recognize why they can't see it, because he can empathize having been a cavedweller looking at shadows his whole life too. He understands that without actual experience, they won't every really understanding, and saying they "believe him" would mean nothing actually if they didn't actually step outside the cave itself.


Exactly. Then what I am saying should not be confusing to you.


Again, exactly right. Trying to place a boundary around "God" or that which transcends yet includes the physical (metaphysics), crushes it into some "fixed reality". That's what the mind fixated on "thinkingness" wants and craves however in order to feel it has some handles on reality. All of that, as I've been saying, is what is the illusion.


I assumed so. You view metaphysics as "magic" not philosophy. It is not invalid at all to speak in those terms. In fact it can be quite helpful in moving beyond this "fixed" reality you speak of. That "fixed reality" is an illusion of the mind as it categorizes everything into boxes and puts it into containers that the mind can look at and process. But that is just a system of categorizations for the mind, not actual, real, reality.


Add the "Holy Spirit" in there in exactly the same way I detailed, and sure. Same thing. It's "three" only in the sense of how we separate things out for the mind to "think" about things. It's actual reality however is inseparable into "parts". "It" is a "WHOLE". Trinity is just a mind device, not an actuality. Same thing with anything we "name" in this world.


That is what those who came up with that "formula", and that is what it is, a formulation, we seeing. I'm just parsing it apart from my perspectives and experience with the nature and Truth of the Divine. There are no Answers with a capital A, only perspectives, and systems of language to try to talk about these.


I think your idea of what mystics are and mine, are entirely different realities. First of all, I don't see God as "supernatural". I believe everything is "natural", which is itself, the best word to use is "Divine". Reality is a Divine Reality, and the physical world is one manifestation of That. Supernatural is a pointless term, as the Divine goes all the way up and all the way down. The physical world is is Divine. So is the mental world. So is the spiritual world. So is every other aspect of Life we have yet to identify. All of it is Divine.

So yes, absolutely the spiritual is part of Life! That is its nature. It's all spiritual. It's all Spirit. So you see, when I say if you "define God", what happens is you limit God, and it is now no longer God, but an expectation of the mind to "find" this elusive, "transcendent" whatever up in the heaven or somewhere. Follow? It takes the Whole, and tries to make it as "something", which is impossible! If it can be identified as "that" and "not this", then it's not the Whole anymore!

Now, where the mystic comes in here, which you don't appear to understand from my perspective at the moment, is simply someone who has had, or pursues, or actually realizes experientially that Divine Reality that is everything you are looking at everyday the same as them, but only see a limited view, and consequently, a very partial, limited, bounded relationship with it as a result. The mystical is to "open up" our realities, to Reality. It simply lets in what is already there, which previous was unseen by the mind.

I keep coming back to the artist, as they have the soul of one who needs and is compelled to "see beyond" what just appears to us. They wish to reach into the heart and soul of the senses and express something far deeper, more penetrating, more insightful, more liberated, more true, more genuine, and more real than just this stuff you touch and move around, and respond to day after day. The artist wants to touch the soul of reality, to feel beyond the surface, to reach into that "something" that cannot be described, but is as a Fountain, a Wellspring of Life, Creativity, and Love.

Now, that is what the mystic is. The artist, the poet, the musician, the lover, except fully devoted to penetrating and emptying themselves into that Source from which all love, art, music, creation, and reality flow from. The mystic seek to Unite with the Divine, to Become the Divine.

That's what a mystic is. And metaphysics is simply a language, a tool-set to try to talk about something beyond, far, infinitely beyond its finest conceptions. The mystic moves beyond the concepts, into the Reality itself, and then tries to describe it, the world of Light to the those dwelling in shadow, if they choose to speak at all.

Clearly not. You mention "Metaphysis" as a response to the things I'm says as if that somehow invalidates it? You then cite magic belief systems as examples of what you see metaphysics best represented by? Perhaps you should explain in plain language what you mean.

It's not serious, deep, philosophical statement. I see metaphysics (the definition you gave) as new age, abstract, magic of some sort. People have mystic experiences and such. You derailed my point. It has nothing to do with metaphysics.

It' the definition you copied and pasted. Nothing fancier than that and not even near the context of the post.

 

[Mogo18]

With old notes and online. I have not read a distinct answer to this repeated question. Normally it's in the middle of other topics.

How is jesus a sacrifice when he does not die?

A sacrifice is when you give something up of value for another person's wellbeing. Jesus said he sacrificed himself for your wellbeing. But what exactly did he loose in order to relate to you so that you are saved?

Edit. Actually, below are better questions: what's the definition of sacrifice and is there a higher one than giving up ones life.

Is there another definition of the Highest sacrifice that is beyond giving up ones life? (Probably a better question )

What' the definition of Christian sacrifice to where jesus can give himself up without dying?

Jesus did die in the flesh which was entombed. He died on Friday and his soul, or Spirit descended into Hell (which sometimes is referred to as purgatory or a spiritual prison). On the third day he rose from the dead- his body and soul rejoined and the tomb revealed no body. He was seen by many of his followers and family and records exist in the Bible speaking of those meetings and discussions. In some, he tells people not to touch him, not having been with God the Father yet. In others he offers his hands and feet showing his crucifixion scars and people can touch the marks, including the piercing in his side- his body had been resurrected into a physical state. He lives, eats and talks with people before assuring them that they may not see him in future but he is a constant with them- they must have faith and believe so they too will be with him once they die too.
It is believed, by his words during his Ministry that his coming to earth was to experience the birth life and death us all. Further, that he came to set aside all laws up to that time. He gave a replacement to all people of a better way to live alongside the 10 commandments given by Moses. By his birth, life and death he experienced what it feels like to be human. No other way would do. He understood perfectly the pain, sin and other emotions. He took on him all the sins of the world to redeem humanity forever, and in that way we are saved, forgiven and redeemed. His perfect knowledge is with God the Father but only the experiences on Earth as a human with all his suffering could enable him to be our advocate, forgive our sins and by his Grace or perfection so we too can return in spirit after our physical death. To be with God in heaven, or paradise. His role as God the Son was fulfilled by his suffering on earth, but he Saved us by his death taking all sins from us and forgiving us, so we won’t have to suffer for them when we die.

 

[Mogo18]

That is great Mud, well done and I wish you always well in life.

Personally I have found that sin can go deeper than we realize, as to me it is feeding the constant self. I see we have to even consider the power of our thoughts and thus what we direct our minds to and on.

I also consider what good deeds we could have done, but did not and what help could I have given, but self interest made me unaware.

Regards Tony

Such a good answer. None of us can claim to be without sin- we either commit or omit all the time. Reading and re-reading the New Testament particularly guides us towards perfection...Christ knew from personal experience how easy it is to sin. Thanks

 

[Mogo18]

This'll make some crazy with anger. Jesus was here to instruct, and to show that a path exists from life to death and to life again, though this second life is dimensionally shifted so we can not see it unless it is revealed. Nothing mystical, or metaphysical at all.

This'll make some crazy with anger. Jesus was here to instruct, and to show that a path exists from life to death and to life again, though this second life is dimensionally shifted so we can not see it unless it is revealed. Nothing mystical, or metaphysical at all.

I think you’re right! I do believe in the mystery of it too though. Christ was here to learn from humanity and all its experiences He also taught showing us how to cast off dross and what we need to concentrate on. How to believe in what awaits us, how to reach our passing into a heavenly existence, perhaps that exists unseen till we’re each ready?