The EnlightenMeFree (EMF) Online Debate Forum

I would like to post something that Brian (my partner) posted on EE and my response (this is how healthy couples discuss things, through facebook..lololol:


Brian
PROPOSED LIMITATIONS re: Breadth of Argument

There are areas on both EE and EMF where discussion too often crosses over into the realm of the unacceptable — I would propose that there are boundaries beyond which civil discussion should not transgress. I would suggest that transcendental topics, commonly referred to as metaphysics, an area that includes religious belief, should be off limits — that only verifiable concepts should be grounds for discussion.

Per Merriam-Webster — Metaphysical:
a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
b : supernatural

Certainly, in discussing RSE, one should not be constrained to avoid the OBJECTIVE discussion of RSE-related metaphysics, such as the RSE concepts of “the quantum field,” “remote viewing,” “thought creates reality,” or even “time lines.” That is, in the main, what this site is all about! These are non-verifiable concepts, these are metaphysical beliefs, religious beliefs, if you will — not knowledge known by historians or science, not verifiable facts. To objectively discuss such concepts in the realm of RSE beliefs would seem appropriate to the site, but to suggest that “thought creates reality” is a justifiable teaching (should you believe that), becomes promotion of a religious belief, possibly proselytization. Such discussion should be discouraged from appearing on the site.

In addition:
We are discussing what many have chosen to call a “cult” which is a word most often offensively used. I think it counterproductive to argue that other organizations are “also cults,” as these other organizations are not the objects of our examinations. A recent discussion on EMF focused on the Roman Catholic Church and whether it, too, was a “cult,” and specifically, was it a “destructive cult”? Is that really helpful to the task at hand?

I have been criticized that I have defended Christianity, when I really have only been trying to argue that JZ Knight has failed to understand Christianity when criticizing it. I have felt, in doing so, that I have been neither proselytizing, nor expounding on Christianity per se, but only trying to point out that an enlightened being, transcendent of time, SHOULD know and understand precisely what Judeo-Christianity is and has always been, and should not make the common errors of the uneducated! To those who failed to appreciate the thrust of my argument, I apologize.

The Deep Question is this: When someone leaves RSE, a spiritual void is created. There is a natural tendency to seek to fill that void (cf. Pascal, Pensees re. Divertissement). Part of the value of this site is the support given in this regard, reminding each other of what has been left behind and guarding each other to not make the very same mistakes again. Does a rule restricting the discussion of metaphysics impose a harshness intolerable to those on the site? Is it an unfair imposition?
Like · · Unfollow post · 25 minutes ago

response from Virginia: I think we can discuss these things but be clear about what is metaphysical versus what can be proven scientifically and so when we are theorizing we should be clear we are theorizing not assuming. If we do that with religion, or new age concepts we will be consistent. Let's require more proof to our statements and less blind faith in anything. Fair enough?

and this was in reply to a member who said "we DO create our reality":[/b]

******, we have not proven thought creates reality. It is my belief, it is yours, it is not proven. What the bleep is totally fanciful. It is not even scientific enough to be theory by people who really know science. Scientists say that this quantum physics is not anything like what the new age has stolen it to mean. Some of us believe that we have anecdotal proof that thought creates reality. After watching all the Darren Brown videos on our files I have come to realize what the human brain is capable of making up to substantiate our current fads and beliefs du jour. I choose to rip away my whole foundation of what I think I have seen or what I think I believe to start over. Saying "our thoughts really DO create our reality" is not different than saying Jesus Christ is the one and only God. They are metaphysical beliefs, there is no proof and since we are all just getting out of a cult we need to be careful to realize that these things are only hypothesis. Discussions are great, that is why we are here however let's be careful not to use factual statements for unproven metaphysical beliefs. That is how we could get down another rabbit hole.

-Moderator Comment-
This post by Joe has been moved from the Catholic Church Cult thread.

Joe Szimhart
I was replying to the Virginia post that was moved
but to remain in sequence I will leave it up to moderators to keep y reply here or move it..

Virginia,
good points made by you and your partner. I have no objection to any of that.

There is however a difference, as pointed out above, between arguing emphatically that "Jesus is God" [Christian] or "I am/you are God" [a la Ramtha, Shirley MacLaine, Nietzsche,] or "the guru is God" [Radhasoami Satsang/Sant Mat] or "stop asking stupid questions" [Buddha] and expounding on what is meant by that belief.

I repeat here that I am NOT a Fundamentalist. So, if anyone is going to hurl questions at me like : How can you believe that jesus really existed and how do you know that he was not just another ramtha, I have to bite my tongue or be Buddha and state "Stop asking stupid questions."

When I say something like "jesus is Lord" there are pages of explanation coming next as to what I mean by that.

In these discussions, we really should not give a fig whether "you" believe that Jesus is Lord.
As mentioned above, no one is proselytizing or recruiting here....
I do have an issue with how that or any statement of belief is understood whether by atheists or catholics or fundies.

There has been a rigorous debate over the historicity and context of the Jesus event..it is ongoing--but the majority of scholars agree that a person named Jesus as the Christ did live, teach and die in Palestine. Also agreed is that a remarkably strong movement arose immediately [within weeks] after this Jew was crucified. The witnesses as recorded experienced both a resurrection of this Jew as well as a spiritual awakening associated with that resurrection. The message they promoted was simple: The God of the universe so loved us that God took on all our sins [flaws, mistakes, limits, mental dysfunctions, diseases] through a self-sacrifice marked in time and in the body of the person Jesus. The invitation was to merely believe this, accept it as a gift because no human being could ever grasp or sustain the effort necessary to "save" herself or himself---think of this as jumping off the planet with your own two feet to get to Betelgeuse, eg. The apostles taught, sure make the effort you can....keep the commandments... but the real trip to Betelgeuse is all in this "God's" hands and always was. He is the shepherd, you are the sheep. Love and faith in that love alone will carry you the rest of the way.

Compare this with large group awareness workshops and intensives to get you to make the leap in human evolution to become God [Andrew Cohen worskhops, RSE events, eg].

There is a difference. The CC at its "core" states what I said above. It is calld the kerygma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

Scholarship since that time has problematized Bultmann's theory, but in Biblical and theological discussions, the term kerygma has come to denote the irreducible essence of Christian apostolic preaching.

The ancient Christian kerygma as summarized by Dodd from Peter's speeches in the New Testament Book of Acts was:
1.The Age of Fulfillment has dawned, the "latter days" foretold by the prophets.
2.This has taken place through the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
3.By virtue of the resurrection, Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God as Messianic head of the new Israel.
4.The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ's present power and glory.
5.The Messianic Age will reach its consummation in the return of Christ.
6.An appeal is made for repentance with the offer of forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.

the CC states:

Transliteration of the Greek word that means proclamation or preaching. Depending on the context, it may refer to either the content proclaimed or the act of proclaiming.

St. Paul, who uses this term six times in his letters, clearly indicates that kerygma means both the content of his message, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the courageous proclamation of this message he has carried out in his ministry.

St. Paul explains further that kerygma is not human eloquence or wisdom. Those who accept this kerygma, do so because of the power of the Holy Spirit, who touches their hearts.

iow, this experience or impact of the proclamation was a spiritual event for most early converts who first heard, not a "didache" or persuasive preaching.

That would be the core of the CC--all else is commentary, politics, social adaptation, and maintenance.

In a way, the entire AA movement as based on a "kerygma" or awakening to a proclamation that "I am powerless to do anything about my addiction [sin]. Therefore, i give it over to a higher power [by any Name]. I have known many addicts in recovery for whom this "experience" worked...like they were suddenly transformed, thus were able to stay sober, or at least for the first time know the way to that sobriety.

so if you or I are going to state something like "Jesus might have been just the Ramtha of his day" or "..just the Buddha of his day", be careful as the message and effects of the message may be vastly different.

i responded to this post and gave up. i grew up as a catolic and know by experience and reports what this f... cult did to culture , me and members. i rely like joes input and knowledge on this board. on this threat i thought its fruitless to go anymore into it because joe flatted every response with his 'doctrine' knowledge [which by the way is not necessarily reaching members. i still grew up with heaven hell and purgatory].
the arguments reached the point were all ramsters go, when you challenge their motivation, why they support a destructive cult: the teachings are ok. jz is not ramtha.....
so my question is [which i also ask ramsters]: how much dirty laundry do you and i don't mean joe] ignore to keep feeling good about your church [that includes rse]?
i appreciated the materials david threw in. it went too far for me when the hot questions got avoided or downplayed. pedophile issues maybe just 1% of the priests but sexual assault, abuse in general are higher numbers in cc institutions and shouldn't be ignored through this little statistic manipulation.the problems catolic priests create through being forced to live in celebathy are tremendous. to avoid this part in the discussion is, in my opinion , like a ramster who wants to downplay the wine ceremonies. also the statement that jc is real and existed is far fetched. there is the possibility that he is a composite figure were many of his deeds are attached by the creation of: just a 'good story'. like its done by historic figures who lived in the far past.
the statement that every religion has to be studied extensevly to form an opinion , or joes challange: to know exactly what you r talking about , was another one which just made me shake my head about our learned friends here.
i question if emf is the place to make a stand for cc
there seems to be no dirty laundry on the rse campus so we start to chew each other up?

i question if emf is the place to make a stand for cc

Hi ex,
I say absolutely no, I think this is the crux of the current upset over Joe's thread 'catholic church cult'.
Yes..of course there is room on EMF to discuss/debate theological issue so long as it is dovetailed to the purpose of EMF.
All to easy can 'a defense of a particular religious point of view' re abuse, slip into the fog of...as you put it "'doctrine' knowledge'.
EMF is not the place for this form of debate then used as a sidestep of cultic abuse and that includes the RCC.
Too personal? Too controversial? Too sensitive? Too hard to look at?
Getting brainwashed by a mind-raping cult gets real personal in my view...
The view is not good, but look at it we will..wherever it goes on,
at least on EMF.
David