3bob

although that could be a promblemo in the making if the person is a border line psycho or having a bad hair day....

please don't give that out to our politicians, they are dangerous enough already.

who is this "you" and who is this "I", the four-fold negation knows. (or should it be said that it knows that it doesn't know)

that could be an interesting tangential extrapolation, go for it...

I know a couple of things about metaphysical study, while my wife, kids, dog, cat and being a householder taught me a lot more about getting down to the brass tacks.

nada speako thato

right, and at least make a variation of the original mistake if doing so

well in one case quite awhile ago she flipped me off, lol

That op was for a little fun although sometimes strangely true for many of us... I might modify your sentence with: "when you see an apparently unworthy person examine yourself closely"

BKA, And if we had done things differently we might have also not been stuck along with being in a more ideal situation.

two trucks and one with dualies sounds dualistic

I thought Neo was the one...

Likewise Silent Thunder, and I'm getting up to that one

My take: The straw dogs are sacrificed (so to speak) after serving a purpose for a limited time, likewise and on another scale to "return" to the Tao would also take the sacrifice of ones personal straw dogs... (as a great Sage has done) so straw in either case was only of forms that come and go for that which is hidden in plain sight and walked over yet it was never born and will never die and all seek it.

I don't know the full historical, ceremonial and mystical context of this term "straw dogs" but if one thinks of straw dogs as being sacrificed as in forms being sacrificed for transformation / transmutation purposes then the connotation sounds a lot different than what could be taken as an indifference in treatment.

"what does it mean to be sacred" That's an easy one, (although far easier said than done) and there are many examples given or implied in about every chapter of the TTC, for example: 49. "THE Sage has no interests of his own, But takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; He is also kind to the unkind: For Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; He is also faithful to the unfaithful: For Virtue is faithful..."

My take is that George is missing the entire meaning of the saying for the sarcastic and comedic hell of it. What is sacred is the life force and spirit within all forms, thus the forms are not sacred per-se since it is really the purity of life force and or spirit force and being-ness that powers forms which is sacred. Thus to not see or have any understanding or feeling for that within form and then to further disrespect or try to do malicious violence against the life-force and spirit being-ness that is powering oneself and anyone or anything else is to go against that which is really sacred.

darkness is only twisted light, but the untwisting to find such light can be a long, tough row to hoe.... A related tangent if you will: "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light" (Luke 11:34-36).

holy dog crap, and with love to?

A quote containing various takes or points on the saying, "go and sin no more". open for wherever it may go... ---------------------------------------------------- Abusing scriptures: “Go and sin no more.” Posted on October 4, 2013 —by Nicolas Poussin, from Wikimedia Commons: "Jesus’ parting words to the woman caught in adultery are “Go your way, and do not sin again.” This is a favorite line for Christians who wish to maintain that Christian ethics demands forgiveness, but not the excusing of continued sexual immorality. It crops up with tiresome regularity in discussions about the acceptability of gay and lesbian love in church communities. (The argument only makes sense if you already agree that homosexuality is a sin). Jesus forgives the woman, goes the reasoning, but he doesn’t excuse her sin. This is certainly one way to read the passage, and I’m happy to consider this understanding of it (even if I reject the implication that gay or lesbian love is the moral equivalent of adultery). But I find it troubling how we use this passage to construct a theological system about sin and how we approach it within Christian community. Doing so places us right back in the position of the murderous men. A couple of preliminary points: First, I think it’s important to point out that this story is an addition to John. I don’t think that necessarily decreases its legitimacy as a Jesus story, or as an authoritative, inspired text, but I think it’s important to point out before exegeting it. Second, there’s a great detailed summary of the social situation of the woman in this blog post, which suggests that the title should not be “The Woman Caught in Adultery” but “Jesus and the Murderous Men.” Capital punishment by subjugated people under Roman occupation was actually illegal. Occupiers tend to frown upon native populations carrying out their own executions, which is why Jesus was handed over to the Romans to be killed. These men bring the woman to Jesus to be stoned in violation of Roman law and accepted Jewish practice, which called any council that condemned more than one person to death in seven years a “murderous” council. If we want to figure out how “sin” is used in this story, it doesn’t make sense to talk about Jesus’ words to the woman without also connecting it to his statement to the men. They bring a woman (and not a man) to Jesus to be stoned. He tells them, “Let the one without sin throw the first stone.” So nobody does. They all walk away. But Jesus doesn’t tell them to go and sin no more. They leave of their own accord. Why? Why wouldn’t they stick around to see if someone would pick up a rock? Why didn’t they engage in a discussion with Jesus about which sins are punishable by death and which ones are not? This is the usual pattern in discussions with Jesus and religious leaders. I honestly can’t imagine Christians who quote the “go and sin no more” line giving up so easily and melting back into the crowd. They would at least want to stick around and hear what Jesus said to the woman. Is “sin no more” implied in Jesus’ words to the men? If he were to tell them to sin no more, what sin would he be referring to? To their private (and perhaps sexual) sins? To the sin of dragging a woman in front of him to be stoned? Or is their sin just sort of a generic, “We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) variety? I really like Tony’s observations about the “muddy” situation that the woman is in, and that the whole violence-against-women narrative is not incidental to the story. Discussions about what constitutes sin (sexual or otherwise) and who is guilty of it are frequently tied to ways we legitimize violence. We don’t actually know her story. We accept the men’s accusations at face value. It is entirely possible that she has been sexually mistreated, married off at an early age and against her will. It is possible that she has been set up, or even raped. If so, “Go and sin no more” sounds like blaming the victim. Is Jesus complicit in a culture of rape and violence? Or maybe Jesus means the words differently. Do we hear Jesus’ words to her in the same way we hear his words to the murderous men? Are we sure that his “Go and sin no more” is a reference to her adultery, or might it refer to something else? After all, if we’re going to let the men off with generic sinfulness, why do we assume the word “sin” refers to her alleged adultery? Or maybe Jesus is just treating her as their equal (and equally capable of judgment and violence). Perhaps, having been cleared of her sin (“neither do I condemn you”), she is truly free from slut-shaming culture. If so then the men, it would seem, are still stuck in their sin. After all, Jesus doesn’t tell them to sin no more. Their shame keeps them from asking forgiveness from either Jesus or the woman they have dragged before him. They wander away before hearing any words that release them from their condemnation. Shouldn’t they have apologized? Does our shame keep us from reconciling with people we have judged? It’s possible that this is not a happy ending. Her accusers go back to their judgmental ways. Are we to imagine that the crowd that had shamed her will treat her as an equal from now on, and not refer to her as “The Woman Caught in Adultery,” the way we do? I also don’t think the story is complete without looking at the ways Jesus discusses sin in other places in John. In one story, he tells a formerly paralyzed man not to sin so that nothing worse happens to him. In another, when his disciples ask him whose sin caused a man to be born blind, Jesus says, “No one.” Is it possible to put together a coherent theology of sin, forgiveness, and the divine will from these passages without doing intellectual acrobatics? I love this story. It’s one reason I’m not content to say it doesn’t belong in John’s gospel. But I think it’s sad that we appropriate a scripture that explicitly rejects violence and inequality to legitimize more violence and inequality. It’s abusing scripture: abusing it and using it to abuse"

Manitou, That was a very important point you gave!

Ask Jack

Hey man I suggest reading Edgar Cayce's interpretation of the Book of Revelations to get a better handle on what the heck is being talked about, (btw, I would agree with a lot of what Cayce transmitted although and maybe not all of it) This part of the Bible imo & ime is largely in "code" (so to speak) just as a lot of the rest of the rest of it is.

Actually I think it was implied that John at least met Master Jesus in a great vision or telepathic encounter.

Btw, I think a related tangent is spoken of in The T.T.C. Chapter 74, and more so in the highlighted and underlined text below done by me: 74. "When the people are no longer afraid of death, Why scare them with the spectre of death? If you could make the people always afraid of death, And they still persisted in breaking the law, Then you might with reason arrest and execute them, And who would dare to break the law? Is not the Great Executor always there to kill? To do the killing for the Great Executor Is to chop wood for a master carpenter, And you would be lucky indeed if you did not hurt your own hand!" (and I don't think the highlighted part of this chapter is only talking about a human executor appointed by a court or king...)