Is there a space for queer people in a traditional or semi-traditional setting?

[Bindi]

A lot of writing and discussion has already happened regarding being gay and Christian. Some haven’t chosen to throw out the baby with the bath water, and have instead re-examined the history of the anti-gay stance of the church. In some denominations openly gay clergy are being ordained. If you are drawn to Christianity, you can read up on the conversation so far, you could try something like

 

 

or read good material online like https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-years-ago-the-catholic-church-paid-little-attention-to-homosexuality-112830

 

Jesus as a figure is worth listening to, and it would be a shame if the institution that has grown up around him puts you off. Much better to force the institution to change by questioning its assumptions. 
 

[dachungzi]

From Diamond J himself:

 

Matthew 5:18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

The Law, capitalized, because it refers to the Torah, Hebrew for law, in fact basically all ancient languages refer to religion as such. Dharma is also Sanskrit for law or duty. The Torah contains the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, of which Leviticus is the third. I really don't have to tell you just how important Moses is as a prophet to all of the Abrahamic traditions do I? So no, Jesus emphatically states you are called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, at best, for your views, that we should forget all the bloodthirsty and prejudiced rhetoric of the Tanakh, least of all the vaunted Torah, until Heaven and Earth DISAPPEAR.

 

Do you sir still stand on Earth and believe there to be a Heaven? Even if you suppose a poetic reading, do you truly believe the line between Heaven and Earth have fully blurred together in this day and age? And what do you suppose of the obvious implication that stoning your brother and sisters to death for not wanting to make progeny or, like, making or owning a jacket with a wool liner or a polycotton blend, or insisting that all these rules about how long the awl you drive through your slaves' ear must be and how long of a coma they can be in from a beating before it counts as a sin is actually necessary, and not grotesque and needless because slavery itself is an abomination? I'm sorry, this religion makes no such claim that these things are wrong, it quite confidently proclaims the exact opposite in fact.

 

I am really, very sorry, but our culture is the way it is for a reason, this religion plays no small part. I will not say it is the only factor, but it is most definitely one such factor, and a strong one. I really cannot possibly see a path to liberation for a queer individual in this faith that makes any kind of sense and can't very easily descend you into self hate and persecution from your peers.

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[Bindi]

Clearly there is a greater issue here than homosexuality, as Christians nowadays aren’t required to be circumcised nor do they follow Jewish dietary law. Are all Christians therefore already least in the Kingdom of Heaven? 
 

In Western nations adultery isn’t punished by the death penalty, yet in the bible death is the required punishment. How then can you explain that Jesus stopped the stoning of an adulteress, which is a clear case of him not following the Law? Also, Jesus was taken to task for healing on the Sabbath. I could argue that he was not averse to breaking the letter of the Law when it suited him. 
 

Personally, I believe that ‘heaven and earth’, and bringing heaven and earth together, are legitimate placeholders for energetic realities within an individual. 
 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Bindi

[dachungzi]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

Clearly there is a greater issue here than homosexuality, as Christians nowadays aren’t required to be circumcised nor do they follow Jewish dietary law.

 

I'd argue that they absolutely are required to do those things and that most Americans are circumcised regardless of their personal faith, because of Christianity. It's plain as day to me Peter's dreams to "kill and eat" was obviously a commandment to put evangelism above his personal purity as a higher virtue; that he'll never convert the heathens unless he can break bread with them. Not the complete disavowal of Kashrut European Christians were eager to make it out to be so they could keep their pig farms and not upset their status quo in adopting this hogwash.

 

Quote

Are all Christians therefore already least in the Kingdom of Heaven? 

 

Yes

 

Quote

In Western nations adultery isn’t punished by the death penalty, yet in the bible death is the required punishment. How then can you explain that Jesus stopped the stoning of an adulteress, which is a clear case of him not following the Law? Also, Jesus was taken to task for healing on the Sabbath. I could argue that he was not averse to breaking the letter of the Law when it suited him.

 

I would say that The Bible's many, many internal contradictions are a demerit and not a merit. And then the question is raised, how do you discern what commandments to uphold and which not to and when, when Jesus clearly states holding and teaching all of them is the highest virtue? And further from there, there is still the fundamental problem: why is it a sin in the first place? Why is homosexuality explicitly, violently condemned where slaveowning and genocide is clearly allowed for the former and is commanded in the latter (not even the fucking livestock of the Amalekites was to be spared!) and rape is only grievous if the woman is married and a slap on the wrist if they're not, with the clear logic being that it's violating the property of the husband or father of the woman. Why? And is it not obvious that the suggestion is that being a gay or effeminate man is considered more obscene and detrimental than fucking slaveowning and genocide? Where is the compassion, the wisdom, the divinity in that? 

 

Quote

Personally, I believe that ‘heaven and earth’, and bringing heaven and earth together, are legitimate placeholders for energetic realities within an individual. 

 

That's nice if that works for you, but that is a reading so incongruous with any interpretation of the Bible I can possibly fathom and completely outside the realm of any body of practitioners until just extremely recently maybe, whereas some 95+% of Christians would absolutely tell you you're doing witchcraft and would like to see you hanged, saying: "Look the queers are subverting our sacred faith into demon worship to recruit our kids!" 

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[idiot_stimpy]

Have you considered speaking with a professional psychologist to explore your past life experiences with? Maybe even a close trusted friend?

 

A religious teacher might be good at teaching their religion but I'm not sure that is what you're looking for.

[Bindi]

16 minutes ago, dachungzi said:

 

I'd argue that they absolutely are required to do those things and that most Americans are circumcised regardless of their personal faith, because of Christianity. It's plain as day to me Peter's dreams to "kill and eat" was obviously a commandment to put evangelism above his personal purity as a higher virtue; that he'll never convert the heathens unless he can break bread with them. Not the complete disavowal of Kashrut European Christians were eager to make it out to be so they could keep their pig farms and not upset their status quo in adopting this hogwash.

 

 

Yes

 

 

I would say that The Bible's many, many internal contradictions are a demerit and not a merit. And then the question is raised, how do you discern what commandments to uphold and which not to and when, when Jesus clearly states holding and teaching all of them is the highest virtue?
 

 

I hold to the directive that the kingdom of heaven is within, and pursue only this, though the Ten Commandments are a good way to hold us in check externally before we find it. 

 

16 minutes ago, dachungzi said:

 

And further from there, there is still the fundamental problem: why is it a sin in the first place?
 

 

Why does Christianity say we are born with original sin, why does ‘Hinduism’ say we have three knots (granthis) to undo, why does Taoism say we have three worms that need to be removed? This is a more fundamental problem than why has the bible been interpreted to view homosexuality as a sin. 
 

Anyway, read Matthew Vine’s take on why homosexuality is not considered a sin here.

 

16 minutes ago, dachungzi said:

Why is homosexuality explicitly, violently condemned where slaveowning and genocide is clearly allowed for the former and is commanded in the latter (not even the fucking livestock of the Amalekites was to be spared!) and rape is only grievous if the woman is married and a slap on the wrist if they're not, with the clear logic being that it's violating the property of the husband or father of the woman. Why? And is it not obvious that the suggestion is that being a gay or effeminate man is considered more obscene and detrimental than fucking slaveowning and genocide? Where is the compassion, the wisdom, the divinity in that? 

 

 

That's nice if that works for you, but that is a reading so incongruous with any interpretation of the Bible I can possibly fathom and completely outside the realm of any body of practitioners until just extremely recently maybe, whereas some 95+% of Christians would absolutely tell you you're doing witchcraft and would like to see you hanged, saying: "Look the queers are subverting our sacred faith into demon worship to recruit our kids!" 

I’m not a Christian, I have found I can’t squeeze my thinking down to fit any religion or philosophy, though I see value threaded through many of them, and I have a lot of faith in what I am doing so I’m prepared to run with it. When I was just out of school I seriously considered becoming a nun, I was educated in a Catholic school and my intense desire to know and embrace the ‘spiritual’ was at first projected into my cultural conditioning. But even before I had considered becoming a nun, I had made a decision to examine and understand and follow my dreams, and after thinking I would like to become a nun I had a dream that said ‘don’t do it’, ie., don’t become a nun, and this dream voice was the voice I followed. 
 

In retrospect I believe that being a Catholic nun would have limited me, I prefer my own independent path, it makes things harder and more confusing on the way, but it’s getting easier. 

[dachungzi]

28 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

Have you considered speaking with a professional psychologist to explore your past life experiences with? Maybe even a close trusted friend?

 

A religious teacher might be good at teaching their religion but I'm not sure that is what you're looking for.

I'm not cognizant of any past lives and I know more about psychology than I do religion, tell an actual psychology phd psychologist how much your memories of past lives weighs on your day to day life the diagnosis you're likely to get is schizotypal or schizoid, I promise, and yes I've wondered if I am not that myself. The cynical armchair psychiatrist in me is also a little scared for my temporal lobe.

 

Though if I'm to accept the possibility of it, I do find it a little uncanny how close I came to proper practice of at least a couple different specific meditations when I was very, very young, based off just a very vague notion of what meditation is and the incidental desire to experience the things I suppose they were meant to produce.

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[idiot_stimpy]

Considering you are drawn to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism, this is a good start. Depending on where you live, maybe there are no schools or organisations near you to visit. This shouldn't stop you from engaging in personal practice though, unless you are waiting on specific instructions on how to carry out said practice.

 

At this time, esoteric practices from Buddhism may be more widely accessible. Unfortunately most come with cultural trappings, from the culture they are more centered in. It is helpful to use our discriminating mind to separate that which is from the culture and the pure esoteric truths that it has merged with. We don't need this cultural baggage, in order to place a foot forward on the path to freedom. 

 

I wish you well.

Edited November 18, 2020 by idiot_stimpy

[dachungzi]

@Bindi I read it, and I'm sorry I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because all of those points are exactly what I meant by "laughably reaching" in earlier posts. I vehemently disagree the concept of original sin is a more fundamental problem than homosexuality being explicitly mentioned. Original sin is an abstraction and assumed that all have it, and judgement only between you and God; homosexuality is explicitly mentioned, it didn't need a word, let's not argue semantics, you know what "a man that lies with another man" means, and it is condemned with active, worldly violence. No such threat made to heterosexuals. There's also a pretty consistent internal logic to the grathis and the sanshi within their own contexts in my opinion, but I don't know.

[dachungzi]

Also, the Fulfillment of the Law isn't referencing just the 10 Commandments, and shit, even the 10 Commandments I can't put my entire weight behind, filial piety in general throws me to be honest, with the simple question: what if your parents are assholes? I mean, like, life threatening level of toxic?

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[idiot_stimpy]

12 minutes ago, dachungzi said:

...with the simple question: what if your parents are assholes? I mean, like, life threatening level of toxic?

 

We should feel sorry for them that they had made poor life decisions that led to poor outcomes.

 

It can be relative, as parents may think their children are toxic, but in turn their children may consider their parents toxic. It becomes an entangled mess.

 

Ancestor worship can be seen as an acknowledgement of ancestors who without them, the bloodline would not exist. Also some believe as ancestors die they become spiritual protectors over the remaining family, with some even reincarnating back into the same family.

 

These moral laws were written by living humans. The spiritual search moves beyond rigid doctrines into an unlimited space where everything falls away.

Edited November 18, 2020 by idiot_stimpy

[dachungzi]

8 minutes ago, idiot_stimpy said:

It can be relative, as parents may think their children are toxic, but in turn their children may consider their parents toxic. It becomes an entangled mess.

 

I really feel in most cases, only one party is really correct in that judgement though. Making any outreach can be legitimately dangerous for both in a lot of cases, it can enable self-destructive behavior and opens channels for abuse and attack. I think most people try very hard for a very long time before they decide to make a complete break, or otherwise have very good reason to think they would be in mortal danger for so much as announcing their presence, completely no fault of their own. It's an obvious problem really just imagining the dynamic of a domestic violence situation, and you would encounter it again and again if you spent time helping people in a community, no need to experience it yourself. It feels so... uninspired to not temper precepts of filial piety with the knowledge of this reality. Worse yet to encourage the abuse, "spare the rod, spoil the child" and what not...

 

At least there is a strong framework in Buddhism and Daoism for anti-literalist and anti-puritanical interpretation, "finger pointing to the Moon" and "The Dao that can be named is not the Eternal Dao" and such, that helps soften my criticisms but it still feels... Farcical in a lot of ways for me to uncritically integrate it into my life at this point. Too many things that grate against me when I look more deeply into its texts and past. Feel less well versed in Hinduism but I'm not holding my breath that there won't be similar confusions there. And even wondering rather it would actually help me even. I've felt some benefit in accepting some of these modes of thinking and experiences back into my life, but I can easily see how this could flip the other direction and turn me into a strange kind of spiritual hypochondriac, another layer of anxiety on my life. So I feel like some guidance would be really helpful, but all I see outside of traditional environments are... Dudes trying to sell me DVD sets and books to groom me into opening an energy healing business or help them do seminars and shit... I'm not interested. I read Dream Trippers and I literally laughed out loud and said "Exactly!" when Chen Yuming said "How could a man claiming to do Daoist cultivation possibly say something like that?" after Michael Winn told him "I'm a businessman!" in defense of his excessive haggling.

[Bindi]

53 minutes ago, dachungzi said:

@Bindi I read it, and I'm sorry I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because all of those points are exactly what I meant by "laughably reaching" in earlier posts.

 

I do get what you are saying, his arguments might not satisfy me either if I were dealing with your Issues. In the end I walked away from  belonging to any group, so I can hardly preach to you about accepting anyone’s arguments or justifications against homosexuality as a sin in the bible. 

 

53 minutes ago, dachungzi said:

I vehemently disagree the concept of original sin is a more fundamental problem than homosexuality being explicitly mentioned. Original sin is an abstraction and assumed that all have it, and judgement only between you and God; homosexuality is explicitly mentioned, it didn't need a word, let's not argue semantics, you know what "a man that lies with another man" means, and it is condemned with active, worldly violence. No such threat made to heterosexuals. There's also a pretty consistent internal logic to the grathis and the sanshi within their own contexts in my opinion, but I don't know.

The reason I think original sin/the three granthis/the three worms(sanchong) are more fundamental is because they are all saying there is something amiss within our energy system, there’s something wrong and we might be able to fix it and make it right. Since we both agree there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then it isn’t a stumbling block that needs to be removed, it’s more like a non-issue, and if Christianity doesn’t see it that way that’s their problem, not yours. However, there being something inherently amiss in yourself is your problem, and it’s everyones personal problem that they are accountable for. I don’t agree with any systems ways of making it right either, so I follow my own way. 

[dachungzi]

Oh and just as a fun aside, Michael Winn also drank his own urine during a cave fast in the erroneous belief it would make for net hydration. Dunno if he encourages that to students, I sure hope not, but in any case, it doesn't, urine is dehydrating since it's full of salts and toxins your kidneys filter, and it's not sterile, you can give yourself enteritis. Fasts longer than a day or two can be a little dangerous even for a healthy adult, and dehydration kills you many magnitudes faster than starvation, starvation can take up to 100+ days, but health wonk for lack of a better word can arise in a week, so take care not to do anything extra deleterious to your health, and well if you're ever in a survival scenario, just remember you can't drink your piss unless you can distill it, that is, boil it all the way down and collect and separate the vapors as condensation.

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Well...

 

 

'Ceptian I aint into pretty girls .

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, dachungzi said:

 

I feel remiss to wholly reject a tradition and say I would have the discernment to know what is true and what is not, I can only be this certain about my identity because, well, it is my identity, it is such a basic and fundamental part of myself, the closest thing to permanence in my behavior, though I'm not without variance in that regard of course, but would hope to find a tradition that at least comes close to what feels like has an insight and a way of teaching that speaks to me, I understand that it'll be a largely personal undertaking still.

 

It just irks me if there really is a homogeneity of opinion in traditional sources that people that fall outside sexual and gender norms are inherently spiritually deviant misfits. Some part of me can accept dysphoria being a kind of karmic backlash, and not everyone feels it at the same intensity, but that I am more of an uncontrollable misfit than any random hetero male is a damned laugh to me. And who is to say that karmic backlash isn't for being prejudiced in a past life? What could possibly be a more fit lesson? And I do not doubt this state can come about without it, not one bit.

 

And even when I consider the agrarian feudal society dynamic, the rate at which such people appear in the population,  and if you're homosexual you're not making any more mouths to feed, and won't be burdened with children of your own already should there be orphans in your community, and if you're bi/pan you still can! There is absolutely no legitimate threat perceivable in any scenario to allowing these people simply be and instill in them a love for their community that they're perfectly capable of returning in spades. I frankly feel like it's a small miracle my upbringing didn't turn me into a literal psychopath. I am not patting myself on the back for that, but it's harrowing to think how easily I could've broken in a very bad way, and I don't feel like I or anyone deserves that. It is just so obviously a confidence trick, an easy scapegoat to other and burn as an effigy and say "Look, we are doing something, we are recanting evil" and condition people to have stone hearts for their neighbors, that it makes me fucking nauseous and anyone that would continue that demented, old lie is so far gone in my heart that I cannot believe they have ever seen truth

 

Okay .

 

Its good to vent .

 

But ,  what do you think about my suggestion of  following ' spiritual methods and technologies '   removed from the context of religious   moral judgements  ?

[dachungzi]

@Bindi My personal interpretation of original sin, and what seems to be the common conception traditionally, is that it was the disobeying of God in the Garden of Eden, eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, implying both a disobedience and attainment of knowledge before God had deemed humanity ready for, or perhaps never even intended to impart. But then you run into many circular arguments if you suppose, as the Bible frequently does, that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, and it does little to discourage non-literal interpretation, why is the tree in the Garden, did he not foresee this happening, did he really not intend for it then, why then punish us for something he did to us? But disobedience and its consequences feels like an especially strong theme in Genesis, really the books of Moses in general.

 

I can only really interpret the Daoist and Hindu concepts as having something to do with some kind of energetic balance because there's a framework for that belief within those religions, Christianity doesn't really present this framework, any historical precedence for it is only with the "Christian mystics" like the Rosicrucian Order, and well, of course, it's all almost entirely inspired by their study of Eastern, Pagan and Hermetic texts, what a surprise. They just conveniently eschew any practices that reference other deities or spirits, but clearly the rest of this is God made nature and just fine to do! Except not, because we'll probably be fucking hanged if anybody found out we were nutting into eggshells and burying them in the ground trying to make homunculi, so we better keep this on the sly... And as for the Zohar, I'm with Gershom Scholem and the academic take, it's pseudoepigrapha with no basis in Judaism. I suppose that still leaves things like the Sefer Yetzirah but it feels like astrology and some basic mystic dialecticism to me, reminiscent of the basic elements concepts that exist in nearly all cultures, not as much contemplative and introspective technique or concern thereof.

[dachungzi]

@Nungali What I think is that I'd feel remiss to wholly reject tradition and say I would have the discernment to know what is true and what is not, and that I only feel certain about my identity and its harmlessness because of my lived experience with it and how fundamental to a person's behavior and personality something like their gender or sexuality is. Rather I've actually touched the infinite, let alone aligned with it, or can perceive and influence spiritual entities or forces, is wayyyyyyyy out of the depth of easily discernible realities like "Sleeping with and/or becoming romantically involved with consenting adults of whatever gender is harmless, it's never made me want to hurt people, it's in fact saved people, but denying it has hurt me and others."

 

While the experiences I claim felt significant, and it feels gratifying to attach significance to them, I don't underestimate mine or anyone's capacity for delusion. I think a lot about UG Krishnamurti saying "Thought can create any experience you want--bliss, beatitude, ecstasy, melting away into nothingness--all those experiences. But this can't be the thing, because I have remained the same person, mechanically doing these things. This is not leading me anywhere." But clearly, a part of me is interested in further exploring these things. I suppose I feel drawn to a tradition because it at least has an anchor in its large body of current and former practitioners to look at and see what kind of lives and views it's given them.

 

I was actually aware of Crowley and Thelema beforehand, he's certainly an interesting figure and I have respect for his being an open bi man in that era. He makes for a fun conversation and I often joke "I don't know what you'd expect your kid to grow up to be besides a wizard if you name him Aleister Crowley." But I get the impression honestly that he never really outgrew the Hermeticism, also seemed really into numerology which is at the bottom of my interests. Kabbalah, gematria, all that jazz, really never did anything for me, and it seems core to his teaching. And no offense, but... His religious writings read exactly how I'd expect from what I know about his personal life. Again, my background in psychology and unpleasant upbringings, I know stimulant psychosis when I see it. I won't say he couldn't or wasn't still touching on something profound, but his writing doesn't have the same kind of clarity of concise yet densely layered focus that rings my head like a bell that I feel in, say, the Dao De Jing or Zhuangzi. I'm very heavily verbally oriented if that isn't obvious by now, and that sort of thing is important to me. But if you'd like to talk to me more about it, I'd be open to listen

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[Bindi]

2 hours ago, dachungzi said:

@Bindi My personal interpretation of original sin, and what seems to be the common conception traditionally, is that it was the disobeying of God in the Garden of Eden, eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, implying both a disobedience and attainment of knowledge before God had deemed humanity ready for, or perhaps never even intended to impart. But then you run into many circular arguments if you suppose, as the Bible frequently does, that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, and it does little to discourage non-literal interpretation, why is the tree in the Garden, did he not foresee this happening, did he really not intend for it then, why then punish us for something he did to us? But disobedience and its consequences feels like an especially strong theme in Genesis, really the books of Moses in general.

 

Did you know Abraham is believed to have been brought up in the Sumerian city of Ur in Mesopotamia? It’s possible, even likely, that the biblical fall of man was Abraham’s (or Moses’) retelling of the Mesopotamian fall of man story in the Myth of Adapa. Beyond the detail, I read these myths as describing something missing, something that people are aware of and are searching for. In both myths it is immortality that is missing. Immortality was achieved by Jesus in the biblical story, this makes him an interesting figure to me. I like to go beyond the bible though, I don’t see it as the infallible word of God. Neidan also searches for immortality. I’m more interested in what all these stories have in common, what motivated the originators of these stories to specify these exact aspects, and then I always have the question in the back of my mind, did Jesus really achieve this? If I had to make a bet on it right now I’d put my money on yes, but I might change my mind at any point. 

 

Quote

 

I can only really interpret the Daoist and Hindu concepts as having something to do with some kind of energetic balance because there's a framework for that belief within those religions, Christianity doesn't really present this framework, any historical precedence for it is only with the "Christian mystics" like the Rosicrucian Order, and well, of course, it's all almost entirely inspired by their study of Eastern, Pagan and Hermetic texts, what a surprise. They just conveniently eschew any practices that reference other deities or spirits, but clearly the rest of this is God made nature and just fine to do! Except not, because we'll probably be fucking hanged if anybody found out we were nutting into eggshells and burying them in the ground trying to make homunculi, so we better keep this on the sly... And as for the Zohar, I'm with Gershom Scholem and the academic take, it's pseudoepigrapha with no basis in Judaism. I suppose that still leaves things like the Sefer Yetzirah but it feels like astrology and some basic mystic dialecticism to me, reminiscent of the basic elements concepts that exist in nearly all cultures, not as much contemplative and introspective technique or concern thereof.

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Bindi

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

'Ceptian I aint into pretty girls .

 

Oh. So may I ask, what are you "into"?

 

I always imagined those notorious three girlfriends you had at one time were kind of pretty...

 

[Apech]

This is a very interesting conversation!

 

I lean towards Bindi's point of view in some respects - and although I am officially a Buddhist and this has given me some stability and blessings - in essence I practice something based on my experiences since childhood based on energy and consciousness.  I am happy to take from any religion if it makes sense to me but unlike many I was never Christian even though I was raised in England.  I like Jesus quite a lot but I must admit I detest nearly all Christianity which comes across to me as a kind of psychosis - 2000 years prove me right

 

On the Matthew 5:18 etc.  I think that fulfilling the law is not the same as enforcing the law.  By this I mean the consequences of each jot and tittle must be taken to their n th degree.  As in the woman taken in adultery - he doesn't say to stop because shagging is always ok! - he says yes you can stone her if you are without sin.  Which means if you have an energy impairment you can't throw a stone - if you are sinless then actually you won't throw a stone - which is a form of arguing the law to absurdity.  So in the end - no stoning.  What he says about adultery is that even if you look naughtily at another man's wife - that's adultery.  Transgressions are universal and in consciousness - a bit like dukkha.  It's another version of 'judge not lest you be judged' ... which is another neat one IMO. 

[dachungzi]

9 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Did you know Abraham is believed to have been brought up in the Sumerian city of Ur in Mesopotamia? It’s possible, even likely, that the biblical fall of man was Abraham’s (or Moses’) retelling of the Mesopotamian fall of man story in the Myth of Adapa.

 

I'm vaguely aware of the regions' ancient religions ties to current ones and how the Semites weren't originally monotheistic, though I had forgotten about this particular myth. Though honestly I can't read anything but malevolent intent in Ea/Enki, seeing humanity as a cruel experiment with probable nefarious, ambitious ends, and so does nothing to assuage my concerns of the Abrahamic deity as a malevolent entity if he is to exist. But at any rate I am certainly much closer to building an altar to Ishtar than I am to step foot back in a church again lol

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[Cleansox]

11 hours ago, dachungzi said:

@Bindi

 

I can only really interpret the Daoist and Hindu concepts as having something to do with some kind of energetic balance because there's a framework for that belief within those religions 

Of the teachers I have had, the one that is most well known (american, daoist) once said that he would not teach non-hetero the deeper aspects of his lineage because their energetic system (I do not remember the exact term, just insert something in the line of dysfunctional). 

 

So, is that because: 

As an american he had a Christian upbringing, 

because his daoist teacher said so, 

or because daoism as a whole have issues with HBTQ? 

 

Personally, I do not know. 

But anyone belonging to an outgroup have greater probability to have problems with any ingroup. 

 

Learning the technology without identifying with a group that might reject you is always an option, or find a teacher that is less biased. 

[dachungzi]

That's legit disgusting and would force me to discard the entire premise of all of their teachings as nonsense. Being non-WASP in America already makes you an outgroup btw. I really hope that wasn't Ian Duncan, why would you recommend him to me in the first thread I made?

Edited November 18, 2020 by dachungzi

[Nungali]

12 hours ago, dachungzi said:

@Nungali What I think is that I'd feel remiss to wholly reject tradition and say I would have the discernment to know what is true and what is not, and that I only feel certain about my identity and its harmlessness because of my lived experience with it and how fundamental to a person's behavior and personality something like their gender or sexuality is. Rather I've actually touched the infinite, let alone aligned with it, or can perceive and influence spiritual entities or forces, is wayyyyyyyy out of the depth of easily discernible realities like "Sleeping with and/or becoming romantically involved with consenting adults of whatever gender is harmless, it's never made me want to hurt people, it's in fact saved people, but denying it has hurt me and others."

 

While the experiences I claim felt significant, and it feels gratifying to attach significance to them, I don't underestimate mine or anyone's capacity for delusion. I think a lot about UG Krishnamurti saying "Thought can create any experience you want--bliss, beatitude, ecstasy, melting away into nothingness--all those experiences. But this can't be the thing, because I have remained the same person, mechanically doing these things. This is not leading me anywhere." But clearly, a part of me is interested in further exploring these things. I suppose I feel drawn to a tradition because it at least has an anchor in its large body of current and former practitioners to look at and see what kind of lives and views it's given them.

 

I was actually aware of Crowley and Thelema beforehand, he's certainly an interesting figure and I have respect for his being an open bi man in that era. He makes for a fun conversation and I often joke "I don't know what you'd expect your kid to grow up to be besides a wizard if you name him Aleister Crowley." But I get the impression honestly that he never really outgrew the Hermeticism, also seemed really into numerology which is at the bottom of my interests. Kabbalah, gematria, all that jazz, really never did anything for me, and it seems core to his teaching. And no offense, but... His religious writings read exactly how I'd expect from what I know about his personal life. Again, my background in psychology and unpleasant upbringings, I know stimulant psychosis when I see it. I won't say he couldn't or wasn't still touching on something profound, but his writing doesn't have the same kind of clarity of concise yet densely layered focus that rings my head like a bell that I feel in, say, the Dao De Jing or Zhuangzi. I'm very heavily verbally oriented if that isn't obvious by now, and that sort of thing is important to me. But if you'd like to talk to me more about it, I'd be open to listen

 

 

I didnt post that as an intro to Crowley's system but used it as an outline for an approach .

 

regarding my 'dont join a religion (or cult) but use the technology to your own ends '  I will offer an example ;

 

Eg.  yes, I have studied hermetics and related subjects like alchemy. I got a job in Bio-dynamic Agriculture , a branch of Rudolph Steiner teachings. Now, Steiner was a Christian Mystic and so are his followers (even if they dont realise that ) , NOT my cup of tea at all, thanks .  But I got where he was coming from . So I understood why soil treatment 501 uses crushed quartz rods, its to utilise the  specific energy in quartz and transpose those qualities into  the agricultural environment  .

 

Some of the people I worked with, and those running things , certainly, where followers of Steiner  , and so, of course supported this idea  and would nod knowingly about it in conversation . I call these people the religious approach , they where followers of Steiner and did what he told them to do .   I came into possession of a large quantity of crushed topaz . Topaz has its own qualities , like every mineral or gem has , and these are good for remedying certain conditions in agriculture , whose excess can be problematic . So I offered my supply and suggested we use it to make a remedy .  The looks I got at the mere suggestion !  I explained it all to them but they just looked like blank cows and seemed not to have a clue what I was talking about. The only real response was  " Steiner didnt say to do that . "  It didnt matter how much I explained the theory or practically ... nope , if Steiner didnt say to do it they would not do it. (of course they where doing all sorts of things Steiner didnt say to do any way , like substituting  native ingredients , using the preps as some type of magic fairly dust and a whole lot of stuff geared towards  running a business and increasing profits    .

 

Steiner was developing a technology, that his followers where following religiously   BUT of course one can still do the technology with out becoming a mindless Steinerite , like some of them where  and adopting their system of morals .   They seemed to actually think that they where overstepping  to practice what Steiner practised , they didnt want to practice what he practised himself, they wanted to practice what he taught people .

 

A much simpler example (which is sorta inaccurate, but just trying to demonstrate what I mean   ;   one can follow the teachings of Jesus, or one can go out into the desert for 40 days and see what happens . 

 

- no phones or  TV by the way      

 

 

 

 

... oh yeah , you mentioned Krishnamurti ....

 

They said he was the new world guru / avatar / Master  ... the New Christ . They put him up on a podium to reveal his new 'Christ message '  , excet he denied that and told people ;

 

" You yourself are the teacher and the pupil; you are the Master; you are the guru; you are the leader; you are everything. And to understand is to transform what is. "

 

To me this is pretty close what I am trying to outline .

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Nungali