William Ramsey, Lawyering Christianity |497|

I guess it depends on your position re: reproductive rights; are you a pro-life versus pro-choice person? I really hate the way the anti-abortion people have framed this issue as if pro-choice is anti-life & they're pro-life. As the old joke goes, it's amazing what a difference a few years of life makes. Pro-life supporters are often for the death penalty.
You also made a good point about distracting from real issues. I can't think of a more basic human right than the ability to determine if you want a child or not, yet it's seems a debate that just won't go away. To put it another way, if men got pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics on every street corner.
Speaking of Christian extremists, my wife & I met a filipino man while we were waiting for a flight at the airport. He was a devout catholic like the majority of filipinos & after he found out I am an American, he shifted the conversation to abortion rights & the evil of killings babies. I would have liked to explore how any reasonable person would deny a woman's control over her own body, but I could sense he was spoiling for an argument. Since he was going to be on the same plane as we were, I just couldn't imagine flying w/ a huffy goofball who might end up nursing a grudge against us, so I let him run through all that pro-life non-sense & stayed silent when he finally finished.
Have got some issues with you regarding this subject, your personal beliefs aside, do you not even give others the right to question whether babies can be killed in the womb, or are you so sure of yourself?
 
Last edited:
Since somehow have managed to end up talking about the can of worms known as the dreamstate subject i should point out that from what i can see dreams are not literal translations of what is going on. It's very often back to front, meaning is hidden in the dream which portrays itself at least on the surface depending on our beliefs, what is on our minds etc. Add the 'Non' aspect to how the dreamstate operates and the element of sometimes showing us what not to do etc etc etc (which can sometimes be brutal), it really is a can of worms which i think takes lifetimes if ever to fully understand. Don't spin out people as in case you didnt know it is very very very complicated
 
Last edited:
@ Shane.

Hi mate, from reading your posts I thought you might appreciate this. Give it a little time till it gets to the part that I think will resonate with you. Although I could have misjudged of course. I'm not pushing a dogma, quite the opposite. I think you'll see what I mean.


This is nice, brother. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration! I like Alan Watts and I have not heard this before. Also, I enjoy your posts. Tomorrow night, I am going to listen to this entire video at work. Thanks!
 
Suppose we knew the name of the caveman who "invented" the firepit, and he named it after a mythical creature, and he went on to be a horrible person. would we forever thereafter be triggered by firepits, forced to relate them to a mythical creature.

My point is, "Christ consciousness" if it exists, may have been around longer than humanity for all we know.
That said, if you have criticisms of it, scrutiny of it, or perhaps a better name for it, I'd be interested. But whatever it is, I don't think any Christian person or group deserves to claim it, or to be accredited for anything about it.


You make a lot of sense, my friend. However, I think that we need to differentiate philosophical ideas from physical inventions, if we are going to walk down this road. Certainly, it might not even be a road, perhaps unfounded territory filled with weeds, thorny plants, and so forth, but I am up for adventure!

I agree with you concerning "Christ consciousness," whereas no group deserves exclusive rights to that phenomenon. However, I don't like calling it "Christ consciousness" for several reasons. Namely, I think that is a capitulation to Christian belief systems. However, I should provide some context: I am not one of these materialists, nor am I religious by any means. That being said, I have had some off the chain paranormal experiences in my life, some of which I have started to write about on this forum. I am not specifically against Christianity, but opposed to all things, religions or otherwise, that systemize belief.
 
Annihilation of the egoic self.
It is an experience not dogma.


If this "egoic self" is annihilated, what happens to the "real self"?

"Egoic self", "real self" and "oneness" are nothing but religious dogma. Moreover, survival evidence refutes these beliefs.
 
I'm not sure why this sticks w/ me, but there was a NDE account on the web by a man named Andy; I'm sorry, but I can't remember his last name. At any rate, he described how he was in the presence of god, the Supreme Being, etc., which was like a thousand welding torches all burning at the same time & then he found himself in the center of this massive bubble that was composed of all these sub-units of an incredible number. All the souls or whatever you wish to call them then told him, "We love you, Andy!" I think this supports that our individuality is a lasting thing. The Many as One.
One of the astounding things about Andy's account was the sheer, unvarnished look of awe & wonder on his face as he recalled it. If he had made up that experience, then he'd need an Oscar for Greatest Imitation of an Awestruck Person.


I think this is probably the NDE account you mentioned:

Death Before Dying: A Love Experience

I was aware that I was being "absorbed" into the Light, became One with the Light. But, at the same time never lost my "Andy-ness"!
 
Being a true amateur (as opposed to being amateurish) is a beautiful thing.



What Bible are you reading? Honestly, seeming as you're a poet, I'd have hoped you'd show more respect for a work that lies beneath almost 2000 years worth of art and culture. So, as you can tell, I'm not impressed with your example. I think our points of reference are different. This probably dooms us to continue talking past each other.

I would only add that my loyalty to Christianity (and I haven't always been this way) is down to a few of things. First, I honour the fact that our ancestors found worth in it (well, mine did, I'm not sure of your ethnicity or background). Here I am particularly impressed by the way in which my Celtic forefathers converted en masse without threat or duress. Second, I don't automatically assume that current spiritual or religious fashions are superior to that which came before. Third, I judge a religion on it's ability to produce what I would call holy people (or saints, if you will). Lastly, the Christian existential and metaphysical paradigm is the closest match I've found to the one and only mystical (as opposed to paranormal or spiritual) experience I've had. (In case you're wondering, no, I didn't see Jesus.)

Y'know, I don't really get Zen Buddhism, but I refuse to turn my failure into a universal law!

And that's it. :)

I appreciate your reply, brother. Any poet that calls their self a "professional poet" doesn't understand the value of performing in front of snakes and rocks. So, if that makes me an amateur, then I will continue to sell out only fields filled with those friends of mine. Remember, though, without rocks, there isn't roll, and without snakes, well, Evil doesn't know what to do, nor does health care.

That being said, let me address your points. My ethnicity/background is pretty much my experiences and observations in my life. If I belong to any kind of species, then I would say that I was adopted by snakes. Yes, I have all these human groups/ideologies that I could claim a little fame in, but they are not worth it, spiritually, compared to what snakes have done for me.

Secondly, I agree with you, I don't assume that current spiritual or religious fashions are superior to what came beforehand. However, if your ancestors thought the same way, as Celtics, would they still have become Christians? Christianity is a religion from the Middle East.

Thirdly, I don't judge any religious system by its ability to produce "holy people," or "saints." As a matter of fact, I think that there is great value in many people that are never considered to be laudable or holy at all by any institution, but they are genuine. I almost said "authentic," but for some reason, these days, every asshole thinks that they are "authentic" as long as they speak loudly and get enough social media views.

Lastly, the Christians existential and metaphysical paradigm doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Please, would you like to explain it to me? Also, I am interested in your experience that has opened your eyes to this.

As far as Zen Buddhism goes....I agree with you, I don't get it. I work with a lot of potential Zen Buddhists....they sit around and do nothing. I doubt that they are enlightened. Maybe they don't even know that they are Zen Buddhists.
 
I guess it depends on your position re: reproductive rights; are you a pro-life versus pro-choice person? I really hate the way the anti-abortion people have framed this issue as if pro-choice is anti-life & they're pro-life. As the old joke goes, it's amazing what a difference a few years of life makes. Pro-life supporters are often for the death penalty.
You also made a good point about distracting from real issues. I can't think of a more basic human right than the ability to determine if you want a child or not, yet it's seems a debate that just won't go away. To put it another way, if men got pregnant, there'd be abortion clinics on every street corner.
Speaking of Christian extremists, my wife & I met a filipino man while we were waiting for a flight at the airport. He was a devout catholic like the majority of filipinos & after he found out I am an American, he shifted the conversation to abortion rights & the evil of killings babies. I would have liked to explore how any reasonable person would deny a woman's control over her own body, but I could sense he was spoiling for an argument. Since he was going to be on the same plane as we were, I just couldn't imagine flying w/ a huffy goofball who might end up nursing a grudge against us, so I let him run through all that pro-life non-sense & stayed silent when he finally finished.

Ha Ha, Kim, I get it, brother! Also, congrats on getting quoted in Alex's new book, that is totally cool and speaks volumes about who Alex is.

So let us get into these modern, highly ironic issues, such as people being pro-life, but yet still supporting the death penalty. How is it that I shall approach these landmines? Personally, I am not a member of any major religion, and I don't have any kids, nor do I want any kids. That being said, I would never tell a woman that she has no right to get an abortion. In fact, I think a woman has a right to throw her baby off a cliff if she so wants to, as she is the source of life for that baby not only before birth, but after for quite a bit of time. That being said, I think it isn't natural for women to want abortions or to throw their babies off cliffs, and so if they chose to do so, they will suffer more than anybody can imagine.

The strange thing about our modern society is that our lives are not just our own. We are owned and tracked by governments, corporations, and the work force. With this knowledge, it is torture to think one got his woman pregnant without the immediate needs to support the child into a lucrative future. I could understand why people would want abortions. I lived through hell in my life on the fringes of society. If I was aborted, the first thought is this: I wouldn't have had to go through any of this shit. However, this is short sighted and ignorant of the context of life. I had to go through this, no matter what.

We have to have compassion for people in the context of their experiences as long as they are genuine. Also, we have to know when lessons need to be taught.
 
If this "egoic self" is annihilated, what happens to the "real self"?

"Egoic self", "real self" and "oneness" are nothing but religious dogma. Moreover, survival evidence refutes these beliefs.

I said this once before, perhaps not here, but if you want to get rid of your "ego self" just go work in retail for a couple of years. You want just get rid of your "ego" self, but you will also get rid of all your self respect. I really don't understand this idea of "ego," and why it is considered to be glorious to destroy it. Does "ego" mean "self confidence"? What, specifically, is an "ego"?

For all of these people that have this "ego" problem, I will propose a cure for you. Go work in retail, and see that no matter how hard you work, nor how creative you are......you don't matter! Seriously, this will kill your so called "ego" better than any Shaolin monk colony, on a mountain, can do for you.

Specifically, go work at TJ Maxx for three years. Guaranteed, your fucking ego will be dead and gone!
 
I speak from actual experience. You are welcome to disregard.

Let me help this guy out, LoneShaman

Quote
Raimo said:
If this "egoic self" is annihilated, what happens to the "real self"?

"Egoic self", "real self" and "oneness" are nothing but religious dogma. Moreover, survival evidence refutes these beliefs.
End Quote

First of all, after working for TJ Maxx four weeks, you will see that you are nothing and not important at all. Next, you will realize that most people, in other countries, are tortured to get these shitty products on the shelf to make people rich that you will never meet. After a year, you will forget about your hopes and aspirations. You will want to die, but you will still be alive. After two years, you will be an absolute zombie simply trying to get through the day. At the third year, your ego will be dead and gone. You will be a shell of a person.

This same formula applies to all retail outlets. I just used one of the most prolific examples. It isn't religious dogma. You can experience this in real life, Raimo.
 
I am a little surprised that such a simple thing as the ego is questionable. One could look into the area of psychology for a definition. I define it as the "I" it is the accumulation of thoughts regarding the "image" of yourself. It is imaginary, a construction. The word persona comes from the Latin word for mask, a theatrical mask actually. It is what the real self, like as you were when you were a baby has constructed during a lifetime. It is not real, so there is nothing of that to survive after death. Actually often you will hear the NDE's speak of their life on Earth in the third person.

Let me ask, who are "you"? Are you the body? Are you the ego? Are you your thoughts? Are you your memories? Your aspirations? Your emotions? When you dig into this question you'll find that you cannot show what you are, you are what the universe is doing. Eventually the realization is that you are experience itself. The consciousness that is perceiving, and even perceiving the thoughts in the mind.

When this illusion of self is gone, you will feel connected to all things. There really is no way to describe it, because to use words instantly crystalizes it into a concept, it places it in a box. To have a box there must be something outside of the box in order to define it. This is dualism. Thatis what words do they define things, separate things.

This experience is what is known as nondual, when you realize that both the outside of the box and the inside are necessary in order to define it. This goes for absolutely everything, there is awakening when it is realized that these go together as one. That is sort of the best I can do in a short amount of words.

This is extremely hard to put into words. It is not monism, or dualism, it means not two so it is sort of the middle road to those concepts. It means you are part of the great spirit and not separate from it.

It is not at all in conflict with NDE's, listen to the testimonies and you will hear these sorts of things repeatedly.

I have only tried to confer a experience, and with that certain limitations are imposed in expressing it. One that is so deeply profound and life changing I lack the means to share it. But I know others have had it. And it is spoken of in multiple traditions, and it is what I think of when the term Christ consciousness is mentioned. It is oneness, nondual, satori kensho, Advaita etc.. I had the experience well before I ever learnt of such things.

I am not trying to give a metaphysical cosmology only a feeble attempt to explain a experience.

So I don't know why Raimo is objecting, except to say he has developed certain concepts have been crystalized. Ones that simply do not match my intellectualization (interpretation) of a my own experience. I mean no offense Raimo. It is just our definitions simply don't match is all.

Whether from an authority or even from oneself (the ego) the grounding of concepts as absolute truth is still a form of dogma. People simply create their own. I know the ego won't like to entertain that, but I don't have the means to express it any more gently. I have had to let go of a lot of concepts in order to integrate what I can from the experiences and make it part of daily life. That really is the hard part, because very quickly the ego once again takes control. The ego is necessary but finding the balance is the real key for inner peace I think.

Sorry for the rant, I guess I felt I had to explain. There's no point arguing about these things, it is like arguing over how a piece of music or art makes you feel. There is no right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
I am a little surprised that such a simple thing as the ego is questionable. One could look into the area of psychology for a definition. I define it as the "I" it is the accumulation of thoughts regarding the "image" of yourself. It is imaginary, a construction. The word persona comes from the Latin word for mask, a theatrical mask actually. It is what the real self, like as you were when you were a baby has constructed during a lifetime. It is not real, so there is nothing of that to survive after death. Actually often you will hear the NDE's speak of their life on Earth in the third person.

Let me ask, who are "you"? Are you the body? Are you the ego? Are you your thoughts? Are you your memories? Your aspirations? Your emotions? When you dig into this question you'll find that you cannot show what you are, you are what the universe is doing. Eventually the realization is that you are experience itself. The consciousness that is perceiving, and even perceiving the thoughts in the mind.

When this illusion of self is gone, you will feel connected to all things. There really is no way to describe it, because to use words instantly crystalizes it into a concept, it places it in a box. To have a box there must be something outside of the box in order to define it. This is dualism. Thatis what words do they define things, separate things.

This experience is what is known as nondual, when you realize that both the outside of the box and the inside are necessary in order to define it. This goes for absolutely everything, there is awakening when it is realized that these go together as one. That is sort of the best I can do in a short amount of words.

This is extremely hard to put into words. It is not monism, or dualism, it means not two so it is sort of the middle road to those concepts. It means you are part of the great spirit and not separate from it.

It is not at all in conflict with NDE's, listen to the testimonies and you will hear these sorts of things repeatedly.

I have only tried to confer a experience, and with that certain limitations are imposed in expressing it. One that is so deeply profound and life changing I lack the means to share it. But I know others have had it. And it is spoken of in multiple traditions, and it is what I think of when the term Christ consciousness is mentioned. It is oneness, nondual, satori kensho, Advaita etc.. I had the experience well before I ever learnt of such things.

I am not trying to give a metaphysical cosmology only a feeble attempt to explain a experience.

So I don't know why Raimo is objecting, except to say he has developed certain concepts have been crystalized. Ones that simply do not match my intellectualization (interpretation) of a my own experience. I mean no offense Raimo. It is just our definitions simply don't match is all.

Whether from an authority or even from oneself (the ego) the grounding of concepts as absolute truth is still a form of dogma. People simply create their own. I know the ego won't like to entertain that, but I don't have the means to express it any more gently. I have had to let go of a lot of concepts in order to integrate what I can from the experiences and make it part of daily life. That really is the hard part, because very quickly the ego once again takes control. The ego is necessary but finding the balance is the real key for inner peace I think.

Sorry for the rant, I guess I felt I had to explain. There's no point arguing about these things, it is like arguing over how a piece of music or art makes you feel. There is no right or wrong.

I think that the deeper question is this: if this non dual, non ego reality is euphoric, why does this tortuous, egocentric reality persist? I don't buy into this explanation of: so we can grow and learn. That is a terrible explanation. Growing and learning toward what ends? - The non dual, non ego reality that we originated from? How does that make any kind of sense whatsoever? The only way that any of this makes any sense is if it is interpreted as playful nonsense. Perhaps the universe is absolutely meaningless in a way that make biological robots look sophisticated.
 
You make a lot of sense, my friend. However, I think that we need to differentiate philosophical ideas from physical inventions, if we are going to walk down this road. Certainly, it might not even be a road, perhaps unfounded territory filled with weeds, thorny plants, and so forth, but I am up for adventure!

I agree with you concerning "Christ consciousness," whereas no group deserves exclusive rights to that phenomenon. However, I don't like calling it "Christ consciousness" for several reasons. Namely, I think that is a capitulation to Christian belief systems. However, I should provide some context: I am not one of these materialists, nor am I religious by any means. That being said, I have had some off the chain paranormal experiences in my life, some of which I have started to write about on this forum. I am not specifically against Christianity, but opposed to all things, religions or otherwise, that systemize belief.

Excellent. Lets work together to find a better name than "Christ consciousness". May take some time, but I'm in 100%.
My next question would be: Was the firepit ever really invented? OR was it learned?
If it was learned, wouldn't that imply that it the idea/framework existed before it was discovered?
Then, if you agree with me that things exist before they're discovered, then why wouldn't this apply to discoveries of moral leaders?

And by no means am i trying to teach something. I'm trying to figure this out.
I'm currently struggling with Dr. Jordan Peterson's return to mainstream and trying to separate his teachings from his personal challenges. AKA Separate the art from the artist.
Nothing against addiction (I'm only interested because i identify thoroughly, aka "you spot it, you got it"), but rather I have difficulty not asterisking him after the fact.

I think this is actually a HUGE issue.. How to we celebrate the creation without blanket celebrating the lifestyle of the creator?
 
Let me ask, who are "you"? Are you the body? Are you the ego? Are you your thoughts? Are you your memories? Your aspirations? Your emotions? When you dig into this question you'll find that you cannot show what you are, you are what the universe is doing. Eventually the realization is that you are experience itself. The consciousness that is perceiving, and even perceiving the thoughts in the mind.


According to thefreedictionary.com ego is:
The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves.
the self of an individual person; the conscious subject
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ego

Therefore the answer to your question is: I am the ego. However, I prefer the term "self", because ego can also mean:
an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others

I don't believe in "egoic self" or "real self". They are merely religious dogma. There is only one self. The self of an individual person; the conscious subject.

Advaita Vedanta, New Age etc. are religions. There is zero evidence to support the doctrine of oneness, and the survival evidence refutes it.
 
I disregard it.

Of course you do. You only repeated the same with more words. So your personal dogma is quite fixed no different to the religious at all. The irony is that you are reacting just like a dogmatist.

Dictionary.com​
Dogmatist - "a person who asserts his or her opinions in an unduly positive or arrogant manner;"

Which comes from the ego. I also defined my terms so redefining them does not negate.

Anonymous anecdotes on an internet forum are not evidence

Never the intention. Nor do opinions suffice in refuting something you have not experienced. You certainly can't refute my experiences anymore than I can refute yours. It is what it is. You can only disbelieve it, which is entirely your choice.

There is no contradiction with survival, you simply don't understand. The greater reality is expressed through the individual. It means you and the great spirit are nondual. You and the universe are nondual. It does not mean the annihilation of the true self / individual.

Its been nice not having a dialogue with you. ;) All the best.
 
Last edited:
Advaita Vedanta, New Age etc. are religions. There is zero evidence to support the doctrine of oneness, and the survival evidence refutes it.

ok but that's kind of the point of NON-dual. I mean, evidence would require a duality.

Maybe the closest we can get is max planck " you can't get behind consciousness"
 
ok but that's kind of the point of NON-dual. I mean, evidence would require a duality.

Nice! I had not considered that. Since it is an experiential phenomena I had not even contemplated how it could be evidenced.
Although there are neural correlates, but as you say that is the duality and then your up against the hard problem.
 
Back
Top