A psychedelic prayer

[swilow]

^To be honest, I don't know why christianity has been so violent, but its certainly not the only religious movement that is violent. And its not really the actual beliefs, its the people who believe them that do the actual violence (obviously, I dn't mean every christian by any means...) In retrospect, my argument is a bit unfair; if I am going to say that christianity is the most destructive religion because of the majority it has and the apparent violence on earth, then christianity should also be seen as responsible for the large amount of good on earth too.

Ultimately, I dislike these religions because I find them personally degrading.

 

[Survived Abortion]

Is the Hindu religion any less poisonous than the christian? Look at the abominable treatment they dish out to the poor and helpless "untouchables" - the ones that the wacky Hindu creed believes are only fit to clean their masters shit off the toilet basin.

I thought you might try and pick on this. I'm not a Hindu, nor a gnostic, so I'm not going to defend anyone's actions. And I'm not identifying with that religion by using the name 'Shakti', I just happen to resonate with much of the primary notions they have of that deity.

But what I will say is this, to address your specific question about the "untouchables": the social stratification within Hindu culture has nothing to do with their concept of the feminine divinity. The feminine divinities of ancient India/Arya, and Greece have no personality and command no doctrines. Their presence in the Hindu religion and gnostic traditions is completely transparent and asks nothing in the way of human behaviour other than to cultivate awareness of them. Not so with the Christian faith. In the Christian belief, the deity Jehova/Christ has a personality, and commands certain standards of behaviour. These standards are reflected in the way the church interacts with the lay people.

In the patriarchal system of christianity, the personality of the Christian god and 'his' human incarnation Jesus portrayed by the stories of the Bible are intimately related to the manner and means in which the church abused it's position to build a dominion, a dominion which continues to this day both in physical prowess and mental slavery. Let me explain this:

Firstly, the church system of christianity draws it's power of authority from one fundamental tennet of the original writings: that of the ressurection of christ. This 'event' - so grossly misrepresented and distorted by the church founders - provided the basis for what we know as 'apostolic succession', the automatic process by which bishops, priests, and deacons are ordained with holy power to preside over the lay congregation. The portrayal of a flesh and blood ressurection, along with an authoritarian Christ who passes his presidence exclusively to his chosen apostles by default of the testimony of the witnesses, allows the power to remain firmly in the grasp of a few elite indivuals.

Secondly, the manner in which non-christians or heretics are treated by the church is directly related to the way in which the gospels tell us that any lack of faith in "the Lord" is wrong and blasphemous. In Mark's gospel, he tells us that Jesus proclaims his absolute right to rule over the Gentiles, and anyone asking to join him in his authority should be treated like a slave. These proclamations of absolute authority are not present in the stories of the Goddess.

[EDIT: it seems I'm being misunderstood here, so I will point out - if it is not already clear - that I am talking about the doctrines, the system of church, and the writings that influence destructive perceptions. I am not pointing my finger at individual human beings, and again, I am not hating on anybody. I hope that is clear to those of you automatically jumping to the conclusion that my posts are directed with negativity towards humans that follow christian religion. As mentioned above, what we say can apply to all religions, but we are discussing a christian prayer.]

I mentioned Shakti, but if you look very carefully you may also see that I mentioned Sophia, the gnostic goddess of wisdom. Clearly I'm not identifying with any religion or set of doctrines; I'm referring to the basic understanding that they had of the nature of reality at it's primary substance. These concepts are beautiful, and they make perfect sense. But not only that, the 'proof' of the substance of the Sophia/Shakti universal feminine concepts, and indeed those of the buddhist tradition, are directly accesible to anybody who wants to find out for themsleves. You cannot do that with the abrahamic gods and prophets. Those religions rely purely on blind faith.

I feel very close to much of the Sophia story and so I use her name, and invest emotionally and spiritually in to the subtlest aspects of her myth. Remember that the nomenclature applied to various divinities mean nothing in and of themselves, but the understandings that they orient you to mean everything. The stories (gospels) attatched the christian god jehova/christ ask us to submit our sovereignty and do his strange biddings. The concept of Sophia asks nothing of you other than active participation in achieving real awareness of "her" existence. Likewise, the buddhist tradition asks you to believe nothing, but to seek the truth.

 

[Survived Abortion]

Saying a religion contains outright lies is going overboard

It's not going overboard at all. You just haven't realized what they are and why they were invented.

That said, what does this vitriol from you accomplish? Are you helping the community of constructive forces on humanity's collective unconscious by hate-mongering?

There is no vitriol in my post, and I'm not hate-mongering. However, if you perceive it that way, that is a failing of your own perception, since I'm the one that wrote it and I know that it does not come from a place of hate.

However you answer that I don't think it is helpful to our board here, and would prefer we keep our statements of disdain as tactful as possible, with well thought out criticisms of harmful beliefs/practices of religions/philosophies being preferred to value judgments stated out of nowhere as objective fact.

Look, if you can't personally accept what I wrote then fine. But it doesn't mean we need to invite political correctness to the board to protect the masses from uncomfortable truths. I didn't write anything in an aggressive or deliberately hurtful manner. Everyone on here has differing opinions, that what a discussion forum is for, and I will continue to speak my truth as much as anyone else will. I wrote my post in a response to a thread about prayer, and it just happens that this is my opinion regarding that prayer, and the reasons why I hold it. Agree with it or not, there it is.

As for "value judgements stated out of nowhere as objective fact", I don't believe I did pass value judgements out of nowhere. Everything I said can be verified if you take the time to investigate for yourself the true orgins of the bastardized spiritual tradition we call Christianity.

 

[Ismene]

But what I will say is this, to address your specific question about the "untouchables": the social stratification within Hindu culture has nothing to do with their concept of the feminine divinity.

Apart from it being the same religion of course. Presumably Hindus believe in the caste system because "That's what my religion teaches".

But yeah, I suppose you can cherry-pick the stories that you like and ignore the uncomfortable ones.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Well, I am not christian and I don't actually believe in the existence of the christian god. But thats not the point really...

I don't see what is so sacred about surrender to an all powerful deity. At the same time, I don't see the point or benefit of resistance too, but I feel resistant when I think about christianity as it is relatively meaningless and depressing for me. It paradoxical to use surrender and submission to atain some form of (presumably) higher consciousness or connection with a higher power. The two ideals cancel each other out, to my mind at least...

^I never thought I'd here a tripper describe submission as a bad thing. I think you're mistaking the concept vis-a-vis Christianity. The religion DOES maintain the existence of free will (ya'know, what was meant by them saying G-d created man in His image), submision is not puppetry/slavery, it's more like being receptive/in-tune with G-d (this universe is inseparable from Him, the Lord sustains it and he is good, and has a plan (look up the process theology interpretation of omnipotence) . So, by doing this one is theoretically going with the righteous flow, following the best and natural path, allowing spirituality into every aspect of their lives. Even Christ had two wills, one for his divine and one for his human aspects (according to one of the Nicene councils anyway, so sects that don't acknowledge those may have different opinions). The end goal of this being Theosis, our moving towards and partaking in the Divine nature. The church and Christians are part of the Body of Christ after all.

Are these things contradicted by other Christian doctrines? Absolutely. Christian theology is riddled with paradoxes.

Agnostic or pantheistic people often have more rewarding or truer experiences; at least in my opinion they do..

Come on, there is no way your personal experiences can be statistically relevant enough to make such a sweeping statement. (Also, even if there was a correlation, it wouldn't necessarily imply causation).

kinda unrelated: Greek philosophy significantly influenced Christianity as it spread throughout those regions, and pretty much changed the course of it from some of the earlier Christian thinking, from what I've read, it's pretty interesting. Haha, no wonder the religion so befits the West though::::

And is it just me or do all of us in this thread reek of confirmation bias? Of course, I must also add the things I've been saying aren't strongly held convictions of mine, I've often marveled at the horrors that organized religion seems accountable for, but I've come to feel that it is a symptom, notthe illness. A manifestation of cultural and societal problems, that are created and reinforced at all levels in the incredibly intricate web of humanity (and those emergent systems social organization creates).

 

[Survived Abortion]

But yeah, I suppose you can cherry-pick the stories that you like and ignore the uncomfortable ones.

It has nothing to do with cherry-picking. Unless 'cherry-picking' in this case is seeking truth from nonsense. I've already explained the difference between the purity of the concept of the feminine divine, and the completely different phenomenon of the social stratification (caste sytem) of some of the people who follow the entire set of religious beliefs (a set of religious beliefs which happens to encompass that copncept of feminine divinity, not the other way around).

Wow, you sure took down that strawman with great deftness.

What strawman? Just what are you talking about? You didn't point out what you thought was a strawman in my arguement. You just shout "strawman!" - as seems to happen so often on internet forums - in order to try to effortlessly discredit the presentation of an arguement with which you disagree but can't find a better response to.

this universe is inseparable from Him, the Lord sustains it and he is good, and has a plan

That's the very point - there is no "plan". A "plan" implies indulgence in future and past thought, and an egoic set of standards. And it implies that humans are supposed to follow that plan and live up to it. This is precicesly the realm of the gnostic "archons", and why they (gnostics) warned that any such perception of deity with those traits is completely false and dangerous for humanity. And it has been.

The church and Christians are part of the Body of Christ after all.

Wrong, and I think I have already explained this in my previous post. Apostolic succession is a political hijacking of spiritual freedom. It was based on the intentionally manufactured notion of a flesh-and-blood ressurection. I don't need to go to a church and be presided over by a priest and partake of the 'communion' in order to find my spiritual center.

 

[Ismene]

It has nothing to do with cherry-picking. Unless 'cherry-picking' in this case is seeking truth from nonsense.

But there's no more truth to "sophia/shaktia" than there is to the any other aspect of Hinduism is there? Presumably it's just a story that appeals to you. I mean, obviously sophia never existed, it's a figment of someones imagination just as much as the caste theory.

I've already explained the difference between the purity of the concept of the feminine divine

Yeah I get what you're saying. I don't know how much purer it is than any other aspect of the religion tho.

 

[swilow]

^I never thought I'd here a tripper describe submission as a bad thing. I think you're mistaking the concept vis-a-vis Christianity. The religion DOES maintain the existence of free will (ya'know, what was meant by them saying G-d created man in His image), submision is not puppetry/slavery, it's more like being receptive/in-tune with G-d (this universe is inseparable from Him, the Lord sustains it and he is good, and has a plan (look up the process theology interpretation of omnipotence) . So, by doing this one is theoretically going with the righteous flow, following the best and natural path, allowing spirituality into every aspect of their lives. Even Christ had two wills, one for his divine and one for his human aspects (according to one of the Nicene councils anyway, so sects that don't acknowledge those may have different opinions). The end goal of this being Theosis, our moving towards and partaking in the Divine nature. The church and Christians are part of the Body of Christ after all.

Well, for starters, all that stuff sounds like nonsense to me. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in christian theology.

But I'm not talking about slavery or puppetry or all types of submission being a bad thing. Your interpretation of what I'm saying seems to suggest that my issue is with some aspects of submitting to the christian god; its not that though- I would say that submitting to the christian god is as useful (for me) as submitting to the will of a sacred ice-cream which gives humanity orders and teachings from a giant pair of trousers that are orbiting Mars. I categorically do not believe in yahweh or jesus' divinity. I could rattle off countless reasons why this is so but the onus on proving the existence of a god doesn't lie on the non-believer and anyway, most reasons I would give can be as easily ignored as the intriguing notion that god listens to peoples thoughts and is willing to put aside the laws of the entire universe albeit briefly to make sure that one person passes his driving test tomorrow.

For me, when I'm tripping, I find it impossible to lie to and deceive myself. This can be a very confronting headspace to be in but its usually reassuring and satisfying, because it real- almost hyper real. In this headspace, I've examined the idea of the christian god, and I simply cannot believe in it. The reasons are many and varied but probably not important... Hence, any attempt to submit to such a being leads me back to the Cosmic Ice-Cream. Furthermore, I think that submitting to this god when tripping is somewhat foolish because replacing the ego with a strangely emotional deity is dangerous.

I find the christian concept of free will depressing at best...

Come on, there is no way your personal experiences can be statistically relevant enough to make such a sweeping statement. (Also, even if there was a correlation, it wouldn't necessarily imply causation).

Of course it doesn't. I was never really saying that my statement had any statistical basis whatsoever. It was a personal opinion, based on observation of my own friends. An opinion need not contain any inherent truth beyond a biased assesment of an aspect of the world. I might add though that the whole doctrine of faith in a personal god such as yahweh has no statistical (or logical) basis either, yet here we are.... I wouldn't let truth get in the way of an opinion anyhow.

Just curious- why do you write god as G-D?

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

In this headspace, I've examined the idea of the christian god, and I simply cannot believe in it.

I feel the same way, well, it can make sense on dissociatives (but just about anything can make sense on dissociatives). Sober, tripping, or anything else it's quite unbelievable. I just try to defend it, because I think that the religion and its views should be respected, and more importantly here, are in fact compatible with the psychedelic experience. Of course there are very few people here who would fit in that category (the whole scene attracts those disillusioned with cultural norms and standards), but they exist and I want to help that minority maintain legitimacy amongst the rest of us.

Just curious- why do you write god as G-D?

It's actually a generally Jewish practice, the name(s) of G-d are considered very sacred, and should not ever be destroyed or vandalized. So out of respect one does not write it out in full, to prevent this from happening (on the internet this is less an issue, but one could in theory print out a page and then do it). I have taken to it lately to be respectful, and because I'm a pretty big fan of Judaism (it can be quite different from later religions based loosely off of it).

Now, I kind of wonder at the writing out of the true name as you and others do. The tetragrammaton is written without vowels, and the way you depict it is with the vowels scholars think should be put in there to pronounce it, but speaking the name aloud is absolutely forbidden (only the High Priest of the Temple can do this in some Yom Kippur ceremony thing I believe. But the Temple has yet to be rebuilt since the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in the year 70 A.D., and the Muslims currently use the land for their Dome of the Rock mosque and crazy religious war would start if that were gotten rid of). Funny enough, Christian authorities don't include it at all in the darn Bible out of theoretical respect, but the end result is that most Christians don't even know it exists. Some Protestants do so though under an old Christian translation of it, Jehovah (which scholars now consider inaccurate, but whatevs).

 

[TangerinO]

I think that humans surrendering the capacity to think fully for ourselves has accidentally/clumsily released a whole lot of pain on earth; people that allow, and even expect "god", to control them have been responsible for way too much sufferring by presuming that they truly know the will or thoughts of god. Doing this idea of gods will has often been destructive.

^ This is good stuff right here.

I'm also of the persuasion that it's our arrogance as human beings that has got us into our current situation on this planet.
Too many people seem to have the answers, not enough are willing to admit they don't.

As far as psychedelic drugs come into it, if there's one big lesson I've learned from them it's that whatever is actually out there, it's far more powerful and amazing than little old me.
Whether God is the oneness of all things in existence, or some sort of deity that to some extent orchestrates all that is below, I will probably never understand it and unlike so many humans I'm not going to be arrogant enough to suggest that I will because when it comes down to it: we just don't know