From www.webster.com
Main Entry: Holy Spirit
Function: noun
: the third person of the Christian Trinity
And for those unfamiliar with the concept of the triune christian god
Main Entry: Trin·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'tri-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold
1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompActs 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And you got this idea from who ?
Btw the Spirit has never left, try and grow into it, as you do have a lot of growing to do.
but then: don't we all?
Originally posted by MetamorphosisHoly Spirit is known variously as...
Ruach in Judaism
Prana/Kundalini in Hinduism
Joriki in Zen
Chi in Taoism
Mannas in Polynesian shamanism
and so on. I like to call it pneuma. God's breath if you like.
This "energy" seems to be present in different expressions or across a broad spectrum of frequencies, from gross (physical energy) to subtle/rarefied (pure intuition or spiritual guidance).
This is the mind-boggling part. The idea that the universe is breathing. That this cosmic breath has communicative power.
Can you shed any light on the relationship between Ruach & the HGA?
Any stories from experience (yours, others'😉 would be welcome too.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere's a sequence in there I never fully understood until recently. If you haven't seen the film, it's not really important...although if you're a fan of their music, it was a great live performance. I highly recommend it.
I have not--my access to such things is somewhat limited--although the glowing reviews of those who have make me want to see it.
Why?
Do you generally accept that Homo Sapiens such as ourselves have been around for 250,000 years? Or are you more of a Young Earth/Creationism guy?
Originally posted by David CTell me about the sequence, I'm interested.
There's a sequence in there I never fully understood until recently. If you haven't seen the film, it's not really important...although if you're a fan of their music, it was a great live performance. I highly recommend it.
Do you generally accept that Homo Sapiens such as ourselves have been around for 250,000 years? Or are you more of a Young Earth/Creationism guy?
I could possibly hoodwink myself into a Young Earth mindframe for a limited period, but short of hypnosis, that belief system would be rejected by my Fat Controller.
I think Homo Sap's been around quite a while, yes.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere is a fantasy sequence featuring lead singer Robert Plant on a (fractured) quest for the Holy Grail. He comes upon a red and white mushroom under a tree. He sits down under the tree and eats of it...and is struck by the beauty of the forest around him.
Tell me about the sequence, I'm interested.
I think Homo Sap's been around quite a while, yes.
Since I can safely discuss old-earth ideas with you, then let me ask you this: how is it that we have so little information about the previous quarter million years since H. Sapiens first arrived on the scene? Considering anthropology has shown that early H. Sapiens would have had the same capacity for language that we do...why is it only the past ~6000 years that we have recorded?
Originally posted by David CSome speculation from my part:
There is a fantasy sequence featuring lead singer Robert Plant on a (fractured) quest for the Holy Grail. He comes upon a red and white mushroom under a tree. He sits down under the tree and eats of it...and is struck by the beauty of the forest around him.
Since I can safely discuss old-earth ideas with you, then let me ask you this: how is it that we ha ...[text shortened]... me capacity for language that we do...why is it only the past ~6000 years that we have recorded?
Capacity for language differs from use of language. I believe it's not such an easy step from one to the other, or from unrecorded language to recorded language.
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree. So, what was the catalyst? If you quote scripture, I will be terribly disappointed.
Some speculation from my part:
Capacity for language differs from use of language. I believe it's not such an easy step from one to the other, or from unrecorded language to recorded language.
Originally posted by David CI've been struck by the beauty of the forest on occasion.
Considering anthropology has shown that early H. Sapiens would have had the same capacity for language that we do...why is it only the past ~6000 years that we have recorded?
In the absence of proof regarding this matter, I entertain every theory under the sun. A short-list of possible reasons:
-- telepathy (writing unnecessary)
-- other forms of records (rock paintings)
-- oral tradition
-- city states (imposition of State time & history)
Currently, I think that the advent of the city state in Sumeria & India necessitated writing. As such, I must presume that people were not organised in a way that required written transmission of knowledge (oral tradition, telepathy). As far as I'm aware, the oldest known & understood writing consists of entries in a ledger. I'm not very up to date on this topic, though. What do you think?
Originally posted by David CI would say that the growth in population, trade and accumulated knowledge reached a point where oral communication wasn't sufficient or efficient (partially explaining when) and the rstrong ivalry between cities may have prompted the motivation for this necessary increase in efficiency (partially explaining why).
I agree. So, what was the catalyst? If you quote scripture, I will be terribly disappointed.
I admit these are speculations made just now. What's your view? It's hardly confortable to answer these questions without the promoter of the discussion stating his views for debate.
Why do you presume I would ever quote scripture for something like that? I'm an atheist in case you haven't noticed.
I think I may have mis-stated my question.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Currently, I think that the advent of the city state in Sumeria & India necessitated writing. As such, I must presume that people were not organised in a way that required written transmission of knowledge (oral tradition, telepathy). As far as I'm aware, the oldest known & understood writing consists of entries in a ledger. I'm not very up to date on this topic, though. What do you think?
Originally posted by Palynka
I would say that the growth in population, trade and accumulated knowledge reached a point where oral communication wasn't sufficient or efficient (partially explaining why). What's your view?
This is very plausible. The genesis from hunter/gatherer to city states, trade, and communal society happened in a relatively short period of time. The h/g was reactive, nomadic, and apparently did not posses the means or desire to communicate in the way(s) we now take for granted. I like Allegro's hypothesis that we may owe part of our 'consciousness' and our ability to communicate to P. cubensis and/or A. muscaria. It might also help explain the allegory of the Tree of Knowledge.
Originally posted by Palynka
Why do you presume I would ever quote scripture for something like that? I'm an atheist in case you haven't noticed.
I apologize. I must have mixed you up with a different poster.
Originally posted by David CI don't know what his hypothesis is, but I can well imagine hunter-gatherers happening on the funky fungi and getting excited about the experience. Question is what was their consciousness like before that event & did they have language or what. No question that the shamans were mushroom gobblers though.
I like Allegro's hypothesis that we may owe part of our 'consciousness' and our ability to communicate to P. cubensis and/or A. muscaria. It might also help explain the allegory of the Tree of Knowledge.
Originally posted by Palynka
Why do you presume I would ever quote scripture for something like that? I'm an atheist in case you haven't noticed.
I apologize. I must have mixed you up with a different poster.[/b]
I can also imagine cultures steeped in hallucinogenic consciousness losing touch with that base & the whole thing devolving into stories taken seriously by few.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat would be difficult to ascertain, but given the anthropological evidence...they may have been unaware of mental concepts we take for granted. The cave drawings they left point to an existence for the sake of itself...to find food and shelter, procreate and care for their offspring. They had no compelling reason to reflect on their inner selves, their history or their future. They obviously found no use of recording history beyond what they saw in front of their own eyes, or may have lacked the capacity for doing so.
Question is what was their consciousness like before that event & did they have language or what.
Have you ever experienced altered perception via entheogens?