Re: Catwhoknows

By your turning the attention to the question of 'the true Christ', I hope you don't imply, that this is the sole basis for further considerations on this thread. Islam and jewish religion are part of it also.

But as a momentarily digression, it can be interesting.

For me, the question of Christ being a historical person or a concept is in this present limited context unimportant. What's important is how all the 34.000 different types of 'christians' justify THEIR special interpretation of 'christianity' as being the true one.

Evidence normally used:

1/ The bible and associated scriptures. Heavily edited, and yes!!, censored. I sit with an example of this next to me, an 'authorized' bible, differing from other 'authorized' bibles. Which one to rely on? And who made the 'authorization'?

2/ Revelations, visions etc. Starting with Paulus, 'christian' revelations have been 13 a dozen for 2000 years.

I'm not prematurely rejecting your implied claim of knowing the 'truth', alternatively knowing what the 'truth' ISN'T. I'm just curious about whether you have information of high evidence value, or if you just presented version 34.001 of 'christianity'.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by bogomil]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by superluminal11]

Joecroft wrote:

"I also think that if we are not spiritually connected to God then we cannot survive (spiritually speaking) because God is the source of all things. For me it is more about God helping us, than it is about condemning us, you see God does not want to see us perish but he knows he will have no choice, if we are not a part of him spiritually."

(I take it, that you by 'spiritual survival' mean a continuing non-corporeal existence after physical death).

IF the bible is true, and IF 'god' is the source of everything, he's the guy, who made all the rules from the beginning.

So what do you mean by: "...he will have no choice...". He should be able to do, what he wants.

1/ Either we have free will, but if we use it as we please, then we perish. Not much of a free will after all, if we have to go by the rules or else.....

2/ If we don't have free will, then 'god' is ultimately responsible for everything, also for those perishing.

It's 'original sin' all over again. The whole point is not about being in contact with 'god', being 'righteous' or loving 'god'; it's about obedience, grovelling and submission to an insane entitity with uncontrollable fits of rage, paranoia and megalomania.

This what you want or need to believe personally; fine with me. But don't even suggest, that these fairytales apply to me.

I already have my own fairytales, which I try to keep somewhat rational and which I don't push as universal 'truth'.

Re: Joecroft

Thanks for your answer.

It's undeniable, that I'm often harsh and aggressive in my criticism of 'christians' and 'christianity', but not always. Another contributor to this thread, Mykahel, has my respect, and while he and I disagree deeply on some points of how things 'really' are, we haven't started yelling at each other yet.

It's a question of content and wrappings of the 'packages of ideology/beliefsystems'. The content, the different beliefsystems, may be completely incompatable, but for anyone not a fanatic, the wrapping, the presentation, can be modified so communication is possible.

As you've demonstrated a will for diplomacy, I'll try to explain further.
In Europe, where I live, we've had an additional and substantial group of prophets: Socialists/communists of various denominations. I don't know, if you have any sympathy for e.g. hardcore stalinism or maoism (I don't), but as a parallel to 'christian' pushiness, they serve as a good example, which even christians can use for mirror-effect on presentation (especially as 'christianity' and communism often are in opposition on content=beliefsystem).

For fundamentalists, there is only ONE 'truth' (OK; ...in my opinion mankind is dumb and seeks 'ultimate truths' like a junkie seeks substances) and the presentation is equally inflexible. Communist PR: "Religion is opium for the people", "dictatorship of the proletariat", "education of the masses" etc. While containing some 'truth', these statements are halfbaked, still open for debate.

I can (almost) live with the circular, selfproving argumentation of halfway-axiomatic postulates, but when presented with an arrogant condescenting attitude of selfjustification, it's completely unacceptable. The fundamentalist has already entrenched him/herself in an impermeable bubble of 'ultimate truth', and opposition has in advance been classified as 'imbecile', 'uninformed', 'propaganda' etc.

At the same time, the fundamentalist isn't above fabulation, distorting information and INSISTING on circular argumentation being valid. And in context with my criticism of 'christians' and 'christianity', I have seen too many examples of 'christians', who seem to be rather ignorant of the actual content of the bible; who, when confronted with valid arguments against them, resort to the 'point of least resistance', going into endless demagogy on one-point questions like the number of angels dancing on a pin; or who just, out of context, steamroller-like cite bible-verses to tire out opposition.

Well, you are maybe not one of those. But my question is, can one be a 'passive' member of Hitler-jugend, Mao's cultural-revolution squads or McCarthy witch-hunts. My suggestion is, that the (maybe blasphemic) idea that no person or ideology possess 'ultimate truth' is used as a communication basis; ...clearly demonstrated.

I'm not proposing wishy-washy liberalism, cosmetic tolerance or undecessive relativism. An, even heated, debate can continue, but with the possibility, that "I'm maybe not 100% right", so it's worth listening to opposition and to do my homework according to the level I'm participating on.

If this approach is acceptable to you, we may meet again soon for practical application.

Re: Idonotcollectstamps

The situation in Europe (where I live) and US is quite different concerning fundamentalism, especially on the religious front. Here noisy extremists are usually met with amused tolerance, and if they become violent, they are processed according to secular law. As expressed politically the religious aspect is diminishing strongly, e.g. even in Poland (a former catholic stronghold) where the clergy has made itself increasingly impopular by trying to mess with polish co-sensus.

So I don't have the same invasive religious groups infiltrating my life, as a US citizen has (ofcourse the fundamentalists try hard here also, but very few take them seriously).

Consequently I can indulge in the luxury of not being in a black/white situation, and look beyond polarized positions.

It may seem 'tactically' stupid and maybe like backstabbing, when I also raise some objection to a system, which basically supports many of my opinions. But I believe, that classical science suffers from some of the same shortcomings as many religious beliefsystems. It's exclusive.

No system is more valid than the parameters it's build from/on. In fundamentalistic 'christianity' there's the extremely narrow, exclusive and subjective parameter 'faith' (manifesting in its innumerable and 'indisputable' forms). In classical science something similar exists, though far from the religious narrowness. The classical science parameters are empirical and pragmatic (and variously: Deductive reasoning, reductionism etc), and have on this background DEFINED positions, experiences and speculations of e.g. paranormal/supernatural phenomena as non-existing.

Science has produced an impressive and functional 'map', but this 'map' is local and limited. Outside its 'map' classical science has no final authority.

When used inclusively, not exclusively, (non-classical) science and experiences of paranormal/supernatural phenomena could together achieve 'better truths'. In opposition to each other their 'answers' are limited, sometimes worthless, on a greater scale.

Relating to the topic of this thread, and discarding organised, doctrinal religion 'answers', it would be possible to consider 'prayer', 'god'-experience, 'god'-nature etc as legitimate, general phenomena in 'reality'. And a rational, scientific perspective looking for common denominators in these phenomena wouldn't hurt anyone except fundamentalists, who like nothing better than attacking their religious siblings or cousins for their power-grabbing motives of monopoly.

Religious fundamentalism and 'scientism' is continuing a conflict, which is completely outdated now. Realistic options exist for the beginning of a common approach.

Yes. That's the rules. If you don't like it then stop praying. Deitys are busy enough these days that they don't have time to reply to everyone, just those that joined their club. Learn the rules, and stop asking questions. That's not healthy for anyone.

(no offence intended OP)
Cheers
Shane





[edit on 2/9/10 by shamus78]

Re: Imherejusttoread

You wrote:

"Traditional prayer, meditation, reasoning, and all forms of thought are [in some form or another] prayer."

That's certainly a sweeping statement, which could do with some clarification and evidence, if it's not to be taken as an example of bad semantics or a clichée. As it is on its own, it's a clear expression of hidden 'agenda', and that's to be avoided in an open dialogue....isn't it?

Or are you just parrotting something you don't understand?

Originally posted by bogomil
That's certainly a sweeping statement, which could do with some clarification and evidence, if it's not to be taken as an example of bad semantics or a clichée. As it is on its own, it's a clear expression of hidden 'agenda', and that's to be avoided in an open dialogue....isn't it?

Or are you just parrotting something you don't understand?

I do not know why such a statement provokes hostility from you; I have no agenda, nor do I wish to assert one, but I will clarify.

All forms of prayer, meditation or reasoning are forms of dialogue with self (an extension of macro-reality) and thus an act of invoking. The very term 'God', etymologically, stems from Proto-Indo-European language's ghut, which means "that which is invoked", which itself is from a Sanskrit root gheu meaning "to call, invoke" and on and on. If we grant that the term 'God', concerning etymological origins, simply means that which is invoked, there is only one way to invoke things: thought. Inner dialogue.

There really is no difference between how a Christian traditionally prays, a Buddhist meditating, or a philosopher reasoning metaphysical paradoxes. The only difference is the fundamentalism that surrounds their usage. If you wish to learn more, I suggest Evan Harris Walker's The Physics of Consciousness.

It's a fantastic book that briefs this premise.

Re: Imherejusttoread

Thanks for your answer and the tip about the book.

Better get the hostility sorted out first. Fundamentalists with an agenda containing exclusivity, monopolism, elitism and even violence more often than not start from assumptions, which are difficult to uphold except through a 'faith', which 'proves' itself circularly. To hasten sales some of such believers invent their own twisted form of logic, where their messages can be sneaked in through the backdoor. The innocent or naive sometimes buy it.

Your post could very well have been an example of the above, but according to your later answer it's not meant that way. I apologize for letting you get in the line of fire.

I won't argue with your linguistic presentation, it seems reasonable (I'm not a specialist linguist), but I will argue with the semantics.

On this thread, and practically everywhere else, some e.g. 'christian' missionary types will push the idea, that Allah basically is the same as Jahve, and that muslims thus is a kind of 'christians'. All from some nominal similarities. The same way you suggest, that because of a common linguistic root, prayer, meditation etc are the same.

Language can be an effort to describe our relative 'reality', but it is smaller than 'reality', not encompassing it. In this case general linguistic considerations are of less importance than actual definiton and practise.

I think you got the prayer part correct, but meditation aims both in theory and practise at an absolute termination of inner dialogue, expecting silence and total non-identification*. The final outcome is disputed, depending on ideological background: Christians (who don't leave their religious expectations behind, and thus never really achieve non-identification) experience 'god' (as expected), and in asian religions/systems you either experience a new, 'higher' identity or 'nothing' (this is beyond language).

Personally I have experienced the asian version of a new, higher identity, and the process leading there can't be compared to prayer.

Returning to the subject of this thread, I get the impression, that 'all roads lead to Rome' (i.e. the original center of MY faith) is proposed. I disagree. Some roads lead to other places, and some to nowhere at all. There's a lot of ideological ballast to clean out first, before the real journey can even be started.

*There are probably diverging opinions.

Originally posted by bogomil
Better get the hostility sorted out first. Fundamentalists with an agenda containing exclusivity, monopolism, elitism and even violence more often than not start from assumptions, which are difficult to uphold except through a 'faith', which 'proves' itself circularly. To hasten sales some of such believers invent their own twisted form of logic, where their messages can be sneaked in through the backdoor. The innocent or naive sometimes buy it.

As a physicist by profession, a philosopher by passion, and a non-fundamental Christian by choice, I'm very well acquainted with the intellectual death that is fundamentalism, in all forms (in Bill Maher's religulous, I found myself chuckling at the Catholic priest calling fundamentalism a disease, when asked).

I, too, have, after much studies, come to the same conclusion that all roads do indeed lead to Rome. On the map to get there, there's a red X, but in front of that red X is a giant, deep, dark, thick jungle terrain we call language. It requires a machete, and that machete is mind.

Re: Imherejusttoread

I believe, that our best hope lies in updated versions of epistemology.

E.g. could teaching 'general semantics' probably help a lot on the practical side.

But then most political systems and religions would come crashing down, so it's unlikely the idea would have support from the powers that be.