"Letting Go of God"

[shetline]

Ah, the magic journeys made possible by the WWW. :)

I started out at the Penn & Teller Bulletin Board (http://www.network54.com/Forum/106337) because of my interest in the amazing Showtime program Bullshit! (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do), began reading the topic church, state and atheism in "This american life" (http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=106337&messageid=1117917434&lp=1118257494), followed a link to the This American Life (http://www.thislife.org/) web site, and ended up listening to a Real audio stream of the Godless America (http://www.thislife.org/ra/290.ram) episode.

The first part of this episode (about separation of Church and State and the US Constitution) is quite good (and a good source of counterpoints if you ever end up arguing with one of those "this is supposed to be a Christian nation" sort of folks), but my favorite part of the broadcast was a long excerpt from Julia Sweeney's planned book, CD, and film on the subject of "Letting Go of God".

Here's a woman who really did believe in God and Jesus and the Bible. No, she was what you'd call incredibly devout at first, but she questioned her own lack of devoutness and went on a journey to try to rediscover her faith, with the ironic result that the more and more she studied the Bible the more bizarre and implausible the things she was supposed to believe in became -- even when trying to grasp at some figurative enlightenment when the literal words were simply too weird or too downright ugly and nasty to accept.

From what it says at Sweeney's web site (http://juliasweeney.com/welcome.asp), the various incarnations of this project are at least a couple of years from fruition, but I'm eager to see this material get out into the world and especially into the American culture. Would I expect it to have much impact? Nah. I even wonder if the movie version will ever manage to see the light of day. But damn, it would be refreshing for more voices like this to be heard by more people in this country.

[ColanderOfDeath]

I love This American Life. Granted that quality varies by episode but that's a great show.

[pfflam]

"Letting Go of God" is a phrase that sounds like the first real step moving toward religious maturity in my mind: from there you leave open the idea of the Other, (ie: commonly referred to as 'God") and can have a non egoic, non-desperate or grasping relationship to the Ultimate.

[crazychester]

Shetline, shetline, shetline. I know this is OT and should be a PM but I've gotta get off line and this board is so slow for me. I think I've got this right and you're the CD fan, if not just ignore it. If yes, I know. I'm good at remembering stuff about people aren't I? :)

I've been discussing copyright with Cory Doctorow via email. <Puffs out chest; struts about looking pleased with self> Screenshot in Macworld, chinwagging with Cory, it's almost like being famous!

Only problem was, in his reply he said a whole lot of stuff about Oz copyright law that was incorrect. What to do? What to do? Gnashing of teeth. Wringing of hands. After a while, I decided WTF and opened my reply with:

Hearing myself say, you are dead wrong about a copyright matter, makes me think you're not the real Cory Doctorow at all. :LOL:

[shetline]

Originally posted by crazychester
I know this is OT and should be a PM but I've gotta get off line and this board is so slow for me. I think I've got this right and you're the CD fan, if not just ignore it...
Well, I guess I'll just spin a little OT along with you for a bit... I'm certainly pleased with the work Doctorow has been doing to fight against DRM and the excesses of copyright/patent law. I don't know much about the particulars of Australian copyright law, however, other than a vague recollection that I heard that even ripping a CD into iTunes in Australia is technically illegal. True?

The funny thing is, although I've never spoken to Doctorow myself, he has spoken about me. (And, yes, I'll just have to leave it as cryptic as that. ;) )

[shetline]

Originally posted by pfflam
"Letting Go of God" is a phrase that sounds like the first real step moving toward religious maturity in my mind...
Step 2) There is no step 2.
Step 3) Try going back to step 2 and see what happens. :D

[pfflam]

Originally posted by shetline
Step 2) There is no step 2.
Step 3) Try going back to step 2 and see what happens. :D Exactly like that . . . except there is no smily face for shunyata! - attainment !- realization!

.

or is it like this: :wow: :lol:

[addabox]

Heard that piece, really interesting work. She really has a way of mixing a unique style of comedy with heavy duty stuff.

Any of you catch "God Said Ha!", her previous show? About her brother's death from cancer, and, strangely enough, funny as hell.

Would have never imagined she had such talent from her stint on SNL.

The part of "Letting Go" that really got to me was her series of realizations that all the people in her life who had died, and who she had thought of in some vague way as being "elsewhere", were merely, and really, dead. And that one day she would merely, and really, die.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by addabox
The part of "Letting Go" that really got to me was her series of realizations that all the people in her life who had died, and who she had thought of in some vague way as being "elsewhere", were merely, and really, dead. And that one day she would merely, and really, die.

That's exactly what happens to all dying people, they really and merely die and are not elsewhere, at least until the world ends and judgment day arrives and God recreates all life again to receive their reward or punishment.

I'm always astonished that people seem to lose faith in God's existence and message after reading the Bible, a men-written collection of witness-reports about the sayings and doings of God's wonder and prophet (aka New Testament) combined with the faint collective memory of the jewish scriptures (the originals got lost after the two desructions of the Temple, and the oral connection got broken by the expellation of jews and the change of the mother-tongue..), more thoroughly.

Nightcrawler

[BRussell]

I knew there was no God when the movie "It's Pat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110169/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8dHQ9b258ZmI9dXxwbj 0wfHE9aXQncyBwYXR8aHRtbD0xfG5tPW9u;fc=1;ft=21)" came out.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
...at least until the world ends and judgment day arrives and God recreates all life again to receive their reward or punishment.
And this should be believed because...?
I'm always astonished that people seem to lose faith in God's existence and message after reading the Bible...
Okay... all of your life people tell you that the Bible is the Word of God. From an MSNBC poll I saw last night, around 36% of the people in the certifiably-insane US have been telling you that each and every word of the Bible is supposed to be taken as complete, literal truth. (Even allowing for a large margin of error, since the poll wasn't a very scientific poll, the percentage is frighteningly high.)

One day you decide to embark on a Voyage of Personal Spiritual Discovery, diving into the pages of "the Good Book"... and, to your utter amazement, you find out it's crap! Oh, maybe the book has a few moments here and there, but otherwise it's rambling, disjointed, contradicts itself, glorifies bizarre acts like handing your daughters over to an angry mob to be raped as acts of faith, and paints a portrait of a rather ill-tempered, vain, and arbitrary God with a Son who often isn't that much better.

You really find disillusionment when confronting the reality of the Bible astonishing?

Of course, the Faithful will tell you the above problems aren't really there. Most of these so-called "contradictions", for example, go away once you appeal to the appropriate original Hebrew and Greek texts and perform the appropriate amazing, gravity-defying feats of mental gymnastics. (You can probably find some "noted Biblical scholar" to point out how "angry mob bent on rape" is actually a poor translation of the ancient Hebrew for "friendly neighbors throwing a block party".)

Anything left that doesn't make sense to you? Well, that's your shortcoming, not the Bible's. Start with the simple assumption that you're not worthy to judge anything, pray for the fixing that you "obviously" need and the Strength of Faith to see black when you're looking at white, and everything's gonna be alright.
...a men-written collection of witness-reports about the sayings and doings of God's wonder and prophet (aka New Testament) combined with the faint collective memory of the jewish scriptures (the originals got lost after the two desructions of the Temple, and the oral connection got broken by the expellation of jews and the change of the mother-tongue..), more thoroughly.
If the Bible itself is such a mess, based on what other external basis of authority or evidence should one buy into your vision of God and Judgment Day and reward and punishment?

[Fellowship]

New Diet Book: "Stop Eating Food"

New idea on net: "Letting Go of God"


Shetline we all know America has problems with politics of war, the masses who support it and the leader who claims to be a Christian. This being said your thread is a turn off to those of us who have true faith and follow the teachings of Jesus.

This thread is like a diet book which suggests to stop eating food.

It is just plain dead, mistaken and ill.

If you do not wish to believe certain things don't. The need to post this thread is interesting.

Fellows

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
If the Bible itself is such a mess, based on what other external basis of authority or evidence should one buy into your vision of God and Judgment Day and reward and punishment?

A) It wasn't always a mess - it was messed it up deliberately. In many cases this is provable due to the original documents being still extant (in the case of the NT) and by textual analysis in regard to the OT.

The originals in many cases are diametrically opposed to the tampered with versions. That is suggestive.

B) There are other scriptures that have not undergone this abominable treatment.

[segovius]

Meant to say that the title is misleading here. Perhaps it needs changing to 'Letting go of the Judeo-Christian myth of God as judge and oppressor'.

Surely one cannot judge all conceptions of God by a book that has not only been adjusted and redacted over two millennia but which has served as the primary tool in perhaps the most oppressive (ie non-religious and anti-spiritual) enterprise ever conceived by the depraved human imagination.

[groverat]

The program has some very interesting stories. Particularly disturbing was the way that science teacher's principal essentially forced her to repeat after him in denouncing evolution. The way she framed it reminded me of a psychopath coercing someone into saying something insane to validate that the voices in his head are real.

Disturbing to say the least.

Money quote:

"Basically the point is to protect Christians from being persecuted the way they are persecuted simply because they are the majority faith."

Logic!? Who needs it!

[segovius]

Originally posted by groverat
Logic!? Who needs it!

This is the problem actually - it's not so much about the existence or not of God per se but rather that people have 'Let go of Logic' and they should regain a grip.

There may or may not be a being that approximates to our idea of God. no-one can say either way. That is a fact.

The Christian idea of God as derived from the Bible is self-contradictory and illogical. That is also a fact.

Conclusions can be drawn but only up to a point.

People should be free to believe whatever they like but facts should take precedence or we approach the definition of insanity.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Fellowship
New Diet Book: "Stop Eating Food"

New idea on net: "Letting Go of God"
Another new book idea: "Stop Drinking If You Don't Want to Be Drunk"

A parallel between God and addictive substances seems much more applicable to me than any parallel to food. There are many people who seem to get along quite well without God, much better than they'd do without food, that's for sure. You may wish to contend that people suffer in some terrible way without God (oh, like having the "Infinitely Loving" Father toss them on the Eternal Barbeque forever), but that's unfounded dogma.

There is some statistical evidence that people with religion are, on balance, more content that those without, but (A) there are still happy atheists and unhappy believers, and (B) the exact nature of that which is believed bears little relationship to the effect obtained from simply believing in something, anything of a religious or spiritual nature, no matter how much that conflicts with other such beliefs, demonstrating that measuring efficacy in creating happiness can't possibly be the same thing as measuring truth.

If some day we understand brain chemistry well enough to make safe and effective happy pills, what truth other than the truth "these pills work" would be proved by that happiness?
If you do not wish to believe certain things don't. The need to post this thread is interesting.
Why should I feel a need to remain quiet about my views? I find it just as "interesting" that you think it's better for a disbeliever to keep disbelief quietly to himself. Why should that be?

In fact, I'd say one of the most likely reasons that religious belief (including what I consider extreme religious belief which potentially poses a threat to the degree of liberty I'd prefer to enjoy) is so prevalent in the US is that agnostics and atheists are far too politely quiet for their own good and for the general mental health of the country.

Religious tolerance is an important civic value, but when tolerance turns into meekly keeping your own views to yourself for fear of "disturbing" someone else's belief system, it goes to far. Are we supposed to accept that religious believers are entitled to as comforting and non-confrontational a protective shell around their belief systems as we can provide?

What I'd like is vibrant enough a public discourse that believers are regularly exposed to critical opposing viewpoints. I'm talking about more than simply being aware that others disagree or simply being aware that others find one's beliefs irrational/stupid/laughable or anything else where, by taking offense, a believer can find a convenient refuge from the actual issues at hand.

What Julia Sweeney has to say is the kind of thing I dearly wish more people in America heard much more often. Unfortunately, too many agnostics, atheists, and believers in a more abstract notion of God feel the need to be politely and non-confrontationally quiet about religion and religious beliefs, as if merely questioning the insanity of something like Biblical literalism would be tantamount to religious persecution.

I ran across a great quote today:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts

Great quote - as I always say, you're all fundies.

Just different religions and none.

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
Great quote - as I always say, you're all fundies.

Just different religions and none.
I've certainly run across what I'd call "fundamentalist" atheists, but many I've known who describe themselves as atheists, rejecting the term "agnostic", are nevertheless willing to accept the (distant) possibility of some sort of Divine Being. It's not so much that they're dogmatically insistent upon the absolute non-existence of God as that they take a view along the lines of, as one person put it, "I can't completely rule out that there's not a teapot in orbit around Mars either."

For them, the possibility of a God, by any reasonably concrete and extensive meaning of the word God, seems so small, or lacks so much in useful explanatory power, that their place in the middle ground of agnosticism is but a hair's breadth from atheism, making the word atheism appealing as a more apt description of their philosophical position.

If 0% belief in God is atheism, and 100% belief is theism, and anything at all in between is agnosticism, a 0.0000000001% belief in the possibility of a God might technically be agnosticism. I can certainly understand the desire, however, to round down to 0% for clarity's sake, particularly if you're bothered by the idea that claiming agnosticism might tend to imply to some minds a belief closer to 50% than your own 0.0000000001%.

I personally call myself an agnostic. This is not because I hold out much credibility for the existence of any sort of being or beings which are in any way like any traditional notion of God or gods. For me, my agnosticism represents an expression of an appreciation for the mysterious nature of the universe, an appreciation that the nature of the question "Is there a God?" is in itself a puzzling mystery. I'm an agnostic because I appreciate the poetry that exists in the idea of God while the idea of God floats beyond the edges of concrete meaning. I'm an agnostic because when I ask myself the question "Why is there, rather than isn't?", I wonder if something that might be worthy of the poetry found in the word God lies behind that question, or exists within the question itself.

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
I personally call myself an agnostic. This is not because I hold out much credibility for the existence of any sort of being or beings which are in any way like any traditional notion of God or gods. For me, my agnosticism represents an expression of an appreciation for the mysterious nature of the universe, an appreciation that the nature of the question "Is there a God?" is in itself a puzzling mystery. I'm an agnostic because I appreciate the poetry that exists in the idea of God while the idea of God floats beyond the edges of concrete meaning. I'm an agnostic because when I ask myself the question "Why is there, rather than isn't?", I wonder if something that might be worthy of the poetry found in the word God lies behind that question, or exists within the question itself.

Brilliantly put.

If I understand you correctly the subtext is that you reject the notions of God which have been presented throughout human history.

I would agree with this position (if this is what you mean - actually I agree with it anyway !) because by definition - any God is unknowable. Therefore any conception of such a being must be false.

However, philosophically, what it boils down to is simply: is there a higher intelligence than the human or are we the peak of intelligence in the universe ? Of course there may well be higher intelligences - this is very likely and if such were discovered and found to have interacted with us at any point in our history they may well be 'God' or the genesis of our conception of such.

It's time we outgrew religion, you are right. Spirituality is a different matter and the two are nto the same - in fact now they are further apart than they have ever been and are almost mutually exclusive. when they reach the opposite end of the spectrum religion will die out. That's what's happening with this resurgence of fundamentalism in all religions imo, the last throes of denial with a knowledge of impending doom, but that's another story.

[johnq]

I far prefer "Letting Go" than "Letting Go of God"...

"Letting Go of ______________"

Greed, hate, jealousy, possession, sloth, past/future, attachment, labels, blame, guilt...etc...

God, or lack thereof, is not the problem.

There is a fundamental human ignorance of the reality of the present moment and a blindness to the interconnectedness of all things. Plus there is a lack of knowledge of actions that can be taken to avoid making matters worse. These are the problems.

Most people will not try to see things more clearly, on their own. They like the walls that the organized religions put up around them and others to shut out reality.

They use memories of the past or fears of the future to justify their present moment outrages against others.

We don't want to change, generally speaking.

This mega-church/Lakewood type phenomena is a brainwashing, nationalistic rallying cry for this modern day Roman empire. This isn't religion or worship, it is mindless indoctrination to instill an aura of moral righteousness in every atrocity the U.S. is committing (and will commit for the next decade).

You need Gods to command you to send your children out to die and to pray to when they are in harm's way.

There is -nothing- peaceful about the American born-again Christianity movement. It is a political tool, a way to instill obedience.

There are other parts of Christianity in the U.S. that are peaceful (in words, despite vast amounts of complacency/apathy) but not the born-agains of the Bush ilk.

Quote me.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by shetline
If 0% belief in God is atheism, and 100% belief is theism, and anything at all in between is agnosticism, a 0.0000000001% belief in the possibility of a God might technically be agnosticism. I can certainly understand the desire, however, to round down to 0% for clarity's sake, particularly if you're bothered by the idea that claiming agnosticism might tend to imply to some minds a belief closer to 50% than your own 0.0000000001%. But I think there's an asymmetry between belief and non-belief. They aren't simply polar opposites along a continuum.

I think of belief as something that happens when you reach some threshold of evidence. It's like a 'guilty' vs. a 'not guilty' verdict. If you vote 'guilty,' that means one thing: that you're convinced of guilt. But a 'not guilty' verdict may represent either an affirmative belief that the suspect is innocent, or it may simply be an acknowledgment that there's not enough evidence to convict.

In the same way, I'd only believe in a supreme being that watches over us if I really had some observation or experience that convinced me it was true. Otherwise, I don't believe it. My lack of belief doesn't mean I am convinced there isn't a supreme being, it just means I haven't been convinced that it's true.

[johnq]

I wish people would see religion, and it's abused forms, for what it is. Control. <- period.

It's government. Borders-defying supra-government. It is controlling the filthy rabble that we all are if we are left alone with just our animal instincts and no understanding of the true immediate reality. We are distracted by images of things and our imaginings from our limited and flawed senses.

But instead of from-the-top-down organization/control/governing, what we need is individual peace, individual responsibility for our actions, individual tolerance/caring.

Conventional reality forces me to necessarily use these pre-defined labels for people (like Born Agains or U.S. military/foreign policy/Neocons etc.) but really it is the underlying hatred, hostility and ignorance that is what I am against. I could care less about the nationaities/politics/race/region/religion/etc...involved.

[segovius]

Originally posted by johnq
I wish people would see religion, and it's abused forms, for what it is. Control. <- period.

It's government. Borders-defying supra-government. It is controlling the filthy rabble that we all are if we are left alone with just our animal instincts and no understanding of the true immediate reality. We are distracted by images of things and our imaginings from our limited and flawed senses.

But instead of from-the-top-down organization/control/governing, what we need is individual peace, individual responsibility for our actions, individual tolerance/caring.

Conventional reality forces me to necessarily use these pre-defined labels for people (like Born Agains or U.S. military/foreign policy/Neocons etc.) but really it is the underlying hatred, hostility and ignorance that is what I am against. I could care less about the nationaities/politics/race/region/religion/etc...involved.

Exactly. Brilliant analysis.

And we are all here begging to be conditioned and abused some more in ever newer and extreme ways.

[Aurora]

Its Control with the please send us you money. Its about control and money. Allways amazed at how many religions man has invented. And everyone claims to be right. Perhaps they are all wrong.:smokey:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius


And we are all here begging to be conditioned and abused some more in ever newer and extreme ways.

I'll be your bitch, if you'll be mine :)

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Aurora
Allways amazed at how many religions man has invented. And everyone claims to be right. Perhaps they are all wrong.:smokey:

That man created all religions, must mean that they're all right.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by shetline
And this should be believed because...?

Because he grew up with mommy and daddy telling him that that was the way it is.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Placebo
Because he grew up with mommy and daddy telling him that that was the way it is.

funny how that works, I remember one summer day, when I was about 6, I asked my mom why the sky was Blue, - she told me it was because it was a reflection of the sea.

I went all through schooling, thinking that was why it was, I didn't find out it wasn't right until I was about 25.

That's why they target kids, anything installed in a kid by about the age of eight, will remain there for life, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

That's why Ken Ham has built a noah's ark complete with the screams of drowning people. Kids will never forget that. It's for breeding the next generation of hate-filled evangelical fundamentalists, .

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by shetline


Why should I feel a need to remain quiet about my views? I find it just as "interesting" that you think it's better for a disbeliever to keep disbelief quietly to himself. Why should that be?


Don't get me wrong I fully support your right to voice your opinion. The reason I found it interesting is that I thought you rather did not care for "evangelizing" from others so to see you in effect "evangelize" your viewpoint via the subject matter of this thread caused me to find your thread interesting.


What I'd like is vibrant enough a public discourse that believers are regularly exposed to critical opposing viewpoints. I'm talking about more than simply being aware that others disagree or simply being aware that others find one's beliefs irrational/stupid/laughable or anything else where, by taking offense, a believer can find a convenient refuge from the actual issues at hand.



I think adults can agree to disagree. I do find that in our society we all are faced with violent disagreement over these types of subject matter. The "discussion" if you will is there absolutely.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by johnq


This mega-church/Lakewood type phenomena is a brainwashing, nationalistic rallying cry for this modern day Roman empire. This isn't religion or worship, it is mindless indoctrination to instill an aura of moral righteousness in every atrocity the U.S. is committing (and will commit for the next decade).

There is -nothing- peaceful about the American born-again Christianity movement. It is a political tool, a way to instill obedience.


You are simply a fool to lump Christians in this manner. What you spew above is analogous to labeling all muslims terrorists. :no:

Disrespect of others be you a member of a Christian walk, other religious persuasion or secular is wrong and hateful.

Show me where the teachings at Lakewood by Joel Osteen are hate filled.

In the mean time I can assure you that this post of yours was filled with hate filled commentary.

Fellows

[johnq]

Originally posted by Fellowship
You are simply a fool to lump Christians in this manner. What you spew above is analogous to labeling all muslims terrorists. :no:

No, *some* muslims are terrorists. The rest are just "collateral damage" or "persons of interest". At least, from what the government would have you believe.

Notice we only see press coverage of "good muslims" when we want a feel-good stories like "they're voting in droves" or "our doctors do free surgery for injured civilians. Look how grateful she is for her new prosthetic limb"

The rest of the time it's about "the bad guys" only.

Yet all our troops are good, peace-loving Christians that just want to defend our way of life. (As opposed to the reality of the U.S. positioning itself to control the oil in the region.)


Originally posted by Fellowship
Disrespect of others be you a member of a Christian walk, other religious persuasion or secular is wrong and hateful.

A rejection of the actions of others is the right of all free people. Even atheists, agnostics, non-Christians...

Originally posted by Fellowship
Show me where the teachings at Lakewood by Joel Osteen are hate filled.

He needn't be overtly hateful. All he needs to do is to continue doing his literal brainwashing of the tens of thousands in the stadium (and more on TV). He just tells us what evil is and how good we are, and the Defense/State Departments tell us who the evil-doers are. It's part of a whole package y'see.

We're good, they're bad, let's send our kids to kill them or die trying.

Joel Osteen/lakewood is a CULT and it's exploded since the Bush administration's rise to power. People making a buck on fear and despair, other people generating the fear and despair. Perfect.

Lakewood is a brainwashing, money and real estate-centered, cult.

Chanted in monotone:
"This is my Bible. I am what it says I am. I can do what it says I can do. Today I will be taught the Word of God. I boldly confess my mind is alert, my heart is receptive. I will never be the same. I am about to receive the incorruptible, indestructible, ever-living seed of the Word of God. I will never be the same. Never, never, never. I will never be the same. In Jesus name."

Do not think. Do not waver in believing what we tell you. Do not question. Do not investigate. Do not defy us. Everything else is a lie from Satan. Etc.

Repetition, repetition, repetition is the key to brainwashing. Note his incessant blinking too. He repeats things endlessly. Slight variations over and over again.

Originally posted by Fellowship
In the mean time I can assure you that this post of yours was filled with hate filled commentary.


A political movement utilizing (any) religion as a motivational tool to send your kids off to kill and die is worthy of strong words. I give a stern rejection of all the myth-building that is done in the name of "our boys fighting to protect our freedoms" b.s. that is so tightly wrapped in prayers and preaching.

This country is a war machine, we have recruitment at middleschools, we have a widespread myth that Iraq had WMD and was involved in 9-11. This is painted as a fight against Islam to protect "our Judeo-Christian values".

It's all a mess of hateful policies carried out with moral righteousness.

Damn straight I rebuke it. "Respect" and "tolerance" isn't keeping quiet against the crimes of others.

We can get precision fly-overs at NASCAR events (which have enormous military recruiting stations) during the National Anthem (to hammer home that God-Nation-Military Might trinity), yet we can't scramble enough fighters on 9/11 to save the day?

Religion and war are hand-in-hand in the U.S. now. Possibly irreversibly.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by johnq


I still do not see how you can on the one hand say that the country is effectively "run by Christians" yet on the other use Lakewood as an example as a micro example of the whole and then lable Lakewood as a "cult".

How do you define cult and how do you define mainstream?

Do you not also believe that Bush and co. are playing our people?

I believe politicians are playing people and I believe that some who preach in some churches do a bad service when they lable others as "bad" ie: muslim etc.

I can tell you that my pastor does nothing of the sort.

I have not seen Joel Osteen say that muslims or what have you in the ME are the "Bad guys"

Sure there are some back woods "so-called" Christians who do and say really red-neck things and I feel they are taking a back seat with their actions behind the real message of Jesus when they fall for this "patriotism, red white blue and yellow ribbon" nonsense.

Don't mistake the positive message out of Lakewood as hateful or that of a cult.

Sure they have their opening profession of faith.

Are you trying to suggest that people of faith are evil? and that faith or the profession of it automatically puts one in the category of "cult" ?

I was just trying to get some clearing up of the confusion which you seem to infuse in your broad generalizations.

Fellows

[johnq]

Originally posted by Fellowship
I still do not see how you can on the one hand say that the country is effectively "run by Christians" yet on the other use Lakewood as an example as a micro example of the whole and then lable Lakewood as a "cult".

Tele-evangelism, and Mega-churches - the WalMartization of Faith is clearly a part of the plan to make over the U.S. into a Christian "reality based community" (gag)

Plan? Yes. It's too perfect, that Republicans gain control and the push is on for so much faith based meddling in public policy. Patriotism, fear of terrorism (and raw hatred of terrorists) go hand in hand with the increase in the evangelical movement. It isn't growing naturally - that people are just flocking to God for the heck of it. It is a symbiotic relationship. Each grows the other. But both are controlled by the same people.

Make the wars and the people will flock to their Gods.

Originally posted by Fellowship
How do you define cult and how do you define mainstream?

I define cult in this case as an organization or movement that uses it's followers for financial and political gain.

Originally posted by Fellowship
Do you not also believe that Bush and co. are playing our people?

Certainly. At worst, the followers are victims. I don't blame them for buying into things. It's enticing and comforting to follow along with your own.

Originally posted by Fellowship
I believe politicians are playing people and I believe that some who preach in some churches do a bad service when they lable others as "bad" ie: muslim etc.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Fellowship
I can tell you that my pastor does nothing of the sort.

Many may indeed be good natured and well intentioned. As a personal system for finding a moral path, much good can be gleaned from religions. Only when it becomes a doctrine for empowering you to change others (whether they want to be changed or not) does ti become a harmful force.

Originally posted by Fellowship
I have not seen Joel Osteen say that muslims or what have you in the ME are the "Bad guys"

I said that part of the equation is handled by the Defense and State departments. Evangelists only need to fire us up into knowing we are right, good, pure and just in everything we do as people and a nation. It is a blank check to do whatever we need to do. They needn't ever explicitly name the enemy.

So, 1. instill an inflated sense of moral authority in our people, then, 2. the government points out today's enemies on a satellite photo. Add 3. terrorism or the mere threat of it, and you can mix and match these 3 things as you see fit and you can do anything.

Originally posted by Fellowship
Sure there are some back woods "so-called" Christians who do and say really red-neck things and I feel they are taking a back seat with their actions behind the real message of Jesus when they fall for this "patriotism, red white blue and yellow ribbon" nonsense.

I do feel for you, that there are so many people of that type making things harder for you.

Originally posted by Fellowship
Don't mistake the positive message out of Lakewood as hateful or that of a cult.

There is a clear, systematic form of brainwashing going on in that church and others, I insist. *Mostly* it is crass commercialism at work. But there is an insidious byproduct that is blind nationalism.

Originally posted by Fellowship
Sure they have their opening profession of faith.

I realize chanting and repetition is prevalent in all cultures. But this is used by Lakewood as a party loyalty oath. Imagine being there as a guest and not saying it along with the other 29,000 people. No, there is a not-too-subtle coercive aspect about it.

Originally posted by Fellowship
Are you trying to suggest that people of faith are evil? and that faith or the profession of it automatically puts one in the category of "cult" ?

"People of faith" are only as evil as they allow themselves to be. If they suppress their own internal acknowledgment of right and wrong and instead use the externally supplied definitions as reasons to harm or control others, then yes, they are then "evil".

Profession of a belief is fine but when it is tacitly mandatory (evangelism implies that it is) it ceases to be a simple congregation of fellow believers and becomes a corporate structure designed to maximize growth at the expense of the individuals involved. It's chilling to watch the entire mega-church phenomena. (Rick Warren too)

It's humorous that Lakewood ushers and greeters are volunteers. :D brilliant! Why pay people to work?

People don't want faith. They want to be excused for their fuckups and a promise that things will be better. But the faith is usually merely adrenaline from being in a room full of 30,000 fellow believers and the high you get from thinking you are entirely right. It's a Metallica concert for Christians.

Originally posted by Fellowship
I was just trying to get some clearing up of the confusion which you seem to infuse in your broad generalizations.

Well, I appreciate the responses you give. I can understand wanting to defend against my rather terse hand grenade-like statements. I describe what offends me and it comes off as offensive depending on where you stand. I can understand that.

[segovius]

Osteen is basically Anthony Robbins for Christians who think the New Age and therapy are demonic.

He never says anything bad about Islam or anything else because he doesn't say anything at all. Nothing bad anyway - would dilute the message. Fellowship is definitely with the programme in that way. It's just about making people feel better and giving them some hope when everyone else is taking it - fair enough, but let's not place it in the tradition of Jesus: this is just Elmer Gantry for the 21st century.

At the end of the day you won't hear much about Jesus, God or the deep questions because that's not what people want. We live in the age of the shallow - the 'religious' answer to political shallowness is merely 'religious' shallowness.

Shallowness is the new depth.

Gotta watch out for the skin deep.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by johnq
Tele-evangelism, and Mega-churches - the WalMartization of Faith is clearly a part of the plan to make over the U.S. into a Christian "reality based community" (gag)

I went to a mega-church not too long ago. Scared the crap out of me. Honestly, I couldn't believe half the stuff I was seeing.

For starters, the stadium hall could hold at least 3000 people comfortably, probably more. I was seated in ZZZ section, must have been 6-8 stories up. The stage was pretty small from where I was and while the live band was rocking but immensely cheesy, the pastor team creeped me out. Though there were no actual stunts or acrobatics, they ran on stage with as much zest as any circus performer might, sermons were broken up amongst the half a dozen reverends and a couple people from the audience came up as well at once point. But all that is nothing compared to the next bit.

4 or 5 giant projection screens that told the masses what chapter and verse was being read from, but also, intermixed amongst serene images of clouds, water, trees...etc. words like "WORSHIP" and "PRAY" and "LOVE" and "JESUS"...etc. would appear.

On top of all that, people were ACTUALLY doing that closed eyes, arms extended thing, and there was a camera crew going around and randomly popping various people onto the jumbo-vision. I half expected to hear commentary about how much people were into it, which, was actually sort of provided by one of the pastors.

It was an absolute spectacle! about as far removed from spirituality as I could possibly imagine.

I left in the middle of the service to explore the rest of the church grounds. The church was laid out like a mall. There were 3 or 4 shops, a food court and a dozen or so seminary rooms. The courtyard was very nice, and I ended up spending the remainder time of the performance pondering there.

But man oh man, that was a wild experience. I would like to go again just for the pure surreal factor of it, but I don't think I could stomach it.

[Aurora]

Church is a Big Business, it doesnt matter who's.........they are all doing one thing............Making $$$ .........from the Catholic chuch to the Scientologists............$$$

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I went to a mega-church not too long ago. Scared the crap out of me. Honestly, I couldn't believe half the stuff I was seeing.

For starters, the stadium hall could hold at least 3000 people comfortably, probably more. I was seated in ZZZ section, must have been 6-8 stories up.

Which was this Church?

Fellowship Church holds about 4,400 people at one seating holding 4 weekend services usually full or 95% full.

This 4,400 seat capacity is just two floors and really is not all that huge.

You describe "6-8 stories up" and being seated in "zzz section" I really do not have any idea what Church this could be as Lakewood and Fellowship are 2 of the 10 largest in America and neither of them are 6-8 stories nor do they have sections labled such as zzz for ex. as you describe.

I am most curious to check up on this church you describe. Which one was it?

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by johnq

I do feel for you, that there are so many people of that type making things harder for you.

No need to "feel for me" there are idiots of all stripes some just happen to claim they are Christians. People of that "type" do not make things harder in any sense for me as my faith is between myself and God and I am comfortable where I am. Others are on their own and also stand before God with their lives. It does not make things "harder for me".

It's humorous that Lakewood ushers and greeters are volunteers. :D brilliant! Why pay people to work?

I don't see it as humorous. The teachings of Jesus time and time again speak of the nature and mind of being a servant. In our culture of ego and selfishness, pride and arrogance it is nice to see people get involved in serving their fellow man. This business of actors who make millions and throw telephones at hotel staff show the other end of the spectrum. Childish selfish and spoiled bratdom. Jesus teaches us to serve our fellow man and volunteering at a Church is just a small facet of this general teaching. I see nothing humorous about it. It is in fact admirable in my eyes.

Well, I appreciate the responses you give. I can understand wanting to defend against my rather terse hand grenade-like statements. I describe what offends me and it comes off as offensive depending on where you stand. I can understand that.

I respect your intellect as for the purpose to evaluate and critique but after a point you lean towards paranoia and just hate filled rhetoric against people of faith.

I would suggest that not all are as you paint them. Those who attend "mega" Churches that is.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Aurora
Church is a Big Business, it doesnt matter who's.........they are all doing one thing............Making $$$ .........from the Catholic chuch to the Scientologists............$$$

You remind me of a guy I know who says that the "French" are only polite to me while I visit Paris because "THEY JUST WANT MY MONEY" as he states it. In his eyes the "French" are supposed to be rude people who are just pinko socialists who just want cash from Americans in order to provide a psudo kindness when I visit.

He fails to understand that such a general idea is just false based on bigoted and mal-informed information he has been fed by other bigots and ignorant individuals.

Funny thing is he has never been to France and he makes these statments.

Your statments about Churches being just a big business all for the money is equally dishonest and incorrect.

"THEY JUST WANT YOUR MONEY" is a lazy and blind way of viewing the world.

I know bitter old men who pinch every penny and when you ask them,, "Hey let's go out to eat some dinner" reply " Bahhhh Those restaurants just want your money". Don't fall into the bitter old man syndrome.

People put their money where their heart is.

Fellows

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Which was this Church?

Fellowship Church holds about 4,400 people at one seating holding 4 weekend services usually full or 95% full.

This 4,400 seat capacity is just two floors and really is not all that huge.

You describe "6-8 stories up" and being seated in "zzz section" I really do not have any idea what Church this could be as Lakewood and Fellowship are 2 of the 10 largest in America and neither of them are 6-8 stories nor do they have sections labled such as zzz for ex. as you describe.

I am most curious to check up on this church you describe. Which one was it?

Fellows

The hall was divided as any concert hall would be with a lower level and a balcony level, so that's 2 'floors' but, the distance from ground level to ZZZ was, I'd approximate, 5-6 stories. It actually might have been ZZ not ZZZ now that I think of it, but regardless, it was a big friggin place, made bigger by the over-the-top performance/spectacle.

As far as I'm concerned, religion, spirituality and the values ascribed to them are incredible personal, such mega-churchs just don't make any sense to me, I don't understand how it'd be at all beneficial to anyone's spiritual journey. But, don't listen to me, I'm atheistic and I eat children.

edit: I just looked it up online, it's the Calvary Community church, and it accommodates approximately 5-6000 people.

[johnq]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
The hall was divided as any concert hall would be with a lower level and a balcony level, so that's 2 'floors' but, the distance from ground level to ZZZ was, I'd approximate, 5-6 stories. It actually might have been ZZ not ZZZ now that I think of it, but regardless, it was a big friggin place, made bigger by the over-the-top performance/spectacle.

As far as I'm concerned, religion, spirituality and the values ascribed to them are incredible personal, such mega-churchs just don't make any sense to me, I don't understand how it'd be at all beneficial to anyone's spiritual journey. But, don't listen to me, I'm atheistic and I eat children.

edit: I just looked it up online, it's the Calvary Community church, and it accommodates approximately 5-6000 people.

It all makes sense now!

Why have hundreds of smaller congregations which are short distances from people's homes? Better to make one big central clearinghouse for spirituality that everyone *needs* to drive 45 minutes - 2 hours just to get to! Brilliant. Think of all the SUVs at Lakewood's parking lot. (I gotta find out what the parking fee is, if any). And all the extra gas used.

It's cunning.

yeah baby (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=7317+East+Houston+Road,+Houston,+TX&ll=29.827977,-95.270476&spn=0.004742,0.006491&t=k&hl=en)....let's burn some gas for Jesus.

P.S. Paranoia = "paying attention", in my book. Can I get an "amen"?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
The hall was divided as any concert hall would be with a lower level and a balcony level, so that's 2 'floors' but, the distance from ground level to ZZZ was, I'd approximate, 5-6 stories. It actually might have been ZZ not ZZZ now that I think of it, but regardless, it was a big friggin place, made bigger by the over-the-top performance/spectacle.

As far as I'm concerned, religion, spirituality and the values ascribed to them are incredible personal, such mega-churchs just don't make any sense to me, I don't understand how it'd be at all beneficial to anyone's spiritual journey. But, don't listen to me, I'm atheistic and I eat children.

edit: I just looked it up online, it's the Calvary Community church, and it accommodates approximately 5-6000 people. Read the incredibly brilliant but concise book by Sigmund Freud called Group Psychology And Analysis Of the Ego . . . . it goes a long way towards explaining the way that large group phenomena, like that you describe, work, and why they are appealing to people.

Picture a bulb of bath-perfume melting in a warm bath - the Ego dissolves and gives over responsibility . . . it is free of itself and gives itsself over to the oceanic feeling of the throng: the facticity and limitation and perpetual inner-struggle that is the self/body of an individual is presented with the false illusion that the collective Ego will take that burden away, and invariably, there will be a 'Leader' who will use that collective relinquishing of responsibility for Egoic, semi megolomaniacal manipulative and completely illusory reasons . . .

All of this in the name of sublimating the truths of the struggle that is the psyche bound to a body that is limited . . . ie: the denial of death through the denial of Life as it is.

But Freud says it in a far more profound and multi-demensional way . . .

[shetline]

Look! Over 300 Three Hundred Proofs of God's Existence (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)!

Some of my favorites:

14. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

15. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

26. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY (Or, as I like to think of it, the dmz argument )
(1) Flabble glurk [trinity] zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz [avatar] ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

31. ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

36. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

51. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS
(1) Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

58. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
(1) God exists.
(2) [Atheist's counterargument]
(3) Yes he does.
(4) [Atheist's counterargument]
(5) Yes he does!
(6) [Atheist's counterargument]
(7) YES HE DOES!!!
(8[b]) [Atheist gives up and goes home]
(9) Therefore, God exists.

59. ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that's because they don't want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

63. ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY (Comes close to Fellow's initial comment in this thread comparing going without God to going without food.)
(1) Atheists say that they don't need God.
(2) Which just goes to show that they need God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

77. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY (Sounds like the flow of one of our (now banned!) evolution threads.)
(1) [Christian asks "stumper" question]
(2) [Atheist answers question]
(3) [A lapse of time] (shetline adds: or thread merely overflows onto a new page)
(4) [Christian repeats question]
(5) [Atheist repeats answer]
(6) [A lapse of time]
(7) [Christian repeats question]
(8) [Atheist repeats answer]
(9) [A lapse of time]
(10) Atheist, you never answered my question.
(11) Therefore, God exists.

79. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I've had religious experiences that can't be explained unless I'm insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

91. ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (I), aka Metacrock's Argument
(1) I have a large number of arguments for God.
(2) One of them is probably true.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

93. ARGUMENT FROM MYSTERIOUS USE OF PREPOSITIONS
(1) It is impossible to disprove God with your puny human intellect unless you are above God.
(2) Are you higher than God?
(3) I’ll take that puzzled look on your face as a no.
(4) Therefore, God (being the highest thing ever) exists.

98. ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), aka GOD OF THE GAPS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

104. ARGUMENT FROM FORMATTING
(1) Behold, foolish Atheists, I present you with an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.
(2) [Christian posts 10,000 word document without a single paragraph break]
(3) [Atheists' eyes implode]
(4) I see that nobody can refute (2).
(5) Therefore, God exists.

119. ARGUMENT FROM PIG'S TEETH
(1) Some scientists once thought a tooth was from an "ape-man."
(2) Later scientists discovered it was a pig's tooth.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

157. ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL PROPHECY
(1) The book of Daniel made some prophecies.
(2) The prophecy was later fulfilled by other records in the Book of Daniel.
(3) The prophecy came true!
(4) Therefore, God exists.

164. ARGUMENT FROM WE ALL GOT FAITH
(1) We all believe in something.
(2) Therefore we all have faith.
(3) My faith in God is no different from your faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

175. ARGUMENT FROM PRAYER
(1) When I pray, either it comes true or God has a better plan.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

182. ARGUMENT FROM COINCIDENCE
(1) We were driving home with our youth pastor when it started to rain really hard outside.
(2) We pulled over to the side of the road, joined hands and asked gawd to deliver us home safely.
(3) We arrived home safely.
(4) Therefore, God exists.


We might save a lot of time in the future by responding to all pro-God/religion/cr**t**n*sm arguments simply by categorizing them by number...

ARGUMENT BY NUMERICAL INDEX
1) All of these numerically indexed arguments (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm) are ridiculous BS.
2) Congratulations, you just proposed argument X, without even realizing it!
3) Therefore, I call BS! ;) :D

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
It all makes sense now!

Why have hundreds of smaller congregations which are short distances from people's homes? Better to make one big central clearinghouse for spirituality that everyone *needs* to drive 45 minutes....
This is really a TERRIBLE observation -- when you look at the mega-church proposition in context.

Americans do EVERYTHING en masse, why not go to church that way? When a culture that perennially commoditizes everything from prostitot fashion to mass-produced 'misfit' originality, why would you expect that the evangelical, gnosticism-by-another-name Christian bent, would do ANYTHING other than plug in to the same mentality?

Where's the puzzle? If you don't have an alternative to the culture around you, you're not very likely to able to offer a substitute -- ya think? Just maybe?

???

......and don't get me wrong, the evangelicals need to wake up and realize they are selling more than life and fire insurance, and that they are pitching a coherent philosophy; give them time it they'll figure it out -- you throw an infinite, personal God into the cultural equation, you might just end up finding community again :wow: Imagine a metoplex/bay area/seatac corridor without the 1,000 different Applebees, Outbacks, Bennagins... hell, people might actually stop over for coffee, without having to watch NASCAR or women's softball. Last time I checked, the same 'evil' forces driving those people to go see the Phillies, was getting them though the turnstile at the local mega-church.

.....so in all reality, "fundie" Christianity is where it's at, there is no coherent philosophy to be had elsewhere -- Christianity's incoherent alternatives simply place uncertainty and incoherence as a virtue to be worshipped to one degree or another -- you offer no final solution to people and golly, they end up apathetic, searching for personal peace and affluence and falling apart on a fractal level. So pfflam, you can say anything you want about "letting go of God", but 3-5 centuries of one great mind after another urinating on the same metaphysical 110-outlet, to essentially the same effect, isn't very convincing. There should be no suprise at the groping in a completely depersonalized world for those who pimp out vicarious living. The only thing left in our PoMod-induced landscape are the fried nerve endings.

And Shetline, do us a favor and offer an intellectually coherent alternative to Christianity, then get back to me. You have no philosphical ground to stand on, cheeky webistes wont do.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
.....so in all reality, "fundie" Christianity is where it's at, there is no coherent philosophy to be had elsewhere -- Christianity's incoherent alternatives simply place uncertainty and incoherence as a virtue to be worshipped to one degree or another -- you offer no final solution to people and golly, they end up apathetic, searching for personal peace and affluence and falling apart on a fractal level.

Yet more of this??

You have *never* explained satisfactorily why Christianity's "infinite, personal God" is the ultimate or best.

What coherence??? What final solution??

You pretend that only Christianity is capable of bringing about moral humans or peace. It's an insult to the many other religions that get along just fine without Christianity's imperialism and cultural "meddlings".

<cleaned up for the sake of the thread's health>

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
Yet more of this??

You have *never* explained satisfactorily why Christianity's "infinite, personal God" is the ultimate or best.

What coherence??? What final solution??

You pretend that only Christianity is capable of bringing about moral humans or peace. What utter rubbish and it's an insult to myriad other religions that get along just fine without Christianity's imperialism and cultural exterminations.
Yes, yet more of this.

johnq, it's all there in the world of philosophy, it's the unanswered question, the holy grail of all-time: explain the unity of the particulars without destroying their individuality -- it has yet to be done in the secular world. It's the red-headed step child chained to the register in the basement that no one talks about.

The excesses of capitalism don't detract from it, and no, there is no myriad of religions that offer an answer either. Also, Imperialsim is not the exclusive domain of the those who profess one ideolgy and practice something much darker.

[johnq]

If a religion is peaceful and coherent and Christianity/Islam/Judaism comes along and destroys it, it's records, it's art and architecture and all of its followers, will a 21st century Christian ever know about it or think it a viable alternative?

Prolly not.

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
If a religion is peaceful and coherent and Christianity/Islam/Judaism comes along and destroys it, it's records, it's art and architecture and all of its followers, will a 21st century Christian ever know about it or think it a viable alternative?

Prolly not.
Well, either way it's the undiscovered country, one way or the other -- and not for a lack of trying.

[johnq]

Care to explain how, say, Buddhism doesn't solve "the problem"/"answer the question" etc.?

<insert dmz's partially-intentional misconception of Buddhism here>

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
Care to explain how, say, Buddhism doesn't solve "the problem"/"answer the question" etc.?

<insert partially-intentional misconception of Buddhism here>
It's just absorption into the oness of all being -- they don't really even ask the one/many question, because basically EVERYTHING is unity. Kinda/sorta in the same way Islam is ready to accept dictatorships -- or that the East has been able to accept Marxism in China and other countries. Buddhism is almost like water, in that is confroms to the shape of it's container.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
...or that the East has been able to accept Marxism in China and other countries. Buddhism is almost like water, in that is confroms to the shape of it's container.

Tell that to the Tibetan Buddhists. :rolleyes: Or Thich Quang Duc.

Or are "good" pacifists supposed to take up arms and murder "in defense"? Christians have zero hesitation doing so.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
It's just absorption into the oness of all being -- they don't really even ask the one/many question, because basically EVERYTHING is unity*.

Shock! And we can't have that now, can we?

We need rigid, alienating, arbitrary distinctions between people, races, nations, religions, the better to kill them, my dear.

(*btw, that's an over-simplification along the lines of "Jesus was some long-haired guy that was nailed to some wood".)

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
do us a favor and offer an intellectually coherent alternative to Christianity, then get back to me.

Buddhism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Micronesian Cargo Cults, Helena Blavatsky, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, My 7 year old nephew Stephen's Theory of Everything, Communism, Dadaism, Nihilism, Atheism, Anti-Atheism, The Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club, Billericay Women's Institute Flower Arranging Committee, Satanism, Gnosticism, the Eleusian Mysteries, Est, Nlp, Advaita, Adi Da, Baba Ram Dass, Uncle Tom Cobley, MarcUK, Salman Rushdie, David Icke, Ike and Tina Turner, Pee Wee Herman......

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
It's just absorption into the oness of all being -- they don't really even ask the one/many question, because basically EVERYTHING is unity. Kinda/sorta in the same way Islam is ready to accept dictatorships -- or that the East has been able to accept Marxism in China and other countries. Buddhism is almost like water, in that is confroms to the shape of it's container.

This is the major problem that Christianity has theologically and why it is provable as a man made invention although undoubtedly was originally in Jesus's original formation a genuine 'divine' spirituality before it became corrupted.

Let's restate the original contention: everything is one. Christianity and DMZ are arguing against this.

Islam and Judaism are unanimous in agreeing with this oneness, In fact the Zen sect of Buddhism is a derivation of the Islamic Sufi philosophy of oneness which was originally stated by Muhammad and later elaborated by Ibn Arabi.

In this regard, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism (as well as many other religions such as Baha'i, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism) completely agree - albeit in different terminology. It is Christianity that differs. But let''s examine the theological proof:

If God (or the Oneness of being, or the Truth, Reality, whatever we're most comfortable with) has always existed (the Christian contention) then there are two possibilities regarding suffering (a key Buddhist concept) or what Christians call 'evil'.

1) It always existed along with God.
2) It came into being at some point during God's existence.

Those are the only two possibilities.

If Possibility 1 is true then we have the duality that the Buddhist and Islamic models argue does not exist. In these conceptions there is only oneness.

So how can both 'evil' and 'God' exist side by side? Clearly this is nonsense unless one accepts duality. You cannot believe in oneness with this view unless you accept that there is no 'evil' - and this is the Buddhist/Islamic view: there is only what seems from our unenlightened perspective to be 'evil'. We are the ones who place the value judgements and this is what limits us. When we get beyond this we can approach 'wisdom'.

But look at point 2) - the Xian view (actually now I am going to use the term 'Xian" to refer to those I believe are not following Jesus's original teaching so as to avoid derailments):

If 'evil' came into being during God's existence then it [u]MUST[/b] have done so with his approval or else HE is not God. There is no amount of wiseacring or flim-flam that can get round this - though the whole Xian dogma is an attempt to do so.

Look at it this way: if you have a totally sealed scientific environment and it is 100% under your control (not 99.999 0r 99.9998 but 100) then ANYTHING entering that environment is because you allowed it to. If this is not the case then you are not 100% in control.

If this is the case in the analogy of the origin of 'evil' then you are not God. So basically we have a situation where there are only two possibilities.

Possibility 1 is supported by the majority of the world's religions in some form and is logically sound and a reasonable hypothesis (although this is not proof it is true).

Possibility 2 is the belief of Xianity but it is not logical and is self contradictory. The logical resolution can only be to return to 1 but this is again contradictory in Xian thought because it is predicated against possibility 1.

This is a blind alley which imo cause the hate, bigotry and frustration which are the characteristic motifs of Xian thought. Clearly these have a psychological origin and are akin to the person who may become a misogynist because he is unable to relate to women.

These Xians hate the other religions just because they have resolved this issue.

Life is a labyrinth and the Xians are stuck in a blind alley - instead of retracing their steps or asking others who are in the maze but not stuck they blindly insist that there is no wall in front of them but open space. the pain they feel from banging their head against the wall is rationalised as the pain of 'the devil'. Which is why they get so annoyed when people claim there is only oneness.

It takes away their pain.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by segovius
Buddhism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Micronesian Cargo Cults, Helena Blavatsky, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, My 7 year old nephew Stephen's Theory of Everything, Communism, Dadaism, Nihilism, Atheism, Anti-Atheism, The Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club, Billericay Women's Institute Flower Arranging Committee, Satanism, Gnosticism, the Eleusian Mysteries, Est, Nlp, Advaita, Adi Da, Baba Ram Dass, Uncle Tom Cobley, MarcUK, Salman Rushdie, David Icke, Ike and Tina Turner, Pee Wee Herman......

You totally forgot Steve Jobs.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
You totally forgot Steve Jobs.

And he totally put me after uncle tom cobley :grumble:

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
And he totally put me after uncle tom cobley :grumble:

Don't worry - it's not hierarchical there is only oneness. :D

[MarcUK]

ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
you forgot Mithraism and cult of Isis.

Ok - shove it in there.

(Ooh-err)

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz

And Shetline, do us a favor and offer an intellectually coherent alternative to Christianity, then get back to me. You have no philosphical ground to stand on, cheeky webistes wont do.

-45. ARGUMENT FROM COHERENCE
1) I think I'll go eat breakfast.
2) I think I'll respond to the above post first.
3) Desire to go eat breakfast persists.
4) Eating breakfast is a coherent alternative.
5) Therefore, a coherent alternative to Christianity exists.
5a) My breakfast will consist of yogurt, a cereal bar, and sparkling mineral water -- three separate components, but somehow One Breakfast. My alterative gains bonus points for having a triune nature!

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
This is the major problem that Christianity has theologically and why it is provable as a man made invention although undoubtedly was originally in Jesus's original formation a genuine 'divine' spirituality before it became corrupted.

Let's restate the original contention: everything is one. Christianity and DMZ are arguing against this.

Islam and Judaism are unanimous in agreeing with this oneness, In fact the Zen sect of Buddhism is a derivation of the Islamic Sufi philosophy of oneness which was originally stated by Muhammad and later elaborated by Ibn Arabi.

In this regard, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism (as well as many other religions such as Baha'i, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism) completely agree - albeit in different terminology. It is Christianity that differs. But let''s examine the theological proof:

If God (or the Oneness of being, or the Truth, Reality, whatever we're most comfortable with) has always existed (the Christian contention) then there are two possibilities regarding suffering (a key Buddhist concept) or what Christians call 'evil'.

1) It always existed along with God.
2) It came into being at some point during God's existence.

Those are the only two possibilities.

If Possibility 1 is true then we have the duality that the Buddhist and Islamic models argue does not exist. In these conceptions there is only oneness.

So how can both 'evil' and 'God' exist side by side? Clearly this is nonsense unless one accepts duality. You cannot believe in oneness with this view unless you accept that there is no 'evil' - and this is the Buddhist/Islamic view: there is only what seems from our unenlightened perspective to be 'evil'. We are the ones who place the value judgements and this is what limits us. When we get beyond this we can approach 'wisdom'.

But look at point 2) - the Xian view (actually now I am going to use the term 'Xian" to refer to those I believe are not following Jesus's original teaching so as to avoid derailments):

If 'evil' came into being during God's existence then it [u]MUST have done so with his approval or else HE is not God. There is no amount of wiseacring or flim-flam that can get round this - though the whole Xian dogma is an attempt to do so.

Look at it this way: if you have a totally sealed scientific environment and it is 100% under your control (not 99.999 0r 99.9998 but 100) then ANYTHING entering that environment is because you allowed it to. If this is not the case then you are not 100% in control.

If this is the case in the analogy of the origin of 'evil' then you are not God. So basically we have a situation where there are only two possibilities.

Possibility 1 is supported by the majority of the world's religions in some form and is logically sound and a reasonable hypothesis (although this is not proof it is true).

Possibility 2 is the belief of Xianity but it is not logical and is self contradictory. The logical resolution can only be to return to 1 but this is again contradictory in Xian thought because it is predicated against possibility 1.

This is a blind alley which imo cause the hate, bigotry and frustration which are the characteristic motifs of Xian thought. Clearly these have a psychological origin and are akin to the person who may become a misogynist because he is unable to relate to women.

These Xians hate the other religions just because they have resolved this issue.

Life is a labyrinth and the Xians are stuck in a blind alley - instead of retracing their steps or asking others who are in the maze but not stuck they blindly insist that there is no wall in front of them but open space. the pain they feel from banging their head against the wall is rationalised as the pain of 'the devil'. Which is why they get so annoyed when people claim there is only oneness.

It takes away their pain. [/B]
There may be hope for you yet, segovious;) -- I'd have to agree with a large part of how you've set up the problem.

There's only a couple of problems with your observations: you kinda slide on by the part about destroying meaing, or turning it into an illusion of sorts. Oness will collapse any real differentiation -- and that is problematic in building a culutre; either running to the totalitarian extreme or to the 'me generation.' Also, you should consider the possibility that God is uncreated being, and that the arena we inhabit is derivative of God -- not sharing the same stuff as God, and not so metaphysically confining. (And that's not even considering the matter of revelation.)

Peace.

Warning:
AO is a hobby NOT a profession, art, calling, craft, handicraft, métier, vocation, employment, occupation, or otherwise full-time pursuit. Use sparingly. When used carelessly, AO can become a career-bending, gaint time-sucking thingy, more potent than the Concentrated Evil showcased in Time Bandits. Your results may vary. Remember, the only thing that lasts is the hard feelings.

[shetline]

Starting with argument -45, I'd like to establish the precedent that arguments against the existence of God are indexed using negative numbers. For complete consistency, therefore...

0. ARGUMENT FOR AGNOSTICISM
1) I'm not sure.
2) Therefore, God may or may not exist.

With that out of the way...

-327. ARGUMENT FROM INTEL
1) Apple is dropping PowerPC chips for Intel.
2) No, not even Intel-made PowerPCs. We're talking x86 chips! Just like you'd find in a... a... in a Dell!
3) Wouldn't a merciful God have helped Motorola or IBM come up with some better, faster, lower-power PPC chips, before it had to come down to... THIS!? Intel inside!? Intel inside my Mac!?
4) Therefore, God does not exist.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
There may be hope for you yet, segovious;) -- I'd have to agree with a large part of how you've set up the problem.

There's only a couple of problems with your observations: you kinda slide on by the part about destroying meaing, or turning it into an illusion of sorts. Oness will collapse any real differentiation -- and that is problematic in building a culutre; either running to the totalitarian extreme or to the 'me generation.' Also, you should consider the possibility that God is uncreated being, and that the arena we inhabit is derivative of God -- not sharing the same stuff as God, and not so metaphysically confining. (And that's not even considering the matter of revelation.)

Peace.

Warning:
AO is a hobby NOT a profession, art, calling, craft, handicraft, métier, vocation, employment, occupation, or otherwise full-time pursuit. Use sparingly. When used carelessly, AO can become a career-bending, gaint time-sucking thingy, more potent than the Concentrated Evil showcased in Time Bandits. Your results may vary. Remember, the only thing that lasts is the hard feelings.

I cannot speak for Buddhism as I have already exhausted my knowledge of it in the previous post but in the Islamic sense only God exists. Nothing else.

It may appear that creation has an independent existence but this is not held to be the case. It masquerades as the real. It is an illusion and the process of spirituality is to transcend that illusion.

This is where Xianity flounders -it has become just another part of the illusion rather than the means of realising the illusion and moving past it as it was originally designed to be.

BUt if Xianity cannot adapt it will die - I have already ventured the opinion that the extremist tendency in that religion represents the realisation of impending demise - because discoveries in physics and science are confirming the illusory nature of reality and spiritual traditions which already accept this will have no problem surviving.

There are many papers available on this correllation. Sufism and Quantum Physics (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1_50/sufism_and_quantum_physics.htm) is a good one from an Islmic religious perspective.

Islamic Mysticism (http://muslim-canada.org/Islamic_Mysticism.html) is another goodie with quotes such as these (and I'm sure equivalences can be found for Buddhism and other religions too):

Time and again the Sufis of Islam and other mystics have been warning mankind that the universe is not real. It is not what it appears to be. It is a phantom. It is a shadow of reality believed to be real by those fettered by the chains of matter-time-space limitations like the inmates of Plato's Cave of Illusion.

It is one of the triumphs of mysticism that modem science, fed up with the inaccuracies of blind physics completely devoid of metaphysical insight has now started echoing the same themes and developed a tendency to bend before mysticism for guidance.

Says Borges, an eminent contemporary physicist, in Other Inquisitions: "Let us admit what all idealists admit - the hallucinatory nature of the world. Let us do what no idealist has done - let us search for unrealities that confirm that nature. I believe we will find them in the antinomies of Kant and in the dialectic of Zeno."

In this quote, Borges presents a view normally held by mystics: the hallucinatory nature of the Universe. "We have dreamed it", says Borges simply.

Michael Talbot voices the same concept in his book, Mysticism and the New Physics. He says: "Our concept of time and space, the very structure of the universe, are more intimately related to problems and phenomenon of consciousness than we have seriously suspected.... There is no strict division between subjective and objective reality, consciousness and the physical universe are connected by some fundamental physical mechanism. This relationship between mind and reality is not subjective or objective, but 'omnijective. An omnijective concept of the universe is by no means new ...

There is a vast philosophical and metaphysical tradition behind the philosophy that the universe is omnijective The mystics tell us this is true. The idealists tell us it is true. Most exciting of all, the physicists tell us it is true."

My bold.

[MarcUK]

Sometimes segovius I think you just post articles to catch my attention. Very interesting.

The problem i've got, is that increasingly Sufism or suchlike seems like the thing I've been looking for, I keep wondering if I'm only drawn to it because I'm a fucked up sort of guy, hoping for something to fill a void in my life.

I wonder, if I was married, had kids, good job, nice place to live, a bit less intellectual, more at peace with people - then i wonder if I would still be looking?

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Sometimes segovius I think you just post articles to catch my attention. Very interesting.

The problem i've got, is that increasingly Sufism or suchlike seems like the thing I've been looking for, I keep wondering if I'm only drawn to it because I'm a fucked up sort of guy, hoping for something to fill a void in my life.

I wonder, if I was married, had kids, good job, nice place to live, a bit less intellectual, more at peace with people - then i wonder if I would still be looking?

Well, it depends on what you're looking for a bit doesn't it ?

Those things you mention can be just stages in a journey anyway. In a sense there is no destination anyway, there is only what you might call a void.

Any spiritual path is (imo) a coming to terms with that fact. A way of understanding it. It doesn't even have to be true (although sometimes one must believe it is), it is a method.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
And Shetline, do us a favor and offer an intellectually coherent alternative to Christianity, then get back to me. You have no philosphical ground to stand on, cheeky webistes wont do.
Okay... time for the somewhat less cheeky response.

I question the premise of your request -- that Christianity is intellectually coherent. Especially Biblically literal Christianity.

We've been down this argumentative path before, and you have never succeeded in backing up your claims about the special &uuml;ber-coherence of Christianity. So far it's no more than a claim via vigorous assertion.

You pose as if any other philosophy apart from your brand of Christianity is not only "incoherent", but so laughably any-10-year-old-could-see-it full of internal contradictions that everyone else is, to use a favorite phrase of yours "chasing their own tails".

You're completely incapable of backing this up, however. The closest I've come to pinning you down, when you don't dodge, evade, or simply ignore difficult, challenging questions, is that behind dense layers of abstruse argumentation and rather tenuous interconnections is that you want things to come out a certain way, and that anything that doesn't lead you where you want to go gets labeled "incoherent".

[johnq]

Originally posted by segovius
I cannot speak for Buddhism as I have already exhausted my knowledge of it in the previous post but in the Islamic sense only God exists. Nothing else.

It may appear that creation has an independent existence but this is not held to be the case. It masquerades as the real. It is an illusion and the process of spirituality is to transcend that illusion.

This is where Xianity flounders -it has become just another part of the illusion rather than the means of realising the illusion and moving past it as it was originally designed to be.

BUt if Xianity cannot adapt it will die - I have already ventured the opinion that the extremist tendency in that religion represents the realisation of impending demise - because discoveries in physics and science are confirming the illusory nature of reality and spiritual traditions which already accept this will have no problem surviving.

There are many papers available on this correllation. Sufism and Quantum Physics (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1_50/sufism_and_quantum_physics.htm) is a good one from an Islmic religious perspective.

Islamic Mysticism (http://muslim-canada.org/Islamic_Mysticism.html) is another goodie with quotes such as these (and I'm sure equivalences can be found for Buddhism and other religions too):



My bold.

I tend to always think of Islam as "too close" to Christianity and Judaism for my liking. ("Too close" being the safest term I can say to avoid a beheading). But that info gives me a lot more respect for Sufism anyway.

Although I tire of the slow, inexorable aping of Buddhism that modern/New Age branches of Christianity/Judaism/Islam are doing...(They want to make over their religions to include the Buddhist stuff but still want to keep all the crap trappings of their own.) it is nevertheless a nod to it being closer to the truth than they might have originally thought.

But enough with the meek, trepidatious (not a word) New Age dabblings while clinging to the old Big 3 religions for safety...throw it all away for the mythic mess it is and start from scratch using your perceptions and investigation.

IMHO.

Anti-caste, anti-race, anti-nationalism (and yet only as byproducts of right actions/etc., not as strict, specific agendas)...the fundamentals of Buddhism are closest we have to a "best practice" for humanity.

Buddhism is not some solipsistic philosophy or pessimistic nihilism (as it is constantly depicted by Christians and I assume "devout" Jews and Muslims). Nor is the Buddha or "a buddha" a god. (So it isn't idolatry). Nor is Nirvana equivalent to God or Heaven. 'God' and 'heaven' are just imperfect concepts that get dispelled as of no use as dispassionately as jealousy, greed and fear...Nor does it proselytize really (I don't particularly care if you wont "try" it. You might the "next time around". :D)

"God", as the Abrahamic religions "describe" him, is outside of creation (but yet with various [contrived] methods of interaction). Nirvana is neither person place nor thing; it is the extinguishment of concepts (but not of thinking or observing!), a stopping of grasping for things. Nirvana you could say is the 'result' or 'unavoidable observation' for those that have practiced a certain lifestyle earnestly and with proper understanding of the various teachings (The Three Jewels, The Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Path, The Five Precepts, etc.). But these are merely helpful roadmaps - one can be enlightened independently, it's just not advisable since the path is tricky. Louis and Clark weren't idiots, they brought a guide. Those teachings lay things out very well in a universal sort of way that anyone should be able to agree with if they are not in stubborn or fearful denial..

But it's up to the individual to inspect their mind and come to the their own conclusions - although it's not a conclusion at all really, more a continuous awareness, a flawless partaking in the "present moment". (The present moment being actually all there really is as far as time is concerned.)

Nirvana is beyond all those definitions too, of course. I'm just trying to distinguish it from "a God" or "a Heaven". As infinite as God or heaven might be, Nirvana transcends even those concepts, if you can imagine (and who can? :D). (Here come the death threats)

But it is not a shutting out of perceptions (it is not mere sensory deprivation - otherwise the blind deaf mute would automatically be enlightened) or a denying conventional reality (monks still eat and wash dishes) nor is it a physical debasement ala the Shiite Muharram ritual or others. It is a looking into reality and an acceptance of the painful mess it is and dedicating to a plan of action to get through it most logically, avoiding the animal tendencies.

Impermanence is everywhere. Suffering comes from lack of proper understanding of impermanence. Grasping/longing for the impermanent (i.e., anything) only brings suffering. We constantly expect permanence. We are insane.

Only by being properly aware of the impermanence (and interdependence) can we experience things in a balanced way, in which we can continuously perceive and let go of the illusions.

Neither indulgence nor asceticism are the way.

[segovius]

Originally posted by johnq
I tend to always think of islam as "too close" to Christianity and Judaism for my liking. ("Too close" being the safest term I can say to avoid a beheading). But that info gives me a lot more respect for Sufism anyway.

Although I tire of the slow, inexorable aping of Buddhism that modern/New Age branches of Christianity/Judaism/Islam are doing...(They want to make over their religions to include the Buddhist stuff but still want to keep all the crap trappings of their own.) it is nevertheless a nod to it being closer to the truth than they might have originally thought.

But enough with the meek, trepidatious (not a word) New Age dabblings while clinging to the old Big 3 religions for safety...throw it all away for the mythic mess it is and start from scratch using your perceptions and investigation.

IMHO.

Anti-caste, anti-race, anti-nationalism (and yet only as byproducts of right actions/etc., not as strict, specific agendas)...the fundamentals of Buddhism are closest we have to a "best practice" for humanity.

Buddhism is not some solipsistic philosophy or pessimistic nihilism (as it is constantly depicted by Christians and I assume "devout" Jews and Muslims). Nor is the Buddha or "a buddha" a god. (So it isn't idolatry). Nor is Nirvana equivalent to God or Heaven. 'God' and 'heaven' are just imperfect concepts that get dispelled as of no use as dispassionately as jealousy, greed and fear...Nor does it proselytize really (I don't particularly care if you wont "try" it. You might the "next time around". :D)

"God", as the Abrahamic religions "describe" him is outside of creation (but with various [contrived] methods of interaction). Nirvana is neither person place or thing; it is the extinguishment of concepts (but not thinking or observing!), a stopping of grasping for things. Nirvana you could say is the 'result' or 'unavoidable observation' for those that have practiced a certain lifestyle earnestly and with proper understanding of the various teachings (The Three Jewels, The Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eightfold Path, The Five Precepts, etc.) but these are merely helpful roadmaps - one can be enlightened independently, it's just not advisable since the path is tricky. Louis and Clark weren't idiots, they brought a guide.

But it's up to the individual to inspect their mind and come to the their own conclusions - although it's not a conclusion at all really, more a continuous awareness, a flawless partaking in the "present moment". (The present moment being actually all there really is as far as time is concerned.)

Nirvana is beyond all those definitions too, of course. I'm just trying to distinguish it from "a God" or "a Heaven". As infinite as God or heaven might be, Nirvana transcends even those concepts, if you can imagine (and who can? :D). (Here come the death threats)

But it is not a shutting out of perceptions (it is not mere sensory deprivation - otherwise the blind deaf mute would automatically be enlightened) or a denying conventional reality (monks still eat and wash dishes) nor is it a physical debasement ala the Shiite Muharram ritual or others. It is a looking into reality and an acceptance of the painful mess it is and dedicating to a plan of action to get through it most logically, avoiding the animal tendencies.

Impermanence is everywhere. Suffering comes from lack of proper understanding of impermanence. Grasping/longing for the impermanent (i.e., anything) only brings suffering. We constantly expect permanence. We are insane.

Only by being properly aware of the impermanence (and interdependence) can we experience things in a balanced way, in which we can continuously perceive and let go of the illusions.

Neither indulgence nor asceticism are the way.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Many religions are now extremist (even the Dalai Lama's Buddhism is a right-wing extremist dogma that unfortunately is the cause of much oppression) and they are all corrupt to a greater or lesser degree. All dangerous and oppressive to a greater or lesser degree.

So when we talk of what they are now we are not talking of the thing they once were. All these religions were in harmony at various points in history, certainly Islam absorbed a lot from Buddhism as it fell heir to Buddhist heartlands in the expansion of its empire and long dialogue was undertaken which involved the exchange of concepts which each adapted into their view.

This is an interesting article (http://www.berzinarchives.com/islam/common_features_islam_buddhism.html) I found on the common features of Islam and Buddhism, not sure I agree with all of it but it's worth a read.

[johnq]

Originally posted by shetline
You're completely incapable of backing this up, however. The closest I've come to pinning you down, when you don't dodge, evade, or simply ignore difficult, challenging questions, is that behind dense layers of abstruse argumentation and rather tenuous interconnections is that you want things to come out a certain way, and that anything that doesn't lead you where you want to go gets labeled "incoherent".

zing!

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
zing!
..more like "boing"
or
"Dude, where's my epistemology?"

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
..more like "boing"
or
"Dude, where's my epistemology?"

You want epistemology so badly?

Buddhism *is* epistemology... :lol:

And let's not underestimate the influence Buddhism had on the West in theGreco-Buddhism (http://www.answers.com/topic/greco-buddhism) period.

[shetline]

There's a common, fundamental error in logic that goes something like this (and if you'll bear with me, I'll get to where I'm going in relationship to God and religion):

A) John is an American ex-Marine with a large gun collection.
B) John is an American ex-Marine with a large gun collection and a member of the NRA.

Ask people which is more likely, A or B. Most people (or at least most Americans, since this is a very culturally-situated question) will answer B.

But B is completely the wrong answer. Consider:

P = probability that John is an American ex-Marine with a large gun collection.
Q = probability that John is a member of the NRA.

Thus:

Probability of A = P
Probability of B = P x Q

As a probability, Q is at most 1 (100%). At most, the probability B is P x 1, or the same as A, no higher.

While it's probably a safe bet that a good number American ex-Marines with large gun collections are members of the NRA, ask the question in another way, "Is each an every American ex-Marine with a large gun collection a member of the NRA?", and people will realize the answer is probably no.

Q < 1, therefore P x Q < P, therefore B is less likely than A.

Why do most people choose B? Because people mistake detail for credibility, more complete stories for more accurate stories, rather than realizing that the fewer details you claim, the fewer holes you're likely to have in your story.

This is, in part, why I believe theology, religion, and various spiritual beliefs tend to become so baroque over time. Very few people are satisfied with, say, a God who created the Universe... end of story. They want to attribute a Plan to this God. They want to attribute concern for human affairs to this God. They want to find a source of moral standards in this God. They want their God to provide an opportunity for their own Eternal Life. Etc., etc. Many people will mistake this piling-on of rich detail with a greater likelihood of having compiled an accurate picture of the "way things are".

Presuming that a God of any sort exists at all, however, every single wished-for attribute, unless the probability that your God has a particular attribute can be proven to be an absolute 100%, lowers the chance that your picture of a Divine Being has anything to do with any sort of entity that actually exists.

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
You want epistemology so badly?

Buddhism *is* epistemology... :lol:

you're a very funny guy, johnq.

Shetline: I do understand you point, but in the end you need a consistent reason for getting out of bed in the morning -- what you're saying is just more of man starting with himself as sufficient -- and it just hasn't yet been made to work on paper. Yes the mystical option is always there, but that's really a cop out as far as I'm concerned.

Just trying to keep you honest, this thread was getting the learing, weezing, WHERE"S THE BABY"S ROOM!!?? quality with regards to Christians. To each his own -- but at the same time we have to keep things in prespective, philosophically. The minute anyone stops acknowledging their presuppositions is when this become something of an intellectual BB-Gun fight.

I have put in an order for Cointreau, Cuervo, and Limes -- what's the probability that I'm going to have an authentic margarita? Anyway, isn't there a rule against doing math on a Saturday afternoon?

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
you're a very funny guy, johnq.

Shetline: I do understand you point, but in the end you need a consistent reason for getting out of bed in the morning

Why ? Why not stay in bed ?

God doesn't care.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
Why ? Why not stay in bed ?

God doesn't care.
FINE
http://www.ducatalog.com/catalog/images/du/6D-618006.jpg

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
FINE
http://www.ducatalog.com/catalog/images/du/6D-618006.jpg

No, I mean it - you should stay in bed much more often. Really. :D

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
No, I mean it - you should stay in bed much more often. Really. :D
:lol:

[johnq]

Please answer the questions.

This where you *always* jump in the escape pod and whine everyone is "attacking" when we're merely applying your own standards and requirements against you and Christianity.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
Shetline: I do understand you point, but in the end you need a consistent reason for getting out of bed in the morning
Apparently I get by without such a reason. Apparently lots of other people do. Apparently there are many different reasons, consistent, inconsistent, mundane, bizarre... for people to get out of bed in the morning.

Besides, whatever "need" I might have, the universe doesn't owe me fulfillment of my needs. Imagining things that fulfill my needs is hardly a promising way to uncover new truths about the universe.
...what you're saying is just more of man starting with himself as sufficient
Sufficient for what? Sufficient to what end?

I suspect that what you mean is something like providing "sufficient reason to want to live", "sufficient reason to live a moral life", "sufficient sense of purpose", etc.

Again, the universe doesn't owe me a reason to live. The universe doesn't owe me a moral compass. The universe isn't required to provide me with a neatly-packaged pre-determined purpose.
...and it just hasn't yet been made to work on paper.
Are you claiming that, conversely, your particular brand of Christianity does "work on paper"? How? Like a mathematical equation being solved?
Yes the mystical option is always there, but that's really a cop out as far as I'm concerned.
Your standards for what is or is not a "cop out" aren't that clear. At any rate, about the only "mysticism" I have much appreciation for is the admission that there's a lot which is mysterious. Unfortunately, the term "mysticism" doesn't generally imply a practice of stopping short of filling in gaps in understanding and knowledge with wishful thinking and projected desires.

[groverat]

What's amazing is that so many non-religionists live perfectly happy and fulfilling lives.

I really wonder how this seemingly impossible phenomenon is explained by religionists.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by groverat
What's amazing is that so many non-religionists live perfectly happy and fulfilling lives.
And will burn forever for it . . . .hahahahaha



THat'll teach-em



:err:

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
Please answer the questions.

This where you *always* jump in the escape pod and whine everyone is "attacking" when we're merely applying your own standards and requirements against you and Christianity.
(Shetline too)

Oh come on!

We are talking about basically what Robert Prisig laid down in his fascinating book: Zen, and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It goes from one end of living with the law of contradiction as the essential end-all, be-all, to the pomod trip and then runs fully to it's logical conclusion (he went insane) -- and into the mystical [escape] answer.

(In all seriousness, if you haven't read it, go out, read it, and you will understand the sort of corner the pomod crowd has painted itself into.)

So, that is the state of the philosophical art. Segovious covered the oness of Judaism and Islam, and you covered Buddism 'problems' pretty well. That's it, either you get a trinitarian unity-in-diversity prototype for your derivative existence or the particularities get squished. Read Sarte, it's all there. Either go with Sarte or do the mystic/gnostic. There isn't anywhere else to go.

[dmz]

Originally posted by groverat
What's amazing is that so many non-religionists live perfectly happy and fulfilling lives.

I really wonder how this seemingly impossible phenomenon is explained by religionists.
That would be due to common grace/the image of God in all of us more than any consistency/inconsistency issues.


And pfflam, where do you get off insinuating any sort of glee associated with any of this?

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
(In all seriousness, if you haven't read it, go out, read it, and you will understand the sort of corner the pomod crowd has painted itself into.)
Are you somehow assuming that I'm a post modernist of some sort? Hardly.

But regardless of my feelings regarding post modernism, I can't help but read this "painted itself into [a corner]" comment as more the same "chasing your tails" mantra that you keep repeating, with no explanation or justification whatsoever, and with again unstated assumptions about what you think a school of thought is supposed to achieve to be in an un-cornered, non-tail-chasing state.

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
(Shetline too)

Oh come on!

We are talking about basically what Robert Prisig laid down in his fascinating book: Zen, and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It goes from one end of living with the law of contradiction as the essential end-all, be-all, to the pomod trip and then runs fully to it's logical conclusion (he went insane) -- and into the mystical [escape] answer.

(In all seriousness, if you haven't read it, go out, read it, and you will understand the sort of corner the pomod crowd has painted itself into.)

I'm not interested in Sarte, Kant etc. because the Western spiritual/philosophical/metaphysical 'sciences' are a good 500-2000+ years behind the Eastern 'state-of-the-art' especially thanks to Christianity's/Islam's/Judaism's reign of darkness over the west.

I don't need Western grasping at straws or rediscovery/reinvention of the wheel or modern reworkings of the "Old-Age" philosophies, when the originals work so well.

Originally posted by dmz
So, that is the state of the philosophical art. Segovious covered the oness of Judaism and Islam, and you covered Buddism 'problems' pretty well. That's it, either you get a trinitarian unity-in-diversity prototype for your derivative existence or the particularities get squished. Read Sarte, it's all there. Either go with Sarte or do the mystic/gnostic. There isn't anywhere else to go.

So what makes your "trinitarian unity-in-diversity prototype" better than the next?

Brahma|Vishnu|Shiva (Trimurti)?

Osiris/Isis/Horus?

Hecate?

Ahura-Mazda/Agra-Mainyus/Mythras?

So, what, the most recent one is "best"? Can I make one up today? Wouldn't it therefore be even better?

[dmz]

http://forum.msi.com.tw/Smileys/msi/wall.gif

[johnq]

What makes Christianity's allegedly unique "trinitarian unity-in-diversity prototype" the best solution for humanity?

Simple question.

(take your time, finish the margarita and headbanging, it might make for a better answer ;) )

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
http://forum.msi.com.tw/Smileys/msi/wall.gif
Yeah, after you've explained yourself so thoroughly, so completely, carefully answering each and every question... and yet we just don't get the patently obvious TRVTH you have to offer.

I feel your pain. ;) :D :devil:

[johnq]

Christians can't even agree on the Trinity. This is how arbitrary this concept is (to us on the outside).

Unitarianism, Subordinationism, Sabellianism, Christomonism, Eunomianism, Mormonism, Temporal Generationism, Dualism, Quadtheism...

Let me guess, all are wrong except the form dmz believes in?

Ah. I see.

[shetline]

Originally posted by johnq
What makes Christianity's allegedly unique "trinitarian unity-in-diversity prototype" the best solution for humanity?

Simple question.
Apparently, you don't even have to adopt trinitarian Christianity yourself to enjoy its benefits (at least in this life). You can believe whatever painted-into-a-corner, tail-chasing religion or philosophy you like... yet still manage to at least stay alive and not shrivel into a whimpering husk of self-negating godless misery, because the "common grace/the image of God in all of us" is there to save you, even when you deny it (you ungrateful bound-for-hell meany, you!).

[dmz]

Originally posted by johnq
Christians can't even agree on the Trinity. This is how arbitrary this concept is (to us on the outside).

Unitarianism, Subordinationism, Sabellianism, Christomonism, Eunomianism, Mormonism, Temporal Generationism, Dualism, Quadtheism...

Let me guess, all are wrong except the form dmz belie