or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Letting Go of God"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Letting Go of God" - Page 3

post #81 of 326
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.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #82 of 326
Quote:
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



"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #83 of 326
Quote:
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.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #84 of 326
Quote:
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?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #85 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #86 of 326
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #87 of 326

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #88 of 326
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 )
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #89 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

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.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #90 of 326
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.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #91 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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!).
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #92 of 326
Quote:
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 believes in?

Ah. I see.

That's not quite fair, johnq, the bulk of the Church believes in the Trinity as Proceeding from the Father and the Son, and in any case 'no one' argues the ramifications.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #93 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
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.

Really shetline, read the Prisig thing, it really does put things in prespective. The whole confrontation at the UC and the fallout after was significant.

If you doubt what I'm saying, PM pfflam -- he teaches -- he'll essentially tell you the same thing. (he wont agree with my conclusions, of course, but he'll give you same playing field.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #94 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Really shetline, read the Prisig thing, it really does put things in prespective. The whole confrontation at the UC and the fallout after was significant.

With all I've heard about Zen & tAoMM, I will probably set aside the time to read it someday. In the meantime, however...

You should be able to explain your own views yourself to a much better degree than you ever have bothered to do, if you've at all internalized anything you've learned and haven't merely collected a disjoint swarm of buzzwords.

Imagine a conversation like this:

A: Don't eat cyanide.
B: Why?

The most straight-forward thing for A to say at this point is the obvious: "It will kill you." B might not immediately accept this -- he might demand proof, he might ask A where he gets his information, etc. But at least B has a clue what A is on about.

Following the pattern of your answers to "What's wrong with [fill in anything other than trinitarian Christianity here]?", however, the conversation would go more like this:

A: Hydrogen cyanide forms a reversible complex with the cytochrome oxidase enzyme system.
B: And that's... um, bad?
A: Well, as any fool knows, the resultant inability to utilize oxygen leads to accumulation of lactic acid and tissue anoxia.
B: And the lactic acid is bad because...? And what's anoxia?
A: Well, if you'd only read Grant and Schuman's book...

On and on you'd go, as if saying "it'll kill you!" is either automatically understood or so simplistic you won't sully yourself with such pedestrian pronouncements.

Considering the above (and setting aside the obvious "it'll kill you" joke that's just lying there), I give you yet another in a long list of opportunities you've had to answer: What's the big problem with any religion or philosophy other than trinitarian Christianity (TC)?

In your own words, and without vague hand-waving references to tail-chasing and corner-painting, what specific failures occur? What breaks down? How does it break down, why should be believe that success or failure by your standards is important?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #95 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You should be able to explain your own views yourself to a much better degree than you ever have bothered to do......

...not in under 10,000 words, sheline. Just spend the $2 and buy the book. This is some fairly formidable stuff, with a fairly broad range.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #96 of 326
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
...not in under 10,000 words, sheline. Just spend the $2 and buy the book. This is some fairly formidable stuff, with a fairly broad range.

Which you obviously can demonstrate no grasp of yourself.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #97 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Which you obviously can demonstrate no grasp of yourself.

-oh, behave, just invest the time needed, and draw your own conclusions; it's not the sort of thing that can be outlined in an internet forum in a few choice phrases. There's an arc to the argument that needs that sort of depth.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #98 of 326
Thread Starter 
Noam Chomsky, being scathing in his polite way, talking about postmodernism (emphasis mine):
Quote:
I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science," "rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.

For all you condemn postmodernism, you come off much the same way in the gibberish department. You demonstrate no ability to explain your own views even to the extent of offering whatever partial level of understanding another might try to glean from you. You simply emit gibberish, refer people to other books and sources (As if Zen & tAoMM would be the end of it. Hah!), and leave everyone else "not know[ing] how to proceed", as Mr. Chomsky so delicately puts it.

I'll eventually read the Pirsig book, but regardless, you provide no good reason put off calling BS in the meantime. For one thing, I'm certain Pirsig's book isn't the end of your evasion. How could it be? It's certainly not a treatise on the inescapable clarity of TC, nor do I imagine that it's a perfectly clear example of everything you'd like me to believe is wrong with everything that isn't TC.

Just how many more asides beyond this book, suggested further readings, seminars to attend, oracles to consult, before your oh-so-valuable-to-pursue wisdom can be properly explained?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #99 of 326
As if postmodernism is a thing that can be defined.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #100 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
As if postmodernism is a thing that can be defined.

Postmodernism is the state a society reaches when it borrows more from the past than it creates new for the future.

How's that ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #101 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Postmodernism is the state a society reaches when it borrows more from the past than it creates new for the future.

How's that ?

Heh. How's this:

1) Anytime you can define something, it is dead. So lamenting the whatevers of pomo miss the simple fact that it's done.

2) You have just defined most of human history, which has always been dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Always.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #102 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Heh. How's this:

1) Anytime you can define something, it is dead. So lamenting the whatevers of pomo miss the simple fact that it's done.

2) You have just defined most of human history which has always been dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Always.


Hehe #1 seems spot-on but not so sure about 2.

Clearly there have been times when new creations have been coming thick and fast. Nowadays it's very hard to find original material in the arts (say) that is not derivative.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #103 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Clearly there have been times when new creations have been coming thick and fast. Nowadays it's very hard to find original material in the arts (say) that is not derivative.

Nowadays, yeah. But I think that mostly it's a matter of laziness. But I think that typically, societies tend to be incredibly conservative or reactionary.

I'll only talk here about literature, since that's the only thing I can with any authority:

For instance, when the novel first emerged in England, there was TREMENDOUS resistance to it. It's called a "novel" for a reasons. Richardson called it a "comic epic in prose." But mostly, people didn't know what to do with it. And so from Crusoe in the early early c18 through something like Frankenstein a century later, there are always caveats. The books are presented as "found manuscripts" or some other such mechanism to protect the author from charges of contributing to this newness. Even Frankenstein is couched as a series of letters. It took a century for it to become an "accepted" form of writing. Hell, even Walter Scott tried to "steal" it from Jane Austen and legitimize it by making it "historical" and therefore "educational."

Anyway. The Victorians do their thing. The modernists react against them and fail pretty miserably at it (with the exceptions of Joyce and Woolf). The post-modernists react against them and mostly fail because the stuff becomes so esoteric and strange that the political impulse is undermined. And so here we are. Reacting against things. Co-opting them. Failing. Trying again. Failing again.

My point is that I don't really know of a time when "new creations [came] thick and fast." In hindsight, sure. It seems that way. But in context, which is really what we're trying to do hereanalyze a movement as it's happeningit never seems that way.

Hell, I spent most of my time in the SF MOMA thinking "well that's just stupid." And I'm supposed to be educated.

Cheers
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #104 of 326
As an aside: I wish I had my copy of Life of Pi with me. Martel says a lot that is relevant here.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #105 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Nowadays, yeah. But I think that mostly it's a matter of laziness. But I think that typically, societies tend to be incredibly conservative or reactionary.

I'll only talk here about literature, since that's the only thing I can with any authority:

For instance, when the novel first emerged in England, there was TREMENDOUS resistance to it. It's called a "novel" for a reasons. Richardson called it a "comic epic in prose." But mostly, people didn't know what to do with it. And so from Crusoe in the early early c18 through something like Frankenstein a century later, there are always caveats. The books are presented as "found manuscripts" or some other such mechanism to protect the author from charges of contributing to this newness. Even Frankenstein is couched as a series of letters. It took a century for it to become an "accepted" form of writing. Hell, even Walter Scott tried to "steal" it from Jane Austen and legitimize it by making it "historical" and therefore "educational."

Anyway. The Victorians do their thing. The modernists react against them and fail pretty miserably at it (with the exceptions of Joyce and Woolf). The post-modernists react against them and mostly fail because the stuff becomes so esoteric and strange that the political impulse is undermined. And so here we are. Reacting against things. Co-opting them. Failing. Trying again. Failing again.

My point is that I don't really know of a time when "new creations [came] thick and fast." In hindsight, sure. It seems that way. But in context, which is really what we're trying to do hereanalyze a movement as it's happeningit never seems that way.

Hell, I spent most of my time in the SF MOMA thinking "well that's just stupid." And I'm supposed to be educated.

Cheers

Sure, but the fact is that the comic was a new form. That's why there was resistance. As you say, there always is - and of course once accepted, there is mass imitation but that's not the point. The point is that throughout human history the creation of new forms of things outweighed the imitating of existing ones.

Even in terms of the imitating new genres could be created. For example, the first English novel is generally held to be Defoe's Robinson Crusoe but this in itself is a direct copy of an Arabic story called Hayy ibn Yaqzan by Ibn Tufail. But that doesn't matter, Defoe invented a new form.

This used to happen all the time. No it happens less and less and so borrowing without new input becomes the norm.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #106 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
As an aside: I wish I had my copy of Life of Pi with me. Martel says a lot that is relevant here.

Hmm, I'm not familiar with that, perhaps I'll get acquainted.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #107 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Sure, but the fact is that the comic was a new form.

Well, I assume you mean the novel. The comic form was ancient by that time.

Quote:
The point is that throughout human history the creation of new forms of things outweighed the imitating of existing ones.

I disagree. I could write a whole thing, but it's 3:00 am here.

Quote:
Even in terms of the imitating new genres could be created.

That is usually the only way it happens. And that, slowly.

Quote:
For example, the first English novel is generally held to be Defoe's Robinson Crusoe but this in itself is a direct copy of an Arabic story called Hayy ibn Yaqzan by Ibn Tufail. But that doesn't matter, Defoe invented a new form.

Well, we could go earlier in DD's career. Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year completely scared the bejesus out of people, because it purported to be real but wasn't but was, kind of, but wasn't.

Quote:
This used to happen all the time. No it happens less and less and so borrowing without new input becomes the norm. [/B]

Well, part of what I believe is simply that this mantra of "new" which lots and lots of people keep touting is actually part of a larger fiction that was essentially created in the 19th century. It's simply the Victorian cry of PROGRESS! writ new.

Everything before that was all about imitation.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #108 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Hmm, I'm not familiar with that, perhaps I'll get acquainted.

OH OH OH!!! Go NOW and buy it and read it. Seriously. Won the Booker a couple of years ago. PM me or email if you have any questions.

Seriously. It's a fine, fine thing.

Edit: it's a novel about faith and God and religion.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #109 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
OH OH OH!!! Go NOW and buy it and read it. Seriously. Won the Booker a couple of years ago. PM me or email if you have any questions.

Seriously. It's a fine, fine thing.

Cool, let me know the author, or I can find out I guess.

I'm afraid I'm a PostModernist myself in terms of literature and hardly read anything new at all in English - stuck in old habits !

Always read a new Auster, Donna Tartt or Dave Eggers if one comes out but other than that I'm a complete ignoramus on modern stuff.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #110 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Noam Chomsky, being scathing in his polite way, talking about postmodernism (emphasis mine):

For all you condemn postmodernism, you come off much the same way in the gibberish department. You demonstrate no ability to explain......

Bla, word to the wise, put that 4th margarita in the freezer and have it the next day.

Look, I've given you guys this in a nutshell a 1,000 times:

If you begin with the mind of Man as sufficient to itself, you destroy particularity, or individuality. Once you release the universe into urelated, 'brute' factuality, becuase of no presence of an overidding organizing principle, you have to put things back together on some level in order to function 'coherently' or consistently. You can TRY to do this in terms of the oness of all being, with Buddism or really any other religion, or you can follow guys like Sartre, etc. and end up validating your existence, theoretically, in any way you choose -- unless you're a government involved in North Africa. Or you can cop out and go to a mystical 'understanding' of being. Here is the key: you can't get make any of this stuff work on paper because it is self-contrdictory to start with the presuppostion of the self-sufficient mind of man, in the end you have to provide reality as an illusion. If you go the Buddist/Islam route you get sucked up into the oness of all being and you still loose your identity.

Or you can start with God-revealed order as your 'presupposed' epistemological source -- the universe is what it is because god says it is, and go from there. Trinitarian doctrine functions in real life without drifing into totalitarianism [yes it has been screwed up royally in some cases] because of the mutual-cooperation-without-sacrificing-individuality picture of the Godhead -- and since we are derived from that picture of order, we have that quality of existence. In the other religions, you sacrifice individuality at the cost of the oness of all things -- it's just a question of drift, and how fast before you get to the totalitarian end or the who-the-hell-cares extreme.

That's it the rest is proofs, illustrations, etc.

At the same time, none of us are purely consistent, and since we are all created in the image of God and have many -- althought they are bent -- of His qualites we tend to function fairly well in terms of our gut instincts, which carry us a long ways towards being able to live with each other, love our kids, not kick the cat too often, etc. The thing that set Prisig apart was that he got very, very close to actually being consistent in terms of mod philosophy, and it literally drove him insane, and into the arms of the mystical cop-out.


self-imposed exile for a couple of days. bye.

edit: This is funny in an odd sort of way.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #111 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
self-imposed exile for a couple of days. bye.[/URL]

It's so not enough......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #112 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
BlIf you begin with the mind of Man as sufficient to itself, you destroy particularity, or individuality. .[/URL]

'Sufficient to itself' as opposed to what? I'm not being faecetious. This is unanswerable without context; it doesn't make any sense. Anyway, explain how, if I allow that anyone's explanation is potentially as valid as anyone else's, individuality is somehow the loser. This sentence don't make no sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
BIf you begin with the mind of Man as sufficient to itself, you destroy particularity, or individuality.

No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Once you release the universe into urelated, 'brute' factuality, becuase of no presence of an overidding organizing principle, you have to put things back together on some level in order to function 'coherently' or consistently.

In order for what to function 'coherently' or 'consistently'? Because the universe carries on being the universe and doing universey things whether we see it or not or understand it or not. If you mean 'our understanding of the universe', you can look at the observable facts and derive a coherent hypothesis that doesn't need recourse to theology at all. Am I just being stupid, or this sentence ridiculously easy to refute too?
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You can TRY to do this in terms of the oness of all being, with Buddism or really any other religion, or you can follow guys like Sartre, etc. and end up validating your existence, theoretically, in any way you choose -- unless you're a government involved in North Africa. Or you can cop out and go to a mystical 'understanding' of being..[/URL]

Or I can look at the observable, measurable facts and then find a way to rationalise away the pain of being purposeless / found a religion / get drunk / married. And since when has Christianity not been anything other than a 'a mystical understanding of being'?

'And lo, God did coat Shadrack in an asbestos skinsuit and did cool it with liquid nitrogen, allowingeth him to moonwalk out of the furnace unsinged'.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Here is the key: you can't get make any of this stuff work on paper because it is self-contrdictory to start with the presuppostion of the self-sufficient mind of man

Why? Why? And again, I don't understand what you mean by 'self-sufficient'. But let's say religion, or a sense of the spiritual, is hardwired into our brains as a result of the interoperations of environment, neurology and mate-selection.

I'm feeling hungry because I need food, horny because I have itchy chromosomes, praying because of species necessity, like imposing my religion on others because of culture.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

snip:
In the other religions, you sacrifice individuality at the cost of the oness of all things -- it's just a question of drift, and how fast before you get to the totalitarian end or the who-the-hell-cares extreme.[/URL]

According to all the ethnology I've ever read relating to hunting and gathering cultures, this is absolutely incorrect. Anthropologists like Frederick Turner, Lionel Sims or Hugh Brody would argue that agriculturalist religions (mose recently and by far the most effectively Christians) have wrecked such damage on indigenous peoples and the wildernesses they live in, and have sought with such method to stop their religious practices, because of a dangerous, bewildering divorce from an idea of 'oneness' dictated by environmental necessity.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

That's it the rest is proofs, illustrations, etc.
[/URL]

All you've done is make statements. Without a single proof or a single illustration, I can't think why I've gone to the bother of making this long reply to your post, actually. 'The rest is proofs, illustrations', etc. Heavens above man, you really don't get it, do you?



Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
At the same time, none of us are purely consistent, and since we are all created in the image of God and have many -- althought they are bent -- of His qualites we tend to function fairly well in terms of our gut instincts, which carry us a long ways towards being able to live with each other, love our kids, not kick the cat too often, etc.[/URL]

Alternatively, these 'gut instincts' result from the interoperation of environment, neurophysiology, mate-selection imperatives and the culture it necessitated.
post #113 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Or you can start with God-revealed order as your 'presupposed' epistemological source -- the universe is what it is because god says it is, and go from there. .[/URL]

I don't really have time to get into this . . . oh, but how I want to . . . . but my goodness man . . . . listen to what you just put forward as a viable counter-argument!!!!!

I seriously could not get past this point -smircks up to this point - but when I reached it I simply could not stop laughing!!!

You are the prime example of a philophaster: a little hodge-podge and some anti-Cartesian text book by a seminary student in the closet and you can pontificate in circles . . . . .

the problem is getting out of those circles hunh?
exept that it is the nature of your circle to imagine that it allready is
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #114 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Cool, let me know the author, or I can find out I guess.

I'm afraid I'm a PostModernist myself in terms of literature and hardly read anything new at all in English - stuck in old habits !

Always read a new Auster, Donna Tartt or Dave Eggers if one comes out but other than that I'm a complete ignoramus on modern stuff.

The author is Yann Martel. He a Canadian, but he's lived all over the place. And when you read it, do not skip the author's note at the beginning.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #115 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
If you begin with the mind of Man as sufficient to itself, you destroy particularity, or individuality.

This presupposes then that you are beginning with particularity/individuality as real and valid (or even possible). (Or desirable, considering your fear of selfishness and totalitarianism).

Quote:
Once you release the universe into unrelated, 'brute' factuality, because of no presence of an overriding organizing principle, you have to put things back together on some level in order to function 'coherently' or consistently.

It is not unrelated, it is seamlessly interrelated. Chaos isn't the lack of order you want it to be. It is merely the impossibility of exactly knowing initial conditions. Order can emerge after sufficient complexity has occurred. And causality can be both upward and downward, always mutual. Beyond that your sentence doesn't actually say anything.

Quote:
You can TRY to do this in terms of the oness of all being, with Buddism or really any other religion, or you can follow guys like Sartre, etc. and end up validating your existence, theoretically, in any way you choose -- unless you're a government involved in North Africa. Or you can cop out and go to a mystical 'understanding' of being.

Existence doesn't need validation. (Existence-as-a-Creation does, however. One *is*. The other is *alleged*).

Quote:
Here is the key: you can't get make any of this stuff work on paper because it is self-contrdictory to start with the presuppostion of the self-sufficient mind of man, in the end you have to provide reality as an illusion.

"Self-sufficient"? And "Self-sufficient mind" (even worse!)? Moot. Entirely moot. Proper understanding of interdependence dispels this false notion. Nothing is self-sufficient (even if you use the conventional shorthand of a self, for the sake of argument). Co-emergence, dependent origination (no effect is causeless), and reciprocal causality are all at work. Consciousness fashions reality and reality fashions consciousness. Co-equal.

No self exists. Hell, "sufficiency" itself is meaningless with impermanence.

Buddhism doesn't say "reality is illusory". It says the distinction between the interior world of thought and the exterior physical reality is the illusion. There is no antithesis between internal and external "realities" - it is, rather, just one reality.

(<-- Paraphrasing from "The Quantum and the Lotus"; definitely high up in my list of favorite books).

Our own senses give us the tiniest sliver of the surrounding reality. Our memories are subjective snapshots, hopelessly inaccurate and lacking detail compared to the original event witnessed.

We are hopelessly prejudiced with regard to the scale in which we find ourselves to be situated. We perceive in only the most simplistic, hugely quantized approximations of the actual complexity of any phenomena, be it an atom, our hand, an elephant or a galaxy.

Seeing edges and borders and groupings that upon closer (or more distant) inspection do not truly exist except as handy conventions for us to use in communicating rough ideas. Zooming in microscopic scales or out to cosmic scales, we only see a sketch. We see the face on the page but not the dots that it is made of, or we see the dots and can't imagine there being a face at another scale. Emptiness is everywhere at all scales. We are tricked every second by the illusions of time and the apparent solidity of matter that is really just The Electromagnetic Force.

Quote:
If you go the Buddist/Islam route you get sucked up into the oness of all being and you still lose your identity.

Gee, identity/self is really important to you isn't it? It's another required presupposition you have. Terrifying prospect for self to be illusory, eh?

But I would say there is an even greater poignancy to life if it is so interconnected and impermanent; and a tremendous urgency and duty to sense the oneness and act upon the interconnections in a compassionate way.

In a vain-puppeteer-run universe, what's the point to doing anything besides groveling to the God?

Better to be in this "sinking ship" together, improving our minds and increasing compassion. (If you incorrectly want Buddhism to be pessimistic, which is a common Christian tactic used to denounce it)


Quote:
Or you can start with God-revealed order as your 'presupposed' epistemological source -- the universe is what it is because god says it is, and go from there.

But then why one god and not 5 or twenty? You *never* answer this. The Trinity is a copout specifically because of the conundrum that an immutable god can't also exist inside of its own creation. He needs points of contact between his realm and the time-based universe, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ ostensibly play that role. You can't have a timeless, immutable God partaking in this 'timeful' universe *at all*. Immutable is immutable is immutable. Coming into time and space, you cease to be timeless or formless (or non-created or unchangeable or omniscient or omnipresent). But God ceases to be omnipotent if he does not (can't) participate in his creation.

The Christ "solution" to that is really just a tacked-on kludge. A stitching up of theo-illogical holes.

Quote:
Trinitarian doctrine functions in real life without drifing into totalitarianism [yes it has been screwed up royally in some cases] because of the mutual-cooperation-without-sacrificing-individuality picture of the Godhead -- and since we are derived from that picture of order, we have that quality of existence.

Christianity has historically always diminished, denied and subordinated the individual (until more new-agey approaches have come to light). But your earlier oneness beef regarding totalitarianism is ass-backwards.

Quote:
There's only a couple of problems with your observations: you kinda slide on by the part about destroying meaning, or turning it into an illusion of sorts. Oneness will collapse any real differentiation -- and that is problematic in building a culture; either running to the totalitarian extreme or to the 'me generation.'

You almost seem to think oneness means "selfish"...or uniformity? And this coming from a Christian no less. What are brotherhood, Trinity, and faith if not each examples of oneness?

Your idea that oneness ("awareness of interdependant co-arising" is a bit better) is insufficient to make a sustainable culture or that it leads to totalitarianism is perverse. It is the *lack* of a proper understanding of that oneness that brings about things such as totalitarianism/socialpaths/greed/egoism. Note well how many Buddhists get murdered be it in 1960's Vietnam or recent Tibet. It may be a house of cards built on a the back of a sleeping ape but it's a damn fine house of cards. Better to be at the mercy of ignorant others than to be them.

But your seeming lack of understanding how "oneness" (this isn't the best term to use really, but whatever) could create peaceful societies hints at your ingrained preference for a religion to be on the offense, for it's expansion and survival - at the expense of its own tenets.

Quote:
In the other religions, you sacrifice individuality at the cost of the oness of all things -- it's just a question of drift, and how fast before you get to the totalitarian end or the who-the-hell-cares extreme.

Individuality, in Buddhism, is an unavoidable (you could say necessary) illusion that is the product of ignorance on the path (or of the path!) to realizing the interconnectedness of all things. Just as the physical vessel of our bodies is a mere temporary vehicle towards a Christian's spiritual path to be with God in Heaven is proposed in your faith.

Individuality is neither good nor bad, it just *is* (in the sense that it is an illusory phenomena we can choose to accept or deny) and it is impermanent so don't fall in love with it.

Quote:
At the same time, none of us are purely consistent, and since we are all created in the image of God and have many -- althought they are bent -- of His qualites, we tend to function fairly well in terms of our gut instincts, which carry us a long ways towards being able to live with each other, love our kids, not kick the cat too often, etc.

We can't have qualities of God since God would need to be beyond having qualities. It is vainglorious beyond imagining for humans to say they are in anyway whatsoever representative of a creator of the universe.

Quote:
The thing that set Prisig apart was that he got very, very close to actually being consistent in terms of mod philosophy, and it literally drove him insane, and into the arms of the mystical cop-out.

Please, no more Pirsig references. He has about as much to do with Buddhism as A Charlie Brown Christmas has to do with serious Christian scholarship.

And the assertion that it is Pirsig's philosophy alone that made him have his nervous breakdown is dishonest to the extreme. People get sick. People go insane. People kill themselves. It has nothing to do with their beliefs (often they are acting counter to them), this is a universal human condition. Period. Keep in mind the despicable mental "health" industry around in the 1970's (which prescribed barbaric electroshock therapy for everything). Once you get put into that system, you rarely get out in one piece.

Otherwise Andrea Yates murdering her children is proof of "Christianity's failure". Fair? No. (It *is* evidence that Christian communities can have an abusive control over it's women, but that's another thread)

Furthermore, please stop holding ZAMM up as some kind of pomo bible for us to flock to only so you can then mock it as a sham. It *is* a sham. It is a fluffy, coy, throwaway book, with the odd feel-good part, or semi-deep pop insight; but it's not the cornerstone of modern thought that you want it to be (so you can then mock it).

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...528#post711528
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #116 of 326
Quote:
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 - 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.

You will cry about anything "Christian" won't you?

I guess you will be glad to know Fellowship Church now has 4 locations to visit in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex and soon may have one in your area of the country / world. All to keep you from having to drive to just one location.

Check out the 4 locations HERE Let's see there is Grapevine, Alliance, Plano and Uptown to choose from. All to keep the drive less than 45 minutes as you point out.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #117 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
You will cry about anything "Christian" won't you?

I guess you will be glad to know Fellowship Church now has 4 locations to visit in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex and soon may have one in your area of the country / world. All to keep you from having to drive to just one location.

Check out the 4 locations HERE Let's see there is Grapevine, Alliance, Plano and Uptown to choose from. All to keep the drive less than 45 minutes as you point out.

Aw shucks <kicks can with hands in pockets>.

You'll be happy to know I was just being wickedly tongue-in-cheek, my brother.

As for anything "Christian", I'm game to discuss Religions B, C, D, E, F...there just aren't any takers. Heck, I'm critical of many of the specifics of Buddhism too, if that helps.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #118 of 326
Thread Starter 
I started writing this earlier today, went out for quite a while, and came back to find that Hassan had covered a lot of the same ground I was going to go over.

Eh, but what the hell... let's pile on.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
If you begin with the mind of Man as sufficient to itself...

Sufficient to what end? Sufficient to what degree and for what purpose?

My car is sufficient for driving to work. It is not sufficient for flying me to Mars. It is not sufficient for manufacturing cell phones or souvenir replicas of the Eiffel Tower. The sufficiency of my car is utterly dependent on the context of what is hoped for or demanded from it. Even after a devastating collision, my car would be "sufficient" as a source of scrap metal, or sufficient as an exhibit in a court of law when I sue the bastard who plowed into me because he was blabbing away on his cell phone.

With your notion of sufficiency, right from the very start of your argument, you set up lovely, spacious container for oodles of unspoken assumptions and desires for a particular conclusion to hide in.
Quote:
you destroy particularity, or individuality.

Damn, I hate it when particularity gets destroyed. Ruins my whole day.

So, we start with an ill-defined so-called problem of sufficiency, then assert a far-from-inescapable causal relationship to something else which may or may not be a problem, and certainly isn't a necessary state of affairs.

Is there any good reason to assume that we have to have some extra-special kind individuality? Sure, I like the idea of individuality, and it seems like there's plenty of individuality out there in the world, but does individuality have, or have to have, any deeper meaning that the differences which would naturally arise between biological brains, containing genetic variations, each subject to unique overall sets of environmental stimuli?

For what I mean when I say "individuality", not only is the mind of man sufficient for individuality to exist, the mind of man -- the many separate minds of men -- are individuality.

I won't bother going line-by-line on the rest of what you wrote, because you once again go back to this ill-defined "sufficiency" problem.

I strongly suspect I understand what you mean by "sufficient", and if I'm guessing correctly, you're definitely putting the cart before the horse.

You've pre-decided that there must be an absolute, unshakably-grounded moral system in this universe. And morality for you implies clear consequences for immorality, hence a need to insist upon strictly delineated individuals so that the sources of any sins, and the targets of any rewards or punishments, are cleanly, neatly defined.

Further, it would appear that you've decided that anyone else who dares use the word "morality" must be talking about the same thing you mean by the term, regardless of how much another person might protest to meaning otherwise. Should anyone dare to consider any act "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense... well, obviously such words have no meaning whatsoever unless they're tied down to your Absolute Moral System created and presided over by a triune God.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #119 of 326
. . . he read somwhere a critique of Cartesian Rationality and he carries that reading into every religious discussion . . . he does it by imagining that every AO-expressed thought that is not Christian and is remotely intelligent is a product of Cartesian Rationalism taken to the Nth degree, which, in his mind, equals PoMo nihilism . . relativism fragmentation the whole lot

'Sufficiency', if I understand his attempt at usage, is taken to mean purely rational, a priori truth . . . equal to itself and all that jazz . . . the basis for the Enlightenment and the machanistic watchmaker God etc . . . very bady-nono


BTW: much appreciate the thoughtful replies on Buddhism Johnq . . . . I hope you discourse more on those ideas in the future.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #120 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
. . . he read somwhere a critique of Cartesian Rationality and he carries that reading into every religious discussion . . . he does it by imagining that every AO-expressed thought that is not Christian and is remotely intelligent is a product of Cartesian Rationalism taken to the Nth degree, which, in his mind, equals PoMo nihilism . . relativism fragmentation the whole lot

'Sufficiency', if I understand his attempt at usage, is taken to mean purely rational, a priori truth . . . equal to itself and all that jazz . . . the basis for the Enlightenment and the machanistic watchmaker God etc . . . very bady-nono


BTW: much appreciate the thoughtful replies on Buddhism Johnq . . . . I hope you discourse more on those ideas in the future.

The problem is that Xians demonstrably do not follow the teachings of Christ. That's a proven fact and the merest glimpse of the behaviour of this species on these very boards will confirm it.

They know this themselves.

Therefore, they are faced with 3 choices:

1) Recant and give it up (and go to hell)

2) Start living Christ's teaching (and alienate themselves from both society and their co-religionists)

3) Dissimulate and retreat into specious arguments designed to bloster their contradictory position - also engage in 'conversion' activities (attack is the best form of defense) and bash other religions or philosophies that seem to be not subject to the same contradictions.

Obviously 1 and 2 are out so 3 wins by default.

And there you have it.

Throw big business US style into the mix and add a few fairground shysters and you have 'megachurch'.

It's merely either therapy or business. That's all that's on the menu folks.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Letting Go of God"