Your argument against "many paths to God"

[dcalling]

Sometimes, yes - but as wisdom grows through personal experience, I find that those selfish desires cease. It is said that full awakening/enlightenment is required for complete resolution of all selfishness. So, until then, it's a work in progress.

They never really cease, they just hide deeper.

Just look at human history, we are getting progressively more knowledgeable, we have thousands of years of history and vast prior wisdom in books. We are not getting any better, when there is no resources, we kill each other, when there are a lot of resources, we still envy and kill each other, with better weapons

 

[ananda]

They never really cease, they just hide deeper.

It is my personal observation that they cease. I have absolutely no desire for fancy cars, for example - a desire I used to have.

Just look at human history, we are getting progressively more knowledgeable, we have thousands of years of history and vast prior wisdom in books. We are not getting any better, when there is no resources, we kill each other, when there are a lot of resources, we still envy and kill each other, with better weapons

For Buddhists, it's not about resources, or knowledge in regards to the world around us or the stars. None of that solves the core problem. They only temporarily address symptoms of the problem.

 

[Dirk1540]

And of course there's always Augustine's famous "Lord, make me pure... but not yet!"

Haha I totally forgot about that one.

But yeah, I think what's going on is probably bigger than just the freedom to believe or not.

You're right. I think my analogies are ok, but do breakdown if they get scrutinized enough, because it's complicated. There is that faith thing that needs to be considered as well. You are better than me at articulation, I really liked one of your recent posts when you described how a person must experience faith, that it's impossible to purely articulate it. You perfectly articulated how it can't perfectly be articulated haha.

But I find some of the implications of Christian theism to be pretty intimidating sometimes, and that is despite flirting with universalism a bit. (Or maybe even because of it--real universalism is kind of intimidating in its own way.) I wish I were sure, but I am also nowhere near ready for that.

Then add to everything that there are simply mysteries where explanations aren't even attempted to be given to us yet. Some speculations are required because it's ungiven knowledge. Christianity is so intimidating sometimes, I wonder if some of the mysteries that we just don't yet understand, that after we understand these mysteries they will actually be the revelation to us that there was nothing that we needed to be intimidated about in the first place?? But unfortunately we just don't understand yet. This of course is tied into the faith thing, a word that drove me crazy for many many years. But this 'Faith' thing (faith that in the future we would understand) would be like that higher state of enlightenment that the Buddhists talk about.

No, I don't think I saw it! Do you have a link?

This is my story of a miracle that happened to me 20 years ago

 

[Freodin]

This is my story of a miracle that happened to me 20 years ago

In one of my posts to Silmarien I said that I am skeptical about "leap of faiths", and your kind of story is one of the reasons for that.

Did you have an experience? I have to trust your report. Was your experience "real"? I have no way of knowing. Can I compare it to something? Well... there's the rub.

I don't talk much about that. It's not that great of a "mystical experience", and I do lack the horrible background history of guilt and drugs and partying that seem to be necessary for a "real Christian conversion story".

I never was religious. Due to certain points in my family history, I hadn't been part of a church as a child, though I got the normal religious eductation in school and pre-school. (I'm German. Religious education is part of our normal school system, in my childhood even more so than now.) I knew the topics. I didn't believe them. They didn't make sense to me and I quite often got into trouble for asking questions. Something that never happened to me in any other fields in school.

I always had been a curious child. I sought for understanding. For the meaning behind the understanding. "Faith" escaped me. In a society where religion is a main societal factor (though in a different way than the USA), being an atheist in the pre-internet era wasn't easy. I was quite alone with my doubts and thoughts.

It wasn't until university that I met people that I could talk to about this topic, believers, unbelievers. Christians and non-Christians. But still, non of it made sense. Nothing that I did, nothing that I was told to do.

I was trying so hard to find an answer, understanding, meaning. Somewhere there MUST BE an answer, understaning, meaning. I bothered me, that there were so many people claiming to have it, and I couldn't see it.

Then, one day while I was riding my bike back from lessons, it hit me. And I really mean: it HIT me. Like a hammer, like lightning from the sky. I almost fell from my bike.

There doesn't NEED to be an answer, understanding, meaning. There are questions that do not have an answer, that are meaningless, that cannot be understood. It's just people chasing blindly after these things that they will never really find.

That was, coincidentially, also about 20 years ago... a few years more. In a way, this sudded experience changed me completely. It wasn't a "conversion" or even "deconversion" experience. I had been an atheist before, and I still am an atheist now.

But it completely changed my feelings out this whole question. It calmed my mental tempest. It has been my guidance and my consolation during the last quarter of a century, and some very hard time.

"Stuff happens".

 

[Ed1wolf]

The concept of human rights did not originate with Judeo-Christian principles.

Fraid so, they were derived from the ten commandments and also equality under the law because all humans were created in the image of God. No other religion teaches this.

yg: If you want to be precise in the realm of religion - it was the Hebrews, and then Israelites that founded Christianity - which took pieces and parts of the Hebrew spirituality relationship, and claimed authority. Judaism is relatively new - considering the Hebrews immediately after Christ were actual Christians, and that the OT continually and constantly prophesied the coming of Christ.

Judaism is at least 4000 years old, I would hardly call that new. What are actual Christians?

yg: That is the problem with Western exceptionalism - especially in the context of religion and progress: for some reason, the world must ignorant of the history of how the state came to be in order to "appreciate" the contribution in which the world basques - thanks to "Judeo-Christian" principles.

Not sure what you are saying here.

yg: You aren't Judeo-Chritian if you can't even agree that all 10 commandments should be followed, or that God and Christ are the only authority on Law.

I DO agree that all ten commandments should be followed and that they are the only authority on law.

yg: That is another religion that uses Judeo as a buzzword to draw upon the foundation without being a part of it. You are not a Christian if you breed mother and son, father and daughter for the purposes of making more strong slaves with preserved gene in the generations. You do not infect an entire population with what you call an STD in order to study the effects like animals.

I don't know any Christians that believe or have done those things.

yg: You do not burn people because they seem to fit the definition of witchcraft according to your interpretation of the bible. That is precisely because Christ Himself told us that we have the authority to judge/execute sinners if we are without sin. And, since Christ is King, you commit a grave infraction against the Kingdom if you decide by your own will to execute someone when the King has neither given a decree, nor moved to do it Himself.

Actually nowhere in the bible does it say you should burn a witch. And where it says they deserve the death penalty is only under the Old covenant, ie the old Hebrew theocracy. Jesus never commanded us to restore the old theocracy. The ancient Hebrews were held to a higher standard. However since the death penalty for murder was commanded prior to the theocracy, it applies universally to all societies and nations.

yg: Much of the Western "Judeo-Christian" progress was on the backs, necks and in the blood of plenty of imperialism and slaughtered persons. The message that "built" and forged the progress we think of today was from deceit, treachery, blood and turmoil. The good that came out of it was residual consequence.

Maybe the material progress was partially accomplished by doing evil, but I am referring to the moral progress which was due and a consequence of our founding on biblical principles. Those principles allowed us to realize that we did some bad things in the past but we continued to work toward the goal and high standards of our biblical principles and that caused us to get better and better over time.

yg: Honestly, do you even know what god you worship? Capitalism is king; competition permeates even down to what you think of as basic biological foundation. Western civilization has always abandoned Christian principles; in fact, every generation has abandoned God. The West of modernity is not special at all. Imperialism is not Christian. At all. The Church exploited imperialism to spread the alleged word through FEAR.

At present there is increasingly unprincipled capitalism but originally it was principled capitialism based on Christian principles. The bad form of capitalism started in the early 19th century with not Christians but rather the Social Darwinists. And we have been becoming more materialistic ever since. I never said imperialism was Christian. The US was not really imperialistic. I admit that not all churches have done a good job of spreading the Word, but many have. Not all aspects of imperialism are bad, it did allow pagans to learn about Christianity, such as the British ending widow burning in India.

yg: I have most certainly, and absolutely abandoned Western "Christian" principles. I won't be a part of a church that does not do what their alleged Arbiter tells them to do - yet convicts others of all sorts of alleged egregious action and character. They choose pieces of their holy canon they choose to adhere to that feeds prejudice and ignorance. You don't do the thing that were done in the name of the Most High God if you are for Him - and if you justify it personally, or for someone else then you are enabling such actions. You don't forget evil in an attempt to try to hide and erase it from history.

Those are not Christian principles so that is a non sequitur. I don't deny that some churches do not always follow Christian principles unfortunately.

yg: Western exceptionalism is the veneer needed in order to continuously hide what has been done in the name of hypocrisy and bloodlust. Of course, the West isn't new in this; what is new is the continuous denial of history as if everyone else is misinformed.

People remember, and they told their children. Their children remembered, and told their kids. That is how rewriting history continuously fails at the foundation - through knowledge and wisdom.

Yes, there has been some people that have tried to cover up the bad things western societies have done, but it usually comes out in the long run especially in a western society because they believe that the truth should be rooted out and revealed because that is a Christian principle.

yg: Usually I ignore people like you on these forums because it tempts me to assume you are of the camp that calls me a demon for wanting to obey all laws of God - as has been done on these forums. The curious things is that you could ignorantly associate me with an apostasy while at the same time remaining completely ignorant of my spiritual alignment. Since this was our first interaction, consider this a hard responsive welcome.

That would be absurd to call you a demon, if you want to obey all the laws of God, that is a GOOD thing, though of course that will not get you into heaven, but it is good that you want to obey Gods laws.

yg: If you want to make a comment on my spiritual alignment, you should ask me what my alignment is first. At worst, I made my faith "Other Religion" so that people would ask, "What is your 'religion.'" It would be at that time I gave a full testimony. You don't even give me the decency of asking me what my faith is. I am not bothered or offended, it honestly bores me to deal with such hackneyed claptrap. If people are making statement like mine it is likely because of experience and cynicism in human honesty, character and goodness. I don't blame them; I said that the hypocrisy in the church give atheist and agnostics a decent argumentative point.

I did not make a comment on your spiritual alignment, I was making a comment on your political alignment, many theologically liberal Christians want us to abandon our founding principles and deny that the US and the West was founded on biblical principles as well as many other religions. But I have no idea whether you are a liberal Christian or an atheist, or a pagan or a jew, or a Buddhist or etc. I have no idea. I would like to hear what your beliefs are, since you seem to use some Christian terminology, I am curious.

 

[Dirk1540]

In one of my posts to Silmarien I said that I am skeptical about "leap of faiths", and your kind of story is one of the reasons for that.

Did you have an experience? I have to trust your report. Was your experience "real"? I have no way of knowing. Can I compare it to something? Well... there's the rub.

I agree. I have very rarely brought it up in here, and when I have I have always pointed out that it really sucks that it is ONLY awesome proof for me alone. Unless a person really really trusted me a lot. I also have pointed out that if you were the person listening to such a story, it is very very important who is telling it!! I have joked in here before that if I were ever to hear my older brother tell a paranormal story I would probably believe it more than if I saw it with my own eyes lol, because I know how over the top skeptical he is. Now my sister? She's an honest person. However, she has a ghost story about once a month lol.

I brought it up this time around because we were skating around the context of how personal experience (IMO) is definitely the strongest form of proof (to that person only). And of course you have to have a personal experience to begin with!! Yes I know, a ton of people never have had one, and I used to be one for a long time. I'd also ask Silmarien to read my story before I would ask a lot of other members to do so because she is one of my metaphysics coaches lol, I thought maybe she would like it because she's so interested in aspects of consciousness and the mind.

I don't talk much about that. It's not that great of a "mystical experience", and I do lack the horrible background history of guilt and drugs and partying that seem to be necessary for a "real Christian conversion story".

I never was religious. Due to certain points in my family history, I hadn't been part of a church as a child, though I got the normal religious eductation in school and pre-school. (I'm German. Religious education is part of our normal school system, in my childhood even more so than now.) I knew the topics. I didn't believe them. They didn't make sense to me and I quite often got into trouble for asking questions. Something that never happened to me in any other fields in school.

I always had been a curious child. I sought for understanding. For the meaning behind the understanding. "Faith" escaped me. In a society where religion is a main societal factor (though in a different way than the USA), being an atheist in the pre-internet era wasn't easy. I was quite alone with my doubts and thoughts.

It wasn't until university that I met people that I could talk to about this topic, believers, unbelievers. Christians and non-Christians. But still, non of it made sense. Nothing that I did, nothing that I was told to do.

I was trying so hard to find an answer, understanding, meaning. Somewhere there MUST BE an answer, understaning, meaning. I bothered me, that there were so many people claiming to have it, and I couldn't see it.

Then, one day while I was riding my bike back from lessons, it hit me. And I really mean: it HIT me. Like a hammer, like lightning from the sky. I almost fell from my bike.

There doesn't NEED to be an answer, understanding, meaning. There are questions that do not have an answer, that are meaningless, that cannot be understood. It's just people chasing blindly after these things that they will never really find.

That was, coincidentially, also about 20 years ago... a few years more. In a way, this sudded experience changed me completely. It wasn't a "conversion" or even "deconversion" experience. I had been an atheist before, and I still am an atheist now.

But it completely changed my feelings out this whole question. It calmed my mental tempest. It has been my guidance and my consolation during the last quarter of a century, and some very hard time.

"Stuff happens".

I'm definitely an over thinker, and I have definitely wondered 1,000 times why I would have such a powerful experience but not the next person. For this reason I have been very interested in philosophy and atonement theology lately. These deep questions of 'What precisely does believing in Jesus mean??' are very interesting. I know what it means for the positive cases (meaning an obvious Christian, I know what it means in their case). But I really struggle with people who GENUINELY think Jesus is as factual as Peter Pan (because I can relate, I been there before). I said it before in here, I have an extremely hard time with the concept of a person's fate with God resting on that person's opinion on how they decipher historical data!

Somebody please tell me, what separates a person who never heard about Jesus from a person who genuinely believes that the New Testament documents are stories of myth?? And I'm asking this question as someone who absolutely doesn't think they are myth. I remember as a non-believer one of my favorite questions was "So, if I never heard about Jesus then my fate is determined by what is written on my heart...Ok then, so if I never heard about Jesus, and you start preaching to me 5 minutes before I die, if I don't see the logic in what you are saying...did you just alter my eternal fate because now I have officially heard before I died??" If the person who never heard can be saved, then historical aptitude must not be the measuring rod.

IMO, as I have said in here before, I think the ultimate gauge for 'Belief in Jesus' would be whether or not a person would desire, or would be repulsed by, living in a world where Jesus Christ was the king of that world. So I am definitely a little hazy on how one's interpretation of historiography would be a major determining factor, it has to be the heart over the head. YET i personally have been extremely moved by historical Jesus research! Deep questions!

But another line of thinking that I have is along the lines of choosing to play the game of Jesus truth claims more out of respect than out of a mechanical need to recite lines. So that I could say to myself "Yep that makes sense, God cares about your heart not your head, so no need to even bother making a comment about stupid historical data anymore." Or instead I can think more along the lines of me over hearing people saying false things about my brother, or my friend, I would WANT to stick up for them and set the record straight. And of course it's easy to fall into a habit where you instead care more about trying to win arguments. It's also tough to see where that line is sometimes IMO.

Oh for the record, I went to catholic school but it never made me even look twice at the Bible (other than when I had to memorize something in it to pass a test). I only gave real thought to the Bible after meeting that Christian friend of mine that I mentioned in my story, at the age of 18.

and I quite often got into trouble for asking questions. Something that never happened to me in any other fields in school.

You might have gotten in trouble out of a fear reaction. The only time I ever go to a catholic church is for family events. I find myself sometimes just looking at the priest and thinking "I wonder how much you know??" I'm not sure though, a guy I work with says his priest is pretty knowledgeable. I have a hard time thinking my priests/nuns or religion teachers back in school could field objections like this forum, as opposed to just throwing a person out of class in anger if they spoke up about objections. Nobody in my class challenged them though, but it was grade school, I went to a public high school.

 

[Freodin]

Oh, absolutely. That's why classical theists think the doctrine of divine simplicity is so important. If God has got a whole bunch of attributes, we're dealing with a compound entity and there are plenty of questions that need to be asked.

There are plenty of questions left with a simplistic entity as well, and not a lot of reliable answers. Sometimes it is not about the answers that one system gives and the other does nor, or the questions that one system ignores and the other tackes.
I think the very fact that different systems can reach completely opposite answers to the same questions, all claiming reason, arguments and authority... this should give us pause to think.
If the "ground of existence" really is inexpressible and incomprehensible, it should be no wonder that talking about it will lead nowhere. Philosophers should know when to stop.
Si tacuisses...

If, on the other hand, rather than God being something that is both intelligent and volitional, we say that God is intellect and God is will, and these two things are ultimately the same, we're in different territory.

Isn't that also semantics? Or even the lack of semantics? Naming things, not distinguishing them?

On the other hand, I do not think there are that many attributes that really need to be posited for the universe to make sense.

Agreed. Perhaps even less than you think.

I would say that only one of the two behaviors is crucial for human wellbeing, and it's not the one that leads to murder and mayhem. There is actually some interesting psychological research on the topic of spirituality--George Vaillaint has got an interesting book on it from the perspective of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.

Human behaviour is to complex for such simplistic answers. Parents control and coerce their children, out of a desire for their wellbeing. Is that now a sign of love - even if it leads to murder and mayhem - or is it as sign of murder and mayhem, even if it is done out of love?
Too complex, in my view. If human history has shown us one thing, it is that there isn't a simple relationship between action and reaction. Without such a simple and well-understood relationship, every action we take is a leap of faith. More or less reasonable, but still.

Now, if the question is objectively speaking, does one type of behavior have real value that the other lacks, I'd agree that that's a much more difficult question. I also think there's only one religion which by its very nature adequately jumps the subjective-objective divide, which is why Christianity is so very interesting to me these days.

That in itself is a very subjective judgement.

Ideology and idolatry, and hints of original sin, though I would attribute it to evolutionary processes rather than a literal Fall. On the left, we are so obsessed with tolerance that we shatter into a million pieces and cease to be tolerant even to each other; meanwhile, I am quite convinced that what happened on the Christian right in the United States last year was an exercise in apostasy, though I will not go into that. This is of course at the societal level, but I see the same self-destructive tendencies everywhere.

I do think it ties into authenticity and responsibility and a handful of other issues that were identified by the existentialists, but I think there's an element of idolatry going on as well, especially with regards to ideology. Sartre referred to his "conversion" to Marxism as almost religious, and I see that at play now as well. On all sides. I see very little but hypocrisy and self-defeat at the end of that particular road.

Change happens. For "better" or for "worse". That's the way it works. The alternative would not be human. I don't think this is a sign of defeat. There is no victory, so there cannot be defeat either. The game is all there is.

But I think there's no way out and that we are lost on our own. Which makes me either an Absurdist or a Christian, I suppose.

If you really think that, you do think there is a way out. One where we are not on our own. This is what makes you Christian... this way you think is the way out.

I don't there is a way out either... which is a good thing, because it would be a way out of being human. We are not lost. We are where we are, and this includes wishing for another place. Paradox, but human.

I would say you need both. The myopia shows up as much for a Creationist who's intent on pointing out every potential problem in the Theory of Evolution, as if that somehow tears down the whole thing, as for the scientist who thinks that evolution somehow proves materialism. Neither view is perfect, so you need to step in before you can step back out again.

Wise words.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Fraid so, they were derived from the ten commandments and also equality under the law because all humans were created in the image of God. No other religion teaches this.

The Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God - Moses was an Hebrew. The 10 commandments did not come from Judeo-Christianity or even Judaism. It came from the Hebrews. Judaism is often used incorrectly in context the same way "apocalypse" often is.

Many other religions teach principles of the 10 commandments, but do not believe it is required in order to be "saved," and that one does not have to do it. That includes many Christian denominations - especially ones that say we do not have to follow the Law of God except the ten commandments. And, even in those Christian denominations a select number of commandments are followed.

You talk about my alleged political and religious liberalism as if you know it for a fact, yet you cant even see the mess in your own religion. It is those who call themselves Christians - those who lead flock to the edge of a cliff - that have invalidated the religion of Christianity to many people. I am not politically, socially or spiritually liberal.



[/quote]Judaism is at least 4000 years old, I would hardly call that new. What are actual Christians?[/quote]

On an earth that is older than time, whose human history is thought to be anywhere from up to 10,000 years ago (even from a biblical perspective,) to 120,000 years if you believe in the theory of evolution. The Hebrews have been around for about 6000+ years according to their own calendar; compared to the religions of Cain and the antediluvian world the Hebrews are new. I said the Hebrews were relatively new. Context.


[/quote]Not sure what you are saying here.[/quote]

I know.


[/quote]I DO agree that all ten commandments should be followed and that they are the only authority on law.[/quote]

I don't agree they are the authority on Law. The whole point of God giving us the law in the first place was because we were too lost and foolish to do the right thing on our own. We were so simple that we needed written guidelines.

Today, many say those guidelines are not applicable, or that we are not obligated to follow them because Christ came to fulfill the law. It was never not applicable.

I don't know any Christians that believe or have done those things.

That is another religion that uses Judeo as a buzzword to draw upon the foundation without being a part of it. You are not a Christian if you breed mother and son, father and daughter for the purposes of making more strong slaves with preserved gene in the generations. You do not infect an entire population with what you call an STD in order to study the effects like animals.
​

The foundation of the Western world was build on this - literally. The same people they call lazy and savages in their countries are the same people whose ancestors build these nations as slaves - so that one could boast about the Western world s/he didn't build. I don't think you get this. Besides slave owners (who called themselves Puritans and other denominational Christian monikers) in America, the Catholic Church has a charming history on violent imperialism and subjugation.

Some of the conquered territories and countries (in the name of Imperialism/bringing the Word of God to savages) had their entire culture erased save a few elders - in the name of Christianity.

Either these people (and historians) need to stop calling themselves Christians, the rest of the Church needs to call them out as hypocrites and misleading wolves, or by apathy you are enable hypocrisy.

Actually nowhere in the bible does it say you should burn a witch. And where it says they deserve the death penalty is only under the Old covenant, ie the old Hebrew theocracy. Jesus never commanded us to restore the old theocracy. The ancient Hebrews were held to a higher standard. However since the death penalty for murder was commanded prior to the theocracy, it applies universally to all societies and nations.

I never said that Christ commanded us to burn witches. Again, it is the context: we were talking abut hypocrisy in the Western world - especially in the name of God. Several denominations of American and European Christians sought out and burned people who they thought were mages, witches and practitioners of craft. That was accepted Western theology at the time - and they allegedly used the same OT and NT to justify their actions.

There is no old theocracy because Christ is not dead. He never was dead, and God entertained "us" when we begged for a human king - and it has failed ever since. But, you don't get to execute judgment as you want, because Christ is not dead.

Maybe the material progress was partially accomplished by doing evil, but I am referring to the moral progress which was due and a consequence of our founding on biblical principles. Those principles allowed us to realize that we did some bad things in the past but we continued to work toward the goal and high standards of our biblical principles and that caused us to get better and better over time.

Excellent attempt to justify the abominable history of Western imperialism turned to Western exceptionalism. You reap the benefits, so you don't have to see what your country truly is, and what they do in the name of gods you think as the one you worship. God is a title; has the West ever identified their god by name in their pledges, anthems, or any other piece of nationalistic shows of allegiance? What about the god on the money; has that god been identified by name? The West has been swindled back into worshiping the Beast, Mammon, and idols - and much of it is done in the name of a god whom they don't know.

At present there is increasingly unprincipled capitalism but originally it was principled capitialism based on Christian principles. The bad form of capitalism started in the early 19th century with not Christians but rather the Social Darwinists. And we have been becoming more materialistic ever since. I never said imperialism was Christian. The US was not really imperialistic. I admit that not all churches have done a good job of spreading the Word, but many have. Not all aspects of imperialism are bad, it did allow pagans to learn about Christianity, such as the British ending widow burning in India.

God did not make life to be competitive. God made life for unity. Capitalism is one of the most vile forms of economy - especially when fiat currency and centralized banking is involved. It makes people work as slaves for a legal contract giving them permission to use cotton and non-precious metals in exchanged for goods and livelihood. It doesn't matter if it is principled or not: the goal of capitalism is to get more capital.

Ask the Indians who live in even worse squalor, and poverty after imperialism. You don't feel the affects of imperialism, which is why you think it isn't all bad. The U.S. is the definition of imperialistic: it is the military arm of another larger "horn." I am actually surprised to hear an apology for the vileness of imperialism - just so that one could continue to see the championship of the West.

Darwin, by the way, believed that there needed to be a preservation of favored races; it wasn't just about the sciences. Those who called themselves Christians of that say took it and ran with it to justify their atrocities to other cultures and nations. So, it should be no surprise their descendants feel the same as they do.

Those are not Christian principles so that is a non sequitur. I don't deny that some churches do not always follow Christian principles unfortunately.


Yes, there has been some people that have tried to cover up the bad things western societies have done, but it usually comes out in the long run especially in a western society because they believe that the truth should be rooted out and revealed because that is a Christian principle. [/quote]

You keep marginalizing Western responsibility in the razing of nations and culture. It is actually quite annoying. You can't keep saying the end justifies the means when the means are pillaging, raping, breeding, burning and enslaving people - unless you are on the "winning" side of that.

That would be absurd to call you a demon, if you want to obey all the laws of God, that is a GOOD thing, though of course that will not get you into heaven, but it is good that you want to obey Gods laws.

Not absurd, because Christianity has become absurd - double negatives and such. In modern Christianity, it is absurd for me to believe that we are supposed to be obedient to God even if it doesn't constitute our salvation. It is absurd for me to believe that all 10 commandments, laws and stipulations are terms and agreements we must choose to adhere to in order to be part of the contract/covenant with God - including the Sabbath. It is absurd for me to tell other people this.

I am nowhere near a religious liberal.

I did not make a comment on your spiritual alignment, I was making a comment on your political alignment, many theologically liberal Christians want us to abandon our founding principles and deny that the US and the West was founded on biblical principles as well as many other religions. But I have no idea whether you are a liberal Christian or an atheist, or a pagan or a jew, or a Buddhist or etc. I have no idea. I would like to hear what your beliefs are, since you seem to use some Christian terminology, I am curious.

You erroneously connected the context of my original statement with the growing apostate. That is commenting on spiritual alignment; you couldn't say that to Christ because you know He isn't any of that. Yet, you say it to me because you believe I can, and possibly am associated with the liberal/relativist demerits of religion.

You are still wrong about me politically; I am nowhere near liberal politically.


I am not a theologian, and I don't care about abandonment issues with respect. I am flat out saying that the West was built on the necks and ashes of people they destroyed in the name of a god they didn't know - usually associated with colloquial Christianity. Keep your principles, but don't mix them with Christianity - because a nation like the US is immediately disqualified as a godly nation, and much more qualified as a horn with a beast system and MYSTERY religion.

Everything I have said is my alignment with my Father and my Savior. If you don't know what I am - or what/who I believe in - then ask me. If you want to test my spirit, then ask me in faith what my alignment and beliefs are - and I will tell you truthfully.

 

[Silmarien]

I think the very fact that different systems can reach completely opposite answers to the same questions, all claiming reason, arguments and authority... this should give us pause to think.

Sure, if you think different systems are reaching vastly different answers. I don't think that at all. Greek influenced Abrahamic traditions are going to use different language than, say, Vedic religions, but I think the differences are overstated, at least as far as the concept of God goes. Obviously there are bigger differences between how the religions view the relationship between God and the world, but I'd rather toss a bunch of Scholastic and Vedanta philosophers in a room and lock the door than tell the lot of them to shut up.

If the "ground of existence" really is inexpressible and incomprehensible, it should be no wonder that talking about it will lead nowhere. Philosophers should know when to stop.

No, they shouldn't. I just started reading a book by Thomas Nagel, and there's this lovely comment at the beginning:

"If truth is our aim, we must be resigned to achieving it to a very limited extent, and without certainty. To redefine the aim so that its achievement is largely guaranteed, through various forms of reductionism, relativism, or historicism, is a form of cognitive wish-fulfillment. Philosophy cannot take refuge in reduced ambitions. It is after eternal and nonlocal truth, even though we know that is not what we are going to get."

Human behaviour is to complex for such simplistic answers. Parents control and coerce their children, out of a desire for their wellbeing.

Not always out of desire for their wellbeing, and lines can certainly be crossed--and often are. What starts as desire for someone's wellbeing can easily turn into something quite different, even if we continue telling ourselves otherwise. There's no more simplistic an answer than saying there's no line and it's all the same thing.

That in itself is a very subjective judgement.

No, it's more of a theological one. Subjectivity is an aspect of the human condition--we seek always to transcend ourselves, but true objectivity is of course impossible. We can reach and reach, but only one religion makes the claim to have actually transcended human nature: God becomes Man so that Man might become God.

I think Buddhism is the only other religion that really addresses the issue, though its answer is radically different.

If you really think that, you do think there is a way out. One where we are not on our own. This is what makes you Christian... this way you think is the way out.

I hope so. But I have no idea if Christianity is anything but a mirage, and don't see how it could be possible even in principle to answer that. If it's a way out, it's one that by its very nature is equally mired in the problem of subjectivity. Though to be a truly human way out, I suppose it would have to be.

I don't there is a way out either... which is a good thing, because it would be a way out of being human. We are not lost. We are where we are, and this includes wishing for another place. Paradox, but human.

On the other hand, a lot of Christian theology talks about becoming more truly human rather than viewing humanity itself as something to be escaped.

 

[Silmarien]

This is my story of a miracle that happened to me 20 years ago

Thank you!

I would be somewhat concerned about any mystical experience that involves drugs, though that certainly doesn't mean they're not real. I've got a friend who is no longer an atheist because of experimentation with LSD (I think he's a technicality away from Buddhism now), and shamanism has always been a thing, but I would still be cautious trying to put too much of an emphasis on it!

But yeah, I've experienced stuff a little bit like that. Nothing so extreme, but sudden preternatural calm... yes.

In one of my posts to Silmarien I said that I am skeptical about "leap of faiths", and your kind of story is one of the reasons for that.

Did you have an experience? I have to trust your report. Was your experience "real"? I have no way of knowing. Can I compare it to something? Well... there's the rub.

I don't talk much about that. It's not that great of a "mystical experience", and I do lack the horrible background history of guilt and drugs and partying that seem to be necessary for a "real Christian conversion story".

Ehh, I am a total bookworm. I was discussing Brothers Karamazov with a classmate in college and simply realized in a flash of inspiration that I wasn't an atheist. Took another decade to find out that what I'd been confronted with was an Orthodox version of the Gospel (Christianity is its own worst enemy), which was certainly an unexpected twist, but it isn't all sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.

But just because people are talking about personal experience doesn't mean they expect those experiences to serve as testimony for anyone else. Theists are not always trying to convince atheists of anything at all. Sometimes we really are just talking.

 

[Dirk1540]

Thank you!

I would be somewhat concerned about any mystical experience that involves drugs, though that certainly doesn't mean they're not real. I've got a friend who is no longer an atheist because of experimentation with LSD (I think he's a technicality away from Buddhism now), and shamanism has always been a thing, but I would still be cautious trying to put too much of an emphasis on it!

But yeah, I've experienced stuff a little bit like that. Nothing so extreme, but sudden preternatural calm... yes.

I just referred to it as a drug I guess because I didn't wanna have to explain. It was only pot, which in the drug world is a joke, and pretty predictable as to when it's out of your system. I didn't have a 'Drug Problem' as much as I'd say i had a terrible sensitivity to it. I never did anything stronger because I knew if pot made me get that bad, my head would explode on something like LSD.

When I said concentrated form of the drug I mean that it was a huge 3 foot bong with a huge see through center chamber, and an oxygen mask that went over your mouth and nose, and people in the room said it was the biggest hit they ever saw someone take. I started shaking like a leaf within minutes. So I had an odd sensitivity to it, but being young & dumb my logic was that pot is a joke and I need to 'Man up' and learn to relax with it lol. But with pot and alcohol it was always clear to me when I was no longer high or drunk, and the high was gone for many hours.

 

[dcalling]

It is my personal observation that they cease. I have absolutely no desire for fancy cars, for example - a desire I used to have..

They never all cease. You no longer desire fancy cars because of a number of reasons, but you will always desire something else, as long as you live, and you will always envy.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I think we believe our own publicity far to much. Whilst western Europe was languishing in the dark ages, Islam built a stunning civilisation with scholars and scientists of all faiths living together and advancing knowledge.

That is because the leadership of the church was corrupt during the Dark Ages and withheld the bible from the laity. After the Reformation when the bible became more widely disseminated Europe started improving in all areas especially in science and modern science came into existence, ie the ongoing systematic self correcting study of the universe, Islamic society never achieved such a thing and treated women horribly, European society came up with the concept of chivalry because of the biblical principles about treating women as you would your mother if they were older and your sister if they were younger. And also treat your wife as if she was your own body. The period you are referring to in Islamic societies was shortlived. Christian founded modern science continues on to this day producing great goods for humanity which far outweighs the bad things done in western societies. Millions of lives have been saved.

dave: Western civilisation has done some brilliant things and soem appalling things, as have all civilisations but none of them needed god to be good or bad.

'

True but Western civilization far surpassed all other civilizations in good things due to its incorporating God's moral principles into their societies. No other societies come close. Western societies that did not abandon their JC principles have saved millions of lives and rescued millions from oppression.

 

[Silmarien]

I just referred to it as a drug I guess because I didn't wanna have to explain. It was only pot, which in the drug world is a joke, and pretty predictable as to when it's out of your system. I didn't have a 'Drug Problem' as much as I'd say i had a terrible sensitivity to it. I never did anything stronger because I knew if pot made me get that bad, my head would explode on something like LSD.

Ahh, yeah. I would not expect anything too weird with marijuana, but at the same time, I'm really not sure if effects on brain chemistry would outlast the high itself. Though I'd agree that that still sounds like an odd reaction.

The only time I ever go to a catholic church is for family events. I find myself sometimes just looking at the priest and thinking "I wonder how much you know??" I'm not sure though, a guy I work with says his priest is pretty knowledgeable.

I would honestly expect Catholics to be more knowledgeable. Whatever its problems, the tradition has got a ton of resources. My Episcopal priest is former Catholic, and he is super knowledgeable.

Which is great. I need a priest who can handle my special brand of crazy.

 

[Dirk1540]

Ahh, yeah. I would not expect anything too weird with marijuana, but at the same time, I'm really not sure if effects on brain chemistry would outlast the high itself. Though I'd agree that that still sounds like an odd reaction.

Ironically one of my brothers also had a really bad reaction to marijuana, he ran away from it and never looked back. I had bad highs but it took awhile before the bad high hyper paranoia began to leak into my sober life, it would even be there days after the high, way past the point of effected brain chemistry. Reaching that point was the last straw, I quit. But that night when I did it again was just a very unwise decision on my part. And the next day, knowing that the brain chemistry reaction part was over only added to my distress because I knew that you are supposed to be out of the woods when the high is over, the realization that being sober wasn't helping caused the distress to mount and get even worse.

I would honestly expect Catholics to be more knowledgeable. Whatever its problems, the tradition has got a ton of resources. My Episcopal priest is former Catholic, and he is super knowledgeable.

I admit that I was speculating. Until I actually quiz a priest I won't really know. But my memory in Catholic Church was never ever learning anything whatsoever...just a bunch of standing, then kneeling, sitting, stand again, etc. I just figured if this guy was knowledgeable why would he never drop some good knowledge on us?

Which is great. I need a priest who can handle my special brand of crazy.

Haha. But I think we've established from my pot stories that I'm crazier than you are lol.

 

[Freodin]

Sure, if you think different systems are reaching vastly different answers. I don't think that at all. Greek influenced Abrahamic traditions are going to use different language than, say, Vedic religions, but I think the differences are overstated, at least as far as the concept of God goes. Obviously there are bigger differences between how the religions view the relationship between God and the world, but I'd rather toss a bunch of Scholastic and Vedanta philosophers in a room and lock the door than tell the lot of them to shut up.

It depends on what you would consider "vastly" different. If they "agree" on the basic principle, and all the details are different, I would consider that "vastly different" just as if they agreed on all the details and related it all to a different basic principle.

No, they shouldn't. I just started reading a book by Thomas Nagel, and there's this lovely comment at the beginning:

"If truth is our aim, we must be resigned to achieving it to a very limited extent, and without certainty. To redefine the aim so that its achievement is largely guaranteed, through various forms of reductionism, relativism, or historicism, is a form of cognitive wish-fulfillment. Philosophy cannot take refuge in reduced ambitions. It is after eternal and nonlocal truth, even though we know that is not what we are going to get."

Paradoxical. If they are after "eternal and non-local truth", and one of these truths is "we cannot make any statements beyond this point"... they should not disregard it in their further quest. That doesn't mean they should stop questioning, but if your main conclusion starts to contradict your basic premises or the reasoning you use... you should start to question that.

Not always out of desire for their wellbeing, and lines can certainly be crossed--and often are. What starts as desire for someone's wellbeing can easily turn into something quite different, even if we continue telling ourselves otherwise. There's no more simplistic an answer than saying there's no line and it's all the same thing.

Not always, sure. But they do. That's why I said, human behaviour is to complex for such simplistic answers.

No, it's more of a theological one. Subjectivity is an aspect of the human condition--we seek always to transcend ourselves, but true objectivity is of course impossible. We can reach and reach, but only one religion makes the claim to have actually transcended human nature: God becomes Man so that Man might become God.

There is only one religion to make this specific claim about transcendence. Not the only religion to claim transcendence in general.

But it's quite easy to claim to have transcended human nature. Showing this claim to be real is a little more difficult. I would even say "impossible", because usually one has to be human to make claims.

I think Buddhism is the only other religion that really addresses the issue, though its answer is radically different.

This now gets back very nicely to the original topic of this thread: radicaly different answers to... well, and here's the problem I see: I don't think all these groups / humans / religions / philosophies are asking the same question.

I hope so. But I have no idea if Christianity is anything but a mirage, and don't see how it could be possible even in principle to answer that. If it's a way out, it's one that by its very nature is equally mired in the problem of subjectivity. Though to be a truly human way out, I suppose it would have to be.

And all these groups / humans / etc cannot ask the same questions, because there is no answer to an important prior question: what does it mean to be human?

There might not even be "an" answer to this question... because subjectivism. So how is someone going to decide on "one true way to God for" all, when they cannot demonstrate the basic problems behind this question?

On the other hand, a lot of Christian theology talks about becoming more truly human rather than viewing humanity itself as something to be escaped.

Without being able to define "(not quite truly) human" or "truly human" they are doomed from the start. But it sounds nice. And sells better.

 

[Silmarien]

It depends on what you would consider "vastly" different. If they "agree" on the basic principle, and all the details are different, I would consider that "vastly different" just as if they agreed on all the details and related it all to a different basic principle.

Have you ever seen a discussion between an Evangelical Protestant and an Orthodox here? There are plenty of situations where they are saying almost the same thing, but the vocabulary is so different and prejudices so engrained, especially on the Protestant side (many of the Orthodox here are former Protestants), that communication is impossible.

I live in that space where Christian theology meets postmodern social criticism, so there are barriers to communication on all sides, since I neither talk like a traditional Christian nor like a secular humanist. Point being, I don't think you can tell to what extent details are really different without being fully literate in both systems.

Paradoxical. If they are after "eternal and non-local truth", and one of these truths is "we cannot make any statements beyond this point"... they should not disregard it in their further quest. That doesn't mean they should stop questioning, but if your main conclusion starts to contradict your basic premises or the reasoning you use... you should start to question that.

Which is honestly one of the biggest reasons I am a theist at all. I think the idea that reason can get us nowhere at all is in direct contradiction with a couple centuries worth of scientific advancement, so if refusing to commit to certain ideas, like that the basic laws of physics are themselves grounded in something external, means that the whole thing tumbles and falls, I will commit.

I'm still pretty apophatic and disinclined to make positive claims about God's nature, but nobody on either side of the question is obliged to hold positions they think are logically inconsistent with reality.

There is only one religion to make this specific claim about transcendence. Not the only religion to claim transcendence in general.

True, but I don't think that other claims work. Only Christianity and Buddhism's are of real interest to me.

And all these groups / humans / etc cannot ask the same questions, because there is no answer to an important prior question: what does it mean to be human?

There might not even be "an" answer to this question... because subjectivism. So how is someone going to decide on "one true way to God for" all, when they cannot demonstrate the basic problems behind this question?

Well, if Christianity is true, it is by the very nature of its claims the one true way to God for all. What that might mean is a different question altogether, and I'm far from comfortable with the brands of Christianity that insist upon specific, usually narrow interpretations, but I don't think it's my job to somehow prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. Either it is or it isn't, and that doesn't depend upon my ability to demonstrate it one way or the way.

The thing is, I don't think the problem of subjectivism gives us license to give up altogether and declare the issue unsolvable. Once you go down that route, postmodernism stops being a critique of other systems and turns into a dogma itself. I actually do think there are some serious universals at play--the fact that you can find fullblown existentialist thought in Ecclesiastes makes me believe that we have always been asking the same thing. So I don't see vastly different questions; I see variations on a theme, and am happy to investigate that particular theme and see where it might lead. Even if it ends up leading in a direction I'd been avoiding.

Without being able to define "(not quite truly) human" or "truly human" they are doomed from the start. But it sounds nice. And sells better.

They do define it, though. It ties right in with the way Christianity views the relationship between God and humanity. Made in the image of God and so forth.

 

[ananda]

They never all cease. You no longer desire fancy cars because of a number of reasons, but you will always desire something else, as long as you live, and you will always envy.

I found otherwise ... I am very satisfied with my Buddhist Path.

 

[Freodin]

Have you ever seen a discussion between an Evangelical Protestant and an Orthodox here? There are plenty of situations where they are saying almost the same thing, but the vocabulary is so different and prejudices so engrained, especially on the Protestant side (many of the Orthodox here are former Protestants), that communication is impossible.

That can indeed be a problem. Sometimes those quarreling over details can be more deadly enemies that those of completely opposite systems.

But both differences exist, and more. Doesn't increase my confidence that any one of them has "the Truth".

I live in that space where Christian theology meets postmodern social criticism, so there are barriers to communication on all sides, since I neither talk like a traditional Christian nor like a secular humanist. Point being, I don't think you can tell to what extent details are really different without being fully literate in both systems.

Neither can you tell how much they are the same. And, consider, you don't have the limit of only two systems. You would need to be a universal genius to get a synthesis of all of human philosophy. And, knowing humanity, it's wouldn't get you anything.

Which is honestly one of the biggest reasons I am a theist at all. I think the idea that reason can get us nowhere at all is in direct contradiction with a couple centuries worth of scientific advancement, so if refusing to commit to certain ideas, like that the basic laws of physics are themselves grounded in something external, means that the whole thing tumbles and falls, I will commit.

I'm not certain I parsed that correctly. I try to split it up... let me know if I get it wrong.
You say that "scientific advancement" is based on the idea that reason can get us.. somewhere.
You say that there are certain ideas - like "the basic laws of physics are grounded in something external"... and that not committing to this idea would make the whole system of "scientific advancement" tumble and fall.
You say that you rather commit to this idea than accept this conclusion.

Right so far?

So what if this whole line of reasoning is completely scrambled?
"The idea that reason can get us nowhere".
Who's promoting this? Not me.
Reason cannot get us everywhere. Especially if reason itself tells us that there are limits to reason.
"...in direct contradiction with [...]scientific advancement..."
A lot of the scientific advancement of the last couple of centuries has been made in direct contradiction to the "reason" of the centuries before that. And "reason" alone never has made these advancements. All of that had to be tested and confirmed by observations.
Our reason might fail even with the availability of observations... but without them, it will fail.
"the basic laws of physics are themselves grounded in something external"
This isn't the basis of scientific advancement or science at all. Science works perfectly if we assume that the laws of physics are grounded in physical existence itself. Science even works better this way.

So why would you commit to a certain idea, based on a false conclusion?

I'm still pretty apophatic and disinclined to make positive claims about God's nature, but nobody on either side of the question is obliged to hold positions they think are logically inconsistent with reality.

As I said before, I don't think either of these positions basically matter. With God or without... reality doesn't change.

True, but I don't think that other claims work. Only Christianity and Buddhism's are of real interest to me.

Again, as I said, claims of transcendence are quite difficult to demonstrate. It's a little bit like claims of a life after death. Everyone who is here to make such a claim is by definition not dead.

Well, if Christianity is true, it is by the very nature of its claims the one true way to God for all. What that might mean is a different question altogether, and I'm far from comfortable with the brands of Christianity that insist upon specific, usually narrow interpretations, but I don't think it's my job to somehow prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. Either it is or it isn't, and that doesn't depend upon my ability to demonstrate it one way or the way.

Yes. And if it isn't true, it is irrelevant. But that right now is another problem with the claims of Christianity. If it is true, it would be your job to prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. It would be your duty.

I see that as one of the main problems, the main internal contradiction, of Christianity: the claim of bringing salvation for the world, without being able to bring salvation for the world.

The thing is, I don't think the problem of subjectivism gives us license to give up altogether and declare the issue unsolvable. Once you go down that route, postmodernism stops being a critique of other systems and turns into a dogma itself. I actually do think there are some serious universals at play--the fact that you can find fullblown existentialist thought in Ecclesiastes makes me believe that we have always been asking the same thing. So I don't see vastly different questions; I see variations on a theme, and am happy to investigate that particular theme and see where it might lead. Even if it ends up leading in a direction I'd been avoiding.

Perhaps the true wisdom lies in knowing when it is right to give up, to know when an issue is unsolvable, instead of simply declaring it so, because you don't think it's your job to go further?

They do define it, though. It ties right in with the way Christianity views the relationship between God and humanity. Made in the image of God and so forth.

Which doesn't really define it, if you look closely. It just shifts the focus... and badly.

 

[Silmarien]

A lot of the scientific advancement of the last couple of centuries has been made in direct contradiction to the "reason" of the centuries before that. And "reason" alone never has made these advancements. All of that had to be tested and confirmed by observations.

Observations aren't going to get you anywhere when disconnected from reason. I'm talking about the ability to draw connections concerning observations at all--empiricism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Toss out the importance of that very ability to draw connections, and everything falls.

This isn't the basis of scientific advancement or science at all. Science works perfectly if we assume that the laws of physics are grounded in physical existence itself. Science even works better this way.

It is impossible to say that science works better this way when science doesn't work this way at all. As Paul Davies notes in this piece, we do not have a testable theory of everything, much less one in which the theory somehow explains itself. If that is even possible. I would personally expect a similar problem to arise as the one presented in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems--no system can be used to fully define and explain itself. If it doesn't work for mathematics, I can't imagine it working for something more complex.

So why would you commit to a certain idea, based on a false conclusion?

I haven't seen a false conclusion. Differing philosophies of science, perhaps, as my sympathies lie with Neo-Aristotelianism, but it's a little bit premature to start accusing people of false conclusions just for disagreeing. We'd need to dig way deeper into the subject matter first.

Yes. And if it isn't true, it is irrelevant. But that right now is another problem with the claims of Christianity. If it is true, it would be your job to prove that it's objectively the correct path for everyone. It would be your duty.

Not really. Biblically speaking, you're supposed to always be prepared to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), but you're also supposed to shake the dust off your feet if people don't want to listen (Matthew 10:14).

Which seems more than reasonable for everyone involved. Christians do more harm than good when they push people who don't want to be pushed.

I see that as one of the main problems, the main internal contradiction, of Christianity: the claim of bringing salvation for the world, without being able to bring salvation for the world.

I am not sure what you're referring to. Discrepancies between theology and reality or issues within Christian theology?

I don't think any critique of Christianity that does not work from within the framework of Christian soteriology and eschatology is fair. If Christianity talks about a world to come, you can't really attack it for not transforming the current world. It never said it would. So I don't see why it matters that not everyone accepts Christianity as true--there was never any indication that that was going to happen.

But if you're specifically talking about how the promise of salvation fits in with the threat of damnation, that is certainly a different matter.

Which doesn't really define it, if you look closely. It just shifts the focus... and badly.

Well, if you look really closely, you'll see that one of the major elements of Christianity is the perfect image of what it means to be human in pure storytelling form, so I would not say there is no definition.

There is a shift involved, though, yes, but I wouldn't consider it a bad one. One aspect of it is that if you make God the central focus of your life, everything else will fall in place around that instead of being a chaotic bundle of competing priorities.