Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What Does It Mean To Be Carnally Minded?


Antlerman

Recommended Posts

It’s been a gradual shift, to where easy answers have about the same level of satisfaction now as a cheap cheeseburger at Burger Waste™, as compared to the complex nuances of fine meal prepared by a culinary artist at a high end restaurant.

 

lol :lmao: I can see that. But I still like definite, if not easy, answers.

 

Truth is dynamic and personal, not static and inflexible. That sort of system is contrary to the nature of nature. “God” if one is to use that symbol has to be flexible enough to change with the people who use it. If that symbol is not allowed to move with the evolution of society, then it will become a dead language that no one uses anymore. God’s die all the time. Guess why?

 

Still seems to me that there are some truths that are rather inflexible and impersonal. I assume you are restricting your meaning to the concept of "God" in this sentence and not extending it to the physical laws of nature. I understand that the concept of God must be meaningful to the society in which the people are, otherwise it becomes a dead symbol with no meaning. That is one reason why the Christian God concept doesn't work in the modern world.

 

The field was wide open after I realized Christianity was man-made and false.
That’s where I would get rid of the word ‘false’, and instead say something more like, “man-made and reflective of human ideas at the time, some outdated and even quaint by today’s standards, and some timeless truisms for humanity expressed through the language of myth of the day.” You see, in that sense it some areas it ‘contains’ and expresses some common human truths. Rather than a blanket statement of 'false'.

 

Probably I should rephrase to say that for me "most ideas and/or symbols in the Christian religion are false," because some of them, such as the messiah, avatar thing, do still hold some meaning for me. But for most of it I would still apply that word to. There are some truisms for humanity in Christianity, but these are also found in other religions.

 

It’s really more a matter of saying that the notion the symbols are factual, as in historical and scientific realities, is what is false. It’s not the Bible, per se, but people’s ideas about it being literal facts that is the error. This way I disagree with the person’s ideas about a book, rather than arguing against the book itself which is just a thing.

Yes, this is a huge problem and I am sure you would agree with me that creationism was an inappropriate use of the symbols! Really that was what made me leave the Baptist church. The were forcing this complete foolishness on us. I said "this is totally false," and left.

 

Even to this day, I don’t think I could fully divorce that literalist meaning applied to the myth symbols where I could actually use them as an aesthetic language.

I have a friend who is able to do this, but I can't. It still seems dishonest to me. My guess is that it is because she never bought into the literal understanding, whereas I did.

 

Symbols. Those symbols haven’t been polluted for you. To some people, the Christian symbols haven’t been polluted and are still usable.

 

Maybe so, but avatars, messiahs as a general principal. I can't understand it when people use a specific name - Jesus Christ - to mean a figure that is different than how Christianity has always defined him. I still have a problem with that. I think there is a difference, it seems dishonest.

 

I would say that the aesthetic quality can enhance an intellectual appreciation, or understanding. That’s the thing that science doesn’t bring – nor should it since that’s not its function, anymore than a screwdriver is used to spice food.

 

I agree with you.

 

I use the word atheist to describe myself, but I see it as the opening of the door to possibilities. (Back to breaking open that closed system of God in religion). But really I suppose the better to describe myself would be more as an aesthetic atheist. I actually take my non-theistic view and try to go somewhere with it, into philosophies that are open ended questions, rather than definitive answers.

 

We have different definitions of that word. To me, it is closed off to the notion of the possible reality of god and that is limiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    36

  • Antlerman

    27

  • Deva

    22

  • Kratos

    21

If one would care to look up my acquaintance Wrath James White, author, free fighter, atheist, and one of nature's gentlemen, says pretty much the same sort of thing across his blog as AM does... if anyone posts a comment on his blog, tell him 'Har' sent you...

 

Words of Wrath

Yes, he and I sound a lot alike. As well we should. It’s the Real Truth™ ;)

 

WJW is also one of the nicest people I know, which is unusual for published authors, who seem to suffer with a rampaging inadequacy problem most times... Wrath is, well, Wrath. I love him dearly, although his brand of visceral psychosexual horror isn't me...

 

He's well past the rant phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Antlerman, here is the actual conclusion from the book on atheism:

 

“… what about the atheists who came from religious backgrounds? …….These “amazing atheists” …. somehow went against their rather strong religious training and cast it all aside. They did not simply stop going to church and become “lapsed Catholics” and “inactive Protestants” or “cultural Jews.” They dropped all their religious beliefs, starting with “I believe in God…” How on earth could their socialization fail so completely? Don’t psychologists believe child rearing determines everything else?

 

Maybe their socialization did not fail, but instead worked too well. In 1994-1995 we surveyed over four thousand Canadian university students, and identified those very few (fifty-eight) who had come from strong religious backgrounds but had since dropped the family religion. We managed to interview most (46) of these “Amazing Apostates,” searching for the reasons behind their dramatic change. More than anything else, they said they gave up their faith because they could not make themselves believe what they had been taught. Often they indicated they truly wished they could believe. Often they had paid a huge price in terms of ruptured family ties and lost friends for giving up their religion. Often they felt guilty, or isolated, or unsure of what to believe instead. But when asked, in effect, “Why not go back then?” they answered---almost without exception—that they simply could not make themselves believe what was unbelievable. They had concluded that what they had been taught all their lives was not true.

 

Where had this dedication to truth come from? We concluded that, ironically, it had mainly resulted from the training itself. The family religion had been presented as the one, true religion. That made it wonderful: It was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. The children had also been taught to do the right thing, to have integrity. But when questions arose that could not be answered, the commitment to home religion came in second to the commitment to truth. And they had trouble accepting things “on faith” because their well-developed personal integrity meant they had to believe what they professed. They were trapped, as some of them said, and had no other choice. So as a first cause, their upbringing was not repudiated by their apostasy but startlingly fulfilled by it.

…..Our “amazing apostates’ had usually been quite devout earlier in their lives, and still cared a great deal about religious issues. If they had cared less, if their home religion had not fostered a strong drive for the truth and integrity in them, and if they had not overcome their fear of going it alone, they probably would not have quit it.

[edit]

Such people are rare. We asked thousands of students in the total study if they had ever had doubts about their family religion. To our surprise, most said yes, including those from strong religious backgrounds. But in most of these latter cases they simply dropped the questions, or resolved them in their religion’s favor. They tended to search for answers from sources (e.g. parents and ministers) likely to confirm existing beliefs. Their search seemed as much for reassurance as anything else.”

Atheists – A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers – by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, pgs. 42-45.

 

What do you think? The authors are psychology professors. I guess the real word was "integrity" and not "honesty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Antlerman, here is the actual conclusion from the book on atheism:

 

“… what about the atheists who came from religious backgrounds? …….These “amazing atheists” …. somehow went against their rather strong religious training and cast it all aside. They did not simply stop going to church and become “lapsed Catholics” and “inactive Protestants” or “cultural Jews.” They dropped all their religious beliefs, starting with “I believe in God…” How on earth could their socialization fail so completely? Don’t psychologists believe child rearing determines everything else?

 

Maybe their socialization did not fail, but instead worked too well. In 1994-1995 we surveyed over four thousand Canadian university students, and identified those very few (fifty-eight) who had come from strong religious backgrounds but had since dropped the family religion. We managed to interview most (46) of these “Amazing Apostates,” searching for the reasons behind their dramatic change. More than anything else, they said they gave up their faith because they could not make themselves believe what they had been taught. Often they indicated they truly wished they could believe. Often they had paid a huge price in terms of ruptured family ties and lost friends for giving up their religion. Often they felt guilty, or isolated, or unsure of what to believe instead. But when asked, in effect, “Why not go back then?” they answered---almost without exception—that they simply could not make themselves believe what was unbelievable. They had concluded that what they had been taught all their lives was not true.

 

Where had this dedication to truth come from? We concluded that, ironically, it had mainly resulted from the training itself. The family religion had been presented as the one, true religion. That made it wonderful: It was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. The children had also been taught to do the right thing, to have integrity. But when questions arose that could not be answered, the commitment to home religion came in second to the commitment to truth. And they had trouble accepting things “on faith” because their well-developed personal integrity meant they had to believe what they professed. They were trapped, as some of them said, and had no other choice. So as a first cause, their upbringing was not repudiated by their apostasy but startlingly fulfilled by it.

…..Our “amazing apostates’ had usually been quite devout earlier in their lives, and still cared a great deal about religious issues. If they had cared less, if their home religion had not fostered a strong drive for the truth and integrity in them, and if they had not overcome their fear of going it alone, they probably would not have quit it.

[edit]

Such people are rare. We asked thousands of students in the total study if they had ever had doubts about their family religion. To our surprise, most said yes, including those from strong religious backgrounds. But in most of these latter cases they simply dropped the questions, or resolved them in their religion’s favor. They tended to search for answers from sources (e.g. parents and ministers) likely to confirm existing beliefs. Their search seemed as much for reassurance as anything else.”

Atheists – A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers – by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, pgs. 42-45.

 

What do you think? The authors are psychology professors. I guess the real word was "integrity" and not "honesty."

Yes, thanks this helps clarify. My thoughts? It does go along with what my thoughts have been that it centers on an approach to truth.

 

This is going to maybe get complex but I want to flesh it out here a little. I would agree that it is a matter of “integrity”. I use the words sincerity and insincerity. If someone has been taught to approach knowledge in terms of right and wrong, true and false, with sharply defined lines of high contrast black and white, then as they see the integrity of the belief as questionable, it creates and unbalance for them that needs to be resolved. They need to now find out what is the *real* truth then. This becomes a shifting of camps of truth from one to another; whether that is a different cult with its version, of truth or to a complete abandonment of theistic-based truth to an atheistic-based truth like philosophical materialism.

 

Their upbringing has conditioned them to approach knowledge in these terms and to be true to what holds up best to them as the Truth. In this sense they are acting sincerely, and in all honesty I see atheists as being of a higher level of exercising personal integrity for being true to their beliefs at the cost of social standing. This is what makes them more “rare” than otherwise. It doesn’t make them more true, per se, but rather it’s a greater test of their resolve. It takes a certain emotional fortitude to make a stand against the flow, so to speak. However the same thing can be said for those who become Christians and go against the mainstream of their own culture.

 

As a hopefully brief footnote: I very much believe that modern atheists are essentially like the early Christians were in their culture. The reason I say this is because they were breaking with the mainstream religious thought, in essence they were anti-establishment. The language of their day was set in religious language, and so they challenged the prevailing religious/social views in revising the language about God. God was no longer about legalistic observance of laws which had led to exclusivist attitudes of “us and them”, righteous and unrighteous, etc. They saw the social ills that came from this and revised the language of God to be more socially inclusive. It was changing language for the sake of social reformation. God changed to fit changing social values.

 

The Pharisees exemplified the opposite of these humanistic values that Christianity was trying to introduce. Ironically, the Biblical Literalist/Fundamentalists are identical to the Pharisees in this regard. They take what were originally humanist principles and make them religious laws to be obeyed that will define one’s righteousness. It’s dogma and completely miss the spirit behind the language. They are interested in Truth™, and don’t understand the heart behind it.

 

What I see with modern Humanism and now in the rise of the voice of atheism is this shedding of the language of Institutional religious language in favor of a revised language – except in this case post-enlightenment philosophies are giving a new expanded vocabulary and a broader humanistic perspective. Modern religion had begun adopting this language, by taking faith to be more of an Existential Leap beyond rationality, changing it to be more inclusive socially/globally. So thus was born the back-lash of Fundamentalism against this to get back to the more “traditional” use of religion as a language of social order. In essence, Fundamentalists are Modern day Pharisees.

 

Humanism/atheism in the West is essentially displaced Christians. :grin: (Sorry everyone) It’s all the values of Jesus-on-a-good-day Western secular Christianity that is more humanistic in values. It’s just simply changing the language to not incorporate all the supernatural, authoritarian, conservative social religiosity. So what you have going way back is the Jewish religion being a language of a society; becoming an Institution of Religion and excluding others; being revised to become Christianity to include others and reflect changes in society; becoming itself an Institution of Religion and excluding others; again being revised to become humanism/atheism to include everyone and speak to a changing society.

 

Modern atheists are much like the early Christians in going against the status quo, in challenging the ideas and the language of the prevailing religious culture. It does take someone of strong emotional fortitude to stand against the prevailing culture, just as early Christians did. In fact early Christians were said to deny God because of their rejection of the prevailing ideas, yet in essence they were denying God meant what the religious society had defined God as meaning. This is what I say too.

 

I don’t deny God, if God is defined as reflecting ideals of love and compassion. But I deny God as supernatural being one must pay homage to in obedience to a religious culture’s social norms. God is a symbol, not a Being. This is why the Modern Christian Pharisees hate modernity in religion, because if God is not a living, independent authoritarian Being, then they can’t use him to force their social values on others. People are defining God, and they could loose control of the traditional good ‘ole fashioned values they grew up with! Humanists are really the modern Christians, in effect, saying the God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings. They’re just saying it’s not about God, its about human values!

 

Underneath it all is human values, and corruptions of power back and forth. They’re all just languages of the same thing, and its struggle to remain dynamic to change with societies needs. The Institution is always one step out of time with society. It’s all the same thing.

 

Ok so all that long footnote for this point: Part of that needed change in society is an opening of philosophy to be more inclusive. Changing from one black and white system of Truthâ„¢ to another, does not address inclusiveness in a global society. In order to be able to respect other cultures, we can’t take an attitude of right/wrong since those are subjective value judgments, and frankly is lacking in integrity as objective support rarely exists. Becoming and Atheist™ really can be a new religion. "We're Right, and they're wrong!"

 

I see the language needing a whole paradigm shift away from the tribal god syndrome of absolutes of truth, to the universal God motif of inclusiveness of other perspectives. Language has to be adaptive to work, and ideas of static truth do not allow for that. Nobody's right or wrong. Everyone's right and wrong.

 

This was rather long, and I’m not sure I made my point clearly. But I’ll post it for now and see if it makes any sense later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please bear with me as I try to wrap my literalistic mode of thinking around your last post and provide a few rambling thoughts as I was reading it.

 

The section on atheists I quoted from the book applied to those atheists who were raised in a strict religious home. The conclusion was that the “truth” was presented to them in a certain definite form and when their questions could not be answered, their integrity and commitment to truth compelled them to reject it. It was a matter of dedication to the truth, no matter what the cost. That requires a high level of intellectual honesty.

 

I am puzzled by how you use the term “atheist.” You do not deny the reality of God as a symbol. You deny God as a living being somewhere “out there.” Yet you say this attitude frees you or opens up possibilities for you. I don’t quite see that. I agree that certainly God is a symbol or a concept, yet at the same time I am not ready to close myself off to the possibility that there might be a living being sort of God. I am not sure you aren’t just redefining God. Are you? If so, I would not use the word “atheist.” Under that definition, I am also an atheist.

 

Right now (always subject to change) I don’t believe or disbelieve, I just hold myself open to the possibility. As Hans said in his earlier post, God is made in the image of humans. That’s true, but there may be something else we don’t know. Perhaps we ourselves are Gods, as the writers of the Upanishads say. Maybe God IS nature (pantheism). There are many possibilities, as I am sure you know. Do I think some separate being God is going to come along and “save” me? Absolutely not, I have to work things out for myself. Self-knowledge is salvation.

 

Christian fundamentalism of the variety I was raised in arose as a reaction against the liberal theology and scientific discoveries that took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Christians felt threatened because the authority of the scriptures was being subverted. No evidence of a creator God, life evolved, etc. So they reacted and became strict and unbending on the “fundamentals.” These were doctrinal beliefs. I agree with the fundamentalist Christians being the equivalent of Pharisees and trying to force their legalistic observance of laws on others. That came later, after these doctrinal statements were in place and society became more permissive. I don’t deny for a moment the repulsive nature of their “laws” but I didn’t leave Christianity over the social values issue. I know the issue of social values still keeps some people in Christianity. They think without Christianity there would be no social values, but anarchy. Of course I don’t buy that. I left because they were trying to deny modern science. I felt the way you did over in the Big Bang thread recently.

 

You said in another post:

“As I see the world now, there is no inherent meaning or value to anything. The inherent value of everything in the universe is a complete Neutral. Meaning is something humans apply as a value judgment, and that value can be anywhere from good to bad depending on what perspective it's being looked at. Something becomes good or becomes bad by how it's used. And if we make the mistake of overvaluing something, say taking a person in our lives and placing them on a high pedestal, when they fail to live up to our expectations, we experience a Great Disappointment. Then generally what happens is we will take our feelings of disillusionment and blame them for it.”

 

I think this is true-- but also difficult for me to fully realize, understand and work out in some respects. Agreed that there is no “inherent” meaning or value but we do make our own meaning and value. So it is there, and it is essential. We have to have meaning. That is what philosophy and religion is all about. We know it takes many different forms. One of the great human tendencies is to set someone up on a high pedestal and worship them. There are many good reasons for this. It may be the result of trying to find a substitute parent to tell us what to do when we are confused. It seems to me that this impulse may also be very closely allied to the aesthetic sense --seeing something very beautiful and being very grateful because it is there.

 

Language may need a paradigm shift, but it isn’t here yet. Even commonly used words “Christianity”, “Jesus Christ” don’t mean the same things they used to. I have to know if I am speaking to a fundamentalist or a Christian Universalist before I know what they mean. You tend to speak in a more general sense and I like to get down to specific examples. “The universal motif of inclusiveness of other perspectives” would be nice to achieve, but it can’t happen when people insist on being tied to a sacred scripture, where a certain symbol is defined precisely, and there are sure a lot of those people out there. If the liberal churches would take the final logical step of throwing out the “holy book” altogether, I would be back in it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Krackpot has stopped posting? After all, we'd not discussed (disgust?) his primitive view of women and how that arose from Paul being carnally minded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Krackpot has stopped posting? After all, we'd not discussed (disgust?) his primitive view of women and how that arose from Paul being carnally minded...

 

I don't know, maybe he couldn't handle the truth? Anyway, I'm not missing him. He was really irritating me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Krackpot has stopped posting? After all, we'd not discussed (disgust?) his primitive view of women and how that arose from Paul being carnally minded...

 

I don't know, maybe he couldn't handle the truth? Anyway, I'm not missing him. He was really irritating me.

 

A fie on thee woman... know thy place! :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The section on atheists I quoted from the book applied to those atheists who were raised in a strict religious home. The conclusion was that the “truth” was presented to them in a certain definite form and when their questions could not be answered, their integrity and commitment to truth compelled them to reject it. It was a matter of dedication to the truth, no matter what the cost. That requires a high level of intellectual honesty.

I am in agreement with this. Although I would add to the last sentence, it also requires a very strong emotional ability. There was a thread awhile back where I got into talking about the difference between IQ (intelligence quotient) and EQ (emotional quotient). De-conversions, if not done as acts of rebellion but a fully rational choice, are less dependent on someone’s IQ as they are on their EQ.

 

I suppose intellectual honesty could be defined by someone’s emotional ability to face the rational conflict and act upon it with integrity to resolve it. Those who rationalize and excuse away their own conflict are not dealing with it emotionally, but living in denial, or as I prefer to call it, ‘living insincerely’ (which is what I usually mean when I say to some Christians that they are insincere, as I did earlier in this thread).

 

I am puzzled by how you use the term “atheist.” You do not deny the reality of God as a symbol. You deny God as a living being somewhere “out there.” Yet you say this attitude frees you or opens up possibilities for you. I don’t quite see that. I agree that certainly God is a symbol or a concept, yet at the same time I am not ready to close myself off to the possibility that there might be a living being sort of God. I am not sure you aren’t just redefining God. Are you? If so, I would not use the word “atheist.” Under that definition, I am also an atheist.

I think part of the problem is that the term atheist has been colored by how the church painted what being an atheist means; someone who denies the de facto assumption of God’s existence. I consider that bogus. In the strictest sense of the word atheist simply means the absence of a belief in God. It doesn’t have to suggest an active denial of God at all, since that implies that there is a God to actively deny. That’s what I mean by a painting of atheists as being against the default position of God’s existence. In reality, it simply means it doesn’t include a belief into one’s world view.

 

Of course I don’t deny the reality of God as a symbol. That is how I see the essence of God. God is symbol of ideas that come from human beings. God is in essence made up of us – our ideas, our hopes, our aspirations, our dark sides, our loving sides, etc, etc. I can no more deny that as a reality than I can deny that the word Love is also a living Idea that people look to as an external thing that has an essence, if you will, of both emotional substance and cognitive conceptions of what it should look like. But love comes from us. We create the Being of God in the same way.

 

In fact, I’ll carry this idea one step further. God is eternal to us, because of how we view these sorts of Super-Ego manifestations as greater than us. Our ideas are seen as everlasting, because they survive the death of one generation to the next. This is our sense of our own eternal nature, if you will. It’s how we see ourselves as continuing beyond our own death. Our essence survives – in living ideas. We see ourselves beyond death, and represent this with mythological symbols of a life beyond this one.

 

As far as being an atheist means closing doors to the possible existence of God, I don’t agree with that portrait of an atheist. As a rational person with respect for science, there can be no cap of impossibility put on anything, and remain intellectually honest. Since we can’t know everything, anything is possible. I am open to that. But this does not make me unable to take a position of belief based on current knowledge.

 

I see everything on a sliding scale of more likely to less likely. If something is more likely, then I will go with that until new information comes along for consideration, then at that point I may make a change in how I understand things and choose to act upon them. The opposite is also true, where if something is extremely improbable after an evaluation of it, I will for all intents and purposes “not believe” in it and subsequently not act upon it. But of course, if better information comes along that is well founded, then it will move further up on the scale of probability and possible become something to incorporate into a position of belief that allows me to act upon it with confidence.

 

This is what it means to be an atheist: Based on the arguments put forth for the evidence of God (as defined as a sentient, independent, self-existing Being), since it is clearly not a self-evident reality, I see it as so improbable as to not be believable. Therefore in my beliefs, there is no god to believe in and consequently act upon. I therefore am a-theist in my beliefs (I am also a-leprechaun too for that matter). But I am of course open to possibilities.

 

Based on this, I argue that those who say they are agnostic are most likely atheists, unless they are truly 50/50 undecided on the question. If they are truly ambivalent on the question, then they really are unknowing. If we define not knowing something 100% of the way as being agnostic, then everyone in the entire world in regards to everything, including beliefs about God, are agnostics. No one can know anything 100%. Yet for all intents and purposes, it is proper to say we don’t believe something. It’s how our language is structure to work.

 

Right now (always subject to change) I don’t believe or disbelieve, I just hold myself open to the possibility.

As do I hold myself open to possibilities, but it is fair to say I don’t actively believe in a God. Any atheist who says God is a100% impossibility is not a rational thinker. That’s a full blown religious belief at that point.

 

As Hans said in his earlier post, God is made in the image of humans. That’s true, but there may be something else we don’t know. Perhaps we ourselves are Gods, as the writers of the Upanishads say. Maybe God IS nature (pantheism). There are many possibilities, as I am sure you know. Do I think some separate being God is going to come along and “save” me? Absolutely not, I have to work things out for myself. Self-knowledge is salvation.

Well, I think I’ve said this here on this site approaching the ten thousandth time soon, that man creates God in his own image. What I’ve been driving at for some time is the recognition of humanity in the symbol of God. It’s really complex to explain in one posting, but to recognize that God is us, is the key to maybe moving beyond tribal gods at the borders of cultural lands, and see the humanity behind all of it. People create gods for a lot of reasons.

 

At best what I see is humanity in a created image of itself that is greater than the individual, or the generation of the society that the individual participated in. In this sense God does exist – as a sort of memetic entity; a pool of ideas that has the qualities of a biological organism in that it interacts with its environment, is sustained by its environment, changes and evolves to adapt to its environment, contributes to its environment, influences its environment, and changes its environment. It exists beyond any one thing that feeds it, yet is dependent on the organisms in its world to sustain it and define its form. If all the organisms that allowed it to come into being and sustains it die off, then what is left is only the residual effects of its once presence.

 

One day God will die. When all humans are gone, and the influence of them in the universe has equalized into nothingness, then God will be no more. God is a creation of Life. Not the other way around. God is humanity’s created extension of itself. It’s all become this huge symbiotic relationship. Man creates God and feeds God, so God can create man in His own image and sustain him, so he can sustain God, etc. (see this for an interesting take on this: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=15020 )

 

Then the real question is this, does God as such have any value then? And is it a usable symbol if it is allowed to evolve to fit the current society as it has throughout the ages? Personally, I see God as finally coming out of heaven down to earth soon, as humanity recognizes God is inside them, that they are God. “The kingdom of God is within you…” We are The Idea. We are The Logos.

 

:grin:

 

(But we may well blow ourselves to hell before that happens because we weren’t ready for that terrible truth).

 

I agree with the fundamentalist Christians being the equivalent of Pharisees and trying to force their legalistic observance of laws on others. That came later, after these doctrinal statements were in place and society became more permissive. I don’t deny for a moment the repulsive nature of their “laws” but I didn’t leave Christianity over the social values issue. I know the issue of social values still keeps some people in Christianity. They think without Christianity there would be no social values, but anarchy. Of course I don’t buy that. I left because they were trying to deny modern science. I felt the way you did over in the Big Bang thread recently.

I think the better way for me to have put it would be to say “social sensibilities”. These include social issues, such as equal rights, etc, but they are based on the influx of new ideas which influence peoples ideas of what truth is, what things are valuable, and what things need to change. Fundamentalism by definition is reactionary. It was created in response to Modernity in religion, which was occurring because of shifts in world views, in sensibilities.

 

What causes this shift is exposure to knowledge, the opening up of the borders. In history, you have originally tribal deities with defined borders. People inside the borders were of those gods. In time as these lands become part of a global empire, other gods and customs intermingle with these people and their gods. As they are exposed to other views and other gods, they begin to blend and evolve in order to be sustained in that new environment (back to my analogy above about the idea organism). This is what happened to Jehovah, all the way from being one of many gods, to becoming the universal god that exists outside the borders of Palestine, to the God of Eternal Love taking on the characteristics of other savior god/men and coming to earth to save us.

 

That to say that fundamentalism is about stopping God from evolving. It will fail because people create God and people change. The only absolute in the universe is change. Evolution sustains life, and if God can’t evolve, then God dies.

 

So did you leave over changing in sensibilities? I would say yes. You saw the value of the ideas of science. You are part of your society that values this. As part of that society, you changed with it in order to better survive in it. You evolved. God as defined as how fundamentalist defined Him wasn’t working for you, because you saw the world beyond that tribal god’s borders. You’ve chosen to be apart of this changing society, rather than retreated in the illusion of safety from necessary change in order to change. You were strong enough emotionally to undergo this metamorphosis. Commendable indeed. :Medal:

 

Language may need a paradigm shift, but it isn’t here yet. Even commonly used words “Christianity”, “Jesus Christ” don’t mean the same things they used to. I have to know if I am speaking to a fundamentalist or a Christian Universalist before I know what they mean.

Bear with me for a moment. I don’t know that we need to know what they are first in order to understand how they use those words. In the most basic sense they are using them to talk about their views. Period. With that in mind, I listen to what those views are and whether I agree with them and find value in those views, or if find them outdated ideas, or even outright revolting. In this sense I’m not talking to Christian. I’m talking to a human being. And as with any human being, I’m going to either embrace or reject them based on who they are, which is shaped by their beliefs and actions based on them.

 

If someone talks about how God loves everyone, what I hear is someone who loves everyone. Wonderful! I hear God being a word of poetic heights expressing something transcendent in their hearts. I greatly value that. But if I hear someone say God’s order of nature has woman beneath man, then I hear a human being who has issues, where he hangs onto outdated views in a society whose sensibilities has grown beyond the days where women were viewed as property. In that person, God is way far away from an expression of poetic proportions, but an excuse against taking responsibility towards the society they are part of, and is possibly a weapon to subdue and selfishly control others. God then becomes a symbol to others of that person’s fear and cowardice to move out from behind those symbols of excuse and face the world as an equal.

 

Is the language changing? Fundamentalism was born and currently continues because it is. Eventually, as society incorporates these new sensibilities over generations, then fundamentalism will grow smaller and smaller until it is nothing more than a tiny zit on the buttocks of society. This happens as new generations replace older ones, and it’s already happening right now within Christian fundamentalism.

 

You tend to speak in a more general sense and I like to get down to specific examples. “The universal motif of inclusiveness of other perspectives” would be nice to achieve, but it can’t happen when people insist on being tied to a sacred scripture, where a certain symbol is defined precisely, and there are sure a lot of those people out there. If the liberal churches would take the final logical step of throwing out the “holy book” altogether, I would be back in it today.

I don’t agree that throwing the book out is necessary at all. The book is being adapted to the sensibilities of culture in a world of global ideas. That’s why fundamentalism was created, as a reaction to that. Modern scholarship recognizes the human origins of the Bible, and the non-literal understanding of it. The “liberal” Christian takes the humanistic value of it, and expresses it in the language of God. The majority of Christians don’t take the text as literally factual, per se. It’s more a matter of the stories being “true” by virtue of the message of them. That’s what mythology does. That’s what it’s for. Whether it’s religious mythologies, or secular ones.

 

If anything, I’d argue that the liberals are more like the early Christians in this regard, than what fundamentalists are. Most people in religions are not strict literalists, even though they say they “believe” the stories. Religious symbols are social symbols. It’s all intertwined. But to the fundamentalist, those symbols are about conservative social ideas.

 

It’s really interesting to hear you say that if they got rid of the Bible you “would be in it today”. Take what you said there and apply it to what I said in the previous post,

Humanism/atheism in the West is essentially displaced Christians.
:grin:
(Sorry everyone) It’s all the values of Jesus-on-a-good-day Western secular Christianity that is more humanistic in values. It’s just simply changing the language to not incorporate all the supernatural, authoritarian, conservative social religiosity.

It rings true, doesn’t it? You identify with Christianity, as do all of us. Not because of using mythological symbols, but with the core cultural values. This is why humanism came into being. As the church pushed back on social changes happening within its ranks in the 70’s (equal rights for women, racial equality, etc), using God to turn back the clock on social change, people started leaving the church. Humanism became the new home for these displaced “Secular/Cultural Christians”.

 

A funny footnote: I’m friends with some people from Turkey. And when I told one of them I was not a Christian, the look on her face was absolute puzzlement. To them everyone in the West are Christians. Even though not everyone believes in Jesus, per se, they are products of the Christian West. (Tough pill to swallow, I’m sure when we try to assert an identity other than that!).

 

So, may I offer a suggestion? The reason it appeals to you is because it’s the language of you culture. It’s easier to use words like this, if they didn’t have the literal meaning attached to them. That’s the dilemma right now. A new mythos has to evolve the current one, or another needs to replace it. I see the former as the more likely event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem is that the term atheist has been colored by how the church painted what being an atheist means; someone who denies the de facto assumption of God’s existence. I consider that bogus. In the strictest sense of the word atheist simply means the absence of a belief in God. It doesn’t have to suggest an active denial of God at all, since that implies that there is a God to actively deny. That’s what I mean by a painting of atheists as being against the default position of God’s existence. In reality, it simply means it doesn’t include a belief into one’s world view.

 

Of course I don’t deny the reality of God as a symbol. That is how I see the essence of God. God is symbol of ideas that come from human beings. God is in essence made up of us – our ideas, our hopes, our aspirations, our dark sides, our loving sides, etc, etc.

 

Thank you for defining what you mean by "atheist." It is clear that to me it was another definition, which you do not accept.

 

I see everything on a sliding scale of more likely to less likely. If something is more likely, then I will go with that until new information comes along for consideration, then at that point I may make a change in how I understand things and choose to act upon them. The opposite is also true, where if something is extremely improbable after an evaluation of it, I will for all intents and purposes “not believe” in it and subsequently not act upon it. But of course, if better information comes along that is well founded, then it will move further up on the scale of probability and possible become something to incorporate into a position of belief that allows me to act upon it with confidence.

 

Agreed. All we have are probabilities. One of the problems I had with fundamentalism was the idea that beliefs can be "certain." It nearly drove me crazy.

 

Then the real question is this, does God as such have any value then? And is it a usable symbol if it is allowed to evolve to fit the current society as it has throughout the ages? Personally, I see God as finally coming out of heaven down to earth soon, as humanity recognizes God is inside them, that they are God. “The kingdom of God is within you…” We are The Idea. We are The Logos.

 

Agreed. And it has been said many times before. People just don't want to understand it. I hope things do change and the true meaning of what Christ said will again be known.

 

That to say that fundamentalism is about stopping God from evolving. It will fail because people create God and people change. The only absolute in the universe is change. Evolution sustains life, and if God can’t evolve, then God dies.

 

That's right. Fundamentalists do not admit to God changing at all. Neither will they change what they mean by the word. He is forever the same. Somehow this is supposed to be comforting.

 

So did you leave over changing in sensibilities? I would say yes. You saw the value of the ideas of science. You are part of your society that values this. As part of that society, you changed with it in order to better survive in it. You evolved. God as defined as how fundamentalist defined Him wasn’t working for you, because you saw the world beyond that tribal god’s borders. You’ve chosen to be apart of this changing society, rather than retreated in the illusion of safety from necessary change in order to change. You were strong enough emotionally to undergo this metamorphosis. Commendable indeed. :Medal:

 

Yes. Thank you very much for the compliment :grin:

 

Bear with me for a moment. I don’t know that we need to know what they are first in order to understand how they use those words. In the most basic sense they are using them to talk about their views. Period. With that in mind, I listen to what those views are and whether I agree with them and find value in those views, or if find them outdated ideas, or even outright revolting. In this sense I’m not talking to Christian. I’m talking to a human being. And as with any human being, I’m going to either embrace or reject them based on who they are, which is shaped by their beliefs and actions based on them.

 

If someone talks about how God loves everyone, what I hear is someone who loves everyone. Wonderful! I hear God being a word of poetic heights expressing something transcendent in their hearts. I greatly value that. But if I hear someone say God’s order of nature has woman beneath man, then I hear a human being who has issues, where he hangs onto outdated views in a society whose sensibilities has grown beyond the days where women were viewed as property. In that person, God is way far away from an expression of poetic proportions, but an excuse against taking responsibility towards the society they are part of, and is possibly a weapon to subdue and selfishly control others. God then becomes a symbol to others of that person’s fear and cowardice to move out from behind those symbols of excuse and face the world as an equal.

 

OK. Now I think that I understand you much better.

 

It’s really interesting to hear you say that if they got rid of the Bible you “would be in it today”.

 

So you don't agree with throwing the book out. May I turn the question back at you and ask what, if anything, would enable you to go to a liberal church?

 

I'm afraid you rather lost me from this part to the end. Maybe you could put it in another way? Also, I admit that I probably said "throw out the holy book" for dramatic effect. It certainly wouldn't hurt if they did that, but there are also other things that bother me too, such as prayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman, I am still thinking about what you said and how you define atheism.

 

If I am completely honest with myself, I see almost no probability of the existence of a god being "out there". I am really not the fence-sitter 50-50 type, neither believe nor disbelieve. At one time, maybe I was, but I could go with atheism as you defined it. I never heard it presented that way before.

 

Thanks for really making me think about this. Also, writing out my thoughts has helped me clarify things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear with me for a moment. I don’t know that we need to know what they are first in order to understand how they use those words. In the most basic sense they are using them to talk about their views. Period. With that in mind, I listen to what those views are and whether I agree with them and find value in those views, or if find them outdated ideas, or even outright revolting. In this sense I’m not talking to Christian. I’m talking to a human being. And as with any human being, I’m going to either embrace or reject them based on who they are, which is shaped by their beliefs and actions based on them.

 

If someone talks about how God loves everyone, what I hear is someone who loves everyone. Wonderful! I hear God being a word of poetic heights expressing something transcendent in their hearts. I greatly value that. But if I hear someone say God’s order of nature has woman beneath man, then I hear a human being who has issues, where he hangs onto outdated views in a society whose sensibilities has grown beyond the days where women were viewed as property. In that person, God is way far away from an expression of poetic proportions, but an excuse against taking responsibility towards the society they are part of, and is possibly a weapon to subdue and selfishly control others. God then becomes a symbol to others of that person’s fear and cowardice to move out from behind those symbols of excuse and face the world as an equal.

 

OK. Now I think that I understand you much better.

Good. Now you can explain me to everyone else who is left scratching their heads at what the hell I'm trying to say. :HaHa:

 

It’s really interesting to hear you say that if they got rid of the Bible you “would be in it today”.

 

So you don't agree with throwing the book out. May I turn the question back at you and ask what, if anything, would enable you to go to a liberal church?

Yikes. That's an interesting question. Again, this is somewhat complicated. The answer would have to do with the aesthetic side of humanity. It has to do with language, and it has to do with existentialism.

 

The only real validity for Christianity as I see it would be to move into a true Existential Leap of Faith. A “leap of faith” is not one that flies against the face of reason in order to prop up a belief, essentially twisting rationality into irrationality. Rather it would be a faith that openly acknowledged that it has no support in rational thought whatsoever but is believed simply for the sake of belief itself. In other words it leaps beyond rationality for the sake of experience. That to me would be the only intellectually honest approach to faith, where it simply embraces irrationality as it is for the benefits of faith.

 

It’s sort of like the joy of belief that a child has about Santa that comes from faith. In adults of course this would be called a delusion, yet in a child it’s called an active imagination. But in theater and stories, adults suspend disbelief all the time for the sake of experience. When the adult walks away from that and are back in the real world, something of that experience comes with them. It’s added to their whole person. “Tell me the story again…” The images evoked become part of the experience of that person about themselves.

 

Now to the question of what it would take for me to be able to go to a liberal church. I think we are much more alike in this regard that the language of Christian mythology has become so entwined with literalism in our experiences that it would be difficult to extricate them and embrace them as vehicles of imagination. They were told to us they were facts. We approached them as facts, and when they failed to live up to the standard of rational thought applied to anything and everything claiming to be factual, they were expelled as non-fact. The only way they could continue to be accepted under that standard would be to shift over into emotional and intellectual dishonesty, which entirely defeated any benefits whatsoever that could come from embracing a good myth.

 

I suppose for me personally, if I were able to sufficiently embrace the myth as a language of spiritual expression where I would neither feel a need to defend it as fact to either myself or others that would be the first step. Beyond that, I would at this point in my life with exposure to so many other forms of this expression I’ve found, need to see where that would give me something more than what I have. I suppose that could be possible, since it is the language of myth I grew up with and am most familiar with.

 

Again beyond that, I would need to find a community that was of like mind, so all sorts of assumptions about me weren’t being made because I called myself a Christian. In other words, it would need to be a case where it didn’t create conflict in me or others. Then beyond that, I would need to feel it was beneficial to the system as a whole to be part of moving it forward into the future, away from the exclusivist views of its past. In other words, would it be better to not add myself to its ranks if it only made the negative stronger, or would I do it good as a voice of change from within?

 

I’m sure there are lots of other factors too that I’d have to weigh, but all in all it seems a long hurdle to overcome without a lot of impetus driving me to see the value in it.

 

I'm afraid you rather lost me from this part to the end. Maybe you could put it in another way? Also, I admit that I said "throw out the holy book" for dramatic effect. It certainly wouldn't hurt if they did that, but there are also other things that bother me to, such as prayer.

I’m not sure what confused you. I was saying that those raised in the West were raised with Christian values (those of Jesus-on-a-good-day). Our social sensibilities are intertwined with it. That’s why I see for a lot of people that being able to change Christianity sufficiently to meet the future, would be appealing for those in this culture. The language of our culture is tied into it. Humanism is essential atheistic/agnostic Christianity. It’s Secular Christianity, without the Christian name.

 

Does that help clarify?

 

P.S. Praying in Christianity is really using God as an external object for personal focused meditation. It’s something you do for you. You could pray to a rock and it would have the same effect. It can actually be a positive thing, so long as you don’t confuse what its for. (I personally don't practice it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This turned into a wonderful thread

 

Antlerman let me just say that I am gaining understanding of you much better by your words in this thread as of late

 

I never saw you as carnally minded, using the bible definition = death

 

to me death= would be killing the life in another or oneself. We do this all day long to each other in this life with our words and actions. We either give and support life or death.

 

life and death are in the power of the tongue

 

When we speak life to others, when we encourage them a little further into sensing the life within them and all around them. When we lift them up and thru our words and actions help them in some way to see a little further into themselves and into the unknown or into God in my speak, we are certainly not being carnally minded but life minded, bible terms spiritually minded.

 

I would love to go on a nature walk with ya Antlerman

 

At times this 'life' is so overwhelming its just amazing

 

I have what are called rain trees, in october the ends of the branches turn to little yellow flowers and when the wind blows they 'rain' golden flowers and cover the ground till its all golden. I get all inspired by that. That is just a little example to me of not being carnally minded in that catching the 'life' in that beautiful giving of the trees. As they lay down their beauty in humility and cover the gound making it a thing of beauty and leaving their branches becoming bare and exposed, well I get all as Alice would say 'aware'. To me that is very much alive in you and others here.

 

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real validity for Christianity as I see it would be to move into a true Existential Leap of Faith. A “leap of faith” is not one that flies against the face of reason in order to prop up a belief, essentially twisting rationality into irrationality. Rather it would be a faith that openly acknowledged that it has no support in rational thought whatsoever but is believed simply for the sake of belief itself. In other words it leaps beyond rationality for the sake of experience. That to me would be the only intellectually honest approach to faith, where it simply embraces irrationality as it is for the benefits of faith.

 

Yes, I wouldn't want to give up my irrational ideas. I know they are irrational in the sense that they cannot be proven, but some of them are beautiful. Why stifle the imagination?

 

 

Now to the question of what it would take for me to be able to go to a liberal church. I think we are much more alike in this regard that the language of Christian mythology has become so entwined with literalism in our experiences that it would be difficult to extricate them and embrace them as vehicles of imagination. They were told to us they were facts. We approached them as facts, and when they failed to live up to the standard of rational thought applied to anything and everything claiming to be factual, they were expelled as non-fact. The only way they could continue to be accepted under that standard would be to shift over into emotional and intellectual dishonesty, which entirely defeated any benefits whatsoever that could come from embracing a good myth.

 

Yes, this is how I saw it for years. That is why I couldn't reinterpret the Christian mythology. It was taught as literal fact and a sure thing. So, when I rejected it, I had to consider it to be all false and of no value. I went through that stage. I considered anything else to be dishonest. The value as a myth -I could not even go there.

 

I suppose for me personally, if I were able to sufficiently embrace the myth as a language of spiritual expression where I would neither feel a need to defend it as fact to either myself or others that would be the first step. Beyond that, I would at this point in my life with exposure to so many other forms of this expression I’ve found, need to see where that would give me something more than what I have. I suppose that could be possible, since it is the language of myth I grew up with and am most familiar with.

 

Again beyond that, I would need to find a community that was of like mind, so all sorts of assumptions about me weren’t being made because I called myself a Christian. In other words, it would need to be a case where it didn’t create conflict in me or others. Then beyond that, I would need to feel it was beneficial to the system as a whole to be part of moving it forward into the future, away from the exclusivist views of its past. In other words, would it be better to not add myself to its ranks if it only made the negative stronger, or would I do it good as a voice of change from within?

 

Yes, good luck to both of us to find that!! At one time I thought that I had. It was the friendliest church I had ever been in, liberal (Episcopal) and for a while I felt at home. But not 3 years had elapsed and I said "I can't do this anymore, I just don't believe it." Among other reasons --then I left. Another one was that after a while some of the people there seemed to have expectations of me, and I just can't deal with that. Yeah, there would be a lot of hurdles for me to cross too, before I would go back.

 

I’m not sure what confused you. I was saying that those raised in the West were raised with Christian values (those of Jesus-on-a-good-day). Our social sensibilities are intertwined with it. That’s why I see for a lot of people that being able to change Christianity sufficiently to meet the future, would be appealing for those in this culture. The language of our culture is tied into it. Humanism is essential atheistic/agnostic Christianity. It’s Secular Christianity, without the Christian name.

 

Yes, that was the confusing section. If all you are saying is that we are raised with Christian values and therefore it is not possible to leave it entirely behind, I agree with you. It is always going to be a part of me. If you are saying something else, you may have to rephrase it again.

 

Very interesting to see you say "atheistic/agnostic Christianity" I have never seen those words put together in that way before. Most would see them as mutually exclusive, but you are speaking of Christianity as symbol and myth, so I understand.

 

As far as prayer goes, I get prayer as meditation, but I just can't do it. It is something that doesn't make sense to me. Other forms of meditiation don't really either, not just Christian. Agreed that you could just as soon pray to a rock, or chant "Coca-Cola" over and over. What's the point?

 

And Sojourner, I want to go on that nature walk too!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DevaLight :grin: I sure wish we could go on that walk together! I would love that.

 

Then we could sit and listen to Grandpa Harley give us the details in the night sky as we star gaze.

 

I love the internet cause I meet so many wonderful people but on the flipside I cant be with them in person

 

I did get to meet some folks this past summer though from online, that was so fun. I will never forget it.

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DevaLight :grin: I sure wish we could go on that walk together! I would love that.

 

Then we could sit and listen to Grandpa Harley give us the details in the night sky as we star gaze.

 

I love the internet cause I meet so many wonderful people but on the flipside I cant be with them in person

 

I did get to meet some folks this past summer though from online, that was so fun. I will never forget it.

 

sojourner

 

OK Sojourner. Sounds like a great outing. Yes, there are wonderful people on the internet and a lot of them are right here on this site. So far, though, I have only had the pleasure of meeting one in person. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This turned into a wonderful thread

 

Antlerman let me just say that I am gaining understanding of you much better by your words in this thread as of late

 

I never saw you as carnally minded, using the bible definition = death

 

to me death= would be killing the life in another or oneself. We do this all day long to each other in this life with our words and actions. We either give and support life or death.

Wow. This was a powerful post. I’m going to try to offer some thoughts off of it.

 

Being carnally minded is inward looking, focused on the self to the point of not recognizing the world beyond the self. It is inward looking and leads to an isolation of being – or in a word, a spiritual death. Thinking beyond yourself opens you up to seeing others, and in seeing others we become greater than just the self. We move beyond the perception of separation and recognize that we are really just aspects of the whole. We are all one life.

 

In giving and supporting others we are opening ourselves to recognizing us in others and them in us, and beginning to see everything as facets of one thing: Life. It’s merely our “carnal” perception and language that creates the idea of separation. Here’s a scripture verse that comes to mind that you might find ties into this, “Greater love has no man than this than he lay down his life for a friend”. What this says is that individual has moved beyond the perception of separation and self, into a realm of recognizing that everything is one. “That they may all be one, as we are one”. This is the spiritual life, and one that supports life instead of death and separation.

 

life and death are in the power of the tongue

In more ways than you imagine. Words have the power to life and death. Our own words have the power to create prisons for our own minds and spirit, or to open the doors and set us free. Apply this to the law being death, and the sprit being life, and then tie that into the verse about the law being written on the heart. “Love works no ill”; “Love is the fulfilling of the law”. Now take all that and apply it to “the Word was God… all things were made through him… in him was life, and the life was the light of men…”. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” “Set your mind on things which are above…”, etc, etc, etc. Words of life, written on the heart.

 

See? :grin:

 

(This is why I say that there are some definite insights that human beings realized, then as now, to be found in places in scripture. They are just couched in the language of myth signs as vehicles of communication. It is ‘divine’, in the sense that we see these sorts of perceptions on the level of moving beyond the inward facing to seeing the whole as greater than the parts, i.e., carnality versus spirituality, to use those words).

 

When we speak life to others, when we encourage them a little further into sensing the life within them and all around them. When we lift them up and thru our words and actions help them in some way to see a little further into themselves and into the unknown or into God in my speak, we are certainly not being carnally minded but life minded, bible terms spiritually minded.

Uh huh. :thanks: ‘Greater love has no man…’ ‘Love God with all your heart.. love your neighbor as yourself’. We are not separate beings, but one.

 

I would love to go on a nature walk with ya Antlerman

:10:

 

At times this 'life' is so overwhelming its just amazing

 

I have what are called rain trees, in october the ends of the branches turn to little yellow flowers and when the wind blows they 'rain' golden flowers and cover the ground till its all golden. I get all inspired by that. That is just a little example to me of not being carnally minded in that catching the 'life' in that beautiful giving of the trees. As they lay down their beauty in humility and cover the gound making it a thing of beauty and leaving their branches becoming bare and exposed, well I get all as Alice would say 'aware'. To me that is very much alive in you and others here.

 

 

sojourner

It’s part of seeing ourselves as part of everything. The beauty is when you are able to look at a simple thing like an insect, or a twig on the ground with as much awe as a whole landscape. It would be like hearing that single note from a bell in a full symphony, and finding its beauty in itself and in its participation in the whole work. It’s like tasting that single flavor, beautiful in itself, and working together with all the other individual flavors to create a whole flavor together. It’s absorbing the whole and the parts in the whole.

 

(That takes this back to that brief discussion above about the value of focused meditation. It’s allowing the mind to see past the mundane meanings, to another insight – back to ‘set your mind on things which are above…’)

 

It’s all in the hearing and seeing. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. This was a powerful post. I’m going to try to offer some thoughts off of it.

 

Being carnally minded is inward looking, focused on the self to the point of not recognizing the world beyond the self. It is inward looking and leads to an isolation of being – or in a word, a spiritual death. Thinking beyond yourself opens you up to seeing others, and in seeing others we become greater than just the self. We move beyond the perception of separation and recognize that we are really just aspects of the whole. We are all one life.

 

In giving and supporting others we are opening ourselves to recognizing us in others and them in us, and beginning to see everything as facets of one thing: Life. It’s merely our “carnal†perception and language that creates the idea of separation. Here’s a scripture verse that comes to mind that you might find ties into this, “Greater love has no man than this than he lay down his life for a friendâ€. What this says is that individual has moved beyond the perception of separation and self, into a realm of recognizing that everything is one. “That they may all be one, as we are oneâ€. This is the spiritual life, and one that supports life instead of death and separation.

 

Absolutely right on Antlerman to me! I loved this and agree whole heartily :thanks:

 

In more ways than you imagine. Words have the power to life and death. Our own words have the power to create prisons for our own minds and spirit, or to open the doors and set us free. Apply this to the law being death, and the sprit being life, and then tie that into the verse about the law being written on the heart. “Love works no illâ€; “Love is the fulfilling of the lawâ€. Now take all that and apply it to “the Word was God… all things were made through him… in him was life, and the life was the light of men…â€. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.†“Set your mind on things which are above…â€, etc, etc, etc. Words of life, written on the heart.

 

See?

 

(This is why I say that there are some definite insights that human beings realized, then as now, to be found in places in scripture. They are just couched in the language of myth signs as vehicles of communication. It is ‘divine’, in the sense that we see these sorts of perceptions on the level of moving beyond the inward facing to seeing the whole as greater than the parts, i.e., carnality versus spirituality, to use those words).

 

 

This connection in us is what drives great artists to create. To connect on that level with the rest of mankind and creation that they sense their connection to within. Trying to grasp that somehow and put it to words, music or on a canvas.

 

Just consider the whole rest of your post quoted back at ya with a hearty :thanks:

 

You are such an inspiration Antlerman

 

You must really stump christians that dont believe in some sort of universalism because you speak the spiritual on a level they cant possibly deny. So either they have to concede that you are indeed somehow spiritual and an athiest or they have to relegate you to some sort of demonic anointing, what a joke, and hey we both share that place according to them. lol Or they have to begin looking at these levels of knowing on a new level and question whether they are indeed natural somehow. I have even been reading some on that and it is rather interesting what Im finding.

 

You are quite the problem or thorn in the side of those that see spiritually and want to hold to this cannot be possible unless one accepts that Jesus is their savior and believes. What happens when you get amongst christians that speak on this level and you enter into convos with them then drop the 'by the way I am not a christian bomb' at some point? What do they do? How do they deal with it?

 

 

For you we are speaking a universal langage that all God myths arise out of correct? Ya know Antlerman if I wasnt a universalist I would definately follow your path as I love to connect with folks at that same place we connect. Your athiesm and my universalism do allow us to do that with folks from all walks that share this connective knowing.

 

 

 

 

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This connection in us is what drives great artists to create. To connect on that level with the rest of mankind and creation that they sense their connection to within. Trying to grasp that somehow and put it to words, music or on a canvas.

I think this is true. There a moments in that process, where it is like becoming a lens to something greater than one’s own individuality (“I must decrease that he may increase”). It is my thoughts and my voice, but it comes from tapping into a greater well-spring of thought that is beyond the inward mind. It’s being a vehicle of life, so to speak. It’s like that verse says, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”

 

Again, the meaning is there inside the language beyond the signs.

 

You are quite the problem or thorn in the side of those that see spiritually and want to hold to this cannot be possible unless one accepts that Jesus is their savior and believes. What happens when you get amongst christians that speak on this level and you enter into convos with them then drop the 'by the way I am not a christian bomb' at some point? What do they do? How do they deal with it?

Well this is the problem I see in people like Kratos using a system of theological categories. It creates neat little boxes to put people into and not listen to what really is. It shuts them off from the ‘spirit of the law’ as they focus on the ‘letter of the law’. Theology is carnality. It places “God” in a box. It places people in a box. It puts walls up where none exist. It is the death of the spirit that comes from the Law on tablets of stone.

 

I encourage you to read a topic I started nearly 2 years ago now that addresses this: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6401&hl= (It appears I am nothing, if not consistent :grin: )

 

For you we are speaking a universal langage that all God myths arise out of correct? Ya know Antlerman if I wasnt a universalist I would definately follow your path as I love to connect with folks at that same place we connect. Your athiesm and my universalism do allow us to do that with folks from all walks that share this connective knowing.

 

sojourner

Yes, you’re getting what I mean. :grin: I need to add something, that my atheism is only what allows me to move beyond the snare of theology into seeing something from another perspective. It’s not atheism itself that does this.

 

P.S. Thanks for this converstation. It's great. :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Antlerman for the link, I think I read some of that before but because of this thread that thread became more alive.

 

I totally relate to so much of what was shared on that thread.

 

This is from scripture but there is a place that says that the one language would be restored, a pure language

 

I think the language we are talking about is that langage, it crosses all bounderies, cannot be confined and speaks for all to hear and understand

 

great thread

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.