Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

What Does It Mean To Be Carnally Minded?


Antlerman

Recommended Posts

I think it was worth breaking the thread to get him outed on his opinions on women a la 1 Tim 2... sanctified by childbirth...*shudder*

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

Uh oh.

 

Blame it on Kratos. He provoked us.

Yes. It wasn't me either! I didn't do it! He did it! *pointing finger randomly into the crowd*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, what's happened to this thread? I've been buzy and not looking at it much. Need to catch up, but am wondering if it's devolving into a Lion's Den sort of thread? I'll check it out later as time permits, but I hope it's staying true to the spirit of the Colosseum forum.

 

There are no rules on this forum. I asked many times for posters to quit randomly changing the subject to throw ad hominem attacks at the messenger to negate the message. I said that if a thread was started on either the age of the earth or domestic order, I would participate. But, I will not converse with those who only want to blatantly attack without giving a person a place to state their beliefs on a thread set aside for this purpose. I am neither a new earther or a woman hater.

 

You all just proved that you are lawless and unable to debate without these underhanded tactics.

 

Have a good life.

 

Kratos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no rules on this forum.

Yes there are. Just not your rules.

I asked many times for posters to quit randomly changing the subject to throw ad hominem attacks at the messenger to negate the message. I said that if a thread was started on either the age of the earth or domestic order, I would participate. But, I will not converse with those who only want to blatantly attack without giving a person a place to state their beliefs on a thread set aside for this purpose.

Why don't you just ignore the posts that don't stay on topic and answer the ones that do?

I am neither a new earther or a woman hater

Nobody said you're a woman hater. You just think they should be in their rightful place as submissive to men.

 

I'm sure slavers said that they weren't slave haters as well.

 

You all just proved that you are lawless and unable to debate without these underhanded tactics.

Said the man using the underhanded tactic of focusing on diversions to avoid dealing with the real arguments put forward by his opponents.

Have a good life.

 

Kratos

You know, I could say something about having a tail... having lets... putting things in between things...

 

Oh fuck it. You're a moron christpunching cuntox who, upon realising that we've heard everything you've got to say 1000 times before (and refuted it all quite soundly thankyou very much) decided that your best tactic would be to cast aspersions and retreat like the coward that you are.

 

Go suck a chode.

 

Love,

Dr. Funkenstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sound you just heard was that of a dummy being spat out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all just proved that you are lawless and unable to debate without these underhanded tactics.

 

Have a good life.

 

Kratos

By ALL I assume you mean to suggest me as well?

 

Why don't we do this? Since you will never get underhanded, diversionary, ad hominem, etc tactics from me, let me read through this failed thread from where I left off a few days ago. If I decide it's worth it, I'll offer you a one on one discussion that won't have any of that happening it in. Just go read the debate I had along with Alice over in the Arena with Buddy Ferris. You'll see rather quickly that I don't let ad hom's happen in discussion wtih me.

 

If I see things that look bad to me in here, then I won't bother to make an effort. I always try to be fair. I'll post my thoughts here in the next couple days after I've had a chance to go over this.

 

What was that proverb again? Oh yes, 'a gentle answer turns away rage, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been married twice and have two children one from each of my two marriages. I married my first wife at 19 and went off to college. Not long after my daughter was born in our 6th yer of marriage, I met someone who I felt I loved and told my wife that I no longer loved her and wanted a divorce. So, we got one and I have worked ever since to help my now 27 year old daughter to deal with my selfishness.

And so therefore, how you operate as a human, because you later recognized that you were acting selfishly (which I would translate into you’re acted irresponsibly for getting married when you were emotionally unprepared to do so – probably through cultural pressures, which is more common place than not), then somehow, you now have the insight to say to any husband who finds himself drifting away in his relationship that he’s doing what you did? This is grotesquely oversimplified, and any sort of a counselor who knows anything about human beings would never project themselves on otherse and make value judgements of people in relationships like this. That's incredibily limited in understanding and irresponsible towards his clients. (Pastors should recommend people see professionals, rather than pretending they know something which they cleary don't).

 

You see Kratos, here’s what I think. I made a post to Sojourner today that I think fits what I hear in how you are blending Universalism into traditional Christian Literalism/Fundamentalism:

 

Word of warning however... you say that you're a relativist to some Christians and you will get this huge backlash from them. Just be forewarned. It's a hard concept for people who see the world in terms of true and false, black and white, positive and negative to wrap their minds around. Suddenly the world is varying shades of color with no clearly defined lines.

 

From my thoughts, it takes an emotionally secure person to deal with uncertainty. That's why "
God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me!
", is such an appealing notion to a lot of people. People would rather have answers than guidelines. This sort of comes back to your earlier question about atheism becoming like a religion to some people. For some, science is now the new source of Truth™. It's the same sort of thinking that has people turn to religion for Answers, with a capital A. Life doesn't work like that, when it comes to what is
meaningful
to someone.

I’ve been having the thought that Universalists carry the same spectrum of thought as Christians do, from liberals to fundamentalists. I might be wrong, but you sure seem to have that Literalist baggage from fundamentalism holding onto how you approach things. That to me is an indication of someone needing clearly defined rules, needing black and white, “Tell me what to do” life.

 

What you’re describing to me is spiritual suicide. To me this is not living at all. The joy of living is in discovering what is true for yourself and living sincerely. I don’t see you living sincerely. You sound like you’re afraid to live, afraid to make choices and mistakes and deal with the consequences, afraid for that level of responsibility. I say this because of you're having to turn to a rule book to tell you how to live.

 

Would you tell your child to go through life living it through you? Or would you help him to find truth in his own heart and make his own decisions? That way in the end, he wasn't "told what to do", he figured it out for himself. In the end it defines his entire essence, his entire being.

 

Like MWC said, what you’re talking about is not any sort of “law written on the heart”. I make my own choices, and they are moral ones. I make mistakes, and I learn by them. I obey my heart and I am not out of control, or incapable of doing good. In the end I am judged by my life.

 

In my philosophy, I judge someone who lives life insincerely as being just as lost as those who have no moral compass at all. I don't submit my will to a God outside myself. I become God myself. There is a difference. (law on the heart....)

 

 

If you care to discuss this, I'm available.

 

 

**P.S. To me being carnally minded is when you have to live according to the rules of a book. It's turning to flesh for answers, rather than searching the heart. It's just changing where it looks for answers, not HOW it looks. A spiritual mind knows how to act.

 

(interesting: 'spiritual mind'; 'carnal mind' :scratch: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Antlerman

 

If I may interject

 

you did pick up on a reality in christian universalism

 

this is strictly my own opinions and observations:

 

there is fundamentalist universalism (very black and white, Ray Smith would be a good example)

conservative universalism (Preston Eby, Robert Torango and Tentmaker are great examples)

and liberal universalism ( well known teachers would be Carleton Pearson, Gary Sigler and Mike Williams)

 

the one thing they all agree on is Jesus Christ being the savior of all mankind

 

then you get into

 

unitarian universalism which most 'christian' universalists will say they dont believe in

 

I started out a a little fundamentalist ur but really mostly conservative ur then this past year Ive become a whole lot more liberal

though Im not unitarian

 

Kratos is much more conservative than me

 

Just some info for ya

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is fundamentalist universalism (very black and white, Ray Smith would be a good example)

conservative universalism (Preston Eby, Robert Torango and Tentmaker are great examples)

and liberal universalism ( well known teachers would be Carleton Pearson, Gary Sigler and Mike Williams)

 

the one thing they all agree on is Jesus Christ being the savior of all mankind

<edit>

sojourner

 

Well if I may interject please - your last sentence "Jesus Christ is the savior of all mankind" is the whole crux of the problem we have with Universalism. Thank you for expressing it so succinctly.

 

And you not only are not as conservative as Kratos, you are a much more polite and nicer person than Kratos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey DevaLight

 

Yes I gathered that about Jesus and also I gather that the bible being used to support universalism is another major problem from your end, right?

 

In that the bible is considered a very unreliable source

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how he helps his daughter deal with being the lowest rung of the ladder while being human in God's scheme...

 

as to

 

"there is fundamentalist universalism (very black and white, Ray Smith would be a good example)

conservative universalism (Preston Eby, Robert Torango and Tentmaker are great examples)

and liberal universalism ( well known teachers would be Carleton Pearson, Gary Sigler and Mike Williams)

 

the one thing they all agree on is Jesus Christ being the savior of all mankind"

 

These are NOT generic Universalist views, just Christian Universalist ones... and the Christian part makes them of dubious value...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right Grandpa Harley

 

they are only christian universalist views

 

most others that call themselves universalists without the 'christian' would probably be more unitarian I would think as far as labels go

 

yeah, I know how you feel about the 'christian' part

 

but hey we can just observe stars lol

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how he helps his daughter deal with being the lowest rung of the ladder while being human in God's scheme...

 

as to

 

"there is fundamentalist universalism (very black and white, Ray Smith would be a good example)

conservative universalism (Preston Eby, Robert Torango and Tentmaker are great examples)

and liberal universalism ( well known teachers would be Carleton Pearson, Gary Sigler and Mike Williams)

 

the one thing they all agree on is Jesus Christ being the savior of all mankind"

 

These are NOT generic Universalist views, just Christian Universalist ones... and the Christian part makes them of dubious value...

And this raises the question for me, does the "liberal" Christian Universalist view everyone the same as a Unitarian, with the exception that it's just Jesus that makes it all happen? I've always been of the thought that it's as much of an inclusive view as Universalist Unitarians, with the layer of mythological symbolism added to it. It all ends up in Chicago, so to speak, but they just see it as the work of God, even if other's don't recognize it as such.

 

To me, Kratos' version of it is a contradiction to the term Universalism. Everyone's saved, but they're not spiritual. That sounds more like a legal loophole for an Exclusivist mentality that have emotional problems swallowing the damnation side of the theology. They can still exclude non-Christians, without really damning them to somewhere that doesn't agree with them. It sounds insincere.

 

Sojourner on the other hand, is just plain cool. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey DevaLight

 

Yes I gathered that about Jesus and also I gather that the bible being used to support universalism is another major problem from your end, right?

 

In that the bible is considered a very unreliable source

 

sojourner

 

The bible is regarded as not even having the redeeming feature of being soft strong and absorbent by many of us here, me included... I just know a lot about it since it was a great way of pissing off zealots...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Kratos is a loud mouthed and vile hypocrite. Not quite to the depraved depths of ChibiQ but close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this raises the question for me, does the "liberal" Christian Universalist view everyone the same as a Unitarian, with the exception that it's just Jesus that makes it all happen?

 

Antlerman I believe the answer to that would be yes and in fact would sum it up well.

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman

 

As to the other part you shared about exclusivists, just yesterday I was blowing off steam over that.

 

I am very liberal in that and forgive me because I know this bothers folks to say this here, I try and respect that and not word it this way in order to not offend -

 

but I find spiritual talk thru all kinds of folks I meet and talk with from all kinds of religions and beliefs, here in athiests and agnostics as well. That is why I am so liberal in that I hear what I in my beliefs term 'spiritual' from just about everyone I spend time with. I hear God here all the time, but I dont say it that way to be respectful.

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I find spiritual talk thru all kinds of folks I meet and talk with from all kinds of religions and beliefs, here in athiests and agnostics as well. That is why I am so liberal in that I hear what I in my beliefs term 'spiritual' from just about everyone I spend time with. I hear God here all the time, but I dont say it that way to be respectful.

Because God is made in the image of humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find spiritual talk thru all kinds of folks I meet and talk with from all kinds of religions and beliefs, here in athiests and agnostics as well. That is why I am so liberal in that I hear what I in my beliefs term 'spiritual' from just about everyone I spend time with. I hear God here all the time, but I dont say it that way to be respectful.

 

sojourner

 

Actually, sojurner, I don't mind this statement of yours. It is not offensive in the least. It becomes so when you drag in Jesus Christ and the Bible. As you might suspect, as far as I am concerned that ruins it and makes it sound insincere, although I know you don't see it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find spiritual talk thru all kinds of folks I meet and talk with from all kinds of religions and beliefs, here in athiests and agnostics as well. That is why I am so liberal in that I hear what I in my beliefs term 'spiritual' from just about everyone I spend time with. I hear God here all the time, but I dont say it that way to be respectful.

 

sojourner

 

Actually, sojurner, I don't mind this statement of yours. It is not offensive in the least. It becomes so when you drag in Jesus Christ and the Bible. As you might suspect, as far as I am concerned that ruins it and makes it sound insincere, although I know you don't see it that way.

Hi Deva. And this brings me to a point I wanted to bring up. From the perspective of the Liberal, and in this particular case, a Liberal Christian Universalist, Jesus and the Bible mean something different to them than what it does in the Literalist/Fundamentalist. What I hear quite a lot here is something that I myself came to recognize some time ago, that my views of the Bible and its characters as an ExChristian were being evaluated with the same criteria as that of the Fundamentalist, just on the opposite side of the table. Instead of being literally true, it was now literally false. Instead of being words of Truth, it was now a work of Fiction.

 

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.

 

But what of the case of the Bible? Didn’t it promise to be the Answer? Isn’t it proper to be angry at it for creating that false expectation? We placed our faith in it because it said it was the Word of God, so whose to really blame here? (I know the question, since I asked it myself). My response now is still the answer: Me. Me, along with falling victim to the culture I was part of that I unwittingly allowed to influence my perspectives. Sort of like the Romanticism that permeates Western culture. It’s not reflective of anything in reality, but we want it to be so because we buy into the image of the world culture tries to sell to us. We are such products of our culture, even those in ‘subcultures’ that it’s truly amusing to behold!

 

Why I said it’s still my own fault is because the Bible is a book written by humans using the language devices of their culture in which they understood and perceived the world. Mythology is a language device. It always has been, whether its using symbols like God, the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, Jonah’s Whale, the Resurrection of the Messiah, Romeo and Juliet, or the American Flag, or George Washington, or Marilyn Monroe’s skirt blowing up over a street grate, they are all icons, symbols of ideas, symbols of love, sexuality, national pride, and human hopes and aspirations. We say in a word, huge amounts of information, speaking of intangibles such as pride or hope. And add to this, that we in the West are a Romantic culture, that how we incorporate these symbols into that worldview is what sets us up for this love/hate relationship.

 

Is the Bible to blame, or us? Is the Bible a work of fiction and deceptions, or is how we approached it what made it false? From a certain perspective, the Bible is false; from another perspective it's true, not literally and factually, but true on a different level. This is what I meant by pointing out the fundamentalist mindset following me out of fundamentalism in looking at it from a new literalist point of view.

 

So at last to the short of it, not everyone who picks up a Bible and sees value in it is approaching it with the same degree of expectation. The Liberal isn’t necessarily going to go to the grave defending the factuality of the Bible, yet they may well stand by the value of what they use the symbols for – as would I using the symbols of language I do. It has value to them, perhaps because they don’t have the expectation of it being factual. There is a difference between something being factual and having value. Factual is not always a factor in the value or power of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

But what of the case of the Bible? Didn’t it promise to be the Answer? Isn’t it proper to be angry at it for creating that false expectation?

 

Thank you for your post AM. Essentially I do see what you are saying, but it is very difficult to see someone else use the same symbols for something that means completely different things to them than it does to me. It is like a red flag to a bull and it's a trigger. It seems dishonest.

 

I understand that we have to accept the responsiblity for buying into the whole Christian religion, with its "holy" book and all the other symbols that were taken to have a certain absolute meaning, even if we had the whole thing foisted on us as a child. Yes, we do have the ultimate responsiblity.

 

The black/white absolute views of the fundamentalist have a profound effect on a person's way of viewing the world. I am not sure most people can see or are self-aware enough to imagine how deep it really goes. Intellectually I can see and agree with what you are saying about "no inherent meaning or value" but there is another level where that position doesn't seem "real" to me, either.

 

I recently read a book about atheism, in which the authors did polls among atheists and questioned them about their backgrounds and religious training. Their conclusion stated that the person raised from childhood in the strict fundamentalist home, that was now an athiest, was the rarest of the rare. They theorized that it was because they are trained to certain rather rigorous standards of honesty and when they saw through the whole religion and felt betrayed, they applied those same standards to the fundamentalist religion in rejecting it. So their own methods backfired on the brainwashers! I won't use that word "atheist" for myself, but as far as the religion I was raised in, it does apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The black/white absolute views of the fundamentalist have a profound effect on a person's way of viewing the world. I am not sure most people can see or are self-aware enough to imagine how deep it really goes. Intellectually I can see and agree with what you are saying about "no inherent meaning or value" but there is another level where that position doesn't seem "real" to me, either.

The way I've come to see it is more from a chicken and egg sort of question. Which came first, fundamentalism then black and white thinking, or black and white thinking, then fundamentalism? I would say fundamentalism is attractive to this sort of thinking, and it was originally created by it. The problem with children raised in it, is that it's now programming language into the brain and it actually shapes how they've learned to see the world. This is why exposure to other beliefs is viewed as such a threat to the fundamentalist, because if they're personalities are less dualistic in their thinking, they might see another way of looking at the world and leave them.

 

I recently read a book about atheism, in which the authors did polls among atheists and questioned them about their backgrounds and religious training. Their conclusion stated that the person raised from childhood in the strict fundamentalist home, that was now an athiest, was the rarest of the rare. They theorized that it was because they are trained to certain rather rigorous standards of honesty and when they saw through the whole religion and felt betrayed, they applied those same standards to the fundamentalist religion in rejecting it. So their own methods backfired on the brainwashers! I won't use that word "atheist" for myself, but as far as the religion I was raised in, it does apply.

I didn’t quite follow what they were saying above. Are they saying that children raised in fundamentalist homes rarely become atheists, and that when they do it’s likely because of having the traits of honesty instilled in them? Or is it saying that when they do deconvert, they do so with zeal because of the values they were raised with for viewing truth with zeal?

 

I’m not sure I would agree with those suggestions as stated. Rather I would maybe say that they take notions of truth being absolutes, and transfer them from one system of absolutes to another. In that sense, “honesty”, is more about strict adherence to strict truths. For me, what made the real difference is in finding that truth is hardly as clearly defined as either side says. I didn’t loose faith in the Christian idea of truth and instead adopt a new one. I rejected fundamentalist Christianity’s notion of truth altogether. I do the same with fundamentalist atheists too. It’s way too much the same thing.

 

A good way to visualize how I see the difference is not as opposite ends of a straight line, but rather a circle where the two opposite points meet each other on one side of the circle. This is true of radical-conservatives versus radical-liberals too. Anything on the extreme ends is really the same animal. I’m really an anti-absolutist. That’s why fundamentalism, no matter what flavor it is, fails for me so miserably. It doesn’t fit how I process the world in my brain. It's all one big color palate, rather than hard, sharp lines of high contrast black and white.

 

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™ ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I've come to see it is more from a chicken and egg sort of question. Which came first, fundamentalism then black and white thinking, or black and white thinking, then fundamentalism? I would say fundamentalism is attractive to this sort of thinking, and it was originally created by it. The problem with children raised in it, is that it's now programming language into the brain and it actually shapes how they've learned to see the world. This is why exposure to other beliefs is viewed as such a threat to the fundamentalist, because if they're personalities are less dualistic in their thinking, they might see another way of looking at the world and leave them.

 

You may be right, it could be an inborn personality trait or some tendency strengthed by early training. I don't know. It is an interesting question.

 

Are they saying that children raised in fundamentalist homes rarely become atheists, and that when they do it’s likely because of having the traits of honesty instilled in them? Or is it saying that when they do deconvert, they do so with zeal because of the values they were raised with for viewing truth with zeal?

 

I am actually going to have to go back and dig this book out of the library now! I want to be accurate and do it justice and I am not entirely sure that “honesty” is the word they used, but was just going by memory. I am also not saying that I entirely accepted their conclusion; it was just interesting to me. I am still stuck on trying to find out why I am the only one in my immediate family to have rejected Christianity.

 

After throwing out the whole of the Christian doctrine as expressed in the Bible, I still find myself attracted to absolute, black and white type statements. This is something I have only recently realized, so I am examining this tendency.

 

You say you "rejected fundamentalist Christianity’s notion of truth altogether.” That was a very interesting statement. It seems to be a huge leap. I wonder exactly if I understand what you mean? Do you mean truth as an objective “thing” out there which remains the same for all time? If so, I am not there yet. I have made substitutions through the years; various visions and reinterpretations. The field was wide open after I realized Christianity was man-made and false. I tried to do the liberal church thing for a while, unsuccessfully, because the literal thing was still there. I still find the notion of Hindu avatars, Buddhist bodhisattvas and messiahs so satisfying. Not on an intellectual level of course, but the level of feeling or some kind of aesthetic level, just as a beautiful idea. Truth? What is it in this realm? Yet I still think I know when something's false.

 

I hope some of this makes sense.

 

I do agree that fundamentalist atheism and fundamentalist xianity are basically the same thing. They are extremes. My personal feeling about the word "atheist" is that it closes a door on me. That is why I don't like to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After throwing out the whole of the Christian doctrine as expressed in the Bible, I still find myself attracted to absolute, black and white type statements. This is something I have only recently realized, so I am examining this tendency.

That’s where it began for me. The more we look at why we see things in that sort of light, the more we come to understand things about our own personalities. My tendency of the past has been to seek out clearly defined answers, but I’ve found that its all so much more of an adventure of ideas to explore the possible. 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.

 

It’s basically retraining the palate to taste more flavors, or see more colors, or smell more fragrances, etc. But it happens after you cut crap out of the diet to allow the palate to recover from the years of abuse to it, so to speak. You get the idea. :grin:

 

You say you "rejected fundamentalist Christianity’s notion of truth altogether.” That was a very interesting statement. It seems to be a huge leap. I wonder exactly if I understand what you mean? Do you mean truth as an objective “thing” out there which remains the same for all time? If so, I am not there yet.

Yes basically. I reject the idea of a closed system, where “God” is the ceiling and answers flow down hill. I reject the idea of absolutes. 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?

 

I have made substitutions through the years; various visions and reinterpretations. 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'.

 

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.

 

I tried to do the liberal church thing for a while, unsuccessfully, because the literal thing was still there.

Boy, does that sound my story. 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. But I can appreciate those who can, where they actually are better people for it. (That precludes any literalist, since I’ve never seen fruit come from that tree, other than carnal fruits – legalism).

 

I still find the notion of Hindu avatars, Buddhist bodhisattvas and messiahs so satisfying. Not on an intellectual level of course, but the level of feeling or some kind of aesthetic level, just as a beautiful idea. Truth? What is it in this realm? Yet I still think I know when something's false.

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

 

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 do agree that fundamentalist atheism and fundamentalist xianity are basically the same thing. They are extremes. My personal feeling about the word "atheist" is that it closes a door on me. That is why I don't like to use it.

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.

 

I’m just rambling now. I’m tired and need to sleep. Night… :dead:

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.