To All Of God's Critics

[Rev R]

Response:

Thumbelina: The bible is Divinely inspired and one magical quality about it is that it DOES NOT yield its secrets to the irreverent and the censurers. If you are close minded about it you will never understand it even if you are 50 times more brilliant than Einstein.

 

So the magic only works if you believe in the magic beforehand? Not very potent. Especially when a tree can grow no matter what you believe about it.

 

 

claiming you know the mind, actions, and attributes of God

Why wouldn't she know the mind of her god? Its mind is identical to her own.

[NotBlinded]

claiming you know the mind, actions, and attributes of God

Why wouldn't she know the mind of her god? Its mind is identical to her own.

R! It's so good to see you post again. I've missed you.

 

It's really funny how that works isn't it? Name the mystery and worship it like it's of your own creation. Humans have a tendency to want something concrete to hold on to instead of letting the "tree grow of its own accord". I say let it be what it is and revere it for that which it is...whatever it is.

[florduh]

What truth do you want?

You said ALL religions point to THE ONE truth, lower case "t" notwithstanding. You may retract that statement now, but it is what you said before. The "truth I want" is the ONE TRUTH you refer to.

 

How do you know there aren't TWO truths? Perhaps NONE? Since ALL religions point to THE ONE truth, show me how Catholicism does this. Then demonstrate how Santeria points to the one truth. How about Scientology? Mormonism? And exactly what is that one truth anyway? You made the claim, enlighten me. I'm old and need to learn that one truth soon!

 

The thread is heading away from Christian-specific woo-woo toward the "spiritual but not religious" woo-woo. This is still the Lion's Den and any extraordinary claim should bring some evidence with it.

[NotBlinded]

What truth do you want?

You said ALL religions point to THE ONE truth, lower case "t" notwithstanding. You may retract that statement now, but it is what you said before. The "truth I want" is the ONE TRUTH you refer to.

 

How do you know there aren't TWO truths? Perhaps NONE? Since ALL religions point to THE ONE truth, show me how Catholicism does this. Then demonstrate how Santeria points to the one truth. How about Scientology? Mormonism? And exactly what is that one truth anyway? You made the claim, enlighten me. I'm old and need to learn that one truth soon!

 

The thread is heading away from Christian-specific woo-woo toward the "spiritual but not religious" woo-woo. This is still the Lion's Den and any extraordinary claim should bring some evidence with it.

Jesus Christ. I will retract "all" religions because I don't know all religions. I look at all religions as mythology and that is where I am speaking from.

 

I tried to explain it to you the best I could. The "evidence" you want is materialistic and cannot be given. There are more truths in life that just empirical (small t). I can't help it if you don't understand that. It is obvious that you feel there is only one Truth (capital T) and that is of the materialists.

 

I guess there may be more than one life force or there may be none, but then I wouldn't be here typing this or there may be two of me fighting over what letters to type.

 

I can't prove anything to you florduh. Any evidence I have towards this is philosophical to the best that I can understand it.

 

And you know what you can do with your "woo-woo" crap. It does nothing different for me than it does for someone that can appreciate the beauty of a sunset. I didn't see a sign around here anywhere that claims materialists only and in order to post, you must have empirical evidence. I have never claimed to know what this mystery is. You can question me all you want, but I will not be able to explain it to where you can understand it. Materialism is only half the story, IMO.

 

Google mysticism in major religions or achetypes in mythology for your pointers.

[florduh]

I can't prove anything to you florduh.

Maybe we can say that most religious mythology points to some universal themes and ideas about our universe that may or may not be true, as there is no way of proving any of it. If that premise is accepted, then most religions are simply searching for answers they assume to exist using similar tools.

 

Is that fairly accurate?

[NotBlinded]

I can't prove anything to you florduh.

Maybe we can say that most religious mythology points to some universal themes and ideas about our universe that may or may not be true, as there is no way of proving any of it. If that premise is accepted, then most religions are simply searching for answers they assume to exist using similar tools.

 

Is that fairly accurate?

Yes! Thank you.

 

Damn...I'm in a horrible mood today. I thought you were going to tear me to shreds.

 

My post was more than a little defensive and I apologize for that.

[florduh]

I'm the woo-woo Nazi.

[Antlerman]

What truth do you want?

You said ALL religions point to THE ONE truth, lower case "t" notwithstanding. You may retract that statement now, but it is what you said before. The "truth I want" is the ONE TRUTH you refer to.

 

How do you know there aren't TWO truths? Perhaps NONE? Since ALL religions point to THE ONE truth, show me how Catholicism does this. Then demonstrate how Santeria points to the one truth. How about Scientology? Mormonism? And exactly what is that one truth anyway? You made the claim, enlighten me. I'm old and need to learn that one truth soon!

 

The thread is heading away from Christian-specific woo-woo toward the "spiritual but not religious" woo-woo. This is still the Lion's Den and any extraordinary claim should bring some evidence with it.

Jesus Christ. I will retract "all" religions because I don't know all religions. I look at all religions as mythology and that is where I am speaking from.

 

I tried to explain it to you the best I could. The "evidence" you want is materialistic and cannot be given. There are more truths in life that just empirical (small t). I can't help it if you don't understand that. It is obvious that you feel there is only one Truth (capital T) and that is of the materialists.

 

I guess there may be more than one life force or there may be none, but then I wouldn't be here typing this or there may be two of me fighting over what letters to type.

 

I can't prove anything to you florduh. Any evidence I have towards this is philosophical to the best that I can understand it.

 

And you know what you can do with your "woo-woo" crap. It does nothing different for me than it does for someone that can appreciate the beauty of a sunset. I didn't see a sign around here anywhere that claims materialists only and in order to post, you must have empirical evidence. I have never claimed to know what this mystery is. You can question me all you want, but I will not be able to explain it to where you can understand it. Materialism is only half the story, IMO.

 

Google mysticism in major religions or achetypes in mythology for your pointers.

I think the use of "one truth" is so charged with connotation it may not be a good way to speak about it. I would possibly rather say an ultimate reality that all realities are superseded and negated by. I am fond of the use of the term ultimate concern. And that ultimate reality is by definition beyond the reality as we understand it now. So it is impossible to provide proof of it. If we could 'prove it', it would be understood and this discussion would be utterly non-existent. If you're going to say "one truth" it would be all truths taken into it and negated, that it is not some single truth, but all truth.

 

Now as far as religions pointing to this, I would say religions are not just about one thing, not just about concern with ultimate being, or ultimate truth. So it is super easy to point to all those other elements and not see much indication of that sort of concern. Mythological systems were not only used for that spiritual concern, but were in fact used to explain the natural world, and social concerns as well. Ayn Rand in her criticisms of religion pointing out how it was born out of a need to explain the natural world is only once facet of it. I cannot reduce it to that, nor can I say it was just about social order, nor just spiritual concern. It was a system, a framework of talking about the world in totality.

 

And so now as we since the Enlightenment have shed mythology as the all-encompassing language of a worldview, we frame our understanding of the natural world in the language and symbols of modern science. And as valid and logical and rational as our understanding is today, it was to them in the past using mythology to explain it. Our science today will seem just as antiquated and dim-sighted tomorrow as those in the dark ages do to us today. And on it goes until all these truths become superseded and negated, all the way up to X.

 

The problem with myth in talking about that inner, subjective reality of being, is that it is difficult to differentiate it intellectually in the pursuit of a single, united worldview with the language of science we use for the natural world, the world of objective reality, but not subjective reality. People like Joseph Campbell, as truly gifted and insightful as they are, aren't really offering a solution to the practical use of myth in society, where it takes someone as brilliant as him, or as intelligent or insightful into these areas as you or I understanding them at this level, to be able to expect people to find a way to incorporate them in a rational worldspace is pretty impractical. It's not moving the language of spirituality forward, along with the language of science. Right now, in the West, it's still pretty disjointed and broken. Science has moved forward, but science does not cross over into the language of existential being. It is part of it, but does not define it, nor can in any form it's currently using.

 

Now as far as this being interpreted as "woo woo", I would challenge any of that caricature could be applied to any of this. In fact, it is relatively easy to find insulting language for the strict materialist, but I don't feel the need.

[florduh]

Now as far as this being interpreted as "woo woo", I would challenge any of that caricature could be applied to any of this. In fact, it is relatively easy to find insulting language for the strict materialist, but I don't feel the need.

Since I was the one to use the term woo, I believe your remark about not using insulting language as the insult itself is for me, AM.

 

I think, if I understand correctly, you might actually be agreeing with me. THIS QUOTE, not what you just said, is what I called woo:

If you knew them, you would know that all religions are pointing to the one truth beyond the mythology.

That's an unfounded, sweeping assumption, generally considered to be woo-woo by those who are not True Believers, or in the pejorative, Crass Materialists. That there is one truth and that all religions (or even their mythology) point to that singular truth is totally unfounded speculation. The definition of woo. It turns out it's not even what the OP intended to say. We agreed that this is more accurate:

Maybe we can say that most religious mythology points to some universal themes and ideas about our universe that may or may not be true, as there is no way of proving any of it. If that premise is accepted, then most religions are simply searching for answers they assume to exist using similar tools.

Not woo, but a description of how people employ religion and why.

[Rev R]

R! It's so good to see you post again. I've missed you.

 

Aww that's sweet

 

I say let it be what it is and revere it for that which it is...whatever it is.

 

Well that is kinda the kicker. In revering our "original face", we attempt to separate ourselves from it and place it somewhere out there. As such, it becomes a mental formation to fixate on and perhaps an object of worship. In doing so we become like the theist, creating a god from our own ideas and forging it into a reflection of our own preferences.

 

 

I am fond of the use of the term ultimate concern.

The Great Matter

 

 

And that ultimate reality is by definition beyond the reality as we understand it now. So it is impossible to provide proof of it. If we could 'prove it', it would be understood and this discussion would be utterly non-existent. If you're going to say "one truth" it would be all truths taken into it and negated, that it is not some single truth, but all truth.

 

"Ultimate" reality is exactly the same as "mundane" reality. The transformative experience of the so-called mystic doesn't take us anywhere but here. In a more direct sense it's like turning on the light in a darkened living room. Doing so doesn't change the living room into the kitchen, but it does change how we are able to move through it. I know, it is pretty dull.

 

Can I prove what I just said? Not in this format. The hypothesis can be tested through careful observation of one's own experience (aka mindfulness).

 

I wouldn't say that all religions in practice point to a single truth, or even to an ultimate reality but they do seem to point to a transformation in this very life but the religious framework is not necessary. Might even be easier without it.

 

Has nothing to do with this thread...but that is what was on my mind.

 

R

[Franko47]

 

 

 

 

 

And so now as we since the Enlightenment have shed mythology as the all-encompassing language of a worldview, we frame our understanding of the natural world in the language and symbols of modern science. And as valid and logical and rational as our understanding is today, it was to them in the past using mythology to explain it. Our science today will seem just as antiquated and dim-sighted tomorrow as those in the dark ages do to us today. And on it goes until all these truths become superseded and negated, all the way up to X.

 

The problem with myth in talking about that inner, subjective reality of being, is that it is difficult to differentiate it intellectually in the pursuit of a single, united worldview with the language of science we use for the natural world, the world of objective reality, but not subjective reality. People like Joseph Campbell, as truly gifted and insightful as they are, aren't really offering a solution to the practical use of myth in society, where it takes someone as brilliant as him, or as intelligent or insightful into these areas as you or I understanding them at this level, to be able to expect people to find a way to incorporate them in a rational worldspace is pretty impractical. It's not moving the language of spirituality forward, along with the language of science. Right now, in the West, it's still pretty disjointed and broken. Science has moved forward, but science does not cross over into the language of existential being. It is part of it, but does not define it, nor can in any form it's currently using.

 

 

 

 

 

There is a disturbing dichotomy between the materialistic approach and the philosophical approach; since conceptual models we find in religion and mythology have no real counterpart often to "method of process" as we find in physics and so on. There is no scientific or materialistic precedent to the notion of "purification", or "atonement", or "forgiveness" or feeling "integrated" into the cosmos. Our mythological models are somewhat irrelevant to how the natural world functions, except perhaps in the models we find in the natural world, such as the family unit which we often see as comparative metaphor in most Divinity Cults and religions. (Father, Son, Mother or Jesus-intermediary, etc)

 

The natural world does not give us purpose, and the mythology and religious ideals can only describe it. Kind of a dilemma. This is complicated, Antler, but I think I understand what you are driving at.

[Antlerman]

R! It's so good to see you post again. I've missed you.

 

Aww that's sweet

 

I say let it be what it is and revere it for that which it is...whatever it is.

 

Well that is kinda the kicker. In revering our "original face", we attempt to separate ourselves from it and place it somewhere out there. As such, it becomes a mental formation to fixate on and perhaps an object of worship. In doing so we become like the theist, creating a god from our own ideas and forging it into a reflection of our own preferences.

 

 

I am fond of the use of the term ultimate concern.

The Great Matter

 

 

And that ultimate reality is by definition beyond the reality as we understand it now. So it is impossible to provide proof of it. If we could 'prove it', it would be understood and this discussion would be utterly non-existent. If you're going to say "one truth" it would be all truths taken into it and negated, that it is not some single truth, but all truth.

 

"Ultimate" reality is exactly the same as "mundane" reality. The transformative experience of the so-called mystic doesn't take us anywhere but here. In a more direct sense it's like turning on the light in a darkened living room. Doing so doesn't change the living room into the kitchen, but it does change how we are able to move through it. I know, it is pretty dull.

 

Can I prove what I just said? Not in this format. The hypothesis can be tested through careful observation of one's own experience (aka mindfulness).

 

I wouldn't say that all religions in practice point to a single truth, or even to an ultimate reality but they do seem to point to a transformation in this very life but the religious framework is not necessary. Might even be easier without it.

 

Has nothing to do with this thread...but that is what was on my mind.

 

R

Perfection. Yes, this is it. It is the veil removed to see what is, and what is is now. Living and vibrant, ultimate. It is hardly anything but dull.

[Legion]

I'm the woo-woo Nazi.

I think NotBlinded flirts with woo, but I'm not convinced that she actually sleeps with it.

[Antlerman]

Now as far as this being interpreted as "woo woo", I would challenge any of that caricature could be applied to any of this. In fact, it is relatively easy to find insulting language for the strict materialist, but I don't feel the need.

Since I was the one to use the term woo, I believe your remark about not using insulting language as the insult itself is for me, AM.

It was more a subtle dig than an insult. I don't care for the use of "woo woo", as it carries the suggestion that someone is a flake. Making sweeping generalizations or overstating a point of view doesn't make someone a flake or a nut-case. "Woo woo" is a sound gesture on exactly the same level like circling your finger around your ear while rolling your eyes and pointing your finger at someone while saying, "cookoo cookoo". It is an insult to that person. It is dismissive language.

 

In a discussion group I'm in, I spoke about complex systems theories in speaking about religious expression and drives, and I'm mentioned Gaia as part of it. One prominant atheist of the group began rolling his eyes and snorting like this was "woo woo". The turn however was on him, as he was ignorant of how Gaia is in fact a scientific theory, even if some in New Age circles co-opt it for what they want it to be in their pseudoscience. The point is, the moment he heard something that to him sounded "woo woo", he dismissed anything going forward. He shut down and folded his arms over his chest, even though nothing I was talking about was remotely "woo woo". A response like that is not intelligent discourse, but dismissive arrogance.

[Legion]

Gaia is definitely woo.

[Deva]

AM, I agree that "woo woo" is dismissive, but actually, don't some ideas really deserve ridicule? I say this having sat through a lecture on the Urantia Book. To say it was too far down the rabbit hole is putting it mildly. I also have listened to someone describe their encounters on the "mother ship". Same category. I admit that I do shut down.

[Ouroboros]

In real life discussions, I rarely let people know my opinions when it's their turn to present theirs. I think it's rude to roll the eyes on someone for expressing their views.

 

That's why I love this website because I feel I can say what I think about woo-woo stuff.

 

I we couldn't do it here, we would have to create another website where it was allowed.

[Deva]

In real life discussions, I rarely let people know my opinions when it's their turn to present theirs. I think it's rude to roll the eyes on someone for expressing their views.

 

Yes, that would be rude.

[Legion]

I was just joking NotBlinded. Don't say it!

[Antlerman]

AM, I agree that "woo woo" is dismissive, but actually, don't some ideas really deserve ridicule? I say this having sat through a lecture on the Urantia Book. To say it was too far down the rabbit hole is putting it mildly. I also have listened to someone describe their encounters on the "mother ship". Same category. I admit that I do shut down.

Yes, it's true some ideas are pretty flake and 'out there', and I'm not going to give them much consideration without good cause. But I just think while your having a discussion with an intelligent person like NotBlinded, or you, or me, or any of those members who are not 'flakes', I don't care for the use of sound gestures in discussions of ideas. I think we all merit greater consideration than things like or "woo woo" in response to a thought, point of view, or belief we offer, even if at first it may sound pretty "out there". I'm interested in dialog, not posturings.

 

And no, aren't going to censor anyone from being insulting so you don't need to go start your own website. Anyone is free to talk however the hell they want, even if the result is they loose credibility and respect in exchange.

 

P.S. I don't believe disrespect was intended. But clearly it angered her. I think it's just a bad term to use, if we don't intend to insult.

[NotBlinded]

I think the use of "one truth" is so charged with connotation it may not be a good way to speak about it. I would possibly rather say an ultimate reality that all realities are superseded and negated by. I am fond of the use of the term ultimate concern. And that ultimate reality is by definition beyond the reality as we understand it now. So it is impossible to provide proof of it. If we could 'prove it', it would be understood and this discussion would be utterly non-existent.

I'm going to see if I can dig myself out of this hole I am in without florduh tossing the dirt back in faster that I can dig. I am going to try to bring all my scattered thoughts from the last couple of pages together and hopefully make more sense of what I was trying to say.

 

AM, I also state there is no proof of it. It can't be proven other than an inner (subjective) understanding. Here is part of the Mystical Theology that I posted earier:

 

But these things are not to be disclosed to the uninitiated, by whom I mean those attached to the objects of human thought, and who believe there is no superessential Reality beyond, and who imagine that by their own understanding they know it that has made Darkness Its secret place. And if the principles of the divine Mysteries are beyond the understanding of these, what is to be said of others still more incapable thereof, who describe the transcendental First Cause of all by characteristics drawn from the lowest order of beings, while they deny that it is in any way above the images which they fashion after various designs; whereas they should affirm that, while it possesses all the positive attributes of the universe (being the Universal Cause) yet, in a more strict sense, it does not possess them, since it transcends them all; wherefore there is no contradiction between the affirmations and the negations, inasmuch as it infinitely precedes all conceptions of deprivation, being beyond all positive and negative distinctions.

This is what I was talking about when I said "one truth". I know how that was taken and it was a bad choice of words. I understand what I mean with that in my mind, but I forget that others don't.

 

If you're going to say "one truth" it would be all truths taken into it and negated, that it is not some single truth, but all truth.

There could be no other way for me to understand that given the quote that I used above from the Mystical Theology. The problem is is that others don't. Maybe I should have capitalized One truth leaving the t in truth little? I try my best to talk about this, but usually fail in getting across any understanding of what I'm thinking.

 

Now as far as religions pointing to this, I would say religions are not just about one thing, not just about concern with ultimate being, or ultimate truth. So it is super easy to point to all those other elements and not see much indication of that sort of concern. Mythological systems were not only used for that spiritual concern, but were in fact used to explain the natural world, and social concerns as well. Ayn Rand in her criticisms of religion pointing out how it was born out of a need to explain the natural world is only once facet of it. I cannot reduce it to that, nor can I say it was just about social order, nor just spiritual concern. It was a system, a framework of talking about the world in totality.

I do understand this AM. There are many things mythology does. I was trying to disguinsh between empirical truth(s), which can be proven and metaphysical truth(s). Now whether these metaphyscial truth(s) are actually truth(s) is really beside the point. Yes, I believe they are/it is truth(s), but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that it is this that they point to when speaking of God.

 

Maybe my problem is that I am speaking dualistically in order to say something. It comes out bad when I do that doesn't it? I did tell florduh that materialism is only half of the story. It's the metaphysical aspect that joins it to make it whole.

 

This is what I was trying to convey with my agreement with what florduh said here:

 

Maybe we can say that most religious mythology points to some universal themes and ideas about our universe that may or may not be true, as there is no way of proving any of it. If that premise is accepted, then most religions are simply searching for answers they assume to exist using similar tools.

Metaphysically, most religions point to an inclusive One. This is the "one truth" I was speaking of (regardless whether true or not). They also use the mythology for living everyday life. This post of florduh's is inclusive of both the physical and metaphysical and I agree that is what myths do. But, when I was trying to explain what I meant by "one truth", I was leaning more towards the metaphysical although all of everything is included in the One. Damnit. I'm failing again. In my mind, the unity is there so when I switch from speaking of one to the other, I do it with the understanding that they aren't really separate.

 

When I stated this:

 

"God" is meant to represent the mystery of existence and the power of life itself. So, if God represents the mystery of life, and this mystery is the power of life itself, they are pointing to this mystery by pondering existence, hence mythology.

I was trying to describe the metaphyscial experience of life that lies beyond the metaphors used by religions to point to God. You may call this the subjective experience of existence?

 

 

The problem with myth in talking about that inner, subjective reality of being, is that it is difficult to differentiate it intellectually in the pursuit of a single, united worldview with the language of science we use for the natural world, the world of objective reality, but not subjective reality. People like Joseph Campbell, as truly gifted and insightful as they are, aren't really offering a solution to the practical use of myth in society, where it takes someone as brilliant as him, or as intelligent or insightful into these areas as you or I understanding them at this level, to be able to expect people to find a way to incorporate them in a rational worldspace is pretty impractical. It's not moving the language of spirituality forward, along with the language of science. Right now, in the West, it's still pretty disjointed and broken. Science has moved forward, but science does not cross over into the language of existential being. It is part of it, but does not define it, nor can in any form it's currently using.

Campbell did say we need a new myth.

 

Objective and subjective reality is probably even a better way of saying what I'm trying to say by using empirical and metaphysical truth(s).

 

I don't have a very cohesive manner about saying what I want to say. I would say that my language itself is disjointed and broken. When I read your posts, I usually understand everything you are saying. When I grow up, I want to be just like you!

[Legion]

When I grow up, I want to be just like you!

For the love of all that is good and pure, don't say that!

 

He already has trouble fitting that fat head through the door.

[Antlerman]

When I grow up, I want to be just like you!

For the love of all that is good and pure, don't say that!

 

He already has trouble fitting that fat head through the door.

You know, that joke would be funny if any part of it were true. It's kind of old, and not that funny.

[Shyone]

AM, I agree that "woo woo" is dismissive, but actually, don't some ideas really deserve ridicule? I say this having sat through a lecture on the Urantia Book. To say it was too far down the rabbit hole is putting it mildly. I also have listened to someone describe their encounters on the "mother ship". Same category. I admit that I do shut down.

Yes, it's true some ideas are pretty flake and 'out there', and I'm not going to give them much consideration without good cause. But I just think while your having a discussion with an intelligent person like NotBlinded, or you, or me, or any of those members who are not 'flakes', I don't care for the use of sound gestures in discussions of ideas. I think we all merit greater consideration than things like or "woo woo" in response to a thought, point of view, or belief we offer, even if at first it may sound pretty "out there". I'm interested in dialog, not posturings.

 

And no, we aren't going to censor anyone from being insulting so you don't need to go start your own website. Anyone is free to talk however the hell they want, even if the result is they loose credibility and respect in exchange.

You know, it's just a thought, but sometimes mystic type people use words and phrases that just make my eyes glaze over. They sound rather meaningful, but empty. Important, but irrelevent. Comprehensive, but vacuous.

 

It's almost like a mix and match meaningless vocabulary where you can take the words, say them, rearrange them, and make more fluff. Depak Chopra does this, and even though somewhere deep down there may be something worth hearing from him, he covers it up with such junk words that meaning is virtually lost.

 

Some examples we can all agree on, like "Quantum" when not talking about quantum mechanics as in "Quantum Love" or "Quantum relaxation.". Others are more difficult, but "Ultimate" followed by almost anything just doesn't mean much, even if you're talking about the Ultimate Cheezeburger.

 

Some day, not to be dismissive or insulting but to show what I am trying to say, I may take a post by someone, dissect the words, rearrange them, and present something that sounds profound and is absolutely devoid of content.

 

And that would be woo.

[Legion]

When I grow up, I want to be just like you!

For the love of all that is good and pure, don't say that!

 

He already has trouble fitting that fat head through the door.

You know, that joke would be funny if any part of it were true. It's kind of old, and not that funny.

Geez, didn't realize you were in a mood my good man.