God Needs Salvation!

[philo]

Open_Minded, thanks.

 

So please understand why I feel reservation when it comes to "descriptions of God".

 

I do. I was thinking earlier that love can't be explained earlier, as with spirituality. I think the problem with God is that he's gotten such a bad rap for so many years since he's been described as perhaps .. . worse than human.

 

I've read the Won Buddhism Bible. I taught English in Korea for a few years and about 1/3 of my students were raised buddhist. The book was quite vague and flowery as I recall.

 

Having stated the above, I have come to believe that humanity is searching for the same ________.

 

Three years ago I would have agreed, but I know what you're getting at. Especially if you're talking about finding a purpose and meaning to life. I can honestly say these days, however, that I am not searching for a god, or a purpose and meaning with god attached to it. If I put it in mathematics the god question has been thoroughly explored.

 

100,000 different religions, roughly 34,000 Christian sects, and untold philosophies have come and gone (as far as we can tell) since mankind has been trying to define god and our purpose. I'll bet there are atleast a million different conversations and forum discussions raging at this moment to find these answers. No consensus has ever been reached. It took me about 43 years (far too long) to look honestly at those numbers and come to the conclusion that both god and his purpose will never be known. For me the alternative was atheism and I just wish I wouldn't have waited so long to make the decision.

 

(My numbers are not too accurate, but as close to real numbers as I've discovered.)

 

 

Your concept of God is non threatening. I talked with a fundi atheist a few years back who did not agree with me that the god question could be explored without resorting to characterizations of God. It can be explored. Just because man/religions tend towards arrogance and violence towards those who believe differently, doesn't mean that there are some reasonable people out there. While I believe this, I know there are no answers.

 

I believe we are a manifestation or expression of God (of infinite LOVE/WISDOM/Energy within all, through all and beyond all). Having said that, I also believe that someone else can completely disagree with me and not be "wrong".

 

Would you be willing to agree that we are also, hate, ignorance, or lethargical? I think Christianity is fundamentally flawed because it cannot reconcile the presence of evil. While claiming that a god created "everything" it is built on the notion that he did not create evil. Most of it's crucial doctines are nonsensical. ie hell, the devil etc.

 

Just wondering how you might reconcile the dualism that exists in the universe. Any concept of god must include a satisfactory explanation of why bad things happen on planet earth.

[♦ ficino ♦]

A friend of mine commented to me last night that religion's time has passed and will soon fall behind us. This is something that I have been looking at for some time, how that the fundamentalists' claims to their faith having a literal historical and scientific foundation, and is absolute in its accuracy, injures the human spirit by forcing the human mind to deny the reality of life all around it. ... in a greatly cosmopolitan society, such as the entire planet is today through mass communication, narrow views of tribal deities and priestly theocracies sets that cultural/faith system at odds with the real world its people live in, where they have to try to reconcile other culture's equally meaningful views of the world through systems and symbols that are not their own. ... the fundamentalist will see to it that their dragging up the old God and the old culuture, will sufficiently kill him for any possible meaning for people living in this modern world tommorow. Jesus and Jehovah will be as much a relic of the past as Zeus, and the fundamentalists will be God's final executioners.

 

I just read through this thread, Antlerman. You and others have put up a lot of thought-provoking comments.

 

PLEASE convince me that your prediction is likely to happen, A-man! I look around and see much more power going to religious fundamentalists than they had when I was a kid. In the Netherlands for example Islamic fundies are carrying on what seems a little like a gradual invasion. They're starting to demand that sharia be kowtowed to by secular society. Fundies have the advantage of tight organization; that's perhaps religion's chief evolutionary advantage, making people form tight groups and sacrifice stuff for the agenda of the group as the leaders define it.

 

I think "pagan" religion died away partly because Christianity was better organized. As long as you worshiped the emperor's spirit, paganism let you believe whatever you wanted. The more laid-back system reaches points where it has to fight hard to protect itself against the militantly organized system. Are non-fundies approaching such a point, or am I an alarmist?

 

So I'm worried. My dad fifty years ago was convinced that science, human development, etc. had brought us all past the point where the traditional religions have something to say. I'm thinking, yeah, look at the world now.

 

I'm just feeling bummed out.

 

As to what God signifies, to me a view of God that sounds like "that which is of ultimate significance" is too vague. Why not just say "I don't believe in God but there are things of ultimate significance" and then name them? Maybe there's a creator force out there that jump-started the Big Bang, I don't know and don't know if it's possible to talk about such a force as more than a guess on our part. Ditto discussions of whether that force is intelligent. In the western tradition, anyway, "God" is generally understood in line with the deity in Judaism/Christianity/Islam. If we mean something much different from that, I think we need a different word than "God."

 

 

I have seen your answers on here, O_M. You're too friggin' smart to buy that crap. Stop trying to convince me you are an Xian. A Deist. Yes. A Wiccan - that's stretchin' but maybe. But a Xian. I don't buy it. Why? Here's why:

1. You're too nice.
   
2. You're too kind.
   
3. You care far too much about others than the average xian running around.
   
4. You have common sense.
   
5. You appear to be very intelligent in most of your posts.
   
6. Your posts makes sense and you use words that are often bigger than one syllable.
   
7. You are chasing Chris Vedagi all over the world to confront him on his idiocy.
   
8. You can go into the Lion's Den and come back week after week.
   
9. You are not ignorant.
   
10. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders but minus the a-typical xian chip.
    
11. You do not witness. At least, not that I have seen on here.
    
12. You don't get your panties all in a bunch when someone disses xianity.
    
13. You don't try to hit everyone with versus and incantations of some ancient cartoon.
    

Now, either you are some neo-mutated, christ-chromosone deficient Xian that is rare -- or you are really another religious endeavor altogether, you are not the run-of-the-mill-TBN-watching-Xian.

 

 

BUT, if you tell me you own a Caddy, I might believe you....... well, maybe not.

 

Yes, I've had the same questions, jrmarlin! Great reply. But are you knocking Caddies? My uncle used to get a new one every year; rode almost as smoothly as his boat.

 

I second the compliments; OM you're the best.

[philo]

ficino said:

 

My dad fifty years ago was convinced that science, human development, etc. had brought us all past the point where the traditional religions have something to say. I'm thinking, yeah, look at the world now.

 

This is a real mystery. How is it that with such overwhelming scientific facts people still believe in ancient myths.

 

Three theories

 

1) People are too terrified of going to hell to disbelieve what they have been taught. Destory this myth and people will be free.

 

2) I'm almost convinced it has something to do with genetics or very strong memes. From an evolutionary standpoint our brains are still hardwired to believe in myths.

 

3) Christianity has invented a new form of intellectualism, which excuses facts and elevates myths and the spiritual experience as a pseudo-intelligence.

[Antlerman]

I do believe there is a God. I don't believe this God is an extension of the human experience. I believe we are a manifestation or expression of God (of infinite LOVE/WISDOM/Energy within all, through all and beyond all). Having said that, I also believe that someone else can completely disagree with me and not be "wrong".

 

To me, this type of a discussion is not about having "TRUTH", or about being "right" or "wrong" - it is about learning. Because we are all searching after an Ultimate Reality that is not within our human ability to fully grasp. So... to me these types of discussions are about learning .. and it is often good to learn from those who are different from yourself.

 

I've said this in other threads, but I think it bears repeating here. Trying to "know" God is somewhat like a tree trying to "know" the forest. It is not physically possible for a tree to "know" the forest from beyond and outside the forest. The tree must "know" the forest by experiencing it.

 

I hope this doesn't muddy up the waters of discussion too much. If it does feel free to ask questions, I'm always game.

I agree this is about learning how each other perceive the world. First of all: Language Alert! (Expressing knee jerk reaction here...). "Ultimate Reality": This is the language of absolutes. Included in this expression of an absolute reality, you state it as something that exists outside the human experience, independent, external. To rephrase this: "God is an absolute reality that exists externally and independently from humans as ____________." Would you agree with how that was restated?

 

When people speak of Ultimate Realities, they fall into the realm of the natural. If it is natural, then it can be discovered and explained rationally. I question sometimes that what I am hearing is not just a use of language that suggests something like this, but an actual perspective that sees this through the filter of a traditional mindset? If so, isn't that offering a description of the whole animal by feeling its ear? What if all we are feeling is an ear, and there is no animal?

 

I see that what we are experiencing and trying to describe is not some external thing (or animal in the analogy), but our own response to the universe. The universe itself is a neutral when it comes to meaning. It does not "give meaning". We find meaning. We create meaning. We create art, philosophy, and mythology to describe what we have "found".

 

To me this is more consistent with all the observations we have made about the nature of the universe though science, and in looking at how art, philosophy, and religion function within the human experience anthropologically. I look forward to your response to the Philo's question about the dichotomy that is part of the universe as we know it. From what you seem to describe about the universe as an external good, I've never quite seen how you reconcile this.

[Open_Minded]

Your concept of God is non threatening. I talked with a fundi atheist a few years back who did not agree with me that the god question could be explored without resorting to characterizations of God. It can be explored. Just because man/religions tend towards arrogance and violence towards those who believe differently, doesn't mean that there are some reasonable people out there. While I believe this, I know there are no answers.

 

Well thank you Philo. I do agree with you, there are no answers. At least not any answers any human can grasp hold of right now.

 

I believe we are a manifestation or expression of God (of infinite LOVE/WISDOM/Energy within all, through all and beyond all). Having said that, I also believe that someone else can completely disagree with me and not be "wrong".

 

Would you be willing to agree that we are also, hate, ignorance, or lethargical? I think Christianity is fundamentally flawed because it cannot reconcile the presence of evil. While claiming that a god created "everything" it is built on the notion that he did not create evil. Most of it's crucial doctines are nonsensical. ie hell, the devil etc.

 

Just wondering how you might reconcile the dualism that exists in the universe. Any concept of god must include a satisfactory explanation of why bad things happen on planet earth.

 

This may be new information for you, but within the mystic branches of Christianity there is a point of nondualism. I would classify myself more along the lines of that thinking than the thinking found in most Christian writings.

 

Please understand - as you read this - that I am the same person that began a thread going after Chris De Vidal for child abuse. I do believe in the concreteness of life. We have to live with that which we call "evil" daily. And it is not lost on me, that my personal philosophy and mussings have very little impact on the life of a 4 month-old Dominic who's father plans to use switches &/or paddles on Dominic's bare bottom when he gets older.

 

Having said that, ultimately - beyond the reality that we are capable of comprehending I do believe there is ONENESS. Now how does "evil" fit into that all - I wish I had an answer. Like you, Philo, there are some things that don't have answers. At least not "easy" answers.

 

From a subjective perspective (purely subjective and not able to be documented in any way shape or form) for me this ONENESS is energy - the core and foundational energy of all that exists. I understand this as infinite LOVE/WISDOM.

 

Now our culture has taught us to think of "God" in anthropomorphised ways - and so immediately we think that "God" "controls" "good and bad". I don't think of God in anthropomorphised ways, the closest I get is WORD, LOGOS, ALPHA and OMEGA.

 

So - again from a subjective point of view - WORD, LOGOS, ALPHA and OMEGA does not assign a value of "evil" or "good" to something. As humans we manifest this infinite WORD (of Love/Wisdom), we EXPRESS this foundational energy of all that is. And it is in the expression of this energy that something becomes defined as "evil" or "good".

 

I do believe chaos exists. I also believe that we are manifestations of a pure energy which tends toward order - rather than chaos. To me this pure energy which tends toward order, rather than chaos IS LOVE. It is the foundational energy of all that exists.

 

And when - as humans - as manifestations or expressions of this energy which tends towards order - we encounter people like Chris De Vidal - we are caught up in many conflicting feelings. We "know" deep down that things should NOT be as Chris sees them. We are motivated to intervene, to do our best to protect his son from the switch. And we are motivated to do these things BECAUSE we are participating in an energy which tends towards order (LOVE).

 

If you have read that thread at all, you know I do not view Chris as inherently "evil". But, I do view his actions towards his little son as "evil". But that is a human point of view. Does the Alpha and Omega, the WORD, the LOGOS make this determination (at least in the way that we humans do)? I don't know. I believe however - that we humans make this determination and act to change things - because we participate in an energy which naturally tends towards order and because this energy manifests in such a way as to have these feelings naturally arise within our hearts. What we do with these feelings of conflict in the face of "evil" is up to us.

 

In my thinking (subjective as it is) creation is the continuous/infinite act of bringing order out of chaos. We participate in that creative process in a conscious way, and because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - "evil" takes on meaning when before it had no meaning. But, and this is key, because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - we can choose to bring order into a chaotic situation (and this is an act of love/compassion/wisdom).

 

I agree this is about learning how each other perceive the world. First of all: Language Alert! (Expressing knee jerk reaction here...). "Ultimate Reality": This is the language of absolutes. Included in this expression of an absolute reality, you state it as something that exists outside the human experience, independent, external. To rephrase this: "God is an absolute reality that exists externally and independently from humans as ____________." Would you agree with how that was restated?

 

Antlerman, when I use the term "Ultimate Reality" to me that term could be used in the spheres of science, math as easily as within the sphere of philosophy or religion. I don't use it in an exclusivistic way at all. Ultimately (and I use the word intentionally) I think when humanity reaches the peak we'll all recognize it.

 

 

I see that what we are experiencing and trying to describe is not some external thing (or animal in the analogy), but our own response to the universe. The universe itself is a neutral when it comes to meaning. It does not "give meaning". We find meaning. We create meaning. We create art, philosophy, and mythology to describe what we have "found".

 

___________________

 

Antlerman ... what you've said above and what I said earlier- well there are certain parallels. We're just coming at it from different perspectives.

 

If you have read that thread at all, you know I do not view Chris as inherently "evil". But, I do view his actions towards his little son as "evil". But that is a human point of view. Does the Alpha and Omega, the WORD, the LOGOS make this determination (at least in the way that we humans do)? I don't know. I believe however - that we humans make this determination and act to change things - because we participate in an energy which naturally tends towards order and because this energy manifests in such a way as to have these feelings naturally arise within our hearts. What we do with these feelings of conflict in the face of "evil" is up to us.

 

In my thinking (subjective as it is) creation is the continuous/infinite act of bringing order out of chaos. We participate in that creative process in a conscious way, and because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - "evil" takes on meaning when before it had no meaning. But, and this is key, because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - we can choose to bring order into a chaotic situation (and this is an act of love/compassion/wisdom).

_________________

 

To me this is more consistent with all the observations we have made about the nature of the universe though science, and in looking at how art, philosophy, and religion function within the human experience anthropologically. I look forward to your response to the Philo's question about the dichotomy that is part of the universe as we know it. From what you seem to describe about the universe as an external good, I've never quite seen how you reconcile this.

 

For clarification, Antlerman, it's not that I see the universe as an "external" good. More that I see the LOGOS as the source, the foundation of all that is - and it is GOOD. We (and all of creation) are expressions of this - so we are NOT separate from this LOGOS. The LOGOS is the heart of all that is.

 

Beyond my clarification, did my answer to Philo satisfy your appetite?

[philo]

Open_Minded, I read through your 6 points on another post, so I'm getting a feel from where you're coming from. Honestly, I can't fault you oppinions. No one has a monopoly on the truth and everyone has the right to think what they want.

 

Would be interested in getting more clarification on this perspective.

 

This may be new information for you, but within the mystic branches of Christianity there is a point of nondualism

 

I'll continue this in another post.

[philo]

Open_Minded, got distracted so i'll continue here.

 

Having said that, ultimately - beyond the reality that we are capable of comprehending I do believe there is ONENESS. Now how does "evil" fit into that all - I wish I had an answer. From a subjective perspective (purely subjective and not able to be documented in any way shape or form) for me this ONENESS is energy - the core and foundational energy of all that exists. I understand this as infinite LOVE/WISDOM.

 

You mention above that you're unsure of how evil fits into the picture, yet the oneness you describe is composed of Love/Wisdom. Not trying to prod you, but many have this tendency to not merge into their philosophies what amounts to the other half of life ie., the evil component.

 

Just some quick background here. The last remaining question I had, and could not reconcile that caused me to leave Christianity, was caused because the religion did not explain evil. Most important here was that Christianity promotes a god who created everything, but that this god did not create (or is responsible) for evil. I've found that only atheism has a satisfactory explanation. There is no such thing as evil. There are only random events caused by a "nuetral" nature that we then interprete as good or bad depending on how these events effect us. This, of course you know, but you take a religious slant on it.

 

You summed a lot up here:

 

In my thinking (subjective as it is) creation is the continuous/infinite act of bringing order out of chaos. We participate in that creative process in a conscious way, and because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - "evil" takes on meaning when before it had no meaning. But, and this is key, because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - we can choose to bring order into a chaotic situation (and this is an act of love/compassion/wisdom).

 

"Subjective as it is" . . . I don't see the purpose to ascribing "creation" with god-like qualities that have the "purpose" of bringing order out of chaos. I would not know how to begin "participating" with this creation in this endeavour. I guess the biggest problem I see in this line of reasoning is that it applies meaning to creation that should not be applied. I'll try and explain what I mean.

 

Nature is impersonal and neutral. It's all good, whether its a spawning a tornado or watering a desert. I don't think it chaotic or working towards some noble conclusion. Using a purely natural explanation of man, I don't think that we have qualties that can be separated in terms of good or evil, nor do we use certain qualities to be good or evil. The act of murder for example can be quite useful and noble in certain situations. The same holds true for emotions such as anger and hate. Both anger and hate can cause me to accomplish some great good.

 

As for myself, I lean towards an existential perspective. I don't think there is evil in the religious sense of the word. On the other hand, I fully recognize the "bad" dynamic in life. I also embrace this 'badness" as a part of life. I would have difficulty following the kind of philosophy/religion you described in the above quote. For me it does not embrace (as good, necessary and natural) all that is bad. I understand of course the relevance of thinking positive and doing good, but I think that any philosophy/religion that does not embrace the reality of dualism is only half on target.

[Antlerman]

I do believe chaos exists. I also believe that we are manifestations of a pure energy which tends toward order - rather than chaos. To me this pure energy which tends toward order, rather than chaos IS LOVE. It is the foundational energy of all that exists.

<snip>

In my thinking (subjective as it is) creation is the continuous/infinite act of bringing order out of chaos. We participate in that creative process in a conscious way, and because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - "evil" takes on meaning when before it had no meaning. But, and this is key, because we participate in that creative process in a conscious way - we can choose to bring order into a chaotic situation (and this is an act of love/compassion/wisdom).

I wish to challenge your thoughts about this. In a previous conversation we spoke about death being chaos, and in these quotes above you ascribe the natural order of the universe as "Good", or that the underlying principle that drives it as "Good". But if evolutionary processes are true, which I accept the evidence is undeniable, then the natural state is disorder. Life and order is a crap shoot, and all life on this planet stemmed from one roll of the dice that worked, out of incalculable throws of the dice that do not.

 

When I look at the universe, I indeed respond with a positive emotional/spiritual response, because from my perspective of being alive, life is a good thing. Instinctually, I am drawn to order which supports life. I call that which benefits my survival as good. The crap shoot that worked benefits me right now, and I therefore respond to what gives life as "good". But in the analysis, isn't the evidence is against some sort of "nature" of the universe that favors life? If anything it seems life exists accidentally despite the universe. If this means there are some "essence" that promotes life, then it posses some problems, for one thing, it's in the minority.

 

Is it possible that all the processes we see as favoring life, are our projections of our own values of life onto the indifferent parent that we managed to find our existence in? I keep thinking that if the universe has a love towards us, then why did every living animal on this planet come from a single sea sponge? Life would be springing up all over the place on its own, but that's not what happened. It was one virus infected one cell; that led to one animal; that led to all life on this planet. One. Not myriad forms of life springing from the soup - just one did.

 

And of the countless millions of species that have lived or will live which evolved and branced off from that one single animal: only one of those in a brief tiny blip of time; on one tiny little branch of the vast diversity of the children of the sponge, is currently looking into heaven and wondering at the universe and what it means to have been born and to ponder the nature of their own existence.

 

That little spec of rational contemplator species in the vast kingdom of animal life forms that has existed on this planet will disappear as the countless millions of other species on this planet have, and the tree of life of decendents from that single animal life form that managed to come into being, will continue sprouting tomorrow as yesterday, and all our ponderances of what it means will crumble into the matter debris that the universe sorts into whatever happens.

 

Now, with this sobering thought in mind....

 

(more later...)

[Open_Minded]

Hello Philo:

 

Please be patient as I try to lay out my thinking. First let me affirm, for me this is a discussion of learning another perspective. It is not my intent to try and change your perspective.

 

Nature is impersonal and neutral. It's all good, whether its a spawning a tornado or watering a desert. I don't think it chaotic or working towards some noble conclusion. Using a purely natural explanation of man, I don't think that we have qualties that can be separated in terms of good or evil, nor do we use certain qualities to be good or evil. The act of murder for example can be quite useful and noble in certain situations. The same holds true for emotions such as anger and hate. Both anger and hate can cause me to accomplish some great good.

We agree, "Nature is impersonal and neutral. It's all good, whether its spawning a tornado or watering a desert"

 

But, do you see the paradox in your above statement? "Nature is impersonal and neutral" - "It's all good"?

__________________________________

From my own perspective - when I speak of "God" I am not only speaking of the universe. To me there is something else - that is ineffable. And it is this that I feel reservation in trying to lay too many words to. So, often when I speak, I speak in terms of how the human relates to this presence. And there is a point - where I believe paradox is united in ONENESS. This is what I was eluding to before ...

 

This may be new information for you, but within the mystic branches of Christianity there is a point of nondualism. I would classify myself more along the lines of that thinking than the thinking found in most Christian writings.

 

From the book: Mysticism - The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evely Underhill. Evelyn studied the writings of many mystics. Her work focuses on Christian/Western mysticism but she also acknowledges eastern approaches and the natural mysticism often found in artists or the natural world.

 

At any rate the following quotation is from a point in her book where she is explaining commonalities between the writings of mystics on this ONENESS experience.

 

On and all, these explorers of the Infinite fly to language expressive of great and boundless spaces. In their withdrawal from the busy, fretful sense-world they have sunk down to the "ground" of the soul and of the apparent universe: Being the Substance of all that Is.

Multiplicity is resolved into Unity: a unity with which the perceiving self is merged

. Thus the mystic, for the time of this "union with the Divine," does find himself in Tauler's words, to be "simply in God".......

 

Many other mystics have written to the same effect: have described with splendour the ineffable joys and terrors of the Abyss of Being "where man existed in god from all Eternity, " the soul's adventures when, "stripped of its very life," it "sails the wild billows of the sea divine." But their words merely amaze the outsider and give him little information.

The contemplative self who has attained this strange country can only tell an astonished and incredulous world that here

his greatest deprivtion is also his greatest joy; that here the extremes of possiession and surrender are the same, that ignorance and knowledge, light and dark, are ONE

. Love has led him into that timeless, spaceless world of Being which is the peaceful ground, not only of the individual striving spirit, but also of the striving universe

; and he can but cry with Philip, "It is enough".

When this point of ONENESS is realized the paradoxes of life are united. At that point, I would agree with your statement below. "I don't think there is evil in the religious sense of the word."

As for myself, I lean towards an existential perspective. I don't think there is evil in the religious sense of the word. On the other hand, I fully recognize the "bad" dynamic in life. I also embrace this 'badness" as a part of life.

__________________________

I would have difficulty following the kind of philosophy/religion you described in the above quote. For me it does not embrace (as good, necessary and natural) all that is bad. I understand of course the relevance of thinking positive and doing good, but I think that any philosophy/religion that does not embrace the reality of dualism is only half on target.

Can you see, that for someone who has experienced this ONENESS that the experience itself embraces "(as good, necessary and natural) all that is bad."? That this is what I was talking about when I said earlier that the Christian mystic tradition has a point of nondualism?

 

Having said this - please do recognize that I am aware this experience of ONENESS is not limited to the Christian mystic tradition, it is not limited to people who are disciplined contemplatives either. I have come to believe this experience is quite natural and transcends religious and cultural boundries. That is part of the reason that I hold the experience as valid - and one in which the peacemakers of this world should be exploring indepth.

 

(Deep Breath)

 

On to Antlerman...

 

I wish to challenge your thoughts about this. In a previous conversation we spoke about death being chaos, and in these quotes above you ascribe the natural order of the universe as "Good", or that the underlying principle that drives it as "Good". But if evolutionary processes are true, which I accept the evidence is undeniable, then the natural state is disorder. Life and order is a crap shoot, and all life on this planet stemmed from one roll of the dice that worked, out of incalculable throws of the dice that do not.

 

OK ... where to start..

 

"Life and order is a crap shoot, and all life on this planet stemmed from one roll of the dice, out of incalculable throws of the dice"....

 

I don't believe life is a crap shoot. Many legitimate scientists recognize the variables to produce life are so unique that it can be said, "the Universe is fine tuned for life". See the following Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

 

The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that any small change in the twenty or so physical constants would make the universe radically different: if, for example, the electron's charge were slightly different, or if the strong nuclear force were only 2% stronger, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse too easily, making stars as we know them impossible and prevent the universe from developing life as we know it.

 

Now... Antlerman .... I know your knee-jerk reaction is probably tumbling over a few chairs here.

 

Don't worry - I'm not in the intelligent design camp. I recognize that you could go pull data to dispute my point of view. And, I accept that people could argue about these things until the end of time and never really come to any concrete conclusions. As Philo said in an earlier post sometimes "there are no answers". But, on personal subjective level I cannot know what I know of science and write it off as a "crap shoot". I can also accept that there are many who do, and feel no need to argue the point because it can't be proven one way, or the other.

 

You also said the following, "then the natural state is disorder". I assume you are speaking of entropy here? I don't disagree with this scientific conclusion. What I would say, however, is that at the point of ONENESS or Unity there is ONLY order. That's all it CAN be. So... when I was speaking earlier of an energy which brings order out of chaos... I was speaking in terms of this ONENESS.

 

How do I reconcile it with the scientific facts at hand that the "natural state is disorder" - I would say that any natural state that any human could observe would, by default, have to exist within this ONENESS. As mentioned earlier - there is a point (in all cultures - not just the Christian mystic tradition) where all paradoxes are united in ONE. PARADOX BEING UNITED INTO ONE IS ORDER, wouldn't you say.

 

I don't know if this fully answers both of your questions. These things are hairy to discuss - because we all bring our own personal bias to the table. For the record - I can honestly see how one would look at these things and find chance instead intention. There are some things that we can simply not know for sure (in the concrete sense of "knowing"). And at that point we just have to let go of it.

[philo]

Antlerman, mucho poetico to your last post. Sobering thoughts are good. Fires me up anyway. I've got one life to live and "by g - -" I'm going to enjoy it as much as I can.

 

I'm looking foward to the next quantum leap in human evolution. Mark my word, some day a child will be born with some extraordinary skills that might look and think much differently than we do.

[Open_Minded]

I'm looking foward to the next quantum leap in human evolution. Mark my word, some day a child will be born with some extraordinary skills that might look and think much differently than we do.

 

Philo ... your prediction is interesting and not one that I would disagree with. Quantum leaps in human evolution are certainly possible.

 

However, I'm curious, what do you think the chances are that - when this child is born - the average person on the street will either revile him/her or worship her/him?

 

I mean no disrespect to you with that question, I truly don't. But, do you see why I ask it?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, mucho poetico to your last post. Sobering thoughts are good. Fires me up anyway. I've got one life to live and "by g - -" I'm going to enjoy it as much as I can.

 

I'm looking foward to the next quantum leap in human evolution. Mark my word, some day a child will be born with some extraordinary skills that might look and think much differently than we do.

It actually was that realization a few years ago that truly set my spirit free. It was then that I began to respond again to the universe and life in spiritual ways that I had denied myself in who I am as a human being. It's hard to explain to someone how that the moment of realizing we are not the center and focus of life, that it is a tremendously empowering revelation. We are elevated higher by being humbled in the face of something far greater than us. I am part of this stupendous thing called life - an equal and an important part of it, not its crowing achievement above it.

 

Traditional Christian thought twists human understanding into a deluded state of mind that put him one step removed from the real world and his own life.

 

 

Footnote: Actually, if one were to place a value judgment on the crowing achievement of evolution, it would be the insect, not mammals, and certainly not man. All praise the Holy Dragon Fly!

[philo]

Open Minded,

 

But, do you see the paradox in your above statement? "Nature is impersonal and neutral" - "It's all good"?

 

I do. I did personalize the impersonal nature of nature. Thanks for the link and I will check it out when I have time.

 

My take on the "oneness" experience is that it is generated by certain areas and mechanisms of the brain. It's been shown in recent experiments that the brain can be stimulated and allow the participants to experience highly mystic and spiritual experiences. Many who have engaged in these experiments have visions, and could swear that they had conversations with God. As with any part of the brain, it can be developed with practice and focus, (and stimulated) or, these skills can be lost with inactivity.

 

This is probably an inaccurate assumption, but I think many individuals think that a god has built into our brains the necessary skills to experience him or this "oneness." I think the misconception is that people are born with this ability in equal amounts. (Kind of like the Christian way of thinking that God equally calls everyone, but many just refuse to follow him.)

 

The question remains as to whether the "oneness feeling" is our missing link to our connection with god. Do you think this to be the case?

[Open_Minded]

Open Minded,

 

But, do you see the paradox in your above statement? "Nature is impersonal and neutral" - "It's all good"?

 

I do. I did personalize the impersonal nature of nature. Thanks for the link and I will check it out when I have time.

 

My take on the "oneness" experience is that it is generated by certain areas and mechanisms of the brain. It's been shown in recent experiments that the brain can be stimulated and allow the participants to experience highly mystic and spiritual experiences. Many who have engaged in these experiments have visions, and could swear that they had conversations with God. As with any part of the brain, it can be developed with practice and focus, (and stimulated) or, these skills can be lost with inactivity.

 

This is probably an inaccurate assumption, but I think many individuals think that a god has built into our brains the necessary skills to experience him or this "oneness." I think the misconception is that people are born with this ability in equal amounts. (Kind of like the Christian way of thinking that God equally calls everyone, but many just refuse to follow him.)

 

The question remains as to whether the "oneness feeling" is our missing link to our connection with god. Do you think this to be the case?

 

You ask some excellent questions, Philo.

 

Yes ... there has been SOME scientific study into this area of human experience. Not enough, if you ask me. The studies that most interest me are studies comparing brains of those who have meditated for years in a disciplined manner, beginning meditators, and those who don't meditate. There are real and concrete differences. To me - it's like any other physical exercise. If one exercises a particular area of ones body there will be results and increased abilities.

 

About the study you mentioned above:

 

My take on the "oneness" experience is that it is generated by certain areas and mechanisms of the brain. It's been shown in recent experiments that the brain can be stimulated and allow the participants to experience highly mystic and spiritual experiences. Many who have engaged in these experiments have visions, and could swear that they had conversations with God

 

I don't doubt that this is true. But what these studies do not take into account are permanent states of this oneness awareness. Simply put - and this is VERY simplified - it is not unusual for someone who has had years of disciplined meditation to enter an abiding state of oneness. Again - this experience transcends culture and religion. When a person is aware of oneness in the same way they are aware of time and space - there is a change in their approach to life. If one perceives the reconcilliation of oposites or paradox, then one perceives less conflict in the world and acts this out. One becomes less willing to participate in, or initiate conflict. And one is more likely to pursue peace-building activities in all of life. With this experience of oneness comes a transcendent Wisdom, a wisdom which instills the futility of violence and the grace of ultimate unity for all of creation. Following is a short explanation of it from within the contemporary Christian tradition.

 

http://www.centeringprayer.com/OpenHeart/open07-2.htm

Eventually you may get used to a certain degree of interior silence. The delightful peace that you may have enjoyed in the early stages of contemplative prayer becomes a normal state. Like anything in life, you can get used to contemplative prayer and not notice the great gifts you are receiving. Habitually you settle down at the beginning of prayer and move into a quiet space, and that's all there is. But that does not mean that you are no longer receiving the prayer of quiet, in which your will is in union with God. If thoughts are going by and you feel no attraction for them, you can be confident that you are in the prayer of quiet. When all the faculties are grasped by God, there is full union. That, however, is not the end of the journey.

 

What is the relationship of contemplative prayer to the rest of life?

 

The union established during prayer has to be integrated with the rest of reality. The presence of God should become a kind of fourth dimension to all of life. Our three dimensional world is not the real world because the most important dimension is missing; namely, that from which everything that exists is emerging and returning in each micro-cosmic moment of time. It is like adding a sound track to a silent movie. The picture is the same, but the sound track makes it more alive. The contemplative state is established when contemplative prayer moves from being an experience or series of experiences to an abiding state of consciousness. The contemplative state enables one to rest and act at the same time because one is rooted in the source of both rest and action.

 

When Father Keating is talking about the "presence of God" he is NOT speaking about the literal interpretation you will find in most churches. He is speaking about this awareness that we have been discussing. Notice his words "fourth dimension", "moves from being an experience or series of experiences" and "abiding state of conscioiusness".

 

This fourth dimension awareness can be found in the east as well. My point is - this is an abiding awareness. It does not go away. In the west it is referred to as abiding union with God. Within this awareness is a perception of oneness in all and through all. It is perceived in very much the same way that one is aware of time or space. And given the fact that scientist believe there are many more dimensions that humanity can not perceive - it is not out of line to want scientific study of this dynamic.

 

As someone who has meditated for 30 years - I am not offended by scientific study of these things. To me there is a difference between studying the eye and studying what the eye perceives.

 

For my own part, I do believe there is perception of another dimension. I also believes that as humanity matures (and evolves) more and more people will be able to percieve this. And I am not alone. Father Keating mentions his feelings about this in another article:

 

The whole of life becomes contemplative as a result of the evacuation or dismantling of the obstacles to the action of the Spirit. Whatever prayer practice we started out with has now become, as a result of the infusion of the Seven Gifts of the Spirit, the prayer of the Spirit. As Paul says, "The Spirit intercedes for us with unspeakable groaning" (Rom. 8:26). We do not normally know during prayer what the Spirit is requesting; we simply consent to it.

 

Our psychological experience or the particular content of prayer is not important. Doing it faithfully with the right intention is. Thus, without going through the stages of exuberant mysticism that Teresa of Avila describes, we can arrive by the hidden ladder of pure faith at the same place. And that place is the transforming union.

 

Then the permanent awareness of God's presence in a nonjudgmental way accompanies us in all we do. This abiding awareness of God's presence becomes a part of all reality, especially our reality. It adds a fourth dimension to our three-dimensional world. We watch the action of God within us and around us. We become who we really are at the deepest level, what God is--unconditional love--the total gift of self.

 

We must not think we are going to experience the liberating process in exactly the same way that John of the Cross did. He had a special ministry that required that his liberation process be hastened. God can put someone through the dark nights in a short time--a few years.

For most of us, it is going to take longer.

 

Now that people live longer, there may be a wonderful flowering of contemplative prayer among senior citizens. Death used to cut short the spiritual journey for a lot of people before they even heard of some of the states described above. In a few years, however, many will be living past a hundred. The last twenty to thirty years of life will provide an enormous potential for contemplative growth. All the stages of the great mystics of past times will be available

.

 

So, Philo ... back to another post.

 

Evolution may not come with the birth of one extraordinary child. It may come more gradually in the maturing of individual human beings. From an evolutionary perspective - why does the human race need to live beyond the age of child rearing? And yet, part of the human experience is to have longer lives with each generation. Does this change help the long-term survival of the human race?

 

Will it be the elderly among us, who have lived long enough to experience transcendent wisdom, that lead the way in teaching humans that we must live with each other (regardless of race, religion, culture, etc...) - or die off as a race. Or it may be a bit of both. As the human race evolves, will more and more children be born with the ability to percieve this oneness dimension as well as the adults in the population obtaining this perception as they mature in a spiritual sense.

 

You also asked.

 

The question remains as to whether the "oneness feeling" is our missing link to our connection with god. Do you think this to be the case?

 

I do think this experience is a CONNECTION with the SACRED ONE (God). But, it is only one connection. Humans have historical felt connection with the ineffable SACREDNESS in many ways. And I think it's a bit exclusivistic for any one person to assume that all of humanity should connect in the same way. God is infinite - why would there only be one way to perceive or experience this infinite ONENESS?

[jrmarlin]

Fundamentalism is killing more things but god, but that's another story for another thread.

[philo]

If one perceives the reconcilliation of oposites or paradox, then one perceives less conflict in the world and acts this out.

 

This comment reminded of some studies of Buddhist monks praying over water. I'll try and find the link, but it had something to do with them changing the actual composition of the water through meditation. However . . . . I just hopped on the computer after watching a segment on TV about prayer. Three focus groups were used for people going into surgery. Group 1 had people praying for them and Knew they were praying. Group 2, Had people praying for them, but they did not know. Group 3, Absolutely no prayers were offered. Group 3 had far less complications with their surgery.

 

I also can't help but think that everyone's brain is different. Most people are average I suppose with an equal ability to develop their brains as they choose. Certain areas of the brain also seem to cause or allow "spiritual thoughts." (I know this is an oversimplification.) Then of course, there are many individuals that are born handicapped. It's probably not too much of a stretch to say that some people are geniuses, average, or idiots in the spirituality department. In trying to find a connection between this part of the brain and god, what I would hope to find is a level playing field. Everyone should have the same capacity to enjoy the oneness of life, if indeed this is a gift of creation or of god.

 

I also just finished a curious essay that talked about what religious/spiritual people will normally do to enhance their spiritual experiences. Fasting is one activity. Physical deprivation or self-torture, or the use of certain foods are other activities. The effect of depriving or torturing the body has been shown to greatly enhance or stimulate this area of the brain that deals with spirituality. Also curious is how religions encourage these kinds of self-tortures to their disciples.

 

I will conclude by saying that I have nothing to conclude. . . just wanted to throw out a few more observations.

[Open_Minded]

This comment reminded of some studies of Buddhist monks praying over water. I'll try and find the link, but it had something to do with them changing the actual composition of the water through meditation. However . . . . I just hopped on the computer after watching a segment on TV about prayer. Three focus groups were used for people going into surgery. Group 1 had people praying for them and Knew they were praying. Group 2, Had people praying for them, but they did not know. Group 3, Absolutely no prayers were offered. Group 3 had far less complications with their surgery.

 

Yes... I saw this same study. I was thinking of my father when I saw it. (Just some background information here... Dad and Mom left the Catholic Church & Christianity when I was a young teen. Mom still considers herself a Diest, Dad now calls himself Christian, somewhat in the same way that I do. Although during my teen years he considered himself agnostic/atheist.) So anyway, about a year ago Dad had a heart attack. He was rushed to the nearest hospital (it is Catholic). It is a very good hospital - but it is Catholic. Now - as he was in the middle of dealing with the first stages of a heart attack and not knowing what was happening - and as they were wheeling him into the ER, a priest came up to him and Mom. My Dad leaned over to Mom and in his distress told her, "don't you let that man near me". Dad is fine now - he feels better than he has in years. But, in the middle of all that stress - the appearance of the priest gave him more stress. I don't know why it is that hospitals seem to assume that if you're ill - you need a minister. Anyway - I wondered when I was watching that story - how many of the people who were told they were being prayed for, really wanted the prayer. Or did they just go along to avoid saying "no" when they were under considerable stress from an illness?

 

Days later a minister from Dad's church came in, while I was in the room. They had a nice visit and Dad felt much better after the minister left. But, there was no Catholic mumbo jumbo type of prayer. More affirmative prayer that within Dad's body was everything needed for healing. Dad felt comforted by it. Who knows - I think the type of prayer, the desire for prayer, the belief that it has any value at all, are all things that play into whether it "works", or not.

 

I also can't help but think that everyone's brain is different. Most people are average I suppose with an equal ability to develop their brains as they choose. Certain areas of the brain also seem to cause or allow "spiritual thoughts." (I know this is an oversimplification.) Then of course, there are many individuals that are born handicapped. It's probably not too much of a stretch to say that some people are geniuses, average, or idiots in the spirituality department. In trying to find a connection between this part of the brain and god, what I would hope to find is a level playing field. Everyone should have the same capacity to enjoy the oneness of life, if indeed this is a gift of creation or of god.

 

I believe we do, in individual ways. I mean - my brother is a scientist (a chemist). He appreciates the oneness and interconnectedness of everything. I know artists and muscians who seem to have a better grasp of the ineffable than I could ever dream to have. It's as if they have a connection to a whole sacred language. And - children - children are wonderfully adept at perceiving unity within creation. Could it be that we humans unlearn this natural awareness - that all is one - as we grow? Beyond all that is nature - THEE most common and ancient way of perceiving interconnectedness/Oneness. And in the western, industrialized nations - how many individuals actually have the opportunity to explore the many dimensions of the natural world?

 

I think the formalization of spirituality into a religious sphere has caused us to believe that this realization of Oneness, that spirituality - is reserved for the few. I don't know if I agree with that assumption.

 

I also just finished a curious essay that talked about what religious/spiritual people will normally do to enhance their spiritual experiences. Fasting is one activity. Physical deprivation or self-torture, or the use of certain foods are other activities. The effect of depriving or torturing the body has been shown to greatly enhance or stimulate this area of the brain that deals with spirituality. Also curious is how religions encourage these kinds of self-tortures to their disciples.

 

Well, how do I answer this. Yes, within the history of both eastern and western meditative lifestyle this dynamic is certainly present. But, I can tell you from 1st hand experience - that the contemporary Christian contemplative movement does NOT teach these forms of extreme denial. In fact Father Keating and others take time to talk about the history of this behavior and how we must learn from these past extreme denials and tortures that there is no real value in any of it.

 

I would be interested in linking to the article you read. Was it an essay exploring contemporary meditative movements? If so - which movement? Or was the essay exploring ancient practices of meditation?

 

I can not speak for fundamentalist Christianity though. Your history puts you in a better position to address this dynamic within fundamentalism than I am qualified to do.

[philo]

Open Minded,

 

 

I'm not sure that you can find the article because it was in book of compiled articles. You can probably get the book, but I didn't enjoy many of the articles. Atheism, A Reader, Edited by S.T. Joshi. The article was written by Chapman Cohen in 1919. Not too current, but I thought the points made were applicable to today. I was referring to a part that spoke about how fasting and "Fleshy mortification" play a large part in the history of religion. Consider the medicine man, the medieval saints, and modern day torture rituals, ie, crucifixion simulations. I also think of the starving monk in the cave.

 

Another thought, in many ways religions are also based on capitalizing on human misery, and in some cases encouraging human misery. It feeds off this dynamic. Take the religious notion of sin, guilt. The Christian church in particular must plant these ideas into people's minds in order for it's doctrines to work, such as the plan of salvation. I view it as the doctor who makes his patient sick in order to heal him. Other doctrines in the religion tie into human suffering. "Blessed are the poor . . . etc. The religion feeds of poverty, sickness, mental anguish. And every disciple is taught to rejoice in God when they are suffering as kind of a test of worthyness. Anyway, just some food for thought.

 

I think the formalization of spirituality into a religious sphere has caused us to believe that this realization of Oneness, that spirituality - is reserved for the few. I don't know if I agree with that assumption.

 

Or worse. It's made out to be something you earn through trials and tribulations. It is granted to only those whom god blesses. It's used as a test of faith and one's connection to God. I consider myself quite intune with the spirituality "feeling" that we've all been discussing in this and other posts. But I just find no purpose, or evidence to connect this feeling with a god.

 

I know from reading another post that you do believe in Jesus, and follow a mystical form of Christianity? That's what I gather anyway and you can clarify that for me. I would be curious as to why you still identify with this religion, or exactly what you see in Jesus?

[Open_Minded]

I know from reading another post that you do believe in Jesus, and follow a mystical form of Christianity? That's what I gather anyway and you can clarify that for me. I would be curious as to why you still identify with this religion, or exactly what you see in Jesus?

 

Yes, I do believe in Jesus and I do follow the path of contemplative Christianity. I would like to point something out here - and I eluded to it earlier - the contemporary movement in contemplative Christianity is rooted in a deep history. I am grateful for all the early writings of Christian mystics - those writings mean much to me, have given me much guidance and comfort over the years. But, the early Christian mystics were people - people who lived in their own times and cultures and their writings reflect this. As in the extreme sacrifices, denials and self-torture that we were discussing earlier - the writings need to be read in and acted upon by context.

 

Having said this, yes liberal contemplative Christianity is where I would "fit" on the spectrum of the Christianity.

 

About Jesus, I do believe in Jesus. This was not always the case. As I said earlier, my parents left the Christian church when I was an early teen (12/13 years old). During my teen years I watched them struggle with leaving the church and Christianity altogether. My father waivered between agnostism and atheism for many years (although he now considers himself Christian). During these years dinner table conversations centered around either politics (this was in the 60s and 70s - there was much fodder for discussion) or religion or both.

 

I grew up with a father and mother who were both struggling with their own spirituality. My mother never questioned the existence of God, but she did question and grapple with Christianity and Jesus. My father questioned deeply the existence of a God and I was a witness to it all. There were books all over the house covering all the different questions that arise when one is going through this process. All of you on this board probably have a deeper intuitive understanding of what my parents were struggling with than my siblings and I do. The gift Mom and Dad gave all of us was to free us. They taught us to think for ourselves.

 

And in the process dinner table discussions included such topics as whether Jesus even lived, what his life meant, what was his role in history if he did live. The difference between a literal reading of the Bible and reading it in context, with a deep respect for archealogy, the time it was written in, the culture it was written in, who was doing the writing, who was being written to..... Things you all are quite familiar with. By the time I was 15-16 years old I had been exposed to a nightly dose of it all.

 

The end result of this upbringing was an eclectic mix of my mothers and fathers ideas. (Thank you Mom and Dad - truly) By the time I was 15 I did not know whether Jesus actually lived or not, I accepted that one could really never know with any certainity. I did not consider myself Christian, although I did believe in a God. I would have considered myself a Diest like my mother, but with a great interest in the study of the world's major religions like my father. Mom just seems to be able to determine where she is at with these things and then let it be. I'm more like my father in the sense that it is an on-going part of my thinking processes, I'm not able to just settle with these things and let them be. (Sigh - sometimes I wish I could)

 

By the time I went off to college (a Lutheran college) I was well equiped to argue with any professor of religion over the existence of Jesus, the legitimacy of the claims of Messiahship, etc.. And being an obnoxious, know-it-all - like may impetuous, young adults - I argued these things on a regular basis with the religion profs. We were required to take a certain number of relgion courses. One prof - was gentle, considerate, intelligient, patient and able to put up with my obnoxious behavior and I learned much from him. But - I left college - still not considering myself Christian or looking at Jesus in any other way than I would look at the founder/leader of another world religion.

 

And to a degree those years in college had helped me settle. The religion courses that I took, this one prof had helped me settle into an adult Diesm. Between my parents in my teen years - and this one professor I thought I had pretty well fine-tuned my own beliefs.

 

As an aside - it should be noted that throughout my life I have naturally experienced mystical moments. These experiences started as a young child, and were not self-induced. They just happened and they were mostly connected with nature. A long time ago, it occurred to me that if I were brought up in the natural religions I could have easily worshipped trees. I know that sounds odd, but it is the truth.

 

And because I had the parents I had, I was not made to feel guilty or that something was "wrong" with these experiences. So by the time I was in my 20s I considered these things a natural and normal part of my life. I started meditating when I was 17 years of age, for medical reasons. My father introduced me to meditation. During my college years I discovered the new age movement, it was in the mid 70s and the new age movement was in full swing. For awhile it seemed to "fit" because of the experiences I had all my life - the new age movement gave me an avenue to explore these experiences.

 

So, having settled during my college years into a Deist path with a lot of New Age influence, I relaxed and let these things simmer on the back burner. But, in my late 20s I had an experience that reconnected me with Christianity. The only way I can describe this "mystical" experience was that in a flash I understood the Trinity as I never had before. And in a flash - in the twinkling of an eye - I understood Jesus as I never had before. In this one instance of time Jesus went from being the leader/founder of one major world religion to being the fullfillment of the Trinity. And when the moment was over the ONLY thing I could consider myself was Christian.

 

Now, that sounds quite simple. But it isn't really because - then I had to struggle with the implications of that moment. What did that realization mean in connection with all I had learned about Christianity over the years, with all that I had learned about Jesus (whether He lived, what the meaning was of His life, etc...)? I had to deal with all the pain I watched my parents go through as they LEFT Christianity. And yes ... I had to tell my non-Christian parents that I was Christian.

 

I had to re-claim Christianity. It was not an easy thing to do ... and oddly enough my father joined me on the journey. Life is an odd circle sometimes.

 

It has been decades since that pivotal experience in my life. And spiritually they have not always been easy years. Reclaiming Christianity is NOT an easy thing to do in a literalist culture. And even now there are times I want to throw my hands in the air and walk away from it all. But, in the end I know what I feel in my heart. I know what my own personal journey has taught me and I know that there is a place in the world for contemplative Christianity. If the world's religions are ever going to live peacefully with each other - it will be the contemplative branches of the world's religions which lead the way in this pursuit.

 

Philo - I'm not sure all this answers your questions. If not feel free to ask more. This is probably more than you asked for, but my thinking about Jesus and Christianity has not come easily and having the history helps people understand that I do not call myself Christian without a lot of thought and struggle.

[philo]

Open_ Minded,

 

 

Your history was helpful. Including into it your father's and mother's expience was helpful as well. It reminds me to the struggles that people go through and the different roads that they take.

 

My perspective regarding Christianity is entirely different of course. For many personal reasons I have and interest in helping people to be free of religious ideologies, which is an interest that is difficult to explain and is often unwelcomed. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. What should I care if someone is happy in their beliefs? In a nutshell, I care because of the destructive nature of Christianity on an individual and in our world. But I don't really feel that I'm on some kind of a mission. Could I change your beliefs? That would be doubtful. But I do enjoy throwing some ideas out from time to time for people to chew on. Just a couple of thoughts . . .

 

I actually think that it is a good thing that people are drawn to Jesus, but that comes with some clarification. Jesus has become a symbol of human compassion and love, and for some like yourself he's viewed as a mystic. He is also viewed as one who sacrificed his life for others, and as human beings, we admire this kind of gesture. People see what they want to see, however, and many do not admit or recognize many of Jesus' faults. I find in the Bible many theolgical issues that prove that he was non other than a man, and I find in the Bible many textual references that show that his moral and ethical attributes are less than admirable.

 

I've been told by a couple of sources that the Christian church has fragmented into over 33,000 different sects. This number is impressive, but it would be no less impressive were there 5 Christain sects. My understanding is that there have been some 100,000 different religions that have come and gone. At issue is whether or not there is single truth offered by God to man, or whether man simply events religions at the drop of a hat. And there are many as well, who profess a religion, but who actually adhere to just a fragment of the religions' teachings. Personally, I'm curious about the need and reasons that people have to associate with any kind of religion, given the statistics that no religion offers the truth.

 

I think the three major religions spawned by the Old and New Testaments have had the most detrimental influence on humanity. I think the influence of biblical values and ideas on the mind, and their influence in the world is just as detrimental. I have to assume (and tell me if I am wrong),

that your perspective is different than mine. In order to call youself a Christian, in other words, you have to either not recogonize this religions's history, or perhaps find a way to dismiss it while holding onto the few fragments in which you think this religion is good for people. I also have to assume that in your attempts to discover the truth that you are okay with picking certain elements from various religions or ideas, discarding other elements, and yet, still feel the need to identify with Christianity. I know my assumptions are pointed, but please don't consider them threating because they are not. I'm just wonding how you reconcile your association with Christianty.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Philo - sorry for not responding sooner. This weekend was pretty busy with family. Even now I don't have a lot of time to put into a post.

In order to call youself a Christian, in other words, you have to either not recogonize this religions's history, or perhaps find a way to dismiss it while holding onto the few fragments in which you think this religion is good for people. I also have to assume that in your attempts to discover the truth that you are okay with picking certain elements from various religions or ideas, discarding other elements, and yet, still feel the need to identify with Christianity. I know my assumptions are pointed, but please don't consider them threating because they are not. I'm just wonding how you reconcile your association with Christianty.

 

There is another option.

 

1st - I can't possibly "not recogonize" or "dismiss" the negative aspects of Christianity. I'm my mother's daughter. During my teen years, as she was breaking from Christianity, one of her more common rants on Christianity is how it has done more harm to this world than good. (Don't get me wrong, Mom is a very positive woman who rarely complains. But, as she was breaking away and struggling - this topic was a huge issue for her to deal with.)

 

No .. "not recognizing" or "dismissing" the violent history of Christianity is not an option in my life - at least not if I am to remain honorable to the way I was raised.

 

The simple fact that I participate in this board should tell you enough about my personality to know I do not shrink from exposure to things difficult to grapple with.

 

So... how do I deal with the violent history of Christianity? The same way I deal with the violent history of humanity. I take the lessons I can take from history, I learn what I can from the violence. If the violence of human history should teach us anything it is what mistakes NOT to repeat.

 

Religion is a huge weapon of those who seek violence. But the motivation is often power and greed. Much like today. We have people in power - who are greedy and who relish the power they have. They USE religion to divide and conquer. It is an easy tool of violence.

 

George Bush would not have gotten as much control as he has without using religion. But, is Georgie really taking the stands he takes for religious reasons? It's a toss up. It's anyone's guess whether the motivator for his behavior is power, greed, control or religious beliefs. I personally think he uses religious belief to justify his need to always have control, to hang onto wealth, to show his power to the world.

 

In other words - he may profess a "spiritual" foundation for his actions. He may even believe that there is a "spiritual" foundation for his actions. But, cut and dry, when all is said and done - he is interested in power, control and oil. Religion is his front.

 

If he had run for office saying he wanted to invade Iraq, saying he was interested in taking over Iraq to control oil fields he never would have won. So, instead he intentionally uses religion to divide and conquer. And he is just one example in the entire history of humanity. The story is as old as humanity itself.

 

No, ignoring the lessons of religions - and humanity's - violent past is a dangerous proposition.

[philo]

Hi Open Minded

 

This week was busy for me as well. Seems like they are all busy aren't they? And my mom passed on Saturday morning. I have mixed feelings about that, but she had be wrestling with cancer for the past five years.

 

I appreciate your honesty. Many Christians do overlook or try and excuse the history or the problems associated with the religion. ANd I agree as well that you don't shy away from disscussions. I've enjoyed the exchange of ideas.

 

So... how do I deal with the violent history of Christianity? The same way I deal with the violent history of humanity. I take the lessons I can take from history, I learn what I can from the violence.

 

This was a good point. I often liken Christianity these days to the peace movement of the 60-70's. The religion is definately not the revolutionary cult today which marked its beginning. I'm glad for this. It is still in the business, however, of teaching some ideas about life that I think are quite detrimental to an individual and to a society. NOt sure why I care about these things, but I do.

[Open_Minded]

So... how do I deal with the violent history of Christianity? The same way I deal with the violent history of humanity. I take the lessons I can take from history, I learn what I can from the violence.

 

This was a good point. I often liken Christianity these days to the peace movement of the 60-70's. The religion is definately not the revolutionary cult today which marked its beginning. I'm glad for this. It is still in the business, however, of teaching some ideas about life that I think are quite detrimental to an individual and to a society. NOt sure why I care about these things, but I do.

 

Hello Philo..

 

I do know what you mean. I also feel concern about these things - about the impact of things like literalism, extremism and a clinging to theology over embracement of an honest search. I suppose this concern manifests itself in the work I do with interspirituality. That is why I like this board - this board offers a wonderful venue for discussions with people from a different perspective.