snood wrote:Timberlanko:
Quote:You asked for others to share their " ... experiences with what they consider to be the spiritual realm.". That, in keeping with the topic's premise, precisely is what I did.
It most assuredly is not what you have done. What you have done, and doubtless will continue to do, is to set yourself up as the clear-thinking worldly judge of those confused and gullible sorts who hold any such spiritual belief. You make it clear from your very first post you think nothing at all of any spiritual experience - you call them "unexplained" and hold in disdain any who venture any further:
Quote:Now, as to a personal "spiritual awakening" ... well, while perhaps not exactly in keeping with the foundational premise of this thread, I'll say I woke up when I realized "unexplained" means neither more nor less than "unexplained".
You hammer that point home - that
whatever it is we're talking about shouldn't be called "spiritual", but simply "unexplained"
It is a point you clearly want to be made, here, amongst any rash and ill-considered claims about anything "spiritual" :
Quote:Emotionally satisfying or not, unexplained means neither more nor less than unexplained. It means unexplained, period.
And again, just in case any of us weren't listening to Timberlandko giving us the
real reality of the unassailable truth:
Quote:I've seen a buncha unexplained stuff, and heard of much more - its unexplained.
You ventured off briefly to magnanimously allow that not all Christians were heartless and mindless, in answer to a post by Dyslexia:
Quote:Not really; not all Christians are of the ignorant, luddite Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Biblethumper persuasion. Despite the visibility of the backwards examples, they're really nothing more than a very vocal, fairly effective minority. Of course, that does not in any way lessen the threat they and their proselytizing ilk pose.
but that was just more of the same bone you have to pick with the ills dogmatic and proseletyzing organized religion has caused the world - which, like everything else you have posted in this thread, has nothing at all to do with any experience which you yourself have considered to be spiritual.
You make it very clear in this post, in tone and verbiage, what you think of the whole idea of personal spiritual experience:
Quote:Well, I'll say "The Spiritual Realm" appeared to me to be self-evidently real untill somewhere around the time I began to seek out and read other than that fed to me by the decidedly, institutionally "spiritual" types responsible for my early gradeschool education. I'd hafta say discovering (prolly the summer between 2nd and 3rd grades, I believe) the classical Greeks, Plato and Aristotle in particular though not alone, occasioned my shift of opinion, setting me, as it were, on an objective, open ended, open-minded, ongoing search for evidenced truth and logical understanding, as opposed to self-satisfiedly wallowing in the comfort of dogmatically handed-down, illogical, counter-intuitive, counter-evidentiary myth and mystery.
So please Timberlanko -
please be courteous enough at least, if you insist on peppering the thread with your unsubtle reminders that the notion of personal spiritual experience is illogical, or unreasonable, or just plain silly, to not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to pretend as if that's not what you're doing, 'kay?
I submit, snood, that entire response constitutes but projection of, and clearly confirms, the preconception and prejudice characteristic of the proposition you endorse. In that response, you misconstrue, in effort to suit your own purposes, that to which you respond. Apparently, so insecurely founded is the proposition you endorse that inherently it calls for its proponents to presume that any disagreement or challenge presented thereto, any alternate proposition offered, anything not fully congruent with and endorsive of said proposition, functionally equates to the stifling of thought with consequent denial of right to the free expression thereof. The irony reflected in the hypocritical stance reflected by your response transcends anything Sartre ever came up with; your attempt at counterargument is hoist on its own petard. That, however, is entirely unsurprising. Dismaying, certainly, but not in the least surprising.
Scott777ab wrote:timberlandko wrote:dyslexia wrote:Lash has a heart and a mind, unusal for a chistian.
Not really; not all Christians are of the ignorant, luddite Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Biblethumper persuasion. Despite the visibility of the backwards examples, they're really nothing more than a very vocal, fairly effective minority. Of course, that does not in any way lessen the threat they and their proselytizing ilk pose.
Threat!
What threat?
No greater threat to the advance, indeed even to the very continuation, of civilization exists than religious fundamentalism; whatever its stripe, it is at once antithetical and inimical to open, honest inquiry and free expression of thought. Reserving any subjective assessment of causality, objectively it must be observed that permutations of religious fundamentalism deriving from the various interpretations of the Abrahamic mythopaeia are proximate to, critical components of, a great deal of the oppresion and armed volence currently plaguing much of humankind today (as, throughout the past many hundreds of years, long has been the case - "Believe as I believe or I will kill you, as commanded by my god"). While religion - spirituality - is not itself
per se a threat, religion provides the means by which some seek to impose, by force of law and arms, their exclusive will, manners, and mores on others. That is not to say religion is the sole source of prejudice, bigotry and intolerance, and the violence, oppression and misery attendent thereon, but merely to point out it is a significant font of same.
real life wrote:Scott777ab wrote:timberlandko wrote:dyslexia wrote:Lash has a heart and a mind, unusal for a chistian.
Not really; not all Christians are of the ignorant, luddite Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Biblethumper persuasion. Despite the visibility of the backwards examples, they're really nothing more than a very vocal, fairly effective minority. Of course, that does not in any way lessen the threat they and their proselytizing ilk pose.
Threat!
What threat?
hi Scott,
You've got to remember that in forumspeak, it is only Christians that have no right to state their position, because that would be 'preaching' and 'proselytizing'.
All others are free to do so.
(Especially frowned upon is stating your position on a
religious topic in a
Religion forum.)
It's fairly simple. Just two sets of rules. One for them, another for everybody else.
Bullshit. Any here, without regard to ideology, philosophy, or theology, are perfectly welcome to, in point of fact specifically invited to, present, discuss, criticize, dissect, endorse, or reject any position, in any discussion, on any of the forums of this website, so long as such interaction is conducted civilly and be not otherwise in violation of law and/or the membership agreement as pertain to hate speech, pornography and/or gratuitous vulgarity, or spam.
Quote:If you have difficulty understanding this, it may be because you hold to the apparently outdated notion that freedom of speech applies to all, instead of a select few.
Clearly evidenced in that statement is failure of understanding. Note that the excersize of "freedom of speech" precisely is the issue to which apparently you object; any "speech" not fully in accord with the proposition you endorse seems, to your evidenced perception, to be intolerable.
Quote:That outdated idea of yours is threatening indeed, doncha know.
Or as Charlton Heston once described the hostility he often encountered living on the Left Coast as essentially an atttitude of "Chuck , how dare you speak your mind."
http://usmc-51.livejournal.com/7170.html
Indeed - and thanks to you, rl, for your part in again providing the irony of exposing by your own effort the hypocracy of the position endorsed by those of your persuasion.
snood wrote:I don't appreciate the apparent attempt to stifle the free flow of ideas, by the often insulting posts made on the religion threads by those like Setanta and timberlandko.
<In>
Generally what goes on here (and specifically this thread) is an attempt to mine others' stimulating ideas about religion and spirituality. They are disingenuous when they pretend that their aim in posting to threads like these is anything other than disparaging anything having to do with those things.
I submit, snood, that response of yours serves only to amplify and further confirm the bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice of your position. What is disingenuous - beyond disingenuous, constituting outright dishonesty - is the assertion those not in agreement with your proposition seek in any way to deny venue to the free expression of that proposition. Just who here is lobbying to restrict a point of view from being expressed, and which point of view is held by its proponents to be sacrosanct, immune to criticism, above objection?
I submit further that to which specifically and in most particular I, among others you've mentioned, take exception is not so much the central premises of the proposition you endorse, but more the manner in which you and others in these discussions forward that proposition and its dependent components. Powerful, reasoned, logical, objective arguments may be and have been made not just for religion/spirituality in the abstract, but, and signaly so, for the proposition foundational to and contained within the generic Christian subset of the Abrahamic mythopaeia as is endorsed by you and others participating in this and like discussions on these boards and elsewhere. Largely, however, such powerful, reasoned, logical objective arguments are unevidenced in the postings of most of those choosing to participate in the relevant discussions on these boards. There are religionists posting on these boards, including, among others, religionists of the Christian persuasion, who's commentary neither merits nor meets with the disdain and dispute occassioned by the commentary of some others. Why might that be?
snood wrote:Yes. Organized religion has been, and continued to be the cause of a lot of wrong.
Granted... and granted that religious fanaticism is something that causes people of good conscience and motives to rankle. It is enough of an afront that it could be (and has been) the sole topic of several threads.
I started this one because
I'd like to discuss people's personal experiences that they themsleves consider spiritual.
Little here with which to argue, beyond the implied intended restriction of the scope of commentary pertinent to the matter at discussion in this topic, an intended restriction which in effect at the very least calls to question, if not in fact unambiguously invalidates, the premise set forth in the objections presented herein to points of view not consistent with your own. Not all Christians are of the ignorant, luddite Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Biblethumper persuasion, in fact, relatively few are. Those who fit the description, however, take great effort to make themselves prominently visible.
