They don't hate us, they love their God

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:
We all have an inclination toward sin, Tex, and have had since the Edenic rebellion.

Are you still trotting out that old canard neo, even after Joe showed that there was no rebellion? Any progress in working out a reasoning for the inclusion of the tree of life in the edenic story?

Thanks for the link, skeeter. Joe may think he has disproved the rebellion, but the account shows otherwise. Some of you fine folks have assumed that Adam and Eve were created without conscience or they were deliberately flawed that they might fail.

Need moral license?

Show that God does not exist. Failing that, show that a loving God does not exist. I know I am far from alone in this because the very name assigned to the tempter, satan, means rebel or resister. So, it is obvious that those who wrote the bible were aware of the meaning of the Edenic 'event'.

The fact that I am unable to explain some things in the bible does not negate the things the bible does explain. Besides, I came from New Jersey, same as Frank - which is only slightly across the river from NYC.

0 Replies

I agree, IFF. there is far more than a mere difference of culture (I was playing loose with the culural contrast)), and the distinction between dual and non-dual awareness (I prefer not to say "teachings" because of the implication of belief) is not merely another dualist contrast. Dualism is a product of cultural conditioning/socialization--and, I might add--an error that has critical survival value for the species. Non-dualist awareness, the spiritual state of meditative consciousness, both "affirms" God, if you choose the term, and IS "God" at that moment of unitary realization. We both agree, I am sure, that what is needed is not a change of belief but a realization ("transformation of consciousness") that needs no beliefs.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
neologist wrote:
We all have an inclination toward sin, Tex, and have had since the Edenic rebellion.

Are you still trotting out that old canard neo, even after Joe showed that there was no rebellion? Any progress in working out a reasoning for the inclusion of the tree of life in the edenic story?
Thanks for the link, skeeter. Joe may think he has disproved the rebellion, but the account shows otherwise. Some of you fine folks have assumed that Adam and Eve were created without conscience or they were deliberately flawed that they might fail.

No assuming is necessary. The story itself makes that abundantly clear. Assumption is needed to come to any other conclusion.

neologist wrote:

Need moral license?

Show that God does not exist. Failing that, show that a loving God does not exist. I know I am far from alone in this because the very name assigned to the tempter, satan, means rebel or resister. So, it is obvious that those who wrote the bible were aware of the meaning of the Edenic 'event'.

That some other writer comes along centuries later with his own rationalization of the story does not alter the original.

neologist wrote:

The fact that I am unable to explain some things in the bible does not negate the things the bible does explain. Besides, I came from New Jersey, same as Frank - which is only slightly across the river from NYC.

We are not discussing some obscure passage in the Bible. The tree of life is a major element in the Eden story, one that exposes a major flaw in your interpretation.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

. . . We are not discussing some obscure passage in the Bible. The tree of life is a major element in the Eden story, one that exposes a major flaw in your interpretation.

But, of course, it is irrelevant

0 Replies

Quote:

God is realized, not through belief, but through a transformation of consciousness.

Well, as I anticipated, much of this terminology goes over my head --unitary realization, dual and non-dual awareness, transformation of consciousness, meditational consciousness -- ????

I would like to watch the 10 questions video posted by Ros, but my interent connection runs so slowly - due to 1/4 mile of an old, antiquated phone line that runs through my pasture to the county road - that I can't load anything more than plain text. I think gophers have gnawed the insulation on the buried wire because it runs at 24-26K bps in dry weather. This morning it's running at 16.4K bps and I had to turn-off the graphics on Windows in order to load the forum site - no emoticons, etc. The phone co won't replace the line as long as the telephone works. I am considering sabotaging it some way!

Jack

0 Replies

I have been more than a little surprised to learn, in browsing these threads, that many secular intellectuals also seem to reason in the same sort of deductive, syllogistic way that we do. Some of them seem to have adopted the same sort of rigid, given, uncompromising "prime premise" as most christians. This makes effective dialogue nearly impossible.

We both have to shift gears to a more inductive, searching, exploring way of thinking if we are going to communicate at any meaningful level. This is admittedly a dangerous business for a christian, because it requires us to temporarily shed the "armor," but we cannot present the positive aspects of our faith-based approach to life if we persist in presenting our point-of-view as a series of black/white dichotomies and syllogisms, deduced from a major proposition that they don't accept.

While it does alleviate my feelings of intellectual inadequacy to see that some on the other side of the issue also fall into the same flawed logic as I, it certainly does not enhance our abilities to reach any semblance of common ground - which of course, is, or should be, the goal of all human discourse.

Jack

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

I have been more than a little surprised to learn, in browsing these threads, that many secular intellectuals also seem to reason in the same sort of deductive, syllogistic way that we do. Some of them seem to have adopted the same sort of rigid, given, uncompromising "prime premise" as most christians. This makes effective dialogue nearly impossible.

True, because in this case both the theist and atheist are operating from certain assumptions (God exists, God doesn't exist, etc.), and no matter how unassailable the logic, the assumptions can always be questioned. Furthermore, reducing spirituality to arguments based on deductive logic strips it of its depth. Spirituality is essentially about transcending thought not defending a set of beliefs.

Quote:

We both have to shift gears to a more inductive, searching, exploring way of thinking if we are going to communicate at any meaningful level. This is admittedly a dangerous business for a christian, because it requires us to temporarily shed the "armor," but we cannot present the positive aspects of our faith-based approach to life if we persist in presenting our point-of-view as a series of black/white dichotomies and syllogisms, deduced from a major proposition that they don't accept.

A "more inductive, searching, exploring way of thinking" is certainly a better way to approach spiritual truth. There is no logical argument that proves the existence of God. However, we can infer the reality of the spiritual dimension based on personal experience and the experiences of others. The most you can do is communicate that experience to those who are skeptical. If you communicate honestly and openly, they will either be receptive or not. However, words and concepts are only pointers to reality, not the reality itself. If a person is heavily entrenched in the point of view of the ego, they may be incapable of letting down their defenses.

Quote:

While it does alleviate my feelings of intellectual inadequacy to see that some on the other side of the issue also fall into the same flawed logic as I, it certainly does not enhance our abilities to reach any semblance of common ground - which of course, is, or should be, the goal of all human discourse.

When discussing spiritual matters, intellectual ability is not the most important quality. What matters is the depth of your spiritual realization. The ability to reach a common ground depends, in part, on the ability of individuals to see beyond their particular beliefs and sense their common humanity. Beliefs often divide. Division or separation is dissolved by letting go of self-definitions and sensing our inherent connectedness, prior to any mental concepts or beliefs.

0 Replies

Thank you, IFF, for the comments. I apologize for not responding to your earlier post above, but I didn't know what to say. The truth is that I don't understand what you mean by the "transformation of consciousness". Perhaps if you could explain it in simple, everyday terms...are we talking about some sort of eastern religion here? Out-of-body experience? Zen Bhuddism or something like that? I'm totally lost! Confused

Jack

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

I have been more than a little surprised to learn, in browsing these threads, that many secular intellectuals also seem to reason in the same sort of deductive, syllogistic way that we do.

not bad for a self proclaimed under educated house painter aged 71.

0 Replies

Pretty silly, whoever says it. Arguing from premises to a conclusion is not the exclusive province of any belief set, and is no more remarkable in the non-religious than in the religious. Deductive and inductive reasoning both have their places in the investigation of the world around us, and the world of thoughts within us. The main distinction to be made is that theists beg most questions by assuming at the outset that there is a deity, and that said deity has certain characteristics. Syllogisms fail when the premises from which they are derived are faulty--so the theist, whenever speaking in the character of a theist, has at least begged many of the questions implicit in discussions about the nature and origin of the cosmos, or are simply proceeding from one or more premises which are false or "unprovable" at the outset.

0 Replies

IFF: "Spirituality is essentially about transcending thought not defending a set of beliefs." BINGO!

0 Replies

I would like to expand a bit on a topic we addressed above - the non-believer who wants to believe. I'll share a "dirty little secret" with y'all. Our churches (with a few insignificant exceptions) are not filled with wild-eyed fanatics bawling, shouting and rolling in the aisles in a fit of religious ecstasy.

With the exception of a few small, independent "prophesy" churches, hidden back in the woods somewhere, I think it's safe to say the typical baptist church in the south is certainly not a hotbed of religious fervor.

People go to church for lots of reasons, the very least of which, I would venture to say, is the fear of Hell. Some go because it's good for their business, they want run for public office or in reponse to personal social/family pressures; others simply to participate in the fellowship activities or because they were raised to believe it's the "right thing" to do, or just out of plain old habit --- all sorts of reasons that have little or nothing to do with faith. Everybody knows that and nobody has a problem with it. If those of little faith were suddenly removed from my church, or any church, I would guess there would be a lot of empty pews!

I know several local men of my generation who have gone to church every sunday all their lives, and have raised their families in church, but have never been saved or baptized - because they don't really believe much beyond the existence of God (IF they even believe that) and they don't want to be hypocrites. But they pay their way and do lots of good works for the church - coach athletic teams, spent weeks at summer camp with the kids, work on the building and grounds, sing in the choir, cook huge barbecues for hundreds of people etc. That won't get then to Heaven, but they don't lose a whole lot of sleep over that! Do I fit into that category? If I did, I wouldn't tell anybody - least of all you! Laughing

With that much constant exposure, it sort of "grows on ya", of course, and such folks are certainly not "enemies" of christianity - just luke warm christians for whom church is more a way of life than anything else. It only becomes hypocrisy if they walk down the aisle and profess a faith they don't have - and even then who knows and who cares? Actually, most of us were formally saved as little children - and sometimes the faith of childhood moderates considerably with age. Quite often, a pillar of the church will turn-down a deacon post because he doesn't feel he has enough faith to qualify for such an honor - and is open about it. No big deal - an everyday fact of life.

Quite often, actually, our young people come home from their sophomore year at Texas A&M professing flat-out atheism that would make Joe Nation and Setanta proud. But, thankfully, when they get married and have kids of their own they usually come back home to their church family. Have they had a rebirth of faith - who knows? I don't know and I don't ask. They want their kids to grow-up in church because that's the culture they come-from and that's the place children should grow-up. It's just that simple.

People of the same socio-economic level who share similar views of the world naturally gather together in groups - whether it's a street gang in South Central Los Angeles or a baptist church in East Texas. People have a need to belong, to be part of a group who accepts them, cares about them, helps them when their down on their luck, cries with them in times of sorrow and rejoices with them in times of joy. That's what church is about as much as anything else. Is that really so awful?

Having said all that, I would like to explore with y'all , in a new thread that I am now preparing, the role that churches play as social institutions -things like the effect of peer pressure and the fear of public disgrace in controlling human behavior. We went to the casino over in Louisiana a while back and my wife, while playing the one-armed bandit, kept acting nervous and looking around. I asked what's wrong - "I'm afraid one of the ladies from church will see me here," she muttered. Then I reminded her that "SHE would be here too, and couldn't very well tattle, now could she?" Laughing

Jack

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

Thank you, IFF, for the comments. I apologize for not responding to your earlier post above, but I didn't know what to say. The truth is that I don't understand what you mean by the "transformation of consciousness". Perhaps if you could explain it in simple, everyday terms...are we talking about some sort of eastern religion here? Out-of-body experience? Zen Bhuddism or something like that? I'm totally lost!

The most basic transformation of consciousness is the transcending of ego -- transcending identification with the illusory sense of identity, the mind-made self. Ego is the tendency to identify myself with my body, possessions, culture, religion, race, nationality, beliefs, political allegiance, opinions, etc. It also includes personal identification with long-standing resentments, and concepts of myself as better than or not as good as others. Ego gives rise to fault-finding and complaining about others. This is how the ego provides a feeling of superiority. The ego wants to feel I am right and you are wrong, and gives rise to a mind-set of conflict. The ego is constantly at war with the world, seeking to defend itself, to acquire more, to feel superior. As Buddha said, "Ego is the root of suffering."

Transcending the ego means to experience your true identity -- pure awareness, restful alertness, silent Presence. When you grow in awareness, a power comes into your life which is much greater than ego. Only pure awareness, Presence, can undo the past in you and transform your state of consciousness. What is spiritual realization? The belief that you are spirit? No, that's a thought. Spiritual realization is to see that what I perceive, experience, think, or feel is not who I am. I cannot find myself in those things. When Jesus said, "Deny thyself", he meant to undo the illusion of self. What remains is the light of consciousness in which perceptions, experiences, thoughts and feelings come and go. This is Buddhism in the sense that Buddha was probably the clearest exponent of these ideas. However, I believe they are present in all spiritual teachings.

0 Replies

Thanks so much, IFF, for taking your time to explain that to me. I do indeed now understand what your are saying.

However, I don't think I'm ready to deny my accomplishments in life (humble as they are), my posessions and my very identity as a man. I understand that Buddah taught that it's possible for Man to achieve "perfection," by the sort of means you describe - but perfection is unattainable. We are marred by a sin nature, that comes from transgression in the Garden, and cannot be overcome - only forgiven through Jesus Christ.

When Jesus spoke of denial, I think He was referring to the rejection of material goods - a vow of poverty, if you will. I assume you are citing Matthew 16:24 -

Quote:

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

I have always been under the impression that this means "let him deny himself" all earthly goods I say this because (1) when the rich young man (Luke 19:20-22) wanted to be a disciple, Jesus asked him to give all his wealth away but said nothing about his identity and (2) When Jesus was arrested, Peter drew his sword and whacked off a guy's ear (Matthew 26:51)- so Peter could not have undergone the sort of self-denial that Buddah taught. He was still "proud" in his old identity - the only change he had undergone was his acceptance of Jesus as his Lord and Savior. And that's enough change for me too.

I have spent seventy years of sunday mornings in sunday school, my highly esteemed friend from the beautiful seaside city of Santa Barbara. Wish I were there right now to enjoy a stroll on the beach with the cool westerly breeze and no humidity! Laughing

Jack

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

Thanks so much, IFF, for taking your time to explain that to me. I do indeed now understand what your are saying.

However, I don't think I'm ready to deny my accomplishments in life (humble as they are), my posessions and my very identity as a man. I understand that Buddah taught that it's possible for Man to achieve "perfection," by the sort of means you describe - but perfection is unattainable. We are marred by a sin nature, that comes from transgression in the Garden, and cannot be overcome - only forgiven through Jesus Christ.

I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. Ego is not the having, or admitting to, your accomplishments, possessions, and knowledge of yourself. Nor is freedom from ego "perfection" in the sense of acting in conformity with a code of conduct. Ego is the psychological attachment to your accomplishments, possessions, or self-image. It is the feeling that my accomplishments, possessions, and self-image define who I am, and without them, I would be empty or wanting. After all, isn't it conceivable that your accomplishments could be undone, your possessions taken away, or your sense of self altered by a dramatic change of circumstances? Who would you be then? Furthermore, the ego isn't just the identification with what you perceive as good, its also the resistance to that which you perceive as bad -- the resistance you feel toward unwanted change, the frustration you feel when stuck in a traffic jam or a long line at the store, the resentment you feel toward people who you feel have treated you unfairly. In short, it is resistance to circumstances that arise, resistance to what is. In some circumstances, it becomes the pathological ego -- negative emotional states such as anger, hatred, anxiety, envy, jealousy, etc., that we believe are justified and caused by someone else or some external factor.

Many people assume that this is normal life. It is not. It is dysfunctional. It leads to unhappiness. However, once you become aware of this tendency in yourself, the ego starts to become undone. You begin to find out who you really are and, at the same time, find an inner peace. You begin to live in the present moment. You begin to become one with life. You become alert, attentive to your thoughts and emotions. When thoughts arise that try to justify feelings of discontent, nervousness, or unhappiness, you recognize that those thoughts are really the cause of the unhappiness. You begin to dis-identify from thoughts, emotions, and reactions. Your sense of self undergoes a shift -- instead of thoughts, emotions, and reactions, you are the awareness, the conscious Presence that witnesses those states. Many people find that meditation is helpful because it allows thoughts to be quieted while maintaining awareness.

Many Christians simply accept a state of dysfunction as the burden of being a sinner. Christian teachings propagate the view that this is inevitable and that sin is part of our nature. It is even used as an excuse by some people for all kinds of aberrant behavior. This is a wrong teaching in my view. Right thought and action comes from being attuned to the present moment. It is the alignment of your actions with full present-moment awareness. It is awakened doing through which consciousness flows through you into the world. How you act in the world is determined by your state of consciousness. The belief that you are inherently a sinner is the limited view of the ego. It may be a useful idea to encourage humility, but it can also discourage people from aspiring to become a better person. They reason that only Jesus was perfect so why should I even try.

Quote:

When Jesus spoke of denial, I think He was referring to the rejection of material goods - a vow of poverty, if you will. I assume you are citing Matthew 16:24 -

Quote:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

I have always been under the impression that this means "let him deny himself" all earthly goods I say this because (1) when the rich young man (Luke 19:20-22) wanted to be a disciple, Jesus asked him to give all his wealth away but said nothing about his identity and (2) When Jesus was arrested, Peter drew his sword and whacked off a guy's ear (Matthew 26:51)- so Peter could not have undergone the sort of self-denial that Buddah taught. He was still "proud" in his old identity - the only change he had undergone was his acceptance of Jesus as his Lord and Savior. And that's enough change for me too.

It is not the "earthly goods" but the man's attachment to them that are the problem. However, giving away those earthly goods is one method (although somewhat extreme) of breaking the inner attachment to them. As for Peter, I'm not familiar with that story. However, for him to experience a true spiritual change, he would have to surrender to Jesus so thoroughly that his attachment to his "old identity" would be undermined. Such a thing is indeed possible.

Quote:

I have spent seventy years of sunday mornings in sunday school, my highly esteemed friend from the beautiful seaside city of Santa Barbara. Wish I were there right now to enjoy a stroll on the beach with the cool westerly breeze and no humidity!

I like your friendly and respectful attitude -- it makes discussion much easier and more enjoyable. As for myself, I have spent 33 years practicing meditation and lived and participated in many spiritual communities, most of which would be considered "alternative". And yes, Santa Barbara is a lovely city. It has grown over the years but still retains much of its charm.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ego is the psychological attachment to your accomplishments, possessions, or self-image. It is the feeling that my accomplishments, possessions, and self-image define who I am, and without them, I would be empty or wanting

I understand that all right. Jesus, in His various statements criticizing wealth, is indeed talking about just that.

Quote:

Christian teachings propagate the view that this is inevitable and that sin is part of our nature...... This is a wrong teaching in my view.

Well, the problem is, IFF, that without the original sin that stained Mankind forever, Jesus would have died in vain - or He never would have been sent here in the first place. The whole purpose of His ministry was to give us a way out of that original sin - and an offer of forgiveness for subsequent sin that we are sure to commit, because we are deeply flawed creatures and remain vulnerable to temptation even after we are saved. This is Christianity 1A, my respected friend. Sunday school for the kindergarten kids. Smile

There is no way we can incorporate your teaching into christianity because, if we delete the original sin from the system, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. The Bible would have no more authority than a Tom Clancy novel.

But thank you for offering us an alternative instead of just rejecting christianity and leaving us in spiritual/moral limbo. The secular liberals ask us to throw-out our existing belief system because it's judgmental and offensive to their values - but they offer us no other system to replace it. You are offering an option and I commend you for that. I think the secular liberals are obligated to do the same.

Jack

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

The secular liberals ask us to throw-out our existing belief system because it's judgmental and offensive to their values - but they offer us no other system to replace it.

This is upside down. The faith groups seek to replace the secular liberal system with their own faith based laws which they would impose on all of us.

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

The secular liberals ask us to throw-out our existing belief system because it's judgmental and offensive to their values - but they offer us no other system to replace it.

Not to put too fine a point on it . . . bullshit.

No one is asking you to throw out your existing belief system. You're just being told that you aren't free to shove it down the throats of others.

0 Replies

eltejano, the institution, the source of authority to compel others to follow rules may collapse, however, the moral/ethical ideas and guidance Jesus offered, these things are free and open to all, forever up for discussion and debate. Outside of an instinctive desire to defend a group (organised Christianity for instance), why is it a bad thing if the system does collapse like a house of cards (if that guidance Jesus offered us was still up for teaching and discussion in society, free from compulsion) and why is authority a good thing? For the desire to control others, yes it's good, for the desire to be a good person, to promote well being amongst the population, it's borderline irrelevant.

The only relevance is if you don't trust anyone to make good decisions and this is where the original sin idea creeps in, the assumption, right there in the doctrine, that we cannot trust people to consistently make reasonable decisions and further action is needed. However, you need only look at the world around you to see that in fact, non christians, non-religious, atheists of all stripes comprise some of the most decent people around, people who in fact, I am certain, Jesus himself would have looked upon favourably. In fact, as far as I can see, the whole idea of Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins doesn't appear to help the world at all in terms of a moral/ethical progress but just serves as a way of binding people to a group (the whole salvation thing). Another way of looking at Jesus, outside the confines of what any authority says and by simply looking at the whole picture is that Jesus dies because he was human. His life was not in vain because any supposed moral guidance/teachings live on and if our interest is what is best for the world, this should be more than enough. If our interest is in maintaining the integrity of an institution, then we have cause for concern.

You mention offering alternatives as well, for what purpose? Do we want religions, beliefs and ways of life for the good of humanity? If there is to be some discussion between the religious and non religious, it's vitally important to realise that an atheist can and often will look upon ideas like love thy neighbour and blessed are the peacemakers very favourably and with the inclination to consider these points with respect to a peaceful world. We need not bind and divide ourselves to authorities.

I'd be interested to know what you think about other religions as well? Is it a case in your eyes that all others are wrong or do you see that the scriptures other religions base themselves upon are also a cause for good in the world. Is it enough for you that an adherent of religion X, while not being Christianity, is following a peaceful and positive path which is all that is really required. If this is the case, I just wonder what you think about the requirement of strict adherence to any one religion, the need for total submission to specific authorities, if there are other peaceful/positive paths, is this authoritarian element not wholly unnecessary? (the religion X part can really be applied to atheists themselves too, not just specific religions like Islam or Buddhism).

Welcome by the way! Smile

0 Replies

eltejano wrote:

But thank you for offering us an alternative instead of just rejecting christianity and leaving us in spiritual/moral limbo.

I don't believe the the lack of Christianity (or any religion) leaves humanity in a spiritual/moral limbo. Morality derives naturally from simple compassion and civilized judgement.

I do think that many religious people have had the source of their morality short-circuited and re-routed through religious structures. So I'm not saying it's going to be easy to drop that and bring things back to a natural state, but at least we can recognize that religion is not necessary for morality, and that people don't need to be lost without it.

eltejano wrote:

The secular liberals ask us to throw-out our existing belief system because it's judgmental and offensive to their values - but they offer us no other system to replace it.

I'm not sure the secular liberals, or anyone else, are required to provide you with anything other than an alternative view of things.

eltejano wrote:

You are offering an option and I commend you for that. I think the secular liberals are obligated to do the same.

I don't think so, but if you insist, I would refer you back to my first paragraph. Morality and good behavior does not originate from religious thought, it is a purely natural expression of empathy and compassion filtered through societal norms.

0 Replies

They don't hate us, they love their God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know