But this is a thread about religion. You seem to be losing yourself in lots of words and explanations that are therefore not relevant to the subject!
I think we will continue to speak 'cross-wired' if we do not understand the definition of some basic words the same way (or use them in the same way).
The general consensus on the thread seems to be non-believer=atheist/agnostic, believer = religious (whatever formal religion it may be), and spirituality does not automatically mean religion.
This is what I'm basing my discussions on.
I understand it is a thread about religion. I find it interesting that I understood just what fanch75 meant with the original posts--fanch75 validated that. eden also understood those posts from fanch75, if I am recalling correctly.
Now I've taken that original concept and I've elaborated, and I fully take responsibility for how I've interpreted (or misinterpreted) the original concept from fanch75.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm sure one would be VERY surprised if one would read all the gospels!!!!
All four?
Oh wait, there are all the apocryphal writing as well--all left out of the Bible and not canonized as part of some larger conspiracy by the leadership of the early Church, right?
Oh wait, there are all the apocryphal writing as well--all left out of the Bible and not canonized as part of some larger conspiracy by the leadership of the early Church, right?
There are, and they're not to be ignored. Whether a conspiracy or not, I'll leave that to the theorists! The gospels chosen were the ones what were 'suitable' for what the church wanted/needed at the time. Others that were not included in the canon were deemed to be too 'controversial' as teachings were different. The church wanted to preserve this 'aura' around Jesus, etc. and therefore had to carefully chose what they wished to 'publish'.
Maybe one day the church will fess up and we'll get the 'director's cut' of the bible and not the abridged version!
Angelica, your statement that "Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions," combined with this being a thread about religion, led me to believe that you were discussing religious belief. Clearly I was mistaken, but I'm sure you can see how pointing out that your siblings were atheist and then grouping them with other "non-belief people" would lead me in that direction.
I understand that. I'm not so sure you were mistaken, however. Many of our issues where I was degraded was due to my talking of God and it was strictly non-God/belief bias at least on the surface. You were mistaken if you felt I referred to the practise of athiesm in general. I refer to each incident someone uses disbelief as justification to act destructively. To themselves or others. BTW, my 24 year old is an athiest. She's very naturally intuitive and was generally a loving, supportive daughter throughout my challenges. I am talking action by action when I talk accountability.
Because this is a religion thread, I have been looking at belief in that sense. Believing or not believing in a supernatural force is entirely different than saying you don't "believe" that you are harming yourself or others when you drink a pint of vodka every day. That you are indeed harming yourself can be proven, so it's beyond the realm of belief or faith. People can deny it if they like, but it's a denial of a fact that can be shown to exist with a simple blood test of your liver function, and probably mounds of other evidence as well. A person may say that they don't believe it, but what they really mean is that they choose to ignore it because it's inconvenient for them to acknowledge. Either that, or they possess insufficient intelligence and/or knowledge to understand and make use of the clear evidence that's right in front of them.
I understand what you are saying. I personally see that natural laws are all natural laws, and the enforcement of natural law is what it is in nature (including how it affects us). This is regardless of whether we can prove such laws. We are unconscious of many things that we are unable or unwilling to see. That is very different than saying what we don't grasp does not exist. We will see what our filters will let in.
There is so much to uncover in science. Because we don't yet understand the entire universe and everything in it and exactly how it operates, does not mean that undiscovered potential is not there. The laws of science that we will uncover and harness in the future exist all around us right now! They don't just show up in the future! What I see as the "Light" from enLightenment is as natural as anything else. And there is a ton of eyewitness report on it as well. Because we have not/cannot prove something, is not excuse to justify downgrading anyone or any view. Disproving, fine. There is a distinct line that can be crossed or not.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "non-belief people." Some of your examples lead me to think that you're talking about people who refuse to acknowledge facts, and I would certainly agree that's very foolish indeed.
What you are saying is part of what I am seeing. What I am saying is if someone shows a lack of belief in something, they show that they don't believe it. Often people will use their own disbelief as the "truth" and use it to act destructively. That is different than using their own disbelief to disprove a theory without crossing the line (proving a falsehood is constructive and leaves room to find truth), or stating their own theory, which is constructive. Sometimes, I slip into generalizations for simplification, as though non-belief people exist as individuals. while I am focussing on something else--I apologize if that is misleading. I don't see any one person as being like that. I do see many who are wired in a "backwards" sense. I have been and I'm only starting to break out of that. My thinking was messed up in childhood, and I began to see the world in terms of lack. Not potential. I would be destructive rather than constructive. I realize they are different general perspectives but they tend to generate respective outcomes: a school of hard knocks, or more realistic appreciation of life. Remember 98 percent of the population is out of touch with their potential and therefore are not able to be who they actually are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's what religion is... another set of laws.... laws laid down by men as it suited (and still suits) society, meant to reign in people and keep them in check.
And all of our other man-created institutions, like school, the media, advertizing, government, etc. We no longer think "straight" because we've been so inundated with our "enlightenment", or our "great advances" and our wealth of "knowledge". Lucky us.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If a religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses their faith as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
If a non-religious person makes a really dumb mistake, harms others and uses non-belief as justification of such poor judgment, avoiding personal accountability, that is not acceptable. One cannot justify doing the unjustifiable. They are still accountable and will have to live out the consequences of the dumb mistake and learn the hard way.
The reason this is entirely relevent in this thread is because I'm hearing an atmosphere of "Religion is to blame for bad things in this world--get rid of it". The truth is, people use religion to justify bad judgment. And people use non-belief to justify bad judgment.
If people are only seeing their own point of how religious people distort life, but refuse to see how it happens with people of no-faith, I'm going to call out and point to that the Emperor has no clothes. (well, actually fanch75 did and I jumped on the bandwagon). It has been called out in regards to religious people in this thread, and I think it's more than fair to point out the other side of the coin.
Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions. I see them continue the same damaging-to-others patterns, and justifying it. The bottom line is there is no justification for damaging others. If a person chooses to not accept accountability consciously, and to instead learn unconsciously through the consequences of their life choices, fair enough. I, however, cannot pretend that I have not seen this dynamic over and over in my life. Regardless who it is, we all have our unconscious issues that we are blind to, and that we will be forced to face in terms of our life patterns. Some live and learn, others do not.
well seeing as i personally have said none of those things, think none of those things...and agree accountability and working towards the greater good, whehter a believer or non-believer....makes not a shit of difference, that's all i was getting at. and all along in regards to religion, all i ever said is there is no *need* or *must* to it's existance, it is all a human, desire...that's all. none of which relates to the existance or non-existance of a higher being.
ALL i was briniging up with that post was the 'defense' of fanch's words, which yea...for me personally, i inferred judgement being made, and rather arrogant imho, about non-believers. nothing more. if it wasn't meant as such, or all meant as such for SOME, not all agnostics/atheists...well for me anyway, didn't come across that way. that's all.
i am all for personal beliefs...and yes absolutely, accountability. using belief, or non-belief...as a rationale, a crutch, an *excuse*...for anything in regards to one's behavior, lack of commitment, what have you...is just that, an excuse, and a personal one....and i for one think it's not wise to label an entire group as being 'non-accountable' b/c why? they choose not to believe in what many others do? b/c yea, i don't see many using it as an *excuse* for poor behavior. that's all. otherwise, c'est la vie....believe, don't believe...as one sees fit. and yes, live your life to your OWN personal accountability, whether you look towards yourself, or towards some god/religion for it...doesn't make much difference to me.
i was seeing a 'lifestyle' judgement being made, or at least insinuated...that those w/o a 'god' chose no commmitment, no children, no giving to society..who just travel and do as they please, and are "blatantly selfish hedonists" i believe was the term. and yea......that speaks much to me on one's 'views'...judgements, opinions, of non-believers...without getting to know said non-believers, just a vast, sweeping generalization, beyond the point that...we all have different lives/paths...and there is more than one way, and no one right way...to live, to give of yourself, to contribute to the world at large, etc.
hell, say all that of mother theresa right? she never married, never had children and traveled all her life. was she a hedonist? nah, i think it's safe to assume most would say she was a saint..in fact i think she is now 'officially' a saint....and gave of herself selflessly, so yea...lots of words/terms can be thrown about...but withouth the 'big picture' doesn't tell the whole story.
so then i stick with my initial comments to fanch in regards to that all; belief or non-belief ALONE do not determine one's level of accountability, commitment or contributions to society and the world at large.
bottomline, belief, or non-belief..in a higher being does not alone make you a better/more giving person.
Any of the Christians on here hopefully know The Bible was "inspired" by God and thus what would be included in the final version was a Divine choice and not the choice of the Catholic Church. Not that they didnt do some tampering (removing Gods name which is actually Jehovah, they deemed it "too" holy to be spoken, it is in the original over 6,000 times) and some subversive tactics (burning people alive who were discovered with bibles, aka - The Catholic Inquisition)
If you believe that God controlled what was put in the bible logic follows that he would see to it that the Scriptures would remain basically the same through the centuries.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in The early 1940's Scholars around the world were shocked that the only differences from those "original" bible scrolls and todays versions were basically grammatical and very minimal.
Haha, I was thinking the same thing...a lot of non- bible readers think Gospel is another word for the entire bible.
Whats so interesting to me about "The Gospel" accounts of life with Jesus by Mathew, Mark Luke and John is how they all are basically the same stories, but each writers personality is injected into the re-telling. Gives it such a broader scope than if we just had one Gospel.
it's funny how far afield we all tend to go whenever a thread even hints at religion.
"Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...
At least for me it must because i have Bi-Polar disorder and i need the spiritual help to keep me where I am, and without an afterlife...whats the point? And how do you know there is no afterlife?? Are you dead?? If so I wont be hearing your response to this thread."
and even more interesting how the bible, Jesus, etc...always get in the mix. granted, i DO realize the bulk of the religious on this particular board are christian, most probably followed by jewish......but it's just intriguing how a 'general' idea of religion, religious, having faith and why...always gets so polarized into belief in a god, no belief in a god...and almost always centers around christianity.
guess it's bound to happen. however, it just gets so narrow in scope b/c there ARE many other religions out there. i would love to hear more feedback from one who is hindi, or muslim, buddhist, etc. actually, a buddhist response would be most interesting/appreciated b/c overall it does not have the 'god(s)' focus as other religions, and it proably is a bit more pure in the true idea of the word religion, a life philosophy.
well seeing as i personally have said none of those things, think none of those things...and agree accountability and working towards the greater good, whehter a believer or non-believer....makes not a shit of difference, that's all i was getting at. and all along in regards to religion, all i ever said is there is no *need* or *must* to it's existance, it is all a human, desire...that's all. none of which relates to the existance or non-existance of a higher being.
ALL i was briniging up with that post was the 'defense' of fanch's words, which yea...for me personally, i inferred judgement being made, and rather arrogant imho, about non-believers. nothing more. if it wasn't meant as such, or all meant as such for SOME, not all agnostics/atheists...well for me anyway, didn't come across that way. that's all.
i am all for personal beliefs...and yes absolutely, accountability. using belief, or non-belief...as a rationale, a crutch, an *excuse*...for anything in regards to one's behavior, lack of commitment, what have you...is just that, an excuse, and a personal one....and i for one think it's not wise to label an entire group as being 'non-accountable' b/c why? they choose not to believe in what many others do? b/c yea, i don't see many using it as an *excuse* for poor behavior. that's all. otherwise, c'est la vie....believe, don't believe...as one sees fit. and yes, live your life to your OWN personal accountability, whether you look towards yourself, or towards some god/religion for it...doesn't make much difference to me.
i was seeing a 'lifestyle' judgement being made, or at least insinuated...that those w/o a 'god' chose no commmitment, no children, no giving to society..who just travel and do as they please, and are "blatantly selfish hedonists" i believe was the term. and yea......that speaks much to me on one's 'views'...judgements, opinions, of non-believers...without getting to know said non-believers, just a vast, sweeping generalization, beyond the point that...we all have different lives/paths...and there is more than one way, and no one right way...to live, to give of yourself, to contribute to the world at large, etc.
I can definitely understand what you were hearing from his words. Personally I don't believe choosing to not have children is hedonistic at all. I believe it's a completely valid personal choice. What I was defending was that when someone IS being hedonistic--which to me means selfish in a way that one does not care about others. I believe that when one is healthy, they show it by fitting in well in the environment and therefore cares very much about others, regardless of whether they travel and have kids. I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I saw specific general actions as proof of selfishness. That was not my intent, because I do not believe that. I fully recognize that many "believers" are very selfish because they do not show care for others and their surroundings.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
actually, a buddhist response would be most interesting/appreciated b/c overall it does not have the 'god(s)' focus as other religions, and it proably is a bit more pure in the true idea of the word religion, a life philosophy.
just a thought.
I dated a Canadian guy who happened to be Buddhist.
He was a fascinating, intelligent man but Buddhism for me personally just isnt
structured enough.
Its like , in "theory" it all sounded so beautiful and freeing..but when youre dealing with imperfect human beings the application isnt always practical.
Its like, he loved all the pretty things about it, but he could never keep up with all the traditions and such. But I did learn a lot from him, and thats all that really matters in the end.
I can definitely understand what you were hearing from his words. Personally I don't believe choosing to not have children is hedonistic at all. I believe it's a completely valid personal choice. What I was defending was that when someone IS being hedonistic--which to me means selfish in a way that one does not care about others. I believe that when one is healthy, they show it by fitting in well in the environment and therefore cares very much about others, regardless of whether they travel and have kids. I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I saw specific general actions as proof of selfishness. That was not my intent, because I do not believe that. I fully recognize that many "believers" are very selfish because they do not show care for others and their surroundings.
agreed. as i said, i adressed the post that first put it all out there in the discussion, and for me in was the insinuation of non-belief being used as an excuse/license for a blatantly selfish, heodonistic lifestyle that rubbed me the wrong way....b/c it's simply quite a blanket statement to make. personally, i have not taken offense to any of your words here angelica..i don't think i ever have taken offense to anything you have ever posted b/c you are quite careful to be respectful in your posting. not to suggest fanch was disrespectful either, haha, but yea..i saw his 'point'....but i disagree with at least what i overall felt it insinuated.
funny too, had an excellent convo with my husbnad over dinner tonight and i have learned that at this point in his life, he IS an out-and-out atheist. i think most of his life he was agnostic, on the fence..or perhaps just didn't invest much thought into the whole idea to fully put himself in a belief or non-belief camp up until now. so yea, now i know all the more......atheists indeed can be the kindest, most giving, loving, caring people...just like believers....so yea, it's sorta akin to saying 'blondes have more fun'...or some other arbitary barometer of who has more fun. or in this case........who is concerned for this world/life/humanity. and yea, belief alone is not going to be any indicator anymore than being blonde will indicate who has more fun.
anyhoo..that was my only true issue with that specific post, which seemed to be left as is in any case. only once you picked it up again did i feel to clarify further. either way, it's all good...just adds to the discussion.
I dated a Canadian guy who happened to be Buddhist.
He was a fascinating, intelligent man but Buddhism for me personally just isnt
structured enough.
Its like , in "theory" it all sounded so beautiful and freeing..but when youre dealing with imperfect human beings the application isnt always practical.
Its like, he loved all the pretty things about it, but he could never keep up with all the traditions and such. But I did learn a lot from him, and thats all that really matters in the end.
I think I hear what you are saying. I think in it's original contexts, buddhism was (and in many places probably still is) practised with intense reverence and discipline for life in general. And with cultural discipline. If you take someone who lacks personal self-discipline, and couple that with a non disciplinary approach, it might not be effective in terms of seeming output. I know buddhists who are blatantly abusing all kinds vices. And rationalizing it. Ultimately, letting go of attachment and withdrawing one's senses from worldly "stuff" entails moving beyond (walking away from) all such "problems", just like serious devotion to the Christian God entails-- ultimately it takes very much discipline to devote one's self to one's ideals. It is such commitment to God that has been teaching me the discipline, in place of my once lack of discipline.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Haha, I was thinking the same thing...a lot of non- bible readers think Gospel is another word for the entire bible.
Whats so interesting to me about "The Gospel" accounts of life with Jesus by Mathew, Mark Luke and John is how they all are basically the same stories, but each writers personality is injected into the re-telling. Gives it such a broader scope than if we just had one Gospel.
I said the gospels.. not the bible... And I said ALL, not just the four.
And yes, I have read the bible, I have read the apocryphal gospels as well (mention of which you conveniently left out of the 'quote' you mention). Still... a story written by man, the way man saw it at the time, with his emotions and feelings, then edited by the church who chose what they wished to include in the compilation. These are facts.
well seeing as i personally have said none of those things, think none of those things...and agree accountability and working towards the greater good, whehter a believer or non-believer....makes not a shit of difference, that's all i was getting at. and all along in regards to religion, all i ever said is there is no *need* or *must* to it's existance, it is all a human, desire...that's all. none of which relates to the existance or non-existance of a higher being.
ALL i was briniging up with that post was the 'defense' of fanch's words, which yea...for me personally, i inferred judgement being made, and rather arrogant imho, about non-believers. nothing more. if it wasn't meant as such, or all meant as such for SOME, not all agnostics/atheists...well for me anyway, didn't come across that way. that's all.
i am all for personal beliefs...and yes absolutely, accountability. using belief, or non-belief...as a rationale, a crutch, an *excuse*...for anything in regards to one's behavior, lack of commitment, what have you...is just that, an excuse, and a personal one....and i for one think it's not wise to label an entire group as being 'non-accountable' b/c why? they choose not to believe in what many others do? b/c yea, i don't see many using it as an *excuse* for poor behavior. that's all. otherwise, c'est la vie....believe, don't believe...as one sees fit. and yes, live your life to your OWN personal accountability, whether you look towards yourself, or towards some god/religion for it...doesn't make much difference to me.
i was seeing a 'lifestyle' judgement being made, or at least insinuated...that those w/o a 'god' chose no commmitment, no children, no giving to society..who just travel and do as they please, and are "blatantly selfish hedonists" i believe was the term. and yea......that speaks much to me on one's 'views'...judgements, opinions, of non-believers...without getting to know said non-believers, just a vast, sweeping generalization, beyond the point that...we all have different lives/paths...and there is more than one way, and no one right way...to live, to give of yourself, to contribute to the world at large, etc.
hell, say all that of mother theresa right? she never married, never had children and traveled all her life. was she a hedonist? nah, i think it's safe to assume most would say she was a saint..in fact i think she is now 'officially' a saint....and gave of herself selflessly, so yea...lots of words/terms can be thrown about...but withouth the 'big picture' doesn't tell the whole story.
so then i stick with my initial comments to fanch in regards to that all; belief or non-belief ALONE do not determine one's level of accountability, commitment or contributions to society and the world at large.
bottomline, belief, or non-belief..in a higher being does not alone make you a better/more giving person.
Completely agree with you. We are running around in circles and getting lost in a lot of rhetoric it seems. I stated in a previous post what I based my discussions on (which you seem to be OK with that too!)
If we are not working on the same 'definitions' of words used (again believer, non believer, etc), continuing the discussion is not very constructive or useful.
Whats so interesting to me about "The Gospel" accounts of life with Jesus by Mathew, Mark Luke and John is how they all are basically the same stories, but each writers personality is injected into the re-telling. Gives it such a broader scope than if we just had one Gospel.
Didn't Matthew and Luke use the gospel of Mark as a common source and a lost source, the Q document or something?
I'm not sure this "broader scope" is actually a good thing.
Didn't Matthew and Luke use the gospel of Mark as a common source and a lost source, the Q document or something?
I'm not sure this "broader scope" is actually a good thing.
Yep.. the "hypothetical lost text", the Q gospel. Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source... three of the same... loads of re-hashing. I agree - not much of a 'broader scope'. Same things told in a different way.
Completely agree with you. We are running around in circles and getting lost in a lot of rhetoric it seems. I stated in a previous post what I based my discussions on (which you seem to be OK with that too!)
If we are not working on the same 'definitions' of words used (again believer, non believer, etc), continuing the discussion is not very constructive or useful.
I stick to what I said too.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "getting lost in a lot of rhetoric".
I'm wondering if you are talking along the lines of what wikipedia says: "As such, rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population. ...rhetoric is described more broadly as the art or practice of persuasion through any symbolic system, but especially language".
or might you refer to rhetoric in the more dismissive connotation: "Both the terms "rhetoric" and "sophistry" are also used today in a pejorative or dismissive sense, when someone wants to distinguish between "empty" words and action, or between true or accurate information and misinformation, propaganda, or "spin," or to denigrate specific forms of verbal reasoning as spurious. Nonetheless, rhetoric, as the art of persuasion, continues to play an important function in contemporary public life".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
3. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
4. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject:
5: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation [syn: grandiosity, magniloquence, grandiloquence]
6. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous:
7. Verbal communication; discourse.
Definitions 4, 5 & 7 would encompass what I meant by rhetoric. Nothing dismissive.
1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
3. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
4. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject:
5: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation [syn: grandiosity, magniloquence, grandiloquence]
6. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous:
7. Verbal communication; discourse.
Definitions 4, 5 & 7 would encompass what I meant by rhetoric. Nothing dismissive.
I know what I understand rhetoric as. I'm asking when you use it, what specifically are you referring to. You thought we were doing a lot of it, and getting lost in it so I would like to hear what you mean.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I know what I understand rhetoric as. I'm asking when you use it, what specifically are you referring to. You thought we were doing a lot of it, and getting lost in it so I would like to hear what you mean.
I ask specifically what you mean with your personal interpretation of rhetoric in terms of this subject--you made the assertion that we've travelled in circles, and have gotten lost in a lot of rhetoric. What specifically are you referring to in this thread.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Didn't Matthew and Luke use the gospel of Mark as a common source and a lost source, the Q document or something?
I'm not sure this "broader scope" is actually a good thing.
Yep.. the "hypothetical lost text", the Q gospel. Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source... three of the same... loads of re-hashing. I agree - not much of a 'broader scope'. Same things told in a different way.
It's a theory, not fact, although Markan priority does make a lot of sense when you look at the context of the writing and the similiarities between Matthew and Luke.
This broader scope you guys are referring to: all it is is the same events and teachings presented from a different perspective (that being the writer). Extremely useful from the standpoint of studying the Word.
Angelica, your statement that "Of my 6 siblings, 5 are athiests. I have personally seen my siblings, among other non-belief people, on numerous, numerous occasions, avoid accountability for harmful actions," combined with this being a thread about religion, led me to believe that you were discussing religious belief. Clearly I was mistaken...
I still sense I have not made my point so to tie my point to religion, I am going to try this:
I'm going to use an example I have seen play out with numerous people of non-faith, in terms of not believing in a power greater than themself. Let's say a non-faith person is a drug abuser. Let's say that a religious person is trying to convince the drug abuser that what they are doing is not good for them. Most people don't have the vast understanding of how it can be destructive, even in an insidious way. So let's say that the religious person can't articulate such concerns in an informed rational way, but that he/she is trying to head off the destructiveness playing out, due to concern or a personal "faith" in the natural consequences of life. Imagine that the religious person brings belief of God into the equation, as their personal way of depicting the natural laws that surround us and govern human behaviour. The religious person explains the consequences of God. And then, imagine, if you will, that the person of non-belief says "I am a non-believer". Your God has no control over me and my actions. Why do you let an imaginary being dictate your life? This isn't about me having a problem--it is clearly YOUR problem". I've seen this happen over and over on this board, alone(not necessarily in terms of drugs). This is a case of non-belief being comforting to a person when they are not accepting personal accountabilty. And by this person of non-faith, justifying their actions and putting it back on the religious person, they are unable to face the actual consequences they are blinded to.
By that same token, I understand non-believers and athiests on this board and in my life, demonstrate faith in many ways. They accept their own accountability for the standards they do believe in. And at the same time, there are Christians who claim to hold faith, but act on non-faith all the time.
When we are avoiding accountability, we do so because we don't believe we are held to it. We have not yet learned that lesson--maybe we are not open to learn it. Religious or non-religious. We then must learn the hard way through life consequences. This is how our unconscious drives us to grow and adapt, if we choose not to naturally accept growth.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This broader scope you guys are referring to: all it is is the same events and teachings presented from a different perspective (that being the writer). Extremely useful from the standpoint of studying the Word.
Yes, but all these writers are highly biased. It's like getting a description of a girl by 4 guys who are in love with her.
I see, well, I don't think religion is needed. I think it's a paradigm we've created to answer questions. We've evolved though, we understand more about ourselves and the universe. I feel the problem is persisting in these paradigms and convincing ourselves of them.
Even the concept of spirituality is lacking. The way our minds work, all of our perceptions, feelings and so on are just paradigms. It's what we believe.
Ahnimus, I'm guessing you can totally grasp that there is stunningly vast degrees of untapped knowledge and information sources to be uncovered in the Universe. There is a mind-blggling amount to learn and expand upon. God, or such "imaginary" paradigms represent all the knowledge of everything that we have not yet discovered. We humans learn through stories. We learn through TV stories, we learn through movies, we learn from stories in songs, we learned morals through the fairytales of our youth. Our undeveloped minds can only understand things presented in a way we can understand like a story. So to represent all the vast knowledge of everything possible, God is a workable idea.
The thing with God is that people take the story and they underlyingly grasp the concept with the story--we're part of all nature and we can sense what we are. Then they use that story to represent all that exists beyond them. By recognizing a higher power, they acknowledge we are very small in the scope of things. And they recognize natural law. This God is very real to people in terms of what it represents that they see in each day, just like a fairytale is real in terms of the very human morality lesson it teaches--like don't judge a book by it's cover--the concept they represent are very, very real in practical terms. It is in this sense someone like cornnifer, or myself totally believe in such concepts as 100% real.
Earlier I quoted Einstein, where he talked of our intuition, which is our ability to wrap our minds around the concept of vastness beyond us, as being our true gift. And he mentioned that we've come to worship the slave of our logical capacity which is only meant to bow down to the intuition. Science is an amazing tool as well. But to confuse the search for understanding with the vastness of what exists can be a delusional error. I read once that we all have certain gifts/abilities that we do best out of 10,000 people--all of us. The other side of it is that we also have many areas where we are shockingly ignorant. In this day and age, what we are ignorant of, we are so blessed that we can truly uncover. Still, religious or not, no matter what symbol we use, we know the knowledge beyond our grasp is very real. Especially us on this board. Most of us realize we've been fed some major non-truths through the years and that there is so much beyond that.
In the end, closing our minds in non-belief is closing our eyes and ears to life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes, but all these writers are highly biased. It's like getting a description of a girl by 4 guys who are in love with her.
I'm guessing the 4 guys who are in love with her have gone into very far depths of appreciating her many deeper qualities and therefore could explain them much better than someone who has paid her no attention. (Hi, Collin. )
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm guessing the 4 guys who are in love with her have gone into very far depths of appreciating her many deeper qualities and therefore could explain them much better than someone who has paid her no attention. (Hi, Collin. )
True, but I doubt they'd say anything negative, we're talking head over heels here , and I don't know, but I find that I always exaggerate the beauty of a girl I'm in love with, I exaggerate everything, though to me it might be true... I don't know if this makes any sense to you or not...
Comments
Now I've taken that original concept and I've elaborated, and I fully take responsibility for how I've interpreted (or misinterpreted) the original concept from fanch75.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm sure one would be VERY surprised if one would read all the gospels!!!!
Oh wait, there are all the apocryphal writing as well--all left out of the Bible and not canonized as part of some larger conspiracy by the leadership of the early Church, right?
There are, and they're not to be ignored. Whether a conspiracy or not, I'll leave that to the theorists! The gospels chosen were the ones what were 'suitable' for what the church wanted/needed at the time. Others that were not included in the canon were deemed to be too 'controversial' as teachings were different. The church wanted to preserve this 'aura' around Jesus, etc. and therefore had to carefully chose what they wished to 'publish'.
Maybe one day the church will fess up and we'll get the 'director's cut' of the bible and not the abridged version!
I understand what you are saying. I personally see that natural laws are all natural laws, and the enforcement of natural law is what it is in nature (including how it affects us). This is regardless of whether we can prove such laws. We are unconscious of many things that we are unable or unwilling to see. That is very different than saying what we don't grasp does not exist. We will see what our filters will let in.
There is so much to uncover in science. Because we don't yet understand the entire universe and everything in it and exactly how it operates, does not mean that undiscovered potential is not there. The laws of science that we will uncover and harness in the future exist all around us right now! They don't just show up in the future! What I see as the "Light" from enLightenment is as natural as anything else. And there is a ton of eyewitness report on it as well. Because we have not/cannot prove something, is not excuse to justify downgrading anyone or any view. Disproving, fine. There is a distinct line that can be crossed or not.
What you are saying is part of what I am seeing. What I am saying is if someone shows a lack of belief in something, they show that they don't believe it. Often people will use their own disbelief as the "truth" and use it to act destructively. That is different than using their own disbelief to disprove a theory without crossing the line (proving a falsehood is constructive and leaves room to find truth), or stating their own theory, which is constructive. Sometimes, I slip into generalizations for simplification, as though non-belief people exist as individuals. while I am focussing on something else--I apologize if that is misleading. I don't see any one person as being like that. I do see many who are wired in a "backwards" sense. I have been and I'm only starting to break out of that. My thinking was messed up in childhood, and I began to see the world in terms of lack. Not potential. I would be destructive rather than constructive. I realize they are different general perspectives but they tend to generate respective outcomes: a school of hard knocks, or more realistic appreciation of life. Remember 98 percent of the population is out of touch with their potential and therefore are not able to be who they actually are.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well seeing as i personally have said none of those things, think none of those things...and agree accountability and working towards the greater good, whehter a believer or non-believer....makes not a shit of difference, that's all i was getting at. and all along in regards to religion, all i ever said is there is no *need* or *must* to it's existance, it is all a human, desire...that's all. none of which relates to the existance or non-existance of a higher being.
ALL i was briniging up with that post was the 'defense' of fanch's words, which yea...for me personally, i inferred judgement being made, and rather arrogant imho, about non-believers. nothing more. if it wasn't meant as such, or all meant as such for SOME, not all agnostics/atheists...well for me anyway, didn't come across that way. that's all.
i am all for personal beliefs...and yes absolutely, accountability. using belief, or non-belief...as a rationale, a crutch, an *excuse*...for anything in regards to one's behavior, lack of commitment, what have you...is just that, an excuse, and a personal one....and i for one think it's not wise to label an entire group as being 'non-accountable' b/c why? they choose not to believe in what many others do? b/c yea, i don't see many using it as an *excuse* for poor behavior. that's all. otherwise, c'est la vie....believe, don't believe...as one sees fit. and yes, live your life to your OWN personal accountability, whether you look towards yourself, or towards some god/religion for it...doesn't make much difference to me.
i was seeing a 'lifestyle' judgement being made, or at least insinuated...that those w/o a 'god' chose no commmitment, no children, no giving to society..who just travel and do as they please, and are "blatantly selfish hedonists" i believe was the term. and yea......that speaks much to me on one's 'views'...judgements, opinions, of non-believers...without getting to know said non-believers, just a vast, sweeping generalization, beyond the point that...we all have different lives/paths...and there is more than one way, and no one right way...to live, to give of yourself, to contribute to the world at large, etc.
hell, say all that of mother theresa right? she never married, never had children and traveled all her life. was she a hedonist?
so then i stick with my initial comments to fanch in regards to that all; belief or non-belief ALONE do not determine one's level of accountability, commitment or contributions to society and the world at large.
bottomline, belief, or non-belief..in a higher being does not alone make you a better/more giving person.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If you believe that God controlled what was put in the bible logic follows that he would see to it that the Scriptures would remain basically the same through the centuries.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in The early 1940's Scholars around the world were shocked that the only differences from those "original" bible scrolls and todays versions were basically grammatical and very minimal.
Haha, I was thinking the same thing...a lot of non- bible readers think Gospel is another word for the entire bible.
Whats so interesting to me about "The Gospel" accounts of life with Jesus by Mathew, Mark Luke and John is how they all are basically the same stories, but each writers personality is injected into the re-telling. Gives it such a broader scope than if we just had one Gospel.
"Why Religion Must Remain A Part Of The World...
At least for me it must because i have Bi-Polar disorder and i need the spiritual help to keep me where I am, and without an afterlife...whats the point? And how do you know there is no afterlife?? Are you dead?? If so I wont be hearing your response to this thread."
and even more interesting how the bible, Jesus, etc...always get in the mix. granted, i DO realize the bulk of the religious on this particular board are christian, most probably followed by jewish......but it's just intriguing how a 'general' idea of religion, religious, having faith and why...always gets so polarized into belief in a god, no belief in a god...and almost always centers around christianity.
guess it's bound to happen. however, it just gets so narrow in scope b/c there ARE many other religions out there. i would love to hear more feedback from one who is hindi, or muslim, buddhist, etc. actually, a buddhist response would be most interesting/appreciated b/c overall it does not have the 'god(s)' focus as other religions, and it proably is a bit more pure in the true idea of the word religion, a life philosophy.
just a thought.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I dated a Canadian guy who happened to be Buddhist.
He was a fascinating, intelligent man but Buddhism for me personally just isnt
structured enough.
Its like , in "theory" it all sounded so beautiful and freeing..but when youre dealing with imperfect human beings the application isnt always practical.
Its like, he loved all the pretty things about it, but he could never keep up with all the traditions and such. But I did learn a lot from him, and thats all that really matters in the end.
agreed. as i said, i adressed the post that first put it all out there in the discussion, and for me in was the insinuation of non-belief being used as an excuse/license for a blatantly selfish, heodonistic lifestyle that rubbed me the wrong way....b/c it's simply quite a blanket statement to make. personally, i have not taken offense to any of your words here angelica..i don't think i ever have taken offense to anything you have ever posted b/c you are quite careful to be respectful in your posting. not to suggest fanch was disrespectful either, haha, but yea..i saw his 'point'....but i disagree with at least what i overall felt it insinuated.
funny too, had an excellent convo with my husbnad over dinner tonight and i have learned that at this point in his life, he IS an out-and-out atheist. i think most of his life he was agnostic, on the fence..or perhaps just didn't invest much thought into the whole idea to fully put himself in a belief or non-belief camp up until now. so yea, now i know all the more......atheists indeed can be the kindest, most giving, loving, caring people...just like believers....so yea, it's sorta akin to saying 'blondes have more fun'...or some other arbitary barometer of who has more fun. or in this case........who is concerned for this world/life/humanity. and yea, belief alone is not going to be any indicator anymore than being blonde will indicate who has more fun.
anyhoo..that was my only true issue with that specific post, which seemed to be left as is in any case. only once you picked it up again did i feel to clarify further. either way, it's all good...just adds to the discussion.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I said the gospels.. not the bible... And I said ALL, not just the four.
And yes, I have read the bible, I have read the apocryphal gospels as well (mention of which you conveniently left out of the 'quote' you mention). Still... a story written by man, the way man saw it at the time, with his emotions and feelings, then edited by the church who chose what they wished to include in the compilation. These are facts.
Completely agree with you. We are running around in circles and getting lost in a lot of rhetoric it seems. I stated in a previous post what I based my discussions on (which you seem to be OK with that too!)
If we are not working on the same 'definitions' of words used (again believer, non believer, etc), continuing the discussion is not very constructive or useful.
I stick to what I said too.
Didn't Matthew and Luke use the gospel of Mark as a common source and a lost source, the Q document or something?
I'm not sure this "broader scope" is actually a good thing.
naděje umírá poslední
Yep.. the "hypothetical lost text", the Q gospel. Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source... three of the same... loads of re-hashing. I agree - not much of a 'broader scope'. Same things told in a different way.
I'm wondering if you are talking along the lines of what wikipedia says: "As such, rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population. ...rhetoric is described more broadly as the art or practice of persuasion through any symbolic system, but especially language".
or might you refer to rhetoric in the more dismissive connotation: "Both the terms "rhetoric" and "sophistry" are also used today in a pejorative or dismissive sense, when someone wants to distinguish between "empty" words and action, or between true or accurate information and misinformation, propaganda, or "spin," or to denigrate specific forms of verbal reasoning as spurious. Nonetheless, rhetoric, as the art of persuasion, continues to play an important function in contemporary public life".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
rhet·o·ric (rtr-k) Pronunciation Key
1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
3. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
4. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject:
5: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation [syn: grandiosity, magniloquence, grandiloquence]
6. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous:
7. Verbal communication; discourse.
Definitions 4, 5 & 7 would encompass what I meant by rhetoric. Nothing dismissive.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As I said, 4, 5 & 7....
And as per my post where I used the word....
I ask specifically what you mean with your personal interpretation of rhetoric in terms of this subject--you made the assertion that we've travelled in circles, and have gotten lost in a lot of rhetoric. What specifically are you referring to in this thread.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's a theory, not fact, although Markan priority does make a lot of sense when you look at the context of the writing and the similiarities between Matthew and Luke.
This broader scope you guys are referring to: all it is is the same events and teachings presented from a different perspective (that being the writer). Extremely useful from the standpoint of studying the Word.
I still sense I have not made my point so to tie my point to religion, I am going to try this:
I'm going to use an example I have seen play out with numerous people of non-faith, in terms of not believing in a power greater than themself. Let's say a non-faith person is a drug abuser. Let's say that a religious person is trying to convince the drug abuser that what they are doing is not good for them. Most people don't have the vast understanding of how it can be destructive, even in an insidious way. So let's say that the religious person can't articulate such concerns in an informed rational way, but that he/she is trying to head off the destructiveness playing out, due to concern or a personal "faith" in the natural consequences of life. Imagine that the religious person brings belief of God into the equation, as their personal way of depicting the natural laws that surround us and govern human behaviour. The religious person explains the consequences of God. And then, imagine, if you will, that the person of non-belief says "I am a non-believer". Your God has no control over me and my actions. Why do you let an imaginary being dictate your life? This isn't about me having a problem--it is clearly YOUR problem". I've seen this happen over and over on this board, alone(not necessarily in terms of drugs). This is a case of non-belief being comforting to a person when they are not accepting personal accountabilty. And by this person of non-faith, justifying their actions and putting it back on the religious person, they are unable to face the actual consequences they are blinded to.
By that same token, I understand non-believers and athiests on this board and in my life, demonstrate faith in many ways. They accept their own accountability for the standards they do believe in. And at the same time, there are Christians who claim to hold faith, but act on non-faith all the time.
When we are avoiding accountability, we do so because we don't believe we are held to it. We have not yet learned that lesson--maybe we are not open to learn it. Religious or non-religious. We then must learn the hard way through life consequences. This is how our unconscious drives us to grow and adapt, if we choose not to naturally accept growth.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yes, but all these writers are highly biased. It's like getting a description of a girl by 4 guys who are in love with her.
naděje umírá poslední
Ahnimus, I'm guessing you can totally grasp that there is stunningly vast degrees of untapped knowledge and information sources to be uncovered in the Universe. There is a mind-blggling amount to learn and expand upon. God, or such "imaginary" paradigms represent all the knowledge of everything that we have not yet discovered. We humans learn through stories. We learn through TV stories, we learn through movies, we learn from stories in songs, we learned morals through the fairytales of our youth. Our undeveloped minds can only understand things presented in a way we can understand like a story. So to represent all the vast knowledge of everything possible, God is a workable idea.
The thing with God is that people take the story and they underlyingly grasp the concept with the story--we're part of all nature and we can sense what we are. Then they use that story to represent all that exists beyond them. By recognizing a higher power, they acknowledge we are very small in the scope of things. And they recognize natural law. This God is very real to people in terms of what it represents that they see in each day, just like a fairytale is real in terms of the very human morality lesson it teaches--like don't judge a book by it's cover--the concept they represent are very, very real in practical terms. It is in this sense someone like cornnifer, or myself totally believe in such concepts as 100% real.
Earlier I quoted Einstein, where he talked of our intuition, which is our ability to wrap our minds around the concept of vastness beyond us, as being our true gift. And he mentioned that we've come to worship the slave of our logical capacity which is only meant to bow down to the intuition. Science is an amazing tool as well. But to confuse the search for understanding with the vastness of what exists can be a delusional error. I read once that we all have certain gifts/abilities that we do best out of 10,000 people--all of us. The other side of it is that we also have many areas where we are shockingly ignorant. In this day and age, what we are ignorant of, we are so blessed that we can truly uncover. Still, religious or not, no matter what symbol we use, we know the knowledge beyond our grasp is very real. Especially us on this board. Most of us realize we've been fed some major non-truths through the years and that there is so much beyond that.
In the end, closing our minds in non-belief is closing our eyes and ears to life.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm guessing the 4 guys who are in love with her have gone into very far depths of appreciating her many deeper qualities and therefore could explain them much better than someone who has paid her no attention. (Hi, Collin.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
True, but I doubt they'd say anything negative, we're talking head over heels here
and hi, we need to catch up;)
naděje umírá poslední