Jump to content

Mike

Senior Members
  • Posts

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Everything posted by Mike

  1. Hi ParSal, I understand your sentiments - it is hard to bear the possibility that this one life is it, especially when it comes to our loved ones. But short of actually experiencing a life-after-death scenario or a state of being out of the body, one is left with only one option, in my view, that faces the issue squarely and yet hopefully. And perhaps it is about something more fundamental than any particular experience. I think we have to explore what it means to be a self. That is, after all, our main concern, isn't it? We worry about an afterlife because we worry about the self. All religions seem to point to the transformation of identity as an integral aspect of faith. Christianity no less. What is it that truly endows life with ultimate meaning? God's self. Sure, there is the belief that God has planned an afterlife in heaven, but fundamentally heaven is about God too. So if you can't stand God, it wouldn't be much of a heaven (might it then be a hell?). Somehow identifying with God 'redeems' our lives and 'overcomes the world'. Dying to the old self, rising with Christ. Reincarnation is an interesting view of things. And while, of course, it is not the Christian idea of becoming 'born again', I think there may be parallels between the two were we to get creative. I always liked something I read from Alan Watts: How would we know we are alive if we weren't once dead? A semantic trick, or perhaps something more? In his book Cloud Hidden, Whereabouts Unknown he writes, "Most people...shrug their shoulders and say, 'We come from nothing and we return to nothing--and that's the end of it.' But I demur. For it strikes me as utterly amazing that I did in fact come from this nothing. If I came from it once, I see no reason why I could not come from it again; for if, as is indeed the case, I did come from it once, this nothingness is, to say the least, unexplainably frisky." Perhaps even more elegant is something Marcus Borg wrote. It has stayed with me ever since one of our members here quoted it. Something like, 'When we die, we aren't dying into nothingness, but into God'. It is, after all, in him that we 'live, move, and have our being'. Peace, Mike
  2. I hardly listen to radio but I believe your frustration certainly is justified. But this, or similar views, are still very common within the churches. I remember as a conservative Christian, even though I harbored no hatred or personal dislike for homosexuals, I still felt that it was against biblical standards and therefore not truly acceptable. It was a conclusion that I felt (and was taught) was inescapable, however unhappy, since it was clearly there in the bible. What do you do with black and white text? And remember that Christian radio is not primarily out there to attract theological liberals. Conservative to moderate Christians, I wager, form the body of their listenership. Peace to you, Mike
  3. A note to clear up some future confusion - this sentence in my last post didn't come across with my intended meaning - kind of the opposite. What I meant to get across is that I don't think man is privy to such information, that is, knowledge about 'the beginning'.
  4. Hi David, I appreciate that you have engaged myself and everyone here very graciously. Although it feels like we've been beating a dead horse for a little while now here, I feel compelled to make yet another response. Perhaps this is a sign that this self is not truly free to choose after all. In the context though, you did argue that any point of view which does not accept a 'personal beginning' cannot account for universals. I would say universals can be accounted for in many ways, all it takes is some philosophical imagination. Surely the meaning of any particular is wedded to the meaning of the universal, though the question strikes me of what the meaning of the 'universal' might be, apart from referring back to the particular. It seems to be that dividing everything along lines of 'universal' and 'particular', while not necessarily invalid, is a matter of definition and categorizing reality and therefore without any real way of confirming whether those categories actually apply....that is, except inductively or pragmatically. On the whole, the dichotomy of universal vs particular is rooted in deductive logic, or vice-versa, and therefore suffers the same limitations of logic, as I understand it. Deductive logic starts with a universal and applies it to a particular to reach a general or universal conclusion about the particular. Such reasoning is true by definition and therefore tautological. I do happen to disagree with your assertion at base, that without a personal beginning there is no reason for particulars. First of all it is questionable whether there ought to be some 'reason' - as if reality ultimately is something we can distance ourselves from and reason about. Secondly, it is not clear how a supposed 'personal' beginning answers for the complexity of the universe any better than the impersonal. The personal leaves questions unanswered too, and may be seen as superfluous. For instance, biological evolution needs not invoke any personal oversight in order to explain complexity. It seems to me you are limiting what may be or may not be the case without proper justification. Another instance - denying a theistic conception of the universe does not necessarily reduce the universe to time, mass, energy, motion, although there is nothing illogical about that either. They are simply modern scientific terms. This is a fallacy of a false dichotomy, just like, in my view, the choice between 'heaven' and 'hell'. Speculative thinkers may work with impersonal universals, truth, beauty, or qualitative realities like consciousness, experience, or semantic relationships between objects instead of merely numerical - some thinkers also think of the universe as a computation. On another note, I do not feel the need to categorize reality 'ultimately' as either personal or impersonal, since both are particulars themselves. It makes little sense to me honestly to speak of an 'absolute personality', an 'infinite person', etc, since, as you yourself emphasize, being a person is about relationship, and relationship means finitude for both parties involved. To be an infinite person is a paradox - and don't get me wrong as I'm fine with paradoxes, but not when they are dogmatically asserted. If you say so, and I would emphasize that it is you who says so. Again, if you say so. As I suggested before, man's significance might not be teleological as much as ontological. But if life is about 'choosing' heaven as opposed to hell, then I maintain there is no actual choice involved - it's like having a gun held to your head and being told you still have a choice on what to do. What in any other field of life people call 'forcing', only in certain religious thinking can be called 'choice'. For no one of sound mind who actually believed in hell, that is, became convinced of its existence, would choose it, just like no one who, knowing he has a gun pointed at his head, that is, knowing he will die, will choose not to yield the money to the robber. Therefore not only is this not a choice, but God becomes unethical for not presenting enough knowledge to the individual for that person to make an informed decision. Secondly, Buddhism in its texts and scriptures talks a lot of choice and freedom. It is a choice whether or not we choose to practice, to live our lives differently. Ultimately your idea of heaven contradicts everything you say about purpose and significance - in heaven there will no longer be the burden of choice, no longer will there be any purpose because it is eternal, it is God's dwelling - God, who has neither beginning nor ending (without purpose). Nirvana and heaven are both destinations that equate to each other more closely than I think you'd like to confess. Once the destination is reached, purpose falls away and you are left with a divine purposelessness. Thirdly, it is you who are placing ultimately significance on man's ability to make choices. Realistically there are very sharp limitations on our choices, including our freedom to even choose that freedom. And I still find the very premise that without eternal consequences man's choices are insignificant to be an unproven and unjustified assertion. See, I don't agree that you can just interchange 'the conventional' and 'the ultimate' so easily. And Also, I feel that it is very dubious, in fact psychologically impossible, that we simply 'decide' what we are to believe in. I shall move on with another quote originally addressed to Neon, In a similar vein, it is not necessarily so that a personal beginning gives final absolutes or categories any more than the impersonal. And I would also disagree that the universe is totally silent concerning morals without a personal God - for here we are, all discussing morals, each having different convictions about the universe. Even Christian theology has had no final conclusion on such things - remember, for centuries in the West, philosophy was Christianity. But regardless of whether their philosophy centers upon a personal-infinite God (again I feel that 'infinite' is a questionable adjective after 'personal'), ethical and moral considerations are always a centerpiece of any culture. Moral considerations are something reality demands that we deal with if nothing more than existentially, and often more than existentially. Secondly, it is a again a similar limitation - apparently arbitrary - to place on reality the restrictions in your premises. Your argument also does not account for impersonal laws which may speculatively exist such as Karma - which would be reality's impersonal endorsement of morality. There may also be other categories which we have not discussed, which may have been hitherto unthought of. Who says reality must conform to any of our categories to date, if any category at all? But if for the sake of argument were we to accept your premise, Christianity does not seem to stand unique in its answer, for there are other religions which personalize the universe, either monotheistically or polytheistically, including Hinduism and even Buddhism in the setting of its traditional Indian or Chinese cultures. Gods and deities are continuously invoked, nigh well unto monotheism as in Krishna in Hinduism which you can find specifically in the Bhagavadgita. Krishna, though identifying with the world as its true Self, is still very much personal, which is to me not any more illogical than the idea of an infinite-personal being. I would say that you can always ask 'why', right up the ladder of significance to the very throne of God. Why does God exist? As I've asked, what is the meaning of God? If God has no meaning, and everything comes from God, then logically nothing else 'has' any meaning ultimately. Perhaps 'why' is not such an important question to ask, or rather - to answer. Man can know very few things, including whether or not there is a personal beginning. 'Why' morality exists at all is intimately wrapped up in 'why' anything exists at all, for nothing exists absolutely unto itself, nothing is its own reality. But the fact is, we have answers as to 'why' this or that exists, at least, we have potential answers that are not so easy to dismiss. I do not feel the need to debate moral theory, for it has been done, is being done, will be done. Suffice it to say that we don't need to have an absolute 'why' in order to explain morality, any more than we need to know an absolute 'why' in order to take a shower, other than that it keeps us clean and if we don't we'll smell - and that's not good on any level. Peace to you, Mike
  5. Hi David, If it's not too much of a breach in protocol I'd like to respond to quotes from your last few posts. I do not see how it follows that it is necessarily illogical for the personal to come from the impersonal, anymore than for the impersonal to come from the personal. By such reasoning, then, the impersonal things we encounter must have no source or meaning since the beginning was personal? The impersonal must be no more than an illusion. Unless we make some 'illogical' or 'mystical' jump, then in some sense everything must be personal, no? Plus, why must we categorize the ultimate reality as anything? If the heart of Reality is, as I maintain, beyond thought, beyond category, then concepts like 'personal' and 'impersonal', like any other duality, are not ultimately useful. Not that I'm inherently opposed to the idea of a personal beginner or beginning, but the philosophical and skeptical side of me is not convinced of the necessity of its truth. Only in a modern scientific materialistic philosophy would this be true. To say that an impersonal beginning necessitates the existence only of particulars seems to deny much of what the speculative imagination can supply. Many modern atheistic scientists are neo-Platonist and believe in universals, truth, beauty, mathematical forms, etc. I would be greatly more skeptical of the idea that the Trinity is actually evidenced in reality, or that any particular doctrine is for that matter. You cannot look at the world and arrive at the Christian God or any God just-so. If any evidence is found for the Trinity, to me it is basically already assumed and read into reality. Just look at the various religions, philosophies, etc, around the world, each studying very intently the same reality and arriving at different ways of relating to it. I would say that 'no man is an island'. The meaning of any individual cannot be found absolutely in its own self - that would be idolatry. Why does the New Testament speak of dying to an old identity, being risen with Christ? (Does not that challenge the 'need' for our individual identities [the old identity]?)Are we so complete in ourselves that we don't need meaning from the outside? From the greater whole? I think some Buddhists might say that the meaning of the individual is rooted in the meaning of the whole universe, and vice-verse. The idea that all things 'ultimately end up in oneness', by the way, is hinted at in the Christian ideas of theosis and divinization, as in Catholic and Orthodox theology respectively, as well as in Paul. It would also be a mistake to think of such 'oneness' as a plain numerical oneness as opposed to twoness. Buddhists would say that reality is neither two nor one - any image one may have a self literally dissolving into an absolute abyss as far as I understand would not be accurate. I would also ask what you make of life's purpose once people reach their eternal abode? If man cannot possibly have meaning here without an ultimate destination, why is heaven such a great place? Why is heaven free of this rule? I think that is how you assess the situation, but there are plenty of people who would disagree. Every faith, for instance, that does not place any real emphasis on a personal deity seems to get along just fine without arriving at a nihilistic negation of life as a 'cruel hoax'. It could only be a hoax if we were somehow expected to believe in something that really wasn't there. But in reality there is no such requirement. I believe you are creating a box where there need not be. I could first say that it makes a lot of difference to the individual right now, how he sees himself and his place in the universe. Man's meaning could be found in his relation to God, where it must be found anyway. What if the meaning of human existence is simply God? What if it is not primarily teleological but ontological? But if the meaning of the creation is the Creator? Additionally, if there is a purpose and destination, what could possibly be the meaning of that? What of the meaning of life once you've reached that destination (i.e. heaven)? Lastly, what is the purpose and meaning of God? Does God have teleological purpose? Does he have any meaning? Secondly I do not see how 'freedom' is especially given meaning by the idea that God has placed before us only two paths: one of eternal joy, and the other of eternal torment. Not much of a choice to me. That life is all about getting to heaven, and that, by way of an extremely constricted path, does not embody the word 'freedom' to my mind, or best convey that our choices really matter. What about all the great people of the world who are not Christian? Their choices didn't matter much - they all went to the same place. But about all the great - and not-so-great Christians of the world? All going to heaven. But ultimately I just do no see how it follows that without an ultimate destination, or if every one is going to the same destination ultimately, that therefore human life is meaningless. I simply don't agree, and do not see how it follows. It seems these arguments represent your own disposition about the matter but are not universal. My this post is getting very, very long! Sorry about that. I blame it on being sick with a flu and having too much time on my hands. Peace to you, Mike
  6. Hi David. I hope you had a very blessed Christmas and New Year. I would say that logic is no guarantor of truth, in fact it is very limited. Logic, especially syllogistic logic, is little more than a computation - a program - that will spit out a conclusion based on the mathematical validity of the premises. Whether or not the premises or conclusion is actually true has nothing to do with logic itself. Logic is a formalism that seeks proper structure, but the 'substance' dwells entirely elsewhere. This is what the mathematician Godel showed, that logic/mathematics is fundamentally incomplete and that it cannot actually 'get at' reality. Logic cannot actually yield absolute truth, because the truth does not exist in such a way, it is not a concept. I probably have not been clear in my language or attempts to express my thoughts, but I never meant to argue that reality does not exist independently of our subjective experiences. But I would say that as such reality does not exist in such a way that we can distance ourselves from it and object-ify 'it'. I would also say that reality and truth are synonymous, what I would argue against is placing too much value or emphasis on objectivity, as if objectivity is what life is all about, and as if it can actually disclose the inner secrets of reality. Therefore I would argue against the ultimate validity of any objective methodology. All such attempts are incomplete and must look beyond themselves for any kind of confirmation. I reason that if objectivity fails, it is because reality is not an object or truly amendable to such concepts. Now, that God is beyond thought should come as no surprise, seeing that it is been consistently affirmed in Christianity from the beginning. The Trinity is a special example of how God transcends thought in Christian theology. Defended in traditional and orthodox circles as the centerpiece of Christianity, the Trinity is often 'spoken about' and 'thought about', but no one has ever actually known the Trinity by speaking or thinking. And if God fundamentally 'makes no sense', then he is a true Mystery (with a captital 'M'). Is he not then beyond words?, and if beyond words, beyond objectivity? After all, if God existed as an object among objects, subject to objective inquiry, there ought to be nothing very mysterious about him at all. Does not any element of unknowablity challenge objectivity - any methodology which expects reality to behave as an object to be under-stood - at its foundation? I would also say that the Mystery is ultimately true of our own selves and the world around us. We talk about consciousness, sight, speech, touch, color, etc, we label them but we cannot actually know them by their labels. I think you spoke rightly by saying we 'think about' God all the time, but that is precisely the limitation. Language, concepts, and methodologies centered around them only skirt 'about' God. Peace to you, Mike
  7. Hi David, The thing about 'answers' is that to another person it is simply an opinion, interpretation, hypothesis, speculation, whatever you want to call it. I have refused to get into a debate over 'answers' because there is simply nothing we could say here that hasn't already been said. I am not a scholar or an expert, but I am not new to the kinds of questions, and answers, you are positing. What I mean is that the point of view you espouse is not being read by new eyes. And I've questioned intently and openly enough to know that 'an answer' is always easy to come up with. If it's answers you want, I can fire dozens of them at you. Granted, some are more inclusive than others, but they all share the same limitations ultimately. Now, as for logic, it may be true that it is basically universal, but logic comes in many layers and applications. The rules of the game have to be specified, and which rules are counted to be important has drastic consequence for the outcome. It is not a matter of plugging your premises into a syllogism. Just think of the rules for a classical computer vs a quantum computer. But if I accept the premise that logic is universal, and for practical purposes I do, I would say that nothing is detracted from the complexity of the situation. Presuppositions are not something easily dismissed, as they color one's world. Does sight itself have a color? How would you know? In the same way it is difficult to distinguish reality from one's interpretation of it. Suffice it to say that I do not feel the need to counter your answers with another answer, as if the burden of proof were on me, and as if the debate that would ensue would not just drag on and on indefinitely, until we both wind up in the same spot - disagreeing with each other's presuppositions. Peace to you, Mike
  8. Happy B to the Y.

  9. Hi David, I have a feeling your take on Eastern religion and Buddhism may reflect you and your beliefs rather than what these faiths actually have to say. Your assessments also ring to me of a former Western interpretation of the East that defined it somewhere between nihilism and atheism - which you expressed in your statement to Derek, that such paths (including his own) are "bereft of answers for our need for diversity, where the personal self is but a delusion, hope is in a final oblivion, and there is no God." Upon reading this one might wonder which Eastern religions you refer to, because it is certainly nothing I've ever read about. You seem to be oversimplifying and overlooking the subtleties of Eastern religious thought. Not accounting for these greatly simplifies the matter of asserting the 'obvious' supremacy of Christianity because one is then attacking a non-existent hypothetical religion. For one, it is incorrect to say that atheism is the 'Eastern answer,' as many Eastern religions are rooted in very theistic mythologies. Reading the Hindu scriptures one finds a culture veritably intoxicated by the notion of God. Now, Buddhism is a path that deals with suffering, its causes and its cure. This is why it, as a philosophy, deals almost exclusively with those questions pertaining to liberation, freedom from suffering. Buddhism uses the well known analogy of a man, who being shot with an arrow, refuses treatment until he knows who shot him, from where, and why. The man may well die before ever having received those answers; he needs immediate treatment. Fortunately, treatment involves a particular way which has nothing to do with answering the aforementioned questions, but which is much more relevant: how to remove the arrow and go on to healing. The point is that some things simply matter more than others. This is not, by the way, to say that Buddhism is not interested in such questions - it is a vast and huge religious tradition that deals with all kind of metaphysical problems, but in such a way that always ties back into the fundamental problems of human existence (suffering in its manifold meanings). What I see then, is that most of what you assert is what you think matters most, or is what matters most to you, both in the sense of which questions you ask, and how you answer them. But this is not the case for all people. You are imposing your own criteria, your own sense of what's important, on a foreign system, and when that system does not address them in the prescribed manner, you hail it insufficient and incomplete. I simply do not know where you get the notion, as well, that Eastern religion and Buddhism in particular have no meaningful way of addressing the particulars of existence, when the notions of sunyata, Buddha-nature, dependent origination, etc, etc, are all dealing with this very topic and many, including myself, find it profound and nourishing. No, the Buddhist philosophers didn't have a Bible in their hands by which they derived their metaphysics, but that is not a shortcoming. And speaking of reductionism, since you mentioned it, in contrast to the Far Eastern faiths, including Taoism and Chan Buddhism and all the other forms of East Asian Buddhism (I say this because some Indian school were atomist), the West is reductionist. We are the ones who tried to turn the universe into a machine, and we are the ones who faced the discontents when arriving at the prospect that perhaps we are not the center of the universe. The discontents we 'modern men' face are our own, they are not necessarily universal. Perhaps in this way it is not the Biblical claim, but the Eastern's, that is more in line with reality? Perhaps man is not the center, and perhaps that's what many have the most trouble with. The Buddhists find their salvation in realizing that there is more to oneself than the ego, there is more to life than man. And many would rather, in spite of all we see around us, believe that the ego is the center, and that man is the center of the divine purpose. It is obvious to me that the latter is speculation, while the former may be very accessible to personal realization. And that is why the Buddhists would generally find the metaphysical questions you find so central and supreme to be beside the point. Some questions you cannot answer, and some questions have no answer because the question is flawed or loaded from the get-go. For you cannot reach the Ultimate using mere ideas, and you cannot have as the goal of your knowledge the entire purport of reality. In this view even God, as he is objectified by many theists, cannot be exempt from the question of meaning. And yet, while not the center, man is in another way the center. The Easterns might well emphasize that there is no center, as that would make an object of reality. A Zen abbot might tell his monks that the universe is in their belly. When they eat, when they sleep, the full import of life can be realized in that eating and sleeping, by not distancing oneself from the fundamental fact. In the end, to put it honestly and bluntly, you seem to be simply setting up your own 'universal' categories and criteria so that they just happen to fit the Christian tradition (although no real explanation was provided for why every other theistic faith, including Eastern ones, do not qualify), and then arbitrarily dismissing out of hand every other tradition because it does not address what you think is important or in the way you think it ought to be done. Your assertions about morality, about the necessity of Christianity's answer over the rest, constitute what seems to be a lack of appreciation for the subtlety of other answers, and other questions. And again your dismissal of universalism and insistence that without consequences in terms of absolute, eternal rewards and punishments there is no freedom and life is meaningless, are rooted in more assertions, despite being addressed and refuted in its current form by others as a non sequitur. Lastly, I'd like to say that having to argue against the Christian tradition as I have been in order to defend other faiths does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Christianity has things to offer, and there is enough depth in its tradition for me to find meaning in it. And it is not that your questions and answers, David, are simply without merit. The things you are fundamentally concerned with are worthy of consideration and Christian theology can provide important perspective on them. But they simply lack the epistemological stature to be viewed in such an absolute and black-and-white terms and in the context of supremacy claims and the dismissal of all other paths that have proved to others, including myself, to be the very thing you repeatedly insist they are not. Like I said, experience takes precedence, especially in this case. And with that I think I shall retire this debate, and let you have the last word, unless, that is, you bring up something you'd really like me to respond to, as it would not be fair for me to simply write this and run off. Peace to you, Mike
  10. Hi David, I apologize for the tone that my words may have carried. I think perhaps this conversation has been drawing itself to a conclusion, reaching, as did the Greeks, our own impasse. It’s not that I would have a problem with in and of itself saying that Christianity has the ‘complete package.' But when asserted in the context of the dismissal of all other religious paths, I cannot agree. Having found both comparative religion/philosophy and Buddhist practice to be very fruitful in my own life, I dispute your understanding and assessment of Buddhism and Eastern religion in general. Claiming Christianity to be complete whereas Buddhism in contrast is incomplete simply does not jive with what I see in either. As I said, as a belief system, Christianity leaves too many questions unanswered for me to consider it ‘complete.’ Yet I do not have a problem with this because I do not consider any ‘system’ to be complete unto itself, in the sense that logic cannot penetrate that deeply into reality. It depends on what you’re expecting to get out of it all. To me Christianity presents a living reality that ultimately points beyond its own terminology. If there is any completeness (and in this sense I would say there is), it lies in the signification of its words, not in its own systematic consistency. If God is beyond thought, then Christianity as a belief-system is bound to be ‘full of holes’ because belief-systems are rooted in logic and concepts (yet it is true that some systems are more self-consistent than others). How can you systematize what is neither a system nor an object of thought? Even the Eastern thinkers must ultimately negate the object-ifying of nonduality, asserting the ‘nonduality of nonduality.’ I apologize if I’ve misrepresented your position on the matter. I ought to have taken more care to address your thoughts as they are. I have been emphasizing the matter of personal experience and subjectivity because, while you are not totally negating the value of personal experience, I would point out what I see as a negation of the efficacy of it, coupled with the overemphasis of objective-knowledge, or ‘knowledge about' - believing the correct list of doctrines. I wonder if you will admit that the vast majority of things the Christian Church tends to assert, if taken really to be objective 'knowledge about', has no possible verification in personal experience. Like I said earlier, the world view you promote seems, to me, to make life out to be all about believing in the right list of things. You have placed absolute value on objectified knowledge, on head-beliefs, and consequently the substance of life turns out to be a correct objective understanding, believing the correct set of doctrines. Yet this seems to hold that one's beliefs about the world take precedence over one's actual direct experience of the world. And it seems to make the Gospel to be rather oppressive instead of being good news, since such knowledge is a matter of absolutes: eternal life or damnation. Now, you’ve argued that if you have your head knowledge right, your experience will follow. This may be true some of the time. But in many cases this is the tail wagging the dog. You can’t make yourself believe something your own experience knows nothing of. And I would argue that experience is always the final test on one's take on life and how we live. Experience informs our beliefs ultimately at least as much as any head knowledge does. Ideally they can inform each other. But you can’t simply start with a list of the ‘correct beliefs’ and expect that to have any efficacy at all. Experience must verify, inform, and ultimately be at the root, in my view. If you again feel that I have misrepresented your thought on the matter I can only offer further apologies. These are my honest impressions. Peace to you, Mike
  11. Hi David, To further comment on the Greeks, I am aware, although my knowledge of history is limited, of the impasse that the Greek schools of thought reached. I would argue that this stalemate is more representative of the result of any quest for objective truth, that is, any attempt to make an object of reality to be understood. It is very true that the Greeks never arrived at 'the' answer, but then again, nobody has, especially we in the West who have built so much of our civilization and expectations on the ideal of objective reality. What I was disagreeing with is what I perceive to be an underlying rejection or dismissal of the achievements, thought, and aspirations of the Greeks, which I cannot agree with since they were an extraordinary civilization. And Greece has had, one might almost say, as much to do with the development of Christianity as did the Hebrews. Both the Church Fathers and Jewish philosophers of the time were so taken with Hellenism that many tried to integrate the two (Christianity/Judaism and Greek philosophy), seeing them as complementary and necessary for each other. And the Christianity that we have passed down to us, including many traditional beliefs, interpretations, etc., are the product of this union. One need only look at the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation to see the blatant influence of Aristotle, or to the Trinity, which I see as tied to Greek mysticism. You yourself expressed a Pythagorean conviction by citing geometry (height, width, depth) as an indication of the Trinity. And again Aristotle is used by apologists citing the proofs offered by say, Aquinas, like the first cause arguments, aka unmoved mover, etc. So again I would say that you are not exempt from the limitations the Greeks discovered. I would also emphasize that the limitations they encountered were not peculiar to them but to human thought in general, which you, like it or not, rely on and partake of as much as anyone to defend your positive beliefs. As for the Buddhists, theirs in my estimation is a metaphysics of negation, much like the Christian mystics' apophatic theology. I personally find their 'system' to be very profound and useful. Mainly because you can confirm what it has to say by experience, and it gives genuine tools for spiritual realization. And if you don't think personal experience is the key issue in religious conversion, I simply ask you what led you to Christianity. Was it proved to you by the methods of the Greeks which you seem to dismiss? Personal experience is not ultimately meant to prove anything to anyone but the practitioner. That's also what really counts, the subject who is practicing. There is, however, an element of 'objectivity' when many people cite the same personal experiences rooted in similar practices, realizations, and express themselves in similar language. It is even more striking when these similar accounts are irrespective of culture. Some passages of Pseudo-Dionysius read like Huang Po. Not to discount the differences, which there are. So Christianity need not be, and actually, is not without its appeal to personal religious experience at the heart of one's life and faith. As a belief-system, as I said, I find it full of holes, but ultimately any system is incomplete. There is no pressing reason why Christianity cannot be more open-ended in its exploration of God. Head-beliefs alone are impotent. Head-beliefs, without personal confirmation, are only theories, speculation. Was it Spong who said the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind cannot accept? Concepts about Jesus and God are useless if their truth cannot be integrated in subjective experience. Ideas are great, but it has to be shown what they mean in personal experience in practice. Whatever does not touch this, and whatever cannot be shown to be real in life as it is lived, to me, is not relevant. Peace to you, Mike
  12. Hi David, I'm afraid you must speak for yourself, because when I look at Christianity as a belief system, I see a system as rife with incompleteness and unanswered questions as any can be. And being someone who is interested in other religious and philosophical traditions, I'm also not impressed by your one-sentence dismissal of some of the most profound paths that have ever developed. Needless to say I do not agree with your assertions and sentiments regarding the Greeks and especially the Buddhists. But since they are only assertions, I need not elaborate any further. Peace to you, Mike
  13. I do think there is a lot of merit to this sentiment, as I see it in my life and in religions generally. That we need to identify with some greater or deeper than the individual self, in my experience, is true. I think that there is an inherent incompleteness in the self, which makes us seek that which is complete, and in this sense, infinite, eternal. I like 'undefined,' as in 'beyond definition or category'. But the fact is, there have been plenty of 'answers' or names given to the 'infinite source' other than 'God'. Buddha-nature, Tao, Brahman, and a myriad of others, are all 'other answers' to the question of the infinite. The Greeks sought a quintessence, the Buddhists negated an essence. But each sough the infinite. Peace to you, Mike
  14. Hello David. Thank you for your explanations. Firstly I would not agree that what is good and evil are defined or arbitrated by God. I would think that even God has to recognize the good as good and evil as evil, independently of himself. Of course, we may say that God by nature is predisposed to perfectly align himself with the good, but there is a philosophical difference. It goes back to the old question: does God love what is good because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? I would say the former, otherwise any immoral action can be justified by the decree that 'God wills it'. To me 'the good' can roughly be defined as that which benefits, or negatively as doing no harm. It is not centrally about consequences in terms of rewards and punishment. Now, you seem to take to the idea that life without eternity is meaningless, while at the same time agreeing with my sentiment that a world in which what we do 'finally matters' is, in fact, dismal (no doubt by such standards the vast majority of people who ever lived are on this way to dismal eternity, if not already there). Now, how can one agree that it is dismal and still think it good and necessary? I would say that if that is the what life is about, and God is weighing infinite consequences on our finite choices in this finite life, then he has in fact robbed us of choice. We have no choice in fact except to do what he says - or else. Unreasonable demands and unreasonable consequences for crimes are outlawed in all civilized countries - I hate to think that the Creator of the universe isn't at least as good as our constitutions. Additionally, one might wonder why, if eternity is what makes life meaningful, why God didn’t just put us all there in the first place, instead of us being here, living this life on earth. I would say that contrary to making life meaningful, this concept of eternity in heaven/hell can actually be seen to negate any real meaning that this life may have for us now, because it is all about the next life, not this one. What is a few dozen years compared with eternity? Why is there life at all? The way I see it, this belief can imply that nothing in life is meaningful in and of itself but in a way is a symbol - and a predicate - for eternity. Would not one be justified in finding such a view potentially maddening? Would that not get in the way of enjoying simple and good pleasures because there is an utmost serious 'ought' that we all need to be paying attention to? How might one enjoy being in the moment with a cup of tea with infinity on his back? Moreover, if heaven is simply the result of having our bad deeds forgotten or forgiven, then heaven isn't exactly a reward for doing good, and hence is not a consequence of our actions, is it? Why must we 'carry all our deeds with us' except those whom God decides don't have to face the consequences? And this question follows: why can't God just all-out forgive us all if he can do it for some people? Or at least deal restorative measures or punishments for those who need correction? Why must everything be so either/or, us-vs-them, eternal life vs eternal damnation? Why must he demand that one profess the correct formula (doesn't that negate the importance of actually being good)? Why place eternal weight on one finite life (does that not negate the meaningfulness of this life?). Note that I'm not totally against an idea of reward or punishment for our deeds in some metaphysical sense, but I have very big problems with traditional Christian ideas about it. I obviously cannot know whether there is or is not an afterlife or what that afterlife might be like. What I do know is that if it is fair, it would have to actually be in line with, and do justice to, life as it is lived. I simply do the best with what I've got and leave the rest to powers greater than myself. That is all I can do. I would think that God, who is credited with creating this life, would of all persons (if not him, then who?) understand this, and not 'tempt us beyond what we are able to bear'. And contrary to something you said, if hell is what awaits most of us, then I say God has done all but nothing in the way of warning the world. I don't think he would make demands that contradict our reason, sensibilities, appearances, and experiences of reality. Giving us this life and then in the end drawing the curtain back and showing us that none of it was truly real - would that not be lying, and grievously at that? Peace to you, Mike
  15. Hi David, Forgive me if I was rather brisk in my last post. I usually try not to be confrontational in my responses, and I realize that I came across that way. Anyway, what I get out of your argument is not so much a question of what the ‘basis’ of good and evil is. Are good and evil established and defined merely by what can be gotten out of them? How could an afterlife form a basis for what is good or evil? Is there nothing inherently good in feeding the hungry that exists independently of any concept of reward? Does the concept of reward and punishment exhaust the reality of good and evil? After all, you said that without heaven and hell, ‘neither good nor evil would exist.’ According to this, then, without divine reward and punishment, the good is not good, and evil is not evil. I think what your argument really gets at is the question of 'what is the point' of doing good if death spells the end of life. That is a big question, because we all like to see goodness vindicated. Yet I think the question extends to the whole sphere of life and existence. Why stop with good and evil? What is the point of anything at all if it one day ends? By this reasoning it can be argued, and often is, that without an afterlife, life itself is meaningless. If life ends in death, then of what value is life? Would life, then, have no basis, if not finalized by eternity? Is life not life unless it lasts forever and everything ultimately, eternally matters? I'm not sure we really tend to know what we want. In the wake of death we want to live forever. There's no doubt about that: most of us at some point or another would like not to have to die. Yet, when I really think about it, the prospect of living forever can seem just as dismal, especially when combined with the idea that every single thing we do in this life 'ultimately and finally matters'. Is it really any more encouraging to have an infinite weight on one's shoulders? Peace to you, Mike
  16. So the only reason not to commit mass homicide is because of the threat of hell? And likewise, the only reason to feed the hungry is to get to heaven? I would hope that there is more to morality, and life, than that. But if true, then there is no goodness for its own sake, and the ends do justify the means, since without an afterlife 'neither good nor evil would exist'. Now I know this isn't exactly what you had in mind, but this is the conclusion that this thinking leads me to. In my understanding it is also the same reasoning that led the ancient Hebrews to see material prosperity as a sign of good-standing with God, and disease and poverty as God's punishment for sin (if not in that person's life, then the lives of his or her parents). Every deed in this life must be rewarded or punished - why would the world that God oversees be any other way? This worldview became less and less tenable as time went on, but still even in Jesus day there were Jews who were not convinced of 'new' ideas (i.e. afterlife). The old view lost popularity after the reality that 'that's not the way the world works' sunk in. The afterlife seemed the only way to preserve the essence of the old view while attempting to account for the apparent discrepancy between belief and reality. Peace to you, Mike
  17. Aw, and I was getting ready to bust some noses. I wonder if I can get a refund from the gym. Seriously though, I appreciated the responses here too. PC's mixture of different approaches and methods is definitely a strength, especially when combined under the umbrella of respect and love. I was impressed by what Soma shared about his experiences working with prisoners. That Jesus welcomed and showed compassion to the social outcasts is repeated so often that it risks being a cliche. It is nevertheless always moving when his example is actually practiced and realized. Peace to you, Mike
  18. Ha I suppose a lot of hymns can be considered 'creepy' if you sit down and think about what the words are literally saying. Though to be fair, at this point the cross and sacrifice of Jesus have taken on a cosmic or metaphysical significance in Christian theology and I doubt very many Christians are really thinking the historical, factual, visceral torture of Jesus when singing songs like that. At least, I never was. To be honest though I do shy away from songs that explicitly state or promote that theory of atonement. I know very little about Casting Crowns but they seem conservative to me too. I do recommend JJ Heller though, like I said I think she has a general appeal, not just to the religious. Peace to you, Mike
  19. Katy Taylor has a lot of beautiful interfatih sacred music. Many of her songs reflect the Christian tradition while others pull from Pagan. However her music is not very marketable since it is not rock/pop music. Loreena McKennitt too has a lot of good sacred music, more or less under the label 'new age.' But JJ Heller is a Christian artist whose music can easily appeal to the religious and non-religious alike. Songs I like from her include 'Small', 'Love Me', 'Only Love Remains', 'Garden Variety'. If you've been following the 'emergent church' at all, it's a post-modern church movement that has moved away from the thought-world of fundamentalism. Solomon's Porch, led by Doug Pagitt, has a lot of in-house music from their own members. Their songs may seem more or less conservative though, but I appreciate their music more knowing where they're coming from. Generally I enjoy music that reflects traditional Christian spirituality, songs that either capture the ancient mysticism or that hold special meaning for me. For me music doesn't have to be particularly 'progressive.' As such I enjoy many traditional church hymns, and also Gregorian chants. I also tend to like homegrown folk or blues style religious music, exemplified in, say, Kelly Joe Phelps (folk blues, probably my favorite living artist) and Connie Dover (folk, but also with a strong Celtic tendency).
  20. Perhaps I’ve missed Bill’s point in bringing this up? Bill, perhaps you are arguing for a better defined 4th point? Or wondering if PC has or would have the chutzpah to actually draw a line and exclude somebody if and when the situation arises? If I have misunderstood your point I apologize. Peace to you, Mike
  21. I do think Bill’s is a valid concern, but I think it is one that is not at all unique to the beliefs of PC. His question seems to be about a slippery-slope scenario. If you allow for A, then there is no reason for B and C, and eventually Y and Z, not to follow. As such this is not simply a PC issue, but a huge problem that, if definitively answered, would pretty much put the whole branch of philosophy known as ethics to rest. It seems the best we can do is use our cumulative moral knowledge to figure out what defines a good and healthy sexual relationship. Unless we are coming from an absolutist’s point of view, we have to settle for some relativity and ambiguity and cultural context in the process of our deciding. I am not a total moral relativist, mind you, but I do admit to the presence of a strong element of relativity within any moral system.
  22. I agree. I think this problem happens to exist within the very framework of any ethic that is not rooted in an absolutist, black-and-white viewpoint. That there is a subtlety and relativity within ethics should be of no surprise to PCs. There is more to life than what exists at either extreme, and I think an ability to recognize and appreciate this is one of the great achievements of the Western mind.
  23. I do not see such statements as extending to extreme or harmful behavior, sexual or otherwise. Points 2 and 4 are inclusive to people of all walks of life, but I still would not like worshiping next to a neo-Nazi, a KKK member, a drug peddler, or a mobster. 'Mutual respect' as a guideline to me does not mean stating categorically that all ways of living are equally accepted or acceptable. We have to use judgment in who we associate with in that such is the condition of the real world. There is discretion implied in these points, as no general principle or point we can ever formulate would survive when pushed to an extreme to wring out an exception. Peace to you, Mike
  24. I don't know of any, but if you find any good ones let me know because I might take some interest in them.
  25. I too am agnostic when it comes to the afterlife. This present life is the only one I can do anything about, so if there is an afterlife I leave it to forces greater than myself and will simply live as authentically as I can in the here and now. I am beginning to see my 'true self' as existing everywhere, every-time, from every reference point. What I normally call 'myself' is just one point of reference equal to all others. In other words, what I really am is united to God. So personal continuity after death, while I do not deny the possibility, is not something I focus on as a point of belief.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service