PaulS

Paul, I come from a similar experience to you in that I grew up in a fundamental Christian household but moved away from those beliefs in my late teens/early twenties. To this day (nearly 30 years on) my parents are still strong fundy's and my sister is a fundy missionary saving souls in Mexico. In all this time I have not been able to have a genuine conversation once with any of them concerning biblical interpretation, biblical scholarship, or even just a fair comparison of Christianity to other religions. They 'know' the 'truth' (as though there is one single simple truth) and that is the end of the matter. The bible says so! They just shut down and use other bible verses to counter their beliefs, even when such verses are contradictory to others. My family aren't unintelligent people either - so whether it's just plain ol' indoctrination or whether they are scared to consider any alternatives, I don't know. But I do know it is next to useless trying to 'convince them' of why I think their beliefs are wrong or misplaced. Personally I don't think we generally have much of a choice over what we believe - we just either believe something or we don't. Sometimes we believe something until new information comes along which we process and then maybe change our beliefs, but I don't see us doing that deliberately. Rather the process just takes care of itself and we start believing something different. So my advice for you if you're interested would be don't worry about trying to convince them otherwise or seek their approval for why you don't believe what they do, just accept that they have their beliefs (as unfounded as they may seem to you) and that you have yours. It's not easy and I imagine a part of you wants them to acknowledge that you are justified in your reasons, but you're probably unlikely to ever get that 'justification' if your situation is anything like mine. At best you can explain why you don't agree with their beliefs and leave it at that. That's my two bob's worth anyway. Probably not much help! Cheers Paul

I hope your stones are passing as you hope for Bonnie. If not, then I hope any surgery will relieve you of them. Cheers Paul

Indeed, tragedies like Grenfell seem to bring out both the best and the worst of people. Overwhelmingly I think we see more of the best than the worst, but still, why others need to be cruel and unkind in the face of so many who feel the hurt is beyond my comprehension. At the very least, if people have nothing nice to say about it then I wish they would say nothing at all. A beautiful film clip Derek. Thanks for sharing.

I think we can all appreciate the "dreariness of calculated processes", the "cheerless clockwork fantasy" of our modern lives. Probably most of us spend the bulk of our week away from our families and loved ones, away from our homes and communities, doing 'work' we don't really love but need to do to earn money, and I think we mainly do this because we don't know any other way or can't figure out how to implement any other way of living. Anyone who does swim against this stream is notably 'different', and most of us don't really like 'different'. I'm reminded of a book I read about 6 years ago by an author named Tom Hodgkinson - "How to be idle" and it's arguments against our current 'work for a living;' culture. One thing though that I'd note about Merton's comment is that I wonder if the birds perhaps are entering a just as cheerless clockwork fantasy at 4 or 5 in the morning - their 'songs' are them staking their territory and trying to attract a mate. Two probably pretty stressful activities. So maybe our birds are awakening to anxiety and the pressures of their lives that we actually don't understand. Perhaps a bird might think "I wish I didn't have to sing and fight for my 'space' every day and I wish I could just wake up to a lovely bird-wife sitting next to me in the morning"!

I hadn't chimed in Derek as I don't know an awful lot about Jung (although you have piqued my interest). However your post trying to stimulate a response certainly rings true for me. About 18 years ago I left our State's police force after serving about 13 years, during which time I attended probably 20 or so suicides. People jumping in front of trains, hanging themselves, shots to the head, car exhaust through the window, etc. I always wondered whether they were brave to take their own life or just too gutless to face life. It wasn't until I seriously considered committing suicide some 8 or so years ago (I was suffering anxiety & depression brought on by financial reasons at the time, but soon thereafter suffered mental anguish about my childhood indoctrination and needing to 'believe' in Jesus as my personal saviour in order to avoid Hell. The problem was that I couldn't make myself believe this as it just went against my principles of justice and it seemed plain wrong to me. That didn't stop the thoughts from tearing me up though and even with a wife and young kids at the time, I thought I was going to have to kill myself to make the pain stop, to escape this hole that I couldn't get out of mentally. Thankfully I did get through that period without killing myself (obviously), after which I was very curious to better understand Christianity. Was there another way to understand it other than what I had been taught? Previously I had written off what I had been taught about Jesus & God because it simply didn't feel right, in fact it felt wrong and harmful. I now wanted to understand 'why' it didn't feel right which then led me down a whole other path toward a better understanding of history and Christianity. It also drove me to volunteering with a crisis hotline to help others who may be suicidal. I learnt a lot more about suicide and felt that by volunteering I could help others in need. Acknowledging my 'wounds' concerning Christianity was important (as was a better understanding of mental health) especially on the crisis line as we were trained to not to let our personal beliefs creep into influencing the call. I won't say it's always easy to ignore those wounds and they still do hurt sometimes, however by acknowledging and understanding them better I am freed to help others. And in turn, I almost always inevitably find I am taught something or otherwise helped in return. Sometimes it's just a sentence or two that triggers something in me and other times it might be a a piece of information or interpretation of something that helps me clarify my thinking. So for me, I would indeed say that knowing and acknowledging some of my wounds has indeed made me more able to help others and in doing do, I in return am helped also. It's a win-win really!

Sounds like an excellent recovery plan, Joseph!

My wife left for New York from Perth Australia last night (should be arriving in a few hours). She is travelling with her sister and a mutual girlfriend to 'celebrate' the sister's 50th birthday. I think the three of them are trying to replicate some 'Sex In The City' experience! All up they are gone for 3 weeks. And me, I'm left at home as Mr Mum for our two sons, who turn 11 & 13 this year. I think I'm in for an awakening and revelation concerning just how much my wife does around here!

Hi Bonnie, It's nice to meet you also and welcome to the forum. I would strongly encourage you to be as 'me' as you want. In general, we have a understanding and accepting group here. There are sometimes diverse views on many things, but as long as we remain civil to one another and respect that many of us have different beliefs and views on things, then we can all get along just fine. I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

Hi Sandy and welcome to the Forum, I'm afraid I'm not much help over here in Australia and would only be Googling, probably like you. I see there is one UU church in the heart of Orlando and a couple on the coast directly across from you, but not sure how convenient those are: https://www.yellowpages.com/search-map/kissimmee-fl/unitarian-universalist-churches Whatever the case, I hope you find somewhere that works for you and that you also join in here if you feel like it. Cheers Paul

Good topic Joseph and I'm almost sure no two opinions will be the same! I support abortion and think that women should have total say over whether they carry a baby full term or not. I am sympathetic to fathers-to-be that might not get a say in the decision, however for me that's just how it works and so be it (which happens to align with Australian law as no court will restrain a woman from having an abortion even if it is against the will of the father). I would encourage many more options other than just abortion if possible (single mother support, adoption process, financial assistance for struggling parents to be etc) but I still think the choice should be there. In my home state here, abortion upon request is completely legal up to 20 weeks. After that an abortion is only legal if a baby is likely to suffer severe medical problems. I accept that an unborn baby may be considered a person, but I believe the decision to abort or proceed must sit with the mother. I think this is a very personal decision and so I wouldn't criticise a mother who chose to abort. Similarly, I wouldn't like a woman to feel that the only choice is abortion so that she may feel pressured to abort rather than carry the baby if there were other practicable options. I think that is something we don't do very well in society - support mothers who otherwise feel they need to abort because of the lack of such support and assistance. I identify with Christianity but do not belong to any denomination or specific variety of such, but I think largely Christianity is against abortion unfortunately. I am sure others can quote a number of bible verses used to support the case against abortion (event though the bible does not specifically mention abortion at all), but i don't agree with that line of thought and I don't accept that religious thought some 2000 years old is necessarily correct in all its teachings (or like this article prompts, has turned its mind to a time much different to its own). This article is excellent food for thought concerning where the world is headed population-wise and how population control is likely to be a necessity in order to maintain any sort of quality of life on this planet with its finite resources. Sure, contraception is the best option and more efficient and cost-effective than abortion after the fact, but it is not always reliable and we all know of many instances where it either hasn't worked or 'the moment' has simply led people to proceed without such. It is pretty easy to imagine a 'full' world where rules are made that may say no more than one child (or none at all) and when those rules are broken action is enforced (forced terminations). I don't have any answers here but I can imagine it becoming a necessity unless addressed now. But I guess we all have our heads in the sand a bit and have an attitude that it isn't really going to happen to us so we'll let somebody else solve the problem later.

I don't know how you think I have changed my mind and now say that all divine revelation is not valid. That is not the case. I have never said all revelation is valid or not, but have only argued that one shouldn't 'dismiss' another's revelation just because it doesn't measure up to what one thinks is acceptable 'criteria'. It would seem to me that often revelation or criticism of revelation is in the eye of the beholder and neither a case for or against can necessarily be established, particularly at the time. I 'suspect' that revelation can be invalid or mistaken (perhaps such as the Heaven's gate example you gave) but for all I know their souls could also be flying around right now across the universe in a spaceship and their revelation is indeed correct. I'm comfortable not judging their revelation either way. I would however be prepared to say that such a revelation, for me personally, does not fit. What I am also saying is that the framework you posited seems to me to have many shortcomings. That being the case (whether millions of Christians find it useful for them or not) I am expressing an opinion that seems contrary to yours that people can experience revelation on their own (as perhaps in Joseph's case above) and do not necessarily need to compare it against other's view of revelation. Furthermore that it seems to me that we run the risk of bias if we need to compare our revelation to somebody else's idea of what makes revelation relevant or not. Constructive criticism? Yes - let people have/experience whatever revelation they believe they have. If it harms no other then leave them alone. Don't insult them or belittle their revelations because you say their method has no self-correcting mechanism unless you can point out a 100% accurate example of a method for validating such revelations. Short of that, I was simply putting it out there to see what others may think about 'validating' revelation. I don't pretend to have all the answers. My suggestion would be along the lines of Thormas' suggestion- that is, as I understand it, that revelations can be tested in a community and we can see if they benefit mankind or not, irrespective if they go against standing tradition or scripture. In some cases that might mean not jumping to conclusion about their 'wrong or right-ness' but just let the revelation be, mull it over, kick it around, but be open minded. Clearly history has demonstrated many revelations that have been refuted too quickly, only to be found out later to be accurate or useful. .

Yes, I can see it's a framework, but it would seem to be one that might not necessarily have much applicability if it's cornerstone measures are called into question (i.e. tradition, scripture, reason and experience). All of these are subjective or open to different interpretations at the time of assessment. So I'm not sure how it actually helps determine divine revelation unless one chooses to interpret scripture, tradition, experience and reason a certain way. Then it would seem the revelation has to configure to the model rather than the model determining the authenticity of the revelation.

How would any divine revelation have measured up against this method before scripture existed, before traditions had become established? Additionally, Christian and Buddhist traditions are no more than 3,000 years old which is a mere blip on the scale of human existence. They may be our current direction but as there were different traditions and experience in the past, so also I expect there will be in the future. Does revelation have to be consistent with experience - what if the experience is dated and a new revelation is required - something outside of the square to to speak? Is it ignored because it seems too 'outlandish', because it doesn't align with current reason and experience? It would seem to me that many immensely beneficial changes to mankind have come about precisely because they have gone against so called established reason and tradition. I agree that revelation may be a delusion and my take on Heaven's Gate would probably be the same as yours. However history is replete with examples of people who came up with revelations/ideas way outside the boundaries of normal, that went totally against the current thinking and experience, and these people were ridiculed, ostracised, and even executed. Yet later they were found to be 'right' and reason, tradition and experience took a new direction. So by who's measure is revelation right or wrong? And maybe my revelation doesn't suit some, but suits others? Who says revelation has to be a one size fits all individuals.

In another thread that when down the track of some discussion on Buddhism, it was raised that: "this idea of avoiding others and leaving everything up to divine revelation has no self-correcting mechanism. That's a fault. It works for picking out a spiritual mattress to nap on but not much else". This comment to me would seem to suggest that the Divine can't be trusted, that it is incapable of revealing itself directly to a person and that the only way a person can trust any such revelation is be confirming it with somebody's else's idea of divine revelation. Whilst I don't consider revelation to necessarily be divine in a theistic sense, I do think that people can/do/should experience revelation on their own and do not necessarily need to compare it against other's view of revelation. Do we run the risk of bias if we need to compare our revelation to somebody else's? Should one's personal revelation be considered lazy if it doesn't meet expectations of other people's revelation? Is divine revelation even possible for somebody who may avoid others?

You say potato, I say potatoe. I'm not interested in debating semantics around the word 'essential'. Teachers are valuable, some might say invaluable. Each to their own. My posts have been in response to what seem to me to be your 'certainties' around some things Buddhist. Your 'observations' to quote. I am still curious about your actual exposure to Buddhism but I've asked that a couple of times now and you haven't answered, so I'm guessing that's intentional (but I'd rather hope it's inadvertent). Not to worry if it is deliberate. For me, my observations about Jesuit classrooms....well, I don't have any because I've not genuinely associated with Jesuits or indeed visited their places of worship, nor have I seriously considered their views on their religion. So I wouldn't feel comfortable making any definitive statements about their faith. I am interested in what others may think about 'divine revelation' though - but I will start a separate thread on that if anybody is interested. Cheers Paul

What if your teachers have led you down the wrong path, even if it seems the right one, for your 'spiritual integration'? Are you open to correction or new learnings?

Aahh, New Orleans. I remember visiting the Cat's Meow, Bourbon St, and the Cemetery there in 1991, but unfortunately not much else (hey, I was only 21 then!). Good times! Apart from the Zen temple with the difficult Zen master, who sought computer classes from you, I still wonder if you have ever associated with any Buddhists or spent time in a Buddhist temple, Burl? I mean that from the perspective of trying to understand Buddhism as differentiated from 'Buddhism' imposing itself into your computer class. Have you ever spent time in a Buddhist temple, or in discussions with Buddhists, in a genuine attempt to understand where they are coming from and what they believe? Also I am trying to understand if you have personally had anything to do with Buddhism in an international perspective - i.e. have you ever visited Buddhism outside of your home country? At the end of the day, if you are 'convinced' that there is a 'need' for "personal guidance from one who is more spiritually advanced" concerning Zen, Amida and Lamanistic Buddhism, then, well, you are convinced already I guess. I would suggest that such a 'need' is not the case, but each to their own. Possibly "one cannot read anything about Zen without coming into contact with the tales of student/teacher interaction" and perhaps the "same is true in Sufic, Christian and the Hindu meditation traditions" (whatever the 'Christian meditation tradition' may entail precisely), but whatever the case I think there is difference in such being an 'essential requirement'. I do not agree that the fact that classes and temples exist is inarguable evidence of the need for their existence, but rather that the existence of such supports the notion that as humans we tend to flock together and we like it when there are 'teachers' who can provide us the assurance that we are 'on the right path'. Buddha (or Jesus for that matter) never promoted classes or temples. Peace & goodwill Paul

Yes full circle. As I mentioned before, my experience from the Buddhists I have spoken to, is that Buddhism very much regards Buddah as fully human and appreciates the myths concerning his conception and birth as just that, myths. The Buddhist community that I have associated with in Mandurah certainly do not take those stories literally. The one i visited in South Korea certainly didn't either. I'll admit the ones I visited in Thailand and Indonesia seemed to 'celebrate' the myths more seriously, but I do remember thinking that they didn't care much for determining if it was myth or not. I took away that that part of the story wasn't important. I wonder if you have ever associated with any Buddhists or spent time in a Buddhist temple Burl?

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there aren't teachers in Buddhism or that people don't choose to follow this or that tradition/teaching/person, and/or that there isn't value in doing so, but rather I was simply identifying that Buddhism does not promote it being absolutely essential for a Buddhist to have a guru or sensei to guide their development. That was Burl's observation, which is fine and I believe him, however I was saying that I think that is a misunderstanding of Buddhism. A small matter in the scheme of things but obviously it has generated discussion.

No, but according to Buddhist tradition, Buddha was a human being whom achieved awakening or enlightenment without a guru or sensei. You said in your post above that "One cannot become enlightened by themselves or by reading". That would seem to fly in the face of what the Buddha is said to have achieved. Of course if you don't believe the Buddha became enlightened that's fine. I'm just saying that Buddhism does not say you must have a guru or sensei to lead you and that to the contrary, Buddhism challenges adherents to test Buddhist teachings for themselves and abandon those that they feel are not valid.

So Buddha was delusional? According to Buddhism, he achieved enlightenment without a teacher (in the sense of a guru or sensei to guide their development). I understand this (from my anecdotal experience) to be a major component of Buddhism - finding enlightenment for oneself rather than adopting another's enlightenment. Guides and teachers may well be useful, but not essential, IMO.

With 2 years between posts I probably wasn't expecting much of a discussion, but thought I'd encourage the opportunity.

I was actually asking 'christs-love' if they would care to elaborate, not yourself Burl. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Fatherman, I was just wondering if you could share any developments in your thinking around this topic since you first posted on it? Have you landed anywhere in particular or still working through it? Cheers Paul

If that is an observation you have made about Buddhism....well, I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people about Buddhism to answer, but I believe that is a misunderstood observation, particularly when you consider the Buddha's teachings about thinking for one's self and rejecting or accepting the Buddha's teachings based on one's own personal testing of said teachings. Whilst there are books there are also the Buddhist 'scriptures' and its 'canon' (a borrowed Christian term used for convenience here) - the greatest teaching of all (IMO) encouraging people to contemplate the teachings for themselves. As for superstition vs intellectualism - You misunderstand me if you think I am saying intellectualism is superior to myth. I am simply saying there is much value in identifying what is myth and what is literal. BOTH have much value individually. My observations are that many Christians believe myth literally occurred,which is a different thing to regarding a story as myth but taking away wisdom from it. Try this link for a quick lesson on Buddhism (note the last paragraph too). http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm Regarding this thread, Buddhism started being discussed because christs-love was expressing how much they loved Jesus - yet if Jesus asked them to become Buddhist they would refuse to. The reasons why would maybe make for a good discussion however christs-love's one syllable answer to the question doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion. Would you care to elaborate christs-love?