Jack of Spades

18 hours ago, BillM said:

Hi, Jack. Nice to meet you!

I've had many experiences of awe and of the sublime. And they continue. But I've only had one mystical experience that I would call religious in nature. Without going into all the details, the experience that changed me made me feel that I was okay with What Is, with the Universe, so-to-speak. This experience contained no optical visions or auditory manifestations, only subjective feeling. No scientific evidence whatsoever. But it certainly seemed real. Real enough that it convinced me that I and everyone else is okay with What Is. I didn't have to take my shoes off or speak in tongues or fall off of a horse. I didn't have to do anything. That was what was so freeing to me.

So now, though I'm concerned about how we treat each other and our planet, what someone believes or doesn't believe isn't that important to me. My experience transcended beliefs. It was truly what Christians might call "grace". But you are right, IMO, that my experience is binding on no one else. It seemed meant for me because that was what I needed at the time. I don't use it as a gospel to transform anyone else. I struggle to even put the experience into words. Ineffable. In all honesty, it may have been a psychological phenomenon, just random firing in my brain of certain neurons, a hallucination. If so, it was a good trip.  

I am familiar with the "difficult to put in words" - part of it. I can recall having a bothering dilemma of what to call my own first spiritual experience, as it didn't seem to fall neatly into any category of orthodox experiences I knew of back then. Nowadays I just describe the feeling, it was as if something that had been a distant idea, came close to me. Actually, during the moment, I saw it in my mind as an impression, something invisible that had been far away, came close. That's the exact feeling and I'm well aware that it might not make all that much sense for an outsider, but nowadays I tend to prefer authenticity over orthodoxy when recounting it.

Then there is the question of interpretation. Continuing from my own example, if I interpret my experience in theistic, or Christian terms, it was that God had previously been a distant idea to me, but in that moment, he came close to me as a spirit and my faith in God became a living, interactive thing, not just a distant idea. That experience itself wasn't all that theistic really actually, but it changed something in my life permanently, shortly after I began seeing visions etc stuff.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I guess it depends on what kind of recognizable activity from God one expects: for the first disciples it was the simple call, of a man they were only beginning to know, that was transformative. For others along the way, it was the same man who called, challenged, told stories/parables. He spoke, they listened and for many it resonated in their lives: the transformative experience was in and through a man (someone known as a man, perhaps a rabbi but certainly, for the non-theist, a man). No 'recognizable God activity, unless 'seen' by faith, yet certainly not make-believe - since it was transformative.

I do like the idea of faith and experience. Perhaps the faith readies one to see 'into' the experience, perhaps it is the experience that emboldens the faith.

I have read some of the mystics (not all, some) but it seems it is always their insight (faith, reflection, looking deeply at what is) of which they write and from that make (faith) statements about God - rather than the recording of divine appearances or communications/conversations. For me, the rain falls on all (so to speak), God does not have favorites and there is no one on one communications. However, there are those among us who can see in the created order, the One who resides with us or in whom we live (but again, this too is faith). This seems to be the report and the reality of the mystics.

Well, speaking only for myself, but I have countless one on one communication - experiences, and I've known over the years some other people (even if I discount the obviously not-well cases from the number) with similar experiences. It's not that rare, many Christian denominations accept such stuff as a normal practice of Christianity. In Neopaganism, that sort of "talking with gods" - mysticism is also fairly common.

To be honest, I don't recognize the description of mystics you speak of there. Stories of divine appearances, communications with God and experiences are the 101 of both books written by mystics and something self-identified mystics often recount in irl conversations. 

Excuse me if this is a misinterpretation but from what you write there, I get the impression that you're attempting to interpret the theistic mystic accounts to fit into a non-theistic narrative. I think it's more accurate to address them separately and respect the difference. Some people's (including my own) mystical experiences are undenidably theistic in nature, and some other peoples insights or experiences are not. I don't think it's advisable to try to force them both into one or the other narrative. I can live with the idea that some people have experiences that are incompatible with mine, having some mysteries in the realm of spirituality is kind of inevitable in my opinion.

Hey BillM!

As a theistic mystic, I'll try to offer some thoughts:
 

9 hours ago, BillM said:

9 hours ago, BillM said:

Nothing in these theistic accounts is "hearsay." These people claimed to experience the personal, living God. And these experiences changed them. That's what I would need in order to be a theist again. I'm not going to trust in hearsay.

This is something I agree on more or less. I think that the key line there is "experiences changed them" - someone elses experience doesn't have the transformative power a personal one does, even if I were to believe their experience-story. It would be just a matter of believing a claim, whether I believe it or not doesn't have much of a transformative impact on me. So, yes, the transformative part can not happen by trusting in somebody elses story. I personally see the transformation to be the point of the experiences. Experiencing something fancy doesn't really do much if it doesn't change me in the process, the impact of the experience fades away quickly and then it starts to feel unreal and distant like a fading memory. If nothing would change in the process, it would be just a religious version of getting drunk. I want more than that.

Personally, I was spiritually pretty much blank for the first 18 years of my life and then I had this one life-changing experience. I've been more or less a mystic ever since. I have no idea of how to replicate the process for someone else though. The question of why some people experience stuff and some others don't is a question mark for me. I don't know and I don't want to fall for easy answers, so I prefer to keep the question open.

9 hours ago, BillM said:

A good, common definition of a theist is someone who believes in God as a supernatural being who is personally involved in our lives. I believed that way for many years, yet, in hindsight, I found little evidence that God personally loved me or that he listened to and answered my prayers or that he had some kind of great and wonderful plan for my life. In fact, I left theism because the evidence for such a God was so paltry.

Yup, faith gotta be a two-way street. If there is never any recognizable activity from God's part, it would be as good as make-believe. On the other hand, I think mystic's faith is a mix of both, faith and experiences. Building the theism on just experiences without any faith in it doesn't really work either, most of mystical experiences are explainable as psychological phenomenons anyway.

I recognize that pondering the essence of mystical faith doesn't do much to convince an outsider, though. I know how it sounds like when someone describes theirs, but I have no way of really giving anyone the key to it. People either find it on their own or they don't. Why is it so, I don't know.

Now that I think of it, every Christian I've talked to from Aus has probably been either Anglican or Catholic, so, makes sense. When it comes to SSM I guess I am guilty of some projecting. Personally, marriage doesn't mean very much to me as a concept, so it's kind of natural for me to think it means as little in the society aswell.

On the Putinist-conservatism, it seems to me like USA will be in trouble with this movement for decades to come. Thanks to their anti-journalistic attitudes, the conservatives in USA are so isolated from the news media that there is little hope of them gettingan objective look on the situation anywhere in the nearby future.

Even if Australia were to vote no on it, I think being against SSM while sticking to democratic process is the classic type of social conservatism, rather than the new, dark, Russia-sympathetic, authoritarian version of it that I was trying to bring up.

As for SSM per se, I personally feel like it's sometimes made to be a bigger deal than it, in fact, is. For example, in Finland it was passed this year after being delayed due to political quirks for years, but it was for years inevitable that it's going to happen. While still in the process, the law was promoted as if there were a major human right crisis going on when gays can't marry. The state already recognized gay civil unions, so to say that SSM gave them right to love is a propagandist overstatement, imho. It's not as if the state forced gays to closet and then one day opened the door by passing the marriage law. In my eyes, the move from civil unions to same-sex marriage was more of a legal technicality and a cultural symbolic step rather than anything that turned around the lives of gay people here.

But, I do realize I'm talking about my country here and all political and cultural issues have lots of unique local elements and nuances in them. I am sure that Australian and Finnish politics or cultural topics are not totally comparable. For example, the big outrage over SSM here was pretty much done with by the time the law was being passed this year. The outrage moments came earlier, one in 2010 (the great liberal outrage - 40 000 resigned from the state church) and in 2014 (conservative outrage - 20 000 people resigned from the church).

Out of curiosity, does Australia have a state church? Or anything resembling state church like European countries do (and US doesn't)? One of the main anxieties of social conservatives in Finland was that legalizing gay marriage would end up putting pressure on the state church to accept it theologically. Technically they were right, now that the law has been passed, the church is forced to take position on whether to formally bless the marriages or not. Needless to say it's a massive hot potato in the church, and is bound to cause lots of fighting and lots of people resigning their membership in the church regardless of what they do with it. The church is forced to take a public stance on an issue it would most likely just want to keep under the rug.

I think it comes down to whether a fetus is considered a human or not. The most convincing argument I have heard so far is the "reverse death - argument", which means that the logic medical science defines a death of a human individual, can be in reverse used to define when a human is born. I don't think religious dogmas - such as when human gets a soul - should be arguments for or against it's legality. I think legislation should be based on secular arguments.

Abortion is a difficult topic because the stakes are so high. It's not like gay-marriage etc. where the right call is quite simple to make. Pregnancy is also a rather unique phenomenon so I can't really use any other comparable cases for support of any position.

I usually consider "pro-life" movement people to be hypocrites who are driven by other motives than what their claimed motives say. This is because of the massive inconsistencies in their positions. In my experience, large ideological inconsistencies are always a sign of ulterior motives hidden behind a facade. For example, these people have so far not presented any ideas for efforts to save all the zygotes that fail to attach to uterus. If conception is the beginning of a human life, then failing to attach to a uterus would be the overwhelmingly most common cause of human death and there would be an urgent demand to start efforts to save all those poor zygotes. Due to the massive amounts of deaths, this would be a far more urgent cause than stopping abortions would be. Since the pro-life movement doesn't care about this at all, I think their real motives are anti-sexual and political, rather than actually caring about unborn zygotes and fetuses.

You're right, it's not global in sense that it would exist everywhere. I was trying to make a point that it's not just an American phenomenon. Calling it global was a bit of a stretch. I think that this kind of social conservatism that exists in US and Europe, is a counter movement to the liberalism of the West. So it can't really be replicated in places where the Western liberalism has not been a dominant force, like f.e. in China. It's mostly European and American phenomenon. 

If what you say is true, then I think Australia makes a curious exception case here. How do you think Australian conservatives (not in sense of economic conservatives, but particularly religious social conservatives) are different from their European and American counterparts? I can recall talking to an Australian earlier this year who complained that his movement (conservatives) have picked up the worst elements from American political conservatives lately. But I can't say what he was particularly referring to.

PaulS

I think Trump & Trumpism in the US is just one part of this phenomenon. Globally, this is much larger than Trump. If you google "social conservatives Putin", you'll find opinion pieces and articles dating back years before Trump was making the news.

I personally think that the idea of Trump as the Christian king is little more than a fantasy of the religious right. In reality, the clock is ticking against the Christian theocracy enthusiasts in USA. Christianity is losing ground in the US at an astonishing phase, I remember reading that statistically, average of 5 000 Christians leave the faith every day. Every generation is more secular than their parents were, so it seems unlikely that the theocrats are ever going to succeed in the long run. I think that the real danger here is to have so large part of the population becoming hostile towards democracy, and thus ignoring any attempts to damage the system. As long as the US democracy itself stays intact, any short term theocratic policy gains will be simply reversed by the future administrations in an increasingly secular country.

As far as Europe is concerned, having a revolutionary, anti-democracy, demagogue-fueled, pro-Russia political movement within the West is nothing new, it's just a do-over of the Cold War. There used to be very influential communist parties in the Western Europe, working to undermine the democracy for decades. Now it's just the political right finding their savior in Russia, back in times it was the political left. What's new is the huge success of Russian propaganda campaign in the US. I think the tragedy of the story is the way how the religious social conservatives made the groundwork for this influence campaign themselves, with their overblown anti-intellectualism and anti-journalism that has effectively stripped them of the capability to discern between a truth and a lie. People who make a virtue of ignorance, are very easy targets for ruthless propaganda campaigns.

Over the last three or so years, I've noticed an alarming trend with religious social conservatives in the internet; these people have begun to adapt increasingly anti-democratic ideals and narratives, and seem to have found their new global hero in Russian president Vladimir Putin. At first this seemed to me like a random fringe phenomenon, but especially with Americans (where there are particularly lots of religious social conservatives) this seems to be on it's way to become the new mainstream of social conservatism. Lately also media has begun to pay more attention to this, which has convinced me that this is happening for real, and it's not just my bad luck of running into this Putin-conservatism.

My thoughts on what is happening with religious conservatives:

1) The repeated losses at culture wars are taking their toll. Whenever the religious social conservatives have tried to push the culture backwards in the democratic world, they have usually failed in the end. I believe that this repeated losing has alienated religious conservatives, not just from the mainstream culture, but from the ideals of democracy as it seems to favor their perceived enemies. Why would they continue loving democracy, since it seems to place secular and liberal ideals at power? By contrast, when the conservatives look at Russia, where the cultural clock has been seemingly successfully turned backwards (feminist protesters at church are jailed, gay activism has been banned, even beating ones wife has become less of a serious crime and so on), they realize that conservatism can win, just not in a democratic context.

This is actually a centuries old European idea made new; The church wanting a Christian king to rule a nation, in order to keep the nation Christian.

2) The massive information - and critical thinking - vacuum created by anti-intellectualism and anti-journalism by social conservatives has effectively made the whole group intellectually helpless sitting ducks for ruthless propaganda efforts, like the ones taken in recent years by Russian government. Conservative anti-intellectualist efforts have left the group as a whole with no way of sorting the credible news from mere propaganda and thus, they will end up believing the propaganda of Putin's Russia being the promised land of religious conservatism. Not unlike the western workers of the old world believed Soviet Union being the mythical paradise of the working class.

Thoughts? Observations? 

If this was proposed by some serious leader, it would be worth analyzing the pro's and con's of the decision from the military point of view. But, in this case, given the character and the track record of the current US president, the default assumptions should be that

1) The actual facts and the real world consequences on the matter have not been given any serious thought

2) The motive behind the announcement is something else than what it is claimed to be

3) The timing of the announcement is likely a product of entirely short-term political reasons and

4) At least something related to the announcement itself is either completely untrue or at the very least, presented in a hugely misleading fashion.

Those factors have been true for about everything done by pres. Trump so far, so until proven otherwise, those factors should be assumed to be true in this case as well. And due to this, I don't have much of a motivation to try to analyze the issue itself in terms of actual military realities, since the actual military realities are most likely irrelevant for the decision making process behind this. I would rather analyze this in terms of political image building, as an attempt to control the media attention or very simply as a yet another petty decision to reverse something Obama has done, rather than as a fact-based military decision, since those are more likely the actual reasons behind this announcement.

I think virtue is a ladder that has many rungs organized according to the necessities and operative needs of an individual’s good will. The problem with having only one rung on the ladder is that it can be a virtue that becomes annoying as it undermines the other virtues from being developed and that single virtue in overflow can easily transform into a vice. People with only one virtue could easily think that everyone should be dressed in the same way, neglecting the other rungs on the ladder making it useless as they disguise their vice as a virtue.

That's a good way to put it. I intentionally simplified my view on virtues a bit in the OP.

Everyone has virtues even our enemies have these good qualities, but not everyone wants to see them, being a conservative and being a liberal is a virtue, but they are demonized by the other side.

I think in such ideological clashes, there often comes a somewhat complicated psychological clash of loyalty versus humility. Voice of loyalty says I shouldn't praise my enemys virtues ("enemy", in ideological sense in this case), but it can actually be an act of humility to at least be ready to recognize them. I think anyone who is honest with themselves, have to, at some point in their life ask themselves the question "What if I am one of the bad guys?". It's really not an easy place to go, but in hindsight, I think historically things would have been much better if more people had asked themselves that question.

I spent a lot of time living a new age path and participating on neo-pagan discussion boards, but I found that the people appeared to feel invaded when they found out that I was also Christian. Wiccan folks in particular didn't like the Christian aspects of me...they weren't crazy about the masculine parts of me either!

Our experience in Neopagan stuff appears to be a bit different, I never met much hostility towards my Christianity - influences. Since Neopaganism is so vague and individualistic, there are plenty of Pagans around who practice Christianity to some degree along with their Pagan practice. It might also be that I intentionally kept my Christian-side toned down a bit there after finding out that plenty of Pagans are ex-Christians.

About masculinity, I actually felt like my experience of having for a while to deal with feminist Pagans who saw men as spiritually inferior beings, was just a healthy reminder for me about the reality of attitudes and beliefs so many women have to live with in the world of conservative Christianity (and even more so in the world of Islam). I hope that short "role reversal - experience" gave me a tiny doze of understanding for struggles many women face in trying to distance themselves from that. For me, realizing that there are people who see me as spiritually inferior being only because of my sex, and treat me as such, was something of a micro-enlightenment.

Obviously, compared to the big scheme of things, my experience of spiritual gender-discrimination was ridiculously easygoing one, but nevertheless it was something I'm thankful of having experienced.

JosephM

No problem, I'm glad this got sorted out.

My apologies for taking creative liberties with the thread name!

Jack,

 

Its fine for you to post in the 8 points area but the posts should be related to your thoughts or discussion on point 5 or whatever point you post under.

Point 5

ie: "The way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe"

 

Joseph

 

thread moved here from 8 points area

I thought answering the questions in the sticky thread on the area is related to the point?

I like your answers, Jack of Spades. I hope you'll post more in the 8 Points sections, as there's been very little activity here and (theoretically speaking) it's the 8 Points that are supposed to draw us together as a community of open-hearted, open-minded Christians!

This is a concept of "Virtue pairs" I've had in mind for a while, I'd like to ask for some opinions and insights on the concept.

I think virtues should exist in pairs. If we fix our mind in practicing only one virtue, it easily gets derailed to some extreme and by doing so, has risk of becoming something else than a virtue.

Like, for example:

- Trust should be paired with wisdom, to avoid putting ones trust in wrong things/peoples.

- Being just should be paired with being careful, to avoid hunting down innocent people who only appear to be guilty.

- Being merciful should be paired with being responsible, to avoid putting other people in danger, "letting wolves run among sheep".

 

Hello, Jack of Spades. I understand and relate well to the experience you're describing. I've been a member here on TCPC since late 2004. In the early years, it was possible to find for those who hold a combination of liberal views, open-minded theism, and spiritual/mystical experiences to find a sense of community here.

 

It's been increasingly difficult here to find a kind of safety or sense of inclusiveness for those of us who believe in God and seek to be in relationship with others who want to better understand how to live a life in full relationship with God.

 

In my own experience, having several times objected to the way in which God is treated on a site ostensibly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus (who believed in God and loved God with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and all his strength), and having been repeatedly rebuked -- even demeaned by certain posters who don't believe at all in God -- I do understand the pain of trying to fit into a mould that tries to force one to deny the very substance of one's faith and the very joy of living with an open heart AND an open mind in a world filled with mystery, wonder, awe, and divine love.

 

I encourage you to remain open to the loving presence of the Divine in your life. You're not alone in feeling the way you do, though I know it can be very difficult in our culture to be a person who lives by both heart and mind without rejecting the wisdom of either. (In neuroscientific terms, this means balancing and respecting both System 1 and System 2 thinking patterns within the human brain.)

 

God bless you on your journey.

 

 

Edited for clarity.

 

I am explaining my point of view. Obviously or at least possibly it is very different from yours. If it offends you please let me know.

I'm not offended by atheists beliefs per se, but nevertheless I'm rather disinterested in trying to argue about supernatural with people who don't believe that there is such a thing.

The reason for that is, my beliefs and practices regarding supernatural are not really a question of having certain intellectual constructions. Rather it's a deeply personal and experiential journey, somewhat comparable to that of a love relationship with the opposite sex. Because of that nature, there is little to gain for me in discussing supernatural in strictly intellectual terms, without having the dimension of shared experience. For comparison, trying to talk about supernatural with someone who doesn't believe in it in first place is as productive as an attempt to discuss ideas of how to spend a romantic holiday with a woman I love, with a psychopath who doesn't believe there is such a thing as love. (It was the first example which came to my mind, no further comparison between psychopathy and atheism intended!).

I'm sorry if my disinterest in arguing about the concept of supernatural offends you. I wish you well in whatever path you follow, and my intention is not to mock it. I'm just simply disinterested in arguing about meaningfulness of my path regarding supernatural. It is meaningful for me and I'm very interested in sharing thoughts about it with other people who find it meaningful to seek personal contact with the supernatural.

The jury is still out for me but I am pretty convinced as it stands that there is no such thing as the supernatural or spiritual gifts. However I do appreciate and understand that people like yourself and Joseph feel they have them or have experienced them, so I do respect your beliefs - it's just that I don't think I have experienced such and don't think I will. But one can never say never!

Yeah, there is no harm in keeping an open mind.

What people, who identify as Progressive Christians, think about supernatural spiritual gifts? Such as healing, prophecy, tongues and stuff like that. Is there such thing as Charismatic Progressive Christians?

I'm asking because my views are somewhat liberal, but I also believe in experiencing active, supernatural stuff and it's key element of my own spirituality. In Christian communities I know of, it seems to me like I have to choose between being liberal and being charismatic (for lack of better word for a person who believes in or practices that kind of stuff). Those two just seem not to co-exist very often (at all?) in my experience, but I'm pretty sure if I found church/community which is both, I'd like to give it a try.

Jack of Spades

What about shades of grey?

50? Are the book and film immoral, "good", prudent etc? Totally in the eye of the beholder. What lessons about prudence can we learn from the film?

I wasn't referring to the film of that name. I meant "shades of grey" in sense of seeing more options than just the absolutes (moral action vs immoral action). Like for example, scale from 0 to 100 would be much better. I was referring to the fact that you seem to insist that morality must be decided in a on/off - manner when an action is either moral or not.

But even in those conflicts, to me it's clear that some individuals acted in more moral fashion than others. Like for example, by trying to find a compromise or by trying to make agreements between different views to avoid violence.

Sometimes violence is seen as moral sometimes as not. Neville Chamberlin appeased Hitler to avoid violence to have peace for our time. Was that moral?

 

I think looking back on history it is wiser or perhaps more prudent not to describe events as moral or immoral. Be honest, and just say it does or does not agree with your wants. Describing something as immoral is an opportunity to blame and then forgive. Where in reality there was nothing to forgive in the first place.

"Being honest" is not same thing as "agreeing with you". Just for info.

Chamberlains decision was, in hindsight, at least poor judgement of the situation. I don't know what his motives were, and from moral point of view, that's usually what makes a lot of difference. Like for example, was he a peace-loving person, or a coward, or simply a calculating, cynical pragmatist who thought war would be too costly for his other goals and thus wanted to avoid it. Nobody probably will ever know that side of the story, since participants have been dead for a long time and we can only guess.

Morality need not be a duality, but if it is not then it becomes a nonsense

What about shades of grey? Real life morals aren't, imo, a cases of "right" and "wrong" but rather cases of "How messed up this is in a scale from 0 to 100?".

But if my intentions are in opposition to society's or perhaps yours and I act on my intentions in a way I consider prudent, am I being moral?

Historically these situations are decided by force. Philoshopically, I can't really say much about it.

If we try to keep it practical, with some implications to everyday life, such cases are rather rare. Usually, like in case of murderous psychos, the case is not so much that one individual have very different idea of morality, but rather that the individuals are uninterested of following *any* standards of established morality.

I think ownership of land is a good historical example, when two cultures with different view on ownership of land encounter (one nomadic, and other one which believes that individuals can own a piece of land), there will be a conflict. But even in those conflicts, to me it's clear that some individuals acted in more moral fashion than others. Like for example, by trying to find a compromise or by trying to make agreements between different views to avoid violence.

But a morality play in one situation can be a disaster in another.

 

I must admit I am uncomfortable divvying up our world into moral and immoral. This kind of dualism I think is unwise.

I don't think "morality" equals mechanical dualism with ritualistic beliefs in actions which are "sin" or "not sin". Morality might aswell mean belief in some kind of guidelines or principles. There is a lot of ground between "morality doesn't exist" and that of ritualistic dualism where everything is either sin or holy.

Actually, I think the greatest things taught by Jesus are all more or less relative in nature, like "Treat others as you would want to be treated".

I personally like the symbolism in the story about the two trees of paradise in the Genesis. One tree offers precise knowledge about good and evil (like ritual morals and commands), whereas the other one seems to offer little concrete answers, just being a "tree of life". But the one with no uncertainty is not the one which keeps man in close relationship with God.