Jump to content

Christianity In A Pluralistic World


mcarans

Recommended Posts

You bring up some good questions, Mcarans. BTW, welcome to the forum!

 

From my approach, much would depend on how well I know the person and how well I know what they are seeking. It would also depend on how much I know about the paths they are looking into.

 

I would not say that talking about Christianity is wrong, but that how I talked about Christianity is key. For example, for some people, Christianity is about an altar call to get one's sins forgiven in order to secure a place in the afterlife. To me, that is a significant distortion of Jesus' main message. So, in my case, I would consider which teachings of Jesus seem relevant to the person's situation and share them. If the person is open to go deeper, then we can. I would certainly have a concern for the person's well-being, but I no longer believe in the heaven/hell scenario, so the person would, hopefully, know that it is life in the here and now that is mainly at risk.

 

I very much think that doctrine and dogma are not very tools to use to convince people (at least most). I think we respond better to stories than to statements. This is why testimonies are so powerful. And I would share the parts of my journey (or the journeys of others) that might be helpful.

 

But I agree with you that a positive and specific alternative(s) should be presented. Nevertheless, as you know, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cases you've presented are valid and speak to the wider question of how we choose to act on our religious or spiritual beliefs "when the going gets tough."

 

It's very easy to kick back with a pot of organic tea and rhyme off a long series of cliches and spiritual pleasantries when the sun is out and there's food on the table and no one in the family is sick or dying. It's also very easy to say we should respect all spiritual beliefs and not challenge anyone who expresses an opinion about choices deemed "spiritual."

 

The problem with this approach is that it ignores neuroscientific reality, the reality that no choice is purely "spiritual" as far as the human brain is concerned. We may think we can separate our spiritual choices and practices from the rest of our human neuroanatomy and neurofunction, but we can't. Any major choice we make affects the way the brain wires itself. This is the principle of neuroplasticity. When we make major choices about our religious or spiritual beliefs, we give instructions to our biological brains to go ahead and start rewiring circuits to support and reinforce our major belief systems. So when we make major religious choices, it can go one of two ways: the brain's overall function can become more balanced, holistic, and able to deal with nuance and ambiguity; or the brain's overall function can become more rigid, dualistic, and less able to deal with disagreement or dissent. It depends on which major connection bundles become reinforced and which bundles become weakened. It also depends on factors such as proper nutrition, healthy sleep patterns, and avoidance of psychotropic substances.

 

Religion and spirituality are also never separate from DSM issues such as major mental illness, Axis II disorders, addiction disorders, co-morbidity, and non-psychiatric illnesses that create psychiatric symptoms (e.g. psychosis arising during sepsis). Religion and spirituality are also never separate from psychopathy, which, for reasons that remain unclear, still isn't included in the DSM.

 

For too long, in my view, theologians and spiritual leaders have tried to sidestep these biological realities and pretend that fideism somehow allows a person to transcend all these pesky biological realities. Fideism, of course, can often make biological issues worse by forcing the brain to try to do its job without a proper toolkit of biological resources: proper nutrition, proper sleep, respectful touch, avoidance of toxic substances, access to learning opportunities, and inclusion in a supportive, loving environment.

 

In addition to the basic biological toolkit (which many people in Western society already incorporate into their daily lives), the brain wires itself together along several different emotional and spiritual vectors. If these emotional and spiritual vectors are intentionally suppressed, the brain will do its best to work with what it's told to work with, but it won't be a very happy or well balanced brain.

 

The major emotional and spiritual vectors are (1) the need to give and receive love (respect for boundaries) (2) the need to know and recognize oneself (interoception) (3) the need to recognize and mirror other people's pain (empathy) (4) the need to work wisely with Time (patience, common sense, deferral of gratification, acceptance of limits) (5) the need to be grateful for other people's talents and blessings (humbleness) (6) the need to take action when harm is being inflicted on vulnerable beings (courage) and (7) the need to be honest about immoral choices and then forgive immoral choices (free will combined with all the other vectors).

 

When the human brain is working as it can when fully balanced (as seen on a fMRI or SPECT scan as full, balanced perfusion across all parts of the brain) then a person experiences a sense of purpose, motivation, acceptance, and compassion for others. The brain is hardwired at the DNA level to want and need this kind of purpose, motivation, acceptance, and compassion. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT FEELING THIS WAY.

 

So, returning to the question of what to say to someone who's vulnerable to the predations of cult leaders, one way to assess a positive and specific alternative to radicalization or cult membership is to look at how the daily practices of a religion would affect the brain's functioning over the long term. How do those practices either enhance or diminish a person's internal experience of wholeness without sacrificing love, sense of self, empathy, patience, humbleness, courage, or forgiveness.

 

You can force the brain to accept an external framework of purpose and motivation over the short term. In fact, the brain is quite good at this. What it does is suppress impulses coming from System 1 brain circuits and give preference to System 2 impulses. This is supposed to be a short term measure (to help you, say, when you're faced with an emotional or spiritual predator, a.k.a a psychopath). But over the long term, your brain can become more and more imbalanced (with altered activity in the major limbic system networks). Long term effects can include depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, ADHD, and early Alzheimer's Disease.

 

The reason I'm a believer in the original teachings of Jesus (not to be confused with the original teachings of Paul) is that Jesus was an early pioneer in teaching others how to build and maintain a healthy brain and a healthy brain-soul nexus.

 

Jesus was a passionate theist, a person who believed with his whole being in a personal God. So for anyone who wants to choose a spiritual path that disavows a personal God, there's not much point in trying to uphold Jesus as a teacher whose way had merit. There have been plenty of philosophers who didn't believe in a personal God. It makes much more sense for atheists or for those who don't believe in a personal God to walk away from the Jesus teachings and find other mentors and theologians to guide their path. Jesus' Kingdom teachings make no sense outside the context of relationship with a personal God.

 

Jesus' Kingdom teachings (which intertwine both System 1 and System 2 practices) are a positive and specific alternative to the "dead ends" of thinking patterns that rely almost exclusively on System 2 patterns. But the Kingdom teachings are not especially easy and they do take time.

 

They also depend on mentorship (because the brain learns best with loving, forgiving, courageous mentorship). What vulnerable human beings are usually seeking most when they turn to radical cults is mentorship.

 

Therefore, the best contribution you could make to a vulnerable human being is to offer mentorship. There's really no substitute for the soul's need to be in fellowship with others and to learn from the wisdom and experience of others who have already walked the path of healing.

 

This is the best short answer I can give to the question you've raised, Mcarans. Thanks again for your great questions.

 

God bless,

Jen

 

 

Edited for typos and clarity.

Edited by Realspiritik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

  1. You are mentor to a young person who has had a difficult life and has many bad influences around him or her. He/she is easily lead astray. You fear he/she is at risk of being radicalised.
  2. A close relative has started attending Scientology seminars and seems fascinated by it. He/she tells you that he/she will join soon.
(snip)

 

 

#1 If you are the accepted mentor then it is your responsibility not to give them a religion but rather to be a model of positive behaviors. It is your responsibility to build trust, to be dependable , to be authentic and tuned in to his/her needs. Sometimes it is important to remember ...You are an adviser and guide, not a ruler.

 

#2 It is not your decision to make. As a friend and relative, if you know something about it that you feel would be important to his/her decision making process to join or not join ... then by all means share it and provide some references so they can look into it for themself. Any more than that and in my view, you are overstepping your bounds. Perhaps you might pray for wisdom in their life but it is their journey and choice and you can do more harm than good by excessive interference.

 

Just my personal thoughts,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen, I find your thoughts and views on this fascinating. Although a lot of what you say is over my head (or brain), you seem to champion a holistic approach to what I would call a healthy spirituality that rings true for me. IMO, for far too long spirituality (probably due to Paul's teachings) has had a disdain for the physical body (including the brain), not acknowledging that our physicality affects our spirituality and vice versa. So I appreciate, if I understand you correctly, that you are trying to reclaim us as BOTH physical and spiritual beings and that the two are intertwined.

 

Now, having said that, I do take issue with your view on this:

Jesus was a passionate theist, a person who believed with his whole being in a personal God. So for anyone who wants to choose a spiritual path that disavows a personal God, there's not much point in trying to uphold Jesus as a teacher whose way had merit. There have been plenty of philosophers who didn't believe in a personal God. It makes much more sense for atheists or for those who don't believe in a personal God to walk away from the Jesus teachings and find other mentors and theologians to guide their path. Jesus' Kingdom teachings make no sense outside the context of relationship with a personal God.

I agree with you that Jesus was a theist, that he viewed God as a father-figure "up" in the sky. Yes, he spoke to God and believed God spoke directly to him, without a mediator. That is what a theist (and a mystic) believes.

 

However, theism carries with it a whole lot of baggage that, IMO, causes a 21st century person innumerable problems. First, the notion that God is "up", up in the sky. Where is he exactly? We've been to the moon and back. We've been around the earth repeatedly. No sign of God out there anywhere.

 

Second, in my readings of Jesus' teachings (as found in his parables and aphorisms), his main focus is not on defining God, but on teaching how we should live with one another in compassionate community that, IMO, is what the kingdom of God means. Forgiveness, justice, acts of charity, caring for one another, investing one's life wisely -- to me these are his focus.

 

Even so, the concept of a "personal" God implies that God speaks with us and we with him as we would a spouse. To be personal requires that God be a person and, IMO, religion and spiritual err when it tries to anthropomorphize God too much, making God a super-human. This "Person", as many scriptures attest to, has the same frailties and weaknesses that humans do -- only magnified to the nth degree. As you probably know, evangelical Christians insist that we have a "personal relationship" with a personal God through the person of Jesus Christ. But there are about 40,000 different denominations now that say how this is to be done -- and few of them agree with one another as to how this personal relationship is accomplished and maintained. In fact, much of Christianity says that if you sin, your "personal relationship" with God is broken. That drove me nuts when I considered how many sins of commission and omission I committed each day.

 

So while I agree with you that Jesus was indeed a theist, I no longer accept his authority on that particular view, just as I don't accept his view that my epilepsy is caused by demons. Jesus was, IMO, quite a unique revolutionary, but not infallible or inerrant.

 

Lastly, because I find his teachings to be very relevant to how we should live with one another in this world, I don't find the concept of a "personal God" necessary to my own path. I have no doubt that others do. But, speaking only for myself, the notion of a "personal God" gets in my way. So, for me, "God" is a placeholder for our highest love, our highest values, our fullest life. I realize my view won't quite do it for most Christians, but I've found no evidence in my life for a "personal God" and feel, for myself, trying to stuff God into a "person" is too much creating God in my image.

 

As always, just my 1.5 cents. :)

 

Great conversation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, Joseph . . . would you stand by and let someone who's never before seen a bridge jump off that bridge? Is it always enough to simply give references so people can research it for themselves? Do vulnerable people always stop and carefully check background references? Is it enough to simply be a good example? If it were enough, would we have the societal troubles we currently have?

 

I personally feel that there are times when you can show someone the references and other times when you have to be more explicit about what will happen if they jump off the bridge.

 

Kind words aren't always enough to help someone who's in distress. Sometimes you have to be very direct.

 

The example of Helen Keller and her mentor, Anne Sullivan, comes to mind as an excellent example of what I'm trying to express.

 

 

 

Edited, as always, for typos.

Edited by Realspiritik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

No , i certainly would not just stand by. As a mentor one is an adviser and guide but once i have advised the other what a bridge is and the ramifications of jumping off .... it is not my decision to make.

 

Yes, i agree that one must be explicit at times but to me that does not exclude pointing the other to research for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip*

So while I agree with you that Jesus was indeed a theist, I no longer accept his authority on that particular view, just as I don't accept his view that my epilepsy is caused by demons. Jesus was, IMO, quite a unique revolutionary, but not infallible or inerrant.

 

Lastly, because I find his teachings to be very relevant to how we should live with one another in this world, I don't find the concept of a "personal God" necessary to my own path. I have no doubt that others do. But, speaking only for myself, the notion of a "personal God" gets in my way. So, for me, "God" is a placeholder for our highest love, our highest values, our fullest life. I realize my view won't quite do it for most Christians, but I've found no evidence in my life for a "personal God" and feel, for myself, trying to stuff God into a "person" is too much creating God in my image.

 

*snip

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to read my comments, Bill. While I appreciate that your thoughts and beliefs about theism and Jesus come out of a Calvinist background, mine do not. Nor does my personal daily experience as a mystic. So I have to laugh when you say that mystics believe God is a father-figure "up" in the sky. This isn't my understanding of God. And I doubt very much it was Jesus' understanding of God. I in no way approach my relationship with God as I would my relationship with a spouse. In fact, I find such claims deeply offensive (though I'm aware of a tradition within Christianity that makes such claims).

 

God the Mother and God the Father are my parents. I am their child. I try my hardest each day to be their child. I don't try to be them. I'm only their child. I do the best I can with what I have and who I am.

 

There's no need to turn to Jesus' example if the path being chosen is one of pure humanism without reference to God. Referencing Jesus adds nothing to the humanist position since one thing all humanists can agree on is the importance of trying to treat each other with dignity, inclusiveness, and social justice. If this is all one plans to take from Jesus' teachings, I'd say leave the Bible behind, stop looking backwards to what Jesus said, and simply get on with your tasks of loving and living.

 

It isn't Christianity, but it's definitely a viable path. Everyone who in good conscience feels that humanism (without God) is the right path for them should follow that path without guilt and without feeling the need to reference Jesus.

 

Jesus was, after all, only human. No need to look to him for his thoughts about God if one has decided that God isn't real or necessary.

Edited by Realspiritik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

No , i certainly would not just stand by. As a mentor one is an adviser and guide but once i have advised the other what a bridge is and the ramifications of jumping off .... it is not my decision to make.

 

Yes, i agree that one must be explicit at times but to me that does not exclude pointing the other to research for themselves.

 

I agree. To a point. I would try my best to show them, not simply tell them, about the ramifications of jumping off. If they were to jump anyway . . . I would forgive them, then climb down the embankment with a first aid kit and do my best to help.

Edited by Realspiritik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph's advice makes a lot of sense to me. Obviously, if someone is in the path of direct harm, we should help if they let us. But the choice is ultimately up to them. Sometimes (often), the best we can do is to set an example.

 

My daughter chain-smokes probably 4 packs of cigarettes a day. I've preached to her about the dangers associated with the habit. She knows the facts and figures. She smokes anyway. She does what she wants to do.

 

This goes somewhat to our recent discussions of God's will and human choices. As a father, I raised my children as best as I could, with what I knew (which wasn't much). My goal in raising them was not so that they would rely upon me for the rest of their lives, depending upon me to intervene and fix life for them or to rescue them from all of the problems in life. My goal was to teach them to make the best decisions they could and then to live with those decisions, for better or worse. In other words, they needed to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives. I helped give life to them, but what they do with it is their choice. I think that if there is a God, God is much the same. I.e. God wants us to grow up and take responsibility for our own decisions and lives instead of "having faith that he is in control."

 

Nevertheless, yes, I think we learn more by what is caught than what is taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with agree with Bill. To me, God is the 'ground of my being' which excludes the orthodox portrayal of God as a person or personal God. On the other hand, you can't get anymore personal or closer than "being". I think the teachings of Jesus can be used by all faiths, even humanists and atheists.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have to laugh when you say that mystics believe God is a father-figure "up" in the sky.

 

There's no need to turn to Jesus' example if the path being chosen is one of pure humanism without reference to God. Referencing Jesus adds nothing to the humanist position since one thing all humanists can agree on is the importance of trying to treat each other with dignity, inclusiveness, and social justice. If this is all one plans to take from Jesus' teachings, I'd say leave the Bible behind, stop looking backwards to what Jesus said, and simply get on with your tasks of loving and living.

 

It isn't Christianity, but it's definitely a viable path. Everyone who in good conscience feels that humanism (without God) is the right path for them should follow that path without guilt and without feeling the need to reference Jesus.

 

Jesus was, after all, only human. No need to look to him for his thoughts about God if one has decided that God isn't real or necessary.

Jen, I sincerely meant no offense. What I meant is that Jesus, as a mystic, believed in God as a father-figure up in the sky -- "Our Father, who are in heaven..." I did NOT mean that all mystics view God this way. From what I know (which isn't very much), mystics experience God on a personal level, often within themselves. Some might call this "Christ in you." There is no mediator for many mystics. They experience God directly.

 

I'd like to clarify one small thing. You speak of the "need" for Jesus. You are correct. On a certain level, I don't "need" him. For years, I was told that I needed him to save me. Now, my path is my own. I don't follow Jesus. I can't. I can't do what he said to do (just being honest). So while I don't "need" him as such, I still find his views and teachings and way of life inspiring and helpful to me. This frees me to choose what parts of Jesus work for me, just as I would with any other teacher. Is this denigrated to him? I think not. I think he was one of the best human beings this world ever had and we would do well to have more like him.

 

But, again, I didn't mean to offend you. Please forgive me. It is always a delicate matter to express one's opinion, not knowing whether it will offend others or not.

 

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to be clear . . . you want to keep Jesus in the bullpen, not because Jesus believed in Mother & Father God and in angels and in souls (good souls, that is) and in an afterlife and in healing during this life and in miracles during this life and in relationship with God during this life and in a non-apocalyptic, non-eschatological, non-salvific faith that calls upon all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength . . . and not because you trust and respect Jesus for his teachings on same . . . but because he's a nice guy? :unsure:

 

There are many nice guys in this world, so I'm sure you'll have no problem letting go of him entirely and choosing what you want to choose.

 

Blessings to you on your journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it strange that some people somehow always conflate:

 

The historical Jesus

The Mythical Christ

and

The Truth.

 

While I like the idea of live and let live ... social pluralism in a way.

 

I don't think I have an infallible access to the truth, but there are ways for us mere mortals to winnow out untruths.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

As it seems to me common with many progressives to take part but not all of Jesus's teachings especially since the reliability and history of the Bible dictate to many that taking it all as actually what he said may be an erroneous assumption, what is the harm in taking that part which BillM says is "inspiring and helpful to me" and leaving the rest that 'doesn't speak to him' at this time. Why insinuate he should let go of it entirely or in your words "I'm sure you'll have no problem letting go of him entirely and choosing what you want to choose".? If i read you correctly, i don't comprehend your reasoning. Perhaps you can clarify your point?

 

Joseph.

 

PS. BTW i am guilty of the same picking and choosing.

Edited by JosephM
added PS and question
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The power of Christianity has not penetrated our institutions or people who need help because it has not penetrated and grown in individual Christians, revealing a nonphysical universe that acts in response to our thoughts, emotions and innermost beliefs. Underdeveloped spiritual individuals control and use Christianity to expand their role in the church and institution using deficiencies, bitterness, fear, superstition and guilt when people want wholeness, peace and love so maybe that is the reason they go to Scientology so Christians start bad mouthing Scientology when they don't even know about it. We Christians need to learn how the world is a welcoming, friendly environment that is intended to provide us with everything that we need. Accordingly, reflection helps us to understand the wonderful things that are happening every day when we nurture the seed of spiritual wisdom and observe the infinite inside as we become insightful, loving beings as Christians. We need to offer something positive and not just negative commentary on what is perceived as competition. We don’t have to say a word because others will feel our divinity and will become aware and feel the pull of their own spirituality at the same time so we Christians do not have to think we have to save them, which chases them away. We do not have to be annoying Christians, preaching as if we are better than other people when we are doing this in our lower consciousness lacking interior strength and dynamism. We are blind if we think we are going to change others to become Christian when we can’t even change our selves, but with awareness we can purify our own being and become a better Christian. We don't have to save the world when we can't even save ourself. If a person goes on a different path they are not radicalized that is just paranoid thinking, We can support their decision and when they are willing to change they might just ask for for commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jen. My wife and I have quite different eating habits. When I was growing up, there wasn't that much food to go around, having 4 other siblings. Plus, my mother would often say, "You better eat all of that, mister. There are children starving in China." As a result, I tend to "clean my plate", don't usually leave food there, and I struggle with my weight.

 

My wife, on the other hand, will almost dissect her food, looking for what she calls her "best bites." I ask, "Why don't you just eat the whole thing?" She replies, "I don't want to eat the whole thing. I just enjoy certain parts." Drives me nuts. :)

 

So I take the "Whole Enchilada" approach while she takes the "Best Bites" approach.

 

The faith of my youth, in my particular journey, often reinforced the "Whole Enchilada" approach. It said that I had to believe ALL of the Bible (or none of it) or ALL of what my denomination taught (or leave it) or ALL of what orthodox Christianity holds to (or leave it). It was all or nothing. Is this possible? Is this wise? Should I do as Jesus said and leave my family for his sake? Should I hate my father and mother just because he said so? Should I drink poison or handle snakes to prove my faith? Should I seek out a priest to exorcise me from my epilepsy? I am speaking only for myself, but I can no longer with good, rational, or compassionate sense take the "Whole Enchilada" approach to Jesus, the Bible, the Church, Christianity or spirituality.

 

Some of my more evangelical friends have insisted that I don't have the right or freedom to believe as I wish or as my conscience, mind, heart, and soul lead me to. But how can I do otherwise? Anything less would be false. I am slowly (and often painfully) moving to more and more of a "Best Bites" approach to religion or faith. Another apostle put it this way, "Test all things, hold to what is good." Others of my agnostic and atheist friends say that if I throw out the dirty bathwater of the "God Delusion", I will find there is no baby there. I disagree. There is still a baby there worth valuing. It is just that I value him differently now than I did before.

 

Again, Jen, I only speak for myself. I in no way speak for other Progressive Christians. And I don't insist that anyone else believe or disbelieve as I do. All I can do is to share why I believe and act as I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it strange that some people somehow always conflate:

 

The historical Jesus

The Mythical Christ

and

The Truth.

 

While I like the idea of live and let live ... social pluralism in a way.

 

I don't think I have an infallible access to the truth, but there are ways for us mere mortals to winnow out untruths.

 

I don't conflate them either. You may think I do, but I don't. I didn't return to university at age 49 and slog through a graduate degree in theological studies to make the rookie mistake of conflation.

 

I also don't believe I have an infallible access to the Truth. Mystics only have access to their own truth and are quite content with that..

 

If you're looking for the people claiming to have infallible access to the Truth, those would be the prophets.

 

I make no claim to being a prophet, nor have I ever done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you make a very good point, Jen, concerning Truth and truth. In my words, I would put it thus: there is Truth, which is Reality as reality really is. And then there our human perceptions of Truth which are truth (little 't'). These truths come from our senses, cultures, religions, philosophies, traditions, and our own conceptions of Truth. But because they originate with us, they are subjective and only little 't' truth.

 

Of course, none of this stops prophets from claiming to have the big 'T' Truth. That's simply how religions work. But, for me, it is a process of knowing that all I have is little 't' truth while still strive toward the big 'T' Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a good topic, Fatherman. Current quantum physics (which I understand only insomuch that I don't understand it) says that reality is not as it appears at all. It suggests that though Reality is real and here, it is mostly 99.99% made up of nothing.

 

My brain hurts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be a new topic, but it could only be specilation. Is there really a Truth? That is the very heart of all faith and Faiths.

 

I suspect there is ... and we get glimpses of it at times.

 

But to have faith it means we believe something as true though we can never be sure.

Today I had a 4.5 hour drive through the Rockies ... a beautiful drive. I believed I would get to my destination without incident?

Is this faith, belief, or reasoned thought? Because if I thought I would have an accident I would not have started the journey.

 

Some people put their faith in a personal God, some people don't even think about it, and some understand their capabilities, the engineered roads and the probabilities involved.

 

While it was not necessarily true I would get to my destination safely, it did turn out to be an accurate description of the events.

 

There are two terms noumena (things as they really are) and phenomena (things as they are experienced). Some of us think we experience god, but that does not mean there is one. And vice versa.

 

I suppose my point is we are forced pragmatically to have beliefs and make choices, but that does not mean we have to believe them as true.

Not quite sure of the point I am trying to make, but I will work on it further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't conflate them either.

 

My apologies Jen, I was under the impression that you thought Christ was literally the son of God.

 

Regarding Mystics ... I like this quote from Joseph Campbell

  • But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

It sort fits my monism (world view)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roman, I enjoy the way you write.

 

>>But to have faith it means we believe something as true though we can never be sure.

I think this is generally true, at least as I see religious faith. However, many "believers" are sure (or say they are) that their religion is the right and true one. What evidence is there for a faith being the true one? It's own claim to be so? That doesn't work for me. Besides, I'm more concerned about whether a faith is good rather than if it is ontologically true. But that's another subject. Well, maybe not seeing as we are talking about pluralism. Charter for Compassion comes to mind.

 

>>Today I had a 4.5 hour drive through the Rockies ... a beautiful drive.

I envy you. I was stationed at Lowry AFB during 1983-1984. The mountains were gorgeous. We don't have those in Texas. :)

 

>>I believed I would get to my destination without incident? Is this faith, belief, or reasoned thought? Because if I thought I would have an accident I would not have started the journey.

As an agnostic, I try to base my life on probabilities. If it were my drive, is it possible that I could have an accident? Yes. Is it probable? No. I've driven enough to know (not to have faith, but to have the experience) that while it is possible that I could get in an accident, it is not probable IF I take all the necessary precautions and drive as responsibly as I can. I don't know what I would do if I believed it to be predetermined that I be in an accident.

 

>>Some people put their faith in a personal God, some people don't even think about it, and some understand their capabilities, the engineered roads and the probabilities involved.
Very true. I no longer pray for "traveling mercies" or believe in guardian angels. I certainly don't sing, "Jesus, Take the Wheel." :)

 

>>While it was not necessarily true I would get to my destination safely, it did turn out to be an accurate description of the events.
I'm glad to hear it. But did you arrive safely because you trusted in you experience-proven driving capabilities, the engineered roads, and the likely probability that the journey would be a success? Or was it an act of faith?

 

>>There are two terms noumena (things as they really are) and phenomena (things as they are experienced). Some of us think we experience god, but that does not mean there is one. And vice versa.
I suspect those are the terms to which I was pointing. Because we are phenomenological creatures, I don't know if or how much access we have to the noumena world. Quantum physics seems to tell us that photons behave differently when subjected to the experience of our observation of them. Why? Further, it seems to suggest that the sub-atomic universe operates, not on laws of immutable math, but on probabilities. Granted, I still live as if Newton's Laws hold sway in my life. I admire that science is trying to get to noumena while acknowledging phenomena. But I dislike it when religions, by faith, claim that phenomena is noumena. I will acknowledge that people's experiences are real for them (just as mine are for me). But if they want me to accept their experiences as binding on me, I need evidence for the noumena-side. Faith, in my case, is not enough.

 

>>I suppose my point is we are forced pragmatically to have beliefs and make choices, but that does not mean we have to believe them as true.

I agree. I can't make decisions if everything is likely possible. I have to go with what is probable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service