The word religion means different things to different people. There are basically two differing views on what religion is. In this article I will outline some of the characteristics of each type. In today's world there are many people who are opposed to religion and want nothing to do with it. I suggest that perhaps what these people are disenchanted with is one of the two types, the other being unfamiliar to them.
Here then are a few of the features by which we can distinguish dead religion from living religion.
Dead Religion
1. Initially began as a revelation from God
2. Has a human Founder appointed by God and speaking for Him
3. Is 1,500 years old or older
4. Brings laws and teachings geared to the needs of the time
5. Gains favor with the people only after many years following the death of the Founder
6. Much of its scripture misinterpreted and misunderstood, particularily its position in human history
7. In time becomes obsolete and irrelevant as materialism supplants religion
8. Succumbs to oppression of non-believers, exclusivity, division and corruption
Living Religion
1. Is a revelation from God
2. Has a human Founder appointed by God and speaking for Him
3. Is of relatively recent origin
4. Brings laws and teachings geared to the needs of today
5. Is oppressed by the people and clergy as were prior religions
6. Aims to unify warring factions and elevate mankind to heretofore unprecedented heights
7. Fulfills age old prophecies recorded in the scriptures of prior revelations
8. Proclaims the 'oneness' and continuity of all religion relative to past revelations and those to come
|
|
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 125
An example is Judaism.
Please do not place Catholicism in with Christianity. The saints and the Virgin Mary are not prayed to in tradional Protestant Christianity. The Pope is not their leader either. He is just a man in charge.
Interesting concept and explanation!
I would only add that there are religions which did not start as a revelation from God but actually started as a great hope from mankind, and others as mankind seeking the truth.
I tend to take my definitions from the dictionary. Which makes my comments not very meaningful on the subject. There have been "religions" down through the years which were not "revealed by God" and many more which claimed to be but were dubious to say the least.
So I'm not sure what you mean by "dead" and "alive" in religion other than the listing you gave which is quite exclusionary, with "alive" omitting most of the worlds religions today. I still contend that hope has played a greater role in the establishment of religions than any other factor. Even those "revealed by God" got their traction from the basic hope ingrained in most of us. And this same hope keeps them alive today.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the the heart his mouth speaketh.
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
Tell me the story simply, as to a little child,
For I am weak and weary, and helpless and defiled.
Tell me the old, old story, tell me the old, old story,
Tell me the old, old story, of Jesus and His love.
Tell me the story slowly, that I may take it in,
That wonderful redemption, God's remedy for sin.
Tell me the story often, for I forget so soon;
The early dew of morning has passed away at noon.
Tell me the story softly, with earnest tones and grave;
Remember I'm the sinner whom Jesus came to save.
Tell me the story always, if you would really be,
In any time of trouble, a comforter to me.
Tell me the same old story when you have cause to fear
That this world's empty glory is costing me too dear.
Yes, and when that world's glory is dawning on my soul,
Tell me the old, old story: "Christ Jesus makes thee whole."
(Mathew, Mark, and Luke)
I tend to agree with that. But a lot of people who are a part of that one religion, don't know it and wouldn't believe it, were you to tell them.
Just how do you know, that it is not folk's basic pessimism that causes many to disbelieve? I have seen direct evidence with my own eyes . . . shall I discount what I have witnessed because you are skeptical?
The sword of doubt cuts both ways, but the one that does not know, yet speaks with authority, is surely not open-minded, or objective. My Book says this;
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him.
Does that not seem wise to you?
Religion then, living or dead, is but a social institution of common thought and hopefully common action. But still a "religion" just the same. Thus when the living religion is spoken of you will get much rejection of the term by those who know best of the dead religion and consider all religions thus tainted.
For myself, due to personal individual experience with God, a One on one occurrence, I tend to shy away from all religions, especially the dead ones, preferring to go it alone as a free individual having my personal intuitive relationship with God 24/7 needing no dogma, buildings nor "leader" types to inform nor instruct me ... yet I still know myself spiritually interconnected with all of humanity, even to sentient beings in other realms and dimensions of a cosmic nature ... so much better than the world form of religion. I call this a generic Spirituality.
IMnsHO.
John: No humor was intended. It was not I who declared a religion dead. It was the Founder of the succeeding religion. Jesus came with new, updated teachings, declaring the previous revelation obsolete.
Jesus did no such thing. His words reveal this:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19
Thomas,
methinks you err. . .
-Mark
Just noticed your comment and thank you for it! I believe that many people who reject something are not doing so prematurely as they have already studied the matter and received answers to convince themselves. Wise or unwise, that is the nature of the human race.
I'll acknowledge that there are probably people who accept or reject one teaching and who have not studied that teaching at all. But this is usually those dedicated to a particular religion rejecting other religions. They believe without any real evidence, that all other religions are in error.
To many, religion is much more than a belief. It is a lifestyle and it permeates the existence of those who embrace it, creating a dependency for it. I'm not condemning that, just commenting.
I do agree with you about Jesus not rescinding any laws. I find no place in the Bible where he states that an old law is obsolete. He does state that he has brought new laws. I don't believe he saw any discrepancy between the old Jewish law and what he proposed for mankind, just an enhancement.
you write:
Each Revelation from God contains two types of laws - the spiritual and the material. . .
Who told you this?
Is 'Thou shalt not kill' - SPIRITUAL or MATERIAL?
-Mark
"Thou shalt not kill" was originally "Thou shalt not commit murder". That is a spiritual law which never changes. Killing of animals, however, is another matter. Inflicting the death penalty by society on someone who commits murder is a right conferred on man by God. God gives society the right and obligation to uphold His (God's) laws.
you write:
Mark: Human beings are fundamentally spiritual with certain material/physical characteristics.
How spiritual was Joe Frazier's left hook when it landed?
you write:
The fact that they progress to the spiritual world after the death of the physical body is one proof that they are basically spiritual.
This is proof? Have you ever been to this spiritual world? Petula Clark did not know the way to San Jose - do you know the way to 'spiritual world'?
you continue:
Inflicting the death penalty by society on someone who commits murder is a right conferred on man by God. God gives society the right and obligation to uphold His (God's) laws.
Where did you get this? Who or what is this 'God' character? Where does God confer this right to man? Who is God that we have to receive our rights from such an entity?
-Mark
Only the sovereign God of the Universe and the never-dying love and gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ have the answers that satisfy the human body and soul.
His peace,
-Mark
And I thank you, for your patience with me. These are very complex matters we discuss, and patience is a must, I believe.
"I believe that many people who reject something are not doing so prematurely as they have already studied the matter and received answers to convince themselves. Wise or unwise, that is the nature of the human race."
Yes, I have noticed this too, but the thing I speak of is more "personal", along the lines of reason itself. We both realize that what most people think or do is not a dependable source of truth or understanding. The vast majority can be right, wrong, irrelevant, or what have you, and so too our particular assessment of what the many, or few, actually think and do. There is a "distance" inherent in such perceptions and pondering, which renders them somewhat "plastic", and intangible.
What I wished you to consider, in addition to things you quite rightly spoke to, is more directly related to what oneself thinks and does. It has to do with the difference between what one finds "probable" or reasonable to accept, and what one actually knows to be true. Consider, please;
It is not possible, by any means whatsoever, to know there is not God. This is clear, to any who think through the "nature of the beast" we discuss, I believe, and not a matter of serious contention among rational human beings. Yet, there is a tendency I have noticed, to overlook the lack of an "opposite" impossibility. Simply put, it MUST, by definition, be possible to know that God DOES exist, if that is the factual reality in our universe.
If such a "Being" actually exists, then by definition, that Being can make itself known to the "creatures" it "Created". It could do so in any number of ways, since it is, by definition, capable of doing virtually anything we could even imagine. Our "opinion" of the likelihood of such a Being's existence, cannot under ANY circumstances, alter the fact that That Being, does or does not exist. Nor, therefor, alter the fact that "He" may have ACTUALLY revealed Himself to one or more of our fellow humans.
Logically, therefore, there is one, and only one, reality of the matter which could be truthfully spoken of as "knowing" the nature of the beast. That would be; If, and only if, such a Being does exist, AND that Being reveals them-Self to a person. No other state of affairs can render the truthful statement that one knows. Therefore, ANY that make such statements, and yet do not concede that such a Being has directly revealed Himself to them personally, is in fact; "answering the matter, before he hears it".
I realize that this does not logically prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of any statements by any humans that they DO know, because He HAS revealed Himself to them, BUT, it does demonstrate what one must have experienced, if one wishes to rightly speak of the "life" of something like a "religion", or the genuineness of something like a Book.
Talk is cheap, as they say, but those who invest in their own speculation, reveal the poverty they suffer within.
I appreciate you detailed and civil discussion. I believe there is a God. I have no basis for this whatsoever. I choose to believe. Now, the nature of that God, I have a lot of questions about.
It is true that God cannot be proven or disproven, so I won't debate that one with anyone. I also realize that everyone's concept of God is quite personal, with a great deal of emotion invested therein. Therefore, I try to keep my comments less on what I might believe and more generalized.
I concur with you about "knowing" and you'll notice that I said "I believe" not know. Actually, even "visitations" of that supreme being do not necessarily mean they are real, although those to whom they occur definitely feel that to be the case.
I recognize that you are a devout Christian and respect that. What I was contending is that most all are worshiping the same God. That is based on logic. Each of the major religions believe there is only one God. Therefore it would be impossible for one to be worshiping a different one.
I also know that most religions and denominations do not agree with that philosophy and feel that only their tennents will insure proper recognition by God. I've said for years that the biggest shock of many persons existence will be when they go to heaven and see just who is and isn't there!
I am reluctant to denigrate any persons beliefs but I might well denigrate their practices. That is, if they bring harm to others.
I thank you for and appreciate your comments! I do think we have sincere areas of agreement as well as some differences, and I believe the discussion of these is healthy.
Here, I perceive the "gap" in our understandings of the matter,
"It is true that God cannot be proven or disproven . . . "
I am saying that the former (proven) is not a true statement. God, by definition, could provide ANY level of evidence, to ANY number of people, to ANY degree of satisfaction, of ANY meaning of the word 'proof'. It cannot, therefor, be a logically true statement that God cannot be proven. That's the oft "overlooked" aspect of the thing we wrestle with, which I wish you to further consider.
It is true (assuming the obvious) that you yourself have seen no such "proof". However, what I believe you are "doing", is introducing a hypothetical ultimate "judge" of such things, to whom the existence of God would need to be "proven". No such animal exists in the whole world. We are each forever the ONLY judge in the courtroom. It is to individual human beings ONLY, that anything at all can be spoken of as "proven". There is no panel of individuals, of any possible make-up, which could EVER be rightly called the ultimate judge of such a thing as the existence of God.
Consider; Even now, there have been BILLIONS of human beings that have "testified" that they have seen "evidence" which convinced them. Millions have testified they saw direct evidence, which left them without serious doubt. Many were, and are, among the most stable, rational, and well educated people on earth. YET, is is perfectly rational for you to NOT accept such a potential judge.
So, am I not right in amending your declaration of what is possible, with a slight alteration of terms, thusly;
It is not possible for God to be proven to those whom do not personally observe the conclusive evidence themselves.
I think your philosophy, while interesting, opens the door to that one-world religion that prophecy forewarns us of. You know, the one that wonders after the beast.
If you had told me that the Lord was doing a new thing and even now it was springing forth, I could have said, yes, that's true.
Now, all I can say is be careful. If you really love God and want the truth, be careful that you are not deceived by that one who would deceive the very elect if it were at all possible.
Not trying to be rude or unpleasant. Just warning you that two things can look very much alike and be totally different.
"Imagine a god of the vast universe worrying itself over women showing their hair, or people eating pork."
Well, imagine a God that didn't care enough about His children to warn them of the dangers He was aware of? We "know" now, from scientific research, that eating "pork" is a risky proposition. Do you know what the "penalty" for eating pork was? . . . getting sick. And even now, doctors consistently warn against eating too much pork, for the very same reason.
"Religion, living or dead, is, in my view, culture sanctified. Not by a god, but by men."
Well, in my view, it matters not in the slightest what we humans make of the matter, only God. If there is no God, then naturally it is not "valid" to speak of God sanctioning anything at all. If He does exist, it is not "valid" to speak of men sanctioning anything at all. In neither event, does my opinion amount to a hill of beans.
Realizing this, some years ago now, I asked a God I did not believe existed (but knew my opinion could not effect in any way), to remove my doubt of His existence, if that were His will. He did, to my utter amazement and satisfaction. Now, what am I to do?
Shall I take an opinion poll? . . . to determine whether I am sane or delusional? Would you?
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.
As far as I know, the offer still stands . . . and always will. Take your time, if needs be, but get that door cracked if you can. Only if the offer is valid, will you die knowing what is what, and who is Whom. Speculation and opinion will never get that door open.
I understand what you are saying but the answer is still no, God can neither be proven or disproven, Not with the knowledge and information that I, and most people, possess. Should God decide, for whatever reason, to appear to someone, that would be the proof to them. Now, if they could show that being to someone else, it would offer substantial proof to that person as well.
You, on the other hand, believe the proof of God does exist and you have been aware of the proof. That's great! However, in an abstract discussion it is not relevant to other people.
Reading your comment above, let me assure you that in my mind you are very sane!
I believe there is a God and have absolutely no empirical proof that is the case. That's why it is called faith. Were there proof, no faith would be necessary. So I have to assume that God, for whatever reason, withholds that proof from most people that they might develop faith.
I am not arguing that God does not exist! Only that I have no proof of his existence or lack of existence. I cannot go to someone else and say "there is a God and here is why you must believe!"
Nor could I say there was no God and provide any proof of a negative. We have one person on Gather that is Atheist and is a very evangelical Atheist! That person does his best to convince others of that negative. To me, that makes him not a true Atheist. I had a friend who was a true Atheist. He simply didn't believe and you could not goad him into any debate. He couldn't debate something that he was confident didn't exist. He was aware of my beliefs and never, ever attempted to sway or change them.
I would say also that were there no God, man would have created one in his own image, and would believe fervently in that created God. This is a natural process.
Thanks again, John, for sharing your perspective on this complex and interesting matter! I've probably done a lousy job of articulating my viewpoints and leave you with concepts unintended, but that is about the best I can do.
"God can neither be proven nor disproven."
Then why do you refer to such an impotent thing, as God? It seems you simply do not grasp the concept of a God, that is not just a concept, that can actually DO anything. It seems you cannot conceive of a God that exists independently of what people think and say, but without such Independence, it would NOT be a God at all.
"Now, if they could show that being to someone else, it would offer substantial proof to that person as well."
What do those words "show that being to someone else" mean? How on earth could one "hold" such a thing up for another to observe? And if it were possible in some sense to demonstrate to another person that the evidence which convinced one was "real", why is that any different at all from God demonstrating Himself to one more person? WHO, I ask WHO, would need to witness such evidence, and agree to it's conclusive nature, for YOU PERSONALLY to take up calling it 'proof'.
It's true that the society that gave birth first to El, a tribal god worshiped by one of the Israelite tribes and later was morphed into a larger, eventually universal, God figured out that pork and shellfish made people sick and that they shouldn't eat it. To make sure the prohibition "took," and people who liked these foods would stop eating them, they made it an order from God. Culture, sanctified.
I know that you have had an experience that convinces you that a god exists and that it cares and has revealed itself through sundry writings (only a few of which, carefully selected, made it into the Bible). So it matters not a whit whether you and/or I are right in our views about god; in fact, I would concede that here perhaps the gut is more valid than the head, since -- as you know -- I consider any god presiding over a vast and expanding universe to be unknowable. I can't know whether god exists using my head, although my head tells me it doesn't...but if my gut told me so I would probably find certainty, as you have.
In a nutshell, I believe in God. Why would you want to prove it to me? We are not arguing the existence of God. And we've not even started on the nature of God!
Sure, I have a gut feeling that verifies God, but that is scarcely any proof! I cannot use my gut feeling as an empirical proof that one exists. Obviously, I am not an evangelist for such concept.
I don't understand what it is that we are debating as I believe in God and I know you do also, so what is the problem? I, like you, am the sum total of my 70 years of life experiences and that includes substantial research and seeking concerning cosmogenesis, God, time and all the other unknowns in life. I've come to the conclusions I accept for the same reason that you do, because that where my experiences have taken me. If one expects everyone to believe as himself, then everyone would need the same life experiences and that's not going to happen and we are both well aware.
My thinking closely mirrors that of Bill Lawrence, I consider a vast and universal God to be essentially unknowable. He seems to want it that way! Where Bill and I differ is in the fact that my gut does tell me something different than my brain. The brain fails to address the issue at all.
So, in reality, I don't see where you and I have a significant difference, only parochial nuances of the same.
Thanks, John!
Completely agree, James. The only honest intellectual response to the question of god's existence (a universal god, that is), has to be agnostic since, as you say, the brain is not an adequate mechanism to address this, and our life experiences are all unique. So...there you go.
John is always an interesting interlocutor. We've had some great conversations.
Is not God God ? ... I know that in my own experience I have both sensed God subjectively, IE in the Mind and Spirit, I have known the combination of that including the physicality of my own body, that being very objective, and in mystical and ordinary experience involving intellectual inquiry I have become absolutely convinced that God exists for me and oh so many others that believe so based upon similar experiences which I have heard of and read about.
Then based upon all of that, I wrote a book about it all, which I speak of on Gather, doing that for two years now.
Based upon all of my experience, God is without an agenda, could care less what one eats or does, in fact and truth ... is NOT OUTside of this UNIverse, but IS this universe, this universe is also God and thus everything done and thought withIN this universe is of and about God ... realized or not by the participants.
To further elaborate upon that, God is "actualized" (empowered) through "His" Spirit which is the subjective aspect of God that is known by mankind via the "mind" ... the physical aspect of God, the manifested materialism is known through our 5 objective senses and comes together in our brain ... which of course interconnects with our mind ... but it is the Spiritual Mind that is shared beyond "objectivity" (physicality) ...
As to the "power" of God (all of the Omni words), that is in "potential only" ... in that the "concept of" God is the source of all potential, both positive as well as negative. Thus such potentials both originate with God and return to God, God is the completion of any "circuits" in creation, and everything is a form of circuit because there is nothing that either begins nor ends except for God being involved. (based upon the simple concept of a God).
Thus I see Johns major argument here after two years, as being that "his" God (which because of his take, I might consider that more of a mere god)(note upper and lower case letters) used "its" power to arrange his reality to "show" His ability and willingness to impress John in the OUTside realm of his reality concerning his relationships with other people (based upon my reading here on Gather of John's descriptions so far).
Because this was instigated through reading certain passages in the Bible, then the Bible is central to the concept and issue for John ... causing him to defend the Bible above all ... and of course use the Bible dogma as the meanings for all examples ... such as the orthodox idea that God is OUTside of the UNIverse as a "Being" separate, controlling, and using that Omni=power as required to impress those who seek such in truth and honesty via a personal relationship ... either directly or through the Son of God who is considered basically the "door way" (if NOT one and the same effectively) to God. (according to "that" belief system).
So, I maintain that Jesus is at best a god rather than God ... now that really bothers many who are orthodoxically "religious" ... thus I get a lot of criticism and flack from people like John ... in particular from John.
What I would really like to know from John here (and any others of you who I have agreed more with) just what is considered "wrong" with my experiences and subsequent view ... ??? and why is it considered less "valuable" than John's view ???
So, you will not tell me WHO the "proof" must be provided to . . . Well, I tell you the truth; your years have not provided you with an understanding of your situation here. You still believe in a great authority of this world, to whom things must be proven, before you can accept them. But no such authority exists . . . you are alone.
And the proof you speak of is available, if you but ask for it.
God can prove Himself, to you, naturally. He's God.
" I, like you, am the sum total of my 70 years of life experiences and that includes substantial research and seeking concerning cosmogenesis, God, time and all the other unknowns in life. I've come to the conclusions I accept for the same reason that you do, because that where my experiences have taken me."
and then writes:
Completely agree, James. The only honest intellectual response to the question of god's existence (a universal god, that is), has to be agnostic since, as you say, the brain is not an adequate mechanism to address this, and our life experiences are all unique. So...there you go.
This might be true (although this too I'd debate) had not the Triune God of the Universe revealed Himself in the pages of a book. We are language machines among other things having been made in His image and He has spoken truth to us - truth that we can process and understand.
This is the problem with basing a theology on experience or an experience - although I might listen to someone describing an experience they've had with God (An encounter as some would put it) - this is shifting sand and it might have been nothing more than a bit of indigestion. Give me His Word - I can stand on that rock - here is the pearl of great price!
-Mark
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . .
Romans 1:19-22
I once thought as you do, and do not question your rationality for seeing things as you do. It is indeed a rational perspective. There came a time however, when I did a curious thing, and answered that door . . .
Now, that changes nothing from your point of view, I know, but you must show some tolerance for the experience of others which you do not have. Once, the great authority of this world KNEW the sun revolved around the earth . . . but it was not so. And once, the speed of light was inviolable, and could be PROVEN so . . . but now, quantum physics has yielded evidence of something entirely different from a "ricocheting particle universe", where such "laws" have true teeth. Few comprehend the incredible significance of the undeniable FACT that in a most demonstrable way, the universe responds to the very act of human observation of it . . . but what is one to do . . . await the realization of the many, before accepting what has been known for a hundred years? and proven a thousand times?
No, I cannot deny what I have witness first hand, and agree that what is reasonable in ignorance, is reasonable in light of direct experience. You are right, but you are not done learning. And neither am I.
Many, such as I, have seen so much deception and treachery in life, that "Faith" in the Book is virtually impossible, without some form of radical awakening of new potentials. I believe that is part of the great "offer" that Christ makes, to manifest himself to any that request it sincerely. I just could not get beyond the rumors and myths of the world, to see that the Book was speaking directly to me. His Mercy is without limit or precondition, and I thank God that He did not give up on me, though I all but gave up on Him.
That Book is indeed beyond value of any sort we might name or imagine. I have no "rock" like it in my memory of what He revealed to me personally . . . He sent me to the Book immediately, for that is where the only true rock stands unshakable, in this life. But first, one must have eyes to see, or it is just words on a very old page . . .
Agree, John, that we're all learning all the time...if not, check our pulses! I thought I WAS showing "some tolerance for the experiences of others," in fact. I just don't understand how you put so much faith in a book that is so obviously flawed and incorrect in so many ways...a fact that biblical scholars know full well. That is, if I understand you correctly. What I was implying was that experience of god is the starting point for a believer, not a theology. Theology comes later (and here comes the bit you will disagree with). It parses the ineffable mystical experiences of a Jesus, or a Buddha and makes them accessible to the masses who practice a given religion, distorting it and "acculturating" it over time. The important thing is the religious institution, which is why the Gnostics were discarded as heretics: you can't build an institution if everyone is his own priest relying on his own inner knowledge. Etc. I think that if I had the Experience of God, I'd stick with that.
Well, I understand that it is a very common assumption that the Book is corrupted in essential ways, and I understand why that is believed so, but if you think about it, we can ONLY know such a thing by referring to other "books" of words, which cannot realistically be called any more reliable. The fact that we find it plausible that something such as the Bible would be easily "eroded" or altered, does not actually mean it is.
If one looks into the matter objectively, one will find that we, the human species, are in possession of numerous scrolls and manuscripts which pre-date Jesus, and are remarkably consistent with each other. There is a perfectly logical reason for that, which has to do with how "copies" were made. On the actual pages of such artifacts is a very curious thing; There are notations, called 'Massorah', which literally means; to fix in place.
What these notations do, is list every alphabetic character and "punctuation mark", and the number of times they are to appear on the page; The characters which each line begins and ends with; The middle word of every sentence . . . and so on, and on. The people doing the replications of the Book, knew that time was a corrosive factor, and for hundreds of years, they were reproducing the EXACT same text, for it was a "working copy" they were transcribing, and they knew it would wear out.
What this means, in reality, is that we now have direct evidence that what we see in a good modern translation is precisely (in our language of course), what Jesus himself read from. Our versions are NOT renderings of earlier versions by us, but the result of continued investigation and understanding of the terms and intricacies of ancient Hebrew itself, which is a "fixed language", unlike English which changes over time. We actually KNOW what it was that Jesus endorsed as the Word of God.
There is no reason to think that what we see in a good modern version, is not taken directly from those originals, and can, by such simpletons as I, be checked against the original language . . . easily. You give me a word from the King James, and within minutes I can tell you the precise Hebrew (or Greek) word which it is derived from in the ancient texts. It is a complete myth, that we do not KNOW what Jesus endorsed. We do.
We, as a species. also have in our possession, numerous very early copies of the "new testament" writings, which show a very similar consistency and verifiability. One must be careful, to trust authorities on good grounds, and not merely the degree to which they back up our speculation. Folks tend not to realize how very important it is to believers that they actually are looking at the genuine article, and assume that much finagling is accepted, or even encouraged . . . but the truth is, such things are hounded out relentlessly by people determined to preserve every detail. They actually believe God demands nothing less, and nothing more, on penalty of forfeiture of their immortal souls . . .
This ain't no party.
Eminent to whom? Are we invoking the great authority of this world again? You may like what she has to say, but she is just a person, and we both know she may have an agenda . . . do we not? Like so many, including the author of this article, there is a desire to be in much company, when denying the Word of God . . .
I ask that you examine your own desires along those lines. And tell me the truth; Is it not something you wish others to accept? Is that not why you spoke of it being "rational" ?
There is an aspect to full maturity, as a human being, which demands the end of pretending one is in a company of any sort. We are alone here, when it comes to matters most profound. To cite another human as one's authority, is indicative of a lack of faith in one's own experience. There simply is no end to authorities we could cite, and the points of view we could thus "validate", but you and I know, that such things are not trustworthy . . . don't we?
I told you how it could be that we KNOW what Jesus was reading. If you care to research further, you can. Referring to some other person's findings will not stand the test of a rational mind. One must see for themselves, and that is what God invites any to do. Merely requiring that one surrender one's own "divinity" in the form of one's own imagination. I came to realize my mind was not truly trustworthy, and I came to realize no one else's is either. There was to me, but one single way to find out what the hell was going on here . . . Either there is, or is not, a real God. Only if I knew for sure, through direct observation, could I proceed any further in my quest to understand myself, and the world I found myself in. So, I answered the door.
These words I type are him calling to you. Not because I am him, or can imitate his voice. But because He is ever calling out, to any that need assistance. It's about that surrendering of the self's validity, I think. It's about accepting that we are not the top dog in the universe. And I ask if it is not that "problem", which causes you to hesitate? There is a form of "freedom", in not knowing . . . but that freedom is an illusion, I say. Good only for impressing one's fellow wanderers . . .
He will not stop calling out, till the end of this age, when he returns. Then you will know, and your freedom will have proven useless.
I know my words are troubling to many, and I sincerely apologize. But, this ain't no party, and I have a duty to perform.
We know only what others have said, a couple of generations later, about what Jesus said and did. It's more instructive, if you are keen to discover what was believed, to look at what the earliest Christians believed.
Who's 'we' and how does 'we' know anything for sure? Is Elaine Pagels some kind of authority, some intellectual fount of truth, or just another academician with tenure and an axe to grind?
How about this passage to shed some light on how the early church regarded the Savior?
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. . .
-Mark
Many of the bishops did not believe in much of what is contained in the Apostles Creed today. They did not believe in the divinity of Christ, the transubstantiation of the euchrist, or several other factors.
As the bible was assembled following the Council, the books were closely scrutinized to insure that they chosen ones were compatible with the chosen tennents. Following that process, there was a great effort to destroy all copies of unaccepted works. They were unsuccessful but they tried.
Many of the errors of the Bible do not require reference to an outside book of any kind to spot. Just read the first two chapters of Genesis and tell me in what order did creation occur.
If one takes the Bible for what it is instead of making it divine, it is a valuable book. But it is a book of religion, not science or anything else. It contains a history of the Jewish people and the legends and myths of their heritage. The Bible was written by men and men are fallible.
That most scholars hold limited belief in the total accuracy of the book is a good thing for God, as to do otherwise makes him out to be a petty, bloodthirsty, vindictive, insecure and undependable entity. God is not those things, therefore, many of the old testament writings must be dismissed.
I believe some stories of the book are reminiscent of the write confusing the acts of God with the acts of Satan.
If, on the other hand, one accepts the fact that the Bible tells us that God is the author of all creation. That we came into existence because of him.
I've said for years that if Christ came back to earth and told people that some part of the Bible was in error, they would tell him that he was out of his tree! No way could the Bible be in error, he had to be, and what nerve telling people that! In the end, I cannot bring myself to worship a book, regardless its value as a religious guide.
God gave man a brain and did so for a reason. He expects us to use that brain! "Seek the truth and it shall set you free." Many accept something and quit seeking, which I cannot believe was the desire of God.
There are vast numbers of things which I do not know. There are many which I will not learn in this lifetime, if I live to one hundred! I don't expect to ever stop evolving and learning as long as mental health allows it! I've already said far more about what I believe than I am comfortable doing so I'll quit there. I respect others religions and their right to believe as they do. I do not wish to offend anyone and hope the things I've described as my considered opinion do not create such offense.
I appreciate others comments and statements of their beliefs. We don't all have to be alike in that. Each person will come to the destination which, for him, is the logical one from his lifetime perspective. If that is wrong, so be it, but I feel that it is not wrong at all.
"God gave man a brain and did so for a reason. He expects us to use that brain!"
Yes, of course, so use it. Tell me WHO the authority is that you speak of having God's existence proven to ?
"Many accept something and quit seeking, which I cannot believe was the desire of God."
One cannot actually be seeking, if one rules out finding.
Sorry, guys, but Pagels is not the Great Apostate seeking to torpedo your faith. She's simply a well-respected historian of the early Church. It's useful to know what the people closest in time and place to Christ thought and believed. It doesn't tally with religion as we know it today, just as mainstream Christianity in 21st Century America is not like the Christianity, with its constellation of societal norms, practiced a hundred years ago. And there's no reason it should be: we aren't the same people nor the same society (Scalia, take note). But it puts paid to the notion that there is some Absolute Truth out there that can be discovered in the pages of the Book. It has its value, but that value is not absolute.
If one takes the Bible for what it is instead of making it divine, it is a valuable book. But it is a book of religion, not science or anything else.
Who will tell us what the Bible is? The only One qualified does not stutter nor stammer:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16
The written Word is 100% the words of God and 100% the words of man just as the Incarnation, Living Word was 100% man and 100% God. How this was wrought is a mystery not to be so much fathomed as accepted.
-Mark
No need to apologize to folks who know the Word, Ms. Pagels is no threat to us. And it matters not if some groupies cheer her on, this has been the reality from the beginning, and will continue till the end.
You have absolutely no way of knowing what early Christians believed, beyond writings far less trustworthy than the Bible. You may pick and choose any beliefs you wish, any authorities you wish, but you still don't actually know, do you? Still just that one way to know: ask God.
It's useful to know what the people closest in time and place to Christ thought and believed.
What do you make then of Thomas' confession "My Lord and my God!"
or Peter's "Thou art the Son of the Living God. . ."?
and:
just as mainstream Christianity in 21st Century America is not like the Christianity, with its constellation of societal norms, practiced a hundred years ago.
Is Christ the same today as He was 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 2000? Prior to the creation?
and:
But it puts paid to the notion that there is some Absolute Truth out there that can be discovered in the pages of the Book. It has its value, but that value is not absolute.
Are you sure that this statement is absolutely true? How do you know?
Doesn't 'Thou shalt not steal' transcend time and space?
-Mark
"Historical documents aplenty chronicle the beliefs and development of the early Church, and since they were contemporary documents they're far more accurate than accounts written generations later with the purpose of promulgating the religion. "
So says Bill. I don't believe you. Talk is cheap.
Here's the Jewish historian Josephus:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross , those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.
I wonder if he knew Elaine Pagels. . .
-Mark
For me, no contest, I will take James and Bill's versions any day over the other two ... and I have read Elaine Pagels and know her to be as trustworthy as they come, no problem with her words either.
But according to John, we are all to not believe anyone but him ... gee, we must really be confused and headed for hell ... we have been had by Satan and John speaks the only truth amongst us ... follow John, or else ... he is the authority on the history of the writing and selections of the books of the Bibles ... all others are in the dark ... I suppose that God told you that John ???
John and I know each other well and know that we start from mutually exclusive premises. It's fun to trade views with him, though.
Sorry, Jerry...would it help to know that my children are David and Sara?
It would be interesting to know when Josephus wrote and what his sources were. His accounts of his own times were and are interesting. Regarding Biblical accounts of Jesus' works and life, we do need to keep in mind that the notion of factual reporting in the way we understand it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Take the story of his birth. A special person had to have a special birth...Jesus couldn't be just a great teacher: he had to be of royal lineage and his birth had to be marked by special portents, just like all ancient heroes and founders of religions. What the early Christian writers did was to lift the story of the birth of the Persian hero-god Mithras and incorporate it into the birth saga of Jesus. Why? Well, because Mithras was the most popular hero-god of the empire and, not insignificantly, the favorite of the Roman legions. Later, when Christianity became a court religion, Christians would often build their churches on the sites of Mithraic temples. You can see at least one of these in Rome today. What was important was not to report the "facts" of his birth, but to show that he was special, above ordinary folk. And that they accomplished quite well.
It seems to me, that many people assume there is something inherently irrational about believing in the God of the Book(s), which goes beyond evidentiary sorts of questions, and essentially justifies endless questioning of the evidence. We cannot go back in time, and we both know that such evidentiary debating will not resolve anything with any certainty at all. I think it is a form of "stalling", to endlessly question the evidence in these matters, for clearly there exists sufficient evidence to justify at least wondering whether the Biblical account is true.
Now, something was said earlier, and while you did not specifically endorse the idea in particular, you did praise the comment it came in, and I wish to examine the reasoning further with you. I wish to "take the bull by the horns", for I am a man of reason, I fancy, and that is to me the ultimate measure of what is right.
The notion was put forward, that a person ought not "settle" for a particular truth, so as to remain a seeker of truth. To my eyes, that is irrational, and constitutes a form of "posing". Like a child play acting, fulfilling the outward appearance of a seeker of truth, and not actually seeking anything more. Essentially, already believing they have found the "the way", and that way being to emulate their own images of a wise person.
I say, there is no such thing as "open-mindedness", which can be defined by what one will not allow themselves to think. No wisdom, by omission of things one deems unwise. No reason, through refusing to consider the alternatives.
There exists, I am quite convinced, a distinct "prejudice", in the minds of many who would call themselves wise, against Christianity (as well as many things). It amounts to a form of elitism, or snobbery even, wherein one prides themselves on not being "taken in" by things they think of as simple-minded. I once held to such notions, myself. Do you sense such a thing in yourself?
Mark, Elaine Pagels isn't a theologian, she's a historian. She has nothing to say about the resurrection etc.
Isn't that a modern statement! How we like to compartmentalize life - this is where we can talk about history, here's mathematics, here's theology, here's politics - nice little boxes. . . but never mix the contents - each has its own little domain of truth.
But this is a fallacy and a warped way of looking at the world. The truth of the matter is that every fact must be viewed in its relationship with the Creator or it is distorted. Every fact is a created fact. Although Ms. Pagels is a historian - she has a worldview, a lense through which she views facts, Her opinings have theological ramifications just as do the statements of everyone in this thread.
Was Luke a physician or a theologian?
Was Paul a tentmaker or a theologian?
Was Matthew a tax collector or a theologian?
-Mark
I'll agree with some of what you have written. No reason, through refusing to consider the alternatives is very true. However, open mindedness is allowing ones self to accept any thoughts initially and not rejecting them out of hand. Ask yourself if you do this or if you reject alternative thoughts out of hand. I do not know the answer to this for you as only you can know that.
No wisdom, by omission of things one deems unwise needs significant clarification, It is unwise to reach out an touch a red stove burner, I believe we can agree on that. That "rejection" is pure wisdom in my opinion, and I would submit that you would agree with that as a reasonable person.
As far as a prejudice against Christians, I think there is a tendency for persons who are encountering thoughts opposite to their own to cry "prejudice" and "discrimination" whether such exists or not as these are tags people wish not to be judged as having, making this a strong cry to use.
I would agre that if one found absolute truth, he should accept it! However, to continue to seek, if he has found the absolute truth, will not bring any threat to the truth he has found. Only if there is another truth greater will there be any threat to continue to seek. And I believe that Jesus, in his teachings, urged a life long seeking process. Truth will never be obsolete, out moded or found to be in error. If those occur, it was never the truth! Would you disagree with that?
I have been a Christian for many years and though my thinking has evolved, I certainly cannot be prejudiced against Christianity. I am very prejudiced against those who call themselves Christians who display their brand of Christianity by being condemning, prejudiced against other concepts, condescending by stating or insinuating that they they have the "only truth," regardless of the fact that they may think they do.
And I do believe that people can be and have been "taken in" by certain philosophies, preachers, evangelists and movements. Remember Jim Jones? Just because someone assures you that they have "accepted Christ as their personal savior" and says "praise God" at every opportunity, with "well, we can't understand that but isn't it great that God does" sprinkled liberally into their dialog does not mean that they have found a truth so compelling that they have to stop searching and are a bit better than I am. Nor is it acceptable to say "if you'll just pray to God about this. you'll come to the proper conclusion." This is not necessarily so! All people are not St. Paul on the road to Damascus!
That is unacceptable to me as a Christian! Error can exist within my own sect or denomination, or within my own religion and I know that. As a dedicated human, I should be willing to attempt to expose error where ever it occurs. I believe, John, that you will agree with much of what I have written. Still, we come to to differing conclusions and beliefs. I am quite comfortable with that, are you?
The Jimmy Bakers, Jimmy Swagarts, Jerry Fallwells, and the guy with the Crystal Cathedral and the Billy Grahams are not the persons responsible for me and the way I conduct my life. Anyone who says that atheists, agnostics, and simple Deists cannot possibly have a valid and powerful sense of ethics or a very high moral standard does not get much traction with mel
At the same time, I, like you do not wish to offend others here, nor do I want to think that I have doe so. To anyone whom I have offended, I sincerely apologize! I believe this thread has become gradually more contentions and it is, therefore, time to think about winding it down. And with that I will conclude!
Thanks John,for the dialog and you input and conversation!
"" After reading the latter comments closely, I would have to say I agree much more closely with all but John, and as James asks, what is the issue John ? What is it that makes you argue so with everyone ?
Is not God God ? ... I know that in my own experience I have both sensed God subjectively, IE in the Mind and Spirit, I have known the combination of that including the physicality of my own body, that being very objective, and in mystical and ordinary experience involving intellectual inquiry I have become absolutely convinced that God exists for me and oh so many others that believe so based upon similar experiences which I have heard of and read about.
Then based upon all of that, I wrote a book about it all, which I speak of on Gather, doing that for two years now.
Based upon all of my experience, God is without an agenda, could care less what one eats or does, in fact and truth ... is NOT OUTside of this UNIverse, but IS this universe, this universe is also God and thus everything done and thought withIN this universe is of and about God ... realized or not by the participants.
To further elaborate upon that, God is "actualized" (empowered) through "His" Spirit which is the subjective aspect of God that is known by mankind via the "mind" ... the physical aspect of God, the manifested materialism is known through our 5 objective senses and comes together in our brain ... which of course interconnects with our mind ... but it is the Spiritual Mind that is shared beyond "objectivity" (physicality) ...
As to the "power" of God (all of the Omni words), that is in "potential only" ... in that the "concept of" God is the source of all potential, both positive as well as negative. Thus such potentials both originate with God and return to God, God is the completion of any "circuits" in creation, and everything is a form of circuit because there is nothing that either begins nor ends except for God being involved. (based upon the simple concept of a God).
Thus I see Johns major argument here after two years, as being that "his" God (which because of his take, I might consider that more of a mere god)(note upper and lower case letters) used "its" power to arrange his reality to "show" His ability and willingness to impress John in the OUTside realm of his reality concerning his relationships with other people (based upon my reading here on Gather of John's descriptions so far).
Because this was instigated through reading certain passages in the Bible, then the Bible is central to the concept and issue for John ... causing him to defend the Bible above all ... and of course use the Bible dogma as the meanings for all examples ... such as the orthodox idea that God is OUTside of the UNIverse as a "Being" separate, controlling, and using that Omni=power as required to impress those who seek such in truth and honesty via a personal relationship ... either directly or through the Son of God who is considered basically the "door way" (if NOT one and the same effectively) to God. (according to "that" belief system).
So, I maintain that Jesus is at best a god rather than God ... now that really bothers many who are orthodoxically "religious" ... thus I get a lot of criticism and flack from people like John ... in particular from John.
What I would really like to know from John here (and any others of you who I have agreed more with) just what is considered "wrong" with my experiences and subsequent view ... ??? and why is it considered less "valuable" than John's view ???
Jerry Kays, Jul 15, 2008, 2:33pm EDT ""
I myself always attempt to deal in truth, even the most deepest of them. Something that some who use the word fail to value.
John, from your own recent words:
"" I wish to "take the bull by the horns", for I am a man of reason, I fancy, and that is to me the ultimate measure of what is right. ""
How about taking "this bull by the horns" instead of beating around the bush ... address the issues at face value and answer questions put to you for a change.
But then little it would achieve for one that is "a man of reason" where that is limited to exoteric objectivity in matters of esoteric spiritual subjectivity.
"Seeing that John Knights recent question to Bill is a veiled argument construction involving myself where he will attempt to make a case surreptitiously against my views . . . "
Well, the fact of the matter is, you did not cross my mind in writing that comment. Nor any of your ideas or statements. It was Bill, and James (who understood that, obviously), who were the particular people I was stimulated by, to address a general concept through.
" What I would really like to know from John here . . . just what is considered "wrong" with my experiences and subsequent view ... ??? "
Well, since you ask; I cannot speak to your "experiences", but only your words and behaviour in my sight. The very fact that you don't differentiate the two, is part of the "problem" I have at times with your approach to these matters. You speak or your "experiences" in a most obscure fashion, as though the experience of something unusual, translates somehow, into a form of extreme specialness. Which you expect others to accept as a "natural fact" sort of deal. You act as if there is some direct logic which renders a person that experiences something which to them is very unusual, is therefor themself very unusual. But this is not actually a logical ramification, for several reasons. of which I'll deal with just one for now.
It is what the rest of us mean when we say "subjective", for you to draw such a conclusion, and it is not reasonable for you to expect others to simply accept that having an intense emotional feeling, renders you "special". For all one could really know, what you felt is not at all special to any number of other folks, but just for you to feel it.
Since we are each ONLY capable of feeling things we ourselves experience, you cannot possibly KNOW that this particular feeling is even unusual. Just that others don't speak often of the relative intensity of a given feeling. What to you is relatively intense, may to another be fairly typical. Most folks realize this, and don't bother to justify this or that self/worldview, based on the imagined "dullness" of others feelings.
It is like someone saying; " . . . But I mean it REALLY looked blue . . . far bluer than it looks to you". You, simply cannot KNOW what blue looks like to others. Nor can you KNOW what "Spirituality" feels like to others. What to you is an amazing event, in that realm, may not even be worth discussing to another, since it is assumed by them, that it is what others are speaking of when they talk of "Spirituality" at all, since they experience it all the time.
That you seem completely unaware of this "relativeness", and the limitations it places on each person's ability to judge their own feelings uniqueness beyond themselves, leaves one hard pressed to accept that you grasp the very nature of the whole universe, to say the least.
(There is far more I could say, but I hope that much will allow you to comprehend the awkwardness of dealing with your assertions that some intense feeling you felt renders you . . . "god-like" ; )
Please try to understand, from another's perspective. You said numerous things, which clearly imply that to accept that the Bible is in fact, an actual "communication" from God to me (us), is irrational. It cannot be "contentiousness" on my part, to attempt to demonstrate that you have not actually seen my rationale. If you don't wish me to try to explain my reasoning, then please don't announce I have none.
I do not know, or care to know, much about the people you speak of as "poor" Christians. I care to know ONLY about the original.
Can you tell me just where I said you had no rationale? And I never said "poor" Christians. Predominantly, I did not discuss people, just behaviors, at least that was my intent. It would take a judgment on my part that I"m not willing to make to say they were "poor.". and I have no interest, authority or reason to judge anyone.
Frankly, it is your prerogative to believe the Bible is God. I've met people who thought that God actually wrote the Bible in a physical sense. They have a perfect right to adopt that belief if they wish.
One thing about the "original" Christians, they realized that the church is not buildings, but people. I admire them for that!
John, I know you have a rationale. It is pretty evident. I have a rationale as well, believe it or not! I've no problem with your rationale or the end conclusions you've drawn from that. I simply don't come to the same conclusions and don't feel that there is anything wrong with that. Everyone has a rationale of some kind.
You are putting a lot of things into what I wrote that I did not! The accusation of my saying you had no rationale. The "poor" Christians. And that your thinking is "irrational," I try to say what I think so please don't try to "interpret" to into anything other than that! I do not write things expecting the reader to infer what I really meant, I say them outright. To accept that might remove some misunderstanding here.
By 'the original', I meant him.
And I certainly consider some of those folks you named poor Christians, from what I have seen of them. Are you telling me that this;
"And I do believe that people can be and have been "taken in" by certain philosophies, preachers, evangelists and movements. Remember Jim Jones? . . . "
"The Jimmy Bakers, Jimmy Swagarts, Jerry Fallwells, and the guy with the Crystal Cathedral and the Billy Grahams are not the persons responsible for me and the way I conduct my life. Anyone who says that atheists, agnostics, and simple Deists cannot possibly have a valid and powerful sense of ethics or a very high moral standard does not get much traction with mel "
. . . was not a form of critical judgment? I find that kinda hard to believe . . . Sorta like having one's cake and eating it too . . . don't you think?
"You are putting a lot of things into what I wrote that I did not! The accusation of my saying you had no rationale. The "poor" Christians. And that your thinking is "irrational, . . . "
"Frankly, it is your prerogative to believe the Bible is God."
!! . . . Hmmm . . .
Frankly, I'm beginning to think you're one very sick puppy, adios.
As to "my experiences", I speak of them often, most everything I say on Gather is based only upon the things in my book that you tell me you have read. I also explain there, and I have here to you, many times, that my "behavior" matches perfectly with my philosophical concept. Which is what goes around comes around, live by the Golden Rule, and the truth will set you free to be yourself … in other words I do NOT have to conform to anybody else's idea, especially yours, as how to act or comport myself.
My having come to know the fullness of the meaning of the BET (+=-) assures me of just that, that I do NOT have to act just as you think that Jesus did to be qualified to be considered to know the REAL meanings of the many things he is said to have said. There REALLY is a huge difference between esoteric meanings mystically understood, and the objective literal meanings exoterically misunderstood.
As to the "obscurity" of my "experience" … it would be just that to any average normal person, and their NOT having had such an experience insures that any words I use to describe it as best as I can, would probably have no affect upon them because they could NOT relate to much, if any, of it. And I have made that clear to you many times also.
I had better than a half century of a "normal" life before my "awakening" … since then I have pursued the understanding of the historic, present and future aspects of such an awakening, non-stop for years, many years. You could not even begin to imagine the things I have studied and what I have come to know about it all … period!
Thus you can either give me the benefit of your doubt, which you obviously have not, or just reject it as you have … but you need not constantly "hound" me with argumentative misunderstanding claimed to be understanding … you see, as I said, I have beenbefore very much like yourself, rationally objective as a priority … until I found where the higher priority lies, that in subjective truth, balanced with objectivity as the secondary consideration …that being the case for myself now, and many who think more like me based upon their similar experiences. Your not being aware or familiar with that , in no way invalidates the truth of it.
Normal people pride themselves in their "objectivity", that which rationality and logic are based upon, such folks would use their Intuition which is very subjective, secondarily to their logic. With the possible exclusions of a few, and those mostly female.
My "experience" and the knowledge I have gained from it, has also granted me a certain amount of wisdom concerning the use and application of it all. Of course it is obvious that you deny any "special-ness" at all to the things I say (and especially to the things I do, which I grant as normal from "your" logical "religious" perspective) so then we are back to that "take my word for it or leave it" … or in this case argue about it.
The major problem then comes down to the very problem with so many "religious people" that take the exoteric route because of the natural reaction of their egos. I know well what that is all about, I also related much that way, and to the view of the ego there is no other valid way … I recognize that constantly in your words John … I know the difference and you do not.
Thus as an ego, you concentrate on me as a challenge to your ego, in doing so you set aside the concepts I propose … the concept of the BET (+=-) is always what comes first with me, I try to explain it and further justify it's source, by telling what happened to me and how I came to know of it … the things you have picked out to complain about and reject, such as the term "god" are things associated with baggage that "you" hang upon those words, as you refuse to accept that I apply different meanings than you do, just as I do about the meaning of the person/god Jesus the Christ …
Rather than discuss the issues, even logically and rationally, you always want to interject my "qualifications" and/or divine standing into the issue based upon only your concepts about that or those. You attempt to "personalize" it all around me … just as the early, and most subsequent "Christians," have done in worshipping (or rejecting) the person of Jesus rather than his intended message … big mistake !
Special-ness is also subjective, and it your own subjective determination of what that means to you, which causes you to impart a meaning to me that you cannot no more know of, than you erroneously accuse me of not being able to know about others. Only when one has more than one experience on an issue can they properly differentiate, I have had those experiences and it is obvious to me thusly, that you have not. In these instances I am "the authority" and you are not … not bragging, just simple facts.
But you seem unable to accept that, it is an ego thing, take my word for it … that is the actual key to the whole issue … one can never transcend the ego until they do. Believe it, all of our historic wisdom as a peoples attests to that truth.
I know what intense emotional feelings are all about, I have had many such, but I also know that the greatest feelings one could have in a lifetime, bar none that I have ever heard of, and I researched that fully, is just what I had just over 14 years ago … and I also know that what is gained from such as that is a commonality of esoteric understanding that has been sometimes called the "Perennial Philosophy" … and that is what I partake of now and hope to tell people about with the whole goal being that there are higher truths available for truth seekers than that claimed through exoteric religious understandings which are in comparison merely "mis-understandings" …
And sadly and truthfully John, you cannot know the difference until you know it, and your ego as it stands, will prevent you from ever gaining such truths.
So in conclusion, I fully stand by all of my words of various assertions based upon my understanding and comprehension of it all … and that includes what I have said as to why you feel as you do about it … what you suggest as the feelings and experiences of others associated with the "color of blue" is merely that of an entire realm and/or dimension BELOW what I am speaking of … believe it or not.
To each their own … IMnsHO.
Jerry Kays, Jul 17, 2008, 3:34am EDT (edited for composition later)
"OK, so you say you did not have me or my issues in mind with that comment … I cannot prove you did not, but I can recognize certain things after two years of dealing with you. "
Well, yes, I understand such a possibility, but what is missing here, completely, is any reference to what I actually said in that comment, which would cause you to be so certain that is was directed at you that you would actually state it as a fact, and, accuse me of some sort of duplicity, based on it. It's sitting right there, and when I reread it, I see that what I am basically saying there actually is a defense of your having arrived at a specific "belief", just as much as anyone else . . . It seems you could have more easily agreed with that comment, than taken offense by it . . .
This whole "subjective is more reliable" thing . . . leaves so much room for getting caught up in a transient reaction, that it really seems as though the world would be an utterly chaotic place, if a lot of people took up believing that were true. We all have so very many transient reactions . . . and so very much difficulty in communicating clearly . . . that I just can't accept that mankind was not wise for getting beyond thinking their subjective responses were "reality". That's kinda what 'reason' is. That's kinda what civilization is. We don't simply accept what we happen to think or feel as if reality itself, but see such things as a part of reality, which we ought to be careful in accepting. Renouncing objective reasoning, sure looks like asking for Pandora's box to be blown wide open . . . .