What is the starting point?

[NMSquirrel]

I am going to stop the dialogue here, because we are starting to go in circles. It helped me to lay out my position clearly in 230. I wish you could have responded to this, but it is OK that you did not. For what it is worth, I think there is something you do not want to look at here. Because at a certain point you stopped making sense and/or responding to what I wrote. I am aware this a rather big claim on my part - not so big as the one where one says one knows god sends people to hell, but nevertheless a big one - and I stand by that. I do have some skill and experience in such matters.

oops...i went back and read 230..apperantly i missed that post..i actually did not read that the first time..did i quote from it?

the clue that i was refering to is only my own personal opinion..just because too many ppl get caught up in the literal interpretation of the bible and to fully understand it one needs to research the history of the times and the bible, of which your post 230 says you know the history of the bible, and i often wonder what books didn't make it into the cannonization process that should be there..

i digress..

and to know which one is the right one and then to come up with reasons why this or that in the text shows it is the right one takes tremendous insight. One must have a feel for what God must be or is like

ok..i can agree with this..

So much of these texts could be wrong or confused by the human minds who wrote them down and translated them

this is my point..

To trust one's abililty to see through all this potention for error, distortion and even complete misguidedness

im not sure it is a trust issue rather a descision process..
i would be all for re-cannonizing the bible...review all the texts that were submitted then, to see if they erroneously ommited certain textxs from the bible just cause of their current political situations..(ie the attitudes towards women)

Further the Christian, in this situation, must have confidence that they are not being misled by things like
wishful thinking
a discomfort related to NOT believing what their parents believe
a need to be a part of something
a sense of control
a desire to be connected to a tradition
a desire to fit in with a specific community
fear of death

and so on.

When a Christian - or anyone - says that one of these texts is true - to whatever degree - they are making a claim about their own ability to not be overly influenced by factors like the little list above. This carries with it a confidence about knowing themselves. They are implicitly claiming to know their own motives, emotions, fears, and desires in a fairly profound way.

to answer this and my opinion of what causes such, read through this thread..

it is my opinion of what causes ppl to do what they do..

 

[wynn]

The cake and eat it too of the 'I am not doing something special when I know what God does and thinks and intends and why people should go to hell' and so on, sets up the other person for a trap.

I agree, it is a trap.
But why do some of us fall into it?

If the other person claims to know anything - including that something does not make sense - the Christian can say this is hubris. They are safe from this being pointed at them because they didn't really do anything themselves.

Agreed. But how come some of us get so riled up about it?

I think reason can help, but ultimately I think it is almost like the body vomits out the poison. Perhaps that is more than a fair metaphor. Perhaps the solution is no longer stopping ourselves from vomiting.

Ironically or not, I have always had problems with vomitting - I normally couldn't vomit, it's as if something was/is wrong with my vomit reflex. There was a few times when I ate something bad and it would help if I could vomit - but I couldn't, I just felt sick for days sometimes.
I have noticed how I have this conviction "I must digest everything that gets into me, be if physical food or thoughts, I must not take the easy way out and vomit."

You may know about the controversies in christianity around reincarnation, but if not they are worth a look. Note that some passages in the Bible are really quite odd if there is no reincarnation....

I have heard, yes. There are also controversies about eternal damnation.

I think the actual issue here, is of course, how does one get the confidence to hold a particular understanding of the Bible above some other. Why not go for the mainstream Christian understanding.

this is the kind of thing I was referring to in relation to the Christian. He must trust that in these struggles between fallible men the correct decisions were made.

Yes ...

 

[Doreen]

I agree, it is a trap.
But why do some of us fall into it?

this particular trap is there for people not closed to the idea of God or certian religious ideas and experiences. The atheist need not get caught by this one since they can simply ignore the whole humility issue. I think those who are interested in these 'realms' can get into trouble for a couple of reasons: 1) it is too scary to assume that other could be so unaware of themselves so it is easier to take people more as face value: how they present themselves. 2) It raises a complicated issue for us. How do we move forward into beliefs without being arrogant? The Christian apparantly (only) avoids this by pretending they are not making any claims to a skill - except for some of their leaders, priests, preachers, etc. So how do we gain knowledge, remain consistent and essentially stand for the skill we are claiming and not be (or seem to be) arrogant - or insane or what ever the fear is there. So I think there is avoidance on our part there also.

Agreed. But how come some of us get so riled up about it?

Because what they are doing is placing mines in the only field there is for us to get out of hell. (woo, was that dramatic!) But seriously. I think the only way to really get somewhere is to both gain/acknowledge skills one has and be open about this. I don't mean that one has to get behind a pulpit or speak in the town square, but I don't think one can simply back up everythign one believes in by referring to some book or teacher. If I am correct, what the hypothetical Christian is doing is reinforcing the idea that if one takes reponsibility for one's own skills and experience one is being evil

And we should note that the church has killed people for doing this, both within the church - what they call heretics or witches or blasphemers - and outside in heathens and pagans, etc.

Ironically or not, I have always had problems with vomitting - I normally couldn't vomit, it's as if something was/is wrong with my vomit reflex. There was a few times when I ate something bad and it would help if I could vomit - but I couldn't, I just felt sick for days sometimes.
I have noticed how I have this conviction "I must digest everything that gets into me, be if physical food or thoughts, I must not take the easy way out and vomit."

Which, once layed out like that, should seem problematic. Some things should simply be vomited and babies do quite well with the reflex. I could not find an online reference, but Goodman and Perls, the people who developed Gestalt therapy, thought that ingestion - so the whole process of taking in food - was emotionally connected to how we take in ideas - including complex ideas like, say, roll models. Some people do not chew. Some chew mechanically a certain number of times and eating is a joyless affair. And so on. They thought that not chewing correctly and/or not vomiting were connected to introjection - where certain ideas that were not necessarily well fitted to us get inside us and are not assimilated. They had certain excercises to challenge this pattern. One was to chew food until it was absolutely liquified and attend to all the feelings involved. I think they pushed this model too far, but that it might be true for some people and certainly I think it words as a decent metaphor.

They thought that parental patterns could be introjected in this way and so we have portions of ourselves that function in us, but they are not us, at least not yet. The problem is not necessarily that we would never have this or that belief, but rather that we have not made it ours (or rejected it).

I have heard, yes. There are also controversies about eternal damnation.

I think the actual issue here, is of course, how does one get the confidence to hold a particular understanding of the Bible above some other. Why not go for the mainstream Christian understanding.

I think I can only answer that personally. The Bible feels like a book written by fallible people to me. I take certain portions and, frankly, reject most of it. It neither feels right nor makes sense to me. Sometimes I might have said 'if that is God, then there is no hope (for me).' Now I would say, that just don't seem right to me at all. I think the battered woman analogy comes back somewhat usefully here. I am sure one could come up with logical reasons not to go back - if you've moved out and been away from the abuser for a while. But really I think there comes a gut reaction - that is not for me.

I guess I would add that I feel the time the Bible was written in the ideas it presents - of God, etc. I sense what seem to me distortions. It simply does not right true. These men may have actually received communication from God, I would even Guess that Jesus and some others did. But still, they could hear and communicate about this only as well as their personalities, the time and their cultures permitted.

 

[wynn]

this particular trap is there for people not closed to the idea of God or certian religious ideas and experiences.

Yes. Being interested in God seems to place one at the mercy of anyone who claims to know (about) God. It is a confusing situation, given what different ontologies, epistemologies and ethics the different theisms propose.

I think those who are interested in these 'realms' can get into trouble for a couple of reasons: 1) it is too scary to assume that other could be so unaware of themselves so it is easier to take people more as face value: how they present themselves.

I haven't thought of that. I have a tendency to give unlimited credit to anyone who even just uses the word God. Some people, including theists, will say that this is ridiculous. But some theists actually demand to be given such credit.

2) It raises a complicated issue for us. How do we move forward into beliefs without being arrogant?

I wish William James would be alive today and open to disucss these things.
I so far have not seen that he would address that particular uneasiness a person may have about developing a new outlook. It seems that to him, perceived need or honor seemed completely enough to justify the acceptance/development of an outlook.

The Christian apparantly (only) avoids this by pretending they are not making any claims to a skill - except for some of their leaders, priests, preachers, etc. So how do we gain knowledge, remain consistent and essentially stand for the skill we are claiming and not be (or seem to be) arrogant - or insane or what ever the fear is there. So I think there is avoidance on our part there also.

To tie back to James - he still lived in a time when bold enterprises, pioneering in economics, politics, exploration, colonization were what was looked up to. Making an extraordinary effort was not a rarity, and back then, there were still things to explore, discover, colonize etc. Nowadays, it is different - even though there is a lot of talk about extraordinary effort.

Because what they are doing is placing mines in the only field there is for us to get out of hell. (woo, was that dramatic!) But seriously. I think the only way to really get somewhere is to both gain/acknowledge skills one has and be open about this.

I agree, but at the same time, I do not think there exists a neutral, objective way to develop these skills or talk about them. The way we develop them and the way we talk about them will depend also on the particular religious philosophy we have taken to.
For example, does one see some skill one has as being due to one's "internal locus of control", or does one see it as "karma", or "personality trait" or as "God's special mercy"?

I don't mean that one has to get behind a pulpit or speak in the town square, but I don't think one can simply back up everythign one believes in by referring to some book or teacher.

I agree. Without having personally realized what one is talking about (having read about it in books), whatever knowledge one has will feel faux.

If I am correct, what the hypothetical Christian is doing is reinforcing the idea that if one takes reponsibility for one's own skills and experience one is being evil

I suppose such is Christian epistemology ... under threat of eternal damnation.

Which, once layed out like that, should seem problematic. Some things should simply be vomited and babies do quite well with the reflex. I could not find an online reference, but Goodman and Perls, the people who developed Gestalt therapy, thought that ingestion - so the whole process of taking in food - was emotionally connected to how we take in ideas - including complex ideas like, say, roll models. Some people do not chew. Some chew mechanically a certain number of times and eating is a joyless affair. And so on. They thought that not chewing correctly and/or not vomiting were connected to introjection - where certain ideas that were not necessarily well fitted to us get inside us and are not assimilated. They had certain excercises to challenge this pattern. One was to chew food until it was absolutely liquified and attend to all the feelings involved. I think they pushed this model too far, but that it might be true for some people and certainly I think it words as a decent metaphor.

Now that you mention it - I have problems with chewing as well. And how can one atted to the feelings involved if one doesn't have the philosophy to do it? It's not like it is self-evident what to do with the feelings - so this begs the question of why attend to them at all. It is after all the philosophy (or the lack of it) that is the problem, not the feelings.

They thought that parental patterns could be introjected in this way and so we have portions of ourselves that function in us, but they are not us, at least not yet. The problem is not necessarily that we would never have this or that belief, but rather that we have not made it ours (or rejected it).

Yes. I have noted earlier how I believe things that I don't agree with.

I think I can only answer that personally. The Bible feels like a book written by fallible people to me. I take certain portions and, frankly, reject most of it. It neither feels right nor makes sense to me. Sometimes I might have said 'if that is God, then there is no hope (for me).' Now I would say, that just don't seem right to me at all. I think the battered woman analogy comes back somewhat usefully here. I am sure one could come up with logical reasons not to go back - if you've moved out and been away from the abuser for a while. But really I think there comes a gut reaction - that is not for me.

Perhaps in time, feeling guilty for choosing against those whom I see as abusive will cease ...

I guess I would add that I feel the time the Bible was written in the ideas it presents - of God, etc. I sense what seem to me distortions. It simply does not right true. These men may have actually received communication from God, I would even Guess that Jesus and some others did. But still, they could hear and communicate about this only as well as their personalities, the time and their cultures permitted.

There are many text-critical issues with the Bible. I don't even feel like opening it, by now, it is in effect, a can of worms.