Why do people believe in God? - results
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
I could not agree more!
CANUTE;
I do thank you for responding once again, because I was somewhat puzzled, and a bit discouraged that we had ended a bit off key, so to speak. And, I do admit that I have a bit of a defense system. Imagine that!
Your most recent words help me to know that you are a good person, and I like to know such things. There is a saying, which I am sure tyou must have heard. It goes like this:
"People may forget what you did, and they may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel."
As for this media, I could not agree more. Even when writing to people we have known for years, we run the risk of being misunderstood, more so --I think-- than when we send by post, and this concerns me. Thank you for your compliments and sincerity.
I feel I should leave you with something; therefore, I will quote my favorite philosopher, and a human being that I admire as much as anyone I have ever known.
"...for it is an observed fact that men employ their reason to defend conclusions arrived at by reason, but conclusions arrived at by the passions are defended by the passions." [Spinoza] ~No bad, huh? PMT
CANUTE;
I do thank you for responding once again, because I was somewhat puzzled, and a bit discouraged that we had ended a bit off key, so to speak. And, I do admit that I have a bit of a defense system. Imagine that!
Your most recent words help me to know that you are a good person, and I like to know such things. There is a saying, which I am sure tyou must have heard. It goes like this:
"People may forget what you did, and they may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel."
As for this media, I could not agree more. Even when writing to people we have known for years, we run the risk of being misunderstood, more so --I think-- than when we send by post, and this concerns me. Thank you for your compliments and sincerity.
I feel I should leave you with something; therefore, I will quote my favorite philosopher, and a human being that I admire as much as anyone I have ever known.
"...for it is an observed fact that men employ their reason to defend conclusions arrived at by reason, but conclusions arrived at by the passions are defended by the passions." [Spinoza] ~No bad, huh? PMT
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Spinoza
Canute:
Interesting take. I never thought of Spinoza as a Buddhist, but why not? Someone once said that I sounded like a Hindu, when at the time I knew almost nothing about their beliefs. I am not a joiner, and am not usually "at home" in groups, except groups of relatives or close friends, (and a little of that may be wonderful but a lot of it can be a bit much).
I will share this regarding Spinoza: It was 1984, before I knew to any degree who the man was. I learned of him through Will Durant's "The Story or Philosophy." For reasons that I do not know for sure, I was immediately interested in knowing more about Spinoza. Long story short, after realizing that library books were not the way to go, I ordered Volumes I and II from a
store, amazingly they were only $5 each. I felt as though I was robbing someone! What a shame that so little value
is placed on so much.
I was aware, however, that Christians in general were not much interested in hearing about Spinoza. He was a Pantheist, and therefore anything he said had to be 'not okay'. He was an atheist. He was an enemy to Christ, -and so it went.
The non-Christians often find him too much into God, and of course, the Jews are not--for the most part--thrilled with him, (even though it was actually the Christian's--more than the Jewish community's--reaction to him that prompted the Jews to go to such extremes, . . . as I understand it).
How sad, I thought, that only scholars, students, and those who always want to be prepared for a good argument, would be studying or otherwise viewing his works. The only ones I have left out of this amateur analysis is (odd or unique, take your choice) people like me, who love the guy. And, this is because some of his words were written as though they came from my own heart. [I refer particularly to his Preface to "A Theologico-Political Treatise.]
This meant that in addition to enjoying the Intro by R. H. M. Elwes (translator and a writer that I enjoy), I could find in Spinoza's own words one of my passions, and that I could learn to open my mind to some of his other concepts to agree or disagree, while still respecting him as much as, or possibly more than anyone I have ever known in the flesh. Three centuries gone, and the man thought on some subject so much like me, not even close to being as educated, as disciplined, or as wise. The heart is incredible and the human spirit yet undefined.
Moving on, I just want to say that I am not surprised that you do think of him as being much like a Buddhist as it is natural for people to compare. My comparison was --not that he seemed like a Christian, as we know the term now, but yet, as a true follower of Christ's teachings. As for the whole of his writing that I have in my possession, I cannot say that I agree with all of it, or even that I truly comprehend all of it to my satisfaction, but as for the man, I can think of none who better matched Christ's recipe for placing values.
On at least one occasion, I had the audacity to say that I knew of no Christian living today that was more like Christ than Spinoza, or to put more simply, who lived more as Christ recommended.
The gentle philosopher speaks highly of Christ, but that is not enough for most of those who hold him at bay. His problem in understanding 'the resurrection' remains unforgiven by many, (along with Pantheism), but not by me, and I am sure, not by our God. Here is a verse from the poem, "Spinoza and Me."
"Of all the writings and philosophy,
(which are never quite enough for me),
there is mainly one who comes to fore,
whose words have given so much more
than met my ears in any pew."
So, there's my take, not so popular with those who hold church-going in such high esteem.
Although I really do not think of Buddha's and Jesus Christ's teachings being so different, be sure, I will keep your words in mind. It will be interesting to think of Buddha now and again, as I continue my study of Spinoza's works.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving Day.
Until next time. PMT
Canute:
Interesting take. I never thought of Spinoza as a Buddhist, but why not? Someone once said that I sounded like a Hindu, when at the time I knew almost nothing about their beliefs. I am not a joiner, and am not usually "at home" in groups, except groups of relatives or close friends, (and a little of that may be wonderful but a lot of it can be a bit much).
I will share this regarding Spinoza: It was 1984, before I knew to any degree who the man was. I learned of him through Will Durant's "The Story or Philosophy." For reasons that I do not know for sure, I was immediately interested in knowing more about Spinoza. Long story short, after realizing that library books were not the way to go, I ordered Volumes I and II from a
store, amazingly they were only $5 each. I felt as though I was robbing someone! What a shame that so little value
is placed on so much.
I was aware, however, that Christians in general were not much interested in hearing about Spinoza. He was a Pantheist, and therefore anything he said had to be 'not okay'. He was an atheist. He was an enemy to Christ, -and so it went.
The non-Christians often find him too much into God, and of course, the Jews are not--for the most part--thrilled with him, (even though it was actually the Christian's--more than the Jewish community's--reaction to him that prompted the Jews to go to such extremes, . . . as I understand it).
How sad, I thought, that only scholars, students, and those who always want to be prepared for a good argument, would be studying or otherwise viewing his works. The only ones I have left out of this amateur analysis is (odd or unique, take your choice) people like me, who love the guy. And, this is because some of his words were written as though they came from my own heart. [I refer particularly to his Preface to "A Theologico-Political Treatise.]
This meant that in addition to enjoying the Intro by R. H. M. Elwes (translator and a writer that I enjoy), I could find in Spinoza's own words one of my passions, and that I could learn to open my mind to some of his other concepts to agree or disagree, while still respecting him as much as, or possibly more than anyone I have ever known in the flesh. Three centuries gone, and the man thought on some subject so much like me, not even close to being as educated, as disciplined, or as wise. The heart is incredible and the human spirit yet undefined.
Moving on, I just want to say that I am not surprised that you do think of him as being much like a Buddhist as it is natural for people to compare. My comparison was --not that he seemed like a Christian, as we know the term now, but yet, as a true follower of Christ's teachings. As for the whole of his writing that I have in my possession, I cannot say that I agree with all of it, or even that I truly comprehend all of it to my satisfaction, but as for the man, I can think of none who better matched Christ's recipe for placing values.
On at least one occasion, I had the audacity to say that I knew of no Christian living today that was more like Christ than Spinoza, or to put more simply, who lived more as Christ recommended.
The gentle philosopher speaks highly of Christ, but that is not enough for most of those who hold him at bay. His problem in understanding 'the resurrection' remains unforgiven by many, (along with Pantheism), but not by me, and I am sure, not by our God. Here is a verse from the poem, "Spinoza and Me."
"Of all the writings and philosophy,
(which are never quite enough for me),
there is mainly one who comes to fore,
whose words have given so much more
than met my ears in any pew."
So, there's my take, not so popular with those who hold church-going in such high esteem.
Although I really do not think of Buddha's and Jesus Christ's teachings being so different, be sure, I will keep your words in mind. It will be interesting to think of Buddha now and again, as I continue my study of Spinoza's works.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving Day.
Until next time. PMT
I can't say that I know Spinoza's arguments very well, but I know his conclusions a bit.
He concluded that 'God' could have no external attributes. This is an equivalent conclusion to the 'emptiness' of Buddhism, reached by logic rather than by experience. He further asserted that all things are 'in God', that everything exists only as a mode. This also concurs with Buddhist metaphysics. The only difference is cultural. Spnioza uses the word God, Buddhist use the term 'emptiness' or 'consciousness'.
As a consequence of this he concluded that there is a part of us which survives our death as individuals. He also concluded that normal reality consists only of thought and extension, and that in the end these two aspects of reality are equivalent.
He wasn't just a good thinker, he was an honest one. I suspect that had he lived today he would have been arguing vociferously for the truth of Buddhist metaphysics, there being no disagreement on the basic issues.
(Don't do thanksgiving but thanks anyway)
Canute
He concluded that 'God' could have no external attributes. This is an equivalent conclusion to the 'emptiness' of Buddhism, reached by logic rather than by experience. He further asserted that all things are 'in God', that everything exists only as a mode. This also concurs with Buddhist metaphysics. The only difference is cultural. Spnioza uses the word God, Buddhist use the term 'emptiness' or 'consciousness'.
As a consequence of this he concluded that there is a part of us which survives our death as individuals. He also concluded that normal reality consists only of thought and extension, and that in the end these two aspects of reality are equivalent.
He wasn't just a good thinker, he was an honest one. I suspect that had he lived today he would have been arguing vociferously for the truth of Buddhist metaphysics, there being no disagreement on the basic issues.
(Don't do thanksgiving but thanks anyway)
Canute
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Canute:
I would not argue one way or the other, especially as there could be no conclusion, at least not in my mind. I do agree, however, that he was far more exposed to Judaism and later to the Christianity of his day. Yet, criticizing religious practices--to me, and apparently to him, has little or nothing to do with the actual teachings of Christ, or any great teacher.
In his own words, (translation), he does seem to make some conclusions, (based upon his studies at the time of this writing), as quoted below:
"...........Christ communed with God mind to mind.
“Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations of God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision."
However, the end has not come, and knowledge is still in a very delicate process as regards God and all those who claim to know Him best. As Spinoza was reportedly familiar (only) with Dutch, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, (insofar as I know), --and as there is no mention of India--, I can only assume that the asian religions were not on his mind as such, making it quite unlikely that anyone could know for sure how he would relate to any of the asian philosophies. I rather like them myself, and can think of no reason why he would not find value therein. I also like other Asian philisophies, and definitely believe in excellence of the teachings of Christ.
You are obviously an informed person, and I respect your conclusions. This comparing and speculation is, however, definitely out of league, because I have done very little comparing, rather I get whatever I can and move on, because it is not my thing to try to change anyone, but I do like "opponents" who are well-informed. In such situations, we exchange information, which to me is far more beneficial than debating preconceptions.
Therefore, if you say that Spinoza would agree with Buddhism, so be it, but if you say that he would be a Buddhist, I doubt that, because Spinoza belonged not to any religion, but to the world.
Cordially, PMT
I would not argue one way or the other, especially as there could be no conclusion, at least not in my mind. I do agree, however, that he was far more exposed to Judaism and later to the Christianity of his day. Yet, criticizing religious practices--to me, and apparently to him, has little or nothing to do with the actual teachings of Christ, or any great teacher.
In his own words, (translation), he does seem to make some conclusions, (based upon his studies at the time of this writing), as quoted below:
"...........Christ communed with God mind to mind.
“Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations of God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision."
However, the end has not come, and knowledge is still in a very delicate process as regards God and all those who claim to know Him best. As Spinoza was reportedly familiar (only) with Dutch, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, (insofar as I know), --and as there is no mention of India--, I can only assume that the asian religions were not on his mind as such, making it quite unlikely that anyone could know for sure how he would relate to any of the asian philosophies. I rather like them myself, and can think of no reason why he would not find value therein. I also like other Asian philisophies, and definitely believe in excellence of the teachings of Christ.
You are obviously an informed person, and I respect your conclusions. This comparing and speculation is, however, definitely out of league, because I have done very little comparing, rather I get whatever I can and move on, because it is not my thing to try to change anyone, but I do like "opponents" who are well-informed. In such situations, we exchange information, which to me is far more beneficial than debating preconceptions.
Therefore, if you say that Spinoza would agree with Buddhism, so be it, but if you say that he would be a Buddhist, I doubt that, because Spinoza belonged not to any religion, but to the world.
Cordially, PMT
Fair enough. But there is no doubt that his fundamental metaphysic is entirely in agreement with the Buddhist one. In this case the rest of Buddhism (compassion, practice etc) follows, for it is logically entailed by that metaphysic.
As Alfred North Whitehead said, "Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion."
As Alfred North Whitehead said, "Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion."
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Alfred North Whitehead
Canute:
Gosh, I was holding my breath. I like that quote. Want to talk to you more, but right now I have to scoot. Be back with you soon.
PMT
Canute:
Gosh, I was holding my breath. I like that quote. Want to talk to you more, but right now I have to scoot. Be back with you soon.
PMT
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
"...SEEKING A METAPHYSIC OR GENERATING A RELIGION.....
CANUTE:
Hello again. The reason I wanted to get back with you was mostly because of your quote:
//- "As Alfred North Whitehead said, 'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion." [I DO LIKE IT]
Generally speaking, at least the former part sounds too true to be a comfortable report. I sadden with such descriptions, and mostly because they are a bit too close to the truth for comfort.
You know, it is really a stretch to look at something so familiar to me, and not despair to the point of withdrawing. Whereas I can be objective about Christianity in my own mind, so long as I look at it as a religion, when I think of individual Christians, I have to wonder how anyone can ever group them. They are so different that I wonder sometimes if even many of them truly know what they believe.
I am and have been acquainted with some wonderful people who are sincere believers in the gospel of Christ. In which case their ongoing attitude towards God is just that, . . . ongoing, as is mine. To criticize someone for not leaving their religion at church, one comment, is beyond me. To try to separate God into something we "find" at church, or wherever, or to think of my connection with God as confined to rituals and rules is not possible for me. I do communion, but have not been convinced that it is necessary. Christ was speaking to Jews, and this ritual was part of who they were. He is reported to have said, "As oft as you do this...." Gentiles were not doing it, and I am a Gentile by definition.
I cannot remember ever not believing that God is, although church was not in my life much initially, or even later, except for probably five years at best, and that was not consistant. Most of the time, it was hit and miss, not because of any backsliding, but because that was just the way it went.
My goal is to be more like Christ, and I know of one on this earth that at least seems much closer than I am to accomplishing this. My prayer is that I will become more like this person. When I get there, if I do, then I will try for perfection.
God has worked wonders in me, and I know that it is He who has filled my heart with so much love for mankind, nature, and knowledge. Once I told a friend that I would like to write a letter to everyone in the world. She is so cool. She asked what would you say? Without hesitation I answered, "I would say, 'I know you are there." Why would I write this? Because I have run across so many who, to me, seem to feel that they are almost invisable in a world almost too complex for them. If I could, I would hung the whole world, and tell everyone I love them. In spite of this, there are times, when people just irritate the socks off me, and Christian are not exempt. These are the times when I listen to a Finnish singer who has convinced me that the most beautiful thing in the world is a person who is real, who is non-judgmental, who is tender, kind and unaffected.
As I read through the comments again, I was convinced enough that you are able to reach outside your own convictions and attempt to be reasonable and fair when speaking of others. This is also my way. Fairness is not nearly as difficult for me as patience. Gullible folks trouble me a bit. I like people who think for themselves, but in order to do this effectively one must be willing to think.
Mostly, with serious matters, I do best with individuals, and especially enjoy teenagers. Late teens is often a time when one begins to doubt what they have been taught. I encourage acceptance of honest doubt, because doubt can be the first step to a very strong faith, a faith that is not fostered on heresay, but on a personal conviction. Therefore, I say doubt! But! Do not stop there.
Christianity as a whole is confusing. Whitehead says,"Looking for metaphysics," uh huh. Looking for miracles, looking for proof, looking for magic. God help us. I am not sure that I believe in miracles, perhaps because nothing to me is a miracle.
The wonders of God were here before me, and probably the only thing that makes something seem like a miracle, is either because it is rare, or because I have opened my being to more that I have before been willing to see, and the "more" then seems like a miracle. I would not carve this in stone, but it is very close to my feelings about miracles. I do not look for signs either.
Signs mean nothing. Much of the time, this too is simply in the make up of the seer. I have seen aparitions, once when I was six, and in 2001. The later was an aparition of my dog, Zeno, a black Lab, that became sick and died from a tick bite in Texas. The first aparition was a woman, only she looked whole, whereas the dog was just an outline. Those are the only two "strange" things I have seen. Though an only child, I never had an invisible playmate, or anything close.
Just wanted to say that I am not a Christian looking for metaphysics. I believe metaphysics are, and that almost anything is possible. That believe is just a part of me. If you would not mind, -as you are in a different position than I on this matter, I think I would like very much to have you say how you interpret this saying of Whitehead.
There was such a good comment on this forum, something to the effect that religious nonsense has nothing to do with believing in God. This is so true. In addition, the errors of Christianity, (down through time) take nothing away from the teachings of Christ, nor does it truly enhance other religions. Sometimes, other religions seem a good alternative, simply because they are different. I love reading things that do not offend reasoning and fairness, regardless of the religion given credit for it.
......................................////////
I HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS FROM A PREVIOUS MESSAGE OF YOURS. IT WAS ALMOST TOO MINIMAL TO MENTION, BUT IT IS RATHER HUMOROUS, AND EVEN MORE PROOF THAT WE WERE NOT UNDERSTANDING ONE ANOTHER. SEE BELOW:
"I think the problem was that you thought you got 'bumped' and then started speculating on my motives. But I didn't mean to do that at all. I was just chatting. Email conversation are a nightmare for these kinds of misuderstanding. Actually I was interested in what you were saying and thought your quotes were great."
WHAT I MEANT ABOUT BEING BUMPED, (REMEMBER I SAID, I WOULD TRY AGAIN)? WAS THAT THE COMPUTER BUMPED ME OFF THE FORUM, AFTER I HAD --WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CARE--WRITTEN A RESPONSE, SO I WAS SAYING THAT I WOULD TRY IT AGAIN. Now is that funny, or what?
YOU SEEM TO BE A GOOD MAN, AND VERY DEDICATED TO BUDDHISM, BUT MORE IMPORTANT TO ME IS YOUR APPARENT DEDICATION TO REASON.
PEACE AND LIGHT ALWAYS. PMT
CANUTE:
Hello again. The reason I wanted to get back with you was mostly because of your quote:
//- "As Alfred North Whitehead said, 'Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion." [I DO LIKE IT]
Generally speaking, at least the former part sounds too true to be a comfortable report. I sadden with such descriptions, and mostly because they are a bit too close to the truth for comfort.
You know, it is really a stretch to look at something so familiar to me, and not despair to the point of withdrawing. Whereas I can be objective about Christianity in my own mind, so long as I look at it as a religion, when I think of individual Christians, I have to wonder how anyone can ever group them. They are so different that I wonder sometimes if even many of them truly know what they believe.
I am and have been acquainted with some wonderful people who are sincere believers in the gospel of Christ. In which case their ongoing attitude towards God is just that, . . . ongoing, as is mine. To criticize someone for not leaving their religion at church, one comment, is beyond me. To try to separate God into something we "find" at church, or wherever, or to think of my connection with God as confined to rituals and rules is not possible for me. I do communion, but have not been convinced that it is necessary. Christ was speaking to Jews, and this ritual was part of who they were. He is reported to have said, "As oft as you do this...." Gentiles were not doing it, and I am a Gentile by definition.
I cannot remember ever not believing that God is, although church was not in my life much initially, or even later, except for probably five years at best, and that was not consistant. Most of the time, it was hit and miss, not because of any backsliding, but because that was just the way it went.
My goal is to be more like Christ, and I know of one on this earth that at least seems much closer than I am to accomplishing this. My prayer is that I will become more like this person. When I get there, if I do, then I will try for perfection.
God has worked wonders in me, and I know that it is He who has filled my heart with so much love for mankind, nature, and knowledge. Once I told a friend that I would like to write a letter to everyone in the world. She is so cool. She asked what would you say? Without hesitation I answered, "I would say, 'I know you are there." Why would I write this? Because I have run across so many who, to me, seem to feel that they are almost invisable in a world almost too complex for them. If I could, I would hung the whole world, and tell everyone I love them. In spite of this, there are times, when people just irritate the socks off me, and Christian are not exempt. These are the times when I listen to a Finnish singer who has convinced me that the most beautiful thing in the world is a person who is real, who is non-judgmental, who is tender, kind and unaffected.
As I read through the comments again, I was convinced enough that you are able to reach outside your own convictions and attempt to be reasonable and fair when speaking of others. This is also my way. Fairness is not nearly as difficult for me as patience. Gullible folks trouble me a bit. I like people who think for themselves, but in order to do this effectively one must be willing to think.
Mostly, with serious matters, I do best with individuals, and especially enjoy teenagers. Late teens is often a time when one begins to doubt what they have been taught. I encourage acceptance of honest doubt, because doubt can be the first step to a very strong faith, a faith that is not fostered on heresay, but on a personal conviction. Therefore, I say doubt! But! Do not stop there.
Christianity as a whole is confusing. Whitehead says,"Looking for metaphysics," uh huh. Looking for miracles, looking for proof, looking for magic. God help us. I am not sure that I believe in miracles, perhaps because nothing to me is a miracle.
The wonders of God were here before me, and probably the only thing that makes something seem like a miracle, is either because it is rare, or because I have opened my being to more that I have before been willing to see, and the "more" then seems like a miracle. I would not carve this in stone, but it is very close to my feelings about miracles. I do not look for signs either.
Signs mean nothing. Much of the time, this too is simply in the make up of the seer. I have seen aparitions, once when I was six, and in 2001. The later was an aparition of my dog, Zeno, a black Lab, that became sick and died from a tick bite in Texas. The first aparition was a woman, only she looked whole, whereas the dog was just an outline. Those are the only two "strange" things I have seen. Though an only child, I never had an invisible playmate, or anything close.
Just wanted to say that I am not a Christian looking for metaphysics. I believe metaphysics are, and that almost anything is possible. That believe is just a part of me. If you would not mind, -as you are in a different position than I on this matter, I think I would like very much to have you say how you interpret this saying of Whitehead.
There was such a good comment on this forum, something to the effect that religious nonsense has nothing to do with believing in God. This is so true. In addition, the errors of Christianity, (down through time) take nothing away from the teachings of Christ, nor does it truly enhance other religions. Sometimes, other religions seem a good alternative, simply because they are different. I love reading things that do not offend reasoning and fairness, regardless of the religion given credit for it.
......................................////////
I HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS FROM A PREVIOUS MESSAGE OF YOURS. IT WAS ALMOST TOO MINIMAL TO MENTION, BUT IT IS RATHER HUMOROUS, AND EVEN MORE PROOF THAT WE WERE NOT UNDERSTANDING ONE ANOTHER. SEE BELOW:
"I think the problem was that you thought you got 'bumped' and then started speculating on my motives. But I didn't mean to do that at all. I was just chatting. Email conversation are a nightmare for these kinds of misuderstanding. Actually I was interested in what you were saying and thought your quotes were great."
WHAT I MEANT ABOUT BEING BUMPED, (REMEMBER I SAID, I WOULD TRY AGAIN)? WAS THAT THE COMPUTER BUMPED ME OFF THE FORUM, AFTER I HAD --WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CARE--WRITTEN A RESPONSE, SO I WAS SAYING THAT I WOULD TRY IT AGAIN. Now is that funny, or what?
YOU SEEM TO BE A GOOD MAN, AND VERY DEDICATED TO BUDDHISM, BUT MORE IMPORTANT TO ME IS YOUR APPARENT DEDICATION TO REASON.
PEACE AND LIGHT ALWAYS. PMT
There's a lot to respond to there. Firstly Whitehead's remark.
Christian metaphysics runs into problems because it rests on the assumption that an all-powerful creator God has always existed. This can't be proved false but it's logically rather weak as an explanation of how we got here. One might ask why there is a God rather than just nothing. There is therefore an element of pure faith in Christian metaphysics, one just has to accept the eternal existence of a Christian-type God. I think that this is what Whitehead meant by 'seeking a metaphysic'.
By contrast Buddhism has a metaphysical structure by which the cosmos is self-creating. By this view something inevitably arises from nothing, only 'nothing' is 'emptiness' (nirvanah, Brahman, bliss, fullness, Tao and so on). This is very difficult to discuss because in Buddhism and Taoism this 'ground' of existence is inexpressible in concepts or words. It is without external attributes, hence the link with Spinoza.
This 'ground' is unprovable ex hypothesis except by direct experience , although it is possible to realise its truth before having such an experience. Leaving aside the question of whether Buddhists are right about this or not, Whitehead was right to see that from this central assertion about the nature of reality all the rest of Buddhism follows (compassion, detachment, right action etc.). Thus Buddhism as a 'religion' (I don't think it is a religion, but no matter) arises from its metaphysic, in fact it is entailed by its metaphysic.
Buddhism strongly agrees with Christianity in many respects when it comes to behaviour and attitude. However there is no fundamental God in a western sense.
As to my fairness, it's really just a result of the fact that in non-dual philosophies nothing can be said about reality which is completely true or false. Thus one can argue both ways at all times. That probably doesn't seem to make rational sense but it's a strictly logical position, just a bit difficult to grasp.
Here's a brilliant analysis of the issue. (I don't know if it'll make sense - it's certainly not an introduction)
http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/edward.htm
Another way of looking at this is to start with Kant's words:
“ in whatever way the Deity should be made known to you, and even … if He should reveal Himself to you: it is you … who must judge whether you are permitted to believe in Him, and to worship Him.”
Kant – as quoted by Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974) from ( http://www.dieoff.org/page126.htm)
What Kant is saying is that logically even if you meet God it is your choice whether to believe that He is God. In other words there is a kind of epistemilogical problem with the concept of a God that is separate to oneself. If you're being strictly logical you can never quite prove to yourself that He exists. Whitehead may also have seen this.
I now see what happened over being 'bumped'. Complete misunderstanding.
Just to be clear - I'm not actually 'dedicated to Buddhism'. I'm not even a Buddhist. However I share their non-dual view of reality, albeit that for me it's based on logical analysis rather more than practice, a fault I'm slowly trying to put right.
Regards
Canute
Christian metaphysics runs into problems because it rests on the assumption that an all-powerful creator God has always existed. This can't be proved false but it's logically rather weak as an explanation of how we got here. One might ask why there is a God rather than just nothing. There is therefore an element of pure faith in Christian metaphysics, one just has to accept the eternal existence of a Christian-type God. I think that this is what Whitehead meant by 'seeking a metaphysic'.
By contrast Buddhism has a metaphysical structure by which the cosmos is self-creating. By this view something inevitably arises from nothing, only 'nothing' is 'emptiness' (nirvanah, Brahman, bliss, fullness, Tao and so on). This is very difficult to discuss because in Buddhism and Taoism this 'ground' of existence is inexpressible in concepts or words. It is without external attributes, hence the link with Spinoza.
This 'ground' is unprovable ex hypothesis except by direct experience , although it is possible to realise its truth before having such an experience. Leaving aside the question of whether Buddhists are right about this or not, Whitehead was right to see that from this central assertion about the nature of reality all the rest of Buddhism follows (compassion, detachment, right action etc.). Thus Buddhism as a 'religion' (I don't think it is a religion, but no matter) arises from its metaphysic, in fact it is entailed by its metaphysic.
Buddhism strongly agrees with Christianity in many respects when it comes to behaviour and attitude. However there is no fundamental God in a western sense.
As to my fairness, it's really just a result of the fact that in non-dual philosophies nothing can be said about reality which is completely true or false. Thus one can argue both ways at all times. That probably doesn't seem to make rational sense but it's a strictly logical position, just a bit difficult to grasp.
Here's a brilliant analysis of the issue. (I don't know if it'll make sense - it's certainly not an introduction)
http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/edward.htm
Another way of looking at this is to start with Kant's words:
“ in whatever way the Deity should be made known to you, and even … if He should reveal Himself to you: it is you … who must judge whether you are permitted to believe in Him, and to worship Him.”
Kant – as quoted by Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974) from ( http://www.dieoff.org/page126.htm)
What Kant is saying is that logically even if you meet God it is your choice whether to believe that He is God. In other words there is a kind of epistemilogical problem with the concept of a God that is separate to oneself. If you're being strictly logical you can never quite prove to yourself that He exists. Whitehead may also have seen this.
I now see what happened over being 'bumped'. Complete misunderstanding.
Just to be clear - I'm not actually 'dedicated to Buddhism'. I'm not even a Buddhist. However I share their non-dual view of reality, albeit that for me it's based on logical analysis rather more than practice, a fault I'm slowly trying to put right.
Regards
Canute
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
No absolutes..........
“As to my fairness, it's really just a result of the fact that in non-dual philosophies nothing can be said about reality which is completely true or false. Thus one can argue both ways at all times. That probably doesn't seem to make rational sense but it's a strictly logical position, just a bit difficult to grasp.”
WAS IT NOT JUNG THAT SAID: “I NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD; I KNOW THERE IS A GOD.” (If not, who was it?) AND SPINOZA ECHOS A SIMILAR MESSAGE: “IT IS INNATE IN THE HEART OF MAN TO BELIEVE IN (A) GOD.” THEN, OF COURSE, another take is: THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD.
You know what, Canute?
To be perfectly honest with you, I find: “There is no God; when you die, you are dead, and that’s it!” a hard saying that rings a very strange and unnatural sound. (Perhaps it is too absolute, huh?) To believe that dead is dead—to me, contradicts nature, science, and sound reasoning. The very fact that so many of the ones who call themselves atheists, work so hard to disprove the existence of God, makes one wonder why this concerns them so much, if they do indeed disbelieve in His existence. Not only so, but many such cannot simply argue for their argument (what a phrase!), but have to belittle and besmirch those who believe. If these be as intellectual and rational as they claim, then why has this assumed superiority not lifted them above such behavior? Notwithstanding, I could, and have, made similar criticisms of the religious, whenever it applies.
YOU: Buddhism strongly agrees with Christianity in many respects when it comes to behaviour and attitude. However there is no fundamental God in a western sense.
Funny you would say, “in a western sense.” The Christian belief in God followed Jewish History, just as surely as Judaism did, even though it did not remain as much the same, as did modern Judaism. Nonetheless, Christianity fostered some ideas of its own, to help keep their numbers on the rise. This borrowing, by Christianity of "children" and practices from other religions was mostly by the Catholic Church, and Protestants following the cow trail. Clergy was so afraid for laymen to think for themselves, or in many cases, to even read for themselves, that to do so was looked upon most unfavorably. Between the restrictions, the borrowing from Paganism, and the killing -of opponents and Jews in particular,- Christianity bloomed into something comprised of monster and saint, (if I may have a license to say so).
Yet, in spite of all this spoiling, we still may see, even if aside from His followers, some resemblance between the teachings of Christ and the concepts of Buddha, ......and perhaps more so than any similarity between Christianity and Judaism. Do you agree with this? My knowledge in Eastern religions is not extensive, so I would like to know if that is a fair statement.
Here is something definitely true, just for you. From the time, I was a child I have been somewhat fascinated with Chinese monks, and when Kung Fu aired, I seldom missed a show. Of course, I was young then, and a show is just that, but what I like the most...I think... is the aloneness and discipline. Have you ever thought about this: Christianity was born in a rip-roaring oppositional society under a cruel leader, in the midst of a threat to kill and hinder anything considered opposition. Now, you know far more than I about Buddhism, but it always seems so peaceful. The contents of this religion has nothing that I know of to compare with the stoning of Stephen, or does it? I just thought of this earlier today. See, I am inclined to believe that these main religions, OR, let us say, the essence of truth in the religions, -will come together, while casting off the soiled edges.
Do you think I am a dreamer, a nut, or what? I believe that many good teachings have been corrupted by man. Spinoza apparently thought so too.
Men are also corrupted by "man." Poor Schopenhauer and Lord Byron. How does one perceive this inequity, if not as having been instigated by man, (or women)? The decline in the humanity of great leaders of old; the confusing, almost unbelievable behavior in the days of the guillotines; the craziness of so many of the kings, and so forth...How does one explain it, if not by the misdeeds of man.
Power corrupts, so we need to watch out, whether we be kings, parents, lords over flocks, or keeper of the chickens. The horrible, the hopeless, the inequities, all contributable to man. What sense, pray tell, would any of this make, if it were not to lead man to something better?
“Thy Kingdom come…” You know how it comes? I think it commences within each of us, and this is where I direct my attention and my energy when it comes to what is carelessly called religion. We, we inhabitants of this earth, have to change. That is all there is to it. God only knows what this transition must experience, or will experience, before we get where we need to be. Well, I do not believe that God is going to leave me out when His Kingdom comes. No, no. I do not! How could He. If the Kingdom of God is within us, and it is going to be on this earth, well, and what about Heaven, well that would be okay too.
You wrote…………By contrast Buddhism has a metaphysical structure by which the cosmos is self-creating. By this view something inevitably arises from nothing, only 'nothing' is 'emptiness' (nirvanah, Brahman, bliss, fullness, Tao and so on). This is very difficult to discuss because in Buddhism and Taoism this 'ground' of existence is inexpressible in concepts or words.
This, I have read, but have not accepted the theory entirely, although it does not bother me in the least, because, as you said, it is not easily grasped. I tend not to judge things until I graspe them.
You wrote: It is without external attributes, hence the link with Spinoza.
Right, but how much of Spinoza have you read, and studied?
Of course, the cosmos is self-creating, insomuch as it continues, just as skin cells continue. To believe everything comes from nothing makes sense to you, but to believe in a God with no beginning makes no sense! How can this be?
A lot has been learned about this universe since the beginning of man, and his religions. We have so many theories and ideas, and I love hearing them…now! When I was young, I tended to prefer disputing them and enjoyed it, but this ridiculous waste of time passed quickly for me. Therefore, please understand that I am disputing nothing to gain anything. Ha! Did I make sense? I like to explore possibilities in my mind.
So, you are not a Buddhist, huh? Okay, sorry about misunderstanding. You keep me on my toes, I think.
Another thing about meditation and freedom to mediate freely: There are no limits. God is my Source, and no matter what comes into my life, I know I may readily access to my Source. I have said this before. I believe the closer we get to God, the closer to get to one another. The closer we are to one another, the closer we are to God.
YOU: ….. that an all-powerful creator God has always existed. This can't be proved false but it's logically rather weak as an explanation of how we got here.
……………I understand your point in this matter very well. How do you think we had our beginning? With apes, and they … descending from something originally from the sea?
It matters not to me if some believe such a thing, but I have a really big problem with it. There is something to it, I think, but I do not believe we understand all we know about it. It just does not run the test. But then, I was not there, or was I? (Just kidding.) How is that for realism?
I am sure you have heard of the tower of Babel. That is another story that never quite grabbed my imagination! I can believe that the communication may have been confounded, but the subsequent believe, at least expounded by Christians, that this began the various nationalities, escapes me big time.
Why not consider that spacecraft from various places lost a few explorers, some of whom may have mated with animals. In which case, one would have to accept that animals were here first, which is contrary to Christianity, compatible with science, and not too important to me. I am mostly open on this, and will probably die in the same state, because I see no way to prove, but only to speculate.
One last thing. (I am so tired right now.) Think about this for me, will you, because there are few with whom one could share so much on this subject of God, and just what “God” means.
I have found that it is mostly atheists who readily accept that we come from apes. So, here we have man, who readily admit that they descended from apes, criticizing those who believe they were created by God Almighty. On the other hand, we have Muslims, Christians and Jews who believe they were created by God/Allah, a God to whom they pray, in whom they trust, and whom they worship. Okay, now these ape descendents are scoffing at these who, for the most part, are claiming to have been created by a God who has no other plan but to cast the unbelieving ape descendents, and any others who oppose them, (exceptions being as they are) into hell -that will later be cast with "death" into a lake of fire, where all therein will burn forever and ever. Wow.
Here we are, almost constantly at war with one another, one person –in a small war- against another person; Republicans and Democrats battling for preemiminence, nations rising against nation, with more chaos then victory, and often more harm than help.
We are earth people. From dust to dust, and we all agree on that, and yet with how much audacity we argue. We argue as though the search for truth has ended. We! Us! Little "pusillanimous worms of the dust. " (Picked that up at Bible School, and thought it befitting.) Small and insignificant as we are, we dare challenge the existence of God.
Right now, I must be reading about five books, and I do research as well, and I do this some of the time, and plan another journey through Greek history, but I am going to get more into Buddhism for a time, and some other Eastern philosophies. I have done this several times, but am left with more of an impression, than with facts. I will also look up the websites you gave in your last message.
Please understand that I do not assume that you will learn anything from me, but you might hitchhike on something I say, expand your thinking, or something like that. I just find it interesting to here opinions and comments from reasonable folks.
Until next time, take care. PS/ Are you English, like from England?
“As to my fairness, it's really just a result of the fact that in non-dual philosophies nothing can be said about reality which is completely true or false. Thus one can argue both ways at all times. That probably doesn't seem to make rational sense but it's a strictly logical position, just a bit difficult to grasp.”
WAS IT NOT JUNG THAT SAID: “I NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD; I KNOW THERE IS A GOD.” (If not, who was it?) AND SPINOZA ECHOS A SIMILAR MESSAGE: “IT IS INNATE IN THE HEART OF MAN TO BELIEVE IN (A) GOD.” THEN, OF COURSE, another take is: THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART, THERE IS NO GOD.
You know what, Canute?
To be perfectly honest with you, I find: “There is no God; when you die, you are dead, and that’s it!” a hard saying that rings a very strange and unnatural sound. (Perhaps it is too absolute, huh?) To believe that dead is dead—to me, contradicts nature, science, and sound reasoning. The very fact that so many of the ones who call themselves atheists, work so hard to disprove the existence of God, makes one wonder why this concerns them so much, if they do indeed disbelieve in His existence. Not only so, but many such cannot simply argue for their argument (what a phrase!), but have to belittle and besmirch those who believe. If these be as intellectual and rational as they claim, then why has this assumed superiority not lifted them above such behavior? Notwithstanding, I could, and have, made similar criticisms of the religious, whenever it applies.
YOU: Buddhism strongly agrees with Christianity in many respects when it comes to behaviour and attitude. However there is no fundamental God in a western sense.
Funny you would say, “in a western sense.” The Christian belief in God followed Jewish History, just as surely as Judaism did, even though it did not remain as much the same, as did modern Judaism. Nonetheless, Christianity fostered some ideas of its own, to help keep their numbers on the rise. This borrowing, by Christianity of "children" and practices from other religions was mostly by the Catholic Church, and Protestants following the cow trail. Clergy was so afraid for laymen to think for themselves, or in many cases, to even read for themselves, that to do so was looked upon most unfavorably. Between the restrictions, the borrowing from Paganism, and the killing -of opponents and Jews in particular,- Christianity bloomed into something comprised of monster and saint, (if I may have a license to say so).
Yet, in spite of all this spoiling, we still may see, even if aside from His followers, some resemblance between the teachings of Christ and the concepts of Buddha, ......and perhaps more so than any similarity between Christianity and Judaism. Do you agree with this? My knowledge in Eastern religions is not extensive, so I would like to know if that is a fair statement.
Here is something definitely true, just for you. From the time, I was a child I have been somewhat fascinated with Chinese monks, and when Kung Fu aired, I seldom missed a show. Of course, I was young then, and a show is just that, but what I like the most...I think... is the aloneness and discipline. Have you ever thought about this: Christianity was born in a rip-roaring oppositional society under a cruel leader, in the midst of a threat to kill and hinder anything considered opposition. Now, you know far more than I about Buddhism, but it always seems so peaceful. The contents of this religion has nothing that I know of to compare with the stoning of Stephen, or does it? I just thought of this earlier today. See, I am inclined to believe that these main religions, OR, let us say, the essence of truth in the religions, -will come together, while casting off the soiled edges.
Do you think I am a dreamer, a nut, or what? I believe that many good teachings have been corrupted by man. Spinoza apparently thought so too.
Men are also corrupted by "man." Poor Schopenhauer and Lord Byron. How does one perceive this inequity, if not as having been instigated by man, (or women)? The decline in the humanity of great leaders of old; the confusing, almost unbelievable behavior in the days of the guillotines; the craziness of so many of the kings, and so forth...How does one explain it, if not by the misdeeds of man.
Power corrupts, so we need to watch out, whether we be kings, parents, lords over flocks, or keeper of the chickens. The horrible, the hopeless, the inequities, all contributable to man. What sense, pray tell, would any of this make, if it were not to lead man to something better?
“Thy Kingdom come…” You know how it comes? I think it commences within each of us, and this is where I direct my attention and my energy when it comes to what is carelessly called religion. We, we inhabitants of this earth, have to change. That is all there is to it. God only knows what this transition must experience, or will experience, before we get where we need to be. Well, I do not believe that God is going to leave me out when His Kingdom comes. No, no. I do not! How could He. If the Kingdom of God is within us, and it is going to be on this earth, well, and what about Heaven, well that would be okay too.
You wrote…………By contrast Buddhism has a metaphysical structure by which the cosmos is self-creating. By this view something inevitably arises from nothing, only 'nothing' is 'emptiness' (nirvanah, Brahman, bliss, fullness, Tao and so on). This is very difficult to discuss because in Buddhism and Taoism this 'ground' of existence is inexpressible in concepts or words.
This, I have read, but have not accepted the theory entirely, although it does not bother me in the least, because, as you said, it is not easily grasped. I tend not to judge things until I graspe them.
You wrote: It is without external attributes, hence the link with Spinoza.
Right, but how much of Spinoza have you read, and studied?
Of course, the cosmos is self-creating, insomuch as it continues, just as skin cells continue. To believe everything comes from nothing makes sense to you, but to believe in a God with no beginning makes no sense! How can this be?
A lot has been learned about this universe since the beginning of man, and his religions. We have so many theories and ideas, and I love hearing them…now! When I was young, I tended to prefer disputing them and enjoyed it, but this ridiculous waste of time passed quickly for me. Therefore, please understand that I am disputing nothing to gain anything. Ha! Did I make sense? I like to explore possibilities in my mind.
So, you are not a Buddhist, huh? Okay, sorry about misunderstanding. You keep me on my toes, I think.
Another thing about meditation and freedom to mediate freely: There are no limits. God is my Source, and no matter what comes into my life, I know I may readily access to my Source. I have said this before. I believe the closer we get to God, the closer to get to one another. The closer we are to one another, the closer we are to God.
YOU: ….. that an all-powerful creator God has always existed. This can't be proved false but it's logically rather weak as an explanation of how we got here.
……………I understand your point in this matter very well. How do you think we had our beginning? With apes, and they … descending from something originally from the sea?
It matters not to me if some believe such a thing, but I have a really big problem with it. There is something to it, I think, but I do not believe we understand all we know about it. It just does not run the test. But then, I was not there, or was I? (Just kidding.) How is that for realism?
I am sure you have heard of the tower of Babel. That is another story that never quite grabbed my imagination! I can believe that the communication may have been confounded, but the subsequent believe, at least expounded by Christians, that this began the various nationalities, escapes me big time.
Why not consider that spacecraft from various places lost a few explorers, some of whom may have mated with animals. In which case, one would have to accept that animals were here first, which is contrary to Christianity, compatible with science, and not too important to me. I am mostly open on this, and will probably die in the same state, because I see no way to prove, but only to speculate.
One last thing. (I am so tired right now.) Think about this for me, will you, because there are few with whom one could share so much on this subject of God, and just what “God” means.
I have found that it is mostly atheists who readily accept that we come from apes. So, here we have man, who readily admit that they descended from apes, criticizing those who believe they were created by God Almighty. On the other hand, we have Muslims, Christians and Jews who believe they were created by God/Allah, a God to whom they pray, in whom they trust, and whom they worship. Okay, now these ape descendents are scoffing at these who, for the most part, are claiming to have been created by a God who has no other plan but to cast the unbelieving ape descendents, and any others who oppose them, (exceptions being as they are) into hell -that will later be cast with "death" into a lake of fire, where all therein will burn forever and ever. Wow.
Here we are, almost constantly at war with one another, one person –in a small war- against another person; Republicans and Democrats battling for preemiminence, nations rising against nation, with more chaos then victory, and often more harm than help.
We are earth people. From dust to dust, and we all agree on that, and yet with how much audacity we argue. We argue as though the search for truth has ended. We! Us! Little "pusillanimous worms of the dust. " (Picked that up at Bible School, and thought it befitting.) Small and insignificant as we are, we dare challenge the existence of God.
Right now, I must be reading about five books, and I do research as well, and I do this some of the time, and plan another journey through Greek history, but I am going to get more into Buddhism for a time, and some other Eastern philosophies. I have done this several times, but am left with more of an impression, than with facts. I will also look up the websites you gave in your last message.
Please understand that I do not assume that you will learn anything from me, but you might hitchhike on something I say, expand your thinking, or something like that. I just find it interesting to here opinions and comments from reasonable folks.
Until next time, take care. PS/ Are you English, like from England?
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
CANUTE:
JUST REVIEWED MY MSG FROM SOME MINUTES AGO, LONG-WINDED, WASN'T I? PMT
JUST REVIEWED MY MSG FROM SOME MINUTES AGO, LONG-WINDED, WASN'T I? PMT
Re: No absolutes..........
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
Regards
Canute
So do I. But some form of continuation after death does not necessarily depend on the existence of a God (and vice versa).
Agree. But I suppose everyone's evangelical at heart. We all want people to agree with us.
Yeah. It's what lies at the heart of Christian teaching that concurs with Buddhism. Certainly not the practices of the later Church, and definitely not the objectification of good, evil and God.
"A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: "Have you ever read the Christian Bible?" "No read it to me," said Gasan. The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. . . . Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself." Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man." The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened." Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
There are one or two uncharacteristic episodes of violence from the past, but I don't know much about the details. Certainly there's nothing like the more wordly religions.
In a way perhaps. But ultimately Buddhism and Christianity (of the official kind) are incompatible.
All three probably, like the rest of us.
Couldn't agree more. Viz. Tower of Babel, Tree of Knowledge, Indra's Net, Pandora's Box, and even turtles resting on elephants. I suspect that our ancestors knew more about the world than we do in many ways. Have you read any Novalis?
Agree.
Sort of agree, but can't go along with the idea of God and Heaven. I'd rather emptiness and bliss.
That's unusual. I find that on the whole people tend to grasp things before they judge them.
Not a lot, but enough to understand his metaphysical conclusions.
I don't believe it makes logical sense to think that there was an ultimate beginning, and I agree that a God with no beginning makes no sense. (This is one reason I don't believe in Him). When I use the term 'nothing' it's in a scientific sense. However I find the scientific idea of 'nothing' incoherent. In reality 'nothing' cannot exist. I would argue that there is something that appears to be nothing. In other words that there is one substance that lies beyond science.
Agree with the sentiment, but feel that the Christian notion of an objective God is a real obstacle to understanding the source. Most Christian mystics conclude that we are God, which makes more sense to me. Have you come across 'Mysticism' by Evelyn Underhill? It's a rather narrow Christian interpretation of the writings of mystics but it's brilliant other than that.
I don't think there was a beginning. As for human beings I can roughly go along with Darwin, albeit that I think neo-Darwinism is full of anamolies and gaps caused by a failure to recognise the role of consciousness and teleology.
Me too. I see the Babel story as a wise metaphor just as relevant today as it ever was. It was a recognition of human idiocy, and as much a warning and prediction as an account of an event. I feel we are wrong to read the Bible and other such texts as accounts of history. This trivialises them. The meaning is what is important.
I don't quite see your point here.
Hmm. I see what you mean but if you don't believe in God then there's no arrogance in not believing in His existence, if you see what I mean. And how dare you call me small and insignificant.
Good luck. I admire your approach. Don't forget that Buddhism is a practice, and cannot be understood from a book in the absence of the experiences that come from that practice. (Although it can be understood without the books, after all the Buddha did it).
Of course I'll learn from you. If that wasn't true I wouldn't be here.
Yep.
Regards
Canute
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Before and after death...how's that?
CANUTE:
These past two days have been hectic, but I wanted to get this to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
To be perfectly honest with you, I find: “There is no God; when you die, you are dead, and that’s it!” a hard saying that rings a very strange and unnatural sound.
AND, YOU RESPONDED: So do I. But some form of continuation after death does not necessarily depend on the existence of a God (and vice versa).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURPRISE! THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO ME AS SOMEONE BEING LOGICAL; HOWEVER FROM MY HEART AND SOUL, I HEAR A DIFFERENT MESSAGE, ONE WHICH SAYS THAT EVEN LIFE BEFORE DEATH WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT GOD, IN NATURE, AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GALIXIES AND ANY ORDER OF THE COSMOS (is that nature too?). I AM ABOUT TO JUMP INTO A FIELD OF IGNORAGE, SO I HAD BEST DUCK QUICKLY……. MY POINT IS THAT GOD IS, AND WITHOUT HIM, NOTHING IS. IN ADDITION, MY FRIEND, (AND BE KIND), IF WE CAN PERCEIVE, AS WE SURELY DO, THAT THERE IS LIFE BEFORE DEATH, THEN WHY, I ASK YOU IN ALL SINCERITY, CAN WE NOT PERCEIVE THE PROBABILITY THAT THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH?
Let me quote a verse or two:
......../
[“Convinced am I, —a master design ~ excels contrivances we revere. ~ Why boast, withdraw or cling to them ~ when death ends our time for being here?
It isn’t the end when we depart ~ with the things we’ve kept within our heart; ~ though bodies wilt in life’s evening sun, there will yet another season come.”]
...../
Those (above) are the last two verses of the poem, “Paradox,” from the book of poetry, “Words in Motion.” From the last two paragraphs of the prologue to the poem, Paradox:
......................../
“So! Are we coming to the end, -or is it really just a beginning? Regardless of one’s perception, we are all looking toward what is virtually an unknown as we think about that which is ahead of us. Even those of us who believe we do NOT truly die, do, after all face a new experience, -and wonder?
And what of those less convinced? I suppose they too, on occasion, contemplate their demise, -and that they too wonder. “
………………………/
Rather simple words, but to me they have meaning. Why not think about death. It is inevitable. Another short phrase from the same poem, says: “Every season the stalk that blooms, comes from previously hidden tombs.”
To wit: The bulb in the ground that lost all signs of life, springs forth in another season, and blooms as though it had never been apart from everything that looked alive. I believe that what we call death is just a way of passing over to another dimension, if you will. What that experience will be, who knows? The Catholics have a belief in a place called Purgatory. I wonder from whence that idea came as it makes some sense to me . . . that there would be a intermediary place to pull it all together before entering our next “assignment, something like the bulb in the ground not nearly so through with life as it seems.”
WITH ALL THE ARGUMENTATIVE SPECULATION, AND ALL THE ENERGY USED TO TRY TO DISPROVE THIS THING OR THAT, WHY NOT? WHY NOT TAKE A MOMENT TO CONSIDER MORE INTERESTING IDEAS ABOUT GIVING UP THIS BODY OF CLAY.
I AM NOT CONTENT, AND CERTAINLY NOT SATISFIED WITH “MY CHILDREN MAKE ME ETERNAL.” OR, “WELL WHEN ONE DIES ANOTHER IS BORN.” GREAT! HOW CAN ANYONE DERIVE COMFORT FROM THAT? IT IS NOT AS PROPHETIC AS IT MAY SEEM ANYWAY, RATHER WHEN ONE DIES, SEVERAL ARE BORN, THAT WOULD HAVE BORN WHETHER ANYONE DIED OR NOT; THERFORE WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE(?) (Not a question, because you have made no statement on this. I am simply thinking aloud.)
YOUR STATEMENT: Agree. But I suppose everyone's evangelical at heart. We all want people to agree with us.
You, Mr. Canute, are one neat dude. Your words, “I suppose everyone’s evangelical at heart,” is such a good statement…and fair, and I think I needed to hear it. But wanting everyone to agree with me…? Nah. It is ego, is it not? I think so, because I have rather outgrown the need to have people agree with me. However, but if evangelizing is spreading information, and hoping someone might like it too, perhaps I have just a wee bit of the evangelizing tendency in me…. I do, after all, try to let folks know that Will Durant’s Story of Philosophy is a wonderful way to become more appreciative, not only of philosophy, but also more appreciative toward the past.
For example: I would love to read The Story of Civilization, …so I could tell everyone about that, what is it…ten volumes! But it is out of my financial reach, and I find it a waste of time to get books of that depth from the library, because I need time to ponder, to question, and to absorb, and then to do it all over again, for years! And, I freely admit that I have a lot to say about that wonderful, gentle man, who lived his life so much more like Christ taught, than most Christians, and yet is despised by some, ignored by others, and has never been heard of by the rest. Yeah, and I talk about Apostle Paul, and about the beauty of the King James Version of the Bible, even with all its flaws, and yes it has flaws.
Now, where were we, oh yes, about influencing people toward our own agenda or something like that…..Ha, ha. You know, even with all I have confessed, I can honestly say that I do not try to change people’s beliefs, I just encourage them to know why they believe it, and I take that little sermon everywhere I go.
YOUR STATEMENT: Yeah. It's what lies at the heart of Christian teaching that concurs with Buddhism. Certainly not the practices of the later Church, and definitely not the objectification of good, evil and God. “
I ASSUME, IF I MAY BE SO RISKY, THAT I AGREE WITH YOU, THOUGH I CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE HOW FAR YOU ARE TAKING each element of that TRIO (of good, evil and God).
I LOVE YOUR ZEN QUOTE. It touched me. Those are wonderful scriptures.
YOU WROTE: In a way perhaps. But ultimately Buddhism and Christianity (of the official kind) are incompatible.
Hmm. I would disagree that the two could never be compatible, but no, not as they are right now, but my point was that they COULD come together. Think about it some more. In my opinion, Sir, you make Buddhism sound like it is some kind of spell, more that a philosophy or theory, magic perhaps. I think of it more as meditation, discipline and focus.
..........
I ASKED THIS: Do you think I am a dreamer, a nut, or what?
YOU ANSWERED THUSLY: All three probably, like the rest of us.
^^^^^^UH HUH, WELL, THANKS. YOU HAVE ONE COMING!
YOU WROTE: Sort of agree, but can't go along with the idea of God and Heaven. I'd rather emptiness and bliss.
……OKIE, DOKIE.
YOU WROTE: Don't forget that Buddhism is a practice, and cannot be understood from a book in the absence of the experiences that come from that practice.
OH MY GOODNESS! I AM NOT SURE I CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. BUDDHISM SOUNDS A BIT LIKE SCIENTOLOGY, OR SOME CHRISTIAN PRINCIPALS, THAT HOLD AN OPINION THAT YOU MUST TAKE A CULT-LIKE APPROACH. NOW, DO NOT GET ALL UPSET, I COULD VERY WELL BE IN A STATE OF BEING AFFECTED BY EXPERIENCES OF THE PAST HERE! OR, PERHAPS YOU COULD WORD IT DIFFERENTLY, YOUR KINDNESS, BECAUSE I TEND TO BE INTELLECTUALLY CLAUSTROPHOBIC. (DEAD SERIOUS HERE!)
BUT THEN, YOU WROTE: (Although it can be understood without the books, after all the Buddha did it).
H O W R E A L I S T I C O F Y O U. SERIOUSLY! NOW, HOW COULD THE SAME MAN MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT AFTER THE MUMBO JUMBO STATEMENT JUST BEFORE. I REALLY LIKE THIS ONE. IT IS RIGHT IN MY HEART THAT GOD IS OUR SOURCE AND WE CAN DO ANYTHING. ‘SPLAIN!
YOU: Hmm. I see what you mean but if you don't believe in God then there's no arrogance in not believing in His existence, if you see what I mean. And how dare you call me small and insignificant.
I LAUGHED ALOUD ON THIS ONE. IT CAUGHT ME BY SURPRISE. I MEANT “SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT IN LIGHT OF THE VASTNESS OF THE UNIVERSE. LIKE, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR THEORY, IF ONE PERSON DIES, SO WHAT? (NOW, DO NOT YELL AT ME ABOUT THAT ONE EITHER.)
YOU WROTE: Of course I'll learn from you. If that wasn't true I wouldn't be here.
JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I HAVE NO SUCH ASPIRATIONS. ANYTHING YOU MAY LEARN WILL BE BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE, BECAUSE I AM NOT NEARLY AS WELL EDUCATED AS I SHOULD LIKE TO BE. I COULD WRITE A BOOK ABOUT MY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, OR LACK OF IT. THANK GOD, I HAD AN INBORN HUNGER AND THE GUTS TO GO FOR IT.
“KNOWLEDGE,” DURANT WROTE, “IS POWER, BUT WISDOM IS LIBERTY.” I KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT KNOWLEDGE IS THE MOST POWERFUL THING ONE CAN POSSESS, AND I SURELY SEEK ENLIGHTENMENT, WHICH CAN LEAD TO WISDOM. WHAT I AM STILL WORKING ON IS “WISDOM IS LIBERTY.” DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? IF SO, WILL YOU SHARE? I DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE; REGARDLESS, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
------------------SO! YOU ARE ENGLISH. NOW, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GUESS WHAT MADE ME THINK SO. YOU MAY BE SURPRISED, OR MAYBE NOT. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU ARE A TEACHER, AND I HAVE NO CLUE. HOWEVER, WITH YOUR WAY OF DEALING WITH PEOPLE, I SHOULD THINK YOU WOULD BE EFFECTIVE WITH YOUNGSTERS, SAY MAYBE LATE TEENS, EARLY TWENTIES. I LIKE THAT AGE GROUP, BUT ANYONE THAT WANTS TO LEARN IS GOOD . . . I BELIEVE -LIKE YOU- INSOMUCH AS I LEARN FROM EVERYONE, YOUNG, OLD, SIMPLE OR HIGHLY EDUCATED. THERE IS KNOWLEDGE IN THE UNEDUCATED THAT IS SOMETIMES MORE USEFUL THAT WHAT IS LEARNED IN COLLEGE. EVERY STATEMENT SEEMS TO BE CIRCUMSTATIAL.
WHEN I WAS CHILD, ONE DAY MY FRIEND’S FATHER WAS TEACHING ME HOW TO TIE VARIOUS KNOTS. WE WERE REALLY INTO IT, UNTIL MY PARENTS OBJECTED. I HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT MAN WAS AS DUMB AS A STUMP, AND WAS FASCINATED, AND DELIGHTED THAT HE KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT KNOTS. I DISCOVERED SOMETHING IN HIM THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WAS PATIENT AND KIND. APPARENTLY, MY FOLKS FAILED TO NOTICE IT.
ANYWAY, I AM TOO LATE UP! TAKE CARE. PMT
CANUTE:
These past two days have been hectic, but I wanted to get this to you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
To be perfectly honest with you, I find: “There is no God; when you die, you are dead, and that’s it!” a hard saying that rings a very strange and unnatural sound.
AND, YOU RESPONDED: So do I. But some form of continuation after death does not necessarily depend on the existence of a God (and vice versa).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURPRISE! THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO ME AS SOMEONE BEING LOGICAL; HOWEVER FROM MY HEART AND SOUL, I HEAR A DIFFERENT MESSAGE, ONE WHICH SAYS THAT EVEN LIFE BEFORE DEATH WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT GOD, IN NATURE, AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GALIXIES AND ANY ORDER OF THE COSMOS (is that nature too?). I AM ABOUT TO JUMP INTO A FIELD OF IGNORAGE, SO I HAD BEST DUCK QUICKLY……. MY POINT IS THAT GOD IS, AND WITHOUT HIM, NOTHING IS. IN ADDITION, MY FRIEND, (AND BE KIND), IF WE CAN PERCEIVE, AS WE SURELY DO, THAT THERE IS LIFE BEFORE DEATH, THEN WHY, I ASK YOU IN ALL SINCERITY, CAN WE NOT PERCEIVE THE PROBABILITY THAT THERE IS LIFE AFTER DEATH?
Let me quote a verse or two:
......../
[“Convinced am I, —a master design ~ excels contrivances we revere. ~ Why boast, withdraw or cling to them ~ when death ends our time for being here?
It isn’t the end when we depart ~ with the things we’ve kept within our heart; ~ though bodies wilt in life’s evening sun, there will yet another season come.”]
...../
Those (above) are the last two verses of the poem, “Paradox,” from the book of poetry, “Words in Motion.” From the last two paragraphs of the prologue to the poem, Paradox:
......................../
“So! Are we coming to the end, -or is it really just a beginning? Regardless of one’s perception, we are all looking toward what is virtually an unknown as we think about that which is ahead of us. Even those of us who believe we do NOT truly die, do, after all face a new experience, -and wonder?
And what of those less convinced? I suppose they too, on occasion, contemplate their demise, -and that they too wonder. “
………………………/
Rather simple words, but to me they have meaning. Why not think about death. It is inevitable. Another short phrase from the same poem, says: “Every season the stalk that blooms, comes from previously hidden tombs.”
To wit: The bulb in the ground that lost all signs of life, springs forth in another season, and blooms as though it had never been apart from everything that looked alive. I believe that what we call death is just a way of passing over to another dimension, if you will. What that experience will be, who knows? The Catholics have a belief in a place called Purgatory. I wonder from whence that idea came as it makes some sense to me . . . that there would be a intermediary place to pull it all together before entering our next “assignment, something like the bulb in the ground not nearly so through with life as it seems.”
WITH ALL THE ARGUMENTATIVE SPECULATION, AND ALL THE ENERGY USED TO TRY TO DISPROVE THIS THING OR THAT, WHY NOT? WHY NOT TAKE A MOMENT TO CONSIDER MORE INTERESTING IDEAS ABOUT GIVING UP THIS BODY OF CLAY.
I AM NOT CONTENT, AND CERTAINLY NOT SATISFIED WITH “MY CHILDREN MAKE ME ETERNAL.” OR, “WELL WHEN ONE DIES ANOTHER IS BORN.” GREAT! HOW CAN ANYONE DERIVE COMFORT FROM THAT? IT IS NOT AS PROPHETIC AS IT MAY SEEM ANYWAY, RATHER WHEN ONE DIES, SEVERAL ARE BORN, THAT WOULD HAVE BORN WHETHER ANYONE DIED OR NOT; THERFORE WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE(?) (Not a question, because you have made no statement on this. I am simply thinking aloud.)
YOUR STATEMENT: Agree. But I suppose everyone's evangelical at heart. We all want people to agree with us.
You, Mr. Canute, are one neat dude. Your words, “I suppose everyone’s evangelical at heart,” is such a good statement…and fair, and I think I needed to hear it. But wanting everyone to agree with me…? Nah. It is ego, is it not? I think so, because I have rather outgrown the need to have people agree with me. However, but if evangelizing is spreading information, and hoping someone might like it too, perhaps I have just a wee bit of the evangelizing tendency in me…. I do, after all, try to let folks know that Will Durant’s Story of Philosophy is a wonderful way to become more appreciative, not only of philosophy, but also more appreciative toward the past.
For example: I would love to read The Story of Civilization, …so I could tell everyone about that, what is it…ten volumes! But it is out of my financial reach, and I find it a waste of time to get books of that depth from the library, because I need time to ponder, to question, and to absorb, and then to do it all over again, for years! And, I freely admit that I have a lot to say about that wonderful, gentle man, who lived his life so much more like Christ taught, than most Christians, and yet is despised by some, ignored by others, and has never been heard of by the rest. Yeah, and I talk about Apostle Paul, and about the beauty of the King James Version of the Bible, even with all its flaws, and yes it has flaws.
Now, where were we, oh yes, about influencing people toward our own agenda or something like that…..Ha, ha. You know, even with all I have confessed, I can honestly say that I do not try to change people’s beliefs, I just encourage them to know why they believe it, and I take that little sermon everywhere I go.
YOUR STATEMENT: Yeah. It's what lies at the heart of Christian teaching that concurs with Buddhism. Certainly not the practices of the later Church, and definitely not the objectification of good, evil and God. “
I ASSUME, IF I MAY BE SO RISKY, THAT I AGREE WITH YOU, THOUGH I CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE HOW FAR YOU ARE TAKING each element of that TRIO (of good, evil and God).
I LOVE YOUR ZEN QUOTE. It touched me. Those are wonderful scriptures.
YOU WROTE: In a way perhaps. But ultimately Buddhism and Christianity (of the official kind) are incompatible.
Hmm. I would disagree that the two could never be compatible, but no, not as they are right now, but my point was that they COULD come together. Think about it some more. In my opinion, Sir, you make Buddhism sound like it is some kind of spell, more that a philosophy or theory, magic perhaps. I think of it more as meditation, discipline and focus.
..........
I ASKED THIS: Do you think I am a dreamer, a nut, or what?
YOU ANSWERED THUSLY: All three probably, like the rest of us.
^^^^^^UH HUH, WELL, THANKS. YOU HAVE ONE COMING!
YOU WROTE: Sort of agree, but can't go along with the idea of God and Heaven. I'd rather emptiness and bliss.
……OKIE, DOKIE.
YOU WROTE: Don't forget that Buddhism is a practice, and cannot be understood from a book in the absence of the experiences that come from that practice.
OH MY GOODNESS! I AM NOT SURE I CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. BUDDHISM SOUNDS A BIT LIKE SCIENTOLOGY, OR SOME CHRISTIAN PRINCIPALS, THAT HOLD AN OPINION THAT YOU MUST TAKE A CULT-LIKE APPROACH. NOW, DO NOT GET ALL UPSET, I COULD VERY WELL BE IN A STATE OF BEING AFFECTED BY EXPERIENCES OF THE PAST HERE! OR, PERHAPS YOU COULD WORD IT DIFFERENTLY, YOUR KINDNESS, BECAUSE I TEND TO BE INTELLECTUALLY CLAUSTROPHOBIC. (DEAD SERIOUS HERE!)
BUT THEN, YOU WROTE: (Although it can be understood without the books, after all the Buddha did it).
H O W R E A L I S T I C O F Y O U. SERIOUSLY! NOW, HOW COULD THE SAME MAN MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT AFTER THE MUMBO JUMBO STATEMENT JUST BEFORE. I REALLY LIKE THIS ONE. IT IS RIGHT IN MY HEART THAT GOD IS OUR SOURCE AND WE CAN DO ANYTHING. ‘SPLAIN!
YOU: Hmm. I see what you mean but if you don't believe in God then there's no arrogance in not believing in His existence, if you see what I mean. And how dare you call me small and insignificant.
I LAUGHED ALOUD ON THIS ONE. IT CAUGHT ME BY SURPRISE. I MEANT “SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT IN LIGHT OF THE VASTNESS OF THE UNIVERSE. LIKE, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR THEORY, IF ONE PERSON DIES, SO WHAT? (NOW, DO NOT YELL AT ME ABOUT THAT ONE EITHER.)
YOU WROTE: Of course I'll learn from you. If that wasn't true I wouldn't be here.
JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I HAVE NO SUCH ASPIRATIONS. ANYTHING YOU MAY LEARN WILL BE BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE, BECAUSE I AM NOT NEARLY AS WELL EDUCATED AS I SHOULD LIKE TO BE. I COULD WRITE A BOOK ABOUT MY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, OR LACK OF IT. THANK GOD, I HAD AN INBORN HUNGER AND THE GUTS TO GO FOR IT.
“KNOWLEDGE,” DURANT WROTE, “IS POWER, BUT WISDOM IS LIBERTY.” I KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT KNOWLEDGE IS THE MOST POWERFUL THING ONE CAN POSSESS, AND I SURELY SEEK ENLIGHTENMENT, WHICH CAN LEAD TO WISDOM. WHAT I AM STILL WORKING ON IS “WISDOM IS LIBERTY.” DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? IF SO, WILL YOU SHARE? I DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT MORE; REGARDLESS, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
------------------SO! YOU ARE ENGLISH. NOW, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GUESS WHAT MADE ME THINK SO. YOU MAY BE SURPRISED, OR MAYBE NOT. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU ARE A TEACHER, AND I HAVE NO CLUE. HOWEVER, WITH YOUR WAY OF DEALING WITH PEOPLE, I SHOULD THINK YOU WOULD BE EFFECTIVE WITH YOUNGSTERS, SAY MAYBE LATE TEENS, EARLY TWENTIES. I LIKE THAT AGE GROUP, BUT ANYONE THAT WANTS TO LEARN IS GOOD . . . I BELIEVE -LIKE YOU- INSOMUCH AS I LEARN FROM EVERYONE, YOUNG, OLD, SIMPLE OR HIGHLY EDUCATED. THERE IS KNOWLEDGE IN THE UNEDUCATED THAT IS SOMETIMES MORE USEFUL THAT WHAT IS LEARNED IN COLLEGE. EVERY STATEMENT SEEMS TO BE CIRCUMSTATIAL.
WHEN I WAS CHILD, ONE DAY MY FRIEND’S FATHER WAS TEACHING ME HOW TO TIE VARIOUS KNOTS. WE WERE REALLY INTO IT, UNTIL MY PARENTS OBJECTED. I HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT MAN WAS AS DUMB AS A STUMP, AND WAS FASCINATED, AND DELIGHTED THAT HE KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT KNOTS. I DISCOVERED SOMETHING IN HIM THROUGH THAT EXPERIENCE THAT WAS PATIENT AND KIND. APPARENTLY, MY FOLKS FAILED TO NOTICE IT.
ANYWAY, I AM TOO LATE UP! TAKE CARE. PMT
Thought addiction and belief in God
Hi M*W. I haven't posted anything to this forum in about 10 months, although I've logged on and skimmed a few topics occassionally as the spirit moved me. Interesting that I am drawn to this topic and to your posts in particular, and that I am drawn to make only these three comments:
Fallicy Police: 'Appeal to common practice' - Other people thinking of God that way doesn't make the argument logical or valid. Yet it might still be true. Your argument is common and classifiable, but the truth of it will probably never be proven and cannot be disproven logically. The fact is, truth is stronger than proof. There are things that are true, the truth of which cannot be proven.
I hold to your distinction between religion and spirituality.
What keeps this from being completely off-topic is the fact that our beliefs - whether about God or anything else - are fed by our thoughts, particularly our assumptions. Assumptions can be unexamined and habitual, examined and modified (strengthened or rejected), or simply observed and not acted upon.
Hi M*W. I haven't posted anything to this forum in about 10 months, although I've logged on and skimmed a few topics occassionally as the spirit moved me. Interesting that I am drawn to this topic and to your posts in particular, and that I am drawn to make only these three comments:
Fallicy Police: 'Appeal to common practice' - Other people thinking of God that way doesn't make the argument logical or valid. Yet it might still be true. Your argument is common and classifiable, but the truth of it will probably never be proven and cannot be disproven logically. The fact is, truth is stronger than proof. There are things that are true, the truth of which cannot be proven.
I hold to your distinction between religion and spirituality.
Are you stating that you, personally, could not be addicted to your own thoughts, or are you making a more general statement about the impossibility of being addicted to one's own thoughts? I can concede the possibility of the former but reject the latter: Rage comes to mind as a disease with one possible cause being 'thought addiction' - the cumpulsion to repeat a particular pattern of thought regarding a perceived injustice, in which action is withheld while energy builds by cycles. Offense yields to anger, anger yields to rage, and rage releases violence. (Any obsession might be considered 'thought addiction'.) We are talking about a stick with two ends - thoughts have many causes but they also cause many effects. So regardless of whether the thought addiction is a cause or a sympton, awareness of the immediate effect of the thought addiction (focus on breaking the addiction to the thought pattern) can be useful to interrupt the path to rage.
What keeps this from being completely off-topic is the fact that our beliefs - whether about God or anything else - are fed by our thoughts, particularly our assumptions. Assumptions can be unexamined and habitual, examined and modified (strengthened or rejected), or simply observed and not acted upon.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
"The fact is, truth is stronger than proof. There are things that are true, the truth of which cannot be proven."
Good one.
Our relationship with God is greater than thoughts of mere man, or anyone's theology, philosophy or psychology. Little men, with their best man-created-words and ideas, cannot fathom what is! We can only suppose. How dare we even imagine that we can deside whether there be a God over us all.
Whenever we get the idea that someone has ended the search for truth, we may end our search, yet truth awaits.
PMT
Good one.
Our relationship with God is greater than thoughts of mere man, or anyone's theology, philosophy or psychology. Little men, with their best man-created-words and ideas, cannot fathom what is! We can only suppose. How dare we even imagine that we can deside whether there be a God over us all.
Whenever we get the idea that someone has ended the search for truth, we may end our search, yet truth awaits.
PMT
Re: Thought addiction and belief in God
Re: Thought addiction and belief in God
M*W: Well, I was not talking about say an obsessive-compulsive person's 'thoughts' which one could be addicted to, for example. I personally don't see a normal person becoming 'addicted' to his own thoughts, but now that I've put some thought into it, I can see that addictive thoughts don't have to be a bad thing. They can be the mother of inventions. Having been a Christian at one time, I can see how I was 'addicted' to my thoughts but only in the sense of being 'programmed' to think that way. Was it an addiction or was it programming? Which came first, the chicken or the egg, etc? So, I admit I spoke before I thought about this. It is possible to be addicted to your own thoughts, but it is certainly better to be open-minded and objective.
----------
M*W: Well, I was not talking about say an obsessive-compulsive person's 'thoughts' which one could be addicted to, for example. I personally don't see a normal person becoming 'addicted' to his own thoughts, but now that I've put some thought into it, I can see that addictive thoughts don't have to be a bad thing. They can be the mother of inventions. Having been a Christian at one time, I can see how I was 'addicted' to my thoughts but only in the sense of being 'programmed' to think that way. Was it an addiction or was it programming? Which came first, the chicken or the egg, etc? So, I admit I spoke before I thought about this. It is possible to be addicted to your own thoughts, but it is certainly better to be open-minded and objective.