"Smorgasbord" Religion, Being of a Faith, and the Personal Journey

[Tao_Equus]

Hey Salty, now you are just trying to out-talk me by volume!!

I think you vastly underestimate the sheer scale and insidious seepage into every area of power religion has when looked at on the global stage. For most people there is no effective separation between state and religion. If you do not share your head of states religion you are in a minority and will likely pay a price for it. But it is not just at that scale. It is for the millions of women who will take a beating today because the Prophet saw that it was good. And for the millions of children subject to an indoctrination into the infallibility of their chieftains and their chieftains gods. Just because you live in a secular paradise do not be blind to the reality of the vast majority of people alive and suffering the effects of religion.

I am tempted to rise to the debate of economics but as I have done this in the past, and will do so again elsewhere, I will decline this opportunity other than to say you present the same stuff that comes out the mainstream media. My opinions vary considerably from that and I see those that manipulate and profit most from our economies operate by maintaining scarcity. The groups of alpha males that run our money run our politics, run our religions. And there are some outwardly unlikely alliances that make a lot of sense in the context of milking the profits of belief, politics and war.

 

[Saltmeister]

So sorry Salty for being two pages behind the flow,
........
I cannot agree that religion is not divisive or prejudiced by its very nature. When religion is not an utterly selfish individual paradigm, which can have two people at loggerheads for a lifetime over who said what 1000s of years ago, it becomes a group one.
........
..........I am not here trying to save the world nor deny you your thinking I just like thinking about stuff and sharing my thoughts. Whatever science is or is not it is an amazing tool we have evolved for learning. And the objectively confirmed data it returns is often materially real. If I want to know why I exist I will look to this to provide the answers. Religious belief always claims to be super-rational where it is in actuality sub-rational. On an inter-personal level here I do have my own share of contradictions and hypocrisies and I am often more consciously aware of them than you may assume. In some sense I really have no belief, just a collection of information.

Ah, a post just 20 minutes before my own response . . . I think that will be it for me today. It's what I call time management . . . let's call it a day. Can't stay too long on these forums . . .

but I intend to return at an as yet undetermined time.

 

[earl]

To me you simply fail to see that religious paradigms were pivotal motivators in all your examples. You want to nail onto my thoughts something that only says at best "its no better than religion". But where do I propose any political ideology of that nature? Aside from the fact that each example is bestudded with religious metaphor and ritual, each having their own prophet(s), I never propose an alternative, never proseltyse anything but looking at all the available evidence. And I never will do. This linking atheism to 20th century political religions is a red herring. And always will be... no matter how many times it is employed.

Tao, care to show me the religious paradigm in Communism? earl

 

[Netti-Netti]

It's not the be-all-and-end-all I suppose. So how would you describe your practice?

Increasingly pre-verbal. How would you describe your practice?

 

[Saltmeister]

Hey Salty, now you are just trying to out-talk me by volume!!

Just finishing up . . .

Good afternoon? I'm assuming it's 4 PM over there in Britain. The time here in Australia is GMT+11 (3 am).

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, care to show me the religious paradigm in Communism? earl

Christianity has the prophet/god Christ, his new testament and icons of being nailed to a cross. Communism had Marx, Lenin, Mao Stalin along with their books of doctrine and their cast bronze effigies. You think them different?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Just finishing up . . .

Good afternoon? I'm assuming it's 4 PM over there in Britain. The time here in Australia is GMT+11 (3 am).

Hey you are all tired and risk making no sense.....dont go!!

Sweet dreams Salty

 

[earl]

Christianity has the prophet/god Christ, his new testament and icons of being nailed to a cross. Communism had Marx, Lenin, Mao Stalin along with their books of doctrine and their cast bronze effigies. You think them different?

So now you're claiming that any doctrinaire point of view is "religious." OK, so does that include scientism? Really Tao now you're being as naughty as Nick A in attempting to distort terms idiosynchratically in an attempt to shore up an argument that doesn't hold water. earl

 

[Saltmeister]

Hey you are all tired and risk making no sense.....dont go!!

Sweet dreams Salty

Thanks.

But am I right about the time over there? Is it about 4 PM over there? I believe it is objectively determinable. How close was I?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks.

But am I right about the time over there? Is it about 4 PM over there? I believe it is objectively determinable. How close was I?

lol as I type now it is 5.18 pm gmt.

 

[Saltmeister]

lol as I type now it is 5.18 pm gmt.

I see . . .

I am now programming this information into the cruise missile I am sending over so it can find you in your local area . . . nah just kidding.

Time to disappear.

 

[Tao_Equus]

So now you're claiming that any doctrinaire point of view is "religious." OK, so does that include scientism? Really Tao now you're being as naughty as Nick A in attempting to distort terms idiosynchratically in an attempt to shore up an argument that doesn't hold water. earl

lol, you want to label me with some ism or another. Go ahead. Does not make it real. And what argument of mine does not hold water? I gave you a clear and unambiguous example as requested and now without explaining yourself you try to use a few words to not address the question but take a little pop at me in a retreat proclaiming victory! lol....you are funny sometimes.

 

[earl]

lol, you want to label me with some ism or another. Go ahead. Does not make it real. And what argument of mine does not hold water? I gave you a clear and unambiguous example as requested and now without explaining yourself you try to use a few words to not address the question but take a little pop at me in a retreat proclaiming victory! lol....you are funny sometimes.

No you offered a fallacious non-example of a distorted use of the term religious. earl

 

[Nick_A]

To me you simply fail to see that religious paradigms were pivotal motivators in all your examples. You want to nail onto my thoughts something that only says at best "its no better than religion". But where do I propose any political ideology of that nature? Aside from the fact that each example is bestudded with religious metaphor and ritual, each having their own prophet(s), I never propose an alternative, never proseltyse anything but looking at all the available evidence. And I never will do. This linking atheism to 20th century political religions is a red herring. And always will be... no matter how many times it is employed.

Hi Inuk.

It is your old favorite once again. You've done a fine job in describing religion as an aspect of the Great Beast. I agree that belief in the Beast is meaningless and not anything noble as described by Salty. Blind belief is mechanical reaction while hope as one of the sacred emotions defined here by Jacob Needleman, is a conscious action. So though appearing similar, they are completely different.

"Hope is a state of the mind, not of the world... Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for...success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed."

Where blind belief is rampant, hope is extremely rare.


Here is where I question you.

I never propose an alternative, never proseltyse anything but looking at all the available evidence.

As cave creatures, can we experience available evidence in a manner that is not equally skewered leading to just another facet of the "Great Beast" collectively within the cave of which we are a part?

Luke 16

1Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.'
3"The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg— 4I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.'
5"So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'
6" 'Eight hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,' he replied.
"The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.'
7"Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?'
" 'A thousand bushels[b] of wheat,' he replied.
"He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.'
8"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
10"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?
13"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." 14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.

I am suggesting that those drawn to God's world and freedom from the Cave, become often just a tool for manipulation in normal cave life. However those proficient in cave life underestimate the implications of its hypocrisy and what is lost by the loss of awareness of the light.
The balanced person would be he that is completely capable within the domain of cave life but also understands its superficiality in relation to the potential for human life outside the psychological confines of the cave. Simone as usual puts her own unique wrinkle on to it.

"An atheist may be simply one whose faith and love are concentrated on the impersonal aspects of God." Simone Weil

Cave life is maintained and sustained by these impersonal aspects.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Human education then would include inwardly connecting our supernatural part with our worldly parts. Collective efforts would further uniting society with its creator. Obviously we are a long way from it assuming it is even possible given our stubborn resistance, need for self justification, and the joys of fantasy. But there is "hope" as previously defined.

 

[Tao_Equus]

No you offered a fallacious non-example of a distorted use of the term religious. earl

You call it a fallacious non-example but present no argument to demonstrate that. If you cannot see the obvious parallels between what you demanded I demonstrate then frankly I can only conclude you do not want to see them. They are obvious to a child.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Inuk.

Here is where I question you.


.

I will never beat you at "Simone says". Someone I had never heard of till you pitched up camp here. But from your quotes of her it seems she was a remarkable thinker. But more fevered and schizophrenic than is healthy in my opinion. And I think much of her radical thinking was induced by her anorexia. Starvation can induce states of conciousness that though overwhelmingly delusional sometimes produce great clarity.

I think my views need no philosophical leaps of faith. They are all based on unambiguous observable data. To me there is no supernatural realm because there is no evidence for one. What I believe has nothing to do with the evidence but is formed by it. I have looked at belief both within myself and in others and find myriad material reasons for its manifestation, none of them are supernatural and indeed can all be explained as personal and cultural artifice. And contrary to the freedom of mind I seek.

 

[citizenzen]

I think my views need no philosophical leaps of faith. They are all based on unambiguous observable data. To me there is no supernatural realm because there is no evidence for one. What I believe has nothing to do with the evidence but is formed by it. I have looked at belief both within myself and in others and find myriad material reasons for its manifestation, none of them are supernatural and indeed can all be explained as personal and cultural artifice. And contrary to the freedom of mind I seek.

You and me both.

Them peoples is jest crazy!

Of course, you said it much better.

 

[Nick_A]

I will never beat you at "Simone says". Someone I had never heard of till you pitched up camp here. But from your quotes of her it seems she was a remarkable thinker. But more fevered and schizophrenic than is healthy in my opinion. And I think much of her radical thinking was induced by her anorexia. Starvation can induce states of conciousness that though overwhelmingly delusional sometimes produce great clarity.

I think my views need no philosophical leaps of faith. They are all based on unambiguous observable data. To me there is no supernatural realm because there is no evidence for one. What I believe has nothing to do with the evidence but is formed by it. I have looked at belief both within myself and in others and find myriad material reasons for its manifestation, none of them are supernatural and indeed can all be explained as personal and cultural artifice. And contrary to the freedom of mind I seek.

Simone wasn't anorexic. She had this need to put herself into the position of the oppressed in order to experientially understand it. This separates her from many in philosophy since she wasn't a teacher sitting in a university pontificating nor dressed in garb in a church with a full belly condemning others. She had to live her philosophy since her goal was "understanding." She wrote:

"Human beings are so made that the ones who do the crushing feel nothing; it is the person crushed who feels what is happening. Unless one has placed oneself on the side of the oppressed, to feel with them, one cannot understand."

Denying herself food was just allowing her to remember world hunger. At five years old she was reading the paper to her parents and became more aware of the war and the plight of the French soldiers so if they were on survival rations she did the same. World hunger remained so she continued in this way. It doesn't make sense to us since we don't invite such experiential evidence of the human condition. We'd rather discuss it and further it through our moral ignorance and buck passing.

All we can do is honestly admit that we don't have experiential evidence as to the results of the human condition so we cannot know if her transition from Communism to her experience with the Christ was genuine. She leaves us with questions

We need the influence of people like this. She makes me feel like sh-t yet I would gladly say thank you and hold open a door for her if she were alive today. Her purity and dedication reveal my weakness. Sometimes a man needs a good woman to kick him in his psychological ass.

Yet if some pontificating politician, secular religious, or New Age advocate proclaims the human condition, it is annoying because I sense their hypocrisy and fantasy. Yet with her there is nothing to grumble about. She is expressing what needs to be expressed through the humility of experience so I appreciate it though hardly ego inflating.

What surprises and encourages me is that this person all of a sudden strikes a chord in more and more people promoting sincere dialogue for those who can tolerate such ego deflation. Consider this trailer to a documentary by Julia Haslett:

YouTube - An Interview with Simone Weil: trailer

She makes documentaries and wonders how the necessary quality of attention necessary for a good documentary relates also to experiencing the human condition. Lacking this quality of attention and going with the flow just keeps us in Plato's cave.

Julia Haslett has felt an important question we avoid like the plague which is opening to reality as opposed to continued self justification, fantasy, and condemnation.

So regardless of what names she is called, she has unintentionally given something important to the world that may be of great value for the future if her purity inspires us to admit our psychological weakness in relation to human potential.

We don't understand what we call supernatural and can either close off or be open to what the heart is attracted to. Somehow her purity lessens resistance. How can I be defensive in the presence of one so completely open and dedicated to experiential truth who at the same time dwarfs me with both her intellect and quality of heart?

I do see this humility as a solid foundation for whatever path one is on at present

 

[ciberpy]

Any legit religion that begins with a non-illusory foundation. The underlying question is how we treat nothing? As usual Simone cannot be read by those into feel good political correctness, but for those with the stomach for it, she reveals a great deal here.

I see an illusory foundation in Simone. To illustrate: Can Simone describe who, where, when, why, and how you will love someone? No? Then neither does Simone choose who, where, when, why, and how God will love others. She is using the name 'God' in vain. I submit that she does not choose who, when, where, why, and how anyone will love anyone... except herself. Am I wrong? She can certainly proclaim who loves who, where when, why, and how... but that will be her illusion.

I remember reading an account of a man who may have been the greatest man of the twentieth century. A young student who held him in awe finally had the nerve to approach him and admitted that she couldn't relax in front of him because she felt totally inadequate. He responded telling her that yes compared to him she is sh-t but yet he compared to certain others is also sh-t. So you see we are the same. She left bewildered but in an hour or so came back with a smile on her face. She understood.

I think it can be shown that kids who see themselves as what they know, or as what their capability is, have a learning disability compared to those who see themselves as someone who can learn and earn new talents. The 'nothing' you describe, or that Simone describes, is no different than saying that a child is an 'F', or that a person is their status, education, rank, income, etc... It is merely stripping a person of all possession, of all capability, and then saying the person is that emptiness.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Simone wasn't anorexic. She had this need to put herself into the position of the oppressed in order to experientially understand it. This separates her from many in philosophy since she wasn't a teacher sitting in a university pontificating nor dressed in garb in a church with a full belly condemning others. She had to live her philosophy since her goal was "understanding." She wrote:



Denying herself food was just allowing her to remember world hunger. At five years old she was reading the paper to her parents and became more aware of the war and the plight of the French soldiers so if they were on survival rations she did the same. World hunger remained so she continued in this way. It doesn't make sense to us since we don't invite such experiential evidence of the human condition. We'd rather discuss it and further it through our moral ignorance and buck passing.

All we can do is honestly admit that we don't have experiential evidence as to the results of the human condition so we cannot know if her transition from Communism to her experience with the Christ was genuine. She leaves us with questions

We need the influence of people like this. She makes me feel like sh-t yet I would gladly say thank you and hold open a door for her if she were alive today. Her purity and dedication reveal my weakness. Sometimes a man needs a good woman to kick him in his psychological ass.

Yet if some pontificating politician, secular religious, or New Age advocate proclaims the human condition, it is annoying because I sense their hypocrisy and fantasy. Yet with her there is nothing to grumble about. She is expressing what needs to be expressed through the humility of experience so I appreciate it though hardly ego inflating.

What surprises and encourages me is that this person all of a sudden strikes a chord in more and more people promoting sincere dialogue for those who can tolerate such ego deflation. Consider this trailer to a documentary by Julia Haslett:

YouTube - An Interview with Simone Weil: trailer

She makes documentaries and wonders how the necessary quality of attention necessary for a good documentary relates also to experiencing the human condition. Lacking this quality of attention and going with the flow just keeps us in Plato's cave.

Julia Haslett has felt an important question we avoid like the plague which is opening to reality as opposed to continued self justification, fantasy, and condemnation.

So regardless of what names she is called, she has unintentionally given something important to the world that may be of great value for the future if her purity inspires us to admit our psychological weakness in relation to human potential.

We don't understand what we call supernatural and can either close off or be open to what the heart is attracted to. Somehow her purity lessens resistance. How can I be defensive in the presence of one so completely open and dedicated to experiential truth who at the same time dwarfs me with both her intellect and quality of heart?

I do see this humility as a solid foundation for whatever path one is on at present

yeh she was a remarkable woman who was not content just to talk the talk,but one who was willing to put herself on the front line of experience. And technically she starved herself to death, which is not the same as anorexia depending on opinion. But it has religious experience and nascent mythology written large over it already. Do we really need another Joan of Arc?