Knowledge Instead Of Faith, Direct Experience Instead Of Dogma

How do you approach religious/spiritual matters or God?

  • Faith and Dogma

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Knowledge and Direct Experience

    Votes: 14 87.5%

  • Total voters
    16
Hello Thomas, that's quite an interesting name you got there. ;)
It's a family heirloom!

but I do have a particular interest in the disciple Thomas, he is one of my favorites of Jesus's disciples.
Good man!

In particular, my favorite book in all of christianity would probably be the Gospel of Thomas. I do feel that this gospel catches the message of Jesus quite well, much more than other gospels.
What's your benchmark for asserting the authenticity of Thomas over the other gospels?

It's a shame it was left out of the official canon that the majority of christians consider as the word of god. I suppose this has something to do with the fact that Constantine, the so called "Saint" who convened the council of nicaea, didn't like what was being said in how the gospel empowered individuals, not the church, in their quest for union with the divine.
No, nothing to do with that at all ...

It's no wonder this same tyrant murdered millions of christians to promote his new church as the only valid one.
Evidence for that claim, please?

Nor am I saying all priesthoods are corrupted either. Many of them are. All I'm really saying is think independently from your priests, don't let them think for you. But hey, if that is what you want to do you are more than free to do so. If it helps you then I don't have any problem with it.
My tradition requires us to think for ourselves.

You still have not addressed the core issue: Your assumption that all personal experience is infallible.

Thomas
 
The reason why I found your original post offensive is the assumption that the Christian belief in God is of an old man with a beard, etc., etc insults the intelligence of Christian believers.

Christian doctrine is supported on a sound and profound philosophical basis.

Your doctrine of direct experience is founded on a quite modern philosophy of materialism/consumerism, that the supernatural can be attained by empirical means. Natural phenomena can be worked and experienced this way, but not the supernatural.

Thomas
 
It's a family heirloom!


Good man!


What's your benchmark for asserting the authenticity of Thomas over the other gospels?


No, nothing to do with that at all ...


Evidence for that claim, please?


My tradition requires us to think for ourselves.

You still have not addressed the core issue: Your assumption that all personal experience is infallible.

Thomas

Thomas my friend, I never said personal experience was infallible, lol. I was just saying personal experience is a great spiritual tool we have, and exercising the spiritual centers of our body and mind are a good way to increase your spirit.

The felt presence of immediate experience is quite important. When you are near the the higher altitudes of your consciousness it is a very powerful spiritual event.

"The intense mystic altered state, producing loose cognitive-association binding, which then produces an experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future. Experiencing this model of control and time initially destabilizes self-control power, and amounts to the death of the self that was conceived of as an autonomous control-agent. Self-control stability is restored upon transforming one's mental model to take into account the dependence of personal control on a hidden, separate thought-source, such as Necessity or a divine level that transcends Necessity. Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and transformation."

Constantine whiped out gnostic christianity. Gnostic christianity had an enlightenment element to it, more so than the post-constinian christanity that represents the sides of salvation and redemption.

But Jesus was a mystic. And mystics are not kings, and Jesus does not want to rule you like a king. He wants to set you free. I think this is the essence of what the gospel of Thomas is saying.

And please. Constantine was a murderer. Don't deny stuff like that. The Romans are the ones who killed Jesus anyways. Under their orders, because he was a threat to the established order. Jesus preached to help the poor, and yet look at all these fundamentalist capitalist neo-conservtives that spit on the poor. Like that prick Rush Limbaugh.

Constantine canon is not the official canon of anything. God did not come magically the Constantine and tell him what was real. The gospel of Thomas is as valid as any other gospel. Some Roman Emperor is not going to change that.

Thomas: 1:1-5
These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
4. Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.
For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."
5. Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"
 
You still have not addressed the core issue: Your assumption that all personal experience is infallible.

Thomas
And we are to just take it on faith that someone else's (like the pope and other previous church fathers) is?
Christian doctrine is supported on a sound and profound philosophical basis.
No it is not...it is based upon faith and ultimately on here-say.
"Believe what we tell you this scripture means".....resulting in first the reformation which created the protest-ant schism and then the myriad of denominations who could never agree as to what the bible means.
And they still don't.
Pretty sound basis eh?
Your doctrine of direct experience is founded on a quite modern philosophy of materialism/consumerism, that the supernatural can be attained by empirical means. Natural phenomena can be worked and experienced this way, but not the supernatural.

Thomas
The doctrine of direct experience (if you want to call it a doctrine) certainly can't be attributed to psydragon as it has been around longer than the church, and so it can't likewise be attributed to any moderm -ism at all.
Besides, the super-natural is quite "natural", just more so than normal.
Ain't that "super".;)
 
Interested to hear your expanded response.

If the Divine is not transcendent, it is not worthy of devotion.
If the Divine is not immanent, devotion is pointless.
Therefore, devotion to anything not both transcendent and immanent is not worth doing.

The transcendent, by nature of being transcendent, is beyond direct experience and knowledge.

The immanent, by nature of being immanent, is irrelevant to revelation and dogma.

Shave a bicycle down the middle, lengthwise, try to ride only one half.
 
The transcendent, by nature of being transcendent, is beyond direct experience and knowledge.
Only partly right. As they say in Islam: "La Illaha, illa allah" which has many translations, one of which is: "There can be no true concept of God. There is only God. God is the reality".

No concept of God can be true because it is only a glimpse. No-one knows the Earth. It's just too big, but that doesn't prevent you from experiencing the Earth.
 
I think that I expressed my own personal opinion that belief is an integral part of one's decision making process when a full data set is unavailable.

I used to think that way, but I no longer think that belief in God can be likened to any other kind of belief. I now agree with Dragon, either you have experienced what you say you believe in, or you are taking someone else's word for it. Belief for me is now in every heartbeat, every breath. It is not accessible to reason, scarcely even possible to describe.

It wasn't always like this for me. For those who don't know what this is like, I would say to just live the best life you can and maybe one day it will all make sense.
 
I used to think that way, but I no longer think that belief in God can be likened to any other kind of belief. I now agree with Dragon, either you have experienced what you say you believe in, or you are taking someone else's word for it. Belief for me is now in every heartbeat, every breath. It is not accessible to reason, scarcely even possible to describe.

It wasn't always like this for me. For those who don't know what this is like, I would say to just live the best life you can and maybe one day it will all make sense.

OK. I certainly wouldn't discount your personal experience. How did it all begin or you? Was there an initial, if small leap, or was it a gradual process? My experience was that I set out to find an air tight, rational basis for spiritual belief, but by the time I figured out how it actually worked I had become too jaded to employ it.

Chris
 
If the Divine is not transcendent, it is not worthy of devotion.
If the Divine is not immanent, devotion is pointless.
Therefore, devotion to anything not both transcendent and immanent is not worth doing.

The transcendent, by nature of being transcendent, is beyond direct experience and knowledge.

The immanent, by nature of being immanent, is irrelevant to revelation and dogma.

Shave a bicycle down the middle, lengthwise, try to ride only one half.

Fine. But it's not just about the transcendent, it's also about transference: the transference of one's fear of losing identity at death.

Chris
 
Thomas: Your assumption that all personal experience is infallible.

All personal experience is a lesson that God is a person.

But ironically we don't know how to view our experiences in context to this maxim.

Why? Because most of of activities are grossly mundane.

I begin my morning commute by silently and secretly crying like a baby and thinking, "HOW IS ALL THIS POSSIBLE?"

There is so much mystery of our own being that is taken for granted.

All health issues that arise due to poor dietary habits is an example of poor stewardship.

Family happiness is an ideal that reveals the sublime but one may think that such settings are a result of ones own hard work.

All settings, all workings are a wonder "to behold".

I have learnt a term to express the Opulences of God's Creation and the accommodations that he affords us creatures: "Just see!"

Man proposes, God desposes.

Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans.

Either way, all means of enjoyment and sufferring too are the mercy of God's grace.

It is for one to become educated in seeing these events in context to the souls journey.

The mundane daily desires are NOT to be conflated with the sublime sacraments of life.

Anyway, this material world is a place of suffering {God or No God}.
Thus, there is danger at every step in the material world.
The constant practice of "giving thanks" is to rise above the mundane stratum of "Being Cool" as the desirable status quo in a world of coolies.

All successful rich beautiful people living the Good-life . . . all arrived at their posts by works . . . the goal is not to whimsically lose it due to hubris, which arises when we are not mindfull.

BTW, "nature is designed to reduce all to dust" ---and this is the poetic way of saying this. Nature will accomplish this task with efficiency ---so when the parameters for perfect storm brew it will occur amongst those that will have the greatest impact toward.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BTW, Thomas, can you locate the David Psalm verse that describes God's likeness?
"Curley Black hair etc"?
 
If the Divine is not transcendent, it is not worthy of devotion.
If the Divine is not immanent, devotion is pointless.
Therefore, devotion to anything not both transcendent and immanent is not worth doing.

The transcendent, by nature of being transcendent, is beyond direct experience and knowledge.

The immanent, by nature of being immanent, is irrelevant to revelation and dogma.

Shave a bicycle down the middle, lengthwise, try to ride only one half.
What if the Transcendent is immanent and it is the Immanent that makes possible the transcending of the worldly? And that one's journey ends when one realizes that the Transcendent and the Immanent are the same all along?
 
OK. I certainly wouldn't discount your personal experience. How did it all begin or you? Was there an initial, if small leap, or was it a gradual process? My experience was that I set out to find an air tight, rational basis for spiritual belief, but by the time I figured out how it actually worked I had become too jaded to employ it.

Chris

I don't know how it all hapens. It can require a personal set-back or loss to clear your mind of all the accumulated garbage. Then when you reach out you may find something reaching out to you. It's a mystery.
 
Personaly I like both of these

Faith and Doctrine
Knowledge and Direct Experience

not to keen of dogma though,

but faith is very important, faith the size of a mustard seed and all that, the substance of things unseen, the currency of heaven, the Kingdom of Heaven is an invisible Kingdom which we access by faith.
 
What if the Transcendent is immanent and it is the Immanent that makes possible the transcending of the worldly? And that one's journey ends when one realizes that the Transcendent and the Immanent are the same all along?

Then the poll for this thread still presents a false dilemma.
 
Then the poll for this thread still presents a false dilemma.
I think it meant that the poll was incomplete because a joint approach is a possibility. I would like to hear your argument as to why the poll presents a false dilemma.
 
I think it meant that the poll was incomplete because a joint approach is a possibility. I would like to hear your argument as to why the poll presents a false dilemma.

The poll permits choice of only ONE of the "alternatives". Therefore, it presents the question as a dilemma, with one and only one answer. It does not allow for the possibility of choosing both.

In retrospect, I might allow for simple incompetence on the part of the pollster. But whether through incompetence or an extremely narrow worldview, the poll is still a poll of false dilemma.
 
quote]Poll: How do you approach religious/spiritual matters or God?
Faith and Dogma
Knowledge and Direct Experience[/quote]

Actually you should subdivide them into three categories:

* Faith, and Dogma
* Direct Experience
* Knowledge: analytical reason, logic, sceptical inquiry

I would choose analytical reason, logic, and sceptical filtering of an idea to the other choices.

Faith is believing something without evidence perhaps with emotion.

Dogma is a set of beliefs invented by someone else who expects you to believe him by AUTHORITY.

Direct Experience is problematic because direct experience may be observation of reality. But DI is as often a false experience or HALLUCINATION. It is often tied to Delusion which is false belief. Paranoid Schizophrenics have a direct mental experience of seeing god, Jesus, Mary, Brahma, Satan, Angels, Demons, or monsters. Therefore direct experience is only reliable if it is proven by reliable evidence.

One may see a stork on a Dutch Rooftop. Then he takes a picture of it and collects two loose feathers. His direct observation of the stork on a rooftop is very reliable.

If one sees Jesus doing cartwheels on the rooftop while smoking a joint he must produce evidence. If his camera shows an empty rooftop, and no Jesus or joint it is likely to be dismissed.

The only clear evidence for factual knowledge is observation both direct and indirect. If you think the Earth is at least 4 billion years or older, it is meaningless unless you find an Australian or Nova Scotian rock that is examined in the lab by radioisotope dating (a set physical constant), you have powerful evidence that the Earth is 4 billion years old.

To a Christian claiming a 6000 year old Earth, you can debunk his claim with just one 4 billion year old rock. You can also debunk his claim also by using plate tectonics. The mid-Atlantic rift zone is a long seam in the Earth half way between Kameroons Africa and the Eastern hump of Brazil. Observing with a deep sea robot that the South American Plate moves west from Africa at 2.5 cm while Aftrica moves east at 2.5 cm. You can see and measure the movement. If you divide the distance from the hump of Brazil to Kameroon's coast, then divide it by 5 cm/year, it reveals the split took place 140 million to 120 million years ago.

Radioisotope dating of fossils on the African coast and Brazil are in the same age range of 120 million years and older. Two different scientific methods have shown the Earth older than 6000 years. One is isotope dating and the other is velocity of tectonic plates moving apart along the Mid-Atlantic rift zone that began in the Cretaceous as South America separated from west Africa.

Did this example explain my point?

Amergin
 
Back
Top