What I believe.....

[Nick the Pilot]

"...one's deeds are the only deciders."

--> I agree. As a matter of fact, it is said that, at the moment of enlightenment (which 'saves' us from human suffering forever), the question of whether we believe in Jesus, Buddha, Vishnu, etc., never even comes up. This ideas fits quite nicely into my own personal belief system.

 

[wil]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

 

[Thomas]

Hi GK —

This one of those if/then statements that constantly confuse me.

Don't worry ... it's constantly confused lots of people.

If someone who is not of the visible church, but is known to God to be a member, they are saved. Therefore if one has been saved, they must have been a member of the church and just under cover.

Well yes, if you accept the Christian viewpoint.

Here's the point. You can read Scripture and determine a hardline position, not surprising, most men are not philosophers.

But some men are, by inclination, philosophers (nearly all the Early Fathers had undergone some classical philosophical education). Some, by inclination, are saints.

Many sought to reconcile the idea that if God wills that all men be saved, then God's will must encompass all men who have not heard the Word.

Justin Martyr, in the 2nd century wrote:
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists ... " (Apology 1:46)

Not to mention that we mere mortals have zero clue who has actually been saved and who have not, since that happens beyond this realm of existence.....

Yes. We believe that, too.

 

[Thomas]

This is what ecumenicalism is all about. The vast majority of religious people never acknowledge the other person's point of view, and this is one of the most important things for us to learn.

Then I wish you would learn it.

The first step is being open to the other.

 

[Thomas]

Many of my atheist friends think me the invisible sky faerie in the sky guy...because they can't see theism any other way.

Many theists might agree with them. I think the point is, that's how they see your brand of theism, old son.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Justin Martyr, in the 2nd century wrote:
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists ... " (Apology 1:46)


Yes. We believe that, too

Don't. "It should be noted that this doctrine was later repudiated." Justin Martyr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thomas]

Don't. "It should be noted that this doctrine was later repudiated." Justin Martyr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By whom, I wonder. But it doesn't matter, the link I provided above, for Nick's benefit, clinches it, really. That's the 'official' line.

 

[Thomas]

Coming from polytheism, monotheism seems the extreme in arrogance. That is my problem.

But there are sound ontological arguments in favour of monotheism, have you considered them? It's a case of insight, rather than arrogance.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Absolutely. Such arguments exist. Problems arise because there seem to be sound ontological arguments against monotheism as well. From Thomas Aquinas, to Immanuel Kant, to David Hume.

As for insight and arrogance. That seems problematic. One person's insight is a different person's arrogance. And visca versca of course.......

 

[Thomas]

Agreed. I'm interested to know however, how you determine when this is happening and when someone is honestly talking about their own understanding of things in general.

Then you go back to what it is they think they understand and examine whether that understanding is a reasonable or rational interpretation; whether it can be logically demonstrated as such.

When it can't, then I think one has the right to challenge that.

For example, people have very strange ideas about psychology, and I hear some very odd versions of what psychology entails, much of which is merely outdated ideas and misinformation.

Then at least you have the right to say so.

We have the right to challenge the out-dated, the misinformed, the self-serving; that's how human rights have moved on, for example.

 

[wil]

We have the right to challenge the out-dated, the misinformed, the self-serving; that's how human rights have moved on, for example.

I couldnt have said it better myself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But there are sound ontological arguments in favour of monotheism, have you considered them? It's a case of insight, rather than arrogance.

I wish there was at least one! Then, I would not have become an atheist.

 

[wil]

I've had many a hindu priest tell me they are monotheistic...

All their G!d's are but faces/aspects of the one.

My favorite explanation.

To my mother I am a son,
to my niece I am an uncle,
to my wife I am a husband,
to my son I am a father,
to my sister I am a brother,
to others I am a priest,
or a friend....but it just me
just one, with many aspects.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No problem with that or any other theory. Hinduism accepts all its varieties.

'Eko sad, vipra bahudha vadanti': What exists is one, (nice, learned) people describe it variously.

(That One may include the Gods and Goddesses and all things in the universe - monism)

'Purnamadah Purnamidam, Purnat Purnamudachyate;
Purnasya Purnamadaya, Purnameva vasishyate.'

(This is whole, that is whole, from that whole emerges this whole;
When this whole merges in that whole, what results is still the whole.)

Even you or myself are that whole.

 

[Paladin]

.

We have the right to challenge the out-dated, the misinformed, the self-serving; that's how human rights have moved on, for example.

You certainly do. I'm beginning to learn that sharing the truth as I understand it is a touchy thing really. First of all, for all I know there is something I'm missing, and I'm not being mindful of the real argument going on underneath.
Also, I tend to reserve any real effort to help someone understand something unless it appears that they have the cognitive resources to hear and understand (though not necessarily accept) what I'm saying.
For example, you and I might not always agree, but I always have the sense that you really think about what I've written, and that makes me want to respect you all the more. Sadly, not everyone has this skill or willingness, and I don't try too hard to undo their thinking, at some point I realize that all I'm accomplishing is getting us both more firmly entrenched in our positions, something that never ends well.
Most of the time, if I can be skillful enough, there might be a short pause in the narrative the person is operating from. Sometimes just moving a person a short distance from their position is a miracle indeed.

 

[radarmark]

From Thomas Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-i-believe-16451-post281481.html#post281481
Agreed. I'm interested to know however, how you determine when this is happening and when someone is honestly talking about their own understanding of things in general.

Then you go back to what it is they think they understand and examine whether that understanding is a reasonable or rational interpretation; whether it can be logically demonstrated as such.

When it can't, then I think one has the right to challenge that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-i-believe-16451-post281481.html#post281481
For example, people have very strange ideas about psychology, and I hear some very odd versions of what psychology entails, much of which is merely outdated ideas and misinformation.

Then at least you have the right to say so.

We have the right to challenge the out-dated, the misinformed, the self-serving; that's how human rights have moved on, for example.

From Paladin Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-i-believe-16451-post281613.html#post281613
.

We have the right to challenge the out-dated, the misinformed, the self-serving; that's how human rights have moved on, for example.

You certainly do. I'm beginning to learn that sharing the truth as I understand it is a touchy thing really. First of all, for all I know there is something I'm missing, and I'm not being mindful of the real argument going on underneath.
Also, I tend to reserve any real effort to help someone understand something unless it appears that they have the cognitive resources to hear and understand (though not necessarily accept) what I'm saying.
For example, you and I might not always agree, but I always have the sense that you really think about what I've written, and that makes me want to respect you all the more. Sadly, not everyone has this skill or willingness, and I don't try too hard to undo their thinking, at some point I realize that all I'm accomplishing is getting us both more firmly entrenched in our positions, something that never ends well.
Most of the time, if I can be skillful enough, there might be a short pause in the narrative the person is operating from. Sometimes just moving a person a short distance from their position is a miracle indeed.

Peace, my Friends and Brothers. Of course, Thomas, we can challenge what is empirically thought. Is it mere opinion? Is it claimed as “certain” (never true)?
Paladin, “truth as I understand it”, or “cognitive resources to hear and understand” are very, very tricky problems, I agree. Let us deconstruct both. “Truth as I understand it” is never, never true (in terms of being 100% empirically confident. It is just a marker for “I believe”. “Cognitive resources to hear and understand” is really a value-laden judgment of a person’s rationality or “spiritual progress” (whatever that means). It does nothing to further the conversation use “let me explain from my point of view” or “I believe that it is rationally justified that”—they may work better.

 

[Paladin]

Peace, my Friends and Brothers. Of course, Thomas, we can challenge what is empirically thought. Is it mere opinion? Is it claimed as “certain” (never true)?
Paladin, “truth as I understand it”, or “cognitive resources to hear and understand” are very, very tricky problems, I agree. Let us deconstruct both. “Truth as I understand it” is never, never true (in terms of being 100% empirically confident. It is just a marker for “I believe”. “Cognitive resources to hear and understand” is really a value-laden judgment of a person’s rationality or “spiritual progress” (whatever that means). It does nothing to further the conversation use “let me explain from my point of view” or “I believe that it is rationally justified that”—they may work better.

Well of course terminology is tricky, that it is why it is critical to understand how someone else may be using the terms.
In this case, "truth as I understand it" refers to the body of psychological thought and research. It is still not a complete "truth" but a relative one that is important in specific contexts.
Cognitive resources refers not only to the ability to understand, but more importantly, how much a person's resources are not already being used in another area, such as attending to a rigid schema about something which means that cognitively, they are much less likely to be able to attend to what I'm attempting to communicate.

 

[wil]

I rather enjoy hearing what others believe...much more than listening to how wrong my beliefs are anyway.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Paladin —

I'm beginning to learn that sharing the truth as I understand it is a touchy thing really.

Well it can draw close to 'who I am', or at least 'how I see myself'.

(Aside: I am of the firm opinion that one of the reasons there are few, if any, serious orthodox of the mainstream traditions here — why actual 'interfaith' is as rare as rocking horse poo here at IO — is that the most frequent posters tend to dismiss the beliefs of others with glib and often frankly offensive assumptions, stereotyping them in a way that would be unacceptable if the issue was colour, ethnic background, sexual orientation. I am constantly gob-smacked at how prejudice is permitted in the 'robust' spirit of conversation, but when the prejudice is pointed out, oh dear, watch how the cry goes up ... )

First of all, for all I know there is something I'm missing, and I'm not being mindful of the real argument going on underneath.

That is my approach to other traditions. I find some of the 'positions' of the Eastern Orthodox highly questionable, I find the contemporary ideas of reincarnation rather sentimental, etc., but I tend to proceed on the axiom that if it doesn't make sense, I haven't understood it properly ... and the same goes for the secular argument.

Also, I tend to reserve any real effort to help someone understand something unless it appears that they have the cognitive resources to hear and understand (though not necessarily accept) what I'm saying.

Now that I am going to have inscribed across the top of my monitor. That is gold-dust. That, for me, is a slap-the-forehead, light-bulb-popping, realisation. I cannot thank you enough, you've saved me time, blood-pressure ...

For example, you and I might not always agree, but I always have the sense that you really think about what I've written, and that makes me want to respect you all the more.

The feeling is mutual, let me assure you.

Cognitive resources refers not only to the ability to understand, but more importantly, how much a person's resources are not already being used in another area, such as attending to a rigid schema about something which means that cognitively, they are much less likely to be able to attend to what I'm attempting to communicate.

I've conflated two posts here ... but that, in my book, is worth repeating.

+++

In the context of 'what I believe', I have not touched on that here for some years. All I tend to argue is that what is generally believed by the informed elements of the Tradition, and why that is reasonable, rational and logical, according to its axioms.