Why do YOU post here?

Great question!

I've always had an interest in spiritual matters and enjoy exchanging ideas on the subject with others.

Actually this is the only forum I post on. I perused many faith themed forums before choosing this one and most of the others seem to have a sort of, 'My God can beat up your God mentality' that I despise.

Thankfully, I haven't found much of that here at all.
 
Mine's pretty much the same as NJ in the first sentence of post #4.

In addition, I find that I'm learning from others while strengthening my own beliefs. Putting something in writing clarifies one's thinking. It's like being in school (which I mostly enjoyed.)

In addition, I hope I'm giving readers a better understanding of what's called "soft" atheists, the ones who don't try to get in everyone else's face. I've learned a lot from Carl Sagan who was also in this camp. Although, I prefer the term "spiritual atheists" who are perhaps a little different.
 
To be honest, much of it is simply a diversion. Beyond that, it depends a great deal on the specific thread.
 
Most of the time its to counter those who like to misrepresent Christian (or Catholic) doctrine.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Thomas said:
Most of the time its to counter those who like to misrepresent Christian (or Catholic) doctrine.
Click to expand...
Isn't that just another way of saying those who's opinions do not match your own?
Click to expand...
I have no desire to answer for Thomas, but I do know that I am very much invested in countering those who misrepresent Judaism, and that is absolutely not "just another way of saying those who's opinions do not match" mine.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
I have no desire to answer for Thomas, but I do know that I am very much invested in countering those who misrepresent Judaism, and that is absolutely not "just another way of saying those who's opinions do not match" mine.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Trouble is, beyond changing the actual wording of the scripture, one persons interpretations do not necessarily match another's and while we may not agree with their interpretation, that doesn't make it wrong.

Presenting a counter argument in this case is one thing, but deeming their views as pure nonsense for instance is quite another.
 
I think this is one of the better forums of this nature,:) and on the whole people are polite even when their POV is challenged. I have posted on other forums where even Christians are 'f'ing and blinding, which is very unpleasant.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Presenting a counter argument in this case is one thing, but deeming their views as pure nonsense for instance is quite another.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, when the views are pure nonsense. I far prefer those who post informed opinions over those who share their speculations under the misguided presumption that all opinions are created equal.
 
I would agree in most situations, but not when it comes to matters of faith. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
 
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "beyond changing the actual wording of the scripture, one persons interpretations do not necessarily match another's".
 
Oddly enough I post here to test my thoughts on various subjects. There is nothing so refreshing as getting a good drubbing over some comments I have made to allow me to rethink my positions.

Sometimes the drubbings are pure bull turds. Sometimes they are very clever. But the very best ones are when I get a new insight into 'insert subject' that I had not considered before.

I'm afraid my reasons for being here are very self focused.
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "beyond changing the actual wording of the scripture, one persons interpretations do not necessarily match another's".
Click to expand...

I just meant, without changing any of the words contained in a particular Biblical passage, 2 people can read it and draw different conclusions from it.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
I just meant, without changing any of the words contained in a particular Biblical passage, 2 people can read it and draw different conclusions from it.
Click to expand...
Do you not believe that there can be informed as well as uninformed conclusions?
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Isn't that just another way of saying those who's opinions do not match your own?
Click to expand...
I think I can reasonably say no. I tend to state and explain what the teaching declares in the face of an ill-informed assumption (of which we can all be inadvertently culpable, and should not be taken to testily to task for it), although I will throw down the gauntlet when faced with someone who knows what they are saying we teach is just not true.

I don't really know much about your synthesis of Hindu and Christian thought, but I do find massive (and telling) correspondences between the two traditions but also, it seems to me, irreconcilable differences.

I would ask if you've read Tom Merton, or perhaps more in line with your thinking, the Benedictine monk Bede Griffiths who ran an ashram in India. I would also recommend Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism by 'A Monk of the West' — if only because I designed the cover!

Take my views on reincarnation. It's still an open question for me, I still read and reread the likes of Karl Rahner (a serious 'heavyweight' Catholic theologian of the last century) who proposes the possibility of reincarnation (on grounds I still can't get my head around) and the anonymous author of Meditations on the Tarot, who was a Christian Hermeticist I hold in the highest regard, who accepts reincarnation, but sadly never explained, with reason and logic, why.

The 'stumbling block' for me is that the Christian notion of 'the person' as an integral spiritual entity seems incompatible with the idea of reincarnation that is commonly espoused, and in which 'the person' becomes ephemeral and disposable, whilst simultaneously culpable for actions that are not his or her own.

To me that's like snatching someone off the street and throwing them into prison because a crime had been committed at some time, by someone, somewhere ... such an act, if that is what it is, is irrational, capricious and vindictive by any human measure, let alone 'the Divine' as I perceive it.

I do know that being submerged, even briefly, in Christian theology, philosophy and metaphysics gives me something of an 'unfair advantage' in debate ... but I can't help that! :eek:

I left Catholicism for my own reasons, but found my way back because I found a reasoning better, more noble, more gracious, more open and more in line with the highest expression of human virtue and the heartfelt desire to know God, than my own. That's not exclusive to Catholicism, but it's the 'language' that spoke to me.

I might add it was a Tibetan Buddhist who 'opened my eyes' to my own tradition, so I always have a profound respect for the noble traditions of others.

Namaste Jesus said:
Trouble is ... one persons interpretations do not necessarily match another's and while we may not agree with their interpretation, that doesn't make it wrong.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I must disagree. :eek:

There are 800 dead children in an unmarked, unconsecrated grave (a septic tank, for God's sake!) at a Catholic convent care home for unmarried mothers, in Ireland. They died of neglect.

Sorry, but I dig my heals in. :mad:

There is no way in the world that Scripture justifies that. No Catholic doctrine endorses that.

In the Name of All that's Holy — they've created a Gehenna of their very own!

I believe that so profoundly that I will repeat the words of St Maximus the Confessor: "If the Church teaches that, then the Church is wrong, and I am the Church!" (BTW: The Church did not teach what St Maximus' informant assured him that he did.)

(But if that turns out to be the case, please make all cheques and money orders payable to: Thomas@ ... :D )

Namaste Jesus said:
Presenting a counter argument in this case is one thing, but deeming their views as pure nonsense for instance is quite another.
Click to expand...
Well ... I agree in the spirit of the thing ... but when you run into views that fly in the face of reason, evidence, logic and so on ... but I agree it's not enough just to say 'you're wrong'. Better to say 'I think differently, for these reasons...'
 
Jayhawker Soule said:
Do you not believe that there can be informed as well as uninformed conclusions?
Click to expand...

Sure. It's just that not everyone agrees as to what constitutes being informed and how that applies where matters of faith are concerned.

For instance, is a astute student of the gospel any more informed than say a person who has studied the scripture all of their lives or the person who bases their spiritual conclusions on personal experience?

To put it another way, Christian doctrine asserts that Jesus is the son of God. Jewish doctrine asserts that he is not. Certainly some very informed and knowledgeable people came to these conclusions. Yet, one disagrees with the other. Since both have perfectly legitimate reasons for believing as they do however, each assumes their assertion is correct and the other incorrect.

Is one right and the other wrong? We don't really know. All that we really know for sure is that there is a difference of opinion.

In this example, all the information known, learned and studied, matters not. A casual reader of the scripture could have easily drawn the same conclusions with no prior spiritual knowledge or training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top