Journal christalyss's Journal: On my religious beliefs 29
The first thing I want to make clear about my religious beliefs is that I haven't got any. Nor am I interested in developing any. I would rather develop a religious practice. Religion should be an activity rather than a dogma.
One way to develop such a practice, of course (though there are others) is to form religious opinions (opinions about religious practices, that is) and discuss them, and this is what I am interested in doing. However, please understand that what I say about religion is merely my opinion, and I am open to the opinions of others, and will happily revise mine as appropriate.
Having said that, here are some religious opinions:
I am a Christian. By this I mean that I am a follower of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. I have no denomination or church. Jesus was clearly the real thing, whatever that means, which is why I call him the Messiah. I do not buy any form of historical or biblical arguments for this opinion, rather, I just feel it in my heart.
I am a mystic. By this I mean that I hold God (by whatever name you wish to call Him) undefined. God has been called by many names, most of which are terribly misleading, and none of which are adequate. Any name is a definition, and God is beyond all definition and understanding (this is why I have sometimes referred to God as "the Entity Formerly Known as God, but I am willing to use the usual word as long as you understand that I don't mean what you think I mean by it). You cannot explain God, you can only experience the reality of God through direct, personal experience. This position is known as mysticism, so I am a mystic.
I think that all religions are essentially compatible. All people have a kernel of Truth at their core, which is called the Holy Spirit by Christians, a priori knowledge by Kant, Krishna Consciousness by Hare Krishnas. It is also called by many other names. Because of this, any religion which survives long must have a kernel of Truth at its core, or people will quickly recognize it as empty. However, religions are also socioeconomic institutions, and in order to compete in the marketplace, they need a "unique selling proposition". This means that they have to wrap their Truth in a lot of fancy packaging which says that their religion is the One True Way. This packaging must be stripped away to get at the Truth at the core.
I do not claim to have reached Spiritual Enlightenment, or Entire Sanctification, as it is called by Christian Mystics. I am not without sin. I have sinned many times, for which I am truly sorry. I don't claim to know any more about religion than you do. Indeed, you know exactly what I do about religion, because of the kernel of Truth at your core. I am merely interested in discussing religious opinions. I do not wish to "convert" anyone, and I will not judge you for your opinions. I just want to talk about it.
Checked In (Score:1)
Religion should be an activity rather than a dogma.
I respect this greatly as a relavitist (pyrrhonist), which is specifically non-dogmatic. Sextus Empiricus, an ancient scholar responsible for much of what we know about ancient philosophy,
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
Well, I'm not saying it's the only factor, but I am saying it's a necessary one. But if you don't believe in a priori knowledge, then you cannot agree with this.
I used to think the same thing. Subsequent experience has convinced me otherwise, and if this is a contradiction, oh well.
I think it's important to dist
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
It's in the goals, and in the general pacifism and interest in varied ideas.
I agree there is long and short term survival, and I think the truth will win out in the long term, not by aiding survival (this is a detail we differ on I suppose) but simply through relentlessness.
And as far as looking for principles which act locally based on local input, as a means to get a larger pattern to emerge over time is exactly the goal of
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
Oh, I wouldn't worry about it. We don't seem to be having that problem. I think part of the reason why is that I used to have a philosophy almost exactly like yours (before becoming a Christian), so I have a lot of respect and understanding for where you are coming from. I like this conversation. Don't worry, I'm not going to write you off just because you don't start singing praises to Jesus! ;-)
sometimes you have to fight
I'm not sure I
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
I have a daughter. If someone is in my house, I "have to" fight, and I will ready hate. And frankly (please realize I do like to call myself a pacifist and in most every instance in my life I definatly have "used the least force and acted to restore harmony" but to be frank...) I believe it's more adviseable and even MORAL, to ensure sufficient force is used to subdue the attack. I would not risk the safety of my children or wife, for example, in orde
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
I cannot argue with this, as I have no children. The parental protective instinct clearly has survival value, and if your kids are threatened, it's pretty hard to argue that you should try to use "minimum force" to counteract that threat. If in the same position, I cannot say what I would do. So you have a great point.
I do think it depends on the details of the situation, however. Many conflict situations are amenable to solution by nonviole
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
regarding some of the other stuff.
> I do think it depends on the details of the situation, however. Many conflict situations are amenable to solution by nonviolent means at significantly reduced risk.
I agree 1000% and thereby claim to be a peaceful man. And since you have acknowledge my "think of the children" example... let me also give a counterexample... suppose
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
In other words, you will use the minumum force necessary to restore harmony, when you feel that you are more powerful than the attacker. Thus the only reason to use overwhelming force is based on fear. You would use overwhelming force if you feared that the attacker were actually more powerful than you. But this is illogical. If the attacker is stronger, how do you know your resort to violence will be effective? It might just piss him
Re:Checked In (Score:1)
It's longish... so I'll finish it later... I did get through you first section. As usual, it's on topics of interest to me.
later.
Hello. (Score:1)
Just wanted to clear up a few things I say in this journal entry...
First you start out by stating, "The first thing I want to make clear about my religious beliefs is that I haven't got any." Then you go on to talk about being a follower of Jesus. That seems to be a big contradiction to me. Following Jesus is a religious practice, whether you adhere to an organized religion or not.
Second, you claim to follow Jesus yet further down state, "...God is beyond all definition and understanding..." and "...I
Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
Just wanted to clear up a few things I say in this journal entry...
I like that! Technically, I said them, but since the distinction between you and me is arbitrary, you said them too. This is wonderful! We are achieving integration alrea
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
If I am correct, a dogma is just a religious practice "set forth in an authoritative manner" (dictionary.com) by a church. If Christ built a church and that church sets forth a religious practice. Assuming for a moment that He still is at the head of said church, how is that wrong or bad? Or more to the point, why do you choose to not follow dogma if it is what God has given us?
I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
The trouble with dogma is that it is inflexible and intolerant. And the other problem is, which Church do you think is the one God created and set forth for us to follow? The Catholic Church? If not, why not? And which other one do we need to follow, and how are we to tell the difference?
I think that Christ started something called the Body of Christ, which consists of the combined spirit of all his true follower
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
Perhaps there is a stigma with dogma (heh) that keeps its true definition hidden.
And the other problem is, which Church do you think is the one God created and set forth for us to follow? The Catholic Church? If not, why not? And which other one do we need to follow, and how are we to tell the difference?
All very good questions. I would venture to guess that these questions have plagued man for centuries; especially the centuries following t
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
I would be interested in having that discussion. I have long suspected that there are other requirements, and I have some ideas about what they are, but I don't claim to know.
I think what we all need is modeling. Humans learn best by modeling. Monkey see, monkey do. So how can we enter into the kingdom, except by modeling after someone who already has? And how are we to find such a one, in a world filled with hate as you have said? I t
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
It needs to be understood that everything I say here is my own opinion, or at least what I have learned over the course of my life. It is not meant to be authoritative or absolute.
You spoke of modeling and how humans learn best by modeling. To have this discussion, I will begin by looking at the greatest model in the history of man
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
Definitely does. I agree with you about almost everything, especially the modeling after Jesus part.
I would suggest that perhaps the authority of baptism has indeed been returned to us, in the form of a multitude of children. And it's about time too!
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
I am afraid you've lost me here.
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
Well, I kind of intended to. I want to talk about this aspect later, when I have explained a few other things first.
I would be very interested in knowing where you think this authority currently vests.
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
I would like to tell you but of all people, you should realize the importance of relative truth. There is one absolute truth in the universe that resides in all of us. However, it is almost impossible to tell someone else about it. "You have to see it for yourself..." The faith I have in my church is unwaivering and I don't hesitate to share my knowledge with others, but the importance of self realization cannot be und
Re:Welcome Mr. Intel (Score:1)
Fair enough.
God Bit = True (Score:2)
But accepting that I want there to be a God, I might as well take the extra step and just believe in God. Okay. So I am now publically setting my belief in God bit to true. But that's as far as I'm willing to step.
Re:God Bit = True (Score:1)
Well, I think you're closer than you think on this one. Maybe you should do some more LSD! ;-) ("He was at Berkely in the '60s, I think he did a little too much LDS."-- Kirk) I think the distinction between you and God is arbitrary, as is the distinction between you and me.
But accepting that I want there to be a God, I might as well take the extra step and just believe in God.
This is kn
Re:God Bit = True (Score:1)
Wow, your website is cool! (Score:1)
Re:Wow, your website is cool! (Score:2)
My website hasn't been updated since 2001...I'll change that this summer when I return to Toronto.
Re:Wow, your website is cool! (Score:1)
Cool, good to hear it!
Mindpixel project (Score:1)
Re:Mindpixel project (Score:2)
If you're interested, I did a