L
larkin31
Guest
what are you guys even talking about now???
- Status
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I found you were arguing over things I hadn’t said, but rather against “classic” pantheism. You can chase windmills if you like.
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Sorry, Jonfawkes, I wasn’t arguing about what you said. You haven’t said much I disagree with. I did disagree with. Mom2 that what you were talking about was pantheism. but shut my mouth, that is your job to reply to that as you wish. 
You seem to have a pretty good grip on things.
You seem to have a pretty good grip on things.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Sorry, I was responding to Mom2 - I posted too quickly, didn’t see what I quoted. We’re good.Sorry, Jonfawkes, I wasn’t arguing about what you said. You haven’t said much I disagree with. I did disagree with. Mom2 that what you were talking about was pantheism. but shut my mouth, that is your job to reply to that as you wish.
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Cool, Jonfawkes. Relative to the thread title, we can see that rationality can become the tool for serving the justification of belief as religion when relationship with God can only described in structured linguistic terms as a pointer. Instead, as you can gather from the many aspects of this and any other forum, and similarly to atheist forums who have a nearly identical fault, that reason has become the substitute for Substance as experience. Both science and religion claim that it’s objects can be known by reason alone. Wrong. As far as the Spiritual is actually concerned, it requires an unreasonable interior life, in the sense that it and its perceptions cannot be usefully reasoned save as sorts of road signs that are not themselves the road.
And that, as far as I can see is why the public aspect of the Church is prey to its own brand of scientism or materialism with its corollary events to the errors of the secular world. The actual techniques of spirituality start where religion leaves off, as demonstrated by Aquinas and Avila, eg, and what they said regarding the teachings. That is despite the religious materialists false claim to such realms as those two and their elevated statements point to, as an actual statement of Reality as has been futilely attempted by canon.
This is why the interpretive ream, where Spirituality actually takes place, tends to be anathema in the Catechistic approach of teaching, as useful as some of that might be in forming a rudimentary morality. It is rudimentary as evidenced by what we see in the news, as is the secular approach similarly rudimentary. The populations of prisons, adjusted for economics, exactly reflect the general population and its religious demographics.
So in a sense, one, using a very rational tool as did many of the Church greats, must enter into and irrational condition in order to transcend, yet include the mind. Part of this is the “dark night of the soul,” an epic event in one’s spiritual life. Emergence, as say described by Inocente, is yet problematic, because one still has to use mental tools trained and habituated to a paradigm to express what happened. So instead of a Universal language for that sort of generic triumph, we have to say it in the language we were born to or converted to. And those who haven’t had the experience ans simply rationalize about it summarily reject the equally valid description of that internal even if it described in the terms of an unfamiliar tradition, or by someone who is simply graced.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
And that, as far as I can see is why the public aspect of the Church is prey to its own brand of scientism or materialism with its corollary events to the errors of the secular world. The actual techniques of spirituality start where religion leaves off, as demonstrated by Aquinas and Avila, eg, and what they said regarding the teachings. That is despite the religious materialists false claim to such realms as those two and their elevated statements point to, as an actual statement of Reality as has been futilely attempted by canon.
This is why the interpretive ream, where Spirituality actually takes place, tends to be anathema in the Catechistic approach of teaching, as useful as some of that might be in forming a rudimentary morality. It is rudimentary as evidenced by what we see in the news, as is the secular approach similarly rudimentary. The populations of prisons, adjusted for economics, exactly reflect the general population and its religious demographics.
So in a sense, one, using a very rational tool as did many of the Church greats, must enter into and irrational condition in order to transcend, yet include the mind. Part of this is the “dark night of the soul,” an epic event in one’s spiritual life. Emergence, as say described by Inocente, is yet problematic, because one still has to use mental tools trained and habituated to a paradigm to express what happened. So instead of a Universal language for that sort of generic triumph, we have to say it in the language we were born to or converted to. And those who haven’t had the experience ans simply rationalize about it summarily reject the equally valid description of that internal even if it described in the terms of an unfamiliar tradition, or by someone who is simply graced.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
I
inocente
Guest
If you just take “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” by itself then you could read it as about a personal event, but in context (Daniel 12:1-3) I’d warrant it can only be a general event concerning everlasting life, ditto Matt 25 the sheep and the goats. I’m not a fan of the apocalyptic but the last judgment is there in Christianity and (I think) Islam.
There are all kinds of reasons for wanting to believe in an afterlife, we can be hard-nosed about the expectation but it’s undeniably part of many people’s psyche – I know an atheist who believes in the afterlife on the basis she wants to meet up with her friends and family. What she’ll do after the first billion years is left unanswered
.But also the folk who say our eyes will be opened once we do X seem totally off-base to me. There’s a continuum, every time we think we’ve made it to Enlightenment MN we’re actually stuck on a siding in Nowhere AZ. Lisa Simpson once tried to bring Bart to enlightenment with the koan “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” Bart grins and slaps the fingers of his right hand against his right palm. Bart is one of us practical guys.
I
inocente
Guest
Ahem. One more time: YES
There was a thread a while back about where the soul is located, and the range of views was quite surprising. Another thread on what heaven is like also produced a wide range, and I suspect that if we went into how the soul is transported there we’d find yet another range.
The plain fact is that no one really has a clue and it seems few if any want to scrupulously analyze our personal take in depth. Without wanting to offend, we can interpret scripture or appeal to tradition or quote from theories, but they were also written by men. The only way to know for sure is something we’ll all eventually experience, so meanwhile if I say potato and you say potaato, it doesn’t change anything.
Except of course I’m invincible.
We live by faith, not by sight. My favorite psalm (131) is about the soul. You may know that Bernstein set it to music, so after the tormented bit sing along and maybe we can come to (a grudging
) agreement somewhere: Bow Valley Chorus, Chichester Psalms 3rd mvmt + finale (direct translation from Hebrew here).
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Ah, the Chichester Psalms! Lovely!
My bit on this? I will continue to submit that the root experience Inocente enjoyed and which the Saints described, and which the Mystics of other traditions put forth, is attainable by known and reproducible means. Those fulfill the three requirements of science as applied to the inner self. I also submit that those who have done that do are in agreement, and have been, throughout history and time, regardless of who they were, where they grew up, any of their genders or conditions, and what they believed politically or religiously. And they were suspect always by those who relied exclusively on dogma, even in the Church.
That sort of agreement leads me to feel that such a practice and result is more in line with the idea of being created in the image and likeness of God than adherence to any form of exoteric religious practice, no matter how sincere or how emotionally felt. What I’m talking about is beyond the realm of opinion and is rooted in the very nature of our ability even to "think"about God. It is therefore the only actual and useful tool of ecumenism I personally have yet found, as exegetic arguments are yet in the realm of intellectual assertion and thus subject to countermands.
So I’m kind of stumped, as I’ve indicated elsewhere and before. The means is at hand, and the support for it can be found in every tradition and those who use it are in agreement as to higher matters. Only those who refrain and go strictly the route of dogmatic argumentation fail to see the efficacy of what is in effect a crack in the armor of differences. It is even a crack in the world as we know it as a sensorial intellectual experience. It is an opportunity to transcend the world and yet include it according to the admonitions of all great Traditions.
Go figure. I’m just stumped about this.
My bit on this? I will continue to submit that the root experience Inocente enjoyed and which the Saints described, and which the Mystics of other traditions put forth, is attainable by known and reproducible means. Those fulfill the three requirements of science as applied to the inner self. I also submit that those who have done that do are in agreement, and have been, throughout history and time, regardless of who they were, where they grew up, any of their genders or conditions, and what they believed politically or religiously. And they were suspect always by those who relied exclusively on dogma, even in the Church.
That sort of agreement leads me to feel that such a practice and result is more in line with the idea of being created in the image and likeness of God than adherence to any form of exoteric religious practice, no matter how sincere or how emotionally felt. What I’m talking about is beyond the realm of opinion and is rooted in the very nature of our ability even to "think"about God. It is therefore the only actual and useful tool of ecumenism I personally have yet found, as exegetic arguments are yet in the realm of intellectual assertion and thus subject to countermands.
So I’m kind of stumped, as I’ve indicated elsewhere and before. The means is at hand, and the support for it can be found in every tradition and those who use it are in agreement as to higher matters. Only those who refrain and go strictly the route of dogmatic argumentation fail to see the efficacy of what is in effect a crack in the armor of differences. It is even a crack in the world as we know it as a sensorial intellectual experience. It is an opportunity to transcend the world and yet include it according to the admonitions of all great Traditions.
Go figure. I’m just stumped about this.
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Actually, Inocente, the answer to that Koan is “whoosh…whoosh…whoosh…” I know it’s whooshful thinking, but it seems to me if the point of a koan was actually understood instead of being relegated to zen weirdness, there would be fewer such jokes.
Yes, actually I was thinking of it as a general event, as was the alleged fall. Both are subject to an entirely different interpretation which coincides with my contention that Christianity is a veiled and symbolic avenue to something very real that is more simply approached by other means, as much as I am infatuated by the ceremony and rituals of the Church. I just can’t bear the “nearly there” and “just off” shadows of understanding put forth in sermons and exegesis.
And I certainly didn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge an “afterlife” a word which I consider an oxymoron. I just see that ultimately, whatever might happen in between, Eternity has no attribute of duration. The “NOW” of eternity is not the “now” of between then and then. And I have some serious questions about the ordinary concepts of personal survival. I dont think that happens quite as advertised, but can’t say from experience yet. As you may have noticed, I continually find myself somewhere else that the traditional “fer” or “agin” type either/or contentions. It just isn’t that simple. It is more simple.
And I’ve literally been to Nowhere AZ, and New Mexico as well. But might I suggest that if X is done and eyes are opened, then they might be used to see? I’m reminded (Oh, dear…) of the inside illustration of Donovan’s Cosmic Wheel album. It’s not two worlds. And it is possible to be in both aspects at once without compromising either. They are just understood differently.
There. I said it again.
Yes, actually I was thinking of it as a general event, as was the alleged fall. Both are subject to an entirely different interpretation which coincides with my contention that Christianity is a veiled and symbolic avenue to something very real that is more simply approached by other means, as much as I am infatuated by the ceremony and rituals of the Church. I just can’t bear the “nearly there” and “just off” shadows of understanding put forth in sermons and exegesis.
And I certainly didn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge an “afterlife” a word which I consider an oxymoron. I just see that ultimately, whatever might happen in between, Eternity has no attribute of duration. The “NOW” of eternity is not the “now” of between then and then. And I have some serious questions about the ordinary concepts of personal survival. I dont think that happens quite as advertised, but can’t say from experience yet. As you may have noticed, I continually find myself somewhere else that the traditional “fer” or “agin” type either/or contentions. It just isn’t that simple. It is more simple.
And I’ve literally been to Nowhere AZ, and New Mexico as well. But might I suggest that if X is done and eyes are opened, then they might be used to see? I’m reminded (Oh, dear…) of the inside illustration of Donovan’s Cosmic Wheel album. It’s not two worlds. And it is possible to be in both aspects at once without compromising either. They are just understood differently.
There. I said it again.
T
tonyrey
Guest
This seems to conflict with your statements:
Unless you distinguish souls from ghosts, of course…
I
inocente
Guest
Agreed there are lots of ways to find our spirituality and each to their own. Personally koans don’t cut it compared to, say, a spring pilgrimage from Santa Fe to Farquahrts bar in Durango CO, then waking up in the Best Western to the sound and smell of that old steam train before going whitewater rafting.
In other words us practical guys can only see what was always in front of our nose through new experiences, we can’t get there by ruminating. Besides we get to eat pizza and drink beer along the way.
I
inocente
Guest
Correcto, shirley you don’t believe in ghosts? A lot of superstitions are blown out the water with no possibility of the dead sticking around on earth in spirit form. I ain’t afraid of no ghosts ‘cause there ain’t no ghosts.Unless you distinguish souls from ghosts, of course…
Having googled this homework I found only negative references to a belief in ghosts in the Bible. Lev warns against mediums and spiritualists to the point of stoning them. In Luke 24:36-43 and Matt 14:25-27 Christ refers to the disciples’ superstition but says no, he definitely isn’t a ghost.
The RCC seems to be a little more open than me but only a little:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68370
ehow.com/about_4577988_roman-catholic-church-say-ghosts.html
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
I had a studio in Tucson; love the desert, say at 3AM in the morning by a siding 50 miles from anywhere waiting for a freight train and the sky looking like someone threw a bowl of sugar sparkles on navy velvet. Love those old steamers! I’ve white-watered the Salt, but that’s my only time doing that, though I love to canoe in Canada.Agreed there are lots of ways to find our spirituality and each to their own. Personally koans don’t cut it compared to, say, a spring pilgrimage from Santa Fe to Farquahrts bar in Durango CO, then waking up in the Best Western to the sound and smell of that old steam train before going whitewater rafting.
In other words us practical guys can only see what was always in front of our nose through new experiences, we can’t get there by ruminating. Besides we get to eat pizza and drink beer along the way.
I don’t personally use koans, but have a unique appreciation for anything that can stop the mind on the cusp of paradox where only attention lives. That state can tell you things about yourself that reason has no clue about, as dearly as I love and respect that graced faculty.
And speaking of that, you flagging that you are a Baptist, I saw a sign sported by the Beryl Baptist Church that exclaimed “REASON IS THE GREATEST ENEMY THAT FAITH HAS.” Is that S.O.P. for that faith??? Doesn’t seem to go with “practical guys.” “Zup?” as the say?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
It is an either or. There is either, in existence, just that which is intrinsically God and cannot be otherwise, or there is some kind of dualism; essential dualism to be precise. God is not by definition a potential being because God is absolute being. Thus God is not the intrinsically finite potential universe. God lacks nothing intrinsic to the nature that is God, and thus it is meaningless to suggest that God can have potentiality and therefore can have or gain more existence or have changing parts in his being. Suggesting that we are merely perceiving a finite portion of God does not change the fact that you are espousing pantheism - classical or otherwise - by saying that the universe is intrinsically God, and neither does it change the fact that you are making a blatant contradiction of God by suggesting that God has finite quantifiable parts, since the infinite by definition transcends all logically possible objective quantities.
The mystery is why you choose to ignore these very easy to understand facts. That you are a victim of brainwashing is the only thing I can think of.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Brushing away my argument with bold baseless assertions in-order to give the impression of greater secret knowledge or intelligence amounts to nothing more than deception employed to cover up your inability to fully comprehend what I said; and your tone suggests that neither do you want to comprehend it for fear of losing what you unfortunately perceive as power.
Its a shame:tsktsk:.
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
Frankly, I think you are ranking on me for fulfilling your signature. But maybe we can chat another time. Bon chance.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Just because the ocean has waves doesn’t mean it stops being the ocean.
I find your view equally mysterious.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The ocean is a finite changing entity incomparable to God, thus this analogy is fallacious. God is not a potential being that gains in being potentially, thus again this is fallacious. You are not talking about God.
There is no mystery in what I am saying. Your failure to agree with me is due only to your failure to reason correctly in regards to Gods attributes. You do not understand the intrinsic difference between finity and infinity, for if you did you would understand that the difference doesn’t lie in which perspective you view reality, but rather it lies in the distinct and intrinsic “nature” of what infinity is and what a finite being is.
I
inocente
Guest
I’d hope the sign means God must be experienced whereas cerebral activity (arguments for God, etc.) stops faith in its tracks. The pastor is one of us practical guys bemoaning theorists. But the sign is preaching to his choir, he forgot that others might get completely the wrong picture. On the other hand if he’s Southern Baptist, I’ve sometimes no idea what those guys are on about.
I
inocente
Guest
Maybe it’s your phrasing, but I’d have real problems with any attempted definition of God - to me God is so far beyond understanding that the dictionary definition should read:
God (noun) - The creator of all. Beyond that we’re stumped.
- Status