- Status
S
scottm
Guest
Huh? Are you awake? The bodily resurrection of Jesus is DOGMA, as is the “100% God and 100% man at the same time” nature of Jesus. So Pat just told you that you are blatantly wrong for advertising yourself as a Catholic while simultaneously denying both of those DOGMAS of the Catholicism.
T
Tuno
Guest
They are not abstract, though they may be obscure. Most, at least many, Christians are unaware that there is a controversy as to the origins of Christianity relative to what are called “Mystery religions.” These and other ideas are often lumped together under the thought that Christianity developed from ancient myths and pagan religions. This may or may not be to some extent so; Catholicism is notoriously syncretic, i.e., accommodating of the practices of “converts,” in practice if not in theory. Part of the confusion in this area is that today’s usage of the word “myth” is far from what it used to, or actually means. “Myth” or “Mythos” refers very strongly to the idea of parable, but longer. Myths incorporate the ideas surrounding spiritual transformation in the form of a Hero’s journey. Historically, these Myths have incorporated in some form or another, or very directly, such ideas as the virgin birth, 12 disciples, miracles, ignominious death, and resurrection.
And the reference to Mark 4:33,34 had far more to do with the interesting idea that Jesus apparently didn’t teach His own in parables, but gave them the “straight goods.” As far as I can tell, form the way the Gospels are written, they are about the public life of Jesus, not what he gave to His disciples.
If you want to feel isolated and alone, though those are easily dismissible thoughts, try speaking from the position of non dualism, lol!
I am quite sure that many believers in Catholicism, as many believers in any religion, are very sincere and can find this religion very useful. IMHO, it is not, in effect, anyway, because it is 1/1 correspondent to the truth as it is presented publicly. But that is another thread.
For the purposes of interpretation of passages of the Bible, it is useful to consider a number of dynamics. The chief of these is: when a passage is being considered, is it from a standpoint within, without, or from a more encompassing context of the books? Many factors apply. Without going into examples of these, some are: how do religions, including “mine,” originate and evolve, and how did I come to acquire mine? Who taught it to me, and how did they learn it and are their sources trustworthy or rote? What are the questions surrounding translation, meaning, collections, foreign grammars and scripts, culture of origin, nature of witnessing transmission, related stories, collections, canons, epistemology, non Christian religions, history, interpretation itself, motivations and methods of founders, the structural differential, etc., etc., all of which bear on my considerations and understanding? If we look at any Church or organization, including ours, it is easy to perceive that often neither leaders nor followers are as pure as the driven snow, by any means, purported theology aside.
It is a lot to think about. For a very useful and highly annotated work, (though a it’s a bit lacking at the esoteric end,) which encompasses these ideas and is a fun read, one might look at Gina Cerminara’s very unfortunately titled and exceptionally useful work subtitled a handbook for religious sanity. But whatever it is called, it brings to the attention many factors related to the thread–aside from belief–that have great importance and consequence, and yet which for the most part are ignored by the faithful. In fact, as I have often found, faith itself often is a barrier to impartial inquiry. I mean, does anyone think that G-d is “offended” by sincere interest and a desire to know rather that to simply accept and be assimilated? I often think of the parishioner who had need of learning another language, but didn’t, because “G-d writ the Bible in English, and that makes it good enough for me!”
P
PJM
Guest
Do you beleive in God? I ask because I can’t recon your position and belief in a Supreme Deity.
You dismiss far too lightly the isues of Martyrs’ and Miracles. I that BOTH take place even in the present day; I have no difficulty accepting the ones in the Bible. And if these two catagories are true; then what evidence [other than opinions] do you have to share that the other FACTS are not also true.
It would seem that historical evidence comes into play here also in support of the bible.
Love and prayers,
Pat
T
Tuno
Guest
God is not a matter of belief. God IS. I do not dismiss the matter of martyrs and miracles, I categorize them differently that you do. I accept the miracles in the Bible as well, but not in the same way you do, even though they point to literal truth, but not, I believe, as you see it. And you are convinced of your FACTS and therefore have no room for receptivity. If you did, your questions would be of an entirely different nature. Historic evidence relative to the Bible is incidental to it’s intent, as far as I can see. History is incidental to His story. To argue history in support of truth in the Bible is to have already misread that Bible.
B
billwjb
Guest
Tuno,
Please say a little more. In what way do you categorize martyrs an miracles? How do they point to literal truth in your view? And how do you read rather than misread the bible?
T
Tuno
Guest
Billwjb, Martyrs are people who die rather than change their beliefs. This could range from anyone who dies as a result of stupid denial in the face of an emergency to someone who won’t recant a declaration of faith even on pain of a horrible death. Usually we think of the latter end of the spectrum when we use the term. My somewhat different interpretation comes for my understanding of the word “faith” as commonly applied in these instances.
There are people who acquire a faith and hold to it so firmly that in the crunch of a situation which tests their allegiance to their professions, they choose to die for what they see as integrity to a cosmological paradigm. Typically we think of Christians in the Colosseum, but we might also think of Jews in Auschwitz or pagans in death camps early Christians ran in the early days of the Church.
Now there are two ways of acquiring what might be called faith. Usually it is a matter of experiencing a practiced consistency of thought forms to the point that they constitute the habitual reality of the individual holding them. Cradle faithers of any stripe go in this category, or people who have some form of emotional peak experience they hard wire to their religious beliefs. But there is another way of acquiring “faith,” though properly it would, from the point of view of the individual, constitute Knowledge.
The Knowledge I refer to here is esoteric insight as distinct from exoteric belief by force of habit or “logic” called faith. Individuals who have such insight are uncommon, but not rare, and their insight arrives in some kinds and degrees of depth. Some of these are profound and life changing events and transcend the forms and habits of religion as we ordinarily understand them. Despite this transcendency, it is often the case that the individual, for whatever reason, will express their insight in the terms of their habitual faith. Some do not, because they are not religious people to begin with, but simply experience a life changing Grace, In any case, much of the expression surrounding such an experience is determines to an extent, however small, of the discursive state of mind ordinarily available to the person.
So what I am saying is there are martyrs who die from sincerity of habit, and there are martyrs who die simply because they know better and have integrity with their Knowledge.
Miracles are of several categories as well. As Asimov said, any technology sufficiently advanced appears to be magic. But what constitutes technology? Richard Bandler talked his mother out of metastatic breast cancer and she live another eleven years without medical intervention. My Mother was in hospital and was having an exceptionally difficult time breathing. Thinking of my Mentor, a highly accomplished metaphysician, I touched her sternum and her breathing immediately became normal. I had no intention of doing anything to precipitate a change; I only felt for her. People who had offered no prayers often experience events labeled “miraculous.”
My Mentor said that, among other things, a miracle is “the lessening of objective confinement.” And that can happen many ways. Often it is by dint of our own ignorance. There is currently a study going on as to the dynamics of stage magic relative to faith. Will that lessen the power of God? No. Will it clarify why and how we perceive things as being unexplainable? Probably. Consider, for instance, the Cargo Cults that formed during the second world war. Did building airplane shapes from sticks and praying for cargo facilitate the arrival of actual airplanes and economic development? No, that was already in place, but beyond the ken of the islanders who had never seen a DC-3. And yet, do events which negate the laws of physics happen? I’m sure they do. Some of them are associated with religious faith, some not. Read The Book of the Damned by Charles Fort and other such works.
As for misreading the Bible, ask yourself how many translations of it are there out there. And then start conversations with various people of faith or non faith or non Christian religions and see what happens. Even Catholic scholars debate about the meaning or historicity of aspects of the “Good Book.” And if you ask a non dualist, you will be told that identity statements from both the OT and NT are exactly congruent with that system’s philosophy which is decidedly non Christian. Or read Mary Baker Eddy. There are some documented miracles for you.
Actually, if you go to the stream of authors anciently represented by such as Buddha, Shankara, and some others, or read Lao tze, or more contemporarily such as Jac O’Keeffe, Merrell-Wolff, Smotermon, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Ken Wilbur, Kenneth G. Mills, Gangaji, Byron Katie, or a host of others both ancient and contemporary, you will discover that there is an entire world of ideas bearing on Biblical interpretation the common arguers about historicity and dogma don’t even consider as relevant, and yet which intrinsically bear on interpretation. One even might go to Gina Cerminara’s handbook for religious sanity for a fun reading of well annotated ideas very pertinent in this line of inquiry.
I guess what I’m saying is that one can interpret passages from the Bible for “within,” as a believer off the top in a particular faith. Or, contrarywise, one can do some serious research into themselves and how we acquire knowledge and what knowledge of what kinds there are to be had. I mean, if you go to the work of such as neuroanatomist JB Taylor, it becomes plain that most religions don’t even include other states of awareness as having bearing on religious insight or awareness as other than an aside labeled “mysticism.” And yet, this might be, along with such as pointed to by some of the above authors, the very root no only of religion, but of the understanding of hypostatic union itself. If that is so, the Church has some 'splainin to do.
There are people who acquire a faith and hold to it so firmly that in the crunch of a situation which tests their allegiance to their professions, they choose to die for what they see as integrity to a cosmological paradigm. Typically we think of Christians in the Colosseum, but we might also think of Jews in Auschwitz or pagans in death camps early Christians ran in the early days of the Church.
Now there are two ways of acquiring what might be called faith. Usually it is a matter of experiencing a practiced consistency of thought forms to the point that they constitute the habitual reality of the individual holding them. Cradle faithers of any stripe go in this category, or people who have some form of emotional peak experience they hard wire to their religious beliefs. But there is another way of acquiring “faith,” though properly it would, from the point of view of the individual, constitute Knowledge.
The Knowledge I refer to here is esoteric insight as distinct from exoteric belief by force of habit or “logic” called faith. Individuals who have such insight are uncommon, but not rare, and their insight arrives in some kinds and degrees of depth. Some of these are profound and life changing events and transcend the forms and habits of religion as we ordinarily understand them. Despite this transcendency, it is often the case that the individual, for whatever reason, will express their insight in the terms of their habitual faith. Some do not, because they are not religious people to begin with, but simply experience a life changing Grace, In any case, much of the expression surrounding such an experience is determines to an extent, however small, of the discursive state of mind ordinarily available to the person.
So what I am saying is there are martyrs who die from sincerity of habit, and there are martyrs who die simply because they know better and have integrity with their Knowledge.
Miracles are of several categories as well. As Asimov said, any technology sufficiently advanced appears to be magic. But what constitutes technology? Richard Bandler talked his mother out of metastatic breast cancer and she live another eleven years without medical intervention. My Mother was in hospital and was having an exceptionally difficult time breathing. Thinking of my Mentor, a highly accomplished metaphysician, I touched her sternum and her breathing immediately became normal. I had no intention of doing anything to precipitate a change; I only felt for her. People who had offered no prayers often experience events labeled “miraculous.”
My Mentor said that, among other things, a miracle is “the lessening of objective confinement.” And that can happen many ways. Often it is by dint of our own ignorance. There is currently a study going on as to the dynamics of stage magic relative to faith. Will that lessen the power of God? No. Will it clarify why and how we perceive things as being unexplainable? Probably. Consider, for instance, the Cargo Cults that formed during the second world war. Did building airplane shapes from sticks and praying for cargo facilitate the arrival of actual airplanes and economic development? No, that was already in place, but beyond the ken of the islanders who had never seen a DC-3. And yet, do events which negate the laws of physics happen? I’m sure they do. Some of them are associated with religious faith, some not. Read The Book of the Damned by Charles Fort and other such works.
As for misreading the Bible, ask yourself how many translations of it are there out there. And then start conversations with various people of faith or non faith or non Christian religions and see what happens. Even Catholic scholars debate about the meaning or historicity of aspects of the “Good Book.” And if you ask a non dualist, you will be told that identity statements from both the OT and NT are exactly congruent with that system’s philosophy which is decidedly non Christian. Or read Mary Baker Eddy. There are some documented miracles for you.
Actually, if you go to the stream of authors anciently represented by such as Buddha, Shankara, and some others, or read Lao tze, or more contemporarily such as Jac O’Keeffe, Merrell-Wolff, Smotermon, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Ken Wilbur, Kenneth G. Mills, Gangaji, Byron Katie, or a host of others both ancient and contemporary, you will discover that there is an entire world of ideas bearing on Biblical interpretation the common arguers about historicity and dogma don’t even consider as relevant, and yet which intrinsically bear on interpretation. One even might go to Gina Cerminara’s handbook for religious sanity for a fun reading of well annotated ideas very pertinent in this line of inquiry.
I guess what I’m saying is that one can interpret passages from the Bible for “within,” as a believer off the top in a particular faith. Or, contrarywise, one can do some serious research into themselves and how we acquire knowledge and what knowledge of what kinds there are to be had. I mean, if you go to the work of such as neuroanatomist JB Taylor, it becomes plain that most religions don’t even include other states of awareness as having bearing on religious insight or awareness as other than an aside labeled “mysticism.” And yet, this might be, along with such as pointed to by some of the above authors, the very root no only of religion, but of the understanding of hypostatic union itself. If that is so, the Church has some 'splainin to do.
B
billwjb
Guest
Thanks for this.
Actually your whole post is worthy of extended discussion, pretty much line by line.
In the above excerpt, I can’t help but think of how “cradle faithers” would include all the little communists brought up in Russia and China all the little terrorists or jihadists brought up in the islamic world. The “technique” used has to be similar to that used in bringing up a cradle Catholic or Jew. As a cradle Catholic, I have had a lifelong relationship with not only the ideas, but also all the “bells and smells”, rituals and myth associated with the church. I guess I have to be thankful that at least a few of my teachers encouraged me to ask hard questions and wonder why as a matter of policy. They didn’t seem to be afraid of any subject, and I like to think I’m not either.
I’ll try to keep chewing on the rest of the post.
B
billwjb
Guest
An example or two of the underlined clause might help some (like me) to get your meaning here. The last sentence above is over my head, but reminds me of something Depak Chopra said recently, about religion being about accepting someone else’s religious experience rather than one’s own.
T
Tuno
Guest
Humans operate in two modes of awareness relative to what is called being “awake.” Both of these, by one way of reckoning, still constitute sleep, and that sleep is the ordinary experience of most human beings on a day to day basis. But why is it called "sleep,’ when it is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between the time we spend sawing logs in bed at night and when we go about our sometimes adrenaline charged day? Well, the adrenaline charge is one way of getting to the point. There is another and its sub-categories, but lets start with the chemical way first, as it has been studied, though it’s significance may not have been correctly assessed.
There is something that happens to athletes, musicians, and many people who do things very intently and with great focus. Even lovers and meditators experience it. It is called everything from “being in the zone” to “flowing” to “creative reverie.” It happens to some regularly, to others often, to some once, and to many never.
What that state is can be called a lessening of the barrier between the ordinary mind we use and the intuitive mind, or the non-discursive mind. In fact, we can call the aspects of the human awareness “discursive” and “non-discursive.” Or “dianoetic” and “non-dianoetic.” Most simply, though, we can say “subject/object” and “intuitive.” We are, most of us, almost constantly in the subject/object, or s/o mode. That means that we perceive ourselves as a discreet or autonomous identity who is aware of the world around them. We are creatures who use senses to navigate the environment we live in.
Now we know, or were told and believe, (important distinction) that we are more than “meat-bots.” We have, we are told, a soul. And we use as a “proof” for this that we are self aware. Our awareness is self reflexive. It doesn’t just receive, and we don’t just react instinctually. There is a “ghost in the machine.” And most of us are not materialists who believe that the brain is just an organ that excretes thoughts, though it does excrete chemicals according to our perceptions. This is further proof of our uniqueness. While say most animals, with the exception of trained ones, might behave almost identically in any situation, we, though having that tendency, can respond uniquely and singularly according to the level and compass of our awareness.
The one area of awareness we seem to habitually neglect to a large or very large extent is the study of that quality and ability of self awareness. We tend to take it for granted and rarely go beyond simply noticing it at times. And sometimes we have those “peak” experiences where we are in the “zone” and think that that is just a rare happening. But there is more to this mode than meets the superficial glance. While the peak experience is a hint of another mode of awareness, there is a further refinement that can happen when the discursive mind is somehow shut off and only the non-discursive is operating. If you go here you can get an idea of what I mean.
Now in that example the state was achieved by trauma. But there are other ways, and ways that do not include any relative contents. It is in those states that religious experience can and does happen. It is in those states of pure awareness with no object that we can com the closest to experiencing soul, bliss, and even a glimpse of the Beatific Vision. In any case, when the two modes of awareness can be harmoniously integrated as a constant state, that person is deemed Awake. That of course, is called different things in different traditions, and here is where your question can be answered.
Because we grow up in a certain way and habitually appreciate the world in certain terms, and those terms necessarily apply in the s/o state of relationship to the world, we find on returning to that state that “words can’t describe such glory” or whatever. Yet we try to describe it. What do we have to do that with? We have the mind set we acquired before our experience of awareness in its purity. So in the same way as people who have near death experiences name the Presence they “meet” during that incident according to their religious convictions or lack of them, we tend to describe the experience we had in terms of our faith or lack of it.
Very rarely does one see so clearly or have an experience so profound that it is recognized as archetypal and the need to find new language becomes an imperative. This may happen even in the cases of those who have no exposure to other religions or philosophies. They only have the language of their faith to express what is in fact an experience that transcends the forms of religion.
And that is what most people of faith don’t understand due to lack of this extraordinary type of experience. Religion, as such is an event within the discursive mind. God, and what constitutes you being in THAT image and likeness, is approachable only through the non-discursive mind. And that is why there are spontaneous realizations, awakenings, or conversions, whatever you wish to call them, of a certain category. Naturally, they are spoken of in the terms most familiar to the mind that now feels impelled to describe what is beyond description.
So what you said about Dr. Chopra applies in that religion–as a paradigm–is acquired in the s/o state and is limited to cultural thoughts about, while insight is more in the category of knowledge by identity,or direct experience of what is universally True relevant to each one being the image and likeness of God. A hallmark of such realizations of which I speak is that they are remarkably consistent despite differences in time, location, culture, and any other factor bearing on the realizer, even religion.
I hope that helps.
There is something that happens to athletes, musicians, and many people who do things very intently and with great focus. Even lovers and meditators experience it. It is called everything from “being in the zone” to “flowing” to “creative reverie.” It happens to some regularly, to others often, to some once, and to many never.
What that state is can be called a lessening of the barrier between the ordinary mind we use and the intuitive mind, or the non-discursive mind. In fact, we can call the aspects of the human awareness “discursive” and “non-discursive.” Or “dianoetic” and “non-dianoetic.” Most simply, though, we can say “subject/object” and “intuitive.” We are, most of us, almost constantly in the subject/object, or s/o mode. That means that we perceive ourselves as a discreet or autonomous identity who is aware of the world around them. We are creatures who use senses to navigate the environment we live in.
Now we know, or were told and believe, (important distinction) that we are more than “meat-bots.” We have, we are told, a soul. And we use as a “proof” for this that we are self aware. Our awareness is self reflexive. It doesn’t just receive, and we don’t just react instinctually. There is a “ghost in the machine.” And most of us are not materialists who believe that the brain is just an organ that excretes thoughts, though it does excrete chemicals according to our perceptions. This is further proof of our uniqueness. While say most animals, with the exception of trained ones, might behave almost identically in any situation, we, though having that tendency, can respond uniquely and singularly according to the level and compass of our awareness.
The one area of awareness we seem to habitually neglect to a large or very large extent is the study of that quality and ability of self awareness. We tend to take it for granted and rarely go beyond simply noticing it at times. And sometimes we have those “peak” experiences where we are in the “zone” and think that that is just a rare happening. But there is more to this mode than meets the superficial glance. While the peak experience is a hint of another mode of awareness, there is a further refinement that can happen when the discursive mind is somehow shut off and only the non-discursive is operating. If you go here you can get an idea of what I mean.
Now in that example the state was achieved by trauma. But there are other ways, and ways that do not include any relative contents. It is in those states that religious experience can and does happen. It is in those states of pure awareness with no object that we can com the closest to experiencing soul, bliss, and even a glimpse of the Beatific Vision. In any case, when the two modes of awareness can be harmoniously integrated as a constant state, that person is deemed Awake. That of course, is called different things in different traditions, and here is where your question can be answered.
Because we grow up in a certain way and habitually appreciate the world in certain terms, and those terms necessarily apply in the s/o state of relationship to the world, we find on returning to that state that “words can’t describe such glory” or whatever. Yet we try to describe it. What do we have to do that with? We have the mind set we acquired before our experience of awareness in its purity. So in the same way as people who have near death experiences name the Presence they “meet” during that incident according to their religious convictions or lack of them, we tend to describe the experience we had in terms of our faith or lack of it.
Very rarely does one see so clearly or have an experience so profound that it is recognized as archetypal and the need to find new language becomes an imperative. This may happen even in the cases of those who have no exposure to other religions or philosophies. They only have the language of their faith to express what is in fact an experience that transcends the forms of religion.
And that is what most people of faith don’t understand due to lack of this extraordinary type of experience. Religion, as such is an event within the discursive mind. God, and what constitutes you being in THAT image and likeness, is approachable only through the non-discursive mind. And that is why there are spontaneous realizations, awakenings, or conversions, whatever you wish to call them, of a certain category. Naturally, they are spoken of in the terms most familiar to the mind that now feels impelled to describe what is beyond description.
So what you said about Dr. Chopra applies in that religion–as a paradigm–is acquired in the s/o state and is limited to cultural thoughts about, while insight is more in the category of knowledge by identity,or direct experience of what is universally True relevant to each one being the image and likeness of God. A hallmark of such realizations of which I speak is that they are remarkably consistent despite differences in time, location, culture, and any other factor bearing on the realizer, even religion.
I hope that helps.
T
Tuno
Guest
Just as an addendum as to how all that pertains to the thread, the kind and quality of interpretation available to one who has had an experience such as I allude to is radically different from that available to someone who hasn’t. There really is not much communication between those two, because while the experienced include in their repertoire all the parameters of the non-experienced, it doesn’t work the other way around. So what happens is we get radically different understandings of, in particular, the Identity statements in both the OT and NT, and relate them very distinctly to another way of perceiving and thinking than that of faith as it is normally understood. It is the difference between book learning about swimming and actually being in the water.
B
bluelake
Guest
- Status