The new religion

[Sufjon]

None of your citations answer anything. None of them.

Stack more on and we still will not see a thing that is fact related. Faith related, sure.

Hi StrawberryJam: It’s possible that I misunderstood your meaning. I had taken it that you were asking for me to cite Christian mystics in regards to my points about the unitive nature of religious expression. Could you elaborate more on what you wanted answered? As it stands, I am somewhat at a loss as to what you meant.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Espero]

There’s entire books dedicated to showing how science and philosophy point towards the probability of God

yes, there are arguments in support of a God-creature. There are also arguments used how the assertion of a God is simply too radical, and might, as with many ideas, be thrown away with time.

there are also books like the God Delusion which argue the idea of a God is simply unrealistic.People may choose either way, if we simply let people choose what makes most sense to them.
:juggle:

Though I accept a God, I believe that we should let science dictate how our universe began without making such strong assertions outright, especially since our ideals of a God are more based on stories and such.

 

[jerry_joseph]

I would not like to have this debate, as it has been done many times. The universe is a chaotic place. Stars explode, famine hits, wars happen. Our bodies are far from perfect, there is not really an indicator for a designer. Soon our sun will die out, and us with it, that is, if we are still around.

Though, of course, you believe in one out of the millions of possibilities it could be. There are many options left, saying we don’t know how the world came to be is more appropriate. But once again, you provide a argument for something without fully giving direct evidence. Simply accept that there are things one can never directly prove, it is the best way to go (I would know, I am a theist )

Just think about the creations of God… Definitely you will understand the existence of a supernatural preson…(God)

 

[jerry_joseph]

Though I accept a God, I believe that we should let science dictate how our universe began without making such strong assertions outright, especially since our ideals of a God are more based on stories and such.

Let science to search for truth…It should be free from atheism and theism…Its stand should be neutral…I strongly believe , one day scientific studies will lead to the acceptance of existence of the God.

 

[Espero]

Let science to search for truth…It should be free from atheism and theism…Its stand should be neutral…I strongly believe , one day scientific studies will lead to the acceptance of existence of the God.

Well, yes, that is your belief. But once again, atheism is simply the declining of a God theology. Of course most atheists are open to the idea that a God exists, but once again, fail to see any direct evidence.

If you want more debates on intelligent design, go to this link:

youtube.com/watch?v=OP-ENz2Lr7M

It is an argument from an atheist point of view. Of course, only go there to see the other point of view.

The arguments probably starts about 3-5 minutes in. It’s a called in show, so you do have someone presenting your side. I just linked the debate because like I said, there have already been many debates on it, and I think it is better to get a direct point of view from atheists.

 

[Micorhizea]

None of your citations answer anything. None of them.

Stack more on and we still will not see a thing that is fact related. Faith related, sure.

For my part I am grateful to Sufjon for posting so many references from within our own faith that are pertinent to the entire question of religion vs atheism as a chimera that dissolves when there is genuine insight into one’s actual and natural relationship with reality. You, Strawberry, are agnostic for a reason and with a reason so you reason. that is not where the root of this matter lies, so you consume and give back what is only in the field you can see from the scope of your experience. that experience clearly does not qualify you to pass criticism on wht you don’t comprehend save as a denial because you haven’t been there yet. But you might as well deny China or the inside of your neighbor’s house which you haven’t visited.

You remind me, in all kindness, and I say this for your increase and edification in the feild of metaphysical navigation, of a couple I met when I was working for a very well known theologian. I was working on the lawn sprinkler system when they came by, and we were talking about the rather beautiful home of my employer. At one point the woman exclaimed “And it is very rare that someone has a chapel in their house!” I was a bit taken aback. There was no such think in all of the extensive area of the structure, or on the grounds. I was baffled and asked “What do you mean, a chapel?” She said “I know there is a chapel in the house.” I asked her “Do you mean the stained glass window that depicts St. Joseph?” She said, “Yes, of course; it’s part of a chapel.” The owner had been gifted with taht piece as a recognition of his work by some friends. It had come from a church that was de-consecrated an under demolition. I explained that to her and assured her that it was just that, hanging in a window of the double staircase that led from the parking entry to the second floor. “Oh, no,” she assured me. “That is a chapel there.” I reminded her that I worked on the property and had intimate knowledge of all the spaces in the house as I was responsible for the structural and maintenance aspects of the property, There is no chapel there, and never was, and I told her so, describing the actual situation, again. “No, you are wrong; that is a chapel.” She said it with great conviction and vehemence. She said it in the face of someone, me, who was in that area several times a day and knew better from experience. She would have none of it, and walked away with her husband, both disgusted with me and muttering as they went away. Similar misconceptions about the house and its activities abounded.

So, in all kindness, I am informing you, SJam. and all others, that the Catholics quoted by Sufjon on this matter are pertinent to the question; you just don’t see that and don’t like it. In fact, Sufjon appears to be an example of that statistic that shows that fundamental Christians tend to know less about their faiths and their histories and writings than, say, atheists, Jews, and Buddhists. And I mean by that that they know more, often much more, about the christian religions, as well as their own convictions.

So from my position a Catholic who has made comparative religion/atheism a hobby for some number fo decades, I congratulate Sufjon on his width and depth of knowledge.

Thanks, Sufjon. Keep it coming!

 

[Micorhizea]

As for atheism being a religion, it differs substantially from faiths in several respects.

There is no “pope” of atheism, nor a single canonical work or person that is the foundation or authority of any who call themselves atheist.

There is a full range of atheists who populate the spectrum of what might appear to religious folks as the utterly non-ethical (which label they would like to stick on nearly all atheist, just because,) to the exceptionally ethical.

Most atheists don’t band together except for ad hoc causes, often to defend themselves from the incursions faithful people make on their freedoms, or to clear themselves of assumptions made by the same.

They appear to be a group because they all hold a similar premise, as do religious people hold the opposite through mostly rote, that there is no God. But fpr the most part they have achieve their stance through reason, however or not adequate that might be for the task.

There’s more that even someone of religion might reason out, but may not wish to, so that’s enough for now.

 

[Xuan]

For my part I am grateful to Sufjon for posting so many references from within our own faith that are pertinent to the entire question of religion vs atheism as a chimera that dissolves when there is genuine insight into one’s actual and natural relationship with reality. You, Strawberry, are agnostic for a reason and with a reason so you reason. that is not where the root of this matter lies, so you consume and give back what is only in the field you can see from the scope of your experience. that experience clearly does not qualify you to pass criticism on wht you don’t comprehend save as a denial because you haven’t been there yet. But you might as well deny China or the inside of your neighbor’s house which you haven’t visited.

You remind me, in all kindness, and I say this for your increase and edification in the feild of metaphysical navigation, of a couple I met when I was working for a very well known theologian. I was working on the lawn sprinkler system when they came by, and we were talking about the rather beautiful home of my employer. At one point the woman exclaimed “And it is very rare that someone has a chapel in their house!” I was a bit taken aback. There was no such think in all of the extensive area of the structure, or on the grounds. I was baffled and asked “What do you mean, a chapel?” She said “I know there is a chapel in the house.” I asked her “Do you mean the stained glass window that depicts St. Joseph?” She said, “Yes, of course; it’s part of a chapel.” The owner had been gifted with taht piece as a recognition of his work by some friends. It had come from a church that was de-consecrated an under demolition. I explained that to her and assured her that it was just that, hanging in a window of the double staircase that led from the parking entry to the second floor. “Oh, no,” she assured me. “That is a chapel there.” I reminded her that I worked on the property and had intimate knowledge of all the spaces in the house as I was responsible for the structural and maintenance aspects of the property, There is no chapel there, and never was, and I told her so, describing the actual situation, again. “No, you are wrong; that is a chapel.” She said it with great conviction and vehemence. She said it in the face of someone, me, who was in that area several times a day and knew better from experience. She would have none of it, and walked away with her husband, both disgusted with me and muttering as they went away. Similar misconceptions about the house and its activities abounded.

So, in all kindness, I am informing you, SJam. and all others, that the Catholics quoted by Sufjon on this matter are pertinent to the question; you just don’t see that and don’t like it. In fact, Sufjon appears to be an example of that statistic that shows that fundamental Christians tend to know less about their faiths and their histories and writings than, say, atheists, Jews, and Buddhists. And I mean by that that they know more, often much more, about the christian religions, as well as their own convictions.

So from my position a Catholic who has made comparative religion/atheism a hobby for some number fo decades, I congratulate Sufjon on his width and depth of knowledge.

Thanks, Sufjon. Keep it coming!

Hi Micorhizea,

I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve been learning from him ever since he started posting here, and I’m very appreciative.

Xuan

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So what is the new religion?

What are truly the differences between Theist and Atheist?

Atheism; bases its “faith” on carnal understandings from logic and reason of those things that can be seen with the ey felt by the touch and can calculate an understanding of them. Pretending these calculations as ones “enlightenment”.

When Atheist see those things in creation but do not understand them or can comprehend them, they invent human carnal “Theories” of those things which they do not understand or comprehend.

This is like a grown “child” who looks at creation, enlightened from what he sees and understands, but then invents “Stories” to speak of those things he/she does not understand, thus the Atheist expresses his “faith” with carnal theories, because “theories” theoritically, is a realization from evidence of things (seen) visible and hoping for an answer to prove itself one day to gain an enlightenment of carnal knowledge.

Tell me what great enlightenment does one attain from knowing dirt, rock, water, fire, air.

Theist on the other hand derives faith described as; “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen”.

This Faith depiction, reveals Atheist as being inverted grounded in self knowledge of knowing only those things that are seen and visible, whereby the Theist reveals one’s faith going outward, expanding far more than any Atheist can hope to achieve from a carnal knowledge of creation, thus remaining grounded in creation only.

Another problem with Atheism vs. Theist is those things which pertain to the Spirit. Atheist are very comical when they pretend to know about those things of the Spirit more than Theist do. When Atheism can not and does not comprehend the things of the Spirit.

For example; One of the most telling factors of our humanity deals with the conscience. Yet the theist understands the Conscience and of those realities of the Spirit, whereby the Atheist is at a lost from whence the conscience comes from or where it goes as pertaining to the will of man. Yet Atheist cannot deny these invisible attributes of our humanity, because they cannot be seen. This “one of many examples” nullifies the weak carnal faith of Atheism.

Knowing dirt, air, rocks, water, fire exist is grounded by Atheism’s greatest faith. Yet it is the Theist who know where these come from and how they were created, which is a knowledge that surpasses all Atheist understanding of dirt etc…

Athiesm deals with the knowledge of the flesh, whereby Theism deals with the knowledge that deals with the reality of both the flesh and the Spirit of Man.

 

[Micorhizea]

BTW, there is a technicality involved in this questionj that exceptionally few seem to account for. Simply stated, it is that anything put forth in human terms is a description restricted by the limitations of the describer. In other words, the alleged "map’ is not the actual territory,

So while we might rightfully debate about our actions in terms of consequences, moral or otherwise, we cannot say what God is. And that is the crux of the debate about whether or not God is or isn’t. Why? Because while there might in some way be a referent for the word “God,” in our minds and even hearts that can only be an abstraction, But it seems that it is impossible for us tol just live with such an indefinite vagueness, so we have, through whatever religion, attempted to “prove” our particular take on God through quotations, references, and any authority outside ourselves that we could marshal to the argument. But God is slippery in that way and won’t submit to definition or proof, however much out investment in belief might make us accept logics in this regard. It just doesn’t work, else we would ahve agreement about these as easily as nowadays we have about E=MC2. Anyone find such agreement? I thought not.

So when we are talking about atheism. we are mostly and usually talking about something that is an abstraction about God, as the infinity of Deity cannot be contained in thoughts or words. So atheist are in fact reacting intellectually and emotionally to something that is to them a conjecture on the part of believers. And in a way they are right, given the previous dynamic and one other factor.

That factor is simply this: the more we read the works of contemplatives, even Catholic ones or especially Catholic ones, we gravitate away from what might be called the public image of God. In some instances we go so far away as to have accusations of atheism leveled at the contemplative who is having a WAY above average, if we could say that, relationship with our God. But we have a problem: The ordinary and common practitioner of religion may not even have the tools to comprehend the results of the experiences of the contemplative even as an intellectual exercise. The genuine contemplative has gone into an area where our ordinary ways and means of dealiing with the world just don’t apply. If this doesn’t suit you as an actuality, try it. You will soon come into agreement about this dynamic.

But the point is that we might veryh well be waging word wars with folks who are doing nothing more than dealing at the best level they can with what their experience demands. They may not be rejecting God as such, but a* picture* of God, any “god,” that to them for good reasons is implausible, So at the very least we might credit some number of atheists with at least intellectual honesty rather than evil motivations.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What nullified the technicality of human terminology describing a reality, is the revelation of God, described by human terms.

For example; God spoke those things into existence which did not exist. Because the World around you exists “The map”, only reveals the result from an act of God, the “map” reality of creation does not reach or try to describe and define the essence of God the creator himself.

It is an error when Atheist try to find the essence of God in created things, when these are only a map revealing the result from the Love of God, creation does not reveal God’s essence.

**The Church has a word for this map equation describing the reality of the territory.

It derives from the mystery of God which the Church rightly defines as a Sacrament **= “are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify” CCC 1084.

It is amazing how the ancient text reveals God creating from his Word, and when the Word became “flesh” and dwelt among us.

I find an agreement and solution to the dilema of Atheist and believers; Jesus the Word of God made flesh speaks; " if you don’t believe in me, then believe in the works I do".

No man has seen God, except the Son. And if you have seen the Son then you have seen the Father. What part of creation can ever define the essence of God our creator? Yet it would appear your resistance stems from humanity searching to define who God is from creation, rather than believe in God’s revelation from His Word and blessings from which God loves man, who gave man the earth and all that are in them to subdue and mulitply.

The simple answer to the Atheistic dilema of God, is “LOVE”. If Atheist would spend their efforts in finding God in Love rather than trying to search and find God in created things. It is here when the Atheistic intellect meets the Spirit that God has graced in our humanity to understand all things. Any definition of God lacking God’s revealed essence in Spirit and Love, will find themselves making god’s out of rocks and dirt.

Simply put, when we are discussing Atheism, we are describing those revealed realities in time and creation that are visible to our sight and senses. Atheism grounded in this carnal understanding of the flesh, never graduates to the revelations when God reveals the eternal realities to the invisible realities of man’s Spirit which consists of conscience, will, heart and mind that are not visible but remain a reality of our humanity which cannot be denied.

Because God is Spirit, It is through these eternal realities which do not return to dust, that God reveals himself to man in Love. Yet it is through the sacramental economy from which God reveals His presence, which never attempts to define God’s divinity.

An Atheist inventing or calculating a formula can always enlighten his/her mind to prove they are right stemming from creation that can be seen. It is here that one begins to learn, because just as one mystery aspect of creation is understood, it always opens more doors and more questions, which is God calling them to continue searching for him.

Contemplative is a prayer discipline, that deals with the eternal realities from which creation derives. These can reveal the reality of darkness and light, which describe spiritual realities in spiritual terms. Reading the works of Contemplatives is no harm. I would not recommend an Atheist entering such contemplative excercises with out faith, less an evil possession transpires.

I credit Atheist who continue the search without ceasing. Atheism becomes problematic when Atheism stop’s searching and pretends the status quo of Atheism is the only reality. I say to the Atheist “seek and you will find” and never give up.

Peace be with you

 

[Micorhizea]

Gabriel_of_12:

What nullified the technicality of human terminology describing a reality, is the revelation of God, described by human terms.

From who’s standpoint? Is that an argument or premise an atheist would use?

For example; God spoke those things into existence which did not exist. Because the World around you exists “The map”, only reveals the result from an act of God, the “map” reality of creation does not reach or try to describe and define the essence of God the creator himself.

I beg to differ. If there is any useful map, it is God’s creation itself inquired into by agency of His gifts into the very image of Himself, namely Man. Are you restricting God’s Creation to just physical appearance?

It is an error when Atheist try to find the essence of God in created things, when these are only a map revealing the result from the Love of God, creation does not reveal God’s essence.

How can you say that? How far into the depth of Creation, into yourself, into the wonder of God have us seriously delved into?

**The Church has a word for this map equation describing the reality of the territory.

It derives from the mystery of God which the Church rightly defines as a Sacrament **= “are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify” CCC 1084.

Yes, a Sacrament is an outward sign of an inward Grace. And of course these have levels of engagement beyond what the ordinary parishioner usually considers, save perhaps under the influence of a special gift of Grace.

It is amazing how the ancient text reveals God creating from his Word, and when the Word became “flesh” and dwelt among us.

Yes. again a Mystery of deep meaning

I find an agreement and solution to the dilema of Atheist and believers; Jesus the Word of God made flesh speaks; " if you don’t believe in me, then believe in the works I do"

.Great, but again, an atheist isn’t going to use that premise, eh? Do you have abny atheist friends? have you ever talked with one as distinct from at them?

No man has seen God, except the Son. And if you have seen the Son then you have seen the Father.

Well, I agree with that completely, but who nowadays has seen the Son? Do you really think that if Jesus sat down next to someone dressed in a business suit on a bus, someone would recognize Him?

What part of creation can ever define the essence of God our creator?

God cannot be defined, of course.

Yet it would appear your resistance

My resistance? To what?

stems from humanity searching to define who God is from creation, rather than believe in God’s revelation from His Word and blessings from which God loves man, who gave man the earth and all that are in them to subdue and mulitply.

To an atheist, do you not think that what we call the “word of God” as the Bible and doctrine are more than artifacts? What weight would those carry for an atheist when they are not even on the table as other than negative factors?

The simple answer to the Atheistic dilema of God, is “LOVE”. If Atheist would spend their efforts in finding God in Love rather than trying to search and find God in created things. It is here when the Atheistic intellect meets the Spirit that God has graced in our humanity to understand all things. Any definition of God lacking God’s revealed essence in Spirit and Love, will find themselves making god’s out of rocks and dirt.

A wonderful idea, save that atheist do love and don’t see love as an avenue of exploration of the nature of Deity, but of simple potential. That might translate at some point in rare cases, I would guess, but not as a matter of course or a taken for granted route as you seem to present it if I read you right.

Simply put, when we are discussing Atheism, we are describing those revealed realities in time and creation that are visible to our sight and senses

. No, we re discussing what some do or don’t consider as a source of those “realities.”

Atheism grounded in this carnal understanding of the flesh, never graduates to the revelations when God reveals the eternal realities to the invisible realities of man’s Spirit which consists of conscience, will, heart and mind that are not visible but remain a reality of our humanity which cannot be denied.

Yes, an atheist would consider that a semantic nightmare of meaningless words. How would you actually speak to a convinced atheist? Clearly you haven’t established any common ground, as far as I can see, or maybe I missed it.

Because God is Spirit, It is through these eternal realities which do not return to dust, that God reveals himself to man in Love.

Or as Love. but in the matter of religion, we are not talking about our beliefs, we are talking about the dynamic of attribution of source, no?

 

[Micorhizea]

Continued:

Yet it is through the sacramental economy from which God reveals His presence, which never attempts to define God’s divinity.

OK, even with my years of Catholic theology, I don’t know what that means.

An Atheist inventing or calculating a formula can always enlighten his/her mind to prove they are right stemming from creation that can be seen. It is here that one begins to learn, because just as one mystery aspect of creation is understood, it always opens more doors and more questions, which is God calling them to continue searching for him.

Yes, that is why so many of the ones I know have a keenly developed sense of wonder and curiosity, as well as a higher sense of ethics than many of the faithful I know.

Contemplative is a prayer discipline, that deals with the eternal realities from which creation derives.

That would be God, eh?

These can reveal the reality of darkness and light, which describe spiritual realities in spiritual terms.

Wouldn’t the point of contemplative prayer be experience and insight beyond descriptions?

Reading the works of Contemplatives is no harm. I would not recommend an Atheist entering such contemplative excercises with out faith, less an evil possession transpires.

Interesting. We are here to know God, and the world is fraught with lies and deceptions, and you are concerned about the dangers of reading those who are closest to God? There may be an element of truth in what you say, though, as the mind needs to be prepared for such things. My experience, though, is that the attraction or not to such works functions as sort of a self sorting mechanism. Try offering the work of St. Theresa, Meister Eckhart, or any number of others including contemporaries in the hands of an atheist. Good luck

I credit Atheist who continue the search without ceasing. Atheism becomes problematic when Atheism stop’s searching and pretends the status quo of Atheism is the only reality. I say to the Atheist “seek and you will find” and never give up.

That’s well said. I’m lucky that the atheists of my acquaintance are like that.

Peace be with you

And with you; thanks for taking your time to respond!

 

[StrawberryJam]

For my part I am grateful to Sufjon for posting so many references from within our own faith that are pertinent to the entire question of religion vs atheism as a chimera that dissolves when there is genuine insight into one’s actual and natural relationship with reality. You, Strawberry, are agnostic for a reason and with a reason so you reason. that is not where the root of this matter lies, so you consume and give back what is only in the field you can see from the scope of your experience. that experience clearly does not qualify you to pass criticism on wht you don’t comprehend save as a denial because you haven’t been there yet. But you might as well deny China or the inside of your neighbor’s house which you haven’t visited.

You remind me, in all kindness, and I say this for your increase and edification in the feild of metaphysical navigation, of a couple I met when I was working for a very well known theologian. I was working on the lawn sprinkler system when they came by, and we were talking about the rather beautiful home of my employer. At one point the woman exclaimed “And it is very rare that someone has a chapel in their house!” I was a bit taken aback. There was no such think in all of the extensive area of the structure, or on the grounds. I was baffled and asked “What do you mean, a chapel?” She said “I know there is a chapel in the house.” I asked her “Do you mean the stained glass window that depicts St. Joseph?” She said, “Yes, of course; it’s part of a chapel.” The owner had been gifted with taht piece as a recognition of his work by some friends. It had come from a church that was de-consecrated an under demolition. I explained that to her and assured her that it was just that, hanging in a window of the double staircase that led from the parking entry to the second floor. “Oh, no,” she assured me. “That is a chapel there.” I reminded her that I worked on the property and had intimate knowledge of all the spaces in the house as I was responsible for the structural and maintenance aspects of the property, There is no chapel there, and never was, and I told her so, describing the actual situation, again. “No, you are wrong; that is a chapel.” She said it with great conviction and vehemence. She said it in the face of someone, me, who was in that area several times a day and knew better from experience. She would have none of it, and walked away with her husband, both disgusted with me and muttering as they went away. Similar misconceptions about the house and its activities abounded.

So, in all kindness, I am informing you, SJam. and all others, that the Catholics quoted by Sufjon on this matter are pertinent to the question; you just don’t see that and don’t like it. In fact, Sufjon appears to be an example of that statistic that shows that fundamental Christians tend to know less about their faiths and their histories and writings than, say, atheists, Jews, and Buddhists. And I mean by that that they know more, often much more, about the christian religions, as well as their own convictions.

So from my position a Catholic who has made comparative religion/atheism a hobby for some number fo decades, I congratulate Sufjon on his width and depth of knowledge.

Thanks, Sufjon. Keep it coming!

Asking for clarity can lead to this. I am and have been aware that this is usually the point of break down in communication.

If you see something I do not see in regard to facts, please let me know what I missed.

 

[Sufjon]

Asking for clarity can lead to this. I am and have been aware that this is usually the point of break down in communication.

If you see something I do not see in regard to facts, please let me know what I missed.

Hi Strawberry Jam: I’m glad you’re back. Actually, I did ask for clarification in regards to what clarity you were looking for, and I would be glad to have the opportunity to address whatever it was you were looking for (if I am able).

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Micorhizea]

Asking for clarity can lead to this. I am and have been aware that this is usually the point of break down in communication.

If you see something I do not see in regard to facts, please let me know what I missed.

It appears to me, StrawberryJam, that what might possibly be missing is what you consider to be fact. There is a saying: “We all may have a right to our opinion, but we don’t have a right to our own facts.” And agnostic as you might be, with Catholic leanings, that very position may very well be blocking from your considerations certain kinds of ideas that are quite real as factors of interior life while not immediately apparent to the simple scanning of appearances.

This is a kind of a disease of the age, we might say, and it is difficult to get at because the very nature of the disease denies three major areas of actual human experience. In other words. the Church of Corporate Thinking has made the world flat, flat to the point that those restricting themselves to the norm of 2D thinking haven’t the tools to perceive their own shortcomings in the face of their own extraordinarily huge possibilities. What better way to make slaves: they are happy to manufacture and wear their own chains! Lovely!

So here’s a thought. Go find a book called Flatland and another called A Brief History of Everything, and after reading each one at least three times, get back to me. In the mean time, do understand that all that Sufjon has presented is fundamental to any sort of even basic understanding of “Wazup?”

 

[CopticChristian]

It appears to me, StrawberryJam, that what might possibly be missing is what you consider to be fact. There is a saying: “We all may have a right to our opinion, but we don’t have a right to our own facts.” And agnostic as you might be, with Catholic leanings, that very position may very well be blocking from your considerations certain kinds of ideas that are quite real as factors of interior life while not immediately apparent to the simple scanning of appearances.

This is a kind of a disease of the age, we might say, and it is difficult to get at because the very nature of the disease denies three major areas of actual human experience. In other words. the Church of Corporate Thinking has made the world flat, flat to the point that those restricting themselves to the norm of 2D thinking haven’t the tools to perceive their own shortcomings in the face of their own extraordinarily huge possibilities. What better way to make slaves: they are happy to manufacture and wear their own chains! Lovely!

So here’s a thought. Go find a book called Flatland and another called A Brief History of Everything, and after reading each one at least three times, get back to me. In the mean time, do understand that all that Sufjon has presented is fundamental to any sort of even basic understanding of “Wazup?”

You may want to read “Science and Sanity” Alfred Korzybski and “Manhood of Humanity” by the same author. These books form the source of General Semantics from which comes the term “The map is not the territory”. We all fill our heads with facts about what is out there and we screen those facts so that each and everyone of us has a differing map of what is out there.

Those that have similar maps communicate with ease. Those with differing maps communicate with conflict. In order to communicate effectively it behoves us to try to understand the others map.

Disease? This sounds very interesting. Note how you formulate “kind of disease” a simile and then use the simile as factual “the very nature of the disease”. This is landmark for your map to nomanilize your thought by stating what you believe this “kind of disease” to be. First it is a kind of disease, then you describe the nature and then the characteristics. This sort of communication does not lend itself to ease of communication. If this were addressed to me I would ask first. Tell me your understanding of disease.

This is whazup!

 

[Micorhizea]

You may want to read “Science and Sanity” Alfred Korzybski and “Manhood of Humanity” by the same author. These books form the source of General Semantics from which comes the term “The map is not the territory”. We all fill our heads with facts about what is out there and we screen those facts so that each and everyone of us has a differing map of what is out there.

Those that have similar maps communicate with ease. Those with differing maps communicate with conflict. In order to communicate effectively it behoves us to try to understand the others map.

Disease? This sounds very interesting. Note how you formulate “kind of disease” a simile and then use the simile as factual “the very nature of the disease”. This is landmark for your map to nomanilize your thought by stating what you believe this “kind of disease” to be. First it is a kind of disease, then you describe the nature and then the characteristics. This sort of communication does not lend itself to ease of communication. If this were addressed to me I would ask first. Tell me your understanding of disease.

This is whazup!

Thanks for your reply. I have Science and Sanity on my shelf, I find it a bit thick, but have read and used some other material based on it that was aimed at religious sanity. Haven’t a copy of Manhood… but that sounds like a good idea. Thanks! I do often illustrate the Structural Differential to groups I’m involved with, and it helps clarify some points. I’m very happy that someone else on here has a clue, probably a better one that I do, about GS. I also had a copy of Ogden and Richard’s Meaning of Meaning, but it got misplaced in a move, somehow.

And yes, what we say is far more indicative of our own “map” than the reality we abstract from. So my use of “disease” in this instance means, as best I can state it here, the habitual and unconscious inherited or culturally acquired though patterns uncritically used to navigate the larger cultural map as well as the unexplored interior of one’s own map if some even consider that a possibility. …“any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society.”

I kind of go with Gandhi’s reply when, at the end of a tour of industrial London, A reporter asked him, “Well, Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?” Without a blink he answered “I think it would be a very good idea!” If you might be so interested, that “disease” which plagues us is very well delineated in Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything. It is also detectable if one agrees with the paradigm of some very advanced contemplatives, as far as I’m concerned.

I have no clue if we ultimately agree on things, but I must say that yours is the sort of reply I enjoy responding to. Thanks for taking your time!

M

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks for your reply. I have Science and Sanity on my shelf, I find it a bit thick, but have read and used some other material based on it that was aimed at religious sanity. Haven’t a copy of Manhood… but that sounds like a good idea. Thanks! I do often illustrate the Structural Differential to groups I’m involved with, and it helps clarify some points. I’m very happy that someone else on here has a clue, probably a better one that I do, about GS. I also had a copy of Ogden and Richard’s Meaning of Meaning, but it got misplaced in a move, somehow.

And yes, what we say is far more indicative of our own “map” than the reality we abstract from. So my use of “disease” in this instance means, as best I can state it here, the habitual and unconscious inherited or culturally acquired though patterns uncritically used to navigate the larger cultural map as well as the unexplored interior of one’s own map if some even consider that a possibility. …“any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society.”

I kind of go with Gandhi’s reply when, at the end of a tour of industrial London, A reporter asked him, “Well, Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?” Without a blink he answered “I think it would be a very good idea!” If you might be so interested, that “disease” which plagues us is very well delineated in Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything. It is also detectable if one agrees with the paradigm of some very advanced contemplatives, as far as I’m concerned.

I have no clue if we ultimately agree on things, but I must say that yours is the sort of reply I enjoy responding to. Thanks for taking your time!

M

So if you have Korzybski then you will understand that this is the stepping stone to NLP and Neurosemantics. You may want to look into L. Michael Hall “The Users Manual of the Brain” Vol I & II. You would then understand more of what you are talking about.

I have no time now to read Wilber. What is this disease that he formulates as a paradigm?

You may want to understand that as a physician I take issue with the notion of disease being tossed around. In other words is it a disease you speak of or some sort of nominalization by someone that something exists “like a disease”. I am not fond of the DSM, nor is William Glasser, MD., author of Reality Therapy and Choice Theory. I find that this paradigm is not in keeping with what is out there and exists as a construct that in my opinion is harmful.

 

[rinnie]

I had a world religion humanities instructor tell me once time that religion in ancient terms means “to bind " or “what someone is bound by”.To make someone religious would mean to tie them up.
Being as such, does this qualify the popularity of atheism as a new religion. After all, atheist have their own prophets and gospel songs.
( not including the Anti-Christ denomination of atheism such as preacher Seth McFarland) we can look towards famous preachers as Jello Biafra, of the Dead Kennedys for his gospel writing and the hymn,
" All religions make me vomit” such Atheist scripture is still read and sung today that was written over 20 years ago.
Famous Atheist Evangelizes include Richard Dawkins of course, who could probably be considered the equivalent to the pope of Atheist.
Not to drag this out, but there is also a creed that Atheist follow as well
Generally speaking,
Religion starts wars, Christianity is racist.
, Atheist reasoning and psychology trumps any of that knowledge passed down for 5000 years of from the Abraham faiths.
Atheist have authority on using reason and logic to make moral boundaries for what is acceptable and not acceptable in society.
No wars have ever been fought over science.
I would have wrote the entire creed but I didn’t want to drag this out any further.
Thoughts?
Cheers!

My thoughts are anything that has do to without God is not good.

Atheists are just what I call lost souls, and we must pray for them. I could not imagine a world without God. Would not want to.