Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 188 - 199 of 6,170
Posts 188 - 199 of 6,170
Mr Crab, imagine the beingness as streaming out into differentiated reality, with a return flow that forms standing waves at certain areas (like the waves coming inland from the sea, then flowing back out). These form domains of reality from those as far out and separate-feeling as we are now to those in which individuality barely exists, where thoughts flow freely from being to being.
As far as loneliness, would you feel more lonlely completely separated from all life, but surrounded by it? Or being completely joined with all life, but have nothing outside yourself? Perhaps both, and so we go back and forth between the different domains, in teh direction of whatever we seek at any given time.
Eugene- The beingness can be said to have always existed, but as it is the source of time, both past and future, the question doesnt quite apply. As to karma, If I were to hurt someone, at another level of reality, I am the person being hurt, and thus karma is instantly satisfied, but our own growth asks that we experience both sides of every interaction, which is true at a higher level closer to the undifferentiated beingness.
As far as loneliness, would you feel more lonlely completely separated from all life, but surrounded by it? Or being completely joined with all life, but have nothing outside yourself? Perhaps both, and so we go back and forth between the different domains, in teh direction of whatever we seek at any given time.
Eugene- The beingness can be said to have always existed, but as it is the source of time, both past and future, the question doesnt quite apply. As to karma, If I were to hurt someone, at another level of reality, I am the person being hurt, and thus karma is instantly satisfied, but our own growth asks that we experience both sides of every interaction, which is true at a higher level closer to the undifferentiated beingness.
Dogh'ds bar is for fun. This one is for disscusions. But seeing as how you won't let this paticular disscussion end it says in the Bible Romans 12:3-21 I say to every one of you: do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgement.." "....If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with everyone." It also says in romans 14:1-23 "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One mans faith allows him to eat everything but another man whose faith is weak eats only vegetables.." "Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way." "therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of the Lord for the sake of food" now what does this all mean? Is this paticular passage only for disputes over food? No it is a principle a example of what we should avoid ergo disputable things. to make my point futher In corinthians 1:10-13 "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name Of our Lord Jesus Christ that you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you might be perfectly united in mind and thought." So to end this letter yes it does matter when you argue about disputable things. I am guilty of doing that right here and now. But so that you might understand I am making this post.
Two points: First, how do you define "disputable"? If you mean anything that can be disputed, then we have to avoid every issue. Second, discussing something is different from arguing about it or condemning someone over it. How can we agree with one another if we don't know what the truth is? Yes it is wrong to make every doctrine essential to salvation, but it is equally wrong to ignore certain portions of Scripture because they are controversial. "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The point in context was that it was possible to get discount meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some Christians who had recently converted out of pagan religions had a problem with this, while others realized that the idols were nothing.
As far as I know, my own religion has nothing to say about what kinds of conversations I have as long as I don't speak ill of others or invoke God mockingly. My personal preference (i.e. my own philosophy) is that talking about "disputed" things is not only fun but also instructive. But I should clarify that I don't think we've been having a conversation about whose religion is "right" or anything of the sort -- though there was some discussion I clearly can't enter since it premises certain things that only Christians believe... and I've certainly no wish to argue the definition of tenets of faith in a religion I don't share.
Been away for a few days, catching up:
Eugene wrote:
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Well, as to your first point, I could reject the Jewish religion or determine to fail to observe every commandment, but by virtue of being born Jewish I am necessarily bound by these commandments nonetheless and will be till I die, whatever else I may believe. It was in that sense that I meant I would always be a Jew, not race only. I think my point was that religion does not compete in a free market of ideas. If it did, we should all be born religion-less and free to choose or not as we mature and at any time.
As for your second point, Judaism may well accept converts (my own mother is one, in fact), albeit rarely, but the fact that one can enter something one wasn't born into does not also mean that one can leave it!
I was surprised and confused to hear you say modern Judaism doesn't have a system of doctrine. Maybe I'm confused about what you mean by doctrine.
As to your last point, the Sh'ma is, I think, a good rallying call, but failure to say it or agree on what it means does not have the power to render one Jewish or not. More to your point (and to Pi's in a moment), why should God, whether One, whether that of Israel, or otherwise, be necessarily supernatural?
To be continued...
Been away for a few days, catching up:
Eugene wrote:
Your comment on being born Jewish is an interesting one. I assume you mean that you are Jewish by race -- but I would contend that it does not necessarily follow that you are Jewish by religion. Judaism accepts Gentile proselytes, who if I am not mistaken have basically the same religious standing as Jews by birth. I realise that the modern Jewish faith doesn't have a definite system of doctrine. But I thought the one unifying creed was, "Shema Yisrael! Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!" It would seem that one could not hold to this while denying all belief in the supernatural. Am I wrong?
Well, as to your first point, I could reject the Jewish religion or determine to fail to observe every commandment, but by virtue of being born Jewish I am necessarily bound by these commandments nonetheless and will be till I die, whatever else I may believe. It was in that sense that I meant I would always be a Jew, not race only. I think my point was that religion does not compete in a free market of ideas. If it did, we should all be born religion-less and free to choose or not as we mature and at any time.
As for your second point, Judaism may well accept converts (my own mother is one, in fact), albeit rarely, but the fact that one can enter something one wasn't born into does not also mean that one can leave it!
I was surprised and confused to hear you say modern Judaism doesn't have a system of doctrine. Maybe I'm confused about what you mean by doctrine.
As to your last point, the Sh'ma is, I think, a good rallying call, but failure to say it or agree on what it means does not have the power to render one Jewish or not. More to your point (and to Pi's in a moment), why should God, whether One, whether that of Israel, or otherwise, be necessarily supernatural?
To be continued...
Mr. Crab,
You are right about us discussing in-house Christian issues; this is probably not the best place to go too in-depth on such things, although they always come up when there is more than one Christian on a board that touches on controversial topics.
Despite taking an entire semester of Jewish Thought and Culture, it still feels like I know nothing. Do you believe there is a difference between being a Jew by birth and being a Jew by religion? If so, what is the relationship between the two?
Concerning the doctrine issue, what I meant is that there is not an official body of doctrine that one must believe in to be a Jew. But I'm still having trouble picturing the idea of a non-supernatural God.
You are right about us discussing in-house Christian issues; this is probably not the best place to go too in-depth on such things, although they always come up when there is more than one Christian on a board that touches on controversial topics.
Despite taking an entire semester of Jewish Thought and Culture, it still feels like I know nothing. Do you believe there is a difference between being a Jew by birth and being a Jew by religion? If so, what is the relationship between the two?
Concerning the doctrine issue, what I meant is that there is not an official body of doctrine that one must believe in to be a Jew. But I'm still having trouble picturing the idea of a non-supernatural God.
And now for the rest:
Pi wrote:
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
I guess I have to answer that with a question: what do you mean when you say "natural"?
To me, the natural is anything that can be explained (as opposed to taken solely on faith). I understand explanation as following from a process of theory and inquiry, the scientific method.
It is my thinking that when people refer to something supernatural, they mean something which in and of itself necessarily defies explanation. Personally, I don't believe such things exist except as ideas. To my thinking, other "modes" of existence than the one we exist in (such as you posit) are no different that, say ultraviolet light. In other words, we may not know about them now, even if we experience their effects, but they are still part of the universe and subject to discovery.
Consider ghosts, if they exist (or if something exists that some people take to be ghosts, whatever they mean by that word). Suppose I see a ghost. There are a number of possibilities. It could be a generation of my mind. It could be something else acting on my mind, causing me to see it. It could be a thing unrelated to my mind, located exactly where I see it -- if so, it could be measured or apprehended in some way, we should be able to ultimately discover what it's made of and how it came to be there. Any of these possibilities would be sufficient, if demonstrated, to persuade me that ghosts exist consistent with the observations made. If, however, you were to insist to me that ghosts exist but that I will never see one or be affected by one in any measurable way, or that despite our best efforts now or in the future we shall never learn anything scientific about them, then I would call such a ghost supernatural and, unless I was inspired to take its existence on faith, not believe there is such a thing except as a fiction of your mind. Of course, if I *was* inspired to take it on faith, I'd do so with no expectation that any other sane person would also.
Beings such as angels, incidentally, are automatically suspect to me because they would seem to massively multiply entities massively needlessly.
I should qualify these statements by noting the Professor would probably point out that there is also "inward knowing", and I'm all for inwardly percieving and knowing angels or other constructs, as long as we don't confuse this with being the same as, for lack of a better phrase, "outward" knowing.
Pi wrote:
Also, I think there is much more to the supernatural than an explanation things we can't explain. What if the supernatural is rational nature that simply exists on a higher level than our existence--I mean, to angels, it's natural to be an angel, but since they exist in different modes than we do, we consider them "supernatural." If we were angels, we wouldn't consider ourselves supernatural. (I'm using angels by way of example, of course, my argument is more about the existence of God.)
I guess I have to answer that with a question: what do you mean when you say "natural"?
To me, the natural is anything that can be explained (as opposed to taken solely on faith). I understand explanation as following from a process of theory and inquiry, the scientific method.
It is my thinking that when people refer to something supernatural, they mean something which in and of itself necessarily defies explanation. Personally, I don't believe such things exist except as ideas. To my thinking, other "modes" of existence than the one we exist in (such as you posit) are no different that, say ultraviolet light. In other words, we may not know about them now, even if we experience their effects, but they are still part of the universe and subject to discovery.
Consider ghosts, if they exist (or if something exists that some people take to be ghosts, whatever they mean by that word). Suppose I see a ghost. There are a number of possibilities. It could be a generation of my mind. It could be something else acting on my mind, causing me to see it. It could be a thing unrelated to my mind, located exactly where I see it -- if so, it could be measured or apprehended in some way, we should be able to ultimately discover what it's made of and how it came to be there. Any of these possibilities would be sufficient, if demonstrated, to persuade me that ghosts exist consistent with the observations made. If, however, you were to insist to me that ghosts exist but that I will never see one or be affected by one in any measurable way, or that despite our best efforts now or in the future we shall never learn anything scientific about them, then I would call such a ghost supernatural and, unless I was inspired to take its existence on faith, not believe there is such a thing except as a fiction of your mind. Of course, if I *was* inspired to take it on faith, I'd do so with no expectation that any other sane person would also.
Beings such as angels, incidentally, are automatically suspect to me because they would seem to massively multiply entities massively needlessly.
I should qualify these statements by noting the Professor would probably point out that there is also "inward knowing", and I'm all for inwardly percieving and knowing angels or other constructs, as long as we don't confuse this with being the same as, for lack of a better phrase, "outward" knowing.
Okay, now I'm starting to understand. We have somewhat different understandings of "supernatural". I don't mean "unexplainable" as such. I mean beyond or above natural. By natural I mean things that are of this worlds-realm, composed of matter and energy and so on. Angels, for instance, are spirit.
I just want to point out the fact too that you're only going to care what it says in Romans if you call yourself a Christian. I can discuss pretty much anything I want without worry of it being a sin. I can also invoke God mockingly, because my beliefs dictate that it's OK to do so. I don't believe God really cares because I don't attribute any human limitations on what I call God, and even if "he" did care, "he" should be omnipotent enough to know I'm referring to a popular concept and not "him" directly. I'm not an Atheist and I'm not saying the Bible's full of crap (though I think many Christian "authorities" are) I just don't think it's any better than the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran or the Tao te Ching or any other great religous work.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar