Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). She edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003).
Close.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She was president of CTS from 1998-2008.
more »
Dear friend,
Thank you for your thoughts...thank you for your honesty and insight and faithfulness. I went through what I like to call a dark "hour" of the soul this past fall...it lasted exactly a month, and I still feel like I'm recovering from it. And here I am now, in seminary, writing a paper on the theology of "dark night of the soul." My mind is flooded with information and facts and ideas - and yet at the heart of it exists my own heart, my own soul! So thank you for giving me another nugget to chew on.
Blessings to you, cara:)
E Favorite: Sorry, I've been away for quite some time. In fact I haven't checked this forum since making my original post.
I hesitated to use Pat Robertson's name. I really don't know that much about the man, other than that he is, in my circles anyway, a person who is commonly invoked as someone who teaches a certain form of Christianity that does not really align too well with the gospels. I'm not presuming to be an expert on the man, and I shouldn't judge him. But I did want to use an example of someone who many believe to be somewhat of a false teacher.
About the rest of your post, no I would say it should be obvious that a degree means nothing in successfully discerning what is and what isn't God's "voice". Similarly for a person's standing in the church. Although it would be human nature for many to trust someone more who has an established position in a church, or who has had training... What I was really getting at in my post was this thread in some of the other posts that Susan is somehow delusional and suffering from some psychiatric problem. I think this is highly unlikely given her position. Moreover, she is actually admitting to doubt in her faith; this is not something that is usually interpreted as a pillar of faith. In other words she does not stand to benefit from this admission, not in today's church at least...
It's an age-old problem, discerning whether something is spiritual truth, or a bunch of hooey. :) At the end of the day we can only do our best and put everything to various "tests". We should do this equally with Susan's posts, Pat Robertson's posts, or whoever...
I wanted to say that there are few people that know about the "Dark Night of the Soul". I have been going through it myself and have read of others that have had the same experience. Mine however has been accompanied by many other elements which I will not discuss given the reaction your original post received. It is a very difficult experience. Bless you for discussing that it happened to you.
I am not personally offended by much of what anyone says in response to my own comments. I actually have pretty thick skin. What concerns me are the comments that drip with sarcasm, attack the rationality of the person or dismiss heart felt positions as being without merit. I believe that statements that attack the person and not the ideas presented reflect upon the attacker, not the person being attacked.
As I stated previously:
-Each person is responsible for their own feelings. This would include those feelings that arise when personal belief or unbelief, whether religious or secular is challenged or dismissed. When anger, frustration, rage and even hate rise from within us, our first responsibility is to reflect upon the origins of our own feelings. The origins of our emotions are always found within ourselves.
-Unacknowledged fears and anxieties result in misplaced projection of those fears and anxieties onto our perceived “enemies”.
Whenever people are not conscious of the origins of their own feelings, they easily fall into careless and dissociative speech and behavior. I’m mostly asking that we all try to look inward before we speak or act.
Ann actually addresses many of these same points. And I readliy admit that not all opinions are created equal. However, respectful, civil conversation takes the few moments necessary to set aside frustration and anger, to focus on the substance of the comments, not the person making them.
E.FAVORITE says: When people are so touchy and so unaccustomed to talking with people with different views, it's hard to know sometimes what is offensive and what is fair play. I think it would be helpful to have some rules to go by that everyone understands. Maybe that will evolve among people who really do want to have a dialogue.
ANN O. replies: I couldn't agree more!
There are some distinctions which help, I find. One is to realize that to be a good person is not the same thing as being a wise person. Then we can separate their opinions from the rest of themselves. If we can remember to separate a person's intention to do something good (to tell the truth as s/he sees it) from the person's opinion, then it limits our target, so to speak :-) Only the person's *opinions* should be commented on.
But there's the rub. In some sense our opinions are ourselves. What to do? I fear the only solution is for all of us to realize that while others should respect our intentions, that in truth we cannot respect everyone's opinions. Feelling bad when someone says our opinions are mistaken is the cost of learning.
Anyway, if we treat opinions as somehow not identical with the person, we are less likely to call the whole person names. There's the key -- don't make statements about the person (you're stupid, dishonest, ignorant, etc.) but do say of faulty opinions "that is not true, your opinions are inconsistent, that overlooks X evidence, that was shown to be false by A, B, or C
In other words, avoid talking about the speaker, speak only about what the speaker has said. Sometimes that might be impossible when talking about the other person's own experiences. Still we can avoid calling them dumb, dishonest or in denial.
Emm- Thanks, but I would have preferred concrete examples, to see what you considered offensive.
Many things on your list seem subjective.
When people are so touchy and so unaccustomed to talking with people with different views, it's hard to know sometimes what is offensive and what is fair play. I think it would be helpful to have some rules to go by that everyone understands. Maybe that will evolve among people who really do want to have a dialogue.
“Could you give some specific examples from this forum(and not just Simpleword's remarks)of unbelievers not being civil enough?”
Rather than provide a list of specific quotations, I’ll just list a few criteria. I would suggest that all postings avoid any of the following:
-judgment and/or intolerance
-sarcasm and insult
-anger
-hate
-name calling
-dismissal of others personal experience
-claims of fact that are really just opinion
Use of any of the above seems a sure indication of the weakness of the position being claimed. Civil conversation leads to dialogue. Dialogue invites each participant to both hear and be heard. It is in the being heard and the hearing that insight and tolerance emerge.
"Beloved God, if I worship You from fear of hell, burn me
in hell. If I worship You from hope of Paradise, exclude
me from Paradise. But if I worship You for Your own sake,
then do not withhold Yourself from me."
Hi, Victoria,
Oh, I do like Rabia! And Nasruddin is indeed wise and funny :-) I have a good bit of Rumi's poetry -- to me he's the very greatest of all the lyrical poets.
then you would just love rabia of basra- shes an islamic saint and mystic
and therese the little flower of liseux is another favorite of mine
i like merton- i thought he was a true catholic- you know the word catholic literally means universal-
also jalaludin rumi wrote some incredible poetry-
he wrote s stroy (again i paraphrase) wait ill go look for it- here it is
:
A certain person came to the Friend's door
and knocked.
"Who's there?"
"It's me."
The Friend answered, "Go away. There's no place
for raw meat at this table."
The individual went wandering for a year.
Nothing but the fire of separation
can change hypocrisy and ego. The person returned
completely cooked,
walked up and down in front of the Friend's house,
gently knocked.
"Who is it?"
"You."
"Please come in, my Self,
there's no place in this house for two."
heres rabia
"Beloved God, if I worship You from fear of hell, burn me
in hell. If I worship You from hope of Paradise, exclude
me from Paradise. But if I worship You for Your own sake,
then do not withhold Yourself from me."
there are many accounts of her life from a poet named attar- he wrote a book called the conference of the birds
ooo if you like humor you cant be mulla nasruddin
the persians, afghanis and turks all claim him
he is hysterical
#
# Nasruddin used to stand in the street on market-days, to be pointed out as an idiot. No matter how often people offered him a large and a small coin, he always chose the smaller piece. One day a kindly man said to him: Nasruddin, you should take the bigger coin. Then you will have more money and people will no longer be able to make a laughing stock of you. That may be true, said Nasruddin, but if I always take the larger, people will stop offering me money to prove that I am more idiotic than they are. Then I would have no money at all.
# As Nasruddin emerged form the mosque after prayers, a beggar sitting on the street solicited alms. The following conversation followed: Are you extravagant? asked Nasruddin. Yes Nasruddin. replied the beggar. Do you like sitting around drinking coffee and smoking? asked Nasruddin. Yes. replied the beggar. I suppose you like to go to the baths everyday? asked Nasruddin. Yes. replied the beggar. ...And maybe amuse yourself, even, by drinking with friends? asked Nasruddin. Yes I like all those things. replied the beggar. Tut, Tut, said Nasruddin, and gave him a gold piece. A few yards farther on. another beggar who had overheard the conversation begged for alms also. Are you extravagant? asked Nasruddin. No, Nasruddin replied second beggar. Do you like sitting around drinking coffee and smoking? asked Nasruddin. No. replied second beggar. I suppose you like to go to the baths everyday? asked Nasruddin. No. replied second beggar. ...And maybe amuse yourself, even, by drinking with friends? asked Nasruddin. No, I want to only live meagerly and to pray. replied second beggar. Whereupon the Nasruddin gave him a small copper coin. But why, wailed second beggar, do you give me, an economical and pious man, a penny, when you give that extravagant fellow a sovereign? Ah my friend, replied Nasruddin, his needs are greater than yours.
# One day Nasruddin went to a banquet. As he was dressed rather shabbily, no one let him in. So he ran home, put on his best robe and fur coat and returned. Immediately, the host came over, greeted him and ushered him to the head of an elaborate banquet table. When the food was served, Nasruddin took some soup with spoon and pushed it to the his fur coat and said, Eat my fur coat, eat! It's obvious that you're the real guest of honor today, not me!
# One hot day, Nasruddin was taking it easy in the shade of a walnut tree. After a time, he started eying speculatively, the huge pumpkins growing on vines and the small walnuts growing on a majestic tree. Sometimes I just can't understand the ways of God! he mused. Just fancy letting tinny walnuts grow on so majestic a tree and huge pumpkins on the delicate vines! Just then a walnut snapped off and fell smack on Mullah Nasruddin's bald head. He got up at once and lifting up his hands and face to heavens in supplication, said: "Oh, my God! Forgive my questioning your ways! You are all-wise. Where would I have been now, if pumpkins grew on trees!
alright i forgot what im doing here-
ive been reading stories for a half hour
thank you Anne- i will indeed look mr zaehner up
peace
Victoria tells us: i used to be a real bliss ninny
and i mean for years
Hi, Victoria,
You do have a wonderful way of making yourself clear "Bliss ninny", indeed :-)
I've never had any real mystical experience, but even the garden variety of prayer can become selfish if we neglect otheres because of it. But I do think we all need some sort of prayer life or meditation to help us deal with the world and get good things done. They are graces too. And those who share different ways of praying are doing a service for the rest of us, so Bless them too.
VICTORIA again: he prophet Muhammad(pbuh) said something once- Hesaid- (talking to his followers) its a paraphrase from memory please forgive if its not exact- If you had the awareness of all that is that i have you would never stop crying.
ANN: Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, had a mystical experience in India shortly before he died as he contemplated some huge old statues of Buddhas. He says he became aware of a presence in everything that is compassion itself. I interpret this to mean that he was aware of God's presence in the suffering world, a compassionate presence. This is an unusual sort of mystical experience for a Catholic. Catholic mystics usually go into the depths of their self to meet God, but Merton was different in many ways. You might like his "New Seeds of Contemplation". In a relatively short time it has turned into a classic.
Are you familiar with the work of Robert C. Zaehner? He was an Oxford professor of conparative religions. He concluded from his vast reading of original texts from the major religions at different times and in different places, that there are most of these traditions three extraordinary sorts of ecstatic experience which are all called "mystical experience". But he concluded that only one kind was essentially religious -- that is, a meeting with God. One non-religious kind is the cosmic consciousness kind I mentioned before, and the other is the Quietist kind in which the mystics consciousness is not directed out to the world, but, rather, goes deep into her soul,and -- so Zaehner things -- the depths of the soul is so very beautiful that the mystic mistakes herself for God. Zaehner says such mystics often think they are beyond good and evil (can't sin -- they're "above" sin), and becomes indifferent to ordinary people. Fascinating book if you can find a copy of it.
You make so many points so quickly and without a lot of detail that I find it difficult to keep up with you.
In general I find that writing in complete sentences composed in accordance with generally accepted grammatical rules facilitates communication and thought.
But since your native or preferred style seems to be scattershot bullet points, I'll try to reply in kind:
*** yes, you're right, "God" doesn't exist.
*** if something was learned through meditation, the conventional "self" doesn't reappear when the formal meditation period is over.
*** Bodhisattvas are very compassionate - that's all we can say.
*** A Bodhisattva is a person as defined in my post above.
*** I believe that so many Buddhist texts in English are incomprehensie because they were translated by people who lacked a grasp of modern colloquial English, and who translated the words with a crude literalism that did not convey the meaning of the original.
*** My posts are being made by a human body sitting and typing at a computer. Beyond that I cannot say.
*** I have no knowledge of any life after death. Orthodox traditional Buddhism would say that what is reincarnated is a person's karma, i.e., the action of his psychic tendencies. Orthodox Buddhists would say that individual consciousness does not survive death.
*** My body has not left behind its possessions, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the "self" is an illusion and does not exist.
*** Buddhism in no way denies the existence of the material world - it does teach that the world is not really as it appears. The Buddha said, "Things are not as they seem and also not otherwise." Many renowned Buddhists fully enjoyed every aspect of the material world.
*** Buddhism does not exclude anyone from anything. It does encourage people to use their ability to think for themselves as best they can.
*** Of course a real Bodhisatva has to be anonymous. The people you are thinking of are phony "gurus" on the make. They are not Bodisatvas.
*** A true understanding of Buddhism does not end in introspection and withdrawal.
*** Buddhist teachings lead people toward increased consciousness and helpful awareness.
*** Yes, Victoria, "you could be wrong!" The Buddha said the same thing about himself. He told his followers not to take anything he said on faith.
Hence the saying : "If you meet the Buddha on the path - Kill him!!"
norrie- snce there is no self to won anything can we assume that you have left all material possessions behind?
are you at the library using their computer?
of course not-
the self immediately rears its substantial head the moment one comes out of their meditation-
being incomprehensible doesnt necessarily imply that one must be suoer intelligent to get it-
it rather implies lack of clarity on the part of the author and usually rasies more questions that it answers resulting in not the conclusion that there is no self but endless circles of mental masturbation-
sure it feels good but what purpose does it serve?
its nice to hear the harmony of the spheres or see the inner lights but after that- when you come back t the inevitable physical reality -
then what?
an endless search for sensory fulfillment?
to what end?
at some point one has to live in this material world-
buddhism tries to deny it- tries to subdue it- control it-
but again the spiritual pride pops up-
who is to say that the simple heartfelt pure prayers of a mongoloid child arent more real more valid-
there is an elitist aspect to buddhist principles- a worship of the intellect- but its exclusionary to the rest of humanity-
while most people are busy chasing after degrees and accolades- there are many who are seeking constantly and never ending -
consider the possibility that you are not at the end of your spiritual path- but that this is the befginning and there are many many other paths coming after it-
the precept dont just do something- sit there
may work for a little while
but eventually you have to wake up
ive known a few self proclaimed bodhisatvas with large groups of followers who got trapped in their egos-
naturally a real bodhisatva by their very mission has to be anonymous
we will meet them in our life if were lucky- but the real ones ive met werent even buddhists-
self knowledge really is the key
alert conscious awareness
without it we might as well be an island all by our selves-self sufficient with no slef to need anything
but we are really not
buddhism works for a connection for a while but it dead ends into introspection and withdrawal
we are here and interdependent on each other
when one claims to 'know' it can be assured that they dont
this is the only constant we are all only
teaching each other
i got all i could out of buddhism year and years ago and it was valuable
but i really exhort people to conscious and helpful awareness
its a presumption of the most arrogant kind to me to try to tell god how to approach me
and it is exactly the 'self' that must sit in quiet patient submission and humiltiy to hear
by that logic we could conclude that god doesnt exist-
and obviously the self quickly reasserts itslef when one comes out of their meditation
and we cant assume real boddhisatvas are always happy and shiny people
and there doesnt seem to be a general consensus on just who is a boddhisatva
by their very nature they must remain esoteric and anonymous
i recommend personally- a life of alert and aware consciousness
some buddhist doctrine can be incomprehensible at first because it is a confused and individual perception
being incomprehensible doesnt necessarily imply that one must be super-intelligent to get it
it rather implies a lack of clarity in the mind of the writer
truly universal precepts are available and undertood by all of gods childrens
who is making your post norrie?
who will be reborn i the next life?
will all of your actions and spiritual owrk be lost when you merge with the original seminal impetus because you have no self?
i dont find much value in the precept
dont just do soemthing, sit there
well, how long? and then what?
"I didn't say that our bodies are separate from and unconnected to the rest of the universe - I said that they are "different" from the rest (because they are our own, as other bodies are not).
Buddhists would disagree with you, as do I. Here's the real deal:
(1) The "self" does not exist. It is a delusional construct of the mind. There is no "our", "my", or "mine", because there is no "self" to own or posses anything.
(2) The "boundaries" of "the body" with "everything else" are so porous and fuzzy that "the body" can't reasonably be considered to be a separate entity.
(3) Since there is no identifiable "self" to posess or be part of a separate, identifiable "body", we have to consider that "everything" is "one thing" without any real boundaries or demarcation lines within "everything."
It's hard to find a good book on Buddhism that simply explains this - most are incomprehensible, at least on first reading. But they can be found. They start by prescribing exercises for the reader to follow to try to find or locate the reader's "own" "self". The reader quickly finds that the "self" can't be found, and that the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't exist.
You wrote that "...when you're in bliss you tend to diminish the suffering of others..."
Not necessarily so. Buddhism describes a class of beings called "Bodhissativas."
Here's a definition:
Bodhisattva: A person who is in a position to attain Nirvana, but out of compassion for the world, he renounces it and goes on suffering in samsara (i.e, this world) for the sake of others whom he assists on their own paths to Nirvana.
Only once in my life have I had what could reasonably be called "a mystical experience." During the short time it lasted I felt more compassion for others than I ever had before. That's also the teaching of the Buddhists.
I'll miss you as I know others will. I should quit being here, too. Apart from the crazies who inhabit the place, it takes too much time. I'll miss you my friend. Have a happy life, and, yes, you could call that mystical state nirvana, but that's not a word I use.
smetimes anne i really think that for some reason you either have that love or you yearn for it and do funny things to get it- because i am such a stubborn egoist ive had to be stripped over and over again-
of all sorts of what one might call attachments- it was only when i was in despair for a long time and so desparate that i had my own little personal epiphany that led me to where i am now- and it gets harder too- not easier- you would think that thered be a plateau and youd say- ok now ive reached the place but it doesnt necessarily make you comfortable-
the balance is just that- renouncing everything doesnt make it go away- just makes you appreicate everyone and everything- well im going on a bit- i feel freer to express myslef in this forum than in the nay sayer atheist one- they scared me.
kind of
one day i actually tried to run away from god- can you imagine the insanity?
but i really did i was a madowman running inthe streets- ripped off my coat and ran like the wild wind- ops i had a point
its gone
o
maybe take a gander if youre inclined tomorrow i may say my little piece on the main board now peace
HI ANNE O! what i meant was not me- but the concepts themselves were pretty unknown to me- it involved Muhammad(pbuh) in a nanosecond and i had really no prior expereince one way or the other with the religion of islam-
this is the sad truth of my level of extraordinary ignorance-
i thought that muslims were called that because they i saw picutres of them ( i thought) in the east and they were wearing the white cloth muslin!!!!!!!!!
as far as teresa of avila- her counterpart and st john of the cross- hey thats this post! how much synchronicity can you get!!!
in his dark night of the soul indeed says that the last great pride on the road to ego eradication and commune with the divine is spritual pride- it is really the most lingering and insidious of prides-oooo there itis again- just cant lick it-
it took over 2 years of praying the same prayer to get my little answer and it was awfully quick and seems nebulous in retrospect when reduced to qwords but i felt it ws super real- like preternatural-
honestly im a muslim but i still recommend dark night of the soul- its really the most comprehensive list ever compiled of a checllist of human frailties and blockages and it was a great exercise for me years and years ago but then everyone has a ifferent past so maybe i shoukldnt recmmend it but still i love those fools for god i really do and tried to be one most of my life (isnt it apparent) and maybe still am but toned down to a more societally productive version
so it was the concept i was unfamiliar with
that old oneness with the universe makes you feel good for a while but you get to realize theres alot more to life than seeking bliss because that can lead you down a really delusional and self centered path- when youre in bliss you tend to diminish the suffering of others and think everything will be solved if everyone else just feels connected and sometimes that connection has to be actual hard work and after a while you have to realize that the only person benefitting really from your bliss is you-
when youre trying to serve people who are in pain and it magnifies their own pain to see your own- connectedness and it leads to a tremendous amount of- you guessed it- spiritual pride.
and you are really right- we have to be holistic and part of our physical reality and in prayer especially its not supposed to be an escape into nirvana we are really obligated to worship without expectation of experience- seeking the sensory affirmation- its like making a deal with god- you ,ake me feel good- ill be nice to all of the universe-
i used to be a real bliss ninny
and i mean for years
the prophet Muhammad(pbuh) said something once- Hesaid- (talking to his followers) its a paraphrase from memory please forgive if its not exact- If you had the awareness of all that is that i have you would never stop crying.
that is more meaningful inreal life than chasing after starbeams and nirvana- because when you do that you only make those around you feel owrse by comparison and its a temporary non reproducible state and if youre blessed once in awhile to have it -maybe you need it to stay on path but to keep running after it is such a distraction
thank you anne youre such a mannerly and intelligent woman i really like reading your stuff
> non-functioning or malfunctioning of a certain part of the brain -
There's two ways of viewing information like this. One is the reductionistic - there is nothing but the brain and its disorders - just like in an earlier era we had rat psychologists saying there is nothing besides genetics and conditioning.
The other way is saying that the soul uses the brain as a medium for experience. So a change in the state of the brain reflects the soul's experience.
NORRIE quotes Ann O.:
In your post of 2:55 this afternoon you wrote:
"The neuroscientists have discovered that one particular kind of mystical experience ("cosmic consciousness") correlates with the non-functioning or malfunctioning of a certain part of the brain -- the part which allows us to differentiate our own bodies from the rest of the world."
NORRIE replies:
Consider this proposition:
1. Our bodies are clearly NOT separate from the rest of the universe. All kinds of matter, energy, waves, forces, and so on are common to our bodies and to the "outside world" and we and it are thoroughly internconnected all the time.
ANN O.responds:
I didn't say that our bodies are separate from and unconnected to the rest of the universe -- I said that they are *different* from the rest (because they are our own, as other bodies are not).
NORRIE: 3. When this lobe malfunctions or becomes completely nonfunctional, the illusion of separateness vanishes and we directly perceive the truth: that we are one with everything and there is no separateness.
ANN: Saying that we are "one with" the rest of the world, that is that we are part of a whole, is one thing. But in the "cosmic consciousness" the mystic claims to be not only *part* of the whole but the *whole cosmos* at the same time -- in other words the part is the whole and the whole is the part, which is a very fundamental sort of irrationality, but this sort of mystic does not value consistency.
There do seem to be other sorts of extraordinary experiences of some sort of absolute which other mystics say is unlike any ordinary experience. These sorts of mystical experience do not involve any sort of inconsistency. Unfortunately the neuroscientists (at least the ones I've read) don't eveb seem to know that there are different sorts of mystical experience.
If there have been such studies if the other kinds, I would be interested in reading them
"The neuroscientists have discovered that one particular kind of mystical experience ("cosmic consciousness") correlates with the non-functioning or malfunctioning of a certain part of the brain -- the part which allows us to differentiate our own bodies from the rest of the world."
Consider this proposition:
1. Our bodies are clearly NOT separate from the rest of the universe. All kinds of matter, energy, waves, forces, and so on are common to our bodies and to the "outside world" and we and it are thoroughly internconnected all the time.
2. Therefore the perception that our bodies are separate is clearly in error and a delusion. This delusion is produced by some part of the brain. Call it the "delusion of separateness lobe."
3. When this lobe malfunctions or becomes completely nonfunctional, the illusion of separateness vanishes and we directly perceive the truth: that we are one with everything and there is no separateness.
4. We call this a "mystical experience" because we see it as abnormal and something special. Actually it's the normal, true view of things. The delusion of separateness lobe, which is usually functioning, produces the delusion of our separateness. We see this delusional view as normal and true, which it isn't. We simply have things backwards in our understanding of "mystical experiences".
I was being too sensitive and pushed the point too far. I think the inappropriate comments are in the minority and will just ignore that part of the posts from now on.
Those first times where we are seemingly cut off we learn from. If we are greedy to be held dearer and closer than intended - we learn it. If we are to be tested on faith to find strength we did not know - we learn that, too.
God is most appropriate in His dealings with us (and seemingly lack thereof) for our benefit.
You say: "I guess all I'm saying is that some of the comments are below the belt."
It you name specific comments, it might help people know what kinds of comments are considered (at least by you) to be below the belt.
"If people think the Bible is the word of god, then let's discuss the origin, the editing, and the inconsistencies."
Will do - I've posted this 2002 NY Times article excerpt on other threads. I found it on this forum and think it should get as wide coverage as possible. I'd love the panelists to discuss it.
New York Times, March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds, By MICHAEL MASSING
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. [For full article, go to:]
FERN tells us: So from this frame of reference, the question might be how do we know that an experience really comes from God who dwells in our hearts rather than from our limited personality?
I think one way of approaching that question is to beware of anything that puffs you up. If you start thinking *I*, glorious me, totally special me, has had this totally outstanding experience that sets me far above all of you lesser people, that's a big warning flag. If the experience fills you with gratitude and humility, it's much more likely to be authentic.
Posted January 4, 2007 12:59 AM
ANN O. responds:
Yes, that would help to eliminate some pseudo-religious experiences. But Teresa of Avila tells us that she became so proud of herself because God had favored her with her ecstacies that He showed her her place in Hell if she didn't get a more accurate image of herself :-)
I suspect that with mystical experiences -- as with all the ordinary experiences which science tries to explain -- we just have to be content with a method that eliminates possible explanations of such extraordinary experiences. If the experience makes the person proud (or worst of all if the person thinks sh/e is God, as the Quietist sort of mystic does) and makes him/her think she is therefore superior to other people because of it, then I would also be strongly inclined to doubt that the experience was of God. If the *means* to an experience is destructive (e.g., drugs) then I would also eliminate those experiences as genuinely religious.
Another criterion is that the genuinely religious mystics becomes inclined to love all of creation, even the awful people in it, unlike the Quietist kind. This too makes sense to me.
Still, I'm curious about the grasp of "otherness".
mine was a shot out of the blue with concepts and an identity that was completely unknown to me
but no less valid
Posted January 3, 2007 10:24 PM
ANN responds:
What about it made you think it *wasn't* you, besides it's being completely unknown prior to the experience? (That would certainly be a marker of an experience of God, I think.)
ISTM part of the problem of understanding mystical experiences (to the extent that they can be understood) is that we haven't done a very good job of describing just what our *ordinary* interior, private selves are, so it isn't easy to differentiate self from other.
The neuroscientists have discovered that one particular kind of mystical experience ("cosmic consciousness") correlates with the non-functioning or misfunctioning of a certain part of the brain - - the part which allows us to differentiate our own bodies from the rest of the world. It's the sort of experience in which the mystics thinks s/he is identical with the whole cosmos while remaining just a part of it. Sadly, the ignorant scientists seem to think that that is the *only* kind of mystical experience. Sigh.
But cosmic consciousness is not an experience such as Teresa of Avila or Ramanuja (a Hindu) or some others had. Their experiences led their consciousnesses *away* from the physical world and were of a presence of a being who is not identical with the world, a non-spatial reality which cannot be described in physical terms at all.
So it seems that there are different *sorts* of mystical experience, some religious and some non-religious. When I say "religious mystical experiences" I mean an experience in which the mystics is somehow aware of the presence of God, and not just the depths of his/her own spirit -- an experience of an Other which is Absolute Love. Which brings me back to my first question: how can you tell an other as *other*? Some mystics seem to do it, but they don't tell us how.
> question is, should we consider you not insane
> because many others believe in the same invisible
> supernatural being which talks to them...
Concealed beneath the snark is a valid question. Look what happened to Joan of Arc, for example. In India there are quite a few individuals who under states of divine intoxication act mad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mast_(God-intoxicated)
> There is exactly as much evidence that there was > a Jesus or is a god as there is
> fro Zeus...
That is wrong. You might differ as to what Jesus was, but there is quite a bit of evidence that he actually lived.
I do not deny that people speak to supernatural beings. I do not deny these beings are without body and can thereby enter people's brains. I will even hedge and say you are free to call them God/gods even though I BELIEVE they are all the opposite of God and nice gods.
With the above for my premise let me reference the infamous HB finding one last time. "Sell your soul" Moses takes charge of the Israelites in Egypt. Moses standing on a soap box crys out, "Hebrew children, listen up. My name is Moses. I spoke to God and God said that I'm in charge here."
I can substitute Susan for Moses. Susan is a Moses imitator. Susan does believe Moses also spoke to God, a given. HB says all speakers to God hear the same variety of thing, what they want to hear at the time, and that puts them in control, witness Pat R's recent chit chat with supernatural being he says is God. What's in it for Pat? What was in it for Moses? Same thing?
Where did Moses lead the Israelites? Where is Susan, Pat, others leading their flocks? Just one last question. Do you really want to go there? All you have to do to get to where Moses led the Israelites is replace the constitution with the Bible and you're there. Before you do that please read the Bible and see what happened to the Israelites. It will happpen to you too if you follow Moses imitators.
I guess all I'm saying is that some of the comments are below the belt.
If people think the Bible is the word of god, then let's discuss the origin, the editing, and the inconsistencies. Let's discuss what god means. We should try to define the religious experience.
And we should remain civil when doing it.
Let’s not ridicule them like some would try to humiliate a child who questions
the belief of their parents and community. I lived that and don’t want to
see others go through that experience.
There is a serious point here that I think we should all be aware of and deal with.
The Washington Post, one of our nation's two great newspapers, is sponsoring a forum called "Of Faith."
It is by virtue of that fact a part of the Public Debate, not just a nice sharing among believers.
By hosting this topic the Post
Normalizes Faith, de-normalizes Non-Faith
You can't say this should be a nice forum among us believers once you put it in a public forum.
Every statement is up for debate: pro or con.
If some people want to compare religious belief to forms of insanity, and they do it in a reasonable way, that is part of the debate.
It is undeniably true that
1. we say people who talk to aliens are insane.
2. people who talk to an unseen God are not.
it is an important human question to ask what the difference is.
If one is too thin skinned to have one's belief challenged, stay off public forums sponsored by public newspapers.
Very little in the last half of this thread is not totally normal in the halls of academic debate, and it should be normal here.
I am very happy that the columnist here had a nice experience. i just don't think her belief is any more reasonable to hold than a belief in Thor or Zeus. And many others don't either. Again, in Europe people would be stunned by your ultra-sensitivity.
Susan has shared a personal experience, and now all the people in the comments are fighting and bickering.
Seriously grow up, thank her for sharing an experience, but don't be rude and shouting about other things. How would you feel , if you shared a personal experience, only to have a random person begin to scream how bad burger king was instead?
Its sad since people want to fight over the issue of religion now. It's not about being right any more, its just become a fight over I am right and you are wrong... and you know something perhaps, we are all right and we are all wrong, so let it drop.
No wonder we will never have peace until people can accept each other with some respect!
Thank you Susan. I appreciate the sharing of your experience.
I say we don't need to use the words "tooth fairy" and "insane".
I think we need to acknowledge that fairy tales do teach great lessons about life. Consider your example of the emperor with no clothes.
I think we can make our argument and not have to call names.
Since people generally think that atheist's are unrespectable, we should live so as to make that assumption ridiculous. Maybe it’s because we have been ridiculed that we have
sometimes been silent. That would be our fault and I do applaud Dawkins
and Harris for that.
So far I think the comments on this column have been remarkably civil.
We will of course get a range, both among the god-fearing and the god-less, of overly polite to obnoxious.
The important point here is the substance of belief in a Supernatural God.
The point is also the oppression and marginalization of the Atheist viewpoint in our society.
In Belgium, a political candidate's belief would be irrelevent. In the US, and atheist can't get elected.
In myriad ways, both explicit and implicit, the public attitude towards atheists is that they are even more unrespectable than the Gays and other minority groups.
The atheists can either say
"oh, that's ok, hit me again,"
or they can, as Harris and Dawkins do,
say
the Emperor has no clothes,
believing in a god that talks to you is no saner than believing in the tooth fairy.
that may not be "polite." it is a logical proposition that can be debated.
The fact remains that if either this distingueshed academic, or Pat Robertson, or a Texas oilman, said that Aliens were speaking to them, we would consider them slightly insane or worse.
If they substitute God for Alian, we say, oh what a nice woman or man. It is a collective delusion, just like the Emperor and his clothes.
Dearest Sister Thistlethwaite, through your trial of deprivation you have come to know a purer vision of God, of Creation. Truly I believe the female to be closer to Creation than the male, but in the act they are one. In the shared responsibility they are equal. A faster way would have been to visualize God as Female, but you would have not ascended to a higher plane. God Bless you and your mentors. Remember the lesson of the Footprints, child of God.
You say, "Unbelievers could allay much of the anxiety believers hold about how civil society could exist without god and religion, if unbelievers, here on this forum and elsewhere, would hold fast to the highest standards of civil conversation."
I agree, and knowing exactly what you mean by "civil" would help.
Could you give some specific examples from this forum(and not just Simpleword's remarks)of unbelievers not being civil enough?
Palidin wrote:
---All belief is choice: choose what you will, and be done with it.---
Well, its not choice when fed to elementary school children as fact and fact that they must believe in or they will go to the fires of everlasting hell. Once that belief is established in children it never leaves. It may be supressed by those who grow up and understand they were conditioned to believe in a God against all evidence, but in their brain is still that conditioning, the loving God, the fires of hell. It never leaves.
No Palidin, belief is not choice when children are brainwashed to believe. Had you been raised to believe in God as a flying elephant that will either step on you for eternity or fly you to heaven depending on whether you sinned during you life or not, I wonder what you'd be thinking while praying. A flying elephant is silly? Why not men with wings, men with tongues of fire floating over their heads, men with halos, men who walk on water, men who change water into wine, men who rise from the dead, oh bother...
"How can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk, drawing on a remarkable panel of distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism."
As I said earlier "this thread has jumped the shark." And as another poster in another thread said. To see common courtesy restored, maybe we need rules on "how not to be a total a**hole to complete strangers..."
"Maybe we need rules on how not to be a total a**hole to complete strangers."
The brain has been measured to be at times 1 - 3 degrees warmer than the body core. This is still considered a part of the overall body temperature, and does not support temperatures at the quantum level.
You say, "Any of you who read the phrase in Dr. Susan's post "God stopped speaking to me" and took this to mean that Dr. Susan was "hearing voices", you should be ashamed of yourselves. Dr. Susan is a serious scholar and the president of a major theological university. If you place her in the same category as Pat Robertson, you really have not done your research and should do some before commenting here..."
Are you saying that because Susan is a serious scholar, that her hearing God's voice is different from (and superior to) Pat Robertson, a successful TV Evangelist, hearing God's voice?
If so, would that go for everyone else who said they heard God's voice? e.g., would someone with a master's degree be more likely to hear the true voice of God than someone who only had a high school diploma? or the Pope over a pastor of a mega-church?
These are serious questions. I hope you come back to the forum so you can respond to them.
All Comments (124)
Dear friend,
Thank you for your thoughts...thank you for your honesty and insight and faithfulness. I went through what I like to call a dark "hour" of the soul this past fall...it lasted exactly a month, and I still feel like I'm recovering from it. And here I am now, in seminary, writing a paper on the theology of "dark night of the soul." My mind is flooded with information and facts and ideas - and yet at the heart of it exists my own heart, my own soul! So thank you for giving me another nugget to chew on.
Blessings to you, cara:)
March 11, 2007 3:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 11, 2007 03:27
E Favorite: Sorry, I've been away for quite some time. In fact I haven't checked this forum since making my original post.
I hesitated to use Pat Robertson's name. I really don't know that much about the man, other than that he is, in my circles anyway, a person who is commonly invoked as someone who teaches a certain form of Christianity that does not really align too well with the gospels. I'm not presuming to be an expert on the man, and I shouldn't judge him. But I did want to use an example of someone who many believe to be somewhat of a false teacher.
About the rest of your post, no I would say it should be obvious that a degree means nothing in successfully discerning what is and what isn't God's "voice". Similarly for a person's standing in the church. Although it would be human nature for many to trust someone more who has an established position in a church, or who has had training... What I was really getting at in my post was this thread in some of the other posts that Susan is somehow delusional and suffering from some psychiatric problem. I think this is highly unlikely given her position. Moreover, she is actually admitting to doubt in her faith; this is not something that is usually interpreted as a pillar of faith. In other words she does not stand to benefit from this admission, not in today's church at least...
It's an age-old problem, discerning whether something is spiritual truth, or a bunch of hooey. :) At the end of the day we can only do our best and put everything to various "tests". We should do this equally with Susan's posts, Pat Robertson's posts, or whoever...
January 31, 2007 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2007 15:04
I wanted to say that there are few people that know about the "Dark Night of the Soul". I have been going through it myself and have read of others that have had the same experience. Mine however has been accompanied by many other elements which I will not discuss given the reaction your original post received. It is a very difficult experience. Bless you for discussing that it happened to you.
January 21, 2007 8:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 21, 2007 20:00
To: E. Favorite & Ann O.:
Thanks for your feedback.
I am not personally offended by much of what anyone says in response to my own comments. I actually have pretty thick skin. What concerns me are the comments that drip with sarcasm, attack the rationality of the person or dismiss heart felt positions as being without merit. I believe that statements that attack the person and not the ideas presented reflect upon the attacker, not the person being attacked.
As I stated previously:
-Each person is responsible for their own feelings. This would include those feelings that arise when personal belief or unbelief, whether religious or secular is challenged or dismissed. When anger, frustration, rage and even hate rise from within us, our first responsibility is to reflect upon the origins of our own feelings. The origins of our emotions are always found within ourselves.
-Unacknowledged fears and anxieties result in misplaced projection of those fears and anxieties onto our perceived “enemies”.
Whenever people are not conscious of the origins of their own feelings, they easily fall into careless and dissociative speech and behavior. I’m mostly asking that we all try to look inward before we speak or act.
Ann actually addresses many of these same points. And I readliy admit that not all opinions are created equal. However, respectful, civil conversation takes the few moments necessary to set aside frustration and anger, to focus on the substance of the comments, not the person making them.
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
January 10, 2007 7:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 10, 2007 07:36
E.FAVORITE says: When people are so touchy and so unaccustomed to talking with people with different views, it's hard to know sometimes what is offensive and what is fair play. I think it would be helpful to have some rules to go by that everyone understands. Maybe that will evolve among people who really do want to have a dialogue.
ANN O. replies: I couldn't agree more!
There are some distinctions which help, I find. One is to realize that to be a good person is not the same thing as being a wise person. Then we can separate their opinions from the rest of themselves. If we can remember to separate a person's intention to do something good (to tell the truth as s/he sees it) from the person's opinion, then it limits our target, so to speak :-) Only the person's *opinions* should be commented on.
But there's the rub. In some sense our opinions are ourselves. What to do? I fear the only solution is for all of us to realize that while others should respect our intentions, that in truth we cannot respect everyone's opinions. Feelling bad when someone says our opinions are mistaken is the cost of learning.
Anyway, if we treat opinions as somehow not identical with the person, we are less likely to call the whole person names. There's the key -- don't make statements about the person (you're stupid, dishonest, ignorant, etc.) but do say of faulty opinions "that is not true, your opinions are inconsistent, that overlooks X evidence, that was shown to be false by A, B, or C
In other words, avoid talking about the speaker, speak only about what the speaker has said. Sometimes that might be impossible when talking about the other person's own experiences. Still we can avoid calling them dumb, dishonest or in denial.
Ann O.
January 9, 2007 1:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 9, 2007 13:36
Emm- Thanks, but I would have preferred concrete examples, to see what you considered offensive.
Many things on your list seem subjective.
When people are so touchy and so unaccustomed to talking with people with different views, it's hard to know sometimes what is offensive and what is fair play. I think it would be helpful to have some rules to go by that everyone understands. Maybe that will evolve among people who really do want to have a dialogue.
January 8, 2007 6:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 18:55
E. Favorite:
Sorry to be so slow in responding.
“Could you give some specific examples from this forum(and not just Simpleword's remarks)of unbelievers not being civil enough?”
Rather than provide a list of specific quotations, I’ll just list a few criteria. I would suggest that all postings avoid any of the following:
-judgment and/or intolerance
-sarcasm and insult
-anger
-hate
-name calling
-dismissal of others personal experience
-claims of fact that are really just opinion
Use of any of the above seems a sure indication of the weakness of the position being claimed. Civil conversation leads to dialogue. Dialogue invites each participant to both hear and be heard. It is in the being heard and the hearing that insight and tolerance emerge.
I hope this helps.
January 8, 2007 7:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 8, 2007 07:28
VICTORIA tells us:
heres rabia
"Beloved God, if I worship You from fear of hell, burn me
in hell. If I worship You from hope of Paradise, exclude
me from Paradise. But if I worship You for Your own sake,
then do not withhold Yourself from me."
Hi, Victoria,
Oh, I do like Rabia! And Nasruddin is indeed wise and funny :-) I have a good bit of Rumi's poetry -- to me he's the very greatest of all the lyrical poets.
Thanks.
Ann O.
January 7, 2007 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 7, 2007 16:35
then you would just love rabia of basra- shes an islamic saint and mystic
and therese the little flower of liseux is another favorite of mine
i like merton- i thought he was a true catholic- you know the word catholic literally means universal-
also jalaludin rumi wrote some incredible poetry-
he wrote s stroy (again i paraphrase) wait ill go look for it- here it is
:
A certain person came to the Friend's door
and knocked.
"Who's there?"
"It's me."
The Friend answered, "Go away. There's no place
for raw meat at this table."
The individual went wandering for a year.
Nothing but the fire of separation
can change hypocrisy and ego. The person returned
completely cooked,
walked up and down in front of the Friend's house,
gently knocked.
"Who is it?"
"You."
"Please come in, my Self,
there's no place in this house for two."
heres rabia
"Beloved God, if I worship You from fear of hell, burn me
in hell. If I worship You from hope of Paradise, exclude
me from Paradise. But if I worship You for Your own sake,
then do not withhold Yourself from me."
there are many accounts of her life from a poet named attar- he wrote a book called the conference of the birds
ooo if you like humor you cant be mulla nasruddin
the persians, afghanis and turks all claim him
he is hysterical
#
# Nasruddin used to stand in the street on market-days, to be pointed out as an idiot. No matter how often people offered him a large and a small coin, he always chose the smaller piece. One day a kindly man said to him: Nasruddin, you should take the bigger coin. Then you will have more money and people will no longer be able to make a laughing stock of you. That may be true, said Nasruddin, but if I always take the larger, people will stop offering me money to prove that I am more idiotic than they are. Then I would have no money at all.
# As Nasruddin emerged form the mosque after prayers, a beggar sitting on the street solicited alms. The following conversation followed: Are you extravagant? asked Nasruddin. Yes Nasruddin. replied the beggar. Do you like sitting around drinking coffee and smoking? asked Nasruddin. Yes. replied the beggar. I suppose you like to go to the baths everyday? asked Nasruddin. Yes. replied the beggar. ...And maybe amuse yourself, even, by drinking with friends? asked Nasruddin. Yes I like all those things. replied the beggar. Tut, Tut, said Nasruddin, and gave him a gold piece. A few yards farther on. another beggar who had overheard the conversation begged for alms also. Are you extravagant? asked Nasruddin. No, Nasruddin replied second beggar. Do you like sitting around drinking coffee and smoking? asked Nasruddin. No. replied second beggar. I suppose you like to go to the baths everyday? asked Nasruddin. No. replied second beggar. ...And maybe amuse yourself, even, by drinking with friends? asked Nasruddin. No, I want to only live meagerly and to pray. replied second beggar. Whereupon the Nasruddin gave him a small copper coin. But why, wailed second beggar, do you give me, an economical and pious man, a penny, when you give that extravagant fellow a sovereign? Ah my friend, replied Nasruddin, his needs are greater than yours.
# One day Nasruddin went to a banquet. As he was dressed rather shabbily, no one let him in. So he ran home, put on his best robe and fur coat and returned. Immediately, the host came over, greeted him and ushered him to the head of an elaborate banquet table. When the food was served, Nasruddin took some soup with spoon and pushed it to the his fur coat and said, Eat my fur coat, eat! It's obvious that you're the real guest of honor today, not me!
# One hot day, Nasruddin was taking it easy in the shade of a walnut tree. After a time, he started eying speculatively, the huge pumpkins growing on vines and the small walnuts growing on a majestic tree. Sometimes I just can't understand the ways of God! he mused. Just fancy letting tinny walnuts grow on so majestic a tree and huge pumpkins on the delicate vines! Just then a walnut snapped off and fell smack on Mullah Nasruddin's bald head. He got up at once and lifting up his hands and face to heavens in supplication, said: "Oh, my God! Forgive my questioning your ways! You are all-wise. Where would I have been now, if pumpkins grew on trees!
alright i forgot what im doing here-
ive been reading stories for a half hour
thank you Anne- i will indeed look mr zaehner up
peace
January 6, 2007 10:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2007 22:42
Victoria tells us: i used to be a real bliss ninny
and i mean for years
Hi, Victoria,
You do have a wonderful way of making yourself clear "Bliss ninny", indeed :-)
I've never had any real mystical experience, but even the garden variety of prayer can become selfish if we neglect otheres because of it. But I do think we all need some sort of prayer life or meditation to help us deal with the world and get good things done. They are graces too. And those who share different ways of praying are doing a service for the rest of us, so Bless them too.
VICTORIA again: he prophet Muhammad(pbuh) said something once- Hesaid- (talking to his followers) its a paraphrase from memory please forgive if its not exact- If you had the awareness of all that is that i have you would never stop crying.
ANN: Thomas Merton, the American Trappist monk, had a mystical experience in India shortly before he died as he contemplated some huge old statues of Buddhas. He says he became aware of a presence in everything that is compassion itself. I interpret this to mean that he was aware of God's presence in the suffering world, a compassionate presence. This is an unusual sort of mystical experience for a Catholic. Catholic mystics usually go into the depths of their self to meet God, but Merton was different in many ways. You might like his "New Seeds of Contemplation". In a relatively short time it has turned into a classic.
Are you familiar with the work of Robert C. Zaehner? He was an Oxford professor of conparative religions. He concluded from his vast reading of original texts from the major religions at different times and in different places, that there are most of these traditions three extraordinary sorts of ecstatic experience which are all called "mystical experience". But he concluded that only one kind was essentially religious -- that is, a meeting with God. One non-religious kind is the cosmic consciousness kind I mentioned before, and the other is the Quietist kind in which the mystics consciousness is not directed out to the world, but, rather, goes deep into her soul,and -- so Zaehner things -- the depths of the soul is so very beautiful that the mystic mistakes herself for God. Zaehner says such mystics often think they are beyond good and evil (can't sin -- they're "above" sin), and becomes indifferent to ordinary people. Fascinating book if you can find a copy of it.
Me, too, I love those fools for God.
Ann O.
January 6, 2007 8:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2007 20:50
norrie lest you misunderstand my response- that is not the meaning of that saying-
January 6, 2007 1:24 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2007 01:24
norrie- you couldnt have misunderstood more-
lets just say i killed buddha years ago
peace
January 6, 2007 12:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 6, 2007 00:49
Victoria,
You make so many points so quickly and without a lot of detail that I find it difficult to keep up with you.
In general I find that writing in complete sentences composed in accordance with generally accepted grammatical rules facilitates communication and thought.
But since your native or preferred style seems to be scattershot bullet points, I'll try to reply in kind:
*** yes, you're right, "God" doesn't exist.
*** if something was learned through meditation, the conventional "self" doesn't reappear when the formal meditation period is over.
*** Bodhisattvas are very compassionate - that's all we can say.
*** A Bodhisattva is a person as defined in my post above.
*** I believe that so many Buddhist texts in English are incomprehensie because they were translated by people who lacked a grasp of modern colloquial English, and who translated the words with a crude literalism that did not convey the meaning of the original.
*** My posts are being made by a human body sitting and typing at a computer. Beyond that I cannot say.
*** I have no knowledge of any life after death. Orthodox traditional Buddhism would say that what is reincarnated is a person's karma, i.e., the action of his psychic tendencies. Orthodox Buddhists would say that individual consciousness does not survive death.
*** My body has not left behind its possessions, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the "self" is an illusion and does not exist.
*** Buddhism in no way denies the existence of the material world - it does teach that the world is not really as it appears. The Buddha said, "Things are not as they seem and also not otherwise." Many renowned Buddhists fully enjoyed every aspect of the material world.
*** Buddhism does not exclude anyone from anything. It does encourage people to use their ability to think for themselves as best they can.
*** Of course a real Bodhisatva has to be anonymous. The people you are thinking of are phony "gurus" on the make. They are not Bodisatvas.
*** A true understanding of Buddhism does not end in introspection and withdrawal.
*** Buddhist teachings lead people toward increased consciousness and helpful awareness.
*** Yes, Victoria, "you could be wrong!" The Buddha said the same thing about himself. He told his followers not to take anything he said on faith.
Hence the saying : "If you meet the Buddha on the path - Kill him!!"
My best to you.
January 5, 2007 9:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 21:04
but then again norrie- i could be wrong!
January 5, 2007 7:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 19:10
norrie- snce there is no self to won anything can we assume that you have left all material possessions behind?
are you at the library using their computer?
of course not-
the self immediately rears its substantial head the moment one comes out of their meditation-
being incomprehensible doesnt necessarily imply that one must be suoer intelligent to get it-
it rather implies lack of clarity on the part of the author and usually rasies more questions that it answers resulting in not the conclusion that there is no self but endless circles of mental masturbation-
sure it feels good but what purpose does it serve?
its nice to hear the harmony of the spheres or see the inner lights but after that- when you come back t the inevitable physical reality -
then what?
an endless search for sensory fulfillment?
to what end?
at some point one has to live in this material world-
buddhism tries to deny it- tries to subdue it- control it-
but again the spiritual pride pops up-
who is to say that the simple heartfelt pure prayers of a mongoloid child arent more real more valid-
there is an elitist aspect to buddhist principles- a worship of the intellect- but its exclusionary to the rest of humanity-
while most people are busy chasing after degrees and accolades- there are many who are seeking constantly and never ending -
consider the possibility that you are not at the end of your spiritual path- but that this is the befginning and there are many many other paths coming after it-
the precept dont just do something- sit there
may work for a little while
but eventually you have to wake up
ive known a few self proclaimed bodhisatvas with large groups of followers who got trapped in their egos-
naturally a real bodhisatva by their very mission has to be anonymous
we will meet them in our life if were lucky- but the real ones ive met werent even buddhists-
self knowledge really is the key
alert conscious awareness
without it we might as well be an island all by our selves-self sufficient with no slef to need anything
but we are really not
buddhism works for a connection for a while but it dead ends into introspection and withdrawal
we are here and interdependent on each other
when one claims to 'know' it can be assured that they dont
this is the only constant we are all only
teaching each other
i got all i could out of buddhism year and years ago and it was valuable
but i really exhort people to conscious and helpful awareness
its a presumption of the most arrogant kind to me to try to tell god how to approach me
and it is exactly the 'self' that must sit in quiet patient submission and humiltiy to hear
January 5, 2007 6:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 18:28
by that logic we could conclude that god doesnt exist-
and obviously the self quickly reasserts itslef when one comes out of their meditation
and we cant assume real boddhisatvas are always happy and shiny people
and there doesnt seem to be a general consensus on just who is a boddhisatva
by their very nature they must remain esoteric and anonymous
i recommend personally- a life of alert and aware consciousness
some buddhist doctrine can be incomprehensible at first because it is a confused and individual perception
being incomprehensible doesnt necessarily imply that one must be super-intelligent to get it
it rather implies a lack of clarity in the mind of the writer
truly universal precepts are available and undertood by all of gods childrens
who is making your post norrie?
who will be reborn i the next life?
will all of your actions and spiritual owrk be lost when you merge with the original seminal impetus because you have no self?
i dont find much value in the precept
dont just do soemthing, sit there
well, how long? and then what?
January 5, 2007 6:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 18:01
Ann O.,
You wrote,
"I didn't say that our bodies are separate from and unconnected to the rest of the universe - I said that they are "different" from the rest (because they are our own, as other bodies are not).
Buddhists would disagree with you, as do I. Here's the real deal:
(1) The "self" does not exist. It is a delusional construct of the mind. There is no "our", "my", or "mine", because there is no "self" to own or posses anything.
(2) The "boundaries" of "the body" with "everything else" are so porous and fuzzy that "the body" can't reasonably be considered to be a separate entity.
(3) Since there is no identifiable "self" to posess or be part of a separate, identifiable "body", we have to consider that "everything" is "one thing" without any real boundaries or demarcation lines within "everything."
It's hard to find a good book on Buddhism that simply explains this - most are incomprehensible, at least on first reading. But they can be found. They start by prescribing exercises for the reader to follow to try to find or locate the reader's "own" "self". The reader quickly finds that the "self" can't be found, and that the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't exist.
You might want to explore this approach.
January 5, 2007 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 11:27
Victoria,
The correct spelling is BODHISATTVA.
January 5, 2007 10:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 10:51
Victoria,
You wrote that "...when you're in bliss you tend to diminish the suffering of others..."
Not necessarily so. Buddhism describes a class of beings called "Bodhissativas."
Here's a definition:
Bodhisattva: A person who is in a position to attain Nirvana, but out of compassion for the world, he renounces it and goes on suffering in samsara (i.e, this world) for the sake of others whom he assists on their own paths to Nirvana.
Only once in my life have I had what could reasonably be called "a mystical experience." During the short time it lasted I felt more compassion for others than I ever had before. That's also the teaching of the Buddhists.
January 5, 2007 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 10:48
Nafi,
I'll miss you as I know others will. I should quit being here, too. Apart from the crazies who inhabit the place, it takes too much time. I'll miss you my friend. Have a happy life, and, yes, you could call that mystical state nirvana, but that's not a word I use.
Frater, ave atque vale.
January 5, 2007 10:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 10:20
smetimes anne i really think that for some reason you either have that love or you yearn for it and do funny things to get it- because i am such a stubborn egoist ive had to be stripped over and over again-
of all sorts of what one might call attachments- it was only when i was in despair for a long time and so desparate that i had my own little personal epiphany that led me to where i am now- and it gets harder too- not easier- you would think that thered be a plateau and youd say- ok now ive reached the place but it doesnt necessarily make you comfortable-
the balance is just that- renouncing everything doesnt make it go away- just makes you appreicate everyone and everything- well im going on a bit- i feel freer to express myslef in this forum than in the nay sayer atheist one- they scared me.
kind of
one day i actually tried to run away from god- can you imagine the insanity?
but i really did i was a madowman running inthe streets- ripped off my coat and ran like the wild wind- ops i had a point
its gone
o
maybe take a gander if youre inclined tomorrow i may say my little piece on the main board now peace
January 5, 2007 8:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 08:13
HI ANNE O! what i meant was not me- but the concepts themselves were pretty unknown to me- it involved Muhammad(pbuh) in a nanosecond and i had really no prior expereince one way or the other with the religion of islam-
this is the sad truth of my level of extraordinary ignorance-
i thought that muslims were called that because they i saw picutres of them ( i thought) in the east and they were wearing the white cloth muslin!!!!!!!!!
as far as teresa of avila- her counterpart and st john of the cross- hey thats this post! how much synchronicity can you get!!!
in his dark night of the soul indeed says that the last great pride on the road to ego eradication and commune with the divine is spritual pride- it is really the most lingering and insidious of prides-oooo there itis again- just cant lick it-
it took over 2 years of praying the same prayer to get my little answer and it was awfully quick and seems nebulous in retrospect when reduced to qwords but i felt it ws super real- like preternatural-
honestly im a muslim but i still recommend dark night of the soul- its really the most comprehensive list ever compiled of a checllist of human frailties and blockages and it was a great exercise for me years and years ago but then everyone has a ifferent past so maybe i shoukldnt recmmend it but still i love those fools for god i really do and tried to be one most of my life (isnt it apparent) and maybe still am but toned down to a more societally productive version
so it was the concept i was unfamiliar with
that old oneness with the universe makes you feel good for a while but you get to realize theres alot more to life than seeking bliss because that can lead you down a really delusional and self centered path- when youre in bliss you tend to diminish the suffering of others and think everything will be solved if everyone else just feels connected and sometimes that connection has to be actual hard work and after a while you have to realize that the only person benefitting really from your bliss is you-
when youre trying to serve people who are in pain and it magnifies their own pain to see your own- connectedness and it leads to a tremendous amount of- you guessed it- spiritual pride.
and you are really right- we have to be holistic and part of our physical reality and in prayer especially its not supposed to be an escape into nirvana we are really obligated to worship without expectation of experience- seeking the sensory affirmation- its like making a deal with god- you ,ake me feel good- ill be nice to all of the universe-
i used to be a real bliss ninny
and i mean for years
the prophet Muhammad(pbuh) said something once- Hesaid- (talking to his followers) its a paraphrase from memory please forgive if its not exact- If you had the awareness of all that is that i have you would never stop crying.
that is more meaningful inreal life than chasing after starbeams and nirvana- because when you do that you only make those around you feel owrse by comparison and its a temporary non reproducible state and if youre blessed once in awhile to have it -maybe you need it to stay on path but to keep running after it is such a distraction
thank you anne youre such a mannerly and intelligent woman i really like reading your stuff
peace
January 5, 2007 8:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 5, 2007 08:00
Fern, Ann O,
You just took out the mystique of the mystical:)
Is there no romance, no mystery anymore?
In this short life
that only last an hour
how much, how little
is within our power
- Emily Dickinson
January 4, 2007 11:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 23:33
> non-functioning or malfunctioning of a certain part of the brain -
There's two ways of viewing information like this. One is the reductionistic - there is nothing but the brain and its disorders - just like in an earlier era we had rat psychologists saying there is nothing besides genetics and conditioning.
The other way is saying that the soul uses the brain as a medium for experience. So a change in the state of the brain reflects the soul's experience.
January 4, 2007 11:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 23:06
NORRIE HOYT
Re your post to Ann O.
I thought it is called Nirvana!
All the best to you. I'm out of reading On Faith permanently. It was a very interesting one week.
Too many non compos mentis types around.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Peace be with you :)
January 4, 2007 10:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 22:49
NORRIE quotes Ann O.:
In your post of 2:55 this afternoon you wrote:
"The neuroscientists have discovered that one particular kind of mystical experience ("cosmic consciousness") correlates with the non-functioning or malfunctioning of a certain part of the brain -- the part which allows us to differentiate our own bodies from the rest of the world."
NORRIE replies:
Consider this proposition:
1. Our bodies are clearly NOT separate from the rest of the universe. All kinds of matter, energy, waves, forces, and so on are common to our bodies and to the "outside world" and we and it are thoroughly internconnected all the time.
ANN O.responds:
I didn't say that our bodies are separate from and unconnected to the rest of the universe -- I said that they are *different* from the rest (because they are our own, as other bodies are not).
NORRIE: 3. When this lobe malfunctions or becomes completely nonfunctional, the illusion of separateness vanishes and we directly perceive the truth: that we are one with everything and there is no separateness.
ANN: Saying that we are "one with" the rest of the world, that is that we are part of a whole, is one thing. But in the "cosmic consciousness" the mystic claims to be not only *part* of the whole but the *whole cosmos* at the same time -- in other words the part is the whole and the whole is the part, which is a very fundamental sort of irrationality, but this sort of mystic does not value consistency.
There do seem to be other sorts of extraordinary experiences of some sort of absolute which other mystics say is unlike any ordinary experience. These sorts of mystical experience do not involve any sort of inconsistency. Unfortunately the neuroscientists (at least the ones I've read) don't eveb seem to know that there are different sorts of mystical experience.
If there have been such studies if the other kinds, I would be interested in reading them
Ann O.
January 4, 2007 9:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 21:51
Ann O.,
In your post of 2:55 this afternoon you wrote:
"The neuroscientists have discovered that one particular kind of mystical experience ("cosmic consciousness") correlates with the non-functioning or malfunctioning of a certain part of the brain -- the part which allows us to differentiate our own bodies from the rest of the world."
Consider this proposition:
1. Our bodies are clearly NOT separate from the rest of the universe. All kinds of matter, energy, waves, forces, and so on are common to our bodies and to the "outside world" and we and it are thoroughly internconnected all the time.
2. Therefore the perception that our bodies are separate is clearly in error and a delusion. This delusion is produced by some part of the brain. Call it the "delusion of separateness lobe."
3. When this lobe malfunctions or becomes completely nonfunctional, the illusion of separateness vanishes and we directly perceive the truth: that we are one with everything and there is no separateness.
4. We call this a "mystical experience" because we see it as abnormal and something special. Actually it's the normal, true view of things. The delusion of separateness lobe, which is usually functioning, produces the delusion of our separateness. We see this delusional view as normal and true, which it isn't. We simply have things backwards in our understanding of "mystical experiences".
January 4, 2007 8:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 20:47
I was being too sensitive and pushed the point too far. I think the inappropriate comments are in the minority and will just ignore that part of the posts from now on.
Thank you for the references.
January 4, 2007 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 17:16
Those first times where we are seemingly cut off we learn from. If we are greedy to be held dearer and closer than intended - we learn it. If we are to be tested on faith to find strength we did not know - we learn that, too.
God is most appropriate in His dealings with us (and seemingly lack thereof) for our benefit.
January 4, 2007 5:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 17:06
To Friend:
You say: "I guess all I'm saying is that some of the comments are below the belt."
It you name specific comments, it might help people know what kinds of comments are considered (at least by you) to be below the belt.
"If people think the Bible is the word of god, then let's discuss the origin, the editing, and the inconsistencies."
Will do - I've posted this 2002 NY Times article excerpt on other threads. I found it on this forum and think it should get as wide coverage as possible. I'd love the panelists to discuss it.
New York Times, March 9, 2002
New Torah For Modern Minds, By MICHAEL MASSING
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. [For full article, go to:]
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm (Free link)
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482
January 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 15:26
Hi, Cynthia,
I find what you have to say about the brain quite fascinating. Have you written on the subject? Or can you recommend someone who has?
Thanks,
Ann O.
January 4, 2007 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 15:21
FERN tells us: So from this frame of reference, the question might be how do we know that an experience really comes from God who dwells in our hearts rather than from our limited personality?
I think one way of approaching that question is to beware of anything that puffs you up. If you start thinking *I*, glorious me, totally special me, has had this totally outstanding experience that sets me far above all of you lesser people, that's a big warning flag. If the experience fills you with gratitude and humility, it's much more likely to be authentic.
Posted January 4, 2007 12:59 AM
ANN O. responds:
Yes, that would help to eliminate some pseudo-religious experiences. But Teresa of Avila tells us that she became so proud of herself because God had favored her with her ecstacies that He showed her her place in Hell if she didn't get a more accurate image of herself :-)
I suspect that with mystical experiences -- as with all the ordinary experiences which science tries to explain -- we just have to be content with a method that eliminates possible explanations of such extraordinary experiences. If the experience makes the person proud (or worst of all if the person thinks sh/e is God, as the Quietist sort of mystic does) and makes him/her think she is therefore superior to other people because of it, then I would also be strongly inclined to doubt that the experience was of God. If the *means* to an experience is destructive (e.g., drugs) then I would also eliminate those experiences as genuinely religious.
Another criterion is that the genuinely religious mystics becomes inclined to love all of creation, even the awful people in it, unlike the Quietist kind. This too makes sense to me.
Still, I'm curious about the grasp of "otherness".
Ann O.
January 4, 2007 3:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 15:08
VICTORIA tells us:
ANNE O well- you always have interesting ideas-
mine was a shot out of the blue with concepts and an identity that was completely unknown to me
but no less valid
Posted January 3, 2007 10:24 PM
ANN responds:
What about it made you think it *wasn't* you, besides it's being completely unknown prior to the experience? (That would certainly be a marker of an experience of God, I think.)
ISTM part of the problem of understanding mystical experiences (to the extent that they can be understood) is that we haven't done a very good job of describing just what our *ordinary* interior, private selves are, so it isn't easy to differentiate self from other.
The neuroscientists have discovered that one particular kind of mystical experience ("cosmic consciousness") correlates with the non-functioning or misfunctioning of a certain part of the brain - - the part which allows us to differentiate our own bodies from the rest of the world. It's the sort of experience in which the mystics thinks s/he is identical with the whole cosmos while remaining just a part of it. Sadly, the ignorant scientists seem to think that that is the *only* kind of mystical experience. Sigh.
But cosmic consciousness is not an experience such as Teresa of Avila or Ramanuja (a Hindu) or some others had. Their experiences led their consciousnesses *away* from the physical world and were of a presence of a being who is not identical with the world, a non-spatial reality which cannot be described in physical terms at all.
So it seems that there are different *sorts* of mystical experience, some religious and some non-religious. When I say "religious mystical experiences" I mean an experience in which the mystics is somehow aware of the presence of God, and not just the depths of his/her own spirit -- an experience of an Other which is Absolute Love. Which brings me back to my first question: how can you tell an other as *other*? Some mystics seem to do it, but they don't tell us how.
Ann O.
January 4, 2007 2:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 14:55
> question is, should we consider you not insane
> because many others believe in the same invisible
> supernatural being which talks to them...
Concealed beneath the snark is a valid question. Look what happened to Joan of Arc, for example. In India there are quite a few individuals who under states of divine intoxication act mad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mast_(God-intoxicated)
> There is exactly as much evidence that there was > a Jesus or is a god as there is
> fro Zeus...
That is wrong. You might differ as to what Jesus was, but there is quite a bit of evidence that he actually lived.
January 4, 2007 12:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 12:10
My last word on this tattered and torn thread.
I do not deny that people speak to supernatural beings. I do not deny these beings are without body and can thereby enter people's brains. I will even hedge and say you are free to call them God/gods even though I BELIEVE they are all the opposite of God and nice gods.
With the above for my premise let me reference the infamous HB finding one last time. "Sell your soul" Moses takes charge of the Israelites in Egypt. Moses standing on a soap box crys out, "Hebrew children, listen up. My name is Moses. I spoke to God and God said that I'm in charge here."
I can substitute Susan for Moses. Susan is a Moses imitator. Susan does believe Moses also spoke to God, a given. HB says all speakers to God hear the same variety of thing, what they want to hear at the time, and that puts them in control, witness Pat R's recent chit chat with supernatural being he says is God. What's in it for Pat? What was in it for Moses? Same thing?
Where did Moses lead the Israelites? Where is Susan, Pat, others leading their flocks? Just one last question. Do you really want to go there? All you have to do to get to where Moses led the Israelites is replace the constitution with the Bible and you're there. Before you do that please read the Bible and see what happened to the Israelites. It will happpen to you too if you follow Moses imitators.
Thank the REAL GOD the Bible is a proved HOAX.
January 4, 2007 12:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 12:06
Hi E. Favorite -
I guess all I'm saying is that some of the comments are below the belt.
If people think the Bible is the word of god, then let's discuss the origin, the editing, and the inconsistencies. Let's discuss what god means. We should try to define the religious experience.
And we should remain civil when doing it.
Let’s not ridicule them like some would try to humiliate a child who questions
the belief of their parents and community. I lived that and don’t want to
see others go through that experience.
January 4, 2007 12:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 12:05
Civility, Sadness, and Sharing
There is a serious point here that I think we should all be aware of and deal with.
The Washington Post, one of our nation's two great newspapers, is sponsoring a forum called "Of Faith."
It is by virtue of that fact a part of the Public Debate, not just a nice sharing among believers.
By hosting this topic the Post
Normalizes Faith, de-normalizes Non-Faith
You can't say this should be a nice forum among us believers once you put it in a public forum.
Every statement is up for debate: pro or con.
If some people want to compare religious belief to forms of insanity, and they do it in a reasonable way, that is part of the debate.
It is undeniably true that
1. we say people who talk to aliens are insane.
2. people who talk to an unseen God are not.
it is an important human question to ask what the difference is.
If one is too thin skinned to have one's belief challenged, stay off public forums sponsored by public newspapers.
Very little in the last half of this thread is not totally normal in the halls of academic debate, and it should be normal here.
I am very happy that the columnist here had a nice experience. i just don't think her belief is any more reasonable to hold than a belief in Thor or Zeus. And many others don't either. Again, in Europe people would be stunned by your ultra-sensitivity.
January 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 12:04
I should amend: not everyone in the post is bickering... its more the way the tone switch from a personal experience
to
a few posts such as sully's which have attacked the personal experience.
Its a commentary how easily the tone can be changed.
peace
January 4, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 11:55
Its sad
Susan has shared a personal experience, and now all the people in the comments are fighting and bickering.
Seriously grow up, thank her for sharing an experience, but don't be rude and shouting about other things. How would you feel , if you shared a personal experience, only to have a random person begin to scream how bad burger king was instead?
Its sad since people want to fight over the issue of religion now. It's not about being right any more, its just become a fight over I am right and you are wrong... and you know something perhaps, we are all right and we are all wrong, so let it drop.
No wonder we will never have peace until people can accept each other with some respect!
Thank you Susan. I appreciate the sharing of your experience.
Peace and acceptance
http://www.personaltao.com/
January 4, 2007 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 11:48
To Friend,
You say, "I think we need to acknowledge that fairy tales do teach great lessons about life. Consider your example of the emperor with no clothes."
Agreed, and they are acknowledged as fairy tales, i.e., made up, fiction, not fact, no evidence.
In the case of the Bible, I think it's safe to say that many people value its lessons specifically because they think it is the true word of God.
January 4, 2007 11:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 11:40
James the Un Beloved:
I say we don't need to use the words "tooth fairy" and "insane".
I think we need to acknowledge that fairy tales do teach great lessons about life. Consider your example of the emperor with no clothes.
I think we can make our argument and not have to call names.
Since people generally think that atheist's are unrespectable, we should live so as to make that assumption ridiculous. Maybe it’s because we have been ridiculed that we have
sometimes been silent. That would be our fault and I do applaud Dawkins
and Harris for that.
January 4, 2007 11:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 11:14
Re Civility
So far I think the comments on this column have been remarkably civil.
We will of course get a range, both among the god-fearing and the god-less, of overly polite to obnoxious.
The important point here is the substance of belief in a Supernatural God.
The point is also the oppression and marginalization of the Atheist viewpoint in our society.
In Belgium, a political candidate's belief would be irrelevent. In the US, and atheist can't get elected.
In myriad ways, both explicit and implicit, the public attitude towards atheists is that they are even more unrespectable than the Gays and other minority groups.
The atheists can either say
"oh, that's ok, hit me again,"
or they can, as Harris and Dawkins do,
say
the Emperor has no clothes,
believing in a god that talks to you is no saner than believing in the tooth fairy.
that may not be "polite." it is a logical proposition that can be debated.
The fact remains that if either this distingueshed academic, or Pat Robertson, or a Texas oilman, said that Aliens were speaking to them, we would consider them slightly insane or worse.
If they substitute God for Alian, we say, oh what a nice woman or man. It is a collective delusion, just like the Emperor and his clothes.
January 4, 2007 10:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 10:50
Having a spirit or diety "talking" to a person would be considered schizophrenic under any other context.
Yet we give people a pass when they use the word "God".
January 4, 2007 10:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 10:44
Dearest Sister Thistlethwaite, through your trial of deprivation you have come to know a purer vision of God, of Creation. Truly I believe the female to be closer to Creation than the male, but in the act they are one. In the shared responsibility they are equal. A faster way would have been to visualize God as Female, but you would have not ascended to a higher plane. God Bless you and your mentors. Remember the lesson of the Footprints, child of God.
January 4, 2007 10:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 10:23
Emm --
You say, "Unbelievers could allay much of the anxiety believers hold about how civil society could exist without god and religion, if unbelievers, here on this forum and elsewhere, would hold fast to the highest standards of civil conversation."
I agree, and knowing exactly what you mean by "civil" would help.
Could you give some specific examples from this forum(and not just Simpleword's remarks)of unbelievers not being civil enough?
Thanks
January 4, 2007 10:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 10:23
Palidin wrote:
---All belief is choice: choose what you will, and be done with it.---
Well, its not choice when fed to elementary school children as fact and fact that they must believe in or they will go to the fires of everlasting hell. Once that belief is established in children it never leaves. It may be supressed by those who grow up and understand they were conditioned to believe in a God against all evidence, but in their brain is still that conditioning, the loving God, the fires of hell. It never leaves.
No Palidin, belief is not choice when children are brainwashed to believe. Had you been raised to believe in God as a flying elephant that will either step on you for eternity or fly you to heaven depending on whether you sinned during you life or not, I wonder what you'd be thinking while praying. A flying elephant is silly? Why not men with wings, men with tongues of fire floating over their heads, men with halos, men who walk on water, men who change water into wine, men who rise from the dead, oh bother...
January 4, 2007 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 10:12
From this site's "About On Faith" page.
"How can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk, drawing on a remarkable panel of distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism."
As I said earlier "this thread has jumped the shark." And as another poster in another thread said. To see common courtesy restored, maybe we need rules on "how not to be a total a**hole to complete strangers..."
"Maybe we need rules on how not to be a total a**hole to complete strangers."
January 4, 2007 9:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 09:59
The brain has been measured to be at times 1 - 3 degrees warmer than the body core. This is still considered a part of the overall body temperature, and does not support temperatures at the quantum level.
I thought I would add this for clarification.
Cynthia
January 4, 2007 9:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 09:58
To Alan Glanz:
You say, "Any of you who read the phrase in Dr. Susan's post "God stopped speaking to me" and took this to mean that Dr. Susan was "hearing voices", you should be ashamed of yourselves. Dr. Susan is a serious scholar and the president of a major theological university. If you place her in the same category as Pat Robertson, you really have not done your research and should do some before commenting here..."
Are you saying that because Susan is a serious scholar, that her hearing God's voice is different from (and superior to) Pat Robertson, a successful TV Evangelist, hearing God's voice?
If so, would that go for everyone else who said they heard God's voice? e.g., would someone with a master's degree be more likely to hear the true voice of God than someone who only had a high school diploma? or the Pope over a pastor of a mega-church?
These are serious questions. I hope you come back to the forum so you can respond to them.
Thanks
January 4, 2007 9:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 4, 2007 09:53