I'm intrigued despite myself. guided through to what? for what purpose?Colston wrote:My concept of wrong thinking would not necessarily include altered states but be focussed more specifically on thinking that promotes resentment, greed, envy and the like. Negative mind states that produce... 'sin and death' to quote the Bible...faceless wrote:I think it makes perfect sense within the realms of faith. I'm fairly sure it would be in a first-year philosophy class, but never having studied it I couldn't say for sure. 'Sin' means 'without' in Spanish.til661 wrote:I don't even know where to start with that. What you are saying is so far out of my frame of reference you might as well be writing in Japanese. Nobody knows the 'true nature' of humanity and it's supreme arrogance to believe you do. Adultery is no ones business except those involved. I don't accept the concept of God let alone a kingdom of God.Colston wrote:The concept of 'sin' has been much abused and we are now misinformed generally on its true nature.til661 wrote:...there is no such thing as sin.
It is the separation from God... not an evil or wrong act. In my mind this stretches to anything that we do or think that separates us from our sense of our true nature and interactions with others and with the world.
St Paul listed some of the things that were pertinent to his time and his culture. I believe that some of those things transcend time and culture and some don't.
Adultery for me is a good example. It is not a crime per se but the damage it causes to all concerned is undeniable. We then have a separation from our 'perfect' selves and function less well. Being in the Kingdom of God we are not separate and we function well. Being outside of that we are in a state of 'sin.'
Colston's point was interesting as it suggests that altered-states of mind are sinful and while I was told that when I was going through all sorts of drugs in my 20s I didn't understand why. Now I do. Maybe it just takes time to come to that realisation. I'm not saying that drugs are wrong though - but I do know now why they are against 'God' as they give the user the possibility to glimpse ideas that simply wouldn't occur to someone who'd never experienced that altered state. Of course, this process can be compared to the various mind-altering methods used in the bible such as starvation in the desert for 40 days, so it's a tricky thing to nail down without accepting that those who went before did those things so we didn't have to. How peculiar.
I'm not a big fan of the concept of a 'despotic' or 'altruisitc' supreme 'Ming-like' being.... but do believe in an underlying order that we can be guided through by spiritual principles... a lot of which were uncovered by mystics... such as Meister Eckhart.
"God Is Not Great"
...through life to death... negotiating the choices we all make one after another... to what purpose? None - I don't believe there is any. Maybe to live 'well.' Again a subjective concept, but including perhaps a minimisation of harm to self and others.til661 wrote:I'm intrigued despite myself. guided through to what? for what purpose?Colston wrote:My concept of wrong thinking would not necessarily include altered states but be focussed more specifically on thinking that promotes resentment, greed, envy and the like. Negative mind states that produce... 'sin and death' to quote the Bible...faceless wrote:I think it makes perfect sense within the realms of faith. I'm fairly sure it would be in a first-year philosophy class, but never having studied it I couldn't say for sure. 'Sin' means 'without' in Spanish.til661 wrote:I don't even know where to start with that. What you are saying is so far out of my frame of reference you might as well be writing in Japanese. Nobody knows the 'true nature' of humanity and it's supreme arrogance to believe you do. Adultery is no ones business except those involved. I don't accept the concept of God let alone a kingdom of God.Colston wrote:The concept of 'sin' has been much abused and we are now misinformed generally on its true nature.til661 wrote:...there is no such thing as sin.
It is the separation from God... not an evil or wrong act. In my mind this stretches to anything that we do or think that separates us from our sense of our true nature and interactions with others and with the world.
St Paul listed some of the things that were pertinent to his time and his culture. I believe that some of those things transcend time and culture and some don't.
Adultery for me is a good example. It is not a crime per se but the damage it causes to all concerned is undeniable. We then have a separation from our 'perfect' selves and function less well. Being in the Kingdom of God we are not separate and we function well. Being outside of that we are in a state of 'sin.'
Colston's point was interesting as it suggests that altered-states of mind are sinful and while I was told that when I was going through all sorts of drugs in my 20s I didn't understand why. Now I do. Maybe it just takes time to come to that realisation. I'm not saying that drugs are wrong though - but I do know now why they are against 'God' as they give the user the possibility to glimpse ideas that simply wouldn't occur to someone who'd never experienced that altered state. Of course, this process can be compared to the various mind-altering methods used in the bible such as starvation in the desert for 40 days, so it's a tricky thing to nail down without accepting that those who went before did those things so we didn't have to. How peculiar.
I'm not a big fan of the concept of a 'despotic' or 'altruisitc' supreme 'Ming-like' being.... but do believe in an underlying order that we can be guided through by spiritual principles... a lot of which were uncovered by mystics... such as Meister Eckhart.
I don't believe it is possible to understand 'God...' whatever that might be. You are confusing man made religious concepts with spirituality. I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.til661 wrote:So you don't believe in purpose or an afterlife but you believe there is a creator who ordered the universe...somewhat contradictory no? Is it just 'ordered' for a laugh, just to give God something to do?
I was advised to... 'be quick to see where religious people are right; make use of what they offer' and it has been sound advice. Religious traditions have spent a lot of time over centuries contemplating these questions, and dogma aside, have come up with a useful and practical set of 'life principles' that help you through the journey of life.
Arrogance is dismissng this wisdom. Hitchens is a prime example of a man so wound up with his own self-importance and bound by the prison of reason that he can't see or hear. Let him who has eyes see and those who have ears hear...
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Be grateful.
Last edited by Colston on Sat May 19, 2007 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The only problem being that all these principles predated Religion. Theology has explained nothing in 2000 years that Science hasn't explained in 300. Everything you mentioned about human nature has evolutionary antecedents.Colston wrote:I don't believe it is possible to understand 'God...' whatever that might be. You are confusing man made religious concepts with spirituality. I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.til661 wrote:So you don't believe in purpose or an afterlife but you believe there is a creator who ordered the universe...somewhat contradictory no? Is it just 'ordered' for a laugh, just to give God something to do?
I was advised to... 'be quick to see where religious people are right; make use of what they offer' and it has been sound advice. Religious traditions have spent a lot of time over centuries contemplating these questions, and dogma aside, have come up with a useful and practical set of 'life principles' that help you through the journey of life.
Arrogance is dismissng this wisdom. Hitchens is a prime example of a man so wound up with his own self-importance and bound by the prison of reason that he can't see or hear. Let him who has eyes see and those who have ears hear...
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Be grateful.
It is telling that you treat words like 'reason' and 'empiricism' as insults.
Apart from gravity is real. It's a bit of a stretch to equate atheism with attempting to walk off the edge of a cliff.Colston wrote:I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.
I'm quite comfortable with my atheism, because I know in my heart I am a good person. If there really is a God then he will know that, too, and will accept me as such. If God is so arrogant that he will condemn even good people to Hell simply because they didn't pray on their knees before him in a certain way during their life, then what a bastard He is. I personally can't believe that any real God would have that attitude, and so I'm not worried.
I've not heard of this Eckhart before - I'll look him up. Sounds interesting as what you are saying as far as not believing in a Ming-like character is pretty much how I see things too.Colston wrote:My concept of wrong thinking would not necessarily include altered states but be focussed more specifically on thinking that promotes resentment, greed, envy and the like. Negative mind states that produce... 'sin and death' to quote the Bible...faceless wrote:I think it makes perfect sense within the realms of faith. I'm fairly sure it would be in a first-year philosophy class, but never having studied it I couldn't say for sure. 'Sin' means 'without' in Spanish.til661 wrote:I don't even know where to start with that. What you are saying is so far out of my frame of reference you might as well be writing in Japanese. Nobody knows the 'true nature' of humanity and it's supreme arrogance to believe you do. Adultery is no ones business except those involved. I don't accept the concept of God let alone a kingdom of God.Colston wrote:The concept of 'sin' has been much abused and we are now misinformed generally on its true nature.til661 wrote:...there is no such thing as sin.
It is the separation from God... not an evil or wrong act. In my mind this stretches to anything that we do or think that separates us from our sense of our true nature and interactions with others and with the world.
St Paul listed some of the things that were pertinent to his time and his culture. I believe that some of those things transcend time and culture and some don't.
Adultery for me is a good example. It is not a crime per se but the damage it causes to all concerned is undeniable. We then have a separation from our 'perfect' selves and function less well. Being in the Kingdom of God we are not separate and we function well. Being outside of that we are in a state of 'sin.'
Colston's point was interesting as it suggests that altered-states of mind are sinful and while I was told that when I was going through all sorts of drugs in my 20s I didn't understand why. Now I do. Maybe it just takes time to come to that realisation. I'm not saying that drugs are wrong though - but I do know now why they are against 'God' as they give the user the possibility to glimpse ideas that simply wouldn't occur to someone who'd never experienced that altered state. Of course, this process can be compared to the various mind-altering methods used in the bible such as starvation in the desert for 40 days, so it's a tricky thing to nail down without accepting that those who went before did those things so we didn't have to. How peculiar.
I'm not a big fan of the concept of a 'despotic' or 'altruisitc' supreme 'Ming-like' being.... but do believe in an underlying order that we can be guided through by spiritual principles... a lot of which were uncovered by mystics... such as Meister Eckhart.
I think that 'reason' and 'empiricism' have stilted people's thinking capacities... science has explained some of the physical phenomenon out there. Some.til661 wrote:The only problem being that all these principles predated Religion. Theology has explained nothing in 2000 years that Science hasn't explained in 300. Everything you mentioned about human nature has evolutionary antecedents.Colston wrote:I don't believe it is possible to understand 'God...' whatever that might be. You are confusing man made religious concepts with spirituality. I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.til661 wrote:So you don't believe in purpose or an afterlife but you believe there is a creator who ordered the universe...somewhat contradictory no? Is it just 'ordered' for a laugh, just to give God something to do?
I was advised to... 'be quick to see where religious people are right; make use of what they offer' and it has been sound advice. Religious traditions have spent a lot of time over centuries contemplating these questions, and dogma aside, have come up with a useful and practical set of 'life principles' that help you through the journey of life.
Arrogance is dismissng this wisdom. Hitchens is a prime example of a man so wound up with his own self-importance and bound by the prison of reason that he can't see or hear. Let him who has eyes see and those who have ears hear...
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Be grateful.
It is telling that you treat words like 'reason' and 'empiricism' as insults.
It has no explanation for most of what constitutes our mind. It has no explanation for interpersonal phenomenon. It is as ignorant as the Church has been for most of its existence.
Most modern day athiests highlight a couple of scriptures they disagree with or that are out of kilter with modern day trends and puke about it with little thought or any real argument.
Apart from gravity is 'real...'nekokate wrote:Apart from gravity is real. It's a bit of a stretch to equate atheism with attempting to walk off the edge of a cliff.Colston wrote:I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.
I'm quite comfortable with my atheism, because I know in my heart I am a good person. If there really is a God then he will know that, too, and will accept me as such. If God is so arrogant that he will condemn even good people to Hell simply because they didn't pray on their knees before him in a certain way during their life, then what a bastard He is. I personally can't believe that any real God would have that attitude, and so I'm not worried.
There are lots of things that are real and not all of them tick the boxes that empirical science suggests you need to tick in order to be reason-able. Popper and his ilk have a lot of people trapped in their minds...
I had not attacked anyone's athiesm or suggested that any athiest wasn't a good person. Why do you feel so?
I apologise. I jumped to a conclusion after your previous post and i was wrong.Colston wrote:I posted twice and needed something to replace it... you are patronising.til661 wrote:Wow and i thought i was patronisingColston wrote:
Is there an emoticon for "beret wearing wannabe philosopher"?
Last edited by til661 on Sat May 19, 2007 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Explain what you mean by interpersonal phenomena.Colston wrote:I think that 'reason' and 'empiricism' have stilted people's thinking capacities... science has explained some of the physical phenomenon out there. Some.til661 wrote:The only problem being that all these principles predated Religion. Theology has explained nothing in 2000 years that Science hasn't explained in 300. Everything you mentioned about human nature has evolutionary antecedents.Colston wrote:I don't believe it is possible to understand 'God...' whatever that might be. You are confusing man made religious concepts with spirituality. I think there is some 'order' to the universe, to life. You can cooperate with it or not. In the same way as if you don't cooperate with gravity you might harm yourself if you don't cooperate with spiritual life principles, such as resenting things can harm your consciousness, you equally come to harm.til661 wrote:So you don't believe in purpose or an afterlife but you believe there is a creator who ordered the universe...somewhat contradictory no? Is it just 'ordered' for a laugh, just to give God something to do?
I was advised to... 'be quick to see where religious people are right; make use of what they offer' and it has been sound advice. Religious traditions have spent a lot of time over centuries contemplating these questions, and dogma aside, have come up with a useful and practical set of 'life principles' that help you through the journey of life.
Arrogance is dismissng this wisdom. Hitchens is a prime example of a man so wound up with his own self-importance and bound by the prison of reason that he can't see or hear. Let him who has eyes see and those who have ears hear...
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Be grateful.
It is telling that you treat words like 'reason' and 'empiricism' as insults.
It has no explanation for most of what constitutes our mind. It has no explanation for interpersonal phenomenon. It is as ignorant as the Church has been for most of its existence.
Most modern day athiests highlight a couple of scriptures they disagree with or that are out of kilter with modern day trends and puke about it with little thought or any real argument.
The problem for me anyway isn't the scripture itself, that was the argument because mandy was suggesting we use scripture as a rule book for living. The problem for me is the idea of faith or worship without evidence.
Thank you.. I can see that it was unclear. I just wanted to replace soem words with some silence ssshhh.til661 wrote:I apologise. I jumped to a conclusion after your previous post and i was wrong.Colston wrote:I posted twice and needed something to replace it... you are patronising.til661 wrote:Wow and i thought i was patronisingColston wrote:
Is there an emoticon for "beret wearing wannabe philosopher"?