Responses, questions interleaved, below. Addressed to Dale, K., and any other interested readers:


Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
>
> > I think I will pass the other questions over to
> > other ED members. I find it difficult to give
> > definite answers to these questions.
>
> Before we leave the topic of duality, I'd like to
> offer a comment for what it might be worth, in
> case it would be appropriate for the thread and of
> interest to someone.
>
> The duality that matters most is that of Creator
> and creature. The word "creature" refers to
> whatever is made -- if there are multiple
> cosmoses, they're all creatures and their
> inhabitants are too.
>
> God the Creator is other, even "Wholly Other,"
> from me and all beings. One can refer to God as a
> "being" for convenience's sake. But God's
> existence is not "parallel" to the existence of
> any created being.

I'll ask for sake of clarity here, another way to see this duality (creature--"that which is created" and God or God-like) is the "knowable" and the "unknowable". I mean this in theoretical absolutes: there a realm, in theory, such that all aspects of it can be known by creatures; and there is another realm--God's realm--that cannot not be fully known by creatures.

This is another way to see the duality, is this correct?

>
> God is other, but not parallel to any other being.
> God is the "ground" of all created beings. They
> did not cause themselves to be.
>
> Sociological consciousness wants to dismiss this
> inconvenient truth. In North America and Europe,
> Red China, etc., we want to think of ourselves as
> much as possible as being self-caused and
> self-creating, or as "caused" and "created" by
> "society," with "society," in turn, being a
> product ultimately of evolution. Marx deals with
> the relatively recent origins of society and
> Darwin & Co. deal with the presumed farther-back
> origins. The key is that there is no God, no
> Mind, at the root of things or in the process of
> development. Minds (plural) are late arrivals
> because they are phenomena requiring elaborate
> physical structures from which they can develop.
>
>
> I see Knygatin as on the right track insofar as he
> posits a divine origin for the cosmos(es), but if
> I understand you, Knygatin, you would say that the
> idea that "we" are creatures made by God is an
> illusion; finally, there is only just God. This
> is, I suppose, an advaita understanding.
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> The goal for this understanding is to become
> progressively more free of the illusion of
> separateness. This progress is enhanced by
> practices such as prayer, meditation, for some
> perhaps bhakti -- devotion to a personal God; such
> devotion isn't an ultimate resolution of the
> spiritual situation, but it helps many ordinary
> people.

FWIW, I can see this in non-spiritual applications, as well. I have a special brand of this that I use to aid and amplify the personal will.

>
> I don't know how much of this type of Eastern
> thought you endorse, Knygatin -- please correct my
> misunderstandings.
>
> OK, back to my own view. We, all creatures, are
> not "discontinuous" from God as we are from one
> another. We would cease to exist if we were. Yet
> we are forever not God; but we may begin in this
> life to be in-godded, through rebirth,
> regeneration in Christ, through Baptism and faith,
> and we look to a destiny of fellowship with God
> and His creatures that will go from glory to
> glory.

Now this will in particular relate to something Knygatin said a bit earlier in this discussion; it catalyzed my interest.

From my perspective, much of traditional Christian doctrine requires symbolic acts of submission to God, and in actual fact, to his ministers on Earth. Kneeling, even baptism, and in the Catholic church, from what I know of it (not a whole lot) there's confession, and other such acts showing voluntary submission.

To what degree is this required, and in your opinion, *why* is it required?

Do all major organized religions require some degree of submission to the godhead, in whatever form it takes?

The degree to which accepted doctrine in the various sects requires symbolic submission has always thrown me for a loop, and that's because I sense that the desire for demonstrated superiority is widespread in higher animals, and in no way seems connected to some entity *so* superior that such demonstration/recognition is completely unneeded--even meaningless.

Which leads me to the conclusion that the ritual requirements are man-made, not God-inspired or instructed.

I am painfully aware that one can always end any discussion by saying the the ways of God are unknowable, but this would be far from satisfactory for me, and likely many others. I cannot envision a God who requires the same sort of avoidance of questions the same way that ideological dogmatists do when asked for possible explanations. And note too that I'm not saying that God, himself, is subject to our questions, but I *am* saying that I find it hard to think God's adherents on earth are prohibited, or prohibit themselves, from honest speculation on *why* submission is required.

>
> (The Greeks thought of eternity as changeless; if
> something can be changed, it must not be perfect
> yet.

Have you ever considered that without change, the concept of time is meaningless? No movement, no deterioration--in that scenario, what would time mean?

> Christians understand heaven and the saints'
> experience of heaven as perfect, yet changing, in
> that the capacity for joy grows forever. Think of
> a cup at first small, but filled and spilling over
> with joy, a cup that keeps growing capable of more
> and more joy, always filled but always growing.
> That might help.)
>
> The key thing is that this understanding of
> Creator and creature allows love to be eternal.
> Love requires one who loves and one who receives
> love, and perhaps returns love. Love existed
> before anything was created because God, who is
> love, is both one and three: Father, Son, and Holy
> Spirit. God had no need to create in order to
> acquire fulfillment. But being good God created
> creatures that live, might love, etc. And God
> became a creature without any compromise of His
> godhead, in the incarnation, and it was because He
> "so loved the world" that He did so.
>
> So that's an attempt to explain my take on
> "duality."
>
> Sawfish, did you want a discussion of the "when"
> of the cosmos?

Sure, I would like that. :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:

> I'll ask for sake of clarity here, another way to
> see this duality (creature--"that which is
> created" and God or God-like) is the "knowable"
> and the "unknowable". I mean this in theoretical
> absolutes: there a realm, in theory, such that all
> aspects of it can be known by creatures; and there
> is another realm--God's realm--that cannot not be
> fully known by creatures.
>
> This is another way to see the duality, is this
> correct?

I find I'm hesitating to affirm this. With regard to other creatures, I don't believe I can know much of their reality unless I have a living relationship with God through the God-man, Christ. I believe the martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer has some thoughts about this in one of his books, possibly Life Together. To use the terms of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, I believe that, the less my mind in enlightened and the less my "heart" is indwelt by the Spirit of God, the more I will know any creature only as an "it" rather than as a "thou."

With regard to knowledge of God, the Church (the Una Sancta, the mystical body of Christ, the Faithful) receives, contemplates, is access to God's self-revelation. Something of God is knowable apart from such revelation, as the writings of Plato, for example, show. But St. Paul said to a grew of Athenian interlocutors (I think Athenians), "The One whom, in ignorance, you worship, I declare to you."

There's a romance of the "soul's search for God," but God's "search" for people is, so far as we see, largely conducted through the Church.

But the empirical Church, the Christians you see, are just at the beginning of their lives in God, their pilgrimages, etc. as a rule. Occasionally we might encounter Christians who seem to be farther along than most of us. A good book in this regard is Farasiotis's The Gurus, the Young Man, and Elder Paisios. You might read the book and throw it at the wall as outrageous imposture or you might wonder -- can such things be?

[www.sainthermanmonastery.com]

At any rate it is (I think) an unusually entertaining book.

Sawfish Wrote:

> From my perspective, much of traditional Christian
> doctrine requires symbolic acts of submission to
> God, and in actual fact, to his ministers on
> Earth. Kneeling, even baptism, and in the Catholic
> church, from what I know of it (not a whole lot)
> there's confession, and other such acts showing
> voluntary submission.
>
> To what degree is this required, and in your
> opinion, *why* is it required?

This is a big topic but I would like to be brief.

Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this world, that His Kingdom "doesn't come by observation," etc. These teachings, and others, don't seem to me to fit the papacy. In my circles around the Lutheran Confessions, the Reformation concept of the institution of the papacy as "Antichrist" is still current. This doesn't mean that individual popes might not be good pastors to a degree. But the exaltation of the pope, the idea that fellowship with his denomination is fundamental to the Christian life and so on, we reject. Nor, as a rule, do Lutheran church members refer to their pastors as "fathers." The pastor is called to the public preaching and teaching of the faith, to the administration of the sacraments, and should be respected and prayed for that he will be faithful in his vocation. But if he departs from the "Faith once given to the saints," he must be corrected, and, if he refuses, may lose his pastorate. Lutheran people are encouraged to read the Bible for themselves.

But certainly submission and obedience are necessities of the Christian life. These may be reflected in outward acts although, in my circles, the outward actions are typically pretty minimal, rather too much so to suit me. I cross myself at points in the service but nobody else in the congregation does so. That is their choice.

The Ten Commandments remain binding on the believer, with associated Biblical doctrines not expressly spelled out in the words of the Decalogue, e.g. relating to marriage.

You might read some of the Psalms, which abound in expressions of delight in the Law of God. The longest one (119) is an example, though much of its artistry is, I suppose, lost in translation. "Sweeter than honey," etc.

There remains also the dimension of Christian freedom. Hence it isn't necessary that ceremonies be everywhere exactly the same. The Western Church didn't have to stick with Latin, a language fewer people knew as time passed, etc.

But yes; if I am to be a Christian, then I "surrender" myself to God's word. I don't have one compartment of my life wherein I "accept" the bits of Christianity that most appeal to me while reserving other compartments, e.g. sexuality, as my private business that it's God's business to affirm (and to bail me out of the consequences thereof if I get myself in trouble).

Sawfish Wrote:

> Which leads me to the conclusion that the ritual
> requirements are man-made, not God-inspired or
> instructed.
>
> I am painfully aware that one can always end any
> discussion by saying the the ways of God are
> unknowable, but this would be far from
> satisfactory for me, and likely many others. I
> cannot envision a God who requires the same sort
> of avoidance of questions the same way that
> ideological dogmatists do when asked for possible
> explanations. And note too that I'm not saying
> that God, himself, is subject to our questions,
> but I *am* saying that I find it hard to think
> God's adherents on earth are prohibited, or
> prohibit themselves, from honest speculation on
> *why* submission is required.

The Reformation battles included disputes about ceremonies that were, indeed, man-made, that might even have had value originally but that had "hardened" into man-made "laws" binding on people's consciences. The Church authorities had the opportunity to make corrections.

As regards "asking questions," in my circles I suppose pastors would, in general, be happy to be asked questions by inquirers who were not members of the church, and could only wish that they had more opportunities to talk things over with members who had questions, doubts, etc. I've probably run into a few defensive responses in my career as an adult Christian, but more common is readiness to listen and try to bring something helpful to the discussion.

I remember a remark by the Christian novelist, poet, critic, theological writer Charles Williams. He was impatient with authorities that too readily tried to quench questions. he said something like this: "We are told that our little minds were never meant to ask questions. Fortunately there is the Book of Job to show that our little minds were meant."

There are lots of books aimed at readers of various levels of verbal sophistication, learning, etc. who have questions relating to science, sexuality, politics, history, etc. But I can't speak for all "varieties" of professing Christians. Some may bristle more readily than others at questions. Unfortunately, there are also those who are too quick to indicate that things are open for discussion that really aren't.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
>
> > I'll ask for sake of clarity here, another way
> to
> > see this duality (creature--"that which is
> > created" and God or God-like) is the "knowable"
> > and the "unknowable". I mean this in
> theoretical
> > absolutes: there a realm, in theory, such that
> all
> > aspects of it can be known by creatures; and
> there
> > is another realm--God's realm--that cannot not
> be
> > fully known by creatures.
> >
> > This is another way to see the duality, is this
> > correct?
>
> I find I'm hesitating to affirm this. With regard
> to other creatures, I don't believe I can know
> much of their reality unless I have a living
> relationship with God through the God-man, Christ.
> I believe the martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer has some
> thoughts about this in one of his books, possibly
> Life Together. To use the terms of the Jewish
> philosopher Martin Buber, I believe that, the less
> my mind in enlightened and the less my "heart" is
> indwelt by the Spirit of God, the more I will know
> any creature only as an "it" rather than as a
> "thou."
>
> With regard to knowledge of God, the Church (the
> Una Sancta, the mystical body of Christ, the
> Faithful) receives, contemplates, is access to
> God's self-revelation. Something of God is
> knowable apart from such revelation, as the
> writings of Plato, for example, show.

Yes, and this is why I tried to qualify my question by specifying "cannot not be fully known by creatures."

I can see it as a sort of incremental apotheosis, but with full knowledge by definition unattainable.


> But St.
> Paul said to a grew of Athenian interlocutors (I
> think Athenians), "The One whom, in ignorance, you
> worship, I declare to you."
>
> There's a romance of the "soul's search for God,"
> but God's "search" for people is, so far as we
> see, largely conducted through the Church.
>
> But the empirical Church, the Christians you see,
> are just at the beginning of their lives in God,
> their pilgrimages, etc. as a rule. Occasionally
> we might encounter Christians who seem to be
> farther along than most of us. A good book in
> this regard is Farasiotis's The Gurus, the Young
> Man, and Elder Paisios. You might read the book
> and throw it at the wall as outrageous imposture
> or you might wonder -- can such things be?
>
> [www.sainthermanmonastery.com]
> -Young-Man-and-Elder-Paisios-p/guru.htm
>
> At any rate it is (I think) an unusually
> entertaining book.

Thanks for the recommendation, Dale.

Veering a bit, something you said up there makes a sort of connection:

"Occasionally we might encounter Christians who seem to be farther along than most of us."

This of course parallels the Buddhist idea of the road to enlightenment, such as I understand it. And given that this concept of a individual drawing closer to the divine because of their spiritual pilgrimage, I'd postulate that the idea of "virtuous pagans"--those who could have no personal knowledge of the Christian God, and yet led lives of exemplary "christian" virtue, describes the same sort of individual.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I see Knygatin as on the right track insofar as he
> posits a divine origin for the cosmos(es), but if
> I understand you, Knygatin, you would say that the
> idea that "we" are creatures made by God is an
> illusion; finally, there is only just God. This
> is, I suppose, an advaita understanding.
>

Dale, I don' actively seek Eastern philosophy, but have been influenced by it to some extent.

I don't have a definite belief about the nature of the Universe, whether the Big Bang was the rejection of God through chaos of matter (which God immediately started bringing order to). Or whether God brought about the Big Bang, creating matter, to shape and mold for the sake of creativity (like an artist working in clay). And when God is done, everything is destroyed, another Big Bang and God starts over again. Like a pulse, or slow breathing. In that case everything is of God. It is God playing. Or whether there was vacuum and emptiness before the Big Bang. These are hypothetical questions, like "when did it start?", "what was before?", "what will happen after the Universe is perfected? Another Big Bang?"; I don't reflect much over such maddening questions, I cannot relate to it, it is too distant, and see no need for it. I am more concerned about the here and now, overcoming grating imperfections of existence, accepting the flow of life.

But there seems to be a dark dimension that is the antithesis of God. Which is darkness, emptiness, the absence of light, in symbolic terms. Christians refer to it by Satan or the Antichrist, and Hell. It may simply be nothing, the absence of God, the absence of Light and Love, ... emptiness. But there are numerous accounts of supernatural phenomena, demons and such, that emanate from dark realms. To live solely in the material universe, without any connection to a spiritual sense, is to flounder in darkness, and may eventually become the target of such dark forces.

>
> The goal for this understanding is to become progressively more free of the illusion of separateness. This
> progress is enhanced by practices such as prayer, meditation, for some perhaps bhakti -- devotion to a personal
> God; such devotion isn't an ultimate resolution of the spiritual situation, but it helps many ordinary people.
>

"... it helps many ordinary people." Nicely and acidly put. I have an opposite view. That it is often ordinary people, the weak-minded, confused, dependent, who can't think for themselves, who join the herd into the church. What is your take on that? At least it was that way, decades ago, when the church was more active than today. It is so today among muslims. Islam is a herd mentality. And Christianity was too. Both Semitic religions, very foreign to European culture (but brought here to subdue Europe). But the Europeans could never completely be subdued into herd mentality, they are too intelligent for that, and survival in Nordic climes has always demanded from us more of individual effort. Today, in our secularized society, Christianity seems more of a luxury choice among a select few. (Because it gives support to their conservative values; values that a person should be able to attain simply by observing Nature and applying common sense.) And I do agree that many secularized ordinary people take spiritual half-measures, often inspired by Eastern thought. ... And yes, I guess I am among them. But, I am not a very religiously or spiritually searching person, I have no strong call for that, never had. At least not intentionally. I actively seek art, literature, and the outdoors; those are my interests, an indirect way to spirituality. What I have described in the posts above, about my relationship to spirituality and God, has been with me since I was very young. It is not something I have struggled with very much. It comes natural. I am content with it. And it is not particularly intellectual.




Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> From my perspective, much of traditional Christian
> doctrine requires symbolic acts of submission to
> God, and in actual fact, to his ministers on
> Earth. Kneeling, even baptism, and in the Catholic
> church, from what I know of it (not a whole lot)
> there's confession, and other such acts showing
> voluntary submission.
>
> To what degree is this required, and in your
> opinion, *why* is it required?
>
> Do all major organized religions require some
> degree of submission to the godhead, in whatever
> form it takes?
>
> The degree to which accepted doctrine in the
> various sects requires symbolic submission has
> always thrown me for a loop, and that's because I
> sense that the desire for demonstrated superiority
> is widespread in higher animals, and in no way
> seems connected to some entity *so* superior that
> such demonstration/recognition is completely
> unneeded--even meaningless.
>
> Which leads me to the conclusion that the ritual
> requirements are man-made, not God-inspired or
> instructed.
>
> I am painfully aware that one can always end any
> discussion by saying the the ways of God are
> unknowable, but this would be far from
> satisfactory for me, and likely many others. I
> cannot envision a God who requires the same sort
> of avoidance of questions the same way that
> ideological dogmatists do when asked for possible
> explanations. And note too that I'm not saying
> that God, himself, is subject to our questions,
> but I *am* saying that I find it hard to think
> God's adherents on earth are prohibited, or
> prohibit themselves, from honest speculation on
> *why* submission is required.
>

Sawfish, I agree with your points here.
Reality is the same for us all. There is the same God, the same Truth, and Natural laws, behind all religions. But the limits of our human brains interpret it differently. Each culture paints their own individual canvas. The strife between religions is a typical example of duality. I find it very limiting to rigidly invest all of oneself in a specific religion. It also generates intolerance, and the forcing of one's religion upon others. There are countless of native original cultures that have been erased by Christian crusaders and well-doers. Wars are often motivated by religious beliefs (although natural resources, such as oil, are even stronger indications).

At the same time, symbolic tools can be a help in focusing one's mind upon the spiritual. Like a crucifix, or any other symbol that harbors meaning. (I have a collection of stones from my travels. Holding them in my hand, transports me back in my mind to the individual locations.)

>
> Have you ever considered that without change, the
> concept of time is meaningless? No movement, no
> deterioration--in that scenario, what would time
> mean?
>

This is why I regard the material Universe, space and time, as ultimately an illusion. It is just a theatre, and it will be torn down and replaced by something else. Our identities as material bodies is all based on duality (even though spirit and God works at the core of it, ever seeking to perfect its organization of elements), and are delusionary ideas of what we truly are. It is a dream. The way our bodies look today is highly temporary and transitory. In a few million years we will be something different, through Evolution.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > The goal for this understanding is to become
> progressively more free of the illusion of
> separateness. This
> > progress is enhanced by practices such as
> prayer, meditation, for some perhaps bhakti --
> devotion to a personal
> > God; such devotion isn't an ultimate resolution
> of the spiritual situation, but it helps many
> ordinary people.
> >

To which Knygatin replied:

> "... it helps many ordinary people." Nicely and
> acidly put.

Knygatin, the "ordinary People" was not intended to suggest my own personal outlook. It was intended to reflect the attitude of "advanced" thinkers and "mystics" towards people who, in their view, aren't up to the rigors of first-rate spirituality. The way of bhakti, of devotion to various "personal" gods, is allowed in the Hindu world. It suits the ordinary dwellers in city and forest. The more "advanced" people say, in effect: "Sure, let them pour milk over statues of Ganesha, let them leave flowers and fruit at the foot of statues of Hanuman; let them, for that matter, have a little shrine to Jesus -- this is a way of life suited to these folk, and it's a good way as far as it goes. But it's the exoteric way, the relatively easy way. It requires little asceticism," etc. Bhakti practices might be valuable as early steps, in this view.

Anyway, that's my understanding of the way the more "advanced" Hindus and Buddhists might see things.

Knygatin wrote further: "it is often ordinary people, the weak-minded, confused, dependent, who can't think for themselves, who join the herd into the church. What is your take on that? At least it was that way, decades ago, when the church was more active than today."

I'm not sure the line of thinking here seems to me a productive one (the herd-mentality thing). It seems to me to deal with "sociological" surfaces. What do I know of the inner state of any other worshiper? An ordinary old Christian guy, whom I see at church every Sunday and who always says something about the weather and sports, may for all I know be a million miles beyond me in the way of Christ and be a holy terror to devils. Conversely, someone with years of seminary education, with a corrugated forehead from years of wrestling with social issues from a "spiritual" perspective, may be an agent of actual spiritual harm. (I was just reading the memoirs of someone who seems to have been one such, a Presbyterian pastor who wrote The Agony in the Garden. I cannot judge the man's heart nor do I wish to, but from his own account he seems to have been a man who left a wrecked marriage and a confused congregation behind him as he burned his own lamp of religion in their eyes. His congregation eventually decided they couldn't go on praying the Lord's Prayer -- that "Father in heaven" stuff. What a pastor, what an accomplishment.)

I'd agree that many people will adapt the ideas and practices, which might include church attendance in some times and places, that seem to provide immediate benefits (financial, social, etc.). Of course they will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Aug 21 | 10:13AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin wrote further: "it is often ordinary
> people, the weak-minded, confused, dependent, who
> can't think for themselves, who join the herd into
> the church. What is your take on that? At least it
> was that way, decades ago, when the church was
> more active than today."
>
> I'm not sure the line of thinking here seems to me
> a productive one (the herd-mentality thing). It
> seems to me to deal with "sociological" surfaces.
> What do I know of the inner state of any other
> worshiper? An ordinary old Christian guy, whom I
> see at church every Sunday and who always says
> something about the weather and sports, may for
> all I know be a million miles beyond me in the way
> of Christ and be a holy terror to devils.
> Conversely, someone with years of seminary
> education, with a corrugated forehead from years
> of wrestling with social issues from a "spiritual"
> perspective, may be an agent of actual spiritual
> harm. (I was just reading the memoirs of someone
> who seems to have been one such, a Presbyterian
> pastor who wrote The Agony in the Garden. I
> cannot judge the man's heart nor do I wish to, but
> from his own account he seems to have been a man
> who left a wrecked marriage and a confused
> congregation behind him as he burned his own lamp
> of religion in their eyes. His congregation
> eventually decided they couldn't go on praying the
> Lord's Prayer -- that "Father in heaven" stuff.
> What a pastor, what an accomplishment.)

I'd like to interject here relating to K.'s "...who can't think for themselves, who join the herd into the church.".

This example of the pastor, he as a person who actually preyed upon his suggestive power over his congregation. To remain a member of this congregation is to be a feckless member of the herd that K. alludes to if I understand him properly.

There is a very ugly way to see this, too, and it's how I often see fairly normal slices of life...

The congregation members voluntarily submit to Christ--which is right and proper in Christianity, as I see it. The congregation therefore, within the context of any church gathering, has a sort of default vulnerability: they are submissive in ways they would not be in everyday transactions.

They have their guard down.

For many--maybe most--this carries into they way they see the pastor as the spokesperson/representative for the divine: to a degree they are submissive to *him* personally. He, for reasons of what looks to me like ego, abuses their trust.

By acting with trusting decency doing what they see as the *right* thing, they are taken advantage of by one who does not share their level of personal integrity.

I cannot tell you the number of times, or the varied situations, where as what I hope is my proper role of benevolent landlord I extend a sort of pecuniary or material grace--stuff I do not have to do but do it anyway because it's what I see as being a decent human relating on a human level, only to have this go not only unreciprocated but in some cases overtly abused.

I have seen this tendency in regular, normal humans far more often than the opposite.

To me this is the *why* I have to remain independent: to be able effectively protect myself and my interests, and those of my family.

>
> I'd agree that many people will adapt the ideas
> and practices, which might include church
> attendance in some times and places, that seem to
> provide immediate benefits (financial, social,
> etc.). Of course they will.

Yes, and this seems within the range of normal, imperfect humanity.

Plus they get the benefit of Christian instruction so it's ostensibly better than nothing, it seems like.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:

> This example of the pastor, he as a person who
> actually preyed upon his suggestive power over his
> congregation. To remain a member of this
> congregation is to be a feckless member of the
> herd that K. alludes to if I understand him
> properly.

The situation here was that this man actually didn't want to be the obedient pastor/shepherd under Christ for this flock (as I would understand that calling). He wanted them to break out of what he'd have regarded as "fundamentalism," "conventional Christianity," and so on. He comes across to me as narcissistic, seeing himself as the guy who would shake these people up, so that (his words) they wouldn't think of themselves as "saved ones" but as "saving ones." He would've welcomed "liberation theology" such as Ibram X. Kendi promotes: Jesus "was" a revolutionary, etc. So this pastor I mentioned was dissatisfied with being a humble pastor called to preach the Faith, and instead identified himself with Christ the sufferer -- the "agony in the garden" refers to his own difficulties as a homosexual who couldn't come out publicly but had to make trips to the nearest big city for sex, etc. A member of the congregation who opposed him, he refers to as "Mr. Judas." It's not a very edifying book.

Lest I be misunderstood -- certainly Christians are supposed to be helpful in their communities, and, notoriously, are -- when floods and so on arrive, as well as more routine matters such as food banks and so on. But the raison d'etre of the Church is not social amelioration. A lot of the good Christians do is not highly visible as specifically Christian effort. Many people in helping professions such as nursing are Christians (and many are not Christians, of course), with their sense of vocation being connected with their "spirituality," whether that's overt or not. There's quite a bit of emphasis in my Lutheran circle on "vocation," the various callings one has, as (for example), parent, employer or employee, citizen, neighbor, church member, spouse, etc. -- all of these to be understood as to be undertaken in love.

This pastor I've been discussing sort of rewrote his "job description" as pastor -- largely as a result of attending a mainline seminary, and also out of his own desires, or so it seems.

I believe that a lot of the social upheaval associated with "The Sixties" was not just young people listening to rock music and taking drugs and The Pill, but pastors in mainline-denomination churches promoting Joseph Fletcher's "situation ethics," subverting people's confidence in the Bible, and so on.

Even the turn to the occult -- don't just think of Anton la Vey (the media's favorite "satanist"), but Episcopal bishop James Pike engaging in seances (which are expressly forbidden in Scripture). Such things were noticed!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 27 Aug 21 | 01:04PM by Dale Nelson.

Tremendously interesting approach to metaphysics, K.

My comments/questions interleaved...


Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I see Knygatin as on the right track insofar as
> he
> > posits a divine origin for the cosmos(es), but
> if
> > I understand you, Knygatin, you would say that
> the
> > idea that "we" are creatures made by God is an
> > illusion; finally, there is only just God.
> This
> > is, I suppose, an advaita understanding.
> >
>
> Dale, I don' actively seek Eastern philosophy, but
> have been influenced by it to some extent.
>
> I don't have a definite belief about the nature of
> the Universe, whether the Big Bang was the
> rejection of God through chaos of matter (which
> God immediately started bringing order to). Or
> whether God brought about the Big Bang, creating
> matter, to shape and mold for the sake of
> creativity (like an artist working in clay). And
> when God is done, everything is destroyed, another
> Big Bang and God starts over again. Like a pulse,
> or slow breathing.

My best guess, if forced to state, with a gun to my head, is that the cosmos are cyclical in nature.

How this started or *if* it did, is beyond me, nor--as you say elsewhere--does it matter to me at the scope at which I exist.

Therefore, I adapt to the reality that I perceive, and trudge onward as best I can.

> In that case everything is of
> God. It is God playing. Or whether there was
> vacuum and emptiness before the Big Bang. These
> are hypothetical questions, like "when did it
> start?", "what was before?", "what will happen
> after the Universe is perfected? Another Big
> Bang?"; I don't reflect much over such maddening
> questions, I cannot relate to it, it is too
> distant, and see no need for it.

Yes, exactly.

> I am more
> concerned about the here and now, overcoming
> grating imperfections of existence, accepting the
> flow of life.

Again, yes.

>
> But there seems to be a dark dimension that is the
> antithesis of God. Which is darkness, emptiness,
> the absence of light, in symbolic terms.
> Christians refer to it by Satan or the Antichrist,
> and Hell. It may simply be nothing, the absence of
> God, the absence of Light and Love, ... emptiness.

Yes. Very possible, as I see it.

> But there are numerous accounts of supernatural
> phenomena, demons and such, that emanate from dark
> realms. To live solely in the material universe,
> without any connection to a spiritual sense, is to
> flounder in darkness, and may eventually become
> the target of such dark forces.

Possibly we diverge here but who cares? There's lots of room for divergent opinions here at ED.

>
> >
> > The goal for this understanding is to become
> progressively more free of the illusion of
> separateness. This
> > progress is enhanced by practices such as
> prayer, meditation, for some perhaps bhakti --
> devotion to a personal
> > God; such devotion isn't an ultimate resolution
> of the spiritual situation, but it helps many
> ordinary people.
> >
>
> "... it helps many ordinary people." Nicely and
> acidly put. I have an opposite view. That it is
> often ordinary people, the weak-minded, confused,
> dependent, who can't think for themselves,

These are essentially hopeless and must rely on luck and benevolence.

In my view, you *must* think everything thru yourself, in order to minimize the need for luck or active benevolence.

I am prepared to selectively contribute both material and psychological benevolence but would be a fool to expect either.

Again: my personal view--non-binding for others.

> who
> join the herd into the church. What is your take
> on that? At least it was that way, decades ago,
> when the church was more active than today. It is
> so today among muslims. Islam is a herd mentality.
> And Christianity was too. Both Semitic religions,
> very foreign to European culture (but brought here
> to subdue Europe). But the Europeans could never
> completely be subdued into herd mentality, they
> are too intelligent for that, and survival in
> Nordic climes has always demanded from us more of
> individual effort.

Not yet convinced that the level of intelligence is different enough to account for divergence from default herd mentality but wholeheartedly agree that environmental demands such that lack of planning, lack of foresight, lack of firm decision-making result in reduced chances of reproductive success--this has shaped much of European culture and thought processes.

Also significant and deeply seated is the will to acquire, often expressed as territorial aggression.

It's an odd, churning foment.

> Today, in our secularized
> society, Christianity seems more of a luxury
> choice among a select few. (Because it gives
> support to their conservative values; values that
> a person should be able to attain simply by
> observing Nature and applying common sense.)

If what you are saying ("...values that a person should be able to attain simply by observing Nature and applying common sense.") is that the self-reliant individual applying objective (as best we can) observation, followed by common sense evaluation, should be able to properly form their own values that include decency, personal integrity, etc., I thoroughly agree.

Such individuals would not need an external code delivered to them; they would develop their own code.


> And I
> do agree that many secularized ordinary people
> take spiritual half-measures, often inspired by
> Eastern thought. ... And yes, I guess I am among
> them. But, I am not a very religiously or
> spiritually searching person, I have no strong
> call for that, never had. At least not
> intentionally. I actively seek art, literature,
> and the outdoors; those are my interests, an
> indirect way to spirituality.

This is using the senses as a path to aesthetics and perhaps to spirituality, if I understand this correctly.

> What I have
> described in the posts above, about my
> relationship to spirituality and God, has been
> with me since I was very young. It is not
> something I have struggled with very much. It
> comes natural. I am content with it. And it is not
> particularly intellectual.
>
>
>
>
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > From my perspective, much of traditional
> Christian
> > doctrine requires symbolic acts of submission
> to
> > God, and in actual fact, to his ministers on
> > Earth. Kneeling, even baptism, and in the
> Catholic
> > church, from what I know of it (not a whole
> lot)
> > there's confession, and other such acts showing
> > voluntary submission.
> >
> > To what degree is this required, and in your
> > opinion, *why* is it required?
> >
> > Do all major organized religions require some
> > degree of submission to the godhead, in
> whatever
> > form it takes?
> >
> > The degree to which accepted doctrine in the
> > various sects requires symbolic submission has
> > always thrown me for a loop, and that's because
> I
> > sense that the desire for demonstrated
> superiority
> > is widespread in higher animals, and in no way
> > seems connected to some entity *so* superior
> that
> > such demonstration/recognition is completely
> > unneeded--even meaningless.
> >
> > Which leads me to the conclusion that the
> ritual
> > requirements are man-made, not God-inspired or
> > instructed.
> >
> > I am painfully aware that one can always end
> any
> > discussion by saying the the ways of God are
> > unknowable, but this would be far from
> > satisfactory for me, and likely many others. I
> > cannot envision a God who requires the same
> sort
> > of avoidance of questions the same way that
> > ideological dogmatists do when asked for
> possible
> > explanations. And note too that I'm not saying
> > that God, himself, is subject to our questions,
> > but I *am* saying that I find it hard to think
> > God's adherents on earth are prohibited, or
> > prohibit themselves, from honest speculation on
> > *why* submission is required.
> >
>
> Sawfish, I agree with your points here.
> Reality is the same for us all.

Yes. It is what remains when you stop believing in it... ;^)

(I really like that saying! I'm not sure who to attribute it to, but...)

> There is the same
> God, the same Truth, and Natural laws, behind all
> religions. But the limits of our human brains
> interpret it differently. Each culture paints
> their own individual canvas.

I would say that each individual does this to one extent or another and the degree to which the individual adopts/conforms to a group canvas, they are potentially herd-influenced.

It is important to note that if an individual *independently* creates the same canvas, or uses some of the same colors, this is not the same as adopting a group canvas, presented complete to the individual. The former is a result of independent thought; the latter is a result of ready conformity to authority.


> The strife between
> religions is a typical example of duality. I find
> it very limiting to rigidly invest all of oneself
> in a specific religion. It also generates
> intolerance, and the forcing of one's religion
> upon others. There are countless of native
> original cultures that have been erased by
> Christian crusaders and well-doers. Wars are often
> motivated by religious beliefs (although natural
> resources, such as oil, are even stronger
> indications).
>
> At the same time, symbolic tools can be a help in
> focusing one's mind upon the spiritual. Like a
> crucifix, or any other symbol that harbors
> meaning. (I have a collection of stones from my
> travels. Holding them in my hand, transports me
> back in my mind to the individual locations.)

This is entirely alien to my experience nor can I think of a related device--unless it's my practice of reflexive "folk superstition" that I use as an agnostic's hedge, sorta... :^)

>
> >
> > Have you ever considered that without change,
> the
> > concept of time is meaningless? No movement, no
> > deterioration--in that scenario, what would
> time
> > mean?
> >
>
> This is why I regard the material Universe, space
> and time, as ultimately an illusion.
> It is just a
> theatre, and it will be torn down and replaced by
> something else.

How about this interpretation?

We are capable of perceiving only a subset of the available stimuli out there in the cosmos--simplest example is not being able to hear a dog whistle. So there is A LOT out there that we cannot perceive. Ostensibly this is a finite set of stimuli--but who knows really? The only points are: we cannot perceive an unknown amount of it; and thru technology, we are increasing our ability to perceive more of it.

OK. My point is that I am prepared to accept the "theatre" part but only if it is understood to exist independently within the subjective perception of each individual.

The use of the term "theatre" strongly implied non-reality, whole or partial, and if so, perception of the non-real is based on subjective interpretation of the subset of perceptible stimuli.

WHEW!!! :^(


> Our identities as material bodies
> is all based on duality (even though spirit and
> God works at the core of it, ever seeking to
> perfect its organization of elements), and are
> delusionary ideas of what we truly are. It is a
> dream. The way our bodies look today is highly
> temporary and transitory. In a few million years
> we will be something different, through Evolution.

Hmmm...I just had an interesting thought: you refer to perfection of organization, etc. If you are somewhat familiar with Darwin, it sounds a lot like evolving to the existing environment.

Do you see it as close or similar?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson write:

> Sawfish, did you want a discussion of the
> "when"
> > of the cosmos?


To which Sawfish replied:

> Sure, I would like that. :^)

OK. I would ask anyone interested to read the article from Discover Magazine here:

[www.discovermagazine.com]

This says to me that how you date the age of the universe is not so straightforward a topic as it would seem. It's tricky.

The conventional way of dating the age of the universe, and one with which I have no problem if the necessary qualification is included, deals with starlight, etc. and gives us something approaching 14 billion years. Likewise, the planet earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The catch is that there were (on the usual assumption) no observers present that far back -- no human beings or indeed any life at all. And Lanza and Berman point out that a phenomenal cosmos requires observers. When we imagine what "the universe" looked like before observers, we are imagining something being beheld by beings identical with ourselves, and we assume that XYZ is what they "would have" seen. But there were no observers, no human ones anyway.

Physicist John Wheeler's thought is helpful here. The universe is irreducibly participatory. But we assume that, for billions of years, there were no consciousnesses that could exercise this participatory function.

[en.wikipedia.org]

So... how old is the universe? Evidently we can reckon it in one way and say about 14 billion years. But then, in what sense did time itself exist -- as a measure of whatever there "was" prior to the participatory universe? Is that actually a solecism?

I would really ask anyone here to read the Lanza and Berman article, and the Wikipedia bit about Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle, before responding, if you don't mind.


OK?

In the meantime, if someone asks me in an ordinary context how old the universe is, I'm probably going to say 14 billion years while feeling a bit of mental reservation. Because actually the phenomenal universe must be a whole lot younger than that.

Now, how far back do we have to go to find consciousnesses capable of Wheeler's "participation"? Maybe the smartest dinosaurs?? I have my doubts.

Any ideas?

One clue might be to date stone remains that appear to be connected with star observation and timekeeping as Stonehenge is often said to be, or the Göbekli Tepe site in Turkey, or the like. But that's not going to give us millions or billions of years in the past.


I would appreciate it if anyone spotting fallacies in my information or logic would point them out.

Thank you Sawfish and Dale, for this exchange. Enriching! A few steps further towards personal enlightenment and harmony.

Dale, I liked your vivid account of the different persons of the congregation, and how their individual expressions may hide unexpected qualities, or lack of qualities.

Sawfish, the finite set of stimuli available to the human senses is a further illustration of the dream or theatre we live in, of how our experience of Reality is based on struggling delusional perceptions and hypothetical mental constructions. (Our eyes for instance, if comparing anatomy, each species look out on an individually distorted perspective of our surroundings.) Awareness of these limitations can get existentially scary, if digging too deep into it. But I look forward to Darwin's famous book on Evolution.

About the issue of giving to others without receiving proper reciprocation. Yes, it can be painful and saddening. But many today are uncultivated bumpkins (even among the supposedly sophisticated), and lack the social manners of showing appreciation.
Another wisdom is, that when doing a favor to someone in an acute situation, you should never expect that same person to give back equally. Often instead, you will receive compensation in another form, from another direction and another person, when least expecting it, completely unrelated. That is how life works regarding generosity. It is life's complex way of compensating. You give unconditionally at the moment, without thought of compensation, and receive something back when you least expect it.

Now I must steer this bipedal frame of mine, to get out, trudging it to a mossy pond up on a hill-top, to fill flasks with pure water for my flesh-eating plants and orchids.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ... it can be painful and saddening. But many today are
> uncultivated bumpkins (even among the supposedly
> sophisticated), and lack the social manners of
> showing appreciation.
>

Some don't even respond or salute when spoken to. It seems to have gotten worse with the Internet and cell phone Age. An evasive behavior, where people have become even more isolated within themselves, thinking they can simply shut off reality and another person with the click of a button.

To some degree it is motivated, with all the commercial vendors that cry at us. But it is not ok on more personal level meetings.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > ... it can be painful and saddening. But many
> today are
> > uncultivated bumpkins (even among the
> supposedly
> > sophisticated), and lack the social manners of
> > showing appreciation.
> >
>
> Some don't even respond or salute when spoken to.
> It seems to have gotten worse with the Internet
> and cell phone Age. An evasive behavior, where
> people have become even more isolated within
> themselves, thinking they can simply shut off
> reality and another person with the click of a
> button.
>
> To some degree it is motivated, with all the
> commercial vendors that cry at us. But it is not
> ok on more personal level meetings.

I agree.

The cost of common courtesy is negligible, while the personal and social rewards are immense.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~