Is anything holy?

Well, "holy" is just a label, of course. Let's not get embroiled in an essentialist fallacy over this. Nothing *IS* holy, in the sense that "holiness" is not an attribute that anything possesses - it is a word we use to describe our reaction to certain things, and in this there has to be a degree of subjectivity. So it doesn't make sense to say "what is holy?", but merely "what do YOU find holy?" It even makes some sense to ask: "Is there any reason why *I* should find what you find holy holy?" because that can stimulate a useful discussion.

As for me, *I* regard Truth to be holy. As such, the reaction it demands of me is to test it. Not to venerate it, but to seek to ensure that whatever is NOT true is ejected or at least properly understood to be false.

Which is, I suppose, why I think that McCausland's ridiculous demand for the Ulster Museum to promote creationism is not just ridiculous, but it is unholy and wholly reprehensible. And he should go get a shave.

Will, is there not an important distinction to be made between atheists and Calvin in that Calvin effectively said that everything was in a sense sacred, whereas atheists say that everything is secular. They may be in agreement about there being no distinction, but to say they're heirs when Calvin says God is involved in everything and they say he is involved in nothing doesn't seem to make sense. Similarly, surely the Acts passage speaks directly against Drummond who wants to kick God off both his throne and footstool, resists the Holy Spirit and ignores God's law?

Any attempt by atheists to describe anything as holy must involve a redefining of the word and an appropriation (subversion?) of a religious concept. If an atheist wants to use the word to express something, then there's probably a more apposite word out there.

H
Okay, on your views of properties.

I don't know any philosopher that thinks that properties inhere in their subjects in the manner that you seem to think they do. That sort of Aristotleianism died with Galileo and the subsequent scientific revolution. I'm not even sure that Scholastic departments hold on to that view anymore.
Seriously, Plantinga doesn't take this view, Swinburne doesn't, Leftow doesn't. I don't know where this is coming from. "Realists" about *universals* would take the view that *some* properties exist independently of the physical world (in the same way that Penrose and co think that numbers have an independent existence). Swinburne wouldn't have any time for this sort of Platonism. But even this sort of realism is a far cry from the Aristotleianism you're attacking.

As for the idea that "Holiness" is a subjective term. That's just begging the question that Will is asking. You've just asserted no, without any real argument (unless we count your views on properties, which just knock down a straw man.)

If the underlying argument is that we are numbers...well I think that's a fairly obvious categorical error. We can be described by mathematics. That doesn't mean that we are mathematics. This is just parallel to the old idealist mistake. We can be captured by concepts. So we are concpets. Or perceptions. So we are perceptions.

GV

I would pretty much agree with Rorty re equating holy and love. That which is of the divine is holy, the divine is love, we are of the divine and we are love, we are all holy - even Helio, he just doesn't know it or accept it! :-). I would also agree re Truth being holy and very much see Truth and love as interlinked - the more Truth we know the more we love, the more we love the more Truth we know etc. The root word for health/healing and whole and holy is the same (Hal) - and there are understandings that link healing, wholeness and holiness.

No.

Helio

Houl your wisht. You’re leping all over the place there ya boy ya.

And what’s all this about Truth?

Look, just face it, there isn’t any such thing as Truth. And in like manner also I might add that there is no such thing as hope. Holding to the “Hope that some day my remote descendants will live in a global civilization in which love is pretty much the only law." merely makes pixies of us all. Pie for the boyz in the by 'n by after we’ve died.

Scheesh!

Honestly, it just doesn’t add up! ;-)


And I'd be careful about this shaving business, look what happened Samson.

#1 - Helio -

"As for me, *I* regard Truth to be holy. As such, the reaction it demands of me is to test it. Not to venerate it, but to seek to ensure that whatever is NOT true is ejected or at least properly understood to be false."

Phew. At last we agree on something!

Now can we please analyse how we go about "properly understanding something to be false"?

I rather like the idea of using a materially irreducible reality called "logic" (a.k.a. "reason"). It is something wonderful and perhaps even "holy"; a thing which can only have validity if it has an objective reality, over and above the transient. Because of its objective reality, it is the means by which we apprehend that thing called "truth".

Now, where I imagine we may disagree is how we explain the existence of reason itself. After all, scientists are supposed to explain what we know actually exists. Reason is not a product of my imagination, my genes or some entirely subjective process of material development. You cannot measure something by itself, but only according to some universal and objectively valid standard - otherwise you lose yourself in the vortex of meaningless circularity, in which "truth" itself can only be an illusion. In the same way, nature cannot be "measured" - i.e. understood - in the absence of something above it and independent of it. If the entire content of the human mind and consciousness is merely the product of a process of natural selection, then it cannot tell us anything about objective reality, and it only consists of a series of reflexes reinforcing the requirements of that process which supposedly created it.

I can relate to Einstein's observation: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." This, of course, implies the need to understand why we have this surprising thing called reason at all - a task which the materialistic reductionists constantly seem to shy away from.

So talk about your love of truth as much as you like. Judging by your other comments I don't think you have even started to pluck up the courage to chat up "truth", never mind establish a more permanent relationship with her. A good way to start the conversation is by having some serious respect for epistemology, instead of dismissing the very people who seek to explain why we can explain anything at all.

Graham, horsefeathers, dear boy. The essentialist fallacy is alive and well in Will's question; I didn't raise those other cabbage-mongers - I'm not aware that they have anything to add to the issue. Yes, some philosophers are aware of the fallacy; it would be nice if they would stop falling into it.

Peter, no, I do not believe in "Truth" - I believe that you can make True statements and you can make False statements. Identifying the former is, in my opinion, the essence of "holiness". Others may define it differently, but it is not something inherent in things. You can keep your shoes on, Moses.

I am a person of no faith and the word "holy" for me has no personal meaning. Where Richard Rorty wrote: "My sense of the holy is bound up with the" could he not simply have written "I".

Christine Hayes in lecture number 9 writes that the Hebrew word for "holy" can be translated as "separate" and that only God is intrinsically holy. Everything else is "common". The English translation of the Hebrew word for "common" is the often negatively understood "profane".

In short, I would say that the concept of holy has been used with great success to sustain and perpetuate a variety of belief systems.

H

Graham and I are obviously failing on the ‘wind up’ scale at the moment. :-)

If we were to adopt the (not necessarily religious) definition of ‘holy’ as being ‘something which deserves particular respect’ then identifying those statements which are True statements is obviously important and worthy of special respect.

That you do not accept the statement, “I Am the Way the Truth and the Life,” to be a true statement is a view I respect, but I’m still a teensy bit concerned that you dismiss so readily any philosophical basis for speaking about “True statements’. In fact that bothers me more than the Jesus thing.

I mean who are these statements, facts, true for? What are they true for? Are they truly true, or simply useful, or interesting? And how do we know? And can I regard Truth as not ‘holy’? (Google 'Billy Connolly, Algebra' and watch the You Tube clip - it won't pass the moderators but it will make you laugh.) Or are ‘true statements’ true for you and true for me? If your true statement is that a 40mg dose of a medicine will do me good can my true statement be, ‘och, sure, 52.5mg will do rightly?’

I mean, what tolerance is our view of Truth working to here?

Sure there is Truth - there are laws of the universe that operate and are true irrespective of whether one believes them or not and which are true today and have been true for aeons and will be true for aeons. eg The most basic law/Truth of the universe is God is love - this is true whether I believe it or not and whether I experience it or not. This example of truth is not something to be believed in (though many do) but is something to be known.

LSV: epistemologically how do you know/explain what love is? Do you use reason/your mind to know love?
It seems to me that your points are very focused on the mind and reason which is of the mind - epistemologically do you allow for knowing that is of the heart and of which reason and the mind play no part?

Oh and wouldn't, "You can keep your shoes on, Moses." make the start of a Country and Western song?

#11 - Eunice -

"LSV: epistemologically how do you know/explain what love is? Do you use reason/your mind to know love? It seems to me that your points are very focused on the mind and reason which is of the mind - epistemologically do you allow for knowing that is of the heart and of which reason and the mind play no part?"

Eunice, thank you for this comment, and I understand where you are coming from.

But, of course, there is a difference between "either...or" and "both...and". It's not a question of "either the mind or the heart", but "both the mind and the heart". We must be careful to avoid setting up a false dichotomy.

I would love to express my views with reference to experiences and the subjective. But what's the point when trying to communicate with sceptics, who dismiss any whiff of the "subjective" as: "oh that's just sentimentality" or they just assume that you're hallucinating? Anything that doesn't fit into their dogmatic fundamentalist materialistic philosophy is a priori dismissed as "delusional". These people talk so confidently about "reason" and pretend to be the guardians of reason, but I don't tire of pointing out to them that they don't even know the meaning of the word "reason".

My faith in God is not simply intellectual - although it is intellectually valid. I could write a great deal about my personal experience of the reality of the love of God, but there is no way I am going to share such things with a bunch of cynics. On some other blog - under a different name - I have shared quite a bit. But not here, I'm afraid.

However, I appreciate the things that you have written. Keep up the good work!

PeterMorrow: you have what is true for you and I have what is true for me and they will most likely be different. But irrespective of what is true for either of us, there is Truth that is true whether either of us know it or agree with it. To my understanding there is energetic truth. I know most, if not all people on here so far do not agree with this and that is fine, but it does not mean it is not true! :-) There is an energetic consequence to all we do, say and think that operates according to energetic laws - irrespective of whether people know them or believe them. So you can think something is good for you but energetically it can be harming. So it is not sufficient to just use beliefs/thinking etc to know what is true truth. Only by knowing what is happening at the energetic level can we get to true truth - and discover that it is universal and unifying....such that what you would know to be truth is the same as what I would know to be truth. Then we have the end of separation. How many millennia will pass before this is realised I wonder!

LSV: Thanks for your response and comments. I agree we use both heart and mind and as I see it now the heart has primacy in knowing and wisdom of things that the mind knows naught. The mind is great but it can also be a big block to the heart! I know what it is to be driven by the mind - and it can become a safe fortress that can arrogantly wield its knowledge in order to avoid feeling what is really going on.
Re objectivity and subjectivity - is not our so called objectivity, at some level emerging from subjectivity - in that we cannot be totally divorced from our history etc no matter how much we like to think we are? So for example people who do science and claim to be objective, there are subjective reasons that led them to do science in the first place and why they are attracted to whatever field it is that they are studying. Also the fact that whatever is observed is altered by the mere fact of being observed means that all so called objective experiments etc are not really objective in-truth as we cannot divorce ourselves from the whole process.

Forgot to say re: Truth - the body is the marker of truth and reveals ALL our choices. It lives all our choices and the consequences of them. The mind can say "I'm fine" or 'I'm OK' but the body will reveal the true truth of what is really going on in the person. The body is designed to be in harmony and vital with true joy. Less than that demonstrates how far we have separated from living according to Truth and our true nature.

Exodus Chapter 20 Verse 8 (King James Version)

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

And the Stone edition of the Tanach;

"Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it."


Q. Is the Sabbath inherently holy, or does it only become holy if and when we make it so?

Quite an interesting topic. I'm with Helio to the extent that essentially we can only speak of holiness subjectively. I have felt some places to be holy, perhaps through a participation in memory of a long tradition of devotion, and, most significantly for me, I have known two people of whom holy is the only accurate descriptor. Both are nurses and both were formerly nuns.

I think there is a good case, however, for arguing that 'holy' is a technical term, its meaning properly determined by its original and common context. Obviously any word can be used in any way we like, in the end the language we each of us speak is an idiolect. Consistency, however, I really think, demands that those of us who take issue with Eunice's use of the word 'energy' take issue also with secular uses of the word 'holy'. The cases do not materially differ so far as I can see. Rorty and Drummond in their attempts to define 'holy' were 'doing a Eunice'. Helio, would you concede that maybe you even had a little bit of a 'Eunice moment' yourself there?

Speaking of Eunice, am I to understand that you regard illness as resulting from internal 'energetic disharmony'?

S-G,

In that context, holiness can be thought of as setting apart for special use. It is therefore us treating the day as holy, reflecting the fact that God has set it apart (made it holy) for the purpose of rest. God has set it apart for the purpose of us setting it apart. He has made it holy for the purpose of us treating it as holy. If you read on to verse 11, allowing the broader context of scripture to interpret an individual verse, then that should hopefully become clearer.

#19

Jonathan Boyd,

Yeah, I get that. Apologies, I could have phrased the question better.

I thought the King James translation to be a wee bit ambiguous. The word 'sanctify' is better, I think. Or maybe the word 'keep' would have been read differently in 17th century England.

It seems to me that the imperative implicit in the word 'sanctify' demands more of us than mere recognition.

S-G,

Sorry for the misunderstanding, more a mistake on my part. Apologies of what follows is a little technical. If my Hebrew was better, I could probably explain it in less technical terms. In Hebrew, the verb is leqaddesh which is a piel infinitive construct. The infinitive construct is used in this case to explain the purpose of a previous verb (remembering the Sabbath day). The root of the verb is qdsh, which in the piel stem means to set apart as sacred, to consecrate, to dedicate or to declare holy.

By itself, the sentence seems to instructing the Israelites to remember the Sabbath Day with the purpose of setting it aside as a special, holy day. They are setting it aside and in that sense making it holy, though the later context makes it clear that this is because God has already made it holy.

In answer to your original question then, sanctify is in my (not hugely knowledgeable about Hebrew) opinion a better word (or consecrate). Surprisingly, just about every translation seems to go with 'keep'. The exceptions out of the various translations I have are the NET Bible which goes with the more literal 'set it apart as holy' and the HCSB which goes with 'remember to dedicate the Sabbath Day.'

#21

Jonathan Boyd,

Thank you. I suspect many Bibles are translated from Latin or Greek to English instead of going to the original Hebrew.

(i.e. Tanach, or Old Testament).


#18

Parrhasios,

Thank you for your comments. I think I'm out of my depth here, but the humour encourages me to dip my toe in the water now and again.

S-g

Parrhasios *Speaking of Eunice, am I to understand that you regard illness as resulting from internal 'energetic disharmony'?*

Illness and disease are a result of our choices and not living harmoniously and in alignment with our true being/essence. So yes - you could say they result from internal energetic disharmony but that results from our choices. It occurs at the energetic level before it is manifest in the physical. The worlds of psychosomatic medicine, psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics support these understandings by demonstrating how our thoughts/feelings/emotions impact the nervous, endocrine and immune systems that over time result in illness and disease. The body is divinely designed to be harmonious and its true essence is love - so when we are angry/sad/frustrated /any emotion basically - we are not being love and that is disharmonious to the body. The body lives all our choices, all our experiences and reveals all of them too eg in illness and disease/addiction/depression etc. All result from not living from our true nature(love) - for aeons!

scotch-git re holy
One understanding is that everyday is holy and no day is more special than any other day. The sabbath was made for man not the other way around. It is not on its own holy and every other day is not holy. All days are equally holy/divine. We also make it and each day holy or not by how we live during that day.

#24

Eunice,

I disagree. Even if one does not worship, the setting aside of one day in seven to abstain from work and spend with the people most precious to you seems eminently sensible to me. Your vision of a calendar in which every day is the same reminds me of the Christian vision of heaven.

Tedious beyond belief.

Scotch-git: You can choose to do whatever you want on whatever day you want - the actual day of the week does not render it holy....that is just a human adaptation. Sunday is not more holy than Monday. I did not mean that what you do in each day has to the be same. It is rendered holy by the presence of the divine - which is always present, hence no 'special' divine day. It is our recognition of the presence of the divine in each day (the magic of God) that renders each day holy for the individual - whether they choose to spend it with family or at work. I don't know about the Christian vision of heaven you mention - but I do know that days spent in joy are not tedious. For most it is the lack of joy that is tedious.

Parrhasios: re holy - you mention 2 nurses/nuns that were holy. What for you are the attributes/qualities of holiness?
For me, everyone is inherently holy/divine but we do not live and express according to that truth. It is not a special quality that some people have and others don't - we all have it - we just choose not to live and express according to it....hence many people appear not to have the qualities of holiness. I equate holy and divine -and both are manifest in the expression of love.

H

You are dodging the big question, and that disappoints me.

Horsefeathers or cabbage?

They are logically incompatible! I insist that you choose!

GV

Helio

Thought you might be interested in the following:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-douglas-fields/michelangelos-secret-mess_b_586531.html?ir=Daily%20Brief

RJB, yep - man makes god in his own image, eh? God is an ape too.

Graham, what ARE you talking about? WHAT "big question"? Theology does not *contain* any big questions. Surely you know this by now??

H

The Big Question is... 'What's the second line of the Moses song'?



And yes, I had trouble signing in.

With reference to holy scripture, I am not sure how we can distinguish holy stories from the rest. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22, for example, is not that far removed from the stories in Tales from the Arabian Nights. Let me quote a few verses:

28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!" 30 So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No." 31 Then the Lord opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face. 32 And the Angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. 33 The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live."

Now, that is supposed to be holy scripture, but to my Humanist eyes it just looks like an ancient folk-tale and no more credible than the story of Aladdin and the Lamp. Holy smoke? Who knows what was in their hookahs!

"Keep your shoes on, Moses,
I AM not what you think I AM.
The question this poses
Before the portal closes:
Is your bed of roses
Covered in napalm or jam?"

"eg The most basic law/Truth of the universe is God is love - this is true whether I believe it or not and whether I experience it or not"

God is a belief, how can a belief be true whether you believe it or not.

Sorry - couldn't resist the temptation for verse 2

I AM not what you think I AM
I AM what you ARE
Feel and Know what you ARE
That you may Know what I AM
Tis your choice to exist and lose
By choosing from what you are NOT
Or to choose Life by living
From what you ARE
And what I AM.

And, Dear Moses, one more thing-
The sandals aren't the biz.
Get yourself some decent bling;
Some Jimmy Choos tied up with string.
And - were you even listening?
I AM, you ARE, she IS.

(Is it like today? Oooh, oh....)

Dave: *God is a belief, how can a belief be true whether you believe it or not.*

It is correct that for many people God is a belief. However, for others God is a known - that is real and exists and lives. Therefore, for those who know God and know the reality of God then it is clear to them that God exists irrespective of whether other people have a belief in it or not, know it or not. The truth that God can
be known can be experienced by all people - for the kingdom of God/Love is within each person.

Ha ha!

After a day and a half and several failed attempts at signing in I still have no suitable reply to Mr. Heliopolitan's song.

I bow before your lyrical genius.

So Eunice, by the same token,

For many god does not exist, Therefore, for those who know God does not exist then it is clear to them that gods non existence is irrespective of whether other people have a belief in it or not, know it or not. The truth that God does not exist can be known can be experienced by all people - for the kingdom of God/Love is non existent.

The knowledge that what you are saying is rubbish is within each person.

You can put together lots of very fine sounding words, it does not make them true, evidence makes things true.

H

The biq question was, "is theology "horsefeathers" or is it "cabbage"? Because the two seem incompatible"

Try as I might H, I just can't stir the pot with your skill! I bow before the master! (I hope you get the chance to lecture in ethics. The students would have a great time!)

GV

Dave: I agree with you. It is only by living the truth that I speak of that each person can know it for themselves - it is not by any one saying it or preaching it or talking about it or writing about it. (for those who are interested these things can help but are not the evidence as you say) Meeting someone who lives that way consistently day in and day out can help provide a visible demonstration BUT it is only by the individual person putting the teachings into practice and living according to the ways of love (not the emotional romantic needy love we commonly consider to be love) that they come to know the truth for themselves - it is probably the only way to really know it. The 'evidence' is then experienced in the life of the person who comes to experience greater joy, love, freedom and less emotionality. In addition they lose the neediness of seeking love as they know they are love and their task is to serve with that love that another may awaken to that truth for themselves....bit like 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. It is a livingness that comes from inside - not from any outer rule or law. It is very empowering to the individual but also requires them to take a high degree of responsibility for all they do/say etc. I understand it can appear to be rubbish - and would have said the same myself a number of years ago - so I totally get where you and all the other atheists are coming from as I have been there too. However, for me I now know the reality is very different and that has played out in my life and my experiences. PArt of the problem is that for a lot of people they hear the untruths that are in religious teachings and then throw the baby out with the bathwater - as I did. The God that you say does not exist - I would probably agree with you does not exist.... as many ideas/concepts/teachings about God are false. However, that does not mean that God in God's true nature does not exist - just that people are unaware of that and have been put off by religion. At the end of the day we all make choices and have the consequences of those choices - the teachings I talk about just help people to make more harmonious and self-loving and self-healing choices - if that's not for you and your life is full of love and joy - great! :-)

Graham! Enough already!

One of us bowing before the Great and Glorious Holy-o-politan (may he live forever) is one too many.

I didn't mean to start a church or a cult or anything. (not that it takes much these days, just a TV channel and the gall to sell 'miracles' to the vulnerable.)

Careful now, or the next thing you know there'll be a big statue by the Lagan and we'll all have to leave our obligations of a Saturday afternoon and avoid walking on it's shadow or something.

Keep your shoes on and run man run.

"It is only by living the truth that I speak of that each person can know it for themselves"

"It is a livingness that comes from inside"

Why do people stop using normal English phrases when describing their relation ship with their god. is it to try and add an air of holiness or importance or believability.

Eunice, I am not having a pop at you in particular, but livingness, come on. I have the same problem when I hear McIlveen, why can't he speak properly.

right, back to the plot

When I see someone who is acting in a way that there beliefs tell them, all I see is someone acting in a certain way, I don't read into that that they must have a jolly good god. People could carry out the same actions with no spiritual motivation. No human action, good or bad, needs a spiritual motivation. The stuff you traipse out in your post simply sounds like 60's flower power stuff only with god instead of weed as the catalyst.

And to claim that there are levels of love, feelings or emotions which can only be experienced by communing with god is ludicrous. Many people feel them, many have different gods, as only one god is supposedly true then lots have got the feelings without communing with this supposed one true god.

The Church of the Holy-Politan...mmm. I dunno. There's a lot of money in cults and New Religious Movements.

This could have potential. Stick with me lads, and this time next year, we'll be millionaires!

Graham, don't bet on it - the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist has zero incoming revenue, despite its enormous popularity among intelligent people.

Not that I want to appear Helioer than thou, you understand :-)

Dave;*Why do people stop using normal English phrases when describing their relation ship with their god. is it to try and add an air of holiness or importance or believability.*

None of the above - it's just that the word livingness sums up what it is - a way of living that comes from inside, from love, from the innermost aspect of our being, from the inner heart - all of those are synonymous. It affects all one's choices (well as much as one chooses) by endeavouring to feel and make choices from the innermost - where God is, where love is and thus it is a moment to moment thing - to feel what is required to be said or done etc. hence livingness.

*When I see someone who is acting in a way that there beliefs tell them, all I see is someone acting in a certain way, I don't read into that that they must have a jolly good god. People could carry out the same actions with no spiritual motivation. No human action, good or bad, needs a spiritual motivation. The stuff you traipse out in your post simply sounds like 60's flower power stuff only with god instead of weed as the catalyst. *

I agree with the first part - people could carry out the same actions with no particular spiritual motivation as there are people who naturally live from their heart/inner heart without knowing a thing about spirituality/God etc. However, for many people, including myself, that natural way of living from the heart was lost as a result of upbringing, education, religion etc etc - we become mind driven, seeking identification, recognition and acceptance, searching in the outer world for the next thing to bring happiness/joy/love etc not realising that the greatest source of love and joy is within us. In addition for many people their lives are far from joyful - but full of pain/suffering/hardship/tragedy/trauma/abuse/addiction/illness and disease etc etc and this can raise questions - why me? why is life like this? what is the meaning of this? of life? etc etc and can prompt a search for deeper answers. I am suggesting that there are deeper answers that can bring liberation from that suffering whatever it may be, that can extract people from the depths of misery and hell on earth to transform their lives - flower power it ain't, God power it is - the power of love. So whilst some people are just naturally connected to that and live from that - for most humanoids a little help and understanding is required to re-connect them to that source and way of living.

*And to claim that there are levels of love, feelings or emotions which can only be experienced by communing with god is ludicrous. Many people feel them, many have different gods, as only one god is supposedly true then lots have got the feelings without communing with this supposed one true god. *

I make a distinction between feelings and emotions - it is good to use feelings to guide our choices but for many people the ability to feel clearly and recognise what they are feeling has been shut down since childhood. Feelings come and go quickly as they are always changing - like the kid who cries and laughs within minutes. Emotions are reactions, usually involve a story of some kind and are harming to the human body as they are not our true nature - come from our inability to observe life and live and let live. There are 2 types of love - emotional love that is based on the unmet need within oneself that looks for another to fulfil it and fiery love - that is non-emotional, associated with joy and harmony and is needless - being needless its impulse is to serve. They have a different quality that can be felt. The source of fiery love is the inner heart - so yes people can connect with this naturally but as mentioned most of us need a little guidance as we have lost touch with our innermost being. If we were all connected to and living from our inner hearts there would be no 'bad action' as you call it - all bad actions are a result of people living in separation/disconnection to the love that they are. Equally - all 'good action' would occur naturally - impulsed from within without the need for any laws or rules.

I have enjoyed and appreciate your comments and I also understand that some/all of the things I say may sound like rubbish or gobbledegook or whatever - and that's fine. I know I would have said exactly the same thing as you not too many years ago and I am the last person who thought they would be advocating any sort of spiritual dimension or God dimension to life!! And yes - there are alot of new age and old age and middle aged teachings out there advocating all sorts of things and many of them are very harming indeed - unfortunately people don't realise how harming they are. However, as I said before my words are not going to convince you nor are they intended to - nobody and nothing could have convinced me years ago - it was only when I started to question and search for myself and find answers that resonated with me that i began to change my outlook, my understanding about God/life etc . As that changed, my choices changed, my way of living changed, how I understood myself and my life changed and I would say transformed - all for the better. So my journey of transformation started because my life was a mess and I certainly did not go seeking for God out of fun - I did not want to be a member of any God club and I couldn't even say the word God without nearly choking on it! Indeed the first time I bought a book about God I was hiding it in the bookshop in case anyone saw me! That is all history but the journey has been great - very healing, very liberating, very empowering and I am now in a very different space and place to where I was before. It is the lived experience for me that counts - not the words, not the knowledge but the practical application and living of it.... and it is that that transforms.

The God that I know is very different to the God of traditional religious understanding - there is nothing to fear, no-one is damned or judged or punished (we do all of that to ourselves). God is pure love - that just loves, is fun , playful, light hearted and joyful. If more people knew that about God they might not be so resistant! And this is our true nature and it is by making choices aligned to that true nature that one's life may be changed or transformed to be more harmonious/joyful etc Goodness.. I have written far more than intended! Enough - more than I know. :-)

Eunice, the only question I'm left with is this:
Is God one of the Teletubbies, or is he Barney the big purple dinosaur?

Now I get it livingness is a scientology word, created simply to allow scientologists to define the word exactly and negate any previous baggage or familiarity associated with the root word.

Creating new words where they precisely controlled the definition was an integral component of the cerebral cleaning process.

So if that's Livingness, what's Lochness?

Looks like we're heading towards Barney after all...

Dave: I have absolutely NOTHING to do with scientology.
It's just a word - that describes a way of life - it is how one lives = livingness. No big deal and no cerebral cleaning whatever that is!

Helio: you can take your pick or sure why not have both! Maybe he's even a pink shiny Helio with the biggest aura ever!! ooooerrrrr bet you never been told that before :-)

Eunice,
I wasn't accusing you of being a scientologist, just couldn't figure out the word. It failed the spell check for some reason and now I know why.

The word was created by Scientology, it does not exist in the English lexicon, although I think some American lexicons now include it as it moves into a more mainstream usage.

In order to create a distinct language and control the definition of words Scientology created many new words. Lots of these new words were adverbs transposed to nouns living becomes a livingness etc, even the verb to be is transposed to a noun, an isness. See the book Org Board and Livingness by L. Ron Hubbard (Title only for illustration, not suggesting you actually read it). and Wlkipedia has quite a few entries on the subject..

Dave

In spite of the fact that there are times I haven’t the first clue what Eunice is on about, and many other occasions when I simply disagree with her, I really must defend her use of whatever word she chooses to use.

In fact I’ll go further and suggest that while I also agree with you that the like of ‘McIlveen’ (should I assume Free P minister?) seems to speak in an unintelligible and unexplained language, Eunice has gone out of her way to explain what she means by the words she uses.

Not only that, but she has raised issues of, “people (whose) lives are far from joyful - but full of pain/suffering/hardship/tragedy/trauma/abuse/addiction/illness and disease etc etc”, which have gone unanswered.

But sure, call her a ‘scientologist’ and imply control-freakery.

Personally I have found Eunice to be, gracious, patient and willing to be open about herself - I’d call that courageous-ness-ness. :-)

To be honest Dave this issue of the words we use on the blog has been raised before. I was told once not to use theological words when discussing religion. Yea - go figure.

Cabbageness?

H

I've been reading some po-mo theology, don't ask why, I have no clear reason. :-)

Anyway, speaking of cabbages and their nessness I have been inspired:


Transformativeness.

I’ve been thinking recently about the transformative nature of theological networks. Such networks, and by necessity the conversations which take place within the community, provide the opportunity for change which individualness on it’s own cannot. Take, for example, the phrase ‘within the transformative community’. At it’s most basic level this simply means interaction between group members resulting in change, but what about the existential nature of ‘within-ness’ or 'transfromativeness'? What if we were to consider what it meant to be not only within a community, but also for the community to be within oneself, what then would would transformation mean?

To emphasise the individual has often been understood to be the antithesis of community but what if the individual was not only in the community, but the community was in the individual? What if the experience of the community became the experience of the individual? What would this say about the potential for transformative theology for the community, the individual and most importantly, the community ‘within’?

Is this not what god is, and is this not what he calls his community to? Is this not what it means to be one, yet not only one, but also many?

Is this not the kind of transformation communities need to truly transformationalness?

Jaco Gerick is no longer a Christian - is anything holy?

Goodness graciousness 2MP - how can I hope to possess compete-with-thatness?

A spectacular tour de force, young man - you have my respectingness.

Dave: I was introduced to the word by someone who presents the esoteric (meaning 'from within') understandings and he also would in no way be associated with scientology. As you say scientology may also use that word but there is no connection between scientology and the understandings that I write about on here that I can assure you. I haven't had a chance to check out what wikipedia says about it but will do.

2manypeters: re 52 : thank you for your comments :-))

re 54 - you say you don't know what I am on about - well I can return the complimentness! haha
Re transformationness - in my view always begins with numero uno and from there the community will undergo transformationness. ANd how does numero uno do it ?? that's right - by their livingness! easy peesy!! :-)

ps - 2MP - I have just read it again and perhaps would add to my previous response - that all is one, so if the world/community is in you, are you responsible for the world/community? If everything you do affects the world in you - then yes you are. The inner world is reflected in the outer world - so if we each take utmost responsibility for self and the world in self then the outer world will reflect our inner world - thus heal one's self, one heals the world - inner (where inner can be our inner world and the world in us) and outer! :-)
Its too late for all this innerness and outerness and transformationness and it's past my livingness bed time! :-)

Eunice

I have to say that I suspected you of being a Scientologist, and was just about to ask if you were, given what you wrote about human participation in evolution.

My best bets were Scientologist, or heretical Mormon.

Next is "hasn't quite recovered from the 60's"

GV

Eunice,
I am not suggesting you, or anyone else is a scientologist although I am not sure why you think that is a bad thing to say.

you say "scientology may also use the word", you misunderstand me, scientology invented the word and you are now using it. The word has one meaning, the meaning scientology gave it which is different to the meaning you have expressed.

If you want to use an invented language and change the meaning of the words in that invented language, how do you expect people to understand you.

So who invented the word "holy", and can we go round and put their windows in for saddling us with one of the most useless words in the English language?

GV *My best bets were Scientologist, or heretical Mormon.

Next is "hasn't quite recovered from the 60's"

None of the above. I am a student of myself, life, God, the human person, and why we mess it up! The answers I have come to are for me transformational and are based on understanding and knowing that our true nature is love and it is the separation from that love that results in all of man's ills and woes and more. Why do all people seek love ??? I bet even you guys are married or in relationship - in the very quest of that love. We seek it because we are it and it is the separation from it that is our deepest pain and the finding or reconnecting with it that brings the greatest joy that nothing on earth can top.
Re human effect on evolution - we are not discrete islands but in communication with the cosmos - everything we think say and do affects the cosmos at some level - so yes of course our choices affect evolution and all that is in the cosmos! HEnce the need for a high degree of integrity and responsibility regarding one's choices!

Dave: *I am not suggesting you, or anyone else is a scientologist although I am not sure why you think that is a bad thing to say.*
It is a bad thing to say because from what I know of scientiology it reinforces the separation from one's essence of love and in my dictionary that is evil (evil meaning that which separates one from one's essence of love - and if you follow what I said above that it is the separation from love that leads to all man's ills then you will follow why I am calling it evil!!.....and possibly realise that there are many things that by this definition are evil)
Words can have different meanings - how people know what I mean is by me explaining it - which I am more than happy to do anytime! The meanings I bring are not mine but have come from esoteric philosophy.....which just means coming from within or from the innermost of our being.

Eunice, there is not much respect for other peoples beliefs there.

Making up words is not a good thing, it is a mask to people understanding. It is why the catholic church prefers latin (no one else speaks it), it is why the bible in english is regarded by some as an heretical move.

You seem to use language to create a separation between ordinary people and your beliefs as if that alone will compel people to believe you. People are much smarter than that now, we do not take the flowery views of religionists as fact just because they use weird words. We question and we dare to disbelieve.

the weird thing about holy 4 me (not the word but the emotion that holy creates) is that i cannot experience it without having some empathy,then comparison (with the holy object/person/thought) and then feeling humbled. And the strange thing about being humbled is that for me it makes me want to be a better person because life is put into perspective. So in some strange way thinking that something is holy actually can make me "holier". So if i lowered the bench mark 4 holy and thought everything good/neutral around me was holy i could have the potential to become really holy. (i think i am re-inventing the budist wheel here!)

Dave

"We question and we dare to disbelieve."

May I ask a question I have asked many times on this blog yet without and adequate answer?

This business of questioning, of disbelieving, how far do you push this? What exactly do you question, what do you disbelieve? There are many many things to question and disbelieve and they are not all religious rhetoric. In my experience, the doubt championed on this blog is of a very particular and limited variety.

Peter, could you expand? In my own experience on this blog it is specific truth claims that are challenged, and it seems that only those with a clear vested interest in protecting their superstitions are reluctant to unpack the issues. LSV, for instance, thinks that when his wee delusions are in diffs, the solution is to question the underpinnings of rational deduction and logic itself. The degree to which people will prostitute their brains to avoid having to deal with the absurdities of religious belief is sad, but strangely entertaining at the same time...

Helio

“Peter, could you expand?”

I could!

Brings back a few memories, this business, back to when I first joined the blog and began asking questions about doubt.

Couple of things to get us going - you say, “In my own experience on this blog it is specific truth claims that are challenged, and it seems that only those with a clear vested interest in protecting their superstitions are reluctant to unpack the issues.”

Well I assume you mean specific *religious* truth claims, I mean you’re not questioning democracy or stuff like that, that’s a ‘truth’ of sorts, isn’t it? (And even that is a safe thing to doubt, merely an intellectual exercise)

And then you mention those who are interested in protecting their superstitions and you mention LSV. I’m not going to speak for LSV, but there are others on here including Graham, and RJB and Parrhasios and me who are at least willing to put our religious questions on record. We’re hardly the type to just go defending religion for the sake of it. In fact I’ve been pretty open about my degree of faith or lack of it and, to be honest, could go further. I'm more than happy to unpack any faith issue, or aspect of the Christian culture or my *belief*.

But in general what interests me about this doubt malarky is how far people push it, how much doubt do we actually have. Doubting god is pretty easy, but there’s lots of things to doubt besides religious truth claims. So the question is what do we doubt, how much do we doubt, what do we question, how much do we question, how far do any of us want to go with this? Why are people happy to assume some things and not others?

You see, when people say, "We question and we dare to disbelieve." I'm thinking, 'What, everything?' And even on the point of questioning faith, you have questioned it from the inside and I have questioned it from the inside, we know the implications of Christians no longer believing, but honestly, people saying they don't believe, when they've never believed, wee buns.

And this 2MP business is a pain :-(

Peter, don't make a category error here. Questioning truth claims is not the same as questioning methodology.

Helio, could you expand?

:-)

Hi Peter, of course I would be happy to expand :-)

I dare to question and disbelieve truth claims. I questioned creationism, I disbelieved creationism, and indeed creationism has been shown to be factually incorrect.

However, the principle of questioning is clearly not in the same category as this. Questioning is a method, and we can base it on clear absolute proof that simply accepting things "on faith" is flawed. There is no need to revisit this issue - it is very much separate from truth claims such as creation or resurrection or miracles.

This is the heart of the category error.

Scotch - # 22 and 25

I think you rise to the bar ok! I enjoy your comments and agree entirely with you on the principle of setting a regular day apart from ordinary concerns and activities - it is, in my opinion, one of the most sensible things a person seeking to lead a healthy and balanced life can do.

It is interesting to get a Jewish perspective among all the different atheist and Christian arguments. I am ashamed to admit that, prior to the Yale course (which I am still following) I had never really considered the original contexts of what I now know to call the Hebrew Bible.

Eunice

# 23

Am I to understand that you believe in reincarnation and that we carry some kind of karmic burden from life to life? Illness is not just the result of current life choices but also arises from the accumulated disharmony of previous existences? What do you think happens when/if a person has dealt with their history and perfectly aligned their living with their essential nature?

# 27

I think we find God when caritas and amor coincide, where the totality of a person's being is engaged with practical physical care for others. That was something I found in those nurses. If I may quote a chorus I've learned at the evangelical church I now regularly attend, I could see the "light of Jesus shining through" not only their actions but their persons.

(Note to anyone who may be concerned, while I am enjoying the services at my newish (still of-course Anglican) church, I am not an iota more inclined intellectually to accept a word of it).

Dave said * Eunice, there is not much respect for other peoples beliefs there.

Making up words is not a good thing, it is a mask to people understanding. It is why the catholic church prefers latin (no one else speaks it), it is why the bible in english is regarded by some as an heretical move.

You seem to use language to create a separation between ordinary people and your beliefs as if that alone will compel people to believe you. People are much smarter than that now, we do not take the flowery views of religionists as fact just because they use weird words. We question and we dare to disbelieve.

Dave I welcome your questioning and disbelief and I certainly don't expect you or anyone to accept anything I say because of the words I use! People can believe whatever they want to believe. I respect the people but I may not agree with their beliefs. On here I was not talking about a person but about a specific set of beliefs that come under the name scientology and previously on another thread fundamentalism. I was pointing out how to my understanding these things are very harming to the human person and perpetuate the separation that you mention. I do not bring separation but unification based on the understanding that we are all equal, all the same, all have that essence of love and that it is by not choosing to live according to the ways of love that we mess it up. Beliefs are responsible for a lot of harm. What I bring is based on a knowing not a belief and it is by putting the understandings into practice in one's own life that this can be demonstrated. Whilst I respect the people, I do not have to respect the beliefs in and of themselves that I know are very harming.
I also have questioned and disbelieved and my understandings continue to evolve and unfold. Whilst I share them on here people are free to ignore, accept, reject, question, ponder, contemplate, pass by or do whatever with them - all fine by me. ;-)

Parrhasios: *Am I to understand that you believe in reincarnation and that we carry some kind of karmic burden from life to life? Illness is not just the result of current life choices but also arises from the accumulated disharmony of previous existences? What do you think happens when/if a person has dealt with their history and perfectly aligned their living with their essential nature? *

For me, reincarnation is a reality that is consistent with a God of love. Yes we do carry a karmic burden from life to life. Illness can be due to this life's choices and can be from previous life's choices eg illness and disease in children, mental and physical handicaps etc Again this is not a punishment - but the outplay of cause and effect and all works towards healing - healing our lovelessness and separation from God. When someone is a master of themselves and has dealt with their history they reincarnate even more quickly to come back and serve and be a light and example for others that they may also arise out of the suffering and know who they are in truth. Such is their love of humanity - for they know we are all on a return journey to God and no-one is left out - so they keep coming back to serve and help others awaken. So yes as you say they will be light -filled and the light will be shining through them and their focus is on service with love in all that they do, say and think! :-)

Eunice, so you're saying the victims of the Haiti earthquake deserved it?

Helio, no I am not saying that. Nobody 'deserves' suffering of any kind. What people 'deserve ' is love. However, what I am suggesting is that there is a bigger picture to all suffering and we are all intimately interwoven to all our experiences - however far fetched that may seem. It also includes a different understanding of death - that does not see it as a tragedy. There is more to it than I can say in a few lines but the principles would be that all is working towards healing - healing our separation from God/from love. HAve a train to catch so gotta go now!

Parrhasios

'tis I, Peter M, I had a little sign in trouble.

"(Note to anyone who may be concerned, while I am enjoying the services at my newish (still of-course Anglican) church, I am not an iota more inclined intellectually to accept a word of it)."

I take it you mean your new *evangelical* church? But what are they telling you Parrhasios? I do hope you are not being inflicted with talk of sincerity and commitment. I trust you're not having to endure protestations of undivided love for Jesus. I found that I never could quite reach those heights of devotion and have stopped singing, "Jesus, all for Jesus, all I am and have and ever hope to be."

Give him my heart? Personally I have found the fact that he accepts the occasional late remembered glance to be... what shall I say... good news.


Helio

I wasn't asking you to question your questioning. But let 'er rip anytime you feel like it. :-)

"I do not bring separation but unification based on the understanding that we are all equal, all the same, all have that essence of love and that it is by not choosing to live according to the ways of love that we mess it up"

You are beginning to sound like a self proclaimed prophet or Messiah. You do not bring anything except an opinion, same as me. All I was really asking was why it had to be dressed up in such flowery language which is not like normal English usage.

My main point was more to do with religions trying to envelope themselves in an air of holiness and superiority which is reminiscent of why religions of the past would not allow bibles in indigenous languages, why services were carried out in Latin (which after all isn't even the original language). My opinion is that it has more to do with obfuscation and creating an air of mysticism, both dishonest uses of language.

Your post originally sparked me off by words which did not exist, but then I found they had been invented fairly recently by another religion for exactly the reason I suspected.

I would ask again, if you want people to understand what your opinion is, and what your faith is all about, why not use the language that everyone uses everyday. Surely your faith cannot be devalued by using ordinary language. I don't mean not to use big words, I mean not using non English sentence constructs or invented words.

But Dave, how can cabbage be rendered in mere human language?

"how can cabbage be rendered in mere human language?"


Oh that's easy.


Enemy. Love. Your.


Now all we have to do is make a sentence.


Sometimes though, we find it hard to eat our greens.

Helio,
Lol, the point is it can be, but if you use flowery and invented language it might take longer for people to notice that it is, in fact, cabbage.

Dave, I would suggest that the use of the flowery language itself should raise your cabbage detectors to DefCon 7. Safety off. Ah well - maybe I've just sat through too many sermons. I guess my concern is that there is no quality control. Pastors, ministers and priests pay lip service to the "bible", and cherry-pick quotelets (just like that liar Matthew) to support their position, but there is no humility, no honesty, no thought and no core ethic. There are far too many ordained charlatans who get sheep-like adulation simply because some eejit has seen fit to slap "Reverend" in front of their name.

Dave: *You are beginning to sound like a self proclaimed prophet or Messiah. You do not bring anything except an opinion, same as me. *
I was simply addressing the point you made earlier about creating separation and explaining why the understandings that I have are not about creating separation but unification. I am not trying to create an air of anything nor am I trying to sound mysterious. I have endeavoured to share my understandings which are based on a combination of study and lived experience (not just thoughts/ideals/beliefs or faith) and which have a practical application to every day human life. I have endeavoured to explain what I mean by the terms I use. I share what I have learned because I know that there is tremendous suffering in the human condition and it need not be that way. Knowing that, I would like to bring what I have learned to others that they may escape their prisons and suffering. Blogging on here is just a tiny step in sharing my understandings to a wider audience. This is a new venture for me and I may mess it up from time to time by reacting to something or perhaps not expressing myself clearly or using language that is unfamiliar - and I apologise for that. I endeavour to learn through that and I take on board what you are saying re use of language and perhaps I should have stuck to known terminology to explain my points and not endeavoured to introduce new terminology. (On the other hand, perhaps it is good to introduce new terminology/concepts etc as it can provoke discussion and debate and perhaps challenge old ways or paradigms??) However, it is not done to sound superior or more holy or to confuse - none of those were my intention.

I know the human condition and I know that suffering is a reality for vast numbers of people. Man's inhumanity to man is tragic. Man's inhumanity/abuse to himself is tragic. What is even more tragic is it need not be that way. To my understanding the root of all of the above is our lack of love for self and other. That is simple, not flowery, no new terms and has been known for aeons. The ways of love were taught and demonstrated by Jesus 2000 yrs ago (and others along the way) - and yet where are we today?? Great technological advances, fly to the moon or wherever, super duper mind driven intelligence to build all sorts of machines including weapons of mass destruction (much better than a bow and arrow!) . Cancer is now 1 in 3, addiction/mental ill health, (depression/anxiety)/diabetes/obesity/violent crime/exhaustion etc etc all rising. Why has our super duper intelligence not solved these problems? Why are they getting worse despite all the technological advances that have been made in healthcare and our understandings of the human person??? Could it be that our mind driven intelligence has perhaps led us up the wrong path to some extent ?? Could it be that we have neglected or negated the wisdom of the heart, the wisdom of love?? Why is it that any talk of love is derided and dismissed as hippy/60's/flowery/cabbage etc yet it is what all human persons seek - including all you guys! And no doubt you are more than happy to use it in certain contexts! What I am proposing is that there is much more to love and the ways of love than what goes on in the bedroom - and I know some of you appreciate that. For me, it is the key to understanding the human person, the human condition, our suffering and healing. Our loveless emotional ways perpetuate all forms of human suffering and harm. Even if you think that is all cabbage - why not ask yourself - what if that is true??

I'll try again.

Eunice. Can you share your opinion of Scientology. I'm going to make a "Design Inference" and say that its too coincidental that you would have hit on many of their ideas AND terminology without encountering their writing at some stage of your life.

Not having a go, I find you very charming and likeable. And I think so say all of us. (Or most of us.)

GV

Helio,
I get your drift. Interesting that the latest cherry picking seems to be CoE about to allow the consecration of Bishops who are divorved and in a new marriage and also those married to divorcees.
Given the marriage vows are for life, their words not mine, and adultery is one of the 10 deadly sins I wonder what the next liberalisation will be. Any bets?

(BTW as an outsider, I welcome their decision as its quite a big nail in the coffin for some of their other prejudices)

Eunice,
I guess my problem is, apart from the one of language which I have stated, is that you feel the right to bring something to me and you imply that I who does not share your beliefs am inherently broken, or fallen and your teachings can free me from my prisons and suffering. It is an attempt to undermine someone's self worth by telling they are in some way broken and that you have the perfect solution. I regard that as proselytising and opportunistic. It is the hope that you can find someone who is troubled and drag them into your way of thinking, into your faith that I find one of the most reprehensible actions of any evangelism. You give false hope and if it doesn't work out, well god moves in mysterious ways !!.

Switch it round. If I were to intimate that you are delusional and in need of psychiatric care to rid you of your delusions I would quite rightly be castigated for disrespect of your right to believe what you like and for suggesting that you need to change, in return I have the right not to be told I am in torment just because I do not share your beliefs. I get quite enough of that on radio Ulster and around the place (I know William runs a tight ship and I am grateful for the balance he ensures (bows and scrapes), but we do have more than our fair share of people continually telling us how bad we are).

Please don't think this is personal Eunice, what I am saying I apply to most religious people to a greater or lesser extent, you should hear me rant at the radio when McIlveen or that eejit from the Caleb foundation comes on the radio, and don't start me off on McCausland.

Two things I hate flowery language and religious people telling me I am broken or fallen. Love the sinner and hate the sin, why can't they just love the sinner and let me worry about the actual sinning?

Eunice - i too have always enjoyed your comments.
When do u think we stop re-incarnating? I have never spoken with someone who believes in reincarnation (although i did see the dalai lama) - so i do find it fascinating. Do u think we get help from people who have already ascended? ( Cant help it i just love those irish stories about the daoine maith or the gracious/shinny ones.)

Eunice - i dont know if there is some unwritten rule about finding out someones identity on this site - so I am sorry if i have broken it. But i just had to google u - are u the eunice that has an internet dalai lama connection? (that would be too weird 'cause i wrote my last comment and after i put in the dalai lama - i just had to google..)
Dont even bother putting in a reply if u feel i have over stepped the mark. i will not mention it again.

Dave

"why can't they just love the sinner and let me worry about the actual sinning?"

Seems reasonable.

Indeed I often wonder if the 'hate the sin' mantra is little more than an opportunity for judgementalism.

I agree 2manypeters, it also allows those that use it to hate an inanimate thing, but not break the law by preaching hate against a human being.

Unfortunately when they preach in Africa they have no such constraints and torture, murder, hate speech, state sponsored execution, draconian prison sentences, suicides etc.. follow in the wake of their evangelising. They lit the blue touchpaper and retired to a safe distance. When confronted with their work they say, goodness me that's dreadful, we didn't mean that - at least not the killing part.

Here is a short series of videos discussing the impact of Evangelicals in Uganda. If you watch to the end invideo links will come up to the next part part and so on. I found it disturbing and very uncomfortable. I wonder what religious people make of it.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Hmmm, Dave must have said something profound! After the moderator has considered it further, could he let us know what insight he has gained?

Does that message mean someone complained about it?

GV - thank you for your comments! re*Eunice. Can you share your opinion of Scientology.*
I heard a talk once about it as part finding out more about other traditions. So what I know about it is based on that. It's a few yrs ago now so I can't recall all the points - but it is very mind focused, mind training of some sort - and for me it increases the separation from one's heart/love. As I have mentioned - the words I use and their meanings are from esoteric philosophy and there is no connection between esoteric philosophy and scientology. First I knew that livingness was in scientology was when Dave mentioned it. I doubt very much that there is in reality any similarity between esoteric philosophy and scientology as one is heart focused and the other mind focused.

Dave: I feel there has been a grave misunderstanding somehow and if it is because I have not made myself clear then I apologise for that. I am sharing on a blog about the generality of the human condition and not talking about you individually. I share my views as you and everyone else does - so the 'right' to do so is because we have subscribed to the blog as far as I can see and that we all have equal right in that.
More importantly, I know you and everyone else are not broken or fallen irrespective of what you/others believe - the opposite is in fact true for me. I have said that people can believe whatever they want and I have said a few times that people can accept or reject etc etc as they wish. I am certainly not here to undermine anyone's self worth and again the opposite is true - I am all about empowering people - and know it is their choice. I am not looking to find people to drag anywhere and I am not proselytising nor evangelising and I am definitely not in favour of either of those behaviours and am a bit shocked that you think I am. Is sharing one's views on here evangelising?? I do not give false hope and I do not use the line that 'God works in mysterious ways'.

I have not told you you are in torment and I would certainly not be telling you or anyone how bad you/they are - again it is the opposite - I have said more than once that man is love - nothing broken or bad there! I am not in any evangelical camp nor do I agree with their views or approach. I would not and have not called you or anyone a sinner and I would never do that for I know it is not true. For me sin as it is understood and used in the christian religion is to me very harming and cripples people with guilt. I have endeavoured elsewhere to give an alternative understanding of the word based on its original translation to mean 'miss the mark' as in when we dont act/speak/think with love. This is something that we all do and is just part of being human and is certainly not about judging or punishing or making people feel guilty in any way. I offered that explanation as an alternative to the traditional meaning of sin - but I dont subscribe to any use of the word sin/sinner myself - they are not part of my vocabulary and I only use them if under discussion or introduced by another where I try to break the meaning that has been given to the word.

I brought up suffering in general because it is a reality in the world and I think most people would agree with that. I was not implying or suggesting that you personally are suffering. Given that it is a reality for many people I was raising questions about it and suggesting that there could be a different way to do things, to understand things and to live. From my personal experience I have come to some understandings that for me were very empowering and liberating and transformative - I chose to share some of them on here not because I want people to join anything but as a possible alternative way of thinking/understanding about God/life/suffering etc given that this blog is concerned with these matters.

As I have mentioned, I am quite shocked at your response which says so many things that I fundamentally disagree with and am not in any way aligned with and for much of what you say I hold the opposite view. I am a bit baffled by your interpretation of what I have said as for me it is so far removed from where I am.

wedwabbit: thanks for your comments. I don't know exactly when we stop reincarnating as the more aware one becomes the quicker one comes back to help others. But at some point we do move on to higher planes!! To my understanding those that have ascended (ascended masters) do help us in many ways and much more than we realise. (master - as they have mastered themselves and life on earth - nothing to do with any favourites of God or special people as we are all equal. We can only advance ourselves through our choices )

Thanks eunice - was wondering what u think about "time"? (or indeed if anyone has some ideas on time).
Recently i was coming more over to the idea that some portion of time exists simultaneously - was wondering if u had any views on this?

Dave

I see the link you posted was removed. There is much about evangelicalism that bothers me, but, my Christianity falls within the broad evangelical family.

Criticism however doesn't bother me, indeed it is perhaps essential. Would it be possible to find another way to direct me to the web site?

In the past I have given addresses without making them 'live' or main pages and links, or google terms. I'd like to read what you refer to. I may not agree and I may debate you on the issue, but I see no reason to limit information.

Hi 2manypeters,

The title of the documentary is "Missionaries of Hate" and it was created and broadcast by "current tv" in the USA. It is fairly easy to find and access. I should warn you though that it is very hard hitting and leaves none of the worst aspects of the evangelism out.

I would be really interested by your reaction.

Hi Wedwabbit - don't think I have too much to say about time......can you expand on what your ideas are??

Eunice -
i wish i could if only i was a philosopher/scientist i could give u an answer. I just had a feeling that some portion/dimension of time exists simultaneously.
And then after that i was in a book shop and opened a page where it mentioned something about einstein thinking that maybe our perception of time was wrong and that time could possibily exist simultaneously.
(of course he could mean that say at 3.00 o'clock our time some entity 4 billion light years away was using a telescope and was looking at our planet when life was just beginning. And does this mean that some entity from another point in space at exactly 3 oclock our time could be watching our planet die??)
But besides that there is the theory of eternalism but i guess i think my "feeling" was nearer to the term Dharmadhatu. Though i guess there must be a christian/gnostic term 4 it and i was wondering what it was.
(and i guess there must a medical term, (besides madness) - has this perception got anthing to do with brain aging??)Anyone know??

oops hit post comment (on the last comment) without getting a chance to read it - i might not have sent it - as it might have re-read to absurd!!

Peter - # 76. Glad you are still with us.

They don't seem to preach what I would always have though of as sermons - the teaching content is simply extended Bible-study and so far so tolerable. It's the music I would excoriate, enduring that I can only think of as a penance! Have you encountered "Grace it seems is all He has and one big open heart"? I nearly choked. What planet was the guy who wrote that living on? What planet do you have to be living on to sing it?

David K

re Jesus and ‘hate’, a few thoughts:

(1) Context. Jesus has already set the context for the ‘kingdom’ he is speaking of, we call it the sermon on the Mount, it includes the comment, ‘love your enemies’. We also have the Jewish context of ‘honour your father and mother.’

(2) Cultural rhetoric.

(3) Don’t read verses, read the text. For example the clause, the introduction to the verses following, “Large crowds were travelling with Jesus”, is important.
Wouldn’t you want to ask, why they were following him? What were they expecting, what was it they hoped for. To know this we might also need to understand something of the historical, political and theological hope of Israel.
The comment which concerns you is a calculated comment. One could hardly accuse him of seeking an easy following.

(4)The meaning of the word hate. I expect you mean ‘malice’, ‘violent loathing’. Rather the word here means to consider one to be lesser than another. Jesus is claiming an allegiance and authority greater than that demanded by those around us and says that there may be times when we may have to consider those around us to be ‘lesser than’ him and his kingdom. In effect he asks, ‘When the crunch comes, when conflict arises, can you afford to put me and my kingdom first?’ (see 28 and beyond) It is a comparison of importance. Someone who claimed to be King sought subjects. (No less offensive, of course, in a democracy!)

(5)What is Jesus saying about himself? Are there any true disciples? (I'm not one) Did any really put God first? Did any ‘take up their cross’? Were there any subjects? What is Jesus claiming in the wider context of his comments about this kingdom?

I’ll save you the rest of the theology.