Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.

[heretic888]

But some people use 'faith' to give their life meaning, to lead them in how to make choices, to comfort them in times of need. There is nothing inherently wrong with having faith, or even with using it as an explanation. It's just not particularly convincing to those that don't share it.

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with people using 'faith' of one form or another to find meaning and solace in their lives. I myself do this.

What I do have a problem with is when people use 'faith' as smokescreen. I have a problem when people use 'faith' as a crutch to not bother dealing with reality or, even worse, using 'faith' as a justification for rather immoral actions.

'Faith' in the what the individual believes is unknown can be a wonderful thing. But spitting in the face of known facts because your 'faith' would have you believe otherwise is just a smokescreen.

Which belief systems whould you deeem tepid? Curious...

Any one that refuses to deal with reality by interjecting it with 'faith' instead. 'Faith' in and of itself is not a bad thing, but using it as an excuse is.

I personally feel that 'faith' should suplement known facts, not try and deny their existence.

Herrie, Robertson, Random and Pete - I know only one of you personally - and you can be as obstinate as the first two listed, you know - but I feel like I have a little insight as to each of the rest of you, having jousted with you all for the past few months. Name calling? Trite. You are - all four of you - well-read and able to present your thoughts in a cogent, concise and compact manner when you want to. I'm disappointed to see arguing when there's more that you all can share with the rest of us.

The only "name calling" I can seem to recall was by Pete, the same one who used his "faith" as an excuse for not dealing with observable facts.

Herrie, You keep reminding me that I stray from the Ten Commandments in some of my replies, and you're right, to a point. Perhaps it's because I view them as guidelines, as I've stated previously, and I also view the teachings of my religion as whole cloth, not patches forming the whole. I also don't see - especially after reading some of the ripostes herein - where one can take anything at face value. It's just not that simple.

Sure it is. The people that formulated these moral rules intended them to be that --- rules. They intended them to be laws for the Jewish people to follow in their day-to-day lives, not suggestions or guidelines for how they might want to consider behaving. And, as with any laws, there were repercussions for disobeying them.

Now, you are free to view them as more loose guidelines if you so wish. And, I think that is a good and noble thing. But, I'm not going to pretend that that was what they were intended for --- or used for historically.

Laws, of course, change with the times. As do their interpretations. This is a result of social evolution, not deciphering "hidden meanings".

You can cite history til you (and Robertson) are blue in the face. Don't you believe that civilization has evolved - and bettered itself in the past two millenia? Don't you believe in the basic goodness of humanity when given the chance?

Uhhhhhh... sure. But, that just does more to prove my position that the Ten Commandments have changed as a result of cultural evolution, not of people "figuring out" some "hidden meaning" behind the literal text.

Now, don't get me wrong --- there are some parts of the Bible I think should be intepreted metaphorically or symbolically. But, cut-and-dry prescriptive laws ain't one of them.

Someone once wrote that there are only about 5 or 6 storylines which exist, and everything else is an embellishment on them. That's my point - moral code exists within all religions. It's humans who f*%# it up.

A rather meaningless assertion, considering its humans who created them in the first place. Moral laws are social constructions, after all, and perpetually reflect the cutlure of the time.

This, again, assumes some kind of hidden "original intent" by the creators of the law who suprisingly just happened to see things the ways us moderns do --- slavery is bad, all people should be treated equally, women should have an equal say in society, wars are nasty, laws shouldn't be so strict --- none of which, of course, is actually evident in the text themselves. And, none of which, of course, was actually being put forward until society reached the point were these beliefs were publicly held.

Kinda like how no one thought Genesis mentioned the Big Bang until physicists told us what the Big Bang is. I'm sure new "truths" and "morals" will be read into the Bible into the coming centuries, as well.

hey herrie... time to order some more kettles...

Oh, look. More insults and personal attacks, along with the perpetual refusal to deal with rational objections or historical observations. All thanks to the smokescreen of an ethnocentric and biggoted 'faith'. Delightful.

 

[heretic888]

History, as Herrie is using it, merely buttresses his argument that we're all barbarians with no redemption in sight (I take some license in condensing your thoughts, sir). He, like you and a few others, accuse certain people of continuing to be aggressive and warlike in spite of the admonition by their faith(s) to be otherwise.

*raises eyebrow* :idunno:

The hell?! Where did you get that from??

Where, in my constant referencing to social and cultural evolution, and the notion that us seeing things in a less concrete-literal and absolutistic light is a moral innovation of modernism could you possibly get the notion that I think humanity are "a bunch of barbarians"?!

 

[pete]

herrie, i didn't realise you'se heathens were so thinskinned. oops, there i goes again with that dang name-callin... now where was it that i did it before... oh yeah, must have been somewhere between my last attempt at a joke (prefixed by lol) and you puttin' words in me mouth... yeah, now i see hows ya operates.

anywho, good to see that even you realise the difference between facts and your "historical observations"... or do ya now? seems like you come up with a lot of "observations" that cannot stand as proofs, but not much in the way of "fact" that would dis-prove anybody's faith...

now, back to my regular schedule of bigotted smokescreen, crutches, and immoral actions...

but first a word from our sponsor...

 

[PeachMonkey]

History, as Herrie is using it, merely buttresses his argument that we're all barbarians with no redemption in sight (I take some license in condensing your thoughts, sir). He, like you and a few others, accuse certain people of continuing to be aggressive and warlike in spite of the admonition by their faith(s) to be otherwise.

KT,

I definitely think you've taken a lot of license in how you condensed Heretic's thoughts I think you might even be projecting...

I've never heard Heretic identify the details of his religious/spiritual beliefs, but I'd certainly argue that he has lots of faith in the ability of humanity to grow, learn, and evolve over time. I think this is made clear by his insistence that we not maintain any illusions about the tenets of faith being altered over time as people grow.

Heretic has an excellent knowledge of the history of religious belief; don't make the mistake of confusing that for a heavy-handed indictment of religion itself. I think, in fact, his position on spiritual behavior is far more open-minded than my own

I absolutely accuse people of maintaining behavior in direct opposition to the admonition of their faith(s); history cannot help but bear out this argument. People (including atheists like me) are inherently hypocritical.

 

[Andrew Green]

What I do have a problem with is when people use 'faith' as smokescreen. I have a problem when people use 'faith' as a crutch to not bother dealing with reality or, even worse, using 'faith' as a justification for rather immoral actions.

But that is kind of one of the main purposes of faith in history, and today.

How do you unite a people?

How do you get them to not feel guilty about going to war and killing people just like them?

You got to dehumanize the other guys. Create a common enemy to unite against.

A good case could be argued that the Christian church served pretty much as a militaristic, expansionist dictatorship for much of the middle ages. The Pope of course being the Dictator.

Kinda like the Borg Assimilate or be exterminated. Right up until fairly recently even, survivors of the Residential schools are still around.

A big smokescreen to hide what was really going on and get people to do things they other wise might not have done.

Pretty harsh on anyone that might stray from there path too... Babtisms done at threat of death to ones family, the inquesition, the crusades... A good example of that. How do you convince that many people to go to war for that long ?

 

[heretic888]

anywho, good to see that even you realise the difference between facts and your "historical observations"... or do ya now? seems like you come up with a lot of "observations" that cannot stand as proofs, but not much in the way of "fact" that would dis-prove anybody's faith...

Oy vey. I could barely make sense of that.

If you actually want to discuss the subject, Peter, it might help to bring up specifics and not just dole out sweeping generalizations and vague allusions.

I don't seem to recall, however, attempting to "disprove" anybody's "faith" --- considering faith is an emotional quality that really cannot be disproven.

I definitely think you've taken a lot of license in how you condensed Heretic's thoughts I think you might even be projecting...

I've never heard Heretic identify the details of his religious/spiritual beliefs, but I'd certainly argue that he has lots of faith in the ability of humanity to grow, learn, and evolve over time. I think this is made clear by his insistence that we not maintain any illusions about the tenets of faith being altered over time as people grow.

Heretic has an excellent knowledge of the history of religious belief; don't make the mistake of confusing that for a heavy-handed indictment of religion itself. I think, in fact, his position on spiritual behavior is far more open-minded than my own

I absolutely accuse people of maintaining behavior in direct opposition to the admonition of their faith(s); history cannot help but bear out this argument. People (including atheists like me) are inherently hypocritical.

Thanks for the kind words, peachmonkey. :asian:

But that is kind of one of the main purposes of faith in history, and today.

That may traditionally be one of the main usages of "faith", but its still an usage I do not respect or condone.

I personally tend to not like the word "faith", because of the aforementioned nasty implications it often haves. Concepts like "awe", "wonder", "humility", and "inspiration" are preferable, IMO.

Laterz.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Thanks for the kind words, peachmonkey.

No problem

That may traditionally be one of the main usages of "faith", but its still an usage I do not respect or condone.

I personally tend to not like the word "faith", because of the aforementioned nasty implications it often haves. Concepts like "awe", "wonder", "humility", and "inspiration" are preferable, IMO.

Agreed.

One of my primary causes of discomfort with many Western religions, at least as practiced currently, is their emphasis on acts of "faith" in this fashion, rather than focusing on compassion and empathy.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Peach and Herrie,

My position may contain some projection. I tend to do that - ask Pete. I go on the defensive the moment my people are having pot shots taken at them. And, I choose to believe that we have evolved to the point where we are able to discern right from wrong. As I've stated elsewhere, I cannot discuss my people and their on-going struggle to survive in an unemotional manner. In fact, I will usually not engage in discussion of mid-East politics involving Israel for just that reason. I cannot see it in a rational and unemotional manner. Nor can I undo what's been done. I can only support them. Therefore, I will react as I have been, with no rational explanation. It's who I am.

 

[heretic888]

Meh. No worries.

 

[heretic888]

I've never heard Heretic identify the details of his religious/spiritual beliefs

Since this was brought up, I suppose I'd better elucidate. Without getting too much into the particulars, I hold to a vision of the Perennial Philosophy based in large part from the writings of Ken Wilber (among other things):

1. Spirit exists.
2. Spirit is found within.
3. Most of us don't realize this Spirit within, however, because we are living in a world of "sin", separation, and duality --- that is, we are living in a "fallen" or illusory state.
4. There is a way out of this "fallen" state of "sin" and illusion, there is a Path to our liberation.
5. If we follow this path to its conclusion, the result is a Rebirth or Enlightenment, a direct experience of Spirit within, a Supreme Liberation, which ---
6. marks the end of "sin" and suffering, and which ---
7. issues in social action of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings.

The particulars of these seven points are discussed here: http://www.becomingme.com/timeless_wilber.html

Laterz.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Since this was brought up, I suppose I'd better elucidate. Without getting too much into the particulars, I hold to a vision of the Perennial Philosophy based in large part from the writings of Ken Wilber (among other things):

1. Spirit exists.
2. Spirit is found within.
3. Most of us don't realize this Spirit within, however, because we are living in a world of "sin", separation, and duality --- that is, we are living in a "fallen" or illusory state.
4. There is a way out of this "fallen" state of "sin" and illusion, there is a Path to our liberation.
5. If we follow this path to its conclusion, the result is a Rebirth or Enlightenment, a direct experience of Spirit within, a Supreme Liberation, which ---
6. marks the end of "sin" and suffering, and which ---
7. issues in social action of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings.

The particulars of these seven points are discussed here: http://www.becomingme.com/timeless_wilber.html

Laterz.

Hmm. I don't consider myself as 'fallen' -- then again, with women that carries a dual meaning.

Since Wilber is postulating that one exists in a fallen state of sin and illusion, and the only way out is to follow the path to enlightenment, which marks the end of sin and suffering, I would like to know:
1) Is one born with sin, as I think some of the Catholic religions believe, according to what Wilber says?
2) Can one be absolved of his/her sins prior to finding the path and reaching enlightenment?
3) What, exactly, does he see as enlightenment? Death, apparently, since he also speaks to being reborn, and, in a literal sense, one must die to be reborn.

Yes, I know you posted the citation to look it up, but I can't right this moment (however, I will read it - promise), and I'm interesting in your interpretation anyway.

 

[heretic888]

Kenpo tiger, even though you said you didn't have time at the moment to read the interview I linked, I would really suggest you do so.

But, to answer your questions:

1) "Sin" was used as a metaphor (which is why I put it in quotation marks). I suppose you could say one is "born with sin", in the sense that one is born with a separate-self sense of some kind, into the world of samsara and duality. It doesn't have the moralistic connotations you seem to be implying, however.

2) Once again, as Wilber points out in the interview, "sin" is not something the self does --- it is something the self is. "Sin" or "hell" or "purgatory" are metaphors for the state of separaton, duality, and "illusion"; called samsara in Buddhism and maya in Hinduism. It is a state inherent with exclusive identification with the separate-self sense (in which case, metaphorically speaking, one experiences as being "separated" from "God").

3) Enlightenment is defined as the death of exclusive identification with the separate-self sense, which is experienced as an actual "death" (since the ego, in a sense, literally "dies"). Wilber gives both Eastern and Western examples of this. This is explained in the interview I linked.

Hope I clarified myself. Laterz.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Okay Herrie. I promised I'd read the link, and I have just done. Basically, I did grasp what was being said without reading the entire interview simply from what you stated in your post. I found a couple things interesting:

1) "In Judaism it is called the ruach, the divine and supraindividual spirit in each and every person, and not the nefesh, or the individual ego. Your ruach, or ground, is the Supreme Reality, not your nefesh, or ego."

2) "Like any experience--a sunset, eating a piece of cake, listening to Bach--one has to have the actual experience to see what it's like. But we don't therefore conclude that sunset, cake, and music don't exist or aren't valid. Further, even though the mystical experience is largely ineffable, it can be communicated or transmitted... You yourself try it, and compare your test results with others who have performed the experiment. Out of this consensually validated pool of experiential knowledge, you arrive at certain laws of the spirit-at certain "profound truths", if you will."

To address the first. I find it interesting that he cites Judaism as a primary example of divine spirit in people - and he references it later on in the interview as well (I've cobbled together those portions.) We are taught - at least I was - that G-d exists within our spirit as a concept (my interpretation also). So that's not all that far from what Wilber is saying, just a bit less elegant way of expressing it. He sounds almost Freudian/Jungian in his approach to the self.

The second idea I quoted interests me as well. I am a musician and can hear music in my mind. I'm able to 'translate' it to an instrument, be it my voice or one of the other instruments I play, and you can listen and hear what I'm thinking/hearing. Now, that is my interpretation/translation. Does that mean that your experience of it is the same as mine? Hmm.

All in all, a interesting read. Thank you. (You see I keep my promises. )

 

[heretic888]

I find it interesting that he cites Judaism as a primary example of divine spirit in people - and he references it later on in the interview as well (I've cobbled together those portions.) We are taught - at least I was - that G-d exists within our spirit as a concept (my interpretation also). So that's not all that far from what Wilber is saying, just a bit less elegant way of expressing it.

Yup. And, to think, he didn't even bring up the Kabbalah.

I am interested in this "G-d exists within our spirit as a concept". What do you mean by that, exactly??

He sounds almost Freudian/Jungian in his approach to the self.

Errr... partially. Wilber borrows heavily from both Freud and Jung, but his ideas also come from other sources (like Piaget and Maslow, among others). I will say this, though: Wilber does use a lot of Freudian terminology (sometimes in a different way than Freud did) when explaining his metaphysics.

The second idea I quoted interests me as well. I am a musician and can hear music in my mind. I'm able to 'translate' it to an instrument, be it my voice or one of the other instruments I play, and you can listen and hear what I'm thinking/hearing. Now, that is my interpretation/translation. Does that mean that your experience of it is the same as mine? Hmm.

Well, what Wilber is talking about is that you can't "really know" what that song is like unless you hear it yourself. Someone just telling you what it sounds or feels like would be inadequate.

In regards to your querry, I would say that the experience is basically the same for most people (due to a relatively shared objective reality), but that different individuals intepretet that experience in different ways (which can be a lot more damn complicated than it sounds). Myth of the given, and all that.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[kenpo tiger]

I am interested in this "G-d exists within our spirit as a concept". What do you mean by that, exactly??

Errr... partially. Wilber borrows heavily from both Freud and Jung, but his ideas also come from other sources (like Piaget and Maslow, among others). I will say this, though: Wilber does use a lot of Freudian terminology (sometimes in a different way than Freud did) when explaining his metaphysics.

Where d'ya think Piaget and Maslow got their ideas? They just took what was originally stated and refined it, making certain things more specific to certain groups. (It's a very long time ago and I'll have to pull out my Psych texts!)

G-d exists within our spirit as a concept. That is what I was taught in Hebrew school. There is no representation of G-d given to us. If you've ever been in a synagogue, there is ornamentation (depending upon how glitzy the congregation is) but no images of G-d. That's because, I was taught, that G-d exists within us and is defined by who we are as individuals. Pretty progressive for late 50s-early 60s, huh. Well, I'm a Reform Jew, which is a sect of Judaism most of the others consider might as well be Christian. *sigh* Even the Reconstructionist movement looks at us like that. Personally, my interpretation of what I was taught is that since G-d created us in his (sic) own image, then the way I communicate with G-d is through my own actions and the way I live my own life. I don't need to go into a specific building to talk to G-d, nor do I need someone to run interference for me (like a rabbi). I also don't necessarily need to agree with what G-d does all the time. (Now who sounds like a heretic?) That's as far as I'm taking this. You want to discuss? PM me.

 

[heretic888]

Where d'ya think Piaget and Maslow got their ideas? They just took what was originally stated and refined it, making certain things more specific to certain groups.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a sec.

Piaget and Maslow were surely influenced by Freud, no doubt (hell, who wasn't?). But, don't mistake that as just "building upon" what he said (and refining it), as it could be argued that people like Jung and Adler did.

Piaget and Maslow were essentially putting forth very different ideas and concepts than Freud, even though they were both strongy influenced by his work. I don't think you'll find much about self-actualization, peak experiences, or formal-operational cognition in Freud's writings, y'know? :asian:

 

[heretic888]

G-d exists within our spirit as a concept. That is what I was taught in Hebrew school. There is no representation of G-d given to us. If you've ever been in a synagogue, there is ornamentation (depending upon how glitzy the congregation is) but no images of G-d. That's because, I was taught, that G-d exists within us and is defined by who we are as individuals. Pretty progressive for late 50s-early 60s, huh. Well, I'm a Reform Jew, which is a sect of Judaism most of the others consider might as well be Christian. *sigh* Even the Reconstructionist movement looks at us like that. Personally, my interpretation of what I was taught is that since G-d created us in his (sic) own image, then the way I communicate with G-d is through my own actions and the way I live my own life. I don't need to go into a specific building to talk to G-d, nor do I need someone to run interference for me (like a rabbi). I also don't necessarily need to agree with what G-d does all the time. (Now who sounds like a heretic?) That's as far as I'm taking this. You want to discuss? PM me.

Hrmmmm.... your view of "G-d" sounds very existentialistic. Almost like a neo-deism.

Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting food for thought. :asian:

 

[kenpo tiger]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a sec.

Piaget and Maslow were surely influenced by Freud, no doubt (hell, who wasn't?). But, don't mistake that as just "building upon" what he said (and refining it), as it could be argued that people like Jung and Adler did.

Piaget and Maslow were essentially putting forth very different ideas and concepts than Freud, even though they were both strongy influenced by his work. I don't think you'll find much about self-actualization, peak experiences, or formal-operational cognition in Freud's writings, y'know? :asian:

Refining is one thing; building upon is very much another. Freud was just too hung up on mommie dearest to see past it. I also don't know that Jung or Adler 'built upon' Freud's writings. I kinda like Jung's archetypes. Also the concept that you could be creating those around you and they exist only because you do. Kind of like G-d...

 

[heretic888]

I also don't know that Jung or Adler 'built upon' Freud's writings.

Yup. Sure did.

Y'see, there are currently about four or so major "schools" of psychology: 1) Skinnerian behaviorism, 2) Freudian psychoanalysis, 3) Rogerian humanism, and 4) transpersonal psychology (representing a variety of folks ranging from Grof to Wilber --- who, curiously enough, no longer identifies himself with the transpersonal crowd).

Humanistic and transpersonal psychology usually get "lumped" together by most folks who don't know better, and are collectively referred to as "third force" psychology (as opposed to behaviorism or psychoanalysis).

In any event, Maslow is claimed by both the humanistic-existential and transpersonal schools, but not by them silly psychoanalysts. Jung, on the other hand, is most definately a psychoanalyst. Piaget was definately influenced by Freud, and probably falls moreso into the psychoanalytic school (although there are clear parallels with the humanistic approach, i.e. Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

Most of the "cognitive scientists" and neuropsychologists today are built strongly upon the materialistic claims of behaviorism.

Anyways, laterz. :asian:

 

[raedyn]

wow, it's like flashback to first year psych class...