Interfaith Thoughts Requested

[JM Hardwick]

it echoes a simple script that I DO practice....

Trust no one.....question everything

am I a cynic?......yeah well....gulity
am I above judgment by God and heaven?......no
am I looking forward to a reward I think I have earned?.....

I'll be lucky if I can sneak in through the window

Sounds like you have weak faith.

 

[Thief]

Sounds like you have weak faith.

nay.....

I simply have no religion

 

[Windwalker]

Depends upon your definition of unity.

the state of being united or joined as a whole.
synonyms: union, unification, integration, amalgamation;
coalition, federation, confederation

Your own ego may be causing you to see things as animosity.

Which was the point I was making. To see differences does not automatically translate into animosity. That "us vs. them" mentality is an expression of ego. It is not however an expression of Love, which unites diversity as a whole, respecting the different parts. The Bible teaches a great deal about this, in 1 Cor in particular talking about all being members of the same body, while being a hand, or a foot, or an eye, etc. The ego has the hand saying to the foot, you are not part of the body because you are not a hand and look and function as I do. Example, "You're not a true Christian if you don't believe the Bible literally." That's an example of ego.

I’m no expert, but my elementary Google searches this morning tell me that Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism, “no ism” all involve dualism in one way or the other, because they all cause a person to have to make a choice.

Making a choice has nothing to do with dualism as I am talking about it. Dualism is a separation between this and that, between subject and object, between self and others, and so forth. But dualism which functions through Love as the Uniting Principle, holds diversity, hold this separateness, together harmoniously. It doesn't just do away with diversity in order to remove divisions (something many Christians try to do in forcing their beliefs on others). It rather celebrates diversity, honoring each as beautiful and true in their own uniquenesses.

Do I want to based upon what is taught, or do I not want to?

What is taught, and what is understood is a matter of perspective. What I hear in Jesus' words, for instance, may in fact not be what you are hearing. Same words, different contexts in which they are heard and understood.

But...what’s in a word, right? Wouldn’t want to go to Hell or whatever other negative dimension based upon a word.

Is salvation this tenuous for you that you have to believe correctly? To me, this completely misses Love.

 

[Curious George]

Curious George, as with pretty much everything that cannot be observed or reproduced, faith is required.
When someone has faith in something, it colors their interpretation of the thing.

All faith is not equal.

Even as an atheist, you have to have faith that God doesn’t exist, because you can’t prove it otherwise. Kinda hard to prove a negative.

proof by contradiction isn't that hard of a thing.

Axe Elf’s love of the Bible stems from his faith that what is written in the Bible is true.

I am not disputing that.

I totally agree with Windwalker that context is everything. If one is not familiar with and has faith in the overall story told in the Bible, and the many smaller vignettes used to further illuminate and/or explain the big picture, then confusion can set up regarding one or two scriptures here and there.

Faith in the Bible doesn't preclude confusion. More to the point, absence of faith in the Bible doesn't preclude understanding. And, most pertinent of all, absence of faith doesn't preclude one from correctly asserting something is incorrect.

 

[Curious George]

It is accessible to others. They just have to follow the injunctions in order to gain experience. Think of it like a novice saying to the Zen Master, "There is no Emptiness. I've never experienced it." If he instead follows the injunctions and does the necessary practices in order to have such a experience, then he is qualified to weigh in on it, but not before.

That one can be mistaken does not mean one is mistaken.

No, it's not like that. It's like saying though I'm now 50 years old, I have no idea what it was like to be 30, or 20, or 10. You don't suddenly develop amnesia. On the contrary, because you transcend and include what came before, your context is much larger than before when you didn't have that. I think saying experience illuminates understanding is the most accurate way to depict this.

Yes, yes and I can assure you that my method of thinking illuminates even more...you cannot see the issue here? Pee pee contests are usually not the way to truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t see your free inquiry as being co-opted. I see your frustration because you’re not spiritual.

I see things differently. And it seems to me that you're using the term "spirituality" in a different sense from the OP.

Spirituality is not some special, magical state of mind. It comes with the willingness and faith to believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God, and truth from cover to cover. It comes from searching the Bible for answers and using the Bible as the sole source for those answers.

The way you describe spirituality, becoming "spiritual" would mean throwing away my intellectual integrity.

 

[Audie]

My love of this Bible verse came up today in another thread. It is certainly one of my favorite verses of all time, if not my most favorite--and I think it applies across religions, even those that may not necessarily recognize a deity in the traditional sense. I would very much be interested to hear how it resonates with everyone else.

"But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him]." --1 Corinthians 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

I don't want to say too much about it myself, at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I don't think that it literally means to "try" everything, like heroin and bestiality and whatever else--but to put everything on trial, evaluate everything for yourself.

I'm listening...

Seems excellent advice, seldom followed.

What, btw, does "spiritual" mean? Never could figure that word out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My love of this Bible verse came up today in another thread. It is certainly one of my favorite verses of all time, if not my most favorite--and I think it applies across religions, even those that may not necessarily recognize a deity in the traditional sense. I would very much be interested to hear how it resonates with everyone else.

"But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him]." --1 Corinthians 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

I don't want to say too much about it myself, at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I don't think that it literally means to "try" everything, like heroin and bestiality and whatever else--but to put everything on trial, evaluate everything for yourself.

I'm listening...

You go, Axe Elf!

Here we see the opposite of what skeptics teach--true believers are questioning, rationalist, discerning--and misunderstood for "people of blind faith" by skeptics, who are barred (with a spiritual/metaphysical barrier) from understanding them.

 

[Fool]

My love of this Bible verse came up today in another thread. It is certainly one of my favorite verses of all time, if not my most favorite--and I think it applies across religions, even those that may not necessarily recognize a deity in the traditional sense. I would very much be interested to hear how it resonates with everyone else.

"But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him]." --1 Corinthians 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

I don't want to say too much about it myself, at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I don't think that it literally means to "try" everything, like heroin and bestiality and whatever else--but to put everything on trial, evaluate everything for yourself.

I'm listening...

mysticism


life is a journey, or a destination, eternal, or temporal. one is the beginning of an end. the other is an end to a beginning. the end is at the beginning.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

 

[Fool]

Seems excellent advice, seldom followed.

What, btw, does "spiritual" mean? Never could figure that word out.

mental

I found great synonyms for "mental" on the new Thesaurus.com!


From late 14c. in alchemy as "volatile substance; distillate;" from c. 1500 as "substance capable of uniting the fixed and the volatile elements of the philosopher's stone." Hence spirits "volatile substance;" sense narrowed to "strong alcoholic liquor" by 1670s. This also is the sense in spirit level(1768). Also from mid-14c. as "character, disposition; way of thinking and feeling, state of mind; source of a human desire;" in Middle English freedom of spirit meant "freedom of choice." From late 14c. as "divine substance, divine mind, God;" also "Christ" or His divine nature; "the Holy Ghost; divine power;" also, "extension of divine power to man; inspiration, a charismatic state; charismatic power, especially of prophecy." Also "essential nature, essential quality." From 1580s in metaphoric sense "animation, vitality."


be still and know god


for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Windwalker]

That one can be mistaken does not mean one is mistaken.

That one is unqualified to speak to something outside their own experiences, increases the odds of being mistaken substantially, especially when discussing with someone who does have experience with the area in question and they are speaking from a position of experience.

Yes, yes and I can assure you that my method of thinking illuminates even more...you cannot see the issue here?

Thinking without experience cannot illuminate more than thinking with experience to back it up.

Pee pee contests are usually not the way to truth.

The only one making it a contest are those at a marked disadvantage whose pride won't let them admit they don't know something. The one with experience doesn't need to prove anything to themselves. They already have the knowledge.

 

[Windwalker]

It depends on how you define love.

God is Love. Divine Love. Not emotions.

 

[Curious George]

That one is unqualified to speak to something outside their own experiences, increases the odds of being mistaken substantially, especially when discussing with someone who does have experience with the area in question and they are speaking from a position of experience.

That is begging the question.

Thinking without experience cannot illuminate more than thinking with experience to back it up.

Well now that is contingent on the thinker.

The only one making it a contest are those at a marked disadvantage whose pride won't let them admit they don't know something. The one with experience doesn't need to prove anything to themselves. They already have the knowledge.

I find this last sentence strangely permeating a distinct odor of urine.

 

[Windwalker]

That is begging the question.

How? Do you think someone who speculates vaccines are bad is as qualified to speak to that position as someone who is a scientist? Is the scientist "begging the question"? Here's a great article I refer to frequently that underscores that all opinions are in fact not equal: No, you're not entitled to your opinion

Well now that is contingent on the thinker.

I suppose that is true. If someone has experience but has no way to talk about it, no framework to work with, that puts them at a disadvantage. But having a solid framework, along with actual experience, that puts them at a far greater advantage than someone who just has a fancy argument.

I find this last sentence strangely permeating a distinct odor of urine.

It may stink to smell it, but how is it wrong?

 

[Curious George]

How? Do you think someone who speculates vaccines are bad is as qualified to speak to that position as someone who is a scientist? Is the scientist "begging the question"? Here's a great article I refer to frequently that underscores that all opinions are in fact not equal: No, you're not entitled to your opinion

It is begging the question because you are starting with the premise that they are not qualified. Interestingly, your article might help you.

I suppose that is true. If someone has experience but has no way to talk about it, no framework to work with, that puts them at a disadvantage. But having a solid framework, along with actual experience, that puts them at a far greater advantage than someone who just has a fancy argument.

All this talk about advantage and disadvantage. Then discounting the other as just possessing a "fancy argument." But what you are saying is that an unreasonable approach has the advantage over a reasoned approach because they have revealed knowledge whereas the reasoned person only has their mere attempts at knowledge.

It may stink to smell it, but how is it wrong?

Perhaps you missed my point. It seems to me that claiming one possesses knowledge and another does not is indeed making the issue a urinating contest.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

but it only takes a quick Google search to find the skeletons in the Buddhist closets.

You are right that Buddhists haven't always lived up to the teachings as they should have done. That is no fault of the teaching's. Humans are weak and subject to ignorance. A Buddhist should be the first in admitting we are not perfect.

“Us vs them” in the Christian’s eyes is “God vs the devil.” It is the only viewpointto have.

I'm not sure about that, even from your worldview's perspective.

The problem with dualism is there's no easy putting everything back together once you've divided it. That's why Buddhism tried to do away with dualistic constructs. Even potential ones like having an Atman.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

However, instead of "Us against them", why can't dualism be "Us AND them"? In fact, Unity, requires diversity. Uniformity, or "sameness" is not the same thing as Unity. Dualism does not have to be animosity. That's an expression of ego, not Love. Love can and does exist within dualism.

I think this is semantics, no offense. If you don't think there's a real division between self and other (IE: unity), it isn't dualism you believe in. Non-dualism has different degrees and views approaching it as well.

However, maybe you'd mind expounding for me more what you mean by unity and dualism.

 

[sayak83]

I don’t see your free inquiry as being co-opted. I see your frustration because you’re not spiritual. Spirituality is not some special, magical state of mind. It comes with the willingness and faith to believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God, and truth from cover to cover. It comes from searching the Bible for answers and using the Bible as the sole source for those answers.

When Jesus was at the well talking to the Samaritan woman he told her the following.

John 4:23-24 NIV
[23] Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. [24] God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Here He combines spirituality with truth. The truth makes no sense to those who are not spiritual. They read the words but never understand the meaning or the message delivered by those words. It’s not mystical, magical, or vaporous, but it does take courage to lay aside what you feel in your heart to make room for other feelings.

John 8:31-32 NIV
[31] To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. [32] Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Amen!

Spirituality exists outside of the Bible and does not require one to accept Christianity

 

[Janiemar]

My love of this Bible verse came up today in another thread. It is certainly one of my favorite verses of all time, if not my most favorite--and I think it applies across religions, even those that may not necessarily recognize a deity in the traditional sense. I would very much be interested to hear how it resonates with everyone else.

"But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him]." --1 Corinthians 2:15 (Amplified Bible)

I don't want to say too much about it myself, at this point, but I do want to make it clear that I don't think that it literally means to "try" everything, like heroin and bestiality and whatever else--but to put everything on trial, evaluate everything for yourself.

I believe maybe it is asking for a person to think of what it would be like, not necessarily to indulge in the life style, or action. Doing so without bias can lead to insight in which may allow for better understanding imo.

 

[Windwalker]

All this talk about advantage and disadvantage. Then discounting the other as just possessing a "fancy argument." But what you are saying is that an unreasonable approach has the advantage over a reasoned approach because they have revealed knowledge whereas the reasoned person only has their mere attempts at knowledge.

Not at all. I don't believe in "revealed knowledge". All I have ever said is that actual experience provides a context for understanding a thing that does in fact illuminate an understanding that those who lack that cannot take advantage of. In other words, they are in a disadvantaged position. They are out-contextualized. I don't believe in "magic knowledge", as you may assume since I speak of God. Rest assured, that's not the anthropomorphic notion of God I am speaking of.

Perhaps you missed my point. It seems to me that claiming one possesses knowledge and another does not is indeed making the issue a urinating contest.

No it's not. It's just simply stating the obvious. Ego only comes in when someone tries to exert their lack of experience as not a factor at all, rather than just taking the more humble position and say, "Yes, I can see my lack of experience is a factor." The one with experience doesn't need to prove anything to himself or others, and such accusations really smell of projection, assuming the other person is prideful, like themselves. Book knowledge is important, but when you add experience to it, then the person with experience is advantaged. It's not something to be prideful about. It's just acknowledging reality.