Arm'

Am I a Christian?

LL&P

Spock

If you say so, you are!

Welcome to non-dogmatic Christianity!

Or should that read non-godmatic Christianity?

 hi qwerty,

i really don't want to start a huge fight or anything like that, hmm? it sounds like you're still a bit sensitive and ready to lash out when it comes to your schooling.

the first nations were a beautiful and sustaining culture. and we swept in and left them in shambles - alcohol problems, drugs and suicides have degraded their culture for almost a century, thanks to our meddling. 

but, you're right that doesn't make your problems or all the others you listed and better. the world is full of problems like that, you're right. but that also doesn't lessen the terrible acts of the residential schools, you know what i mean?

I've been a christian for many years without even having the inclination of looking at scripture any other way but literally.

As it turns out, in my opinion, one doesn't always have to share this same dogmatic veiw if this view is somewhat clouded in religious hype as being that which is the root of all evil, that which causes us to fall.

What really is our downfall is ignorance to our own role we have in God's plan.

I honestly believe fear has had a hey day it the distribution of the gospel it's a wonder why anyone will have an ear to listen to anyone ramble on about Jesus if He is just going to throw me into hell because I don't see His logic.

Who would want to be included in the "turn or burn" crowd?

I'd rather be included in the "look at what God has in store for us" crowd.

Bolt

It looks like you're constrained by the dogma of atheism.

Yes Starboy I know what you mean ...

I like that. I like what GOD has in store for HIS children.

Judging from this summer and last, it's another flood.  If you recall, the last one kinda sucked.

haha interesting comment. xD

Dogma is doctrine that is to be believed without question.  Atheists question everything.

Is God worth it?

You bet..................................to me and many others

I do not agree with your preamble statement. You blame all sort of stuff on god and relegion. Humans are imperfect creatures wether in church or not. As well other things are involved like quest for money, power, control etc.

God is in the wind,in the movements of the birds, in the day to day of this world. Some can see , some can hear ,others cannot for a multitude of reasons. But we are together building this creation for each other and for those yet to be.

Do you question the validity of atheism?

you took the words right out of my head spock! according to your logic... i am a free thinker. i also disagree with the notion, "I think, therefore I am". That is a dangerous parody.

Sure.  There may be something else out there, but we don't have any reason to believe that, and we have less reason to worship it, given we don't even know what "it" is, or if "it" is.

Simply not believing in God, Jesus, Ra, Thor, Wotan, Xenu, etc. is about all I can do.  To believe in any of them would be lying to myself.

Well, chansen, to some of us, spirtuality is not a doctrinal belief but an experience. An experience of cosmic synthesis, in fact.

Analysis contitutes a fragmentation of reality. In our everyday analytical consciousness, we experience reality in fragments. In meditative or trance states, on the other hand, we experience reality as a unitive whole in a state of synthesis. This, to many of us, is spiritual experience. And this kind of spirituality is entirely experiential and has nothing to do with unquestioning belief in doctrine. In fact, such a spirtuality is "beyond belief," and many people who are spirtual beyond belief are also sharp logicians and freethinkers. Spirituality and freethinking are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many scientific and mathematical discoveries have arisen intuitively or from meditative or trance states. The "Euraka!" moments of humanity arose, more often than not, intuitively, and were only subsequently explained by logic.

What part of it do you disagree with?

Arminius - as we don't fully understand how "intuition", or more precisely, subconscious thought actually works in relation to our conscious mind, you're making a leap of faith that our intuition doesn't work according to a logical process.

I could speculate that "intuition" is the subconscious mind's process by which it integrates massive amounts of data -- that our conscious mind is incapable of processing on its own -- and coming to "logical" conclusions ... as evidenced by the conscious mind's "post-intuitive" understanding and explanation.

Frankly - the fact that every intuitive "eureka" moment has been understood according to logical processes by the conscious mind, after the fact, suggests that my speculation better suits the observations than does a transcendent spirituality.

That said - maybe we are connected to the universe somehow - at the end of the day, we're just speculating.

The whole part. That is the EGO speaking, 'I think, therefore I am'. Whatever someone thinks, is not in fact who or what they are. I think that is where alot of religion gets mixed up. If you do not THINK a certain way and follow the rules, then you are a not true believer of the religion that THINKS its way to spiritual ascendance. I was speaking more on pyschological and emotional terms. Off topic but I found it interesting. 

I agree with jon for sure - it's easy to say that God and religion have been used for power, to enforce social norms, discrimmination, and much worse (and they sure HAVE through history and into today), but I think that is because of how people have used religion.  An egalitarian and inclusive interpretation of Christianity could promote churches that are really positive and non-judgemental, similar to many United Churches now.  Great insights there, starboy!

Hi Goodskeptic:

I lump intuition in with transcendental experience in which we, according to my speculations about my own transcendental experiences, experience reality or phenomena as a unitive whole in a state of synthesis. The analysis of phenomena is, of course, very related to the synthesis because in the analysis we analyze what is in an ultimate state of synthesis. In other words, analysis and synthesis are diametrically opposed and complementary ways of apprehending the same thing. In transcendental experience we apprehend it directly, as is, in its actual, synthetical state; in the analysis we fragement the synthetical whole into its component parts and apprehend it as we think it is. 

But all of this, too, is speculation. In the end we are, as you said, just speculating.

But the trsanscendental or "spiritual" experience can add feathers to the learned's wings, as Shakespeare contends:

So oft have I invoked thee for my muse,

And found such fair assistance in my verse,

That every alien pen hath got my use,

And under thee their poesy disperse.

Thine eyes that taught the dumb on high to sing,

And heavy ignorance aloft to fly,

Have added feathers to the learned's wings,

And given grace a double majesty.

Yet be most proud of that which I compile,

Whose influenec is thine, and born of thee:

In others' works thou dost but mend the style,

And arts with thy sweet graces graced be;

But thou art all my art, and dost advance

As high as learning my rude ignorance.

-William Shakespeare

The statement "I think, therefore I am" was intended to be read "I think, therefore I know I am" and is a true statement in that it establishes, without contradiction, that as a thinking person, you exist in existence. If you doubt existence exists, you're thinking about it, and therefore establishing yourself as part of existence.

It has nothing to do with how your thoughts define who or what you are. It is simply a philosophical axiom on which further thinking and reasoning is established.

 goodskeptic - thanks for explaining that. xP i appreciated that.

 I once read a very good book that explains this better than you and in opposition of your wonderful definition. Its a very good read. And Goodskeptic, I suggest you take a peek at page 81. 

books.google.ca/books

I tried following the link - most of the good pages appear to have been omitted. Care to post some passages? From what I was able to read, the author makes a number of a rather questionable (in my opinion) claims with respect to a proposed separation between "thinking" and "awareness". He points to Descartes and says that "I think therefore I am" was meant to relate an identification of "being [human]" to thinking. While I agree that human nature is fundamentally tied to volitional consciousness (the choice to think or not to think) - Descartes statement was not (as I understand it) meant to be a comment on human nature. Rather, it is meant to serve as a philosophical foundation for which additional "truths" could be developed. The statement establishes that we as human beings exist in existence as evidenced by the fact that we're aware that we're thinking about our existence...

Our conceptual awareness is, of course, based on analytical and conceptual thinking. Animals or human babies, although fully conscious, don't think in terms of concepts and don't interpret reality according to a conceptual framework that they took over from their socializers.

Conceptualization sets us humans apart from animals. Would anything exists if we didn't conceptualize it? Of course it would, but conceptualization brings it into conceptual awareness and thereby makes it conceptually real. In our conceptual awareness, something that we don't conceptualize does literally not exist.

That's why it is so beneficial to delve into the pure, unconceptualized experience, as in meditation. Then we experience reality not as we conceptualize it but as it really is!

But if we experience something wonderful in that state, and subsequently interpret it to ourselves and others, we still have to rely on conceptualization.

Is there no way out of the conceptual trap?

Creative imagination or conceptualization can be a way out. Thinking outside conceptual constraints; thinking outside the box. Not just using the concepts we took over from our socializers and our culture but creating new ones. Being not just imitators of old concepts but also creators of new concepts.

What do you think?