Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Reinventing the Sacred

Ellis: "I also do not think that service to humanity is a religion. I think it is service to humanity."

It's refreshing to hear things called what they most obviously are.

There seems to be a natural tendency for people who profess belief in a God of some sort, and who spend their lives thinking and doing accordingly, to view every aspect of life in a religious/theological/spiritual context, and to apply the related terminology to all things. To those who believe no God exists, and to those who aren't preoccupied in that way, the failure to call a spade a spade, and the apparent warping and stretching of meanings can be annoying and misleading. Unfortunately, however, distortions occur constantly in the evolution of language. Thus we have a definition of religion as:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion".

Really? Like an RSM's service in Her Majesty's Armed Forces?..."Watch ya 'P's and 'Q's laddie, he's an atheist, but he's a religious b------d!!"

Ellis, are you aware that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion? I understand Buddhists say: Existence is divine.

So I take it: Ellis is an atheist, but one who likes the divine architecture and music of the C of E, of which a wag once said: The C&E stand Christmas and Easter. BTW, many church members fit into the same category--Christmas and Easter Christians who go, when they do go, mostly for the atmosphere, the music and because they want to please the community, the family an friends.

Being of service to humanity is an essential component of Christianity.

Ellis, if you think religion is all about traditions, rites and rituals, what do you think John 3:16 is all about? "God so loved the world..." (You have probably heard and enjoyed the great anthem with those words. For example, the work of the great organist, John Stainer--chorus from, The Crucifixion, 1887) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stainer

Are you aware of Jesus' own words: "I am among you as one that serves..." Luke 22:27; and, "He that is greatest among you, let him be servant of all."

Jesus, a Reform Jew, called the members of his own Jewish religion--the ones who practised the rites and rituals of Judaism without being of service to one another, and the world--hypocrites.

Atheists, if Churchianity bores, does not impress you and even angers you, join the club and you will find me there. This is not a rhetorical question: In the spirit of dialogue, how much do you really know about the core message of Christianity?

BTW, I am not among those who say: Christianity is the ONE TRUE religion, which excludes all others. The kind of Christianity that I know, with it emphasis on being progressive, open-minded and inclusive, is very compatible with the core teachings of most of the world religions--Buddhism, Reformed Judaism, Hinduism and the moderate forms of Islam.

I say this without claiming that I really know all that they teach. For example, from my daughter-in-law I am learning a lot about Islam and the branch known as Sufism.
http://www.uga.edu/islam/Sufism.html

Rede-Thank you.

Rev- I do not like the Buddhist/Hindu theory of reincarnation, which I find a hateful thought if taken to its logical conclusion (ie. I am fortunate because Fate loves me, therefore I can with impunity ill-treat the poor as they are fulfilling their Fate by being miserable) or even worse, building up good deeds to mitigate the result of continuing selfish behaviour.

I do not and never have argued that you should change your belief. Why do you seek to change my lack of belief? If you really believe --"The kind of Christianity that I know, with it emphasis on being progressive, open-minded and inclusive, is very compatible with the core teachings of most of the world religions--Buddhism, Reformed Judaism, Hinduism and the moderate forms of Islam"-- then you should be able to understand that having no belief I would reject all expressions of religions that would necessitate the acknowledgment of the divine or even the supernatural.

And, finally, I have many friends who are Anglicans (Aussie C of E) and they derive much comfort from their worship. I do not know why you single them out to be so snippy about them.

ABOUT REINCARNATION--good information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

Ellis, I am saddened when any humane atheist, who expects to be accepted and understood as a moral and kind human being, stoops to offering false and twisted information about the beliefs of others, including reincarnation.

No believer in reincarnation that I have ever talked to would ever say: "I am fortunate because Fate loves me, therefore I can with impunity ill-treat the poor as they are fulfilling their Fate by being miserable or even worse, building up good deeds to mitigate the result of continuing selfish behaviour."

Whoever told you that all reincarnationists believe were wrong. They are just as wrong as bigoted Christians who say: All atheists have no morality? It is wrong to repeat wrong facts.
======================================================================================
Ellis. you comment, and then question me: "I do not and never have argued that you should change your belief. Why do you seek to change my lack of belief?"

ABOUT THE DIALOGUE PROCESS
If I ever gave you the impression that my goal is to covert you, it was never my intention. Nor is it now. My intention is to listen to your facts and then ask you to listen to mine. BTW, I give anyone, including myself, the right to be wrong about certain facts. I am a great believer that all changing of the mind comes from within. It must never be imposed from outside.

But, if you choose to continue to dialogue with me--and you have every right to stop--be prepared for me to challenge any of your "facts" which, IMO, are wrong. Even then, you do not have to agree with my opinion. You have the right to challenge me.

You write, "... you should be able to understand" ---I do understand and I agree that you do have the right to, "... reject all expressions of religions that would necessitate the acknowledgement of the divine or even the supernatural."
================================================================
Your final comment: "... I have many friends who are Anglicans (Aussie C of E) and they derive much comfort from their worship. I do not know why you single them out to be so snippy about them."

Snippy? I have heard many Anglicans, with a sense of humour, tell the same joke on themselves. It was not a disdainful comment, Ellis, it was a joke. If you don't like jokes, what can I say?

Lack of Belief; or Belief of Lack?

I'd sure agree with rejecting the necessity of acknowledging (by myself or anyone) a particular belief.

But what about accepting the need for others to have their particular belief acknowledged?

I find it much easier, even rewarding, to acknowledge other's beliefs, after translating their understanding into my own version of understanding the wonder of humanity, civilization, and the universe.

I fear this is an old ploy, a cop-out that has many objections philosophically; but it sure makes it easier to find analogies, parallels, and congruencies between the many varied religions and the many individualistic, athiestic or "process" worldviews.

For instance, it is easy to translate that "the divine or even the supernatural," into that 'creativity process' described by Stuart Kauffman in his book Reinventing the Sacred. (Now on my Kindle )

"Translating" also seems to lessen the tendancy for atheism to sound like an advocacy for belief in a lacking.

Ellis, if it make you feel better, you are most welcome to your "lack of belief". But I hope you do not lack hope...and, perhaps, belief in yourself.

"Translating" also seems to lessen the tendancy for atheism to sound like an advocacy for belief in a lacking.


Nice comment Sam. I have difficulty explaining to others exactly what I mean by a lack of belief, because some, as Rev has done in the post above, assume that I am a sad person, racked with self-doubt and full of misery. I am not! I think that this misunderstanding in some believers is because they themselves have such certainty and joy in their belief that to imagine life it without it is impossible.

Sam wrote:
I find it much easier, even rewarding, to acknowledge other's beliefs, after translating their understanding into my own version of understanding the wonder of humanity, civilization, and the universe.

I fear this is an old ploy, a cop-out that has many objections philosophically; but it sure makes it easier to find analogies, parallels, and congruencies between the many varied religions and the many individualistic, athiestic or "process" worldviews.

This is so much how I feel I'll stop trying to write anything else!

Ellis, now it is my turn to correct you: Because you told me this before now, I already knew your position. My comment was meant jokingly. This is why I added a

Ironically, many fundamentalist believers, depending on their pneumatological type--especially those who are very imaginative and sensitive--are often the ones who have a lack of joy. Some even lose their sanity.

Some strong Christians--for example, St. Francis of Assisi--feel terrible angst because of their failure to convince others, especially other members of their family that, unless they accept Jesus at their saviour and Lord, they are headed straight for hell. They call it: having a burden for sin-sick souls.

To feel the holy pain and sorrow of Jesus, St. Francis took on what is called holy stigmata. He developed open wounds in his hands, feet and side. BTW, isn't the fact of stigmata good physical evidence of the power of the spirit, over the mind, over the body? Nocebo--the opposite of placebo--does work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata

BTW, I could also say, jokingly, of course: When dullness, ignorance and lack of imagination is bliss, it is folly to be wise.

Here is a pertinent comment from an article by Catherine Deveny in today's Melbourne Age newspaper quoting Stephen F. Robert (about whom I know nothing)--he said-

"We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dislike all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours".

Ellis, I am not sure what Point SFR is trying to make. Were I to speak with him here is what I would say:

Stephen, as a unitheist I do not think about gods, or a single god called God. I speak of GOD--all that is good, orderly and desireable, and in the process of becoming. This concept is too large to be thought of as noun, certainly not a masculine one. To dismiss GOD you will need to be able to dismiss all that IS--all your senses perceive, and more.

Is any atheist able to accomplish this and give me the evidence?

This actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
For a while I thought of myself as an "Atheist", only because I didn't think my experience or beliefs fit into the box that religions or labels create. When I heard someone tell me their definitions of religion or God I would think to myself, "That doesn't apply to my experience tho there might be some things that are common to the knowledge and lack of experience.

In any trade in industry if you have what is called an apprentice and a Journeyman or Master tradesman, you delineate the Master from the apprentice by the idea of knowledge and experience.
In spirituality there are masters and then there are aspiring disciples to a master. Then there are self appointed theists who have followed the ranks of other self taught interpreters of God, and the labels ego uses to delineate or differentiate themselves from the other groups or labels. (Gives a different meaning to self realization. One is the ego self, interpreting itself with what it appears to know and experience, and the other refers to knowledge of the Greater self being realized in experience of all things)
As an Atheist (when I insisted I was an Atheist) I insisted I didn't fit within the boundaries of personal interpretations and labels of religion or theism. I thought Atheism was more universal in nature and without denying God of form or formlessness I wasn't going to define God in earthly terms to limit myself or my beliefs.
Now I don't really call myself anything, (tho I have a name that I use) what I preach has definition and form but only for convenience of conveyance do we speak of what we are and who we are, and of what we are connected to. Ultimately we all find our own way as we attach ourselves to definitions of personality, until we actually experience ourselves beyond personality.

So, the phrase "We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dislike all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours". actually reminds me of trying to remove ones self from definition in order to expand it beyond the confines of labels.

I could see where you would want to say what you thought was appropriate Reverend because it is important to you to separate your interpretations of God and yourself from what you interpret as different from you. This is what the ego does, protect personal domains of definition, pride, direction and purpose. Without definitions we become nameless and the thought of becoming something that we cannot define ourselves with is both terrifying and meaningless, to the ego.
So we create nameplates, and in dialogue compare and discuss so that we make sure our nameplates do not fall off or remove themselves we reaffirm our intentions and our nature, so we can stamp it even further into the personality and the psyche.

You know the old saying, you can't take it with you? It doesn't apply in death to the ego. It sticks with you and draws you back into the manifest to continue to weigh you down until you expand beyond the confines of labels and good intentions.

God is all that is Good, but then its all God and its all good.


I think if you were not sure what point he was trying to make, and not so self absorbed in what you think, that you might ask him what the point was that he had in mind.
You know the old saying about making assumptions.....

TT, when you call me "self absorbed" (sic), is this what I think it is--a flaming put down? If so, without knowing me well enough, is it fair for you to ASSUME that you know the full nature of my way of thinking?

Or maybe you think that being self-absorbed is a good thing. Is it?

BTW, my comment was to Ellis, not to SFR. (Keep in mind: because SFR does not post here, I could not ask him). My post was meant to be a fair comment to Ellis, on the debate between theists and atheists. I happen to feel there is another option, unitheism.org

I REFUSE TO PLAY THE FLAME GAME
Even if I enjoyed the flame-game approach (which I do not), TT, I don't know anyone in this forum well enough to be
personal with them and call them "self-absorbed", or whatever.

BTW, in the attempt to try and understand what your intentions are I just struggled through and read what you just wrote here and in the other thread. It could be my fault, but I found reading what you wrote a waste of my time.

If you want to play the flame-game--a game I refuse to play--may I suggest that you send me a PM. Or, my e-mail is in my profile. Then, if I feel I need your help to improve my way of thinking I will ask for it.

When you say someone is "pneuma" challenged is it a put down?
I don't judge you if you are self absorbed but you make the judgment that it degrades yourself by attaching yourself to the label. You prefer labels that are more ingratiating or those that add value to your sense of self. This is because you find something wrong in the world with certain aspects of God.
Is a child that hasn't learned to walk in its condition of not being able to walk a good or a bad thing?
It's all about perspective isn't it?

I know what you said. You said without knowing what he is saying you'd comment on what was said anyway. That is, being self absorbed.

I guess you aren't open enough to accept comment that is direct and to the point without making it personal.
Me, I don't have a problem regardless of whether someone knows me well enough for them to say what they think. I don't find it necessary to react to what others believe or think.
Unfortunately everyone who does, lives their lives by walking on egg shells. That is an unfortunate way to live. In fact I'd call that pneuma challenged...
I might be able to help you with that but then I might not. Sometimes there is no changing what was intended to be by desire and intention...free will and all....

Yeah that is the way people are when they are too timid to ask someone what they mean. It is much easier to make assumptions and then make a judgment that it is a waste of time in order to save face, rather than just ask. The self absorbed thing again...


No flaming was intended. I can't be held responsible for your interpretations nor do I choose to. Obviously you are not open to change or you would be less judgmental, reactive and self absorbed.

TT, I repeat: "If you want to play the flame-game--a game I refuse to play--may I suggest that you send me a PM. Or use my e-mail, which is in my profile. Then, if I feel I need your help to improve my way of thinking, I will ask for it."

I think I heard you the first time regarding your assumption that I was flaming you. But repeating the delusion still doesn't make it real for me, even tho it may help you reinforce your belief in being a flamed. Obviously, which is why I'm not offering it without your being cognizant of the need for help. I only said I could help, but then why would you believe me if you think I'm flaming you?

Kinda reminds me of the time of Jesus, when he made a comment to the pharisees that they were twisting scripture, and all they could think of was defending themselves by killing him. They never could see God in him or any possibility of growth beyond their own delusions. How could they, they were too self absorbed in their pride.

(Tho its all God, some have a very difficult time seeing God in all things, unless God happens to meet personal standards and expectations... its never too late to wake up tho...)

Hi, TT.

You make some very valid points. Points that probably indicate why so many people visit these 'God' threads, yet so few bother to post.

I certainly don't think that reading your posts is a waste of time, but I do think, paradoxically, that you have hinted at why you are mostly wasting your time posting them.

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it..

I just noticed this. Thanks for the ... apology?

I return the same compliment to you that you gave me, right after you gave your ... apology?

If this is what you meant, no doubt you will be able to translate the following as a compliment to you when I say, using your words, that I can't be held responsible for your interpretations nor do I choose to. Obviously you are not open to change or you would be less judgmental, reactive and self-absorbed.

Now we are both expected to be happily self-absorbed, judgmental and reactive. Isn't language wonderful?
====================================
Reminds me of Newspeak--the language used by the totalitarians in George Well's 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Me? I prefer Oldspeak.

BTW, as an experiment, I told my wife: "You know dear, recently I have found you very self-absorbed, judgmental and reactive."
Needless to say, until I explained to her what I was doing, she was not amused.

It wasn't an apology, it was a reply to the reaction you had when you read what I said.

It wasn't a compliment, it was comment in reference to you being self absorbed, judgmental, reactive and unwilling to change your reaction to contemplation and expansion, Or as I put it originally, "not open to change".

Well if you're happy being that way then that would explain the unwillingness to change. As for me, I don't subscribe to your delusion. I only make comment to it.

It can be very useful when it is understood objectively, without reacting to it personally.

When something is done or acted out not out of pure surrender to God's will, it usually contains the violence and ignorance of ego. I would imagine her intuition was telling her that what you said to her didn't come from the heart. But as an experiment she probably thought you were being childish and foolish. I also would imagine she was intelligent enough to move beyond the ignorance of the experiment, and to ignore the delusion since she wasn't as absorbed in it as you are.

TT admits:

Interesting. Not being in the blame-and-judgment game, I will leave it there and go on to other things.