posted
Okay. Neurotransmitters (such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine) are only sent a short way, talking to only a few neurons at a time. Hormones, however, are broadcasters that are sent out all over the body and received by cells that are "tuned in" for that particular hormone.
Hormones can influence neurotransmitters and vice versa. Such as the influence of high estradiol and progesterone on the serotonin 3 receptor (5-HT3), which is responsible for nausea--causing fluctuations in how much 5-HT3 is released by those receptors.
Hallucinations occur during periods of increased activity in the thalamus, hippocampus, and parts of the cortex--including the auditory cortex, responsible for hearing.
The hippocampus is largely responsible for influencing the release of stress hormones (as part of the limbic system, also including the hypothalamus and amygdala, among other things). These hormones, such as cortisol and ephineprhine (adrenaline) are good in short bursts and actually aid in memory formation and ability to use working memory. However, prolonged stress builds up cortisol and has a detrimental effect on memory, both short and long term. Stress and exciting events bring about the burst of cortisol and epinephrine (and norepinephrine from the locus coreulus). Norepinephrine aids the prefrontal cortex in alertness and judgement and delayed task response. Epinephrine triggers the vagus nerve and sends this sensory/emotional information to the amygdala.
Emotions are behaviors triggered by feelings trigger by sensations and neurological interpretation of those sensations (dangerous or not? pleasurable or not?) Areas of the brain affected by emotions is a small area of the prefrontal cortex, the cingulate gyrus, and the angular gyrus (and the rest of the limbic system)...
I digress. What I'm say is that the brain is a fascinating and incredibly complicated organ. If parts of the brain receiving sensation are falsely activated, the other parts of the brain connected to it will respond accordingly, false stimulus or not (this is why we say that feelings associated with delusions/hallucinations are valid, despite the psychotic origination of the stimulus). If Andrea Yates is having auditory hallucinations, is delusional, the commandments in her brain that she hears (though we do not) are very real to HER, and her brain and body will react accordingly, especially if the stressful situation continues. If it does, then the affect on her judgement will continue to increase and ability to reason will deteriorate.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I think your response is perfect. I would only add to it that even taking the time and place of the questioners into account, two people will seldom, if ever, be asking he same question.
posted
Thanks for the info, Mack. I think a lot of my frustration comes from responding to something that is no longer happening instead of responding to what is happening.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have trouble imagining that God would allow a demon to "influence" people in this manner, when He Himself considers free agency to be of primary importance. If He won't talk to people because He thinks it eliminates their free will, why would He allow a demon to do so?
I think God's influence and Satan's influence are both there, and people can choose to listen to whichever appeals most to them. When someone is very close to God or if God has a specific reason for it, He will speak to that person, either Himself, or through a messenger. If someone is already under Satan's influence, then they might actually hear him or those who work for him.
In my mind, that allows for free will. As people get closer to one or the other, they are more receptive to it.
Edit to add a reference from Book of Mormon:
2 Ne. 2: 16
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act• for himself. Wherefore, man could not act• for himself save it should be that he was enticed• by the one or the other
posted
Dan, I like the way that you expressed that, but I think that it, as well as most of the other posts on this thread, ignores a very prevelant use of religion as a sort of "get out of justifying free" card. edit: In regards to your way of expressing it, I think that it's important to at least acknowledge the possiblity that the answers that each person gets back contain a dose of their own human failings and are not a pure message from the divine.
Far too often, religion has been used as a support for the worst of human nature. Even more often, in my opinion, it has been used as a support for the laziest of human nature. For example, because my religion is the ONLY TRUE ONE, I don't need to think any more about any of this stuff or consider that anyone else might have something to teach me. I honestly can't think of any other reason to have a "One True Church" orientation besides as an excuse to not think about things.
It seems to me, that many people, instead of acknowledging that there is a large amount of danger of mistaking their human impulses for religious ones, specifically flee this type of thinking. I would expect that there would be an especially strong attitude towards an open exploration human behavior among religious, and yet the opposite seems to be the norm in my experience.
I'm of the opinion that true religion doesn't provide answers as much as it does questions. It is the responsiblity of the person to work out the answers. The form that these answers take is life itself.
posted
Mr. Squicky, I thought more than one religiously-minded person here admitted that sometimes a feeling they thought came from God they later decided didn't.
If people are using the "one true religion" belief to not think or to justify their actions, I certainly don't condone that. I ponder my beliefs quite a lot.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also--if I heard the voice of god it would scare the CRAP out of me
I think it would scare me too. I never HEAR anything, mostly I just KNOW it, or think I do.
Knowing that I had experienced the direct influence of God would scare the crap out of me. I do not trust my senses or my subconscious enough to interpret any feeling, or voice, or any experience at all as having come to me personally from God. Thinking I know would be just as bad.
-----
I agree with Syn. While many religious people do emphasize temporal beauty and living this life well, it seems that most religious discourse involves decrying other people's sins or hoping for salvation. I would rather live well and be a good person in this life and have nothing after death than do things because I expect any kind of eternal reward or fear eternal punishment.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Belle, I imagine we all hear "voices in our heads" at some time or other in our lives.
I hear them all the time. They say things like, "DOG, you really shoudn't try to shake that candy machine just to get those Cheeze-Its out; it could fall over on you and kill you," and, "DOG, Sears is a BIG company. If they forgot to charge you for the sofa, so be it."
I recognize it as normal mental processes. Thoughts in the form of internal conversation.
David Berkowitz heard voices, too. Only he wasn't sane enough (apparently) to realize that they were his own, and he could ignore them if he so desired.
They're not the voices of God, or Angles, (or Angels, even), or Satan.
It's all...just...you.
Funny how you compare the suggestions of the voices to what you already hold to be true, in order to determine if what the voices are saying is true. It's an internal dialogue. It's a self-administered Rorschach Test.
quote:I love these kind of poorly-constructed statements.
John, am I going to have to tell you to go bite my ass again?
Since you seem to know the absolute answers to questions that mankind has wrestled with for thousands of years, could you tell me where all the individual socks that go missing from my dryer end up?
posted
DOG, I have no problem with you believing that is true. But I believe in an afterlife. And assuming that belief is true, we can talk more about this then. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
But I don't. I'm not going to be there to discuss this with you. To be honest, I don't think you're going to be there, either. I figure I'd work all this out now, while I can.
Oh, and so John L can get of his high horse: ALL OF MY STATEMENTS REPRESENT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES MAY VARY (THANK GOD)
--DOG
BTW...what Squick says! Sorry, Squick; I hope you don't mind my agreeing with you.
posted
Hey DOG, I gotta question your assertion that religion is pointless. I could stipulate that for you personally it is pointless (not a slam, just an aquiesence)
In my opinion the search for purpose is what seperates us from animals. Obviously I have no factual basis for my conjecture that dogs, monkeys,... and so forth don't lie awake at night pondering the meaning of life but I believe it inherently. I'm entirely convinced that our inquisitive nature hardwires us to be predisposed to the need for religion. Whether you have faith or not is subjective but to me the desire/need is inherent in our thirst for knowledge.
posted
DOG, of course you don't believe in an afterlife. And IF you are right, of course there will be no discussion.
My point is, IF I am right, THEN we will have something to talk about. Until then, yours is a belief as valid as mine. Don't dis mine, I won't dis yours.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat: I don't get it. If it depends on having seen "Lost in Translation" then that would explain it.
It's okay if someone wants to have a dialogue that presumes no God or Satan. I have trouble with folks who say there is a God but no Satan. Like Marianne Williamson. She creeps me out.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
In response to your version of my previous version of alphabet soup....
In many cases, sure: specific circumstances demand specific responses.
However, Belle's other post (the one that she, apparently, deleted) refered specifically to homosexual marriages. I will assume (I know it's a big step) that God would not say "OK" on a Monday, "Nope" on a Tuesday, and then "OK" again on Wednesday, etc., etc., etc., or else He's even more capricious then I would feel comfortable accusing Him of!
But I'll also invoke the "Child down a well" scenario. Some children who fall down wells survive. Others die. In this day and age of nationwide news coverage, all are prayed for. I would bet, too, that all the prayers are for the survival of the child. But, regardless of whether the child lives or dies, the outcome is always, apprently "God's Will." God's Will, it would seem then, is nothing more than random chance.
quote:Either person "A," or person "D," or both are WRONG. God's responses are either purely subjective, are 50% probable to be subjective (chose your own favorite percentage, by all means), or are totally hallucinatory and self-induced
You were doing fine as you got to the first sentence here. But how are you jumping from that first sentence to the second?
Why does the possibility that a person's opinion of what God is telling them to do is wrong mean God's responses are totally subjective or anything like that. After all, there is also the possibility that science is wrong on any given issue, or that scientific data can be interpreted different ways. Is science also totally subjective?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm trying to walk a fine line between dissin' people's religions, and debating them.
My point of view (which is mine) is that there is no God, and that religions are purely man (and, perhaps women) made.
Unfortunately, in pursuing that tack, I have to propose that people who believe in God are mistaken. I don't see how I can have it both ways.
I think we should take a left at the next intersection. You think we should take a right. I'm really, really sure that we should take a left. No offense, but I think that if we go right, we'll get lost.
But as you said, we really won't know until we get to our final destination.
posted
"I have trouble with folks who say there is a God but no Satan."
Why? What about a divine creator REQUIRES that He create some form of perverted evil dedicated to our destruction?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:kat: I don't get it. If it depends on having seen "Lost in Translation" then that would explain it.
Squicky's been funny enough often enough that I think if he ever quit kicking people while scrambling up the boulder in Hatrack King of the Hill, he'd be a lot of fun. And honestly, the textbook close-mindedness is so consistent I sometimes wonder if that persona is an elaborate April's Fools, because he's either not as smart as I think, or the whimsy you can occasionally see peeking through is a lonely stranger to the weary hostility that takes up the rest of the mental hard drive.
I used to flip out after the "Kick Me" posts, but Noemon kindly pointed out this still picture from Lost in Translation, saying her expression says more than I ever could. I agree.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DOG, how is that any different than all the loved ones all over the world who are prayed over and either die or don't die? Death is not that big a deal to God, IMO. It is to us, and I think He is fully aware of the pain it brings us. Assuming God exists, He is not a God who has problems allowing His children to go through pain. I think that is one of the reasons many people have trouble believing in Him.
Edit: DOG, there is a big difference between saying, "I think you are wrong," and, "You are wrong!" I have actually had to explain this to my husband.
The first statement allows for the idea that you could, conceivably, be wrong. When it comes to beliefs, that is the only way to have a sensible discussion, IMO. You seem to claim to be privy to the "knowledge" that God does not exist. At least that is how it sounded to me. I am far more sympathetic to the agnostic point of view than the staunch athiest.
quote:ALL OF MY STATEMENTS REPRESENT MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES MAY VARY (THANK GOD)
Then everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't insane? So, what you're basically saying is that it isn't just some "true or false" line of crap, aren't you? Because the whole problem with your shitty logic is that you demand a concrete and then fall back on maybe. So, either you're saying all such philosophies are absolute right or wrong, or man's subjective nature actually dictates varying levels, and no one really knows anyway.
I mean, come on. You're the one who called it pointless. Defend it. Are all such philosophies absolute? Is your own? You're saying that "religions" (and, by your explanation, only Judeo-Christian-Islamic, since not all have a single "God") are either absolutely right or (in your opinion) absolutely wrong, so there's no point to religion. Sounds like a back-assward Pascal's Wager, if you ask me. Back up your absolute statement, because I don't really care about your argument on the existence or non-existance of the divine. Try defending what you actually claimed instead of just using it as a poorly-constructed springboard for your attempt to 'debunk' (and, with your attempts, I use the term loosely) all religions.
Or just say what you mean: "I don't like religions. They suck." You'd be a whole lot more honest that way.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But God didn't create Satan, Tom. At least not in the view I am proposing. Satan was a son of God who opposed free will or rule of law. I'm not sure which. There is actually not full agreement on this in Mormonism.
Some feel we would have come to Earth as hairless animals who lacked the ability to do wrong. Others feel that we simply never would have been given any laws or truth, and so wouldn't be responsible if anything bad happened.
posted
I think religion is an important and integral part of our lives and society. it is only when people become overzealos and begin to FORCE not peruade or show but FORCE there beliefs onto someone else that it becomes anoying selfabsorbed bull stuff.
My friend is a native american from michigan, and he and his friends and family ritualy go to this place called a hot house, it is much like a saunna but earthier. While they were there praying(this is a holy site) a muslim man came in and asked if he could pray (aparantly he was soul searching), they told him yes. shortly after an eskimo, who had come to see off his sister on a spiritual journy, stopped in because he had heard this was a holy place. he asked if he could pray for his sisters well being on her journy before he left home for alaska. they promptly told him yes, of course. he asked if they would join him, they did. My friend said that the eskimo thought you could send affection through prayer, like a sort of long distance hug. well one person did say they recieved a sort of embrace, it was the muslim man, who said he could feel the warmth of a scared soul setting out, and he tried to comfort it.
the point of that longwinded and badly told story (my friend is a much better story teller) is that God TRANCENDS religion, and will show himself to all those genuinly seeking him.
It was C.S. Lewis who said (i'll paraphrase) that a man is hungary,therefor there is food, a man is thirsty, therefor there is water, a man has sexual desire, therefor there is sex. if men have this aparrent desire and feeling for spiritual fulfillment, then doesnt the law of nature prove there exists nourishment for this need?
He said it alot better than I, but maybe someone remembers better and could post it.
quote: this still picture from Lost in Translation, saying her expression says more than I ever could. I agree.
Thats flippin funny!
but anyway thats my big, selfabsorbed,know-it-all take on religion. this still picture from Lost in Translation, saying her expression says more than I ever could. I agree. -String
posted
But PSI.. I don't believe in wild flings, in hedenism and useless pleasure. I'm talking about the real thing. A sort of sweetness that fills you like sunlight. Some people can find it in religion, other people are disconnected from it because in their case religion can act as a wall, keeping it from this joy and truth. I liked what String said. It's close to my view of things. What every God is, it transcends religion or definition. Maybe definition isn't even nessasary... It just... is... But it's so hard to explain it! Maybe a Rumi poem would help...
And I dont' really believe in the concept of the devil... Prehaps because it makes me uneasy. It's so easy to blame the devil or even God for mistakes and temptation. It's up to human beings. They are the ones in control of themselves. No one forces people in must circumstances (sp) to do anything.
posted
Y'all bring up some interesting points, from all sides of the religion argument.
"No one forces people in must circumstances (sp) to do anything."
I somewhat agree with you on this point, Synesthesia. In my opinion, God/Satan/whatever doesn't force you to do things: However, you are presented the opportunity for things: Much like what torches can see in the Maker series (which I've been using more and more to reference things), there are endless paths to take, and every choice plants you on one, but opens up a plethora of new paths while you go further down the road.
I firmly believe that God made sure that both Bernard and I were in the booksigning line at the same time. I know this because while I was telling myself, "The line's too long, I don't want to wait in that", something else told me to go stand in it anyway. That if I didn't, I'd be missing out on something very big and important. I think that it was God 'wispering in my ear', now that I look back on it (espeically since my future husband was standing in front of me). Both of us initally weren't that thrilled about going to Presidental Classroom, but we both felt that it was something we needed to do, something important for our futures.
I believe that there is a spiritual war, for the sole reason because I have met people that I firmly believe are possessed by demons, and people that I firmly believe are guarded by angels. And I don't think God just sits back and doesn't care about us--I think that God allows the influence of Satan to test us, that's why He gave us free will. Sometimes, one wins and the other loses. Like DOG said, "I don't see how you can have it both ways."
DOG: You believe that I am mistaken. I believe that you are mistaken. In that respect, we can reasonably get along.
Just don't get mad when someone posts his own beliefs, when you started a thread posting your own. You stated your case, he's stating his. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if you think it's wrong.
[EDIT: For minor spelling and to complete a train of thought. My mind goes faster than my fingers.]
quote: I honestly can't think of any other reason to have a "One True Church" orientation besides as an excuse to not think about things.
It was years before I realized that anyone thought differently, DOG, because I didn't (and still don't) think religious truth is different from other kinds. "One True Church" is no more strange than "One True History" or "One True Science". We may not be sure about what the truth is, but it's there, and there's only one of it, and it's not impossible that someone has it already.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that concept makes no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around why if God is so omnipotent he'd not be able to read into people's mind's and hearts to understand what sort of people they are. Like the story of Abraham and Isaac. Why? It makes no sense. Bad things don't happen to people because of demons or what people have done in past lives. It's the weather of things... It's the way life is sometimes. I have trouble believing in such a God when it comes to wars and children suffering and another child going missing only to be found someplace dead... How can God allow something like that? So maybe there is no god, no demons, only human beings. Or maybe God is not what we think he, she or it is. Perhaps we are simply tools of God... polishing ourselves to do his, her or whatever's work... As to what that is though, since everyone and their mother can claim to be doing God's work even if they are doing things that are cruel and vile. How can we know the truth? More than one thing can be true at exactly the same time.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I honestly didn't see what I presented as existing in this thread or, in large part, in the other discussions of religion that I've participated in on Hatrack. I really haven't been around all that much lately, so I might have missed other threads where this came up. If I missed it here, could you point out to me where you thought it was?
I really try to take issue with ways of thinking and not specific people exactly for stuff like the second part of your post. I present what I see as happening and leave it up to people as to whether or not this thing exists and how they feel about it. I think that people use "One True Church" as an exclusion device and that this is bad thing. You agree that if people did that, it would be a bad thing, but don't necessarily share my perspective that this occurs. That's great. It helps us understand each other and where it is we disagree. If I could ask, what other role do you think that "One True Church" thinking plays and why do you think it plays such an important role in American religions (if you do think that it actually does so)?
I'm sorry if I went overboard trying to explain my motives. I'm not really around all that much and people that I have an antagonist history with, in this case (and many others) kat, that are both more central to this site and around a lot more than I am tend to try to paint my posts in as negative light as they can. Every once in a while, I feel the need to explain where I'm coming from, so as at least to give a competing viewpoint to me being a really bad person.
DOG, I'm afraid that you missed a big point of my post. I'm beginning think that this happens a lot. I was trying to be critical of your positions, albiet in a subtle way. Even though we agree that there are problems with mainstream religious thought, I think that there are wide disparities in our positions. I would never suggest either as simplistic or as negative an evaluation as I think you are doing.
Mabus, That's actually the way I approach it as well (with True Religion being pretty much like True Science, except without problems with logical contradiction), but that's exactly why I have a problem with what I see as the mainstream religious viewpoint. The central tenant of the search for scientific truth is the open evaluation of the available options. One of the rules of thumb that I've been taught is that you should be able to be familiar enough with the posiitons you disagree with to arge for them convincingly. For me, One True Church thinking seems to act as a way of specifically not needing to look at the other possible sources of truth. This may not be true in all cases, but it has been in my experience, and I was honest in saying that I really can't come up with another logical purpose that it would serve.
Just as a check on this, how much do you (general you here) know about ways of thinking about religion and spirituality that differ from yours? Could you make a good case for these other ways of seeing things, or do you just know why they are obviously wrong? I think that these are important questions for people to consider, especially in such an important area as religion/spirituality.
I do know that the few times I've brought other "weird" ways of looking at spirituality onto this site, I've been met with either derision or disinterest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: How can we know the truth? More than one thing can be true at exactly the same time.
I think that is how most agnostics feel. But I am not sure about more than one thing being true at the same time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Right click on the picture, go to properties and link directly to the pic's address. That way, there's no distraction to the funny with all the hullabaloo around it.
posted
BTW, in my introduction, I don't say that all--or even 50% of those who believe in God are insane. I say that If two people ask God the same exact question, and get two diametrically and meaningfully opposesd answers (or, as we know, claim to have received two such answers), then at a minimum ONE of them must be wrong.
Not insane. Wrong.
And then I proceded to say that either God's responses are subjective (yes, implying that they are not objectively real, but are, instead, "felt" by the person experiencing God's "answer") or that they are hallucinatory, or self-produced.
Still not using the "I" word.
When I made the reference to Andrea Yates, that was when I first introduced the concept of insanity. Please do note, however, that she WAS declared to be legally insane.
And regarding my apology for daring to make statements that smack of the absolute...to quote Belle (no offense, Belle, but yours was the first usable quote I found):
quote:Just because some people legitimately hear from God...
There's an absolute statement for ya! People legitimately hear from God. It states both that "God Exists," and that "People can hear Him speak to them." No ifs, ands, or buts.
And John, we get into the same pissy argument in every thread where we both contribute: I make absolute statements, you criticise me for making them, I apologize, you criticise me for apologizing (that is, when you actually recognize or acknowledge that I have apologized) and then you attribute additional negative, inflammatory opinions to me that I never espoused.
quote:Or just say what you mean: "I don't like religions. They suck." You'd be a whole lot more honest that way.
I didn't say that, and I don't intend to say it. For the most part, I don't believe it.
I believe this: There is no God.
I believe this: There is a beief in God.
I believe this: There is religion.
I believe this: Religions are created by people, for the betterment of people. Some succeed at this better than others. Some have lost their way. Some define "better" in a way that I find totally alien. Adherents of a given religion pretty much share a common core belief in whatever their particular God is.
I'm looking to explore, though discussion and debate, the worldview of "There is no God." It must, by its nature, confront the worldview that there is a God. I can pepper all my statements with a quick IMHO, but I thought we had all agreed here that it's all opinion. It's akin to prefacing all my statement with the phrase: "In English, one says..." As this discussion progresses (and when I'm not stealing time from my employer to type after lunch is over, or stealing time from my family when I'm supposed to be doing my taxes!), I will provide proof and substantiating pointers and data where I can.
Whether a God exists, or whether no God exists is an absolute. There are no half-ways. There are no half-Gods/half-not-Gods. Either a God exists that created the universe, or no such God exists, and the universe was created by some other mechanism.
Mayday,
I didn't realize I was getting angry at people for posting their beliefs. I may--and often will--disagree, and I realize I may get a little emotional/zealous about it, but I'll continue to try not to get angry over it. I do get pissed off at Leto (John L), though, when he starts in on his ad hominem attacks. I don't think he likes me too much. But then again, I don't think he likes anybody too much any more.
Mabus,
The "One True Church" reference wasn't mine. I feel that human knowledge of the world is like looking at a multi-faceted diamond. You get a different view of reality, science, history, etc, depending on your point of view. Reviewing the history of WWII, for instance, from the point of view of Japanese in American internment camps, or Japanese in their homeland, or Jews in the US, or in German concentration camps...there is some central truth, some blow-by-blow, moment-by-moment sequence of events that happened...but what is remembered and what is recorded is all coloured by all those various perceptions and memories. But it's not "The One Truth." It's likely that "The One Truth" can never be regained, once its moment has passed.
However--even though you may view things from all these different angles, and perhaps see a glimmer of a universal spirit, or a Holy Father, or something to that end, within the gemstone, I do consider those to be false illusions.
For those of you who don't know of it, it's about a man who's trapped in a cave, along with other people. All he's known all his life is shadows on the wall.
One day he looks over his shoulder and sees a fire and a road. On the road are people holding things so their shadows play along the walls of the cave (one example is a tree branch). While the branch isn't the real tree, it's a more accurate picture of the real thing than a shadow on the wall.
However, the man gets freed from his chains and begins to explore around the cave, when he sees an opening with sunlight diffusing into the cave. He climbs out into the sun and sees real trees. When he goes back down into the cave and tells everyone about it, they don't believe him.
The Allegory is while we're alive, all we have is shadows of the Truth. When we die (exit the cave), we see the Truth for what it is.
I guess the point I'm making is that only after we die, we really see what happens to our souls, and what kind of person God/Satan is.
[EDIT: for another link and to let DOG know that we still like him]
posted
I'm more in tune with the Tao Te Ching in that "The Tao that can be told is not the the True Tao". That, the Truth that can be conceptualized or trapped into words can at best be a (with respect to Plato and Mayday) shadow of the actual truth. Real Truth can only be lived or experienced and not captured.
A corollary to this is that any meaningful definition of Truth must conceive of it in a relationship with the person experiencing it. Thus, Truth, as far as humans can know it, is inherently contradictory.
quote: I honestly didn't see what I presented as existing in this thread or, in large part, in the other discussions of religion that I've participated in on Hatrack. I really haven't been around all that much lately, so I might have missed other threads where this came up. If I missed it here, could you point out to me where you thought it was?
Squicky, I am trying to decide if you are talking about the "One True Church" belief or people admitting to have been mistaken about religious feelings. I will attempt to answer both then.
From PSI:
quote: And alot of people get confused and think God is telling them to do something, when really it's just their own desire keeping them from hearing the truth. Not that I claim to know which is which, but I've definitely done things I though God would want me to do, but then realized it was just ME that wanted me to do it. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially when people don't know God well enough to really recognize his voice.
And Belle made indirect reference to confusion in getting messages from God, but didn't directly talk about having thought something was from God and later decided it wasn't.
On the subject of "The One True Church": I have been aware of this idea since my earliest days, so it doesn't seem foreign to me. And since I try to believe the best of people until they give me good reason not to, I tend not to think of it as a philosophy used to excuse bad behavior. Although I agree that many do it without realizing it. I think if they realized they were using it as an excuse, they would be ashamed and stop, but again that is me wanting to believe the best of people.
I think the genuine idea behind it is that if there is One God and One Reality that we all share, then it makes sense that there would be One True Church. I realize this differs from what Belle was saying. *Is very very sorry that I didn't get to read the thread before it was deleted*. From what I have read in this thread, she feels that many churches can be true despite differences because they all have the same underlying good intentions. There is also the belief that since people are different, different religions would fit their differing needs.
I believe that God is the same always, that what is true is always true and is true for all people. (This is not to say that God does not take into account the different needs and circumstances of individuals, because I believe He does.) I believe that he works through prophets to whom He does speak. I believe He makes His will known to people. I believe that it is possible (though I don't expect it to happen) for everyone to belong to one church and for that to be a good thing. I don't think such a thing should *ever* be forced on people though. That is a highly idealistic view, and I realize that.
Hopefully that helps explain how the "One True Church" idea can be more than a liscence to do wrong. Please let me know if it doesn't and I will try to do a better job.
On a different note, I can see now how that comment from Belle could have been just as irritating to you as your statement was to me. I myself try to state my beliefs in the context that they are "my beliefs", but sometimes I forget too. I apologize for the times I may have done that.
Edit: Oops! That last paragraph is for DOG. Sorry for the confusion!!
Presupposing, of course, that there is (are) a God/Satan. Be careful, or you'll get John L giving you grief about daring to make unsupported absolute statements. Unless, of course, he agrees with you. In which case you're all right.
Squick,
quote:Truth, as far as humans can know it, is inherently contradictory
No, it isn't.
[lies down on all fours, with the stick of truth resting oh, so gently between the front paws, waiting, waiting....]
posted
bev, You know, I completely missed that statement from PSI on both read throughs. I read PSI's stuff and that just failed to register, even when I specifically looking for it. That's totally my bad. Of course, I still disagree with one of the fundamental parts of it. I think that the way to the divine lies much in knowledge of the self and of human nature in general than in knowledge of God. It seems to me that only by knowing the traps that people fall into can you avoid them. Of course, I have a tendency to see the weaknesses in people and have more sympathy for a transcendent (in all things, including myself) than a immanent (a specific separate entity) divinity.
As to the One True Church issue, I'm not sure if you are defining a theoretical entity or a specific (i.e. your) church. If it's a theoretical thing, I could see the reasoning, but that wasn't the idea that I was adressing. Rather it was the idea that one church pretty much has the monopoly on truth in that, anyone who disagrees with them or has a perspective that is "weird" from their point of view is by default wrong.
Actually, now that I revist the idea, I can think of a way that this would be rational. If there were a collection of statements where the only way to determine their truthfullness was the authority of the people who said them (i.e. possibly in regards to "prophets"), then centering your One True Church around this idea of authority would make sense. That is, if you had some really good evidence that this authority was the only source of rightness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I did not come out and say it, I was indeed talking about my belief in the church to which I belong. I believe it is lead by a prophet of God who receives God's words exactly as did those of Biblical times. I believe that we are still receiving scripture. I understand that for me to say that my church is the only true church on the earth is terribly arrogant and offensive, yet I believe it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I've noticed in some posts here. Not so much a question of whether there is a good or a bad, but in the binary categorization. It seems to me, and I'm sure anyone can come up with their own examples that a "good action" or "good choice" could be identical to a "bad action" or "bad choice" depending on the surrounding circumstances.
I know the feeling of being judged and thinking it was unfair if only the person judging me knew the entire history and context leading up to and surrounding a particular choice or action. Conversely, certain actions taken on my part that have been judged "good" were simply happy accidents when I happened to be on the premises. Then, there are those times I struggled to do something good and it went unacknowledged. And, those times I felt like being naughty and it also went unacknowledged.
posted
bev (is bev ok or should I type out beverly?), But that raises the question, how do you determine truth? Is it through only revealed means, and if so, what guarantee do you have that God is only speaking to other people as well as your guys? See, as far as I can tell, unless you can be sure that truth only comes through the authority of your church or that there is no other way (or at least no other feasible way) to determine truth besides relying on their authority, I don't see what purpose putting an emphasis on "My Church is the Only True One" serves.
However, if this is true, than you are explicitly doing what I said, by excluding the experiences of all other people who do not belong to your Church.
Maybe I'm not making my objection clear enough. Pretty much, I'm saying, it's fine that you believe in progressive revelation and prophets and such, but I don't understand what purpose is served by making it an important part of your belief that no one else could be getting truth, except to make it so you don't have to consider their experience. Would the True parts of your faith be different if you believed in all the elements except for the One True aspect of it? I honestly don't see how that could be.
As a Roman Catholic (the enemy!), the belief is (and I'm begin sarcastic and paraphrasing) that the Church is the 'One True Church', but that if you believe something else, well you just don't know any better, and that you'll go to Heaven if you're a good person. However, if you turn your back on the Church (IE: change denominations), then you're going to Hell.
That, I don't believe strictly. I think that if you're a good person and you live a good life (ie: don't kill or hurt other people intentionally, et cetera), then you'll achieve whatever end you believe in: Heaven, nirvana, moksha, eternal rest, whatever else (those are the only examples I can give because those are the only ones I know of, so far and at midnight my mind completely shuts down).
I think that's why people can 'create' gods, angels and demons. We're so worried about dying, we need some form of self-preservation. What better way then inventing some form of 'eternal paradise'?
On a side note, I am so going to Hell. Posts: 873 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: A corollary to this is that any meaningful definition of Truth must conceive of it in a relationship with the person experiencing it. Thus, Truth, as far as humans can know it, is inherently contradictory.
I've said this before, but it's been a few months. My church is not the true church because it is the sole posessor of truth. It is the true church because it is living and changeable. Though we seem to feel there are some things that won't change. At least not in response to public outrage.
And I used to be very active on a forum where it was forbidden to write the word "Satan". We were allowed to refer, however, to "Stan". I thought that was really idiotic. If a post was about God, it was iffy whether the mods would let it on at all. The mods reviewed everything that was posted there first.
Anyway, I agreed that truth cannot be fully contained in words. But words can help. I compared it to the ground that receives a seed in the lost thread.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to presume that people of other faiths can't receive truth, because I believe they can. I do believe that there is a "line of authority" issue here (kinda like what the Catholic church claims). The idea is that God will use the line of authority that He put in place. He will also impart truth and goodness to others. But His church organization exists where the authority exists.
As for "how do you know it's true?" One answer: you can't. Not without firsthand knowledge yourself. We believe that each individual must seek their own "testimony" or solid faith by seeking their own revelation. If I may quote the Bible, Rev 19:10 ...for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. We believe that individual revelation is essential to true faith.
And then there is the idea of faith being strengthened by trying the doctrine out for yourself. John 7:17 17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Here, Christ was being questioned on the source of His doctrine. I believe He was telling us that if we will try the doctrine out, or "do" it, we will be able to learn from ourself if it is of God or "true".
There is a passage in the Book of Mormon that expounds on this same idea. In Alma chapter 32, a prophet, Alma, is preaching to a group who is partially receptive to his message and says that he wants them to plant "the word" like a seed in their hearts. If it grows, they will know it is capable of growing, or has merit. If they nurture it and it brings them good fruits, then they can know that it is "good" (as in righteous and true). The idea here is that even if you have no faith, you can start with desire. That desire can become faith, and that faith can be strengthened. The idea is that that faith can eventually become knowledge.
Edit: Bev, bev, Beverly, beverly, Dr. Crusher, all are fine.
posted
fallow- some of us believe they can't, others believe they can apparently.
quote: there is a "line of authority" issue here
I'd like to develop (for once I'm not contradicting you!) this idea that in "The One True Church (tm)" all truth doesn't come through the line of authority. There is the Jeffersonian principle that whatever can be dealt with on the personal or local level should be. So if I need guidance about the day to day operations of my children, I don't ask my bishop or even my husband about it. I just pray about it.
Further, the method is to think about the problem and then pray about whether the solution thought up is right. But having severe mood swings as I have been, it's really hard to know. For me. At this time. But I'm up too late, I really should go to bed.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
