It definitely does look like I’m just talking about size, but I meant more than that. Small and inconsequential in size, yes, but also in importance.
Well yes, I get that they need not be, but it seems that they are to most religious people in the country I live in. Most of them are Christian, but I know that’s not the only religion guilty of eschewing all things science in favor of blind faith.
I mean the same thing as above – separating religion and science is an automatic for most people, and is what they would’ve called “serving two masters” at the church I went to back in the day. Having faith is…I mean, it’s faith. It’s fairly counter-intuitive to science.
I did speak hastily when I said my mind was made up, because of course I’ve continued to ponder all of this, and experiences is what it comes down to. I still fall into the middle ground, because when I add it all up, there are still things that I have experienced that can’t seem to be explained, either because there is no explanation or because I honestly just can’t find the words. Try as I might to make all of it fit into a pretty little easily-explained box in my head, I’m an honest person by nature and those experiences will keep knocking and asking me to take another look.
Just to clarify - I wasn’t looking for someone to change my mind, I was just interested, and still am. I’m enjoying the responses here. And yes, I don’t think anyone can argue about experiences being the best teacher.
Let me write more later, it’s late now and I’m not getting much response from my brain.
Well that strikes me as novel for a religion: One that is dogmatic about not knowing ; one that admits agnosticism.
I just hate it when a Christian tells me what God wants or is doing. I’ve been known to snap at them to tell them they don’t have a clue about what God wants or is going.
Once exposed to it, I dunno how it could be any other way.
Ya, you’re probably just a jerk like me. To be clear, the Eastern Orthodox isn’t widely agnostic about everything, all the time. There’s just some things that are known, and some things that aren’t.
Sure, I meant however that there is a leap from size to value. (And hey, I understand the feeling of looking at the vastness of the universe and feeling that.)
I don’t Think all Christians or even most eschew all thing science. I Think you would be hardpressed to find even a tiny minority that Think science has had no use. I also don’t Think most Christians will simply say they have faith, or blind faith. I am pretty sure most will talk about what seems true in their religion, what seems false in other models, what believing in God has done for them and so on. Even if 5 minutes later they say their belief is based on faith.
But most humans, even scientists decide things are true through a number of different methods, and even act on these beliefs in the World. The idea that one must have only one method to determine what is true is rarely followed by anyone. And again, religious people, as far as I can tell do not rule out all the conclusions of empiricism. They would have a hard time holding down jobs, Hammering Nails, whatever, and then the fact that they tend to like technology as much as the next person. Just because they use faith, those that do, for one set of beliefs, does not mean they do not use other methods at other times. It is the scientist side who Think one should only use one. Though in their private lives they will also use other methods.
Great. I mean, in that we can at least understand each other to that extent.
Right, I realize you weren’t asking someone to change your mind, but in a sense to answer your questions, to get you to understand why it might make sense to have other beliefs, would also include the need for experiences.
OK. One thought I had later was that you mention the big bang. The big bang is a recent scientific theory. Before that the consensus amongst the relevent scientists was a steady state universe. Always here. One of the reasons they were critical of theist creationism was precisely the idea that the universe would have a beginning. In fact it was Georges Lemaître, a physicist and a Catholic priest who first proposed that the expansion of the universe, which they were just noticing at that time, strongly implied a beginning to the universe. IOW he is basically the first scientist who proposed a non-steady state universe and set the groundwork for the Big Bang theory. A priest of all things. Now of course the Big Bang was perhaps not, for you, the most important part of your epipheny. it was likely the vastness of space. But I just wanted to Point out that in fact part of the model you got your epipheny from fit better with some theist models AND was proposed first by a priest scientist.
You’re right, they are not. In fact they are likely more strictly controlled, for the most part, when it comes to epiphenies. Unless they are part of a sect or Group that has certain very specific types of ecstatic experiences one is, bascially, allowed to have. So seeing the size of the universe - which actually takes a bit of imagination even with that online display thing I have also seen - is likely not going to elicit an epipheny. Why? They are kinda trained not to have these. As are most people, but the wrong kind of epipheny, to a fundamentalist, is very threatening. I mean, they used to kill people for having those and talking about them. Further it could mean one was going to hell. This is ironic, given that they are religious and supposedly should have these wildly flexible minds when it comes to things that are basically religious type experiences. Blurry’s experience is very much like a religious experience in type and intensity and even in effect. It strengthened beliefs she had.
But the fact that they are Christians, to me means, that should they have an intense experience viewing these things, they can still view them as simply showing the vast Power of God and the mystery of God’s Creation, and yes, humans are small, especially in comparison with God and his Power, etc.
Just to quibble I would say that fundamentalists are extremely transcendental, so much so that they don’t even have to experience anything, since God is fully transcendant, except those rare occasions when he sends down an angel or a Child to get crucified. But I get what you mean.
Even Protestants have the Inquisition fresh in their genetic memory and transcendant experiences are not necessary - since one can have faith - and potentially lethal.
It’s not like there’s no hope for change. I just don’t know if making them feel small in the vast universe will do the trick. Fundamentalist embrace the fall/redemption paradigm, and are convinced they are fallen sinners (worms), so feeling small fits right in.
I have a Christian friend who has been in the Church of Christ all her life, but has recently been going to The Assembly of God. That’s a big change from “No Creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.” to the gifts of the Spirit and miracle healing … plus, from no musical instruments to a full piece rock band.
She did this from within her fundy system. She did this by seeing the gifts of the Spirit and miracles in her Bible, and acting them out, or trying.
She’s gone from one extreme to another. And went a little to far with the Holy Spirit thing, which has led her to a life long commitment to a very heavy burden that makes her feel entrapped.
But she’s still changing. A few months ago she called me about two books she was considering. One was “Sit Walk Stand” by Watchman Nee, the other “Awareness” by Anthony De Mello.
And while as far as Christianity goes “Sit Walk Stand” is top grade, it’s by the founder of the Christian cult I was in for a decade, in my young adult years. I didn’t think that was a good direction for her.
And I think “Awareness” by De Mello is just great … and thought it would provide some needed balance and grounding.
And sure enough it has. She called me today, “Awareness” in hand, and we spent about an hour reading sections of the book to each other and sharing.
She’s come a long way from the days she got me involved in the Church of Christ 3 yrs ago, for a yr and a half.
She’s changed … but it had nothing to do with the wonder and vastness of the universe. Perhaps that epiphany is in her future.
Maybe “Original Blessing” by Matthew Fox, and his Creation Spirituality – as opposed to fall/redemption (of the whole universe) – will open up new vistas for her.
No, I Think outside ‘help’ in general is not the way. And whose to say it is not what they need? I mean, do we get to try to teach everyone what might not be true or what they are believing for the wrong reasons?
There’s that too yes.
And if feeling that is not motivation enough then it is unlikely images will do much. You never know, but it seems unlikely in general.
But she’s still changing. A few months ago she called me about two books she was considering. One was “Sit Walk Stand” by Watchman Nee, the other “Awareness” by Anthony De Mello.
And while as far as Christianity goes “Sit Walk Stand” is top grade, it’s by the founder of the Christian cult I was in for a decade, in my young adult years. I didn’t think that was a good direction for her.
And I think “Awareness” by De Mello is just great … and thought it would provide some needed balance and grounding.
[/quote]
so, change.
.
[/quote]
If we are around someone whose beliefs we Think hurt them, I Think the best thing to do is to wait until they make the first move. People tend to dig in and defend. Of course if you love someone, it may simply be honest and intimate to say what one feels. I would Think with a focus on the concern and the emotions you feel and not a lot of head stuff. If the impact of your concern and implicit different Outlook has no impact, then i doubt a bunch of reasoning will help. In fact I Think it generally comes off condescending and probably is. But the gut emotions, even anger, can help. And even if they do not, it is what a friend does, honest emotional reaction. This may drive them away, but we can’t Control other people. And if we can’t be honest perhaps someone else should be the friend. But this is different from taking on the task of changing someone’s mind. That’s more of a war.
I said ‘you’ but I really meant ‘I’ and ‘me’. This is how I would like to act and I Think it is also how I would like people who care about me to act. If I then invite or they then want to have a more intelletual discussion or focus on evidence or any other more head centered stuff, that seems like the time for it.
I have shifted over time, however. I once thought that everyone ‘really’ Deep inside, would want what I want - in general, I mean, not that they would all prefer vanilla ice Cream to chocolate. But I don’t anymore. I Think people want to live in very different ways, really, Deep down.
.
[/quote]
If we are around someone whose beliefs we Think hurt them, I Think the best thing to do is to wait until they make the first move. People tend to dig in and defend. Of course if you love someone, it may simply be honest and intimate to say what one feels. I would Think with a focus on the concern and the emotions you feel and not a lot of head stuff. If the impact of your concern and implicit different Outlook has no impact, then i doubt a bunch of reasoning will help. In fact I Think it generally comes off condescending and probably is. But the gut emotions, even anger, can help. And even if they do not, it is what a friend does, honest emotional reaction. This may drive them away, but we can’t Control other people. And if we can’t be honest perhaps someone else should be the friend. But this is different from taking on the task of changing someone’s mind. That’s more of a war.
I said ‘you’ but I really meant ‘I’ and ‘me’. This is how I would like to act and I Think it is also how I would like people who care about me to act. If I then invite or they then want to have a more intelletual discussion or focus on evidence or any other more head centered stuff, that seems like the time for it.
I have shifted over time, however. I once thought that everyone ‘really’ Deep inside, would want what I want - in general, I mean, not that they would all prefer vanilla ice Cream to chocolate. But I don’t anymore. I Think people want to live in very different ways, really, Deep down.
[/quote]
[quote]
Fundamentalist embrace the fall/redemption paradigm, and are convinced they are fallen sinners (worms)
If you are going to use religious quotes, then you should use the overall Revelation. Christ died for our Sins and we are without Sin. Therefore we only follow the Christ who is the Sin and we cannot help if we choose incorrectly in life because the Christ Act provides the evidence, that it involved the Fall (origin Earth Heaven) being a nuclear event and it also involves the saving of the atmosphere for a New Earth Life. Both of these situations affect us because the Holy Spirit Breath of Life (oxygen) contains angelic sounds that are both high and low frequencies because of the creative Act.
As our Father in the Light (our origin spirit) understands the reasons why humanity created from the Tree of Knowledge (their own minds) by hearing Satanic (nuclear) sound in the first Earth era was the event itself, we were all forgiven. That we now live in a new atmospheric condition that causes us to be animistic in our nature only because the wild beasts became a part of new Earth life…the first Earth did not have animal life, it was only Nature and the human spirit incarnated on a higher plane of existence.
We were taught this reason through our spiritual consciousness so that we would be aware to NEVER commit the SAME ACT again…which has been ignored and Science allowed to experiment and change natural light wave lengths that now attack our life causing our cellular dysfunction as stigmata, plague symptoms in aids, ebola, blood cancers, skin cancers etc…plus all of the natural disasters THAT SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. Because natural disaster is called “natural” it does not simply imply caused naturally, because Science changes NATURE and causes the DISASTERS THEMSELVES. Anyone with the ability to look at data would by evidence find that disasters have demonstrated to be abnormally constant.
For a constant disaster system to be active would imply that a constant signal is causing them. The only constant signal we have is the nuclear signal because it is being applied through nuclear conversion. Nuclear causes natural disasters, altering pressure systems. Pressure systems relay on a constant pressurized atmosphere via its mass. Mass is being dropped out of the atmosphere every day (oxygen level) to produce the frequency to enable nuclear fuel to be converted from uranium, by breaking its oxygen mass. MASS naturally keeps radiated signals inside of the Earth stone where they were sealed. When you reduce mass, the stone nuclear also alters, the pressure systems all change and we can review the outcome of Science…disaster!!
“The greatest and most important problems of life are all in a certain sense insoluble…. They can never be solved, but only outgrown…. This ‘outgrowing’, as I formerly called it, on further experience was seen to consist in a new level of consciousness. Some higher or wider interest arose on the person’s horizon, and through this widening of view, the insoluble problem lost its urgency. It was not solved logically in its own terms, but faded out when confronted with a new and stronger life-tendency.”
― Carl Jung
If we are around someone whose beliefs we Think hurt them, I Think the best thing to do is to wait until they make the first move. People tend to dig in and defend. Of course if you love someone, it may simply be honest and intimate to say what one feels. I would Think with a focus on the concern and the emotions you feel and not a lot of head stuff. If the impact of your concern and implicit different Outlook has no impact, then i doubt a bunch of reasoning will help. In fact I Think it generally comes off condescending and probably is. But the gut emotions, even anger, can help. And even if they do not, it is what a friend does, honest emotional reaction. This may drive them away, but we can’t Control other people. And if we can’t be honest perhaps someone else should be the friend. But this is different from taking on the task of changing someone’s mind. That’s more of a war.
I said ‘you’ but I really meant ‘I’ and ‘me’. This is how I would like to act and I Think it is also how I would like people who care about me to act. If I then invite or they then want to have a more intelletual discussion or focus on evidence or any other more head centered stuff, that seems like the time for it.
I have shifted over time, however. I once thought that everyone ‘really’ Deep inside, would want what I want - in general, I mean, not that they would all prefer vanilla ice Cream to chocolate. But I don’t anymore. I Think people want to live in very different ways, really, Deep down.
[/quote]
And the rope was broken. Cuz it wouldn’t push the car up the hill. Musta been a manufacturer trick … who used science to undo us.