Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
There's no such word as "Hindu" in the whole Vedic literature.
It is a name given by the Mohammedans on account of the river Sindu.
They pronounced sa as ha. So the Sindu was mispronounced as Hindu and the side, or this side of Indus River, who resided, they are called by the Mohammedans as Hindus.
Thus you are not even in ball park about what you're talking about except for more mental speculations .....
Mental speculations, (pure guessing), are the sum substance of all your arguments and ideas.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The reason that High Fructose Corn Spirit is trolling here is basic: While this thread has the aspect of a conversation or an inquiry, or at least an investigation about why we should ditch old doctrinal views of "God," High Fructose is asking no questions, has not shown any indication of wanting to learn something new, and in fact is likely closed to other concepts or perspectives than his own.
In other words, this is mostly a rant, veiled as a honest effort to to present a valid and long-overdue op for which all mankind can surly benefit. I can get narcissistic like that if I don't watch it and if friends don't call me on it.
That much said, there's been use of such words as "reframing," and so forth, which were popular with NLP and other outfits a decade or so ago. One of the interesting precepts of NLP was: Never argue with someone stuck in a perspective. That's why these threds often resemble kids circling a Maypole - most of us (I'm one of the worst offenders) only bring their own perspecives and are here to defend them, NOT to expand them, or possibly let them go. That kind of mind agility was just as important 3,000 years ago as it is now, so High Fructose's suggestion of looking for things to "let go" was a good reminder to me in that regards.
So thanks for that. There's always somethig for me in these threads.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2010 - 02:08pm PT
|
WBraun- I get all that. So give us a name for your belief discipline then. So we can talk about it. How about Sindhuism?
As I'm striving to understand you better.
You often refer to "mental speculations." What are they? You don't have them? Is there no place for "mental speculations" as our species in the 21st century attempts to derive "better practices" in the "practice" of living?
You also at times call out "God." Which God?
(a) Diacrates: the God Einstein speculated about (even believed in) as a possibility;
(b) Hypercrates: the personification of fate (cf: Grim Reaper, personification of death); the personification of those "higher powers" that define our lives;
(c) Jehovah: the ancient local Mesopotamian God of Jews, Christians and Muslims;
(d) Brahma: the chief God of Hindus.
To not specify which God is called "dangling deities." Not good if one's interest is sustaining good communication at the Taco campfire.
Reminder: I'm not against all God concepts. Just Jehovah (the God of Abraham). And then, only because it's taken all too seriously as reality by umpteen million 21st century moderns when it's the 21st century and time to move on.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2010 - 02:13pm PT
|
Largo wrote-
High Fructose is asking no questions, has not shown any indication of wanting to learn something new, and in fact is likely closed to other concepts or perspectives than his own.
Sorry you feel so, Largo.
Above I alluded to Diacrates, Hypercrates in addition to Jehovah. That right there is new. I also alluded to "dangling deities" (akin to "dangling participles" or "dangling numbers" without units), that is new. Which means when I incorporated those "innovations" about 10 years ago (so I could be clearer in thinking and talking about God and theology), I wasn't closed.
And how are we defining trolling today? Am I trying to provoke thinking, new thinking, around the Campfire in, of, or about an ancient discipline and its ages-old thinking much of which is archaic and derived from bronze age misconceptions? Yes. Am I trying to raise consciousness about bringing innovation in a big way to beliefs or "belief discipline" practices, indeed that it's not impossible to do so. Yes. No apologies for that. As it's about time.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Fructose
YOU ARE ON THE WRONG FORUM FOR THIS DISCUSSION ............
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
|
Here's an example, of what I want to know, or in different terms, of what I'm open to and seeking.
John and Mary Heavenworth: traditional fundamentalist Christians
Paul and Peter Church: "modern renascent" Christians
So we have two guys, two brothers in fact, Paul Church and Peter Church. Both accept the Abrahamic narrative (Christian version) in their lives, to aid them in their practice of living. They call themselves Christians. They think of themselves as Christians. Even tho they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus (the Jesus is God doctrine) literally.
What they have in common: They're different from John and Mary Heavenworth, also Christians, in that they're not fundamentalist. They don't take the Bible stories literally.
Where they differ: Paul Church believes the Abrahamic narrative as a basis for the practice of living is unbeatable. "It's unbeatable!" he says. "If you can't beat em, join em." He's convinced nothing beats the power of this awfully appealing narrative. And nothing ever will. So he lives his faith and his life in its terms.
Peter Church, like Paul, "believes in" the narrative, too. But he believes in it by default, because there's no better narrative at this point in time by which to live. But he's not at all convinced the Abrahamic narrative is "unbeatable." In fact, he thinks the Abrahamic narrative is beatable, that "changing the story" takes time and just requires story tellers to get around to it. Peter is willing and able if not eager to switch narratives when a more powerful one develops that contributes just as strongly if not more strongly to his practice of living.
So I want to know if Paul's right. Is the Abrahamic narrative "unbeatable" as a core narrative for the practice of living? As far as humans are concerned. (Arguably it was for medieval humans, even most 20th century Americans.) Or might another narrative, perhaps one already taking root somewhere, in time supplant it? esp now that we've entered a new era in so many ways and dimensions.
Of course, time will tell, and I would be quite open to knowing how it turns out.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
What I mean by a troll here, or that you are possibly not open to new ideas, is that the feeling I get from the "questions" you ask is that you already have an answer in your mind which you likely believe is the right answer. In this way we ask question not with the intention of expaning our own understanding but to confirm what we think we already know. At worst, questions become a kind of open dare for someone to prove you wrong in a game that most of us have already conceded (i.e., all the silly old notions about Jehovah).
Another aspect of this is the racket of asking qustions, but also requiring any answer to fit a criteria that in many cases vetos any answer whatsoever. This is a favorite one for material fundamemtalists - that if "God" cannot be measured, he therefore is no-thing and therefore cannot be "real." They've simply answered their own question here, because to the evaluating mind, which traffics only in stuff and sense data, only matter is real, otherwise, what the hell are are we talking about here, right? We're talking about nothing.
Like the scientist said, take the zero out of mathmatics and see how far you get.
JL
|
|
go-B
climber
This side of Heaven
|
|
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke16:19-31, “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
Rich man gets tooled, eh?
|
|
go-B
climber
This side of Heaven
|
|
If he's so rich(?) that he does not need God and know that all things come from and are God's?
Proverbs 13:7, One pretends to be rich, yet has nothing;
another pretends to be poor, yet has great wealth.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
I suppose poor atheists can resent rich atheists just as well, only without recourse to such imaginary palliatives.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
|
What I have aren't so much "answers" as stances. Stances in belief (in Believersville). Stances that many others share. Stances that I've incorporated over the years in my own belief discipline practice.
Here at the Taco Campfire, I've been merely expressing them. That's all. As a counterpoint to the traditional Abrahamic religious threads at the Fire.
P.S. (1) I say "pushing the envelope" on ancient theology is a good thing. Like pushing the envelope in climbing. (2) It's an old cliche that has its truth: Those who stand for everything stand for nothing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Of course, time will tell, and I would be quite open to knowing how it turns out.
So, how exactly will "time tell?" I'm asking: what is the nature of the evidence that would be convincing to you? What criteria would "tell" you anything?
As far as I've seen, FAR from "executing a flawless debate," you are setting up moving targets with the intention of avoiding hits.
What in principle could "hit" you?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Since I am so prone to enforcing my stance on others, I often miss out on the vast amount of stuff in my blind spot(s). I actually find it more interesting to dig into stuff I don't know about it. I am of the same mind about much old world theology, stuff from a different time and space.
But there's some windom in there was well if you know how to look for it. Literal? Not a chance.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!