| > the GD was a 'mystic social club for scholars,'
Should we interpret that to mean that you (or at least the speaker)
attribute less content to the GD material than I inferred from what
you've posted so far?
>>anything to this spirit business. Rationality and spirit are not
>>mutually exclusive! Rationality is a mode of thought. Spirit is an
>>axiom.
> propositions [...] that the ancient Egyptians were a superstitious
> people [...] are based largely on examples of [a more superstitious
> form of Egyptian religion and magic]
Sorry to hack your stuff up, Todd, but you seem to be a bit obtuse
today :-). I'm guessing you're agreeing with me, here, and saying that
there can indeed be some depth of content underlying some belief
systems which are apparently shallow at first look.
A point I'd like to make (or an opinion, anyway) is that a god such as
we've been told exists must be approachable by any human being, in a
manner understandable to that person. If your method for forming
beliefs is based on a physical view of the universe, it must be
possible for you to find a model in which God can exist which is
compatible with what you deeply know to be true. This is not to say
that your behavior or views won't change, or that you will understand
God, or that you can concoct any story about God to suit your personal
agenda, but it must be possible for a staunch rationalist such as
myself or Jamie to come to some understanding of God. The spiritualists
and Southern Baptists have no smoother access to understanding God than
we do, and we will not be required to "see the light" and give up that
which we deeply know to be true in order to find this understanding. We
will surely have to give up some selfish pet wants and desires, but
that's part of the rules for anyone who wants to play.
Anyway, to bore you a bit on the idea that spirit must be regarded as
axiomatic, I think that Jesus is reported to have said something
exactly along those lines, to the effect that one must build one's life
upon Jesus; make God the rock/foundation of everything. I had reached
the point where I felt that spirit must be axiomatic *before* I learned
of this teaching of Jesus. You know, the trouble is that the signs are
all pointing the wrong way around here. You don't figure out what
they're saying until you're just past the spot. Ever get that feeling
("oh, so *that's* what it means")?
The analogy (with road signs) could be carried on ad nauseum. For
example, another problem is that there are so many darn signs, all
saying different and conflicting things (as Jamie pointed out), some of
them posted by charlatans and lunatics, some by insightful people, and
some of them are antiques, origins generally mythical by now. What's a
person to do?
One possibility (to be taken with a grain of salt, maybe) is that maybe
you can trust some of the antiques (the Bible), though they were
written for a different time and place, and in an old language, so it
will be hard to figure them out. I know some folks disagree with this,
but it's probably a better strategy than picking the signs which happen
to agree with your current preferences. That would be too easy, and
wouldn't lead to any progress, just reinforcement of what you already
are doing.
On the other hand, some folks are into self-flagellation, and pick
signs which advise the opposite of whatever they've been doing so far.
The reasoning is along the lines of "nothing's worked so far, so I must
be doing something (everything) wrong; I'll do exactly the opposite".
It sounds real silly put that way, but you know that we all do a lot of
that. Someone said (in effect): what we believe now is right; what we
believed yesterday was wrong. How can this always be so?
Well that's enough bs for one lunch break :-).
|
| re: .3, Mike,
The GD comment was just an alternate perspective that intrigued me,
not a value judgement on my part.
My other stuff was unintelligible. I couldn't understand it
myself when I read it again. I just meant that there are
intelligent and critical thinkers who study superstition and magic in
history for a living and who support that there is a distinction to be
made between pure superstitious literal belief in magical symbols,
and belief in deeper spiritual principles. I was trying to support
your note with a specific example. Sorry to be obtuse (?).
todd
|