How convenient. I don't post on the eplaya for almost a year and the day I come back I find a great philosophy post...Hope nobody minds if I weigh in on this. I'm reading the post still, so I'm just going to reply stream of conciousness.
In order to eliminate the possibility of anyone accusing me of having a hidden agenda, let me put my cards on the table and first say that I am a Christian. Let me say also that I feel it is neither my intention nor my place to preach conversion or rightness of one belief over another as they would be out of place. As it happens, I also feel that attempting to brow beat someone into line with one's way of thinking is ethically wrong and also useless. I believe in God. Am I positive God's name is Jehovah? No. But I do believe in an omnipotent deity who rules the universe singularly and in whom the universe is entirely encompassed. If I refer to God, this is the concept to which I refer. I also believe Christ existed and exists as an avatar of that God, either fully or in aspect. For the purposes of any belief stated from
my point of view, this belief is assumed. Furthermore, I admit that I have
no rational foundation for my fundamental belief in God (fundamental refers here not to a method or system of belief, but rather simply to the fact that my other beliefs logically [logical in the analytic sense] follow from the first, and therefore fundamental, belief in God).
Having said so...
Dork says that the church is a business with a product. I agree. I don't attend church because I see it as a marketing of belief for the sake of profit. The hope people get and the positive results of the faith which the faithful possess doesn't come from the church; it's a direct result either of processes which occur within a person as some physiologically explainable byproduct of faith (there are studies on this...I haven't seen anything particularly conclusive, but anecdotal evidence exists; people kicking physical drug addictions, for instance, and replacing the physical addiction with seemingly psychological phenomena) or if the story of Christ is true, the the positive outcome of faith from Christ. In either case, the church is not what creates those outcomes. They are a result of something occurring within the person who carries the faith.
Mike VDS: 'I do have a problem when people pass laws because of their belief in a religion of any sort.' Fair enough. In defense of religious beliefs, let me say though, that I think laws are not passed on the basis of religious belief. I think money and power and pretty large motivators for humanity and I think that religion in all of its forms, has been used by those who already possess power or wealth to maintain status quo.
Let's look, for instance, at supposed religious people fighting gay marriage. Is it really because the people who are initiating these measures believe so firmly that gays shouldn't be married because God said so or is it because of the tax benefits that accompany marriage and the sudden availability of those tax breaks to a HUGE percentage of the population? I maintain also, at least in the case of Christians who oppose gay marriage (particularly in support of any given politician's view on the subject) may have misinterpreted the message of Christ. I say 'may have' because like I said, my personal beliefs hold no more validity than anyone else's. I'm inclined to say they are correct because they're mine and so are obviously more appealing to me than someone else's might be.
I believe there is ample evidence in the Bible to support the idea that Christ wasn't preaching a message of exclusion (which, sadly, many have interpreted as being the case), but rather a message of love, transcendental and immanent forgivess (allowing a person relief from the negative effects of guilt for whatever reasons) and a reunification with God on the basis of newfound spiritual freedom as a result of that loss of guilt. I can defend this, if someone wants to debate me, with cites. I think the people who took over for Jesus in his absence may have been good ( I can only speculate) but I think that the farther away from the first followers we get we find leaders who used and changed the message to their own benefit.
I think Dana's negative impression of Christianity has been largely based on interaction with the Christians she has likely come into contact with who are largely undereducated and have likely spent little time actually reading the Bible (most churches I've attended rarely encourage reading the Bible as a book and rather dole it out in abstracted, out of context chunks). She seems to be railing against the actions of the people she has interacted with (either historically or currently) and not to the core beliefs themselves (which sadly seem to go largely unpracticed). Ghandi was once asked what he thought of Christians and replied, "I don't know. I've never met one." Touche. With Dana, I agree that science and spirituality are not at all mutually exclusive. I think they can coexist in a belief system in perfect tandem. I also agree with her that the average Christian probably does not believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old. It's impossible to justify and is held usually by only the most literal interpreters of the Bible and even then, I think it might just be obstinance.
Teo Del Fuego: "What stuck with me from that book was the notion that scientific objective analysis may not be the only realty." I agree, but I think the term 'reality' is misplaced. Reality, I believe, is here used as a synonym for 'universe' in the mathematical sense in that the universe does not refer only to the spatial world in which we exist, but refers to all things in all given sets or as m-w.com puts it 'the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated.' I think in the case of theoretical physics and metaphysics, reality might be replaced with '
mode of reality.' There can't be more than on thing encompassing all sets, since universe is self-inclusive. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs.
I think the statement that 'religion and science are all gendered, classed, racial, cultural constructions.' is pretty arguably valid. I can't include reality in there, though, (as in the original quote) because as I said already, by definition, reality is what it is. It is a concrete concept, like pi or e.
Ugly Dougly: 'We have been brainwashed and soiled indeed when we reflexively equate spiritualty with Christianity.' And likewise, Dougly, when we reflexively equate Christianity with brainwashing and psychological soiling.
The word dogma is being thrown about pretty loosely.
Dana: 'You mean the fact that the new testament is a book all about Jesus, but there is no section in it penned by the man himself? Only words from his stumbling followers that were showing they didn't quite get it even at the last.' The same can be said of Pythagoras, Socrates, Lao Tzu (whom some speculate may even have been multiple people), Kong Fu Tzu, and Bhudda.
Jus Say Ventura: I'm pretty sure that guy camped across the street from me last year and gave me a REALLY nice brownie.
Where the discussion gets to sex: Man...that's a toughy. I've read the Bible through, except for one or two of the books at the end of the Old Testament. They get pretty hard to push through. I haven't come to too much about sexual activity. Jesus talks about lusting and infidelity, but it's always in contrast to the held beliefs of the first Covenant, which is the Ten Commandments and the Law of the Old Testament. Is he being literal or is he making a point about how we practice what we believe? I lean to the latter and I think it has to do with relenquishing ego to achieve transcendence. I think it's directly tied to what I said about guilt and love, earlier. If it sounds Buddhist or Hindu influenced, you're right.
I don't think Burning Man is the reincarnation of the festival of Dionysus. I think that Burning Man (as a concept) is completely open to the interpretation of the attendee. At it's root, Burning Man is a thematic, outdoor, camping event with many subthemes dictated by the participants. Beyond that, any definition tends to define the personal experience.
And I guess that's about it. As for my experiences with Christians at Burning Man, the only interaction I've had with other professed Christians are the water folks. I think they've got it spot on with doing a charitable deed, but having spoken to their leader, I found that the goal was to convert. I think love should be free. Those who wish to convert to Christianity will find it on their own. As for my own experiences at Burning Man as a Christian...I've had a great time. I have partaken in so many of the activities available at Burning Man. Some activities were illegal. Some might be deemed immoral (by those who feel entitled to judge the actions of others). I have tried, however, to treat my fellow burners with love and since I feel we are here in mode of reality
to learn and then transcend, I feel no guilt for my actions and activities. As long as I can afford to go, I will go, and I will enjoy myself, until I find I don't like going anymore and then I will stop.
Read a book. The more you read, the more you know. And knowledge is Power!
Peace out and hello's to my eplaya friends and acquaintances.
Thanks to Addis, I had more free time.
