BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Christianity as a hollow spiritual experience.

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
---
17:49 / 21.03.04
No! What was you going to say!

As for the computer analogy, that's original to me but i believe God would heal the virus out of compassion for all sentient life.

my god... your god... whatever.

Exactly.

nah, mate.
its there as a reminder that the bloke died in some of the most painful circumstances available at the time. (incidentally, i think this is the idea behind the movie of the passion; to remind you that it was pretty fucking hardcore dying he did for our sins) no one is threatening to crucify heretics.


Yeah, i'm sure that if someone arrived to put and end to manipulation, greed and control all of the governments would love it......maybe i'm too cynical.

really? same thing as gives you the right to say

What so the Christians thinking that everyone with different belief is going to burn in hell for all eternity doesn't wind you up?

Maybe not.

wasnt there a problem with that depiction of jesus? something about his open arms being open to the rich side of rio, and his back being turned on the poor?
yet another example of people fucking up what could have been a good thing, perhaps?


Maybe they should make some more and point them towards the poor then, i love that statue it rocks.
 
 
ajm
22:37 / 21.03.04
toksik:
Do you believe ineffability is a good arguement????
At first I thought you had a very clever, sarcastic comment that was against Jack's comment, but after reading your second post I'm not sure what you meant.

If someone tells you something (anything) and you ask them to explain themselves and they tell you it can't be explained, is that a good explanation???
 
 
Spatula Clarke
23:49 / 21.03.04
If it's accurate, yes.
 
 
illmatic
07:43 / 22.03.04
While I am not a Christian, what I cannot stand about this discussion is ajm's characterisation of "Christianity" as one thing, and "Christians" as all the same thing. Because of course if "they" are all the same, then "they" can be easily summed up and dismissed. If you're are trying to reach any understanding of Christianity, (note: that's "reach understandng" as opposed to jumping up and down shouting "wrong!wrong!wrong!" at the top of your voice)it seems elementary to me to try and understand it as a complex and varied phenomena, which a multitude of differing effects.

Disapponting to have to explain something this simple in Headshop.
 
 
Char Aina
10:02 / 22.03.04
If someone tells you something (anything) and you ask them to explain themselves and they tell you it can't be explained, is that a good explanation???

Well, it's pretty conclusive, as answers go.
 
 
40%
10:37 / 22.03.04
It's also greatly over-used.
 
 
Information in formation
11:12 / 22.03.04
While this thread has been done just about to death, I think I would like to throw in my two cents here and give this dead horse one swift hick in the gut.

"Everything and Everyone is God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Religion must go beyond the rational without becoming irrational.
One must have compassion for the smallest child to the largest child murderer to the rock between your feet."

Well said, well said. This echoes my own convictions in the matter quite nicely. However Being a lapsed Catholic who has taken it himself to develop a better understanding of what the Early Christian Church was getting at. I have on my own time spent quite a bit of time studying the apocryphal texts with a particular emphasis on the Gnostic scriptures. but before I get into that bit of my rant, I would like to make one thing clear: The Church didn't "stamp out" meditation, they integrated it into their own system in the form of the Holy Rosary. The phenomenon of the Rosary seems to be unique to Catholic Christianity, but if you dig arround there is evidence that forms, prototypes if you will, of the Rosary have been used by Christians since the early days, before it was widely used or recognised as an institutionaly appropriate devotional tool. Recently I have taken up the practice of saying the rosary on a regular basis. When I was a practicing Catholic it was always something I had intended to do but never bothered to get into it. The first time I took up the beads and said the rosary I didn't focus on the mysteries I simply said the various prayers in the order that they had been taught to me. What came after was, to me anyways a truly sacred experience. When I got to the last Decade of the Rosary and said the final prayer the "Hail Holy Queen" something like a wall inside of me brok down and I just started crying uncontrollably. In the moment when this happened I was immediately and painfully aware of all my sins, and how these misdeeds had affected those arround me, kind of like ripples on still water. It had been just over two years since I had made any sort of confession. World Youth Day 2002 was by breaking point with the Church. After the, well "Hollowness" and spiritual vacuity and biggotry and infighting I had witnessed there I decided that the Church in all its extant forms was a betrayal to the true spirit of truth love and fellowsip that was at the core of Christs teachings. This wasn't a new revelation to me, it was something I had suspected for a while leading up to the WYD ceremonys. the quote from The Revelation of St. John "I know that you are neither hot not cold. How I wish you were one or the other" Rev 3:15-16 seemed at that moment to be put into an immediate context for me. While I still mantained my love of Jesus Christ and God most high, I felt completely dissillusioned by the church. My studies of Apocryphal scripture, especially the Nag Hammadi Library, and a book called "The Complete Gospels" have subsequently shed new light for me on what Christ and the Apostles were getting at, and IMO is something that has been lost by the mainstream church. Man, being the likeness of God is, to use hermetic terminology, a microcosm. To achieve salvation, once again imo, is to continually strive to understand the true nature of the self. The self being a representation on God on earth, and the Soul being The essence of that representation, to strive for understanding of the soul is, in essence, to strive for the understanding of God. Knowlege is irrellevent. No one can "Know" anything. that is really the only thing that Descartes hit on in his philosophy. Evrything, ultimately boils down to faith. Athiesm is just as much a religion imo as Christianity Buddhism etc. The Grace argument makes a lot of sense to me as well. In my meditations recently I remembered part of the Apostles Creed "He suffered under Pontious Pilot, was crucified, died, and was burried, he descended to the dead..." It is my belief that Jesus did descend into Hell, where he preached the good news to the dead, that they might also be saved. I think that if Heaven and Hell are actual "places" then they are as eternal as God and would therefore exist outside of our conception of time. At this point I would like once again to state that all this is pure speculation on my part. But if the Christ did "descend to the dead" then I think that in truth, no one is condemned to hell for eternity. Evryone, both living and desceased can come to God. In closing I would like also to point out that the Bible in its present form has been translated and transcribed countless times over the last 2000 years. To the point where, I would argue, that if any one who earnestly wanted to derive more than simply a cursory understanding of cannonical scriptures, would do well to invest in a Concordance. Either that or find some other way to get a copy of the bible that is closer to source. I would suggest "The Complete Gospels" to any one who is interested in a clearer, more holistic, understanding of Christ's message. The Scholars version of this book also has comentary by the translators. As for the Old Testament I would suggest picking up a copy of the Torah, it's the same book. As for the Epistles, and Revelation? You're on your own there. I would say that a Concordance would probably be your best bet at finding a more lucid interpretation of those scriptures. As with any Holy book, the true meaning seems to be what ever you take out of it. With dilligent persuit of the truth and faith in the process (what ever that may be to you) you'll find meaning. In this rather prolonged kick at the dead horse of this thread I have attempted to share with all of you some of the insights that I have been given in my own search for truth. "Seek and you will find, Knock and the door shal be opened to you."
"No one man, or in this case religion, has a monopoly on Truth"
If you have read all of this without losing interest I thank you, make of it what you will. I hope this rant has been of some use to someone.
I'm getting off my soap box now.
good night, God bless.
 
 
Seth
11:27 / 22.03.04
Addressing the thread title, and from my own experience, there's an abundance of rich spirituality to be seen, heard, felt and touched in many Churches. I've seen healing, heard people delivering precise and rationally inexplicable prophetic revelation, experienced Shamanic soul retrieval, witnessed and undergone the embodiment of the Holy Spirit, and frequently spent entire services in ecstatic trance states. None of this is uncommon, and it's only a small taste of the wealth of amazing ways in which I've encountered the Divine within Christianity. The Churches I've been to encourage meditation and the individual experience. And they're not pointless institutions, at their best they're loving and supportive communities.

Of course, as Illmatic rightly says, Christianity is vast beast that merges with Voudoun and Shamanism at one end, Gnosticism at the other, and in between taking in a hell of a lot besides. The spiritual experiences possible within Christianity are therefore far wider than this thread is currently taking into account. And yes, I agree that its possible to have an awful experience of some Churches and some interpretations of doctrine. Take dualism, for example, which exists as part of the Fall for a great deal of Christians (eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Ie: the ideal state of man is to exist without dualism.

It's interesting that Jung sites Christianity as ignoring the inner individual, but also uses Jesus as a symbol of what he calls the individuation process. I have a feeling the Jung quote that starts this thread is way, way out of context. Jung certainly had issues with some strands of mainstream organised Christianity (see Seven Sermons to the Dead), but I have a strong feeling that his relationship with this bizarre and complex religion was considerably more bizarre and complex than the quote by itself allows for.

Ramble ramble.
 
 
ajm
12:53 / 22.03.04
lllmatic:
Christianity isn't one thing? Well its one word. How may definitions does it have. Sure there are Catholics and Protestants and Baptists and a couple of other major ones, but all there differences are on superfical things (how important is the Pope? How significant is the virgin Mary?...) When and if you go to church, everyone, EVERYONE has to swear that they beleive that SAME THING (ie. the creed). So Christians are supposed to believe the same thing, but they don't. And Christianity is supposed to have the same meaning at its root, but it doesn't. So in away you are right and wrong.

It's to complex to understand? Well then lets not think about at all then, well get the supercomputers to deal with it.

This is 'one' of the major problems I find. The insane sensitive shown to religions and the religious. We can't criticize or get to the problem with religion because people are afraid to probe and 'hurt feelings' and people get agree and upset. This is also what I meant when I said that is causes violence, you can barely talk about without causing (mild) violence. We have to understand that religions don't define us spiritually, which is why people can't be summed up and dismissed, (yet Christianity can).

(I could really go on and on concerning this topic, as you can see from my posts)
 
 
ajm
13:22 / 22.03.04
I also have been reading alot about Gnosticism and they believed that one had to obtain divine 'knowledge' as they felt faith was inadequate. They also believed that Jesus was a 'man' who had gain his gnosis and was trying to teach his dispiles about their true nature, that they are god and that everyone must be active in their own salvation, which goes beyond just believing (faith). They also believed that the snake in the garden was a saviour like Christ who came to teach us of our true nature through 'knowledge'. Also that the creator of this world must be cruel as he allows suffering to occur (you can wipe this belief away by saying that we can't know god's intentions but in the end it's just and excuse).

I've been reading the lost gospels of Phillip, James, and Thomas and they had very interesting interpretation of the Old Testement and Jesus. It's amazing to think, if the early Fathers of the Christian church didn't destroy most of these texts and gnostics, what Christianity would be like now.

Also, its really hard to get into a deep meditation when your fumbling with the rosemary beads and trying to recite long complicated prayers. I can barely do it in its pure state.

Thoughts to ponder...
If Jesus is a part of God, why does he pray to himself in the Bible?
Why is he refered to as a Prophet more often then the Son of God?
Why is Adam and Ephraim and Israel also refered to as the Son of God?
Aren't we all the Son's and Daughters of God?
Isn't the Trinity an excuse to call a polytheisim a monotheisim?
If Jesus died for our sins, why do people still have to repent?
If the Bible is the 'Word of God' why did he make it so confusing and open to so many interpretations?
How can one belong to a religion with so many question marks above it?
Shouldn't religion be simple? Love is.
 
 
illmatic
13:49 / 22.03.04
ajm: C'mon, surely there's a difference between say, St John of the Cross, George Bush and Thora Hird? I find it easier to deal with Christianity thinking of it terms of it's multiple meanings and effects, which change with time/geography/denomination. It isn't a static entity, this might be contary to some Christian self-understanding, but not all of them. This way you allow for the postive sides ie. the example Deva gave in t'other thread of the role of Bapist churches in the Civil Rights struggle, "liberation theology" in South America, the good social work done by the C of E in the UK, it's personal redemptive effect in the life of many Christians etc. - while acknowledging it's negatives - sure you don't need examples here - and allowing room for effects which are aligned with Christianity but not caused by it ie. the policies of the Bush/Reagan governments. To talk about Christianity any other way is too simple. Not "right/wrong" but "both/neither".

As to your point about being unable to talk about it becuase of fear of hurt feelings, I don't really see it like that. I see it more as if you go on the attack - as you have been - what you're going to generate is hostility and aggressive, defensive reactions in return. I think you're more likely to develop a space for mutual understanding, if not agreement if you try and dialogue with people, understand why they have ideas so different from yours.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:31 / 22.03.04
I'm sure some people here are aware of Acahrya S and her mission against the faithful, but for interested parties who don't this site broadly covers her rants.

Following links to apologetic's responses to her, and her responses to their responses is a great way to kill a few hours if TV has already driven you bonkers.
 
 
Jub
14:40 / 22.03.04
ajm - here's one for you....
Why do you (besides trying to answer your essay question!) care if Christianity is not one cohesive whole?

Christianity isn't one thing? Well its one word.
Yes it is. bravo. That doesn't negate the idea that it's one concept. If you think it is, then I would like you to give me one defining all emcompassing definition of "table". Everyone knows what that means, so it should present less trouble than Christianity. Right?

You said Shouldn't religion be simple? Love is. I don't really see how this helps your position. There are many different types of love just as there are different parts of Christianity. To labour the point, give me one all emcompassing definition of love.

Read Putnam, Wittgenstein and Frege.
 
 
Ex
14:57 / 22.03.04
When and if you go to church, everyone, EVERYONE has to swear that they believe that SAME THING (ie. the creed).

The church and the creed? Dozens of churches, and a similar plenitude of creeds. I remember from my wellspent youth the Nicene and the Apostles', but there are others.

Catholics and Protestants and Baptists and a couple of other major ones

In my very small and unremarkable rural home town, we had: Catholics staffed by a French order of monks, United Reform Church, four different protestant churches in a team ministry (ranging from high Anglo-Catholic incense and bells to guitars'n'Graham Kendrick low church), the Methodists, and an evangelical church in a converted factory who invited the Gifts of the Spirit (experienced as trances, speaking in tongues and so forth). And a nearby protestant monastery. The doctrinal differences between these groups, and the approaches to the combination of life and faith, and the differences between spiritual events and practices in them were bloody massive.
That complicates the question of whether a religion is spiritually satisfying.

And the different strands of Christianity have serious implications beyond "how important is the Pope? How significant is the virgin Mary?". Especially when you consider how the spiritual matters (which may look like fiddling to a non-believer like myself) impact on practical considerations. To give an obvious example, a issue that seems small and faith-related (did Christ own his own clothes?) has massive political and material implications (should the church hold massive reserves of wealth?).

people can't be summed up and dismissed, (yet Christianity can).

So people are inordinately complex and multi-layered beings, but something that has been produced by millions of them over a long stretch of time is a piece of cake? I can see you're resisting the reductiveness of slotting complex spirituality into a religious orthodoxy, but you're also over-emphasising the orthodoxy to help your case. Which isn't helping your case.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:47 / 22.03.04
Christianity isn't one thing? Well its one word. How may definitions does it have. Sure there are Catholics and Protestants and Baptists and a couple of other major ones, but all there differences are on superfical things (how important is the Pope? How significant is the virgin Mary?...) When and if you go to church, everyone, EVERYONE has to swear that they beleive that SAME THING (ie. the creed).

Congratulations, you've produced the most wilfully ill-informed paragraph of writing ever to grace the pages of Barbelith. (I think you snagged the silver with that thing about how religions are just like football teams in another thread.)

Two quick points:

1) Anyone with even the most basic, basic, BASIC passing knowledge of Christianity (or other fairly common fields of knowledge like, say, the history of Britain) knows that denominational difference cannot simply be swept aside as "superficial" or by saying "its [sic] one word". I don't really know where to start here. How about something simple and entertaining like Jack Chick's take on Catholicism - wacky, nasty stuff, but it might be the first step in helping you realise that some people believe denominational differences to be very important. Or to take a saner figure as our guide: Jack Fear has gone into some detail about the difference between belief in salvation through faith, and salvation through grace. I myself think he has been incredibly fortunate if he has really never encountered a Christian who believed that all non-Christians are going to hell; I have encountered several. Again, a pretty big difference. Or take the divisions in the Anglican Church which have arisen over the issue of homosexuality (this has been well covered in the news, it doesn't require much effort for you to gain a working knowledge of the issue), or before that, women priests, or... Oh, why am I bothering?

2) Your lack of knowledge about that which you are attempting to discuss is made even more painfully clear when you claim that everyone has to swear a creed every time they go to any church. Demonstrably false. I didn't. I suppose it would be very easy for you to discover this for yourself, but again I'm not holding out much hope.

And contrary to your self-aggrandising little delusion in which everyone disagrees strongly with what you are saying because of "the insane sensitive shown to religions and the religious" (two sub questions: 1) is this English? and 2) are you familiar with modern western popular culture in any way?), I think many people here have serious problems with organised religion in general and some or all incarnations of Christianity. I know I do. I'm not offended by your hostility to religion, ajm. I am offended by the laziness of your thinking, your staggering aversion to anything resembling research, and your ability to dismiss very articulate and informed counter-points. Part of the reason this bugs me so much is that valid criticisms of organised religion are always in danger of being drowned out by the din of stupid ones.

You have not given this much actual thought, ajm. The fact that you started this thread with no actual thoughts of your own, and that it was intended largely as a way for people to help you with your homework, is entirely indicative of the quality of your contribution to Barbelith thus far. I suggest you might want to consider the possibility that Christianity is something you do not know much about, and that other people may know a bit more about it than you, and have some insights to offer. Then we might get somewhere...
 
 
grant
17:24 / 22.03.04
Brief observations:

1. It seems likely that Jung, given when and where he was writing, was using the term "Christian world" to refer to what we would today call the modern, Western world. Which is pretty thoroughly secular, today. In fact, there's possibly an irony in that being the opening post in this thread.

2. The relevant passage is "No one comes to the Father except through me," and it's been interpreted various ways.

Including, by the Cross+Flame user named "PastorFreud" (because he's both a pastor and a psychotherapist), as No one (here, in this group of disciples I'm talking to) comes to the Father except through me (this human being you've been traveling, eating, and living with, not some obscure idea of "Messiah" out there in the ether of the forms).

You'll find the same idea stated explicitly in the Gospel of Thomas, a book which is not a part of mainstream Western Christianity, but is definitely a part of the Christian tradition. Leading to point #...

3. There is, as Illmatic says, no monolithic entity that is "Christianity." Just ask the folks over at Christianity.com if the pope is a Christian. That is, if the leader of the world's largest Christian denomination is, in fact, a member of the religion itself as viewed by them, the loudest (and possibly largest) denomination in America.
 
 
ibis the being
18:33 / 22.03.04
I am offended by the laziness of your thinking, your staggering aversion to anything resembling research, and your ability to dismiss very articulate and informed counter-points.

Here here!
Perhaps, ajm, your feeling that Christianity is a hollow experience stems from your totally superficial engagement (or lack thereof) with the religion.
 
 
ajm
19:34 / 22.03.04
First time here, sorry for starting the thread out with a quotation (I like them though).

It isn't a static entity

Jesus is the root of Christianity. So for Christians Jesus is truth, can we agree on that? Of course.

To talk about Christianity any other way is too simple. Not "right/wrong" but "both/neither".
God, lets not make things too simple, stupid people might be allowed to give their opinion. If there is no truth or answer we might as well give up now. Do we have to talk about politics in a dialogue about spirituality? What I'll repeat is that politics are in the way of spirituality.

and allowing room for effects which are aligned with Christianity but not caused by it ie. the policies of the Bush/Reagan governments.
What if the effects were war or genocide?

I see it more as if you go on the attack - as you have been - what you're going to generate is hostility and aggressive, defensive reactions in return. I think you're more likely to develop a space for mutual understanding, if not agreement if you try and dialogue with people, understand why they have ideas so different from yours.
I have been a little 'straight to the point' I guess. Defensive reactions? I thought I was just responding to counter attacks. Also I think I have put up alot of good points which no argued or agreed with and I think I have agreed with many points, although I didn't state it every time.

give me one defining all emcompassing definition of "table".
How about, a thing that other things can be placed, up off the ground. I don't know, go here (www.dictionary.com). I kind of see your point though, not the relevance. Should we not use words so broad like 'table' and 'Christianity'? We should start a thread on semantics.

To labour the point, give me one all emcompassing definition of love.
You can't. Just because it can't be defined doesn't make it complex. To an intellectual it might.

The church and the creed? Dozens of churches, and a similar plenitude of creeds.
Yes this is one of my points, which some here don't agree with.

Especially when you consider how the spiritual matters (which may look like fiddling to a non-believer like myself) impact on practical considerations. To give an obvious example, a issue that seems small and faith-related (did Christ own his own clothes?) has massive political and material implications (should the church hold massive reserves of wealth?).
I am mainly concerned with spiritual considerations. My point is that what people think are spiritual matters and really political and doctrinal matters. Political and material implications are important and a large result of the spiritual aspect, but not relevant here.

So people are inordinately complex and multi-layered beings, but something that has been produced by millions of them over a long stretch of time is a piece of cake?
People are more complex because they contain a spirit. A religion is a system, an ideology, and even if it take a huge ass book to define it, it is still a dead thing without life, without spirit.

Congratulations, you've produced the most wilfully ill-informed paragraph of writing ever to grace the pages of Barbelith. (I think you snagged the silver with that thing about how religions are just like football teams in another thread.)
I listed three real different major denominations and said there were others. I listed two real denominational differences. And yes you have to swear on a creed if you’re going to be part of the church. Some churches even have ceremonies were they dunk you in water. You can't be apart of the religion and believe just any old thing you want to.
Also, I said sports teams and the similarity is a collection of people with similar interests and concerns. Maybe a little too far. Maybe not.

but it might be the first step in helping you realise that some people believe denominational differences to be very important.
My very point, people are caught up in the politics of it and are experiencing no real spiritual side. The minister at my previous church would preach the very thing.

Your lack of knowledge about that which you are attempting to discuss is made even more painfully clear when you claim that everyone has to swear a creed every time they go to any church. Demonstrably false. I didn't. I suppose it would be very easy for you to discover this for yourself, but again I'm not holding out much hope.
I've been to probably a few hundred separate services at between 20-30 different churches of different denominations. Some may not find this alot, but its more than most people I know.

1) is this English? and 2) are you familiar with modern western popular culture in any way?
Sorry about my writing, and yes I have a basic understanding western popular culture, although probably not as well as you do. I am talking about the current effectiveness of Christianity as a spiritual tool, not with pop culture. I don't claim to be an intellectual. I can't spell well. Maybe I shouldn't share my view.

Christianity is something you do not know much about, and that other people may know a bit more about it than you, and have some insights to offer. Then we might get somewhere...
I know that there are people who know more about it than me and I have been waiting for insight into other people’s views. What I've mostly gotten back is variations on 'aren't you too harsh' or 'isn't that intolerant' or 'look how little you know' and then go on to spout interesting facts that have nothing to do with the topic.

Perhaps, ajm, your feeling that Christianity is a hollow experience stems from your totally superficial engagement (or lack thereof) with the religion.
I was committed once. (sob)

You all asked for this post.
 
 
ajm
19:50 / 22.03.04
What connects us all is the spirit, what defines/divides us is our beliefs. People think it's more important to define themselves through whatever (religion, the topic of this form), I say, as do others, that we all need to be connected if we are to have peace within ourselves and within the world.

“It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art of seeing.” Jung
 
 
ibis the being
20:01 / 22.03.04
ajm, if you're seeing a lack of counterarguments to your posts, it's because your points are barely coherent and severely ill-informed. It's hard to know where to begin in replying to you. But since you want some specific examples, let's start with these two:

Catholic, Protestant, and Baptist are not "three real different major denominations." Under the umbrella of "Catholic," for example, you have Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and those are just the two largest. Under "Prostestant," there's Southern Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, and on and on and on. But that's not the point. The point is your ignorance is showing. And then there's this:

And yes you have to swear on a creed if you’re going to be part of the church. Some churches even have ceremonies were they dunk you in water. You can't be apart of the religion and believe just any old thing you want to.

Well, I've been to several different churches as well and I was never required, or even asked, to "swear on a creed." In fact, within my father's church several of the more prominent members (sa the pastor, guest pastor, youth pastor, etc) disagree on certain points of doctrine and have agreed to disagree.

And the ceremony where they "dunk you in water?" That would be the Baptist church practice of baptism. It's a symbolic act that signifies the death of the old self and the cleansing of one's sins. It's a pledge to commit oneself to Jesus. Sometimes it's also a pledge to commit oneself to a particular church, but not always.

I really cannot imagine what makes you think you can willy-nilly tell Barbelith the way it is in "Christianity" when clearly there are more than a few of us who are acquainted with some branch of that religion.
 
 
ajm
20:23 / 22.03.04
I will plead ignorance on the fact that I don't know how all the different denominations break down. My point is still that this type of politics gets in the way of spiritual development. Please someone comment on this statement, with reasons, expecially if you disagree.

Being 'at' a church and becoming an official member of the congregation, I believe are different things. If I have to take the example really far out then; how would you be recieved if you went to a church and held Gnostic Christian beliefs and told people that you believed Jesus didn't die for our sins and that God the 'Father' is really evil. How would you be recieved?

Also I know what baptism is, I was being funny.

Like I said, I don't know everything about Christianity, but I know enough. And all the dogma and politics of it is exactly what I'm arguing against. It goes against finding a spiritual connection. I know some people that don't have one yet confuse it with feelings of power that they have the truth, or feelings of security, or they have a little bit of a connection and it's simply tied to the church for them. It possible that this is true for people. It was true for me. If you never had a real connection, how would you know if you didn't have one. If you have one and it's tied to going to church ever sunday, how would you know that it isn't tied to a building, or a statement of beliefs, or some random symbol (which people obvious create meaning for, but have no meaning on their own).

(Please don't confuse my excitment with arrogance or defensivness)
This is fun. Like tennis.
 
 
grant
20:31 / 22.03.04
It isn't a static entity

Jesus is the root of Christianity. So for Christians Jesus is truth, can we agree on that? Of course.

Yes, but there's substantial disagreement as to who Jesus was, or even what Jesus was. Ever read about the Council of Chaldedon that split the Coptic Church off the Catholic Church?

Or, to use a slightly more populous denomination, ever check out that whole argument over a single preposition that divided Roman Catholicism from the Eastern Orthodox denominations in the Great Schism? (OK, it's a conjunction in Rome and a preposition in the East, but still -- a single syllable word that's neither a noun nor a verb.)

And these dissensions are still within the framework of the Nicene Creed (as good a definition as any for "mainstream Christianity" -- they leave out all the nuttier stuff from Gnostics, Nestorians, Mandeans and whoever else.
 
 
Grey Area
21:01 / 22.03.04
I've read and re-read this thread three times now, and I have to ask: ajm, what exactly do you want to get out of this discussion? Reasons to feel comfortable in your rejection of christianity? Proof that you were wrong and should return to the fold? A ways and means to piss people off and make flippant remarks? What?

(Please don't confuse my excitment with arrogance or defensivness)
This is fun. Like tennis.


What did you expect in this part of the board? Curling? 'Cause that's what your attempt at discussion reads like: Lobbing a whole bunch of rocks at something and hoping one lands close, while scattering everyone else's rocks as far away as possible.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:52 / 22.03.04
Like I said, I don't know everything about Christianity, but I know enough.

I'm sorry, ajm, but actually you don't. You don't know enough to have the kind of discussion you seem to want to have. There is certainly a role for finding out more about Christianity and religion in general in the Head Shop, but this is not what you are trying to do, or if you are trying to do it you are doing it astonishingly ineptly. Maybe you should start again, and start by asking people about the different forms of Christian doctrine and Christian worship, and then start building your premises on that, rather than making a series of allegations that, to be honest, it is a testament to the quality of the people we have here that anyone has even bothered to engage with.

Now, let's pretend you have started with a question. Let us further pretend that that question is "do doctrinal issues and debates, and the general process of Christendom, get in the way of a true spiritual engagement with the divine, be that couched in Christian, Judeo-Christian or non-Christian terms?", or words to that effect. And perhaps, if the patience of those who actually *do* know enough about Christianity has not yet been exhausted, you will get a response.
 
 
Baz Auckland
00:57 / 23.03.04
ajm - couldn't you apply your arguments to any religious group? Why single out Christianity? What do you think of other major organized religions? Judaism and Islam for example? Are they more spiritual?
 
 
Information in formation
08:28 / 23.03.04
"its really hard to get into a deep meditation when your fumbling with the rosemary beads and trying to recite long complicated prayers. I can barely do it in its pure state."

OK ajm, Have you ever read "Book 4" By Aleister Crowley? it's a book in three volumes, Mysticism, Magick, and The Law. The volume I wish to reccomend to you in Vol.1 Mysticism, read through that brief treatise on meditation, assana, and mantra, and then go out and read something about the prayer structure of the Rosary. The only "Complex Prayer" in the whole thing is the Creed. Which I might ad is, like ANY Holy scripture, be it the Tao Te Ching, The Jatticas, the New Testament, The Torah, The Quran, Liber AL etc. Is open to PERSONAL interpretation. As a lapsed Catholic I interpret the part "... The Holy Catholic Church..." to mean the universal principles that are spread throughout Christian scriptures both in and out of the cannon--basically the fundamental ideology that unites. Secondly, none of these prayers are so complex as to negate the possibillity of memorisation, any Catholic who was raised in that tradition would know it by heart from an early age. I've been doing the Rosary for only a month and have memorised all the prayers involved in the meditation. Which brings me to my next contention: It's hard to get into a meditative state no matter what technique or system you are following! As I suggested above "Book 4" is an easy read, and the techniques seem simple. but I defy you to actually perfect the practice of a single assana mentioned in that book. I am no master of any form of meditation but regardless of what type you chose to practice, wether it is simply staring at a flame and trying to clear your mind, or wether it is using some form of mantra yoga, or what ever, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS! The merrit of any form of meditation does not rest on it's expedient results or its facillity, but on it's difficulty, and on the efforts of the individual who is practicing it. Also, for a refreshing, and curious look at the deeper meanings of the teachings of the Christ, I would suggest you pick up a book called "The Meaning of Christ for Our Age" By F. Aster Barnwell. I'm not certain if it's still in print, but you can find a used copy for cheap at www.alibris.com. Barnwell takes the teachings of Jesus (with a focus on the beatitudes and parables) and displays them as a transformative discipline, (which they really are, if you think about it.) Lastly, Rosemary is a herb that is tasty in food, the Rosary is a mystical tool used by the laitey--particularly in the Catholic tradition. It is so called because the first Rosarys were made out of beads of hard pressed rose pettals.
 
 
Ex
08:38 / 23.03.04
How, as a chritian do you get in touch with the spirit of your being? [...] And all the dogma and politics of it is exactly what I'm arguing against. It goes against finding a spiritual connection.

I'd say that you have one specific idea of what spirituality is - if I can summarise you and extrapolate a bit, you find it to be personal, individual, necessarily outside dogma and institutions, and it doesn't need props (e.g. rosary beads) or a specific location.
I'd suggest that although it's cool that you've learnt how your spirituality works, it really isn't the same for everyone. There isn't a one-size-fits-all "things spiritual". You've said yourself that people are diverse and complex. I'd second that and propose that some people find it easiest to get in touch with spirituality and connectedness using (for example) a community of shared faith, or a statement of doctrine of belief such as a creed, or items and locations that direct their thoughts and behaviours to the spiritual.
These may look like obstacles or diversions to you, but they're useful to other people.

And within Christianity there's a lot of room to gravitate toward a denomination that suits your spiritual ideals. For example, if I wanted a sense of dignified elevation and traditional praise once a week, I'd pop home to my Anglo-Catholic CofE bunch (mentioned earlier). If I wanted a church that merged the social and faith groups more totally, used a much more free-form worship, had tinges of the ecstatic and devoted a lot of energy to evangelising outreach, I could go to the New Covenant (also mentioned earlier). If I want solitary meditation, I can pull a Sister Wendy.
Some of these are spiritual considerations (how do I find it easiest to reach the spiritual parts of myself and be in touch with God - through ritual or improvisation, through music or silence, in a dedicated building or in privacy). Some of these link into practical concerns (do I think the best way of expressing my faith is in tithing to the church).

So I'd say again that your argument falls into the same hole that you have placed Christianity in. The Christian bundle of faiths is a lot more mobile, inflected, diverse and active than you think, and your definition of spirituality seems a bit rigid, exclusive and not diverse enough. I'm pointing this out not to knock you and your views but to suggest reasons for the popularity of Christianity as a spirituality, which seem to be baffling you.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:40 / 23.03.04
Hey Baz - ajm has made his feelings on religion in general fairly clear here (and below). Interestingly, here we also learn that religion and race are basically the same thing, that all religions are inherently "rasist", and that even personal spiritual paths that have nothing to do with organised religion can be bad and wrong. I suspect ajm may have started this thread in order to narrow the field of discussion...

My point is still that this type of politics gets in the way of spiritual development. Please someone comment on this statement, with reasons, expecially if you disagree.

Don't try to be clever, it doesn't suit you. Your point, your initial claim, the one that led myself and others to respond with information about the nature of denominational differences etc, was "Sure there are Catholics and Protestants and Baptists and a couple of other major ones, but all there differences are on superfical things". Now you are saying "Aha! Their differences aren't superficial at all - this shows how divisive and political religion is!", thus utterly failing to recognise that this contradicts your earlier point. (See also "everyone has to swear the same creed" - "no they don't, there are different creeds" - "yes this is one of my points".) If you want to concede that your earlier point was wrong, and you would prefer to argue from a standpoint that says that Christianity occurs in many forms and that this is why it is a hollow spiritual experience, then go ahead.

I'd also like you to try and respond to the fact that myself and at least one other person here has claimed direct experience of attending churches where one does not have to swear on a creed. Your response has been: "And yes you have to swear on a creed if you’re going to be part of the church", which suggests you either don't understand the statement "I myself was part of a church and did not have to swear on a creed", or you believe I am lying. I am not. Would you like to amend your statement that swearing on a creed is always a requirement of people who attend church?

Finally, if you do indeed have "a basic understanding [of]western popular culture", then could you please back up your statement that there exists an "insane sensitive shown to religions and the religious"? Because it strikes me that religion and religious people are often depicted as figures of fun, or in a very negative light, in film, television, etc. Is that not your experience?
 
 
Seth
08:53 / 23.03.04
My point is still that this type of politics gets in the way of spiritual development.

How passive, ineffectual and impotent your spirituality must be if you've chosen to allow anything to have power over it and you. Sounds pretty hollow, dead and lifeless. Politics, differences of opinion, complexity and division are parts of life wherever you go, and if your spirituality can't coexist with humanity in this respect then you should seriously consider becoming a hermit. Grow up, join the real world, accept that life can't always go as you want, and for God's sake, quit whining and adapt.
 
 
illmatic
10:09 / 23.03.04
Ajm: I’ll confine myself to discussing the stuff you mentioned in response to me.

Christianity isn't one thing? Well its one word

Yes and so is the name “Andrew” which IIRC is your name. Are you therefore synonymous with all the other Andrew’s in the world.?

When and if you go to church, everyone, EVERYONE has to swear that they believe that SAME THING (ie. the creed).

I’m not a Christian and I’ve only been to Church a few times in my life. However, I did at not time have to swear on any kind of creed and I’m unaware of this a common practice. What exactly do you mean?

God, lets not make things too simple, stupid people might be allowed to give their opinion. If there is no truth or answer we might as well give up now.

In these two sentences you equate simplicity with truth and answers. Why? A process of uncovering “truth” or “truths” would seem to be about exposing yourself to more information. The more informed you, are the better the choices you make, surely. Why does simplification equate to truth?

What if the effects were war or genocide?
Which war and genocide would you be referring to? To pick an example, I would say it’s pretty clear that the recent war in Iraq has little to do with Bush’s Christianity. However, to look for the multitude of causes requires a complex answer (see above). Or do you think he went to war because he’s a Christian?

Defensive reactions? I thought I was just responding to counter attacks.
I wasn’t talking about you in this context. Just as a general principle of argument, an aggressive assault will bring about an aggressive defence. Did you expect everybody to read that quote above and agree with you? “Gee, thanks ajm, now the scales have fallen from my eyes…”


Oh and since your asking…

My point is still that this type of politics gets in the way of spiritual development. Please someone comment on this statement, with reasons, expecially if you disagree.

You didn’t seem concerned with spirituality or spiritual development in your initial post. You seemed more concerned with mounting a full on attack on religion, subsequent posts confirm that you wish to do this without varying or changing your initial perspective. Ironic really, because it strikes me that this is the very mirror of the intolerance and dogmatism that you’re seeking to criticise.

In the quote above, I think that after being challenged, you are now conflating “politics” with doctrinal differences. To admit that these might not be “politics” would be to retreat from your earlier position that Christianity is all one thing. Or one word. I forget. Anyway, in answer to your question, I would say that being part of a religious structure or community does not rule out the possibility of spiritual experience. Check Seth’s first post above if you want some evidence. Nor is it always guaranteed that being part of such a community will lead to conflict with others of differing communities. There are plenty of Christians and others of various denominations who aren’t engaged in the business of throwing firebombs at each other.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:37 / 23.03.04
Just like to add myself to the number of people who have many years' worth of Christian experience and have never once been asked to swear to a creed.

Yes, ajm, Christianity has its faults. So does democracy. So does Anarchism. So (Man forbid) does secular humanism. Chaoism, agnosticism, Islam... tell me one ideology or belief that doesn't have problems. (And yes, I feel the tone of the argument so far allows me to treat political and religious beliefs in the same way for the purposes of this post.)

People will always find the thing that gets them through life. Or at least try to. And whether it be Jesus, Krishna or fucking Bagpuss, who are you to say which is better?

A lot of bad shit has come from religion. A lot of bad shit has also come from atheism. And don't even try to tell me agnostics never do bad shit. The majority of bad shit just comes from "people", who will use whatever they believe to justify whatever they do. That's what us humans do. We try not to, but a lot of the time, it happens. Deal with it.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:25 / 23.03.04
Fucking Bagpuss? It certainly sounds like a practical approach.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:33 / 23.03.04
Jesus is the root of Christianity. So for Christians Jesus is truth, can we agree on that? Of course.

I find this statement particularly interesting and I notice that no one has picked up on it. Superficially it should be right but it's actually very, very wrong and I fancy that this is where your misconception lies. People have been trying to explain that your idea as concerns spiritual development is incorrect because you're wilfully misunderstanding Christianity. You've written a generalised statement about Jesus and a religion but you haven't stopped to think that perhaps Christians approach the very notion of Jesus in entirely different ways. He might lie at the heart of the New Testament but there are a hundred different interpretations of his words and they are all contradictory. People validate those interpretations themselves and create their own individual spiritual path with them and that's what makes Christianity in all its forms an effective organised religion.

When you say Jesus is truth you appear to be claiming that Jesus is the same truth for every Christian but he's not. A Roman Catholic drinks her saviours blood and eats his body and asks Mary for her help in confessing her sins, a Protestant doesn't and thus their interpretation of Jesus is completely different at an extremely basic level.

ajm, your idea doesn't work and your discussion is failing because you're wilfully ignoring what spirituality is.
 
 
ibis the being
12:59 / 23.03.04
I have been a bit sneaky as this quote is what I'm supposed to discuss for a paper in my university class. I want to have a 'serious' discusion to flesh out my own ideas on what he said. I agree the quote is quite vicous, I've it I agree with it.

I'm not entirely sure we're not just writing ajm's term paper for him.
 
 
grant
13:41 / 23.03.04
AdL: I find this statement particularly interesting and I notice that no one has picked up on it.

I did! I did!

Check out the Council of Chalcedon/Coptic Church link up there!

The Copts fascinate the heck out of me.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply