Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
But there must be something both of us understand as "self," since you're employing the term, assuming that other people know what you mean.
If this is so, then at the very least, the same illusion of self must exist for you and I.
But where does this illusion come from? God? But according to you, I am God. So as God, the ultimate reality, I must be creating my own sense of self, in which case, my sense of self would not be an illusion. It would be real. We have a contradiction.
You are God also.
Hindus define truth as "honesty, integrity; virtue."
Hindus also say that "the word 'one' is true, and the word 'two' is error.
So are these claims true?
These Eastern notions of truth presuppose the Western notion of truth, which is the commonsensical correspondence theory of truth; that is, saying of what is that it is, and saying of what is not that it is not.
My toddler likes honey. He knows that bees make honey. So when he comes across a beehive, he makes a beeline for it. I grab him, slap him on the wrist, and say, "No!"
The child sees me as a villian, but I'm really acting as a loving father.
Similarly, our Father in heaven warns us against extra-marital sex. But we see only the pleasurable aspect of extra-marital sex, not the less obvious dangers associated with it. So we see God as a villian, rather than the loving Father that he is.
A feather, (check)
maple syrup, (check)
a canister of helium, (check)
a scuba suit, (check)
5 strong monkeys, (check)
a trapeze, orange marmalade, (check)
and the entire nation of Portugal. (gathering up an armada as we speak)
And you know this --- how? You want to name one?
Remember a couple of acrylic fleece foot-rests, a bag of M&M's, the cardboard core from a roll of toilet paper, pumpkin pie spice (large), a spray can of whipped cream, Surrealistic Pillow, and 2 wedding rings (one for each)...
I'll be the first to admit, I've not read her book or her blog, but since you are predisposed to her final conclusion, I'd say that probably colors your judgment of how she says what she says. Perhaps her kissing remarks have produced their desired effect: she's getting attention for them, and is being selectively quoted to look like somewhat of a prude.
I meant the word "tradition" as in the term "faith tradition". Just another word for "religion". I try to vary the words I use in a paragraph, to avoid sounding repetitious. I'm sorry it caused confusion.
I suspect you have "freed" yourself from the religion of men, but have little knowledge of or faith in God or what He has stated plainly.
I suspect you'd say that about anyone who has not joined your particular sect, if we really got down to it. Anyone who does not believe exactly as you do doesn't know what "He has stated plainly."
If the stuff you believe is so plain, then why are there ten thousand interpretations of it running around out there? Everybody's wrong except you? How do you know your interpretation is right, and everybody elses is wrong?
Carolyn
Hypothetically, what if your toddler grew up, took some apiarist courses, bought one of those bee suits, and decided to travel from apiary to apiary, collecting and sampling their honey? Knowing he had taken steps to reduce the risk to a level acceptable to him, would you still slap him?
And see tagline
Can't argue that. :-)
But if YOU like the guy, then I am not overly scared.
A little. But not overly.
Thank you, Larry. You're a mensch.
Whatta prude....
I wasn't confused. I still think you said what you meant. You used the phrase "Religious tradition" in order to avoid saying "Religious religion"? Now that's confused.
I suspect you'd say that about anyone who has not joined your particular sect, if we really got down to it. Anyone who does not believe exactly as you do doesn't know what "He has stated plainly."
If the stuff you believe is so plain, then why are there ten thousand interpretations of it running around out there? Everybody's wrong except you? How do you know your interpretation is right, and everybody elses is wrong?
I note you did not say I was wrong in my conclusions about you but instead launched an attack. I also am left wondering when you became "everybody".
You are mistaken - give me a moment to review; yup - about everything you wrote. I don't even belong to a "particular sect" unless being a Christian qualifies. The church where we attend is best described as protestant non-denominational. I disagree with many things about the Catholic faith, but do not dismiss Catholics as non Christians. Even among Protestants there is much variation in interpretation of scripture. Pre trib, mid trib, post trib, no trib, spiritualization of various passages, two Isaiahs, etc. etc. It does make for interesting discussion. But the key is the bottom line - what say you of the Christ? Who do you say He is?
I also appreciate a quote that is something like; "there is scripture I do not understand - there is scripture I only think I understand - but there is a great deal in scripture I cannot misunderstand". I am mindful of all three parts of that quote - you seem to prefer to dismiss the third part based on the reality of the first two parts (that, btw, is also part of the answer to your ten thousand interpretations question).
If you believe it is all just so hard to understand try this exercise: 1)check the dictionary for the word "fornication". You will find that it basically means sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other. 2) Now go search the scriptures for that word and construct your interpretation of the passages you find such that fornication is A-Ok. Then the number will be 10,001.
Go do what you want. Believe what you want. That is your God given right.
Funny you should bring this up... it just so happens, that in Germany around 1940 or so the government decided it was legal to round up jews, imprison them, use them as slave labor, use them for medical experimentation, gas them, burn them, and even to skin those who had tattoos in order to make lamp shades. Now then, if it so happens that at some point in the future it becomes legal to do all of this to you and yours it would be fine, right? Just so long as the people doing this to you have used their own intellect, education, and experience to decide it is right, and what kind of wood to make the soap bars from, eh?
If you reject the idea that you need some preacher to tell you what some book says that's fine. Ever hear of some guy named Martin Luther? Why don't YOU use your own intellect, education, and experience to read it? Heck, why don't you set out to prove it is all hogwash just like Simon Greenleaf? (psst - you may want to study up on this guy before you launch into that one, though)
You can insist on being confused if you wish, but the term "religious tradition" instead of "religion" or "faith tradition" or "belief structure" is just a multitude of ways of saying pretty much the same thing.
But the key is the bottom line - what say you of the Christ? Who do you say He is?
I believe the stories to be mythical. Every Bible scholar knows they weren't written down for at least a generation after the events were supposed to have happened. There's a lot of time there, for a deeply persecuted people to have figured out fanciful tales to get them through tough times. Even then, most of the stories were banned a few hundred years later, and only the "approved" ones weren't destroyed to the fullest extent possible.
I've had an interesting time on this topic, I hadn't meant to get into semantic battles with believers, but when any topic touches on either religion or sexuality (and this one hits both), it's inevitable. If this particular young woman had dealt with her promiscuity by donning the burka and becoming a Muslim, she'd be roundly criticized. Same result, different method. I guess everybody's looking for validation of their own positions, in the behavior of others.
I didn't say I was confused, and I am not. This was not a disagreement over semantics. Your position on this and, particularly, the broader implications that underpin this discussion are logically untenable. So it is with moral relativism. But as I said, you are free to believe what you wish and you seem determined. Again, I wish you well.
Hey gobucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.