But the tragedy of the age is that there seems to be no inner spiritual foundation for the call to equality, and this poverty of the spirit leads to a perpetuation of Otherness, of Us vs. — Noble Dust

A very well-written and deeply-felt post. I think you plainly have a spiritual calling. I perfectly agree in your observations about the sham Churchianity of left and right, but you have to question the motivation behind it. If it really did originate with selflessness and compassion, then would it take those kinds of forms? I think not. On the other hand, I suspect there are many pretty well invisible Christians on all sides of the spectrum, who serve without making a lot of noise about it. The 'invisible Church', as it has been called.

Now, I don't self-identify as Christian, I too have an inclination towards the spiritual but for me it has taken the form of Buddhism. One of the best books in that genre that I read was subtitled 'seeking truth in a world of chaos'. That was published in 1987, but it is more true than ever; the amount of chaos is surely growing all the time, like a feedback loop. So I think it's essential to try and find some inner simplicity and peace in all of this chaos. That may not manifest as a big deal, it might simply be receptivity and sensitivity, but also the strength which comes from realising a sense of identity beyond the simply personal. Actually something which has grown out of the meditation I have been practicing is a general sense of compassion. There is a source of that which you have to tap into. I think that is the meaning of such Christian sayings as 'drinking of the water of which I speak'. It isn't specifically Christian, any more than water itself is Christian, but it is real.

Part of the problem in the West is the 'belief vs atheism' dichotomy. The way religious belief became defined as requiring an absolute affirmation of the existence of God inevitably tended towards to the kind of Theism vs Atheism dichotomy that we see playing out in Western culture. I have the feeling that the seeds for this were laid in the formation of the Roman church and it has been playing itself out ever since. It has created a kind of cultural shadow around the whole question of religious belief in the West, which tends towards either fundamentalism on one side and atheism on the other. But I recall as an undergrad, I formed the view that much of modern philosophy is built around the systematic attempt to replace God as the foundation of culture - like an 'anything but God' (explored by Terry Eagleton in Culture and the Death of God)

It might be worth reading up some on the original renaissance humanists - Pico Della Mirabella, Ficino, and Erasmus are three that come to mind. (I don't mean, reading their works in entirety as they are large and require considerable scholarship). But the point about the original humanists is, while they were very critical of the Church (and got into strife for it), they were by no means atheist. They sought to re-invigorate the classical philosophical tradition (Ficino, for instance, translated Plato into Latin). Humanism has to be built around deep philosophical roots, it can't built around evolutionary theory in my opinion, as the only driver for that is survival (and no, I'm not an ID advocate).

I think Buddhist humanism is the best overall option, but there are others. But they have to combine spirituality and science, respect for human rights but also a genuine moral code. And it's a tall order.

I’m politically independent and avoid politics most of the time (this thread isn't really about politics, although that's initially what I have to talk about to get to my concept), but with all of these issues involving the DAPL, Trump's election, systemic racism, Syria, other problems in other countries like Brexit, and the sheer depth of ideological division in the US right now, it has my mind churning with thoughts about oppression, suffering, and division. — Noble Dust

You're politically independent and yet when the Right wins there is a problem (seemingly) and yet, when the Left was winning, no problem. When Obama was there, no problem. Having the Supreme Court enforce the progressive agenda, that to you, while a little bit oppressive, was good. It certainly wasn't enough to motivate a post, or motivate outrage. But Donald Trump and the conservatives around him like Mike Pence winning - oh that's outrageous! That definitely deserves a post >:O

In broad strokes, the courtroom-language of Protestantism, which provides the backdrop for how the Conservative right thinks about the world, is one of possibly many seeds that has given birth to current forms of oppression — Noble Dust

It seems you view conflict as oppressive. Not all of us equate oppression with conflict. The world is conflictual - that doesn't necessarily mean it is oppressive.

What I mean by that is the Protestant metaphor of "God as judge", mankind as "on trial”, depraved by nature and deserving eternal conscious torment. — Noble Dust

You mean the CHRISTIAN metaphor of God as a judge, and of mankind as depraved and deserving of punishment.

"A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; The LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies" Nahum 1:2

The view begins with humanity as depraved, rather than sacred. — Noble Dust

That's because maybe we are depraved, and should thus at least admit to it. A disease cannot be cured without recognition.

God throws us a bone. — Noble Dust

And how else should it be? Should God reward people regardless of what they do, and regardless of how they behave and act?

Conservatives are the last stragglers who haven’t climbed the last rock face to the plateau of equality — Noble Dust

Again, you assume later in your post that we should live in equality. I disagree.

So the progressive left, the champions of many forms of equality - racial, sexual, socioeconomic - don't succeed in freeing themselves from the bondage of Otherness. While striving to champion the oppressed, they vilify the oppressor. — Noble Dust

Yes many forms of equality - equality which puts EVIL and GOOD on the same footing. Of course, any religious person would oppose such equality. Such equality is evil, and should be opposed on all accounts. Evil is not to be trifled with, but must be dealt with with strength.

But the call for equality is still something felt deeply by many people — Noble Dust

Nope. I don't feel it. I don't want an equal world. An equal world would be hell as far as I'm concerned. That would indeed be an oppressive world. It seems to me you need to learn about this:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C. S. Lewis

True equality means the abolition of all punishment of the oppressor by way of forgiveness; equality is possible only through forgiveness. — Noble Dust

Nope. This is not Christian, nor Biblical.

This is forgiveness: Otherness is dissolved and the divide between oppressor and oppressed is destroyed, and this transfigures the spiritual identity of both. — Noble Dust

How is it possible? How can God forgive Satan, while Satan remains Satan? That would be madness! Forgiveness is the response to repentance - to a change of heart. God forgives the thief next to Jesus on the Cross who repents. Who feels sorry for what he has done, who feels and acknowledges that he fully deserves punishment, and who, somehow, even desires the punishment.

One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." — Luke 23:32-43

That's who will be forgiven. That's who is deserving of forgiveness. You list Nietzsche as one of your favourite philosophers, and yet you preach equality and forgiveness in the wrong sense. Nietzsche would have found that despicable - equivalent to slave morality.

You say you are from NYC in your profile. Literarily one of the most progressive cities on the planet. It seems no wonder that your sense of morality has taken such a turn given that fact. Many people these days take religion in vain - they don't even know what their Holy Book, depending on which religion they are, teaches. Christianity is clear - only righteousness will go to Heaven, while evil and immorality is going to the fire to burn.

The question for me is how forgiveness can be brought about in the real world — Noble Dust

Only when the progressives and those on the right drop their immoralities. Only then can it be realised. When they stop the debauchery, when they surrender their lives to God and to goodness, righteousness and justice. This means they stop breaking his law.

The tendency to think of God as "Big Daddy" is a primitive one, though not peculiarly Christian. My guess would be that it has its basis in our self-regard, which was understandable enough when we were ignorant and thought the Earth to be all there is but for heaven or hell and other contrivances indulged in to explain the starry heavens and other things of which we had no knowledge. Unfortunately, our self-conceit remains massive enough that many still believe that God is pretty much like us only better in various respects and is obsessed with our lives, what we eat, how we dress, our sexual preferences, whether we keep holy certain days, whether we act in certain ways rather than others, whether we believe God to be this or that, etc.

That kind of conception of God results in conflict as a matter of course, because we tend to differ in our opinions in various respects and as we think God prefers us we think those not like us are not preferred by God, but are in fact disliked by God. So, we act accordingly.

Surprisingly, this conception of God as (I think) very small, limited and something of a busybody wasn't favored by some even in ancient times when we didn't know of the vastness of the universe. So I like to think that we're not fated to worship Big Daddy.

is obsessed with our lives, what we eat, how we dress, our sexual preferences, whether we keep holy certain days, whether we act in certain ways rather than others, whether we believe God to be this or that, etc. — Ciceronianus the White

But if anything, all this would mean is that God is obsessed with human well-being - because what you eat, how you dress, your sexual preferences, and so forth they all affect your well-being, that's their common denominator.

That kind of conception of God results in conflict as a matter of course, because we tend to differ in our opinions in various respects and as we think God prefers us we think those not like us are not preferred by God, but are in fact disliked by God. So, we act accordingly. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think this is true. The reason for conflict is that some folks want their women to dress decently (according to whatever they set that standard to be, whether it's wearing hijabs, or skirts longer than knee length and so forth) - a rightful desire in its own right - and others don't, and think that's abuse (and other seemingly minor differences like that, with regards to food, sexual preference, and so forth). Therefore the two of them cannot get along, and will never get along. They cannot coexist without quarelling either, because what one does, will affect the other. There is only one sun in the sky and only one image of how it's "cool" to be in the world. If the progressive controls that image, conservatives cannot get their way. Their kids will be tempted to join in the way of life of progressives, because that's the cool thing to do. Their husbands, their wives, they will all be broken apart, slowly but surely, by an ideology which is the opposite of theirs. And the opposite also holds true. There is no solution, each must play their part in history and bat for their team. What Noble Dust suggests - that kind of forgiveness, that's basically giving the world over to progressives, and even he admits as such, for he doesn't oppose progressive ideology - only their manner of enforcing it - he does admit that's it's the "right" way.

Someone like me on the other hand, unashamedly bats for his team :D - does their duty.

So I guess my whole point is this. This "acceptance" doctrines, which include New Age, and all that nonsense - that's nothing but the progressive using a subterfuge - setting the terrain so that he may win. That's all Noble Dust is doing here. Figuring out how it's best to set the terrain, how it's best to blackmail man's moral goodness in order to get his way, and thus make a certain position - conservatism - unacceptable. Nothing more, and nothing less than the pure pursuit of a political agenda, and what upsets me isn't that he's pursuing it - it's that he's pretending to do otherwise. I'm not pretending - I fully acknowledge that I have a political agenda, and I do - I want the world to be a certain way.

DAPL, Trump's election, systemic racism, Syria, other problems in other countries like Brexit — Noble Dust

Oh, so all of these are problems? Most informative.

the courtroom-language of Protestantism, which provides the backdrop for how the Conservative right thinks about the world — Noble Dust

Not all conservatives are Protestants.

The atheistic conception of human equality has no real metaphysical basis — Noble Dust

Actually it does. It's most often materialism.

The question for me is how forgiveness can be brought about in the real world — Noble Dust

It can't, without human beings fundamentally changing their nature.

Woah there, stranger! No need to put words in my mouth. I would offer you another C.S. Lewis quote: "Grief is great. Only you and I know that yet. Let us be good to one another." As I said, this isn't about politics. Seeing my liberal progressive NYC friends spouting anger and hatred towards Trump/Trump supporters, etc. is what spurred these thoughts, not my own outrage over Trump's election. I consider his election the logical conclusion of American political forces at this epoch in history.

On to the important stuff. I don't equate conflict with oppression. They are absolutely a dynamic dychotomy, though. Both are nessisary to bring about the Kingdom of God. Sounds like we probably agree on that. What are your thoughts on oppression?

The metaphor of God as judge isn't part of the eastern orthodox tradition. Or it's at least marginal and not central. *shrug*

I can definitely entertain the idea of us being depraved. I grew up with this view. It's something I go back and forth on. For me, I think it was detrimental to my psyche and developement. I didn't grow up with a sense of my own value or worth, thanks to my Evengelical upbringing. The existentialist in me wants to say that because it can be so detrimental to growth, it's a harmful belief. It sounds like you accept penal substituinary atonement, is that correct? I recently have been attracted to Christus Victor, I think that's where a lot of our disagreements are stemming from. How do you derive any sense of self worth from the idea that your entire eternal destiny rests on God throwing you a bone? ;( it's such an oppressive way of viewing yourself. I'm speaking from experience. You are more valuable and beautiful than that. Original Depravity seems to view human nature as worthless, moving towards value only through a fear-of-hell based acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. Fear based views are ALWAYS, always a form of enslavement. You are absolutely enslaved to fear if you hold this view. That's the only thing I'll be firm and risk being confontational about. So on the other hand, I'm beginning to view human nature as unaware of it's divine value, and going through a painful process of waking up to and taking hold of it's value, a process jump started by Christ's impregnation of unconditional love (of which forgiveness is an essential aspect) into the world. The surpeme moment of Kairos entering Cronos. There's a mysterious divine-human link; Berdyaev says God is awaiting a revelation from man. This requires a free creative act which can only be substantiated through a conciousness that apprehends it's own inherent sacred value, formed in the bosom of the divine itself. There is absolutely no such thing as divine love if you only view God as throwing you a bone. That relationship with the divine is an abusive relationship. Uncondtitional Love is primordial in the deepest sense. Accpeting Jesus to avoid Hell is a condition; there is no room for that mythos within Unconditional Love. It's not a paradox; it's a lie that perpetuates bondage.

If you don't want equality, how do you concieve God's kingdom to be structured? I'm asking honestly. Clearly you believe in Hell. I do not, hence my emphasis on equality. If you'd like to hear my thoughts on Hell, please let me know, but please do not list off all of your reasonings and scriptures for why you think it exists, I know all of them.

As to that Lewis quote, I can't make heads or tails of it.

I don't believe in biblical innerancy, so your arguments through scripture are not convincing for me. Again, I'm very familiar with that tradition.

It's fair for you to assume that because I live in NYC I've taken the Christian faith in vain and don't know scripture. But I do, I was raised in an Evengelical church in the midwest. I can't really say right now in my life whether I'm a Christian. I'm reading and learning a lot right now and am open to a lot.

I regard the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, however flawed, as a fine example of the possibility of a politics of forgiveness.

Mutual tolerance happens all the time. It requires constant reminders and reinforcement, though. I live in an area where Muslims of several generations live in mutual tolerance with white racists, feminists, reactionary Christians, hippies, black activists and quiet family people...Really, we all get along. We keep having to adjust to each other and sometimes it takes a scandal or a big legal case for big adjustments to occur -but they do. A lot of people of different persuasions just want to get along - and work at it. I think much trumpeting of people's supposed incompatibility is lazy polemics by those inactive in civil society.

Fair enough, there's some opinion in my post. :) your sass doesn't accomplish anything though. :(

True on conservatives/protestants, as I said, I'm painting in broad strokes, just looking for connections in a broad sense.

Materialism is ultimately no basis for any real metaphysic. Even the word metaphysic itself highlights this.

Agreed on your last point. Thanks for your thoughts!

Thanks for your kind words, I appreciat that. And thanks for your reminder about invisible Christians, it's a humbling reminder for foghorns like myself.

I'm definitely interested in any recommendations you have on Buddist reading materials.

I'm with you on that false belief/atheism dichotomy. It seems to be born from the gradual disapearance of the concept in early Christianity of God existing outside of the created world; the gradual acceptance of God as part of the cosmos that saw it's peak in the enlightenment naturally gave birth to atheism as the physical world gradually revealed it's own workings without the need for a divine Atlas holding it all together. I think I read about this from a book you mentioned on the old forum, The Unintended Reformation.

Thanks for the recommendation on early humanists, it's on the to do list now.

Materialism is ultimately no basis for any real metaphysic. Even the word metaphysic itself highlights this. — Noble Dust

I'm aware of the etymology of the word. I'm using it in the sense of a theory of the nature of the world. So materialism is one metaphysical theory.

your sass doesn't accomplish anything though. — Noble Dust

Actually it did. Look:

Fair enough, there's some opinion in my post. — Noble Dust

I appreciate the idea of disperate persuasions trying to get along; it's a requirement for any real conversation, as already exemplified in this thread. I don't find it to be an ultimate end in and of itself though, just a starting point. Cooperation of different viewpoints as the ultimate goal for the world just keeps humanity enslaved to this brief life. My views are a lot more eschatalogical than that; cooperation of viewpoints needs a higher goal than just living peacefully for 70 years and then dying.

for real? you could hav just said "hey, that's an opinion man!". :) Let's have a fruitful discussion.

I need to read more on metaphysics. I'm not trying to win a battle here, I'm just searching for truth, friend. If you feel you've "beat" me and sufficiently dismissed my thoughts, what does that accomplish?

As I said, this isn't about politics. — Noble Dust

You did say it, but it obviously is about politics, so we shouldn't cover that up. We should admit to it. We play politics me and you when we discuss such subjects.

Seeing my liberal progressive NYC friends spouting anger and hatred towards Trump/Trump supporters, etc. — Noble Dust

Yes I have no doubt about that - your liberal progressive NYC friends probably went to see the psychiatrist because oh it was so terrible that Donald Trump got elected... I mean can you believe it? end of the world stuff :P

The metaphor of God as judge isn't part of the eastern orthodox tradition. Or it's at least marginal and not central. *shrug* — Noble Dust

I am an Eastern Orthodox, born and raised that way, so it's a bit funny to be told what is and isn't part of Orthodox tradition. I can however see the influence of Berdyaev here - or a peculiarly Western misunderstanding of Berdyaev to be more clear. I'll come back to this.

I can definitely entertain the idea of us being depraved. I grew up with this view. It's something I go back and forth on. For me, I think it was detrimental to my psyche and developement. I didn't grow up with a sense of my own value or worth, thanks to my Evengelical upbringing. — Noble Dust

Okay - what do you mean a sense of your own value or worth? I could blame my upbringing for a million things, but that seems to be the wrong way to go about it. There's nothing we deserve to begin with, and therefore why should we expect something, and then claim we've been hurt by not having it? For example - say you were bullied in school, or had no friends, people teased you, etc. Would your life really have been much better if such wasn't the case? Not really - you're just attached to the idea it would have. You'd just have had a different set of problems. But peace and understanding comes from the inside, not from the world.

Your life up to this point is your life - it wouldn't be yours if it was different. What makes you uniquely you is precisely this.

It sounds like you accept penal substituinary atonement, is that correct? — Noble Dust

No I don't.

How do you derive any sense of self worth from the idea that your entire eternal destiny rests on God throwing you a bone? — Noble Dust

Well I don't think it does depend on God throwing me a bone. It rests on me - but I must be accountable for what I do. I'm not obsessed about getting to Heaven. I should only get to Heaven if I deserve it. If I don't deserve it, then I should desire Hell. And to be entirely honest with you, I'm not so concerned with my sense of self worth. It's just not something that would matter to me. To have or not to have a sense of self-worth doesn't seem conducive to anything. Asking yourself whether you have a sense of your own worth - again, it's not conducive to anything. What is conducive is asking yourself what your goals are - and then working on ways to achieve them.

Original Depravity seems to view human nature as worthless, moving towards value only through a fear-of-hell based acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. Fear based views are ALWAYS, always a form of enslavement. You are absolutely enslaved to fear if you hold this view. — Noble Dust

But I don't view that you should do something based on the fear of hell. You shouldn't fear hell. You should desire it if that's what you deserve. You shouldn't be afraid of it. I mean could you live in a world where injustice didn't get what it deserved? I couldn't - and therefore I freely accept hell, because I feel and sense that injustice is deserving of punishment (unless there is repentance).

Christ's impregnation of unconditional love (of which forgiveness is an essential aspect) into the world. — Noble Dust

Forgiveness upon repentance, not otherwise.

If you don't want equality, how do you concieve God's kingdom to be structured? — Noble Dust

Based on moral equality, not any other kind of equality. Furthermore I don't believe that we can even imagine - except analogically - what God's Kingdom is like because all we have as resources for imagining is this world. And this world is full of conflict and suffering, inherently so. Hence I conclude that Heaven is nothing like this world. I hope for it, but don't know what it is.

I don't believe in biblical innerancy, so your arguments through scripture are not convincing for me. — Noble Dust

Me neither ;)

What are your thoughts on oppression? — Noble Dust

Well let's see. I find many things oppressive including:

Globalisation - the fact that people move from place to place for work, and sever their relationships and never have any roots. Instead they wander aimlessly through the world, and condemn their loved ones to equally suffer due to their absence. The fact that globalisation means that, for example, a couple would break up because one of them wants to work in another country and the other doesn't - that to me is oppression.
Feminism - the fact that some women have turned their bodies into weapons used in order to humiliate men and enslave them as mere sexual objects. The fact that women are taught that it is freedom to have no respect for their bodies, or for any decency at all, but are instead encouraged to give in to the worst passions in mankind.
Racism - the fact that the blacks are purposefully kept poor by the encouragement of poverty producing behaviours such as gang activity, promiscuity, etc. and the fact that they are dumbed down to think "oh there's a black president, thus there's nothing wrong anymore"
Affirmative action - the fact that the white heterosexual male has become the number one public enemy, and a black female lesbian gets a university professor position merely because of her skin color, her gender, and her sexual orientation, not because she's more capable than her white male heterosexual competitor.
Religious intolerance - the fact that religious people are disrespected and seen to be oppressive and unworthy. The fact that, for example, Muslim people are told that they are oppressive because they ask their women to dress a certain way, that I find oppressive. Cultures should be allowed to manifest and be proud of themselves. There's no shame in that. But the progressives want you to think the opposite - they want you to think that you should be ashamed of who you are. If you think for example, that your wife should dress decently you should be ashamed of yourself, because you are an oppressor, you have no self-esteem, and so forth. If you are worried that the cultural milieu isn't adequate for you to instil the right values in your children, suddenly you are disgusting, you are immoral and have to be socially isolated for it. The fact that the progressives have turned labeling and social isolation into a means of enforcing their immoral agenda, and such has to come to a stop. If Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, you choose your philosopher. If any of them would have heard about what the progressives are doing today, they would have been outraged beyond belief! These folks are encouraging submissions to man's worst passions - greed, lust, selfishness, and so forth. This isn't the Bible. This isn't any religion. This is a false and miserable teaching.

And I could go on, but I'll stop for now.

And finally, regarding Berdyaev. The Orthodox do believe in tradition, but tradition isn't the focus for them. The Orthodox do believe in Hell. Only that Hell is in God, and Heaven also is in God. After death we all return to God. Only that the righteous who love God will perceive God's Love as blessedness, and the sinful will perceive it as a burning fire. And that's what's happening today. Look at the progressives. You think they can live in righteousness in God, when all they do in the world is smoke drugs, promiscuous sex, and so forth? They will perceive God as the greatest evil that can befall them.

Back to Berdyaev. Berdyaev does have a point that tradition isn't all there is. Religion isn't all about rule following. There is indeed something higher than mere rule following. The creative participation in Creation. There is much beauty in the world, and the virtues are hard and difficult, while sin and everything evil is easy. To create beauty - instead of evil and sin - is difficult. Not everyone can do it, narrow is the path, and many are those who shall perish. But Berdyaev is right, fundamentally. But the folks raised in Western cultures misinterpret him. He's not saying that Church rules aren't important. He's talking to the people who lived in a society where the Church was in power, and everyone was concerned merely with rule following. We don't live in such a world anymore. In this world, the Church has almost no power. Instead people have given over to what is much worse than Church rule - that is the rule of their own selfishness and the bondage of their own lusts. They haven't achieved freedom, they have achieved a stronger form of enslavement than ever before.

I'd dare speculate that your unhappiness about the present state of the world is the result of precisely the alienation that is the result of immorality. Your soul is more sensitive and thus more capable of perceiving it in the world. With such immorality around it's hard to be happy and content.

I'm definitely interested in any recommendations you have on Buddist reading materials. — Noble Dust

To Meet the Real Dragon
by Gudo Nishijima et al.
Link: http://a.co/bOkHKsm

I did mention 'Unintended Reformation' on the old forum, and since got hold of it - very good but rather too specialist for a non-academic audience; one can get the general drift of what he's arguing without all the vast detail Gregory goes into. Another title along similar lines, but more to do with general 'history of ideas', was M A Gillespie's The Theological Origins of Modernity, that is definitely worth the read. I also have A Secular Age by Taylor, but can't find the required 6 months to absob it. X-)

I read that, the only interesting bit that I found in there was the discussion of the relationship between Freudian theory and the central nervous system. That was a very interesting example of Spinoza's Attribute parallelism ;) It led me to Karl Menninger's book - Whatever Became of Sin? That I also found interesting.

That book has guided my practice since the 1980's.

It's a good book on Buddhism. My favorite resource on Buddhism though is this blog:

https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/

The absolute best out of everything I have read. It actually makes sense, I could actually believe that.

First glance, looks good. Has a good selection from both Theravada and Mahāyāna sources. I agree with that interpretation of anatta on the homepage, although many wouldn't (but let's not derail ND's thread into Buddhism.)

I should add Noble Dust, that my favorite Christian alive today is this guy - the most powerful out of all:



If it wasn't for this guy I may possibly not have been a Christian anymore myself. But this guy - seriously the most powerful man on the planet. He is the very example - his own body, his own life. You have all those progressive gurus preaching this and that - but what do they have to show for it? Where are the fruits? I want to see the fruits, I'm doubting Thomas!

How do you guys do the quotes? hahaha. Can't figure it out.

No, this is not about politics to me. Why do you insist to know what this is about for me? I have almost no political leanings.

I'm not sure why you're making fun of liberals, it doesn't mean anything to me; I'm not one.

I apologize for assuming you were part of some other tradition other than Eastern Orthodox. Apparently I misread some of your thoughts. Do you have any recommendations for reading materials on your faith? I'm interested in Eastern Orthodoxy; I started reading about it from reading Berdyaev, who I was introduced to through reading Walking On Water by Madeliene L'Engle. I'm attracted to the more mystical elements in writers like Berdyaev. His repudiation of discursive philosophy is powerful, I think.

I had in my mind from reading some stuff that the courtroom idea wasn't prevelant in Eastern Orthodoxy, so I must have been mistaken. But it seems like an anthropomorphism of God. It can't be the only way to apprehend those concepts, then.

I agree with you about peace coming from inside. It's something I'm still wrestling through on a personal level. Maybe there's no need to go too deep into upbringing and all of those factors, but I grew up with a lot of negative feelings of shame/worthlessness, etc. So your assertion that self-worth shouldn't be important sounds nice in theory, but not in practice for anyone actually struggling with those problems. It's something to be overcome, and not through simply casting it off as unimpotant. That is literally impossible for ayone dealing with it. Besides, isn't self worth an aspect of love? Maybe it's more a western neuroses, descended from Evangelicalism...

The idea of those who go to hell being repulsed by God's love has always been interesting to me, I've never dismissed it outright.

Are you familiar with David Bentley Hart? I've only read bits, but understand that he's an Eastern Orthodox and universalist. I'd be curious for your thoughts.

Globalisation, yes. I know that solitude you're talking about well. Feminism, yes, but the partriarchy equally so. Racism, of course. Vilifying the white male is definitely oppression, but it's also an inevitable result of history. Religious intolerance, yes.

I have a hard time concieving this weird, meaningless life as the only opportunity to develop a love for God. It seems totally arbitrary. So many factors go into whether a person may or may not have the opportunity to do this. I also see sin as something mankind goes through to understand these higher spiritual concepts, so your frustrated critique of progressives and what you see as their debauchery doesn't hold a lot of sway for me. I don't disagere, but mankind is going through a huge epoch of turmoil that includes those debaucheries, and I think there's a reason. I don't see it as man spiraling into godlessness. Another idea of Berdyaev's that I like is godforsakeness. Mankind is going through a dark night of godforsakeness, due as much from the impotence of the church as anything else. It's a nessisary period in history. This is behind my idea of humanism giving birth to a new religion of the spirit. The worst moments have the strongest potential for redemption. Sometimes the worst offenders become the strongest advocates for truth.

I didn't mention Berdyaev in relation to church rules, I just mentioned his idea of God awaiting a revelation from man, which you didn't address. Any thoughts?

As I'm thinking more, It seems like the problem of forgiveness comes from where the power in forgiveness lies. Does forgiveness only have power when it's asked for, or does it have power when offered? This seems like a dichotomy between liberal and traditional ideas about it. I can see why you would think I have a liberal bent because I'm talking about a form of forgiveness that issues from the oppressed, rather than directly from God.

Edit: and just saw your youtube post, I'll check it out. I'm a doubting Thomas too, at least we have that in common!

But if anything, all this would mean is that God is obsessed with human well-being - because what you eat, how you dress, your sexual preferences, and so forth they all affect your well-being, that's their common denominator. — Agustino

The clothes we wear, the food we eat, who we have sex with and how often we do, have little or nothing to do with our well being except in limited circumstances. So, whether we have warm clothes to wear will impact our physical well being in winter, whether we eat spoiled food will impact our physical well being, whether we have sex with someone with a sexually transmitted disease will do the same. Some religious proscriptions relating to such things may once have derived from observation of the ill effects of certain conduct, but others have nothing to do with well being, physical or otherwise.

Regardless, I think the God of the universe would be unconcerned with such things even if they were connected with our well being; I don't think the human concept of "concern" would apply to such a God.

Actually Augustino, the more I think about your critiques of debauchery and insistence of forgiveness being offered after repentance, it brings up topics I addressed initially that haven't really been addressed again; the origins of the modernity you're critiquing. The atheistic world we live in in the West is not a direct result of evil, rebelious people. It's a gradual, natural, result of the disintegration of first the Roman church, then Protestantism. Again, I'm attracted to your faith, the Eastern Orthodox church, but what role does that church play in this picture of the modern world being a result of the failings of other branches of christendom? Is it really just for you to simply stand by and critique the debaucherous state of a secular world born from the failings of 2/3rd's of the church, parts of the church you aren't affiliated with? The way you go about it doesn't exactly welcome folks like myself in with open arms. A critique of debauchery should first be formulated based on an understanding of it's roots, yes? Again, I think of Berdyaev's concept of a nessisary godforsakeness.

I can definitely entertain the idea of us being depraved. I grew up with this view. It's something I go back and forth on. For me, I think it was detrimental to my psyche and developement. — Noble Dust

Augustine's theory of original sin, as interpreted by Calvin. It's obviously a massive and weighty topic, subject of volumes of books so I preface these remarks with that acknowledgement.

However, the basic idea of 'original sin' is sound - I mean, people are not generally born examples of sweetness and light. We are born with all manners of inclinations, many of which are demonstrably harmful to self and other. And it takes something radical - 'of the root' - to change that, changing it doesn't come about from good intentions.

That is also understood in Buddhism, but in a different way to Calvinism. The key difference between the Buddhist view, and the Calvinist view, is that in the former, this condition is categorised as 'beginningless ignorance' i.e. beings are born with countless proclivities and tendencies towards self-harm. But this is called avidya, 'ignorance', rather than 'sin'. The key difference is that avidya/ ignorance is cognitive rather than volitional. Calvinist theology talks of the 'utter depravity of the will', because the will is corrupted, all we can do is pray for forgiveness; we're totally unable to help ourselves.

But the key difference in Buddhism is liberative insight. As 'ignorance' is cognitive rather than volitional, so too is the remedy, which is prajñā, insight into the causes of suffering. You have to see and know; the term 'Buddha' means 'one who knows'.

Whilst faith is important in Buddhism, it's not central like it is in Protestant Christianity. That's why it is said that Buddhism is not 'religious' in the same sense that Christianity is - because it is a path of insight, of 'direct seeing'. It is religious in some ways, but philosophical in others, but the key point is always 'seeing and understanding the cause of suffering'.

Are you familiar with David Bentley Hart? — Noble Dust

I've read his most recent, The Experience of God. Generally I liked it a lot although it has a lot of polemics. But I'm far nearer to Hart than to materialist philosophies even if I don't profess Christianity. I have some respect for Berdyaev also. Actually there are many Christian philosophers I have respect for - Keith Ward is another and Ed Feser. I most admire the medieval mystics, Eckhardt and Suso and the rest. Dean Inge, Evelyn Underhill. Sometimes I have to be careful of not getting 're-converted' X-)

I have a hard time concieving this weird, meaningless life as the only opportunity to develop a love for God. — Noble Dust

The problem is the 'image of God'. It has been used as an ultimate 'authority figure' and to underwrite a great deal of authoritarianism. (You could argue that the Christian church developed the model for authoritarianism.) But the word is polysemic, it has many meanings. Something Mother Teresa (of all people) once said in an interview really struck me: 'God is very humble, very ordinary'. That is also a very Zen way of looking at it. 'I chop wood, I draw water, how marvellous, how mysterious'. So the key is to find that in the midst of every day life, which is why one has a daily practice. You know, the word 'yoga' means 'yoking' - so 'being yoked' to the sacred.

I agree on us being born with all sorts of proclivities, etc. But the caveat to me is that we don't control that initially; a toddler is selfish, but that doesn't come from it's own concious will, in contrast to someone willingly hurting another as an adult, or willingly abusing alcohol, fully concious of the consequences. This is why I have a hard time with original sin. I don't discount it in that I don't discount that we are full of flaws from the start, but I don't peg these flaws as being the fault of the individual. If I'm not responsible for my own original sin, and if this sin is what makes me deserving of hell, how is it that I'm the one who has to make the decision to avoid hell? I suppose that question is more directed at Augustino or others. I never asked to be born. Neither did you. We all stumble into life and find ourselves trying to understand it, to understand our passions, noble and not so noble. The idea of it as a curse seems plausible. our "sin" (I'm tired of that word), or our ignorance, as you put it from a Bhuddist perspective, seems inherited. I imagine it as some sort of virus passed down in our spiritual genes. So this doesn't put the onus on me to fess up, acknowledge all of my wrongdoings...because I'm not responsible for them in an eternal or abstract sense because they are proportunate to my developement of conciousness. I guess that sounds somewhat Bhuddist? I need to do some reading.

Hart seems to have no shortage of polemics, yeah. I find that off-putting. I think I feel the same closeness to some of his ideas as you, though. Thanks for the further recs.

How do you mean that the 'image of God' has been used as an utlimate 'authority figure'? I've always thought of the image of God as something that man is created in, and never had a problem with it, even now. I realize we aren't looking at it from the same perspective, though. To think of man as having a glimmer of the divine potential in him...the potential to creatively develop that potential collaberatively with God, to extend my hand to God's extended hand...

Where should I start with Christian mystics like Echhardt and Boeme? I picked up the Cloud of Unknowing once when I was in a depressed mood, but was so put off by it that I left it on the park bench I was reading it on, lol.

I imagine [sin] as some sort of virus passed down in our spiritual genes — Noble Dust

It's a good analogy, except genes are physical. In pre-modern cultures, there was the belief that being born is itself a kind of misfortune; an old Indian saying is that it's better to die than to be born. That strikes us optimistic Westerners as hopeless fatalism, but then our material circumstances are very different.

I don't think modern philosophy can easily accomodate anything like the idea of 'the fall', or at least I don't see how it can be mapped against evolutionary biology. I don't read such myths literally, but they convey an essential existential truth in my view.

In Buddhism, one's predispositions are the consequence of past karma, but that is embedded in a worldview which is culturally alien to the Western tradition (i.e. the idea of samsara, the eternal round of birth and death, which is generally not part of Christian belief.)

How do you mean that the 'image of God' has been used as an utlimate 'authority figure'? — Noble Dust

Surely that is not hard to see. Monotheistic religion has always appealed to a punitive God to underwrite their moral and political power - 'do right, according to us, or be punished'. 'Orthodoxy' means 'right belief'. Before the Reformation and then the Enlightenment, the Church was highly proscriptive of morality. You could be punished or put to death for being heretic - thousands were. And the Church also had tremendous political power; breaking that nexus was what lead to the 'separation of church and state'. Prior to that, religious authority was the source of enormous power; it still is in Islamic cultures, look at what is happening in Indonesia.

Where should I start with Christian mystics like Echhardt and Boeme? — Noble Dust

There are many editions of the Sermons of Meister Eckhardt in print, they're great literature and deep philosophy. Eckhardt is well worth reading. Bohme is a bit more challenging, I would start with a few secondary sources on him. (Found this site recently. So much information! The internet - it's like trying to get a glass of water from a fire hose.)

Genes and viruses both are physical...so I should say a spiritual virus passed down through spiritual genes. Or to be more accurate, spiritual mutations passed down through spiritual genes...

I don't read myths literally either. Something like "the fall" definitely can't be mapped against modern philosophy, yes, which is why we need a re-interpretation of myth. We've projected enlightenment (in)sensibilities unto the past for too long. Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances and History In English Words, as well other writings of his, are good starting points, but I'm looking for more.

I can't say much about your descriptions of Buddhist concepts, other than I appreciate the info and I'm interested, so I'll do research. A sort of bizarre side note, but I work at a music venue in NYC that used to host a monthly story-telling type event, and a past-lives therapist told a story of a particular patient, and painted a fascinating picture of the work he does, which piqued my interest to look more into those types of things.

I guess I was confused by you saying 'the image of God' specifically. From my evangelical background, that phrase brings up scriptures like "in the image of God he created man", etc., which doesn't seem apropos to what you're talking about, unless I'm confused. If you just mean that "God" has been used as an ultimate authority figure to devastatingly horrible ends, then yes, of course I agree. I'm familiar with the Church history and definitions you describe.

If you just mean that "God" has been used as an ultimate authority figure to devastatingly horrible ends, then yes, of course I agree. — Noble Dust

That's all I meant. 'Imago Dei' is a different matter. ( I have Owen Barfield's book too, which was recommended on the old Forum. I think we have many interests in common.)

Barfield was one of my initial entry points into considering wider philosophical and theological possibilities (may seem strange, but he was a member of the Inklings along with C.S. Lewis, an agonizingly over-quoted favorite of evangelical Christians). If you haven't read Poetic Diction by Barfield, I definitely recommend it in combination with Saving the Appearances.

whether we eat spoiled food will impact our physical well being — Ciceronianus the White

Not only. Eating beef for example raises the chances of colon cancer - that's why for example I never eat it. And there's many other foods that should be avoided, and that are harmful to the body.

Some religious proscriptions relating to such things may once have derived from observation of the ill effects of certain conduct, but others have nothing to do with well being, physical or otherwise. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes - but include in the ill effects not only physical ones, but also psychological. For example, theft, assuming you're not caught, has no ill physical effects. And yet, psychologically, doing such a thing is harmful.

Regardless, I think the God of the universe would be unconcerned with such things even if they were connected with our well being; I don't think the human concept of "concern" would apply to such a God. — Ciceronianus the White

If the God is not personal, then this would be true. But if the God is personal - like a person - then this is likely to be false. I don't mean to convince you to change your beliefs, just to be aware that the belief is not as absurd as you (and some of the Stoics/Epicureans ;) ) want to make it seem like.