Knowledge and Knowledge

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Which was? That it's somehow more rational to believe in multiple planes of human existence and knowledge than it is to believe in a Creator-God?

That--whatever its merits--was indeed his point, which you didn't address.

Do you have a personal gripe against Eastern religions--the ones that you say are "soooo popular"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That--whatever its merits--was indeed his point, which you didn't address.

Do you have a personal gripe against Eastern religions--the ones that you say are "soooo popular"?

That--whatever its merits--was indeed his point, which you didn't address.

First, let's take his epistemic argument. "Christians" (any variety) do not claim that human beings or Christians have all the answers. So, no1 is setting up a strawman when he argues for the relative rationality of other spiritual traditions' position vs. the Christian position. His argument is logical, but it misrepresents the Christian position.

Second, his metaphysical claim about "other planes of being/existence". This is the claim I've been dealing with in the past few posts. It's true he prefixes it with a "perhaps" - a nice legalistic disclaimer which, coming from a Christian, would've been picked to pieces by DrScribs.

Is it more rational to believe there are be other planes of human existence than it is to believe there is a Creator? No. Both posit the existence of non-empirical beings. I've yet to see a pure philosophical argument for the existence of such other planes.

Is it more rational to believe there may be other planes of human existence than it is to believe there is a Creator? Yes - but once again he's setting up a strawman. Other spiritual traditions do not say there "may" be other planes, they say there "are" other planes. Zen may be an exception, but I think one can derive positive claims from the propositions that are denied by Zen.

EDIT: To sum up, no1 misrepresents both the Oriental spiritual traditions and the Christian position to make his argument go round.

Do you have a personal gripe against Eastern religions--the ones that you say are "soooo popular"?

No. But I think there is something sorry about people who turn to Eastern religion simply because they'd rather be anything but Christian.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No. But I think there is something sorry about people who turn to Eastern religion simply because they'd rather be anything but Christian.

OK, now you've addressed his point.

How do you tell if someone has turned to an Eastern religion for the reason you've given?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How do you tell if someone has turned to an Eastern religion for the reason you've given?

The general rule of thumb is to see how the person reacts to Christianity. If the reaction is one of hatred, anger, contempt etc. then it's my judgement that the person has turned to Eastern religion simply because he'd rather be anything but Christian. The few people I've met whose conversions were part of a genuine spiritual quest rather than escape from the past have never been dismissive of their former religion.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The general rule of thumb is to see how the person reacts to Christianity. If the reaction is one of hatred, anger, contempt etc. then it's my judgement that the person has turned to Eastern religion simply because he'd rather be anything but Christian. The few people I've met whose conversions were part of a genuine spiritual quest rather than escape from the past have never been dismissive of their former religion.

Do Indian Hindus or Muslims who convert to Christianity attract similar criticism?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do Indian Hindus or Muslims who convert to Christianity attract similar criticism?

Absolutely. What I said applies to converts between any two religions.

See, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Buddhist

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]That--whatever its merits--was indeed his point, which you didn't address.

First, let's take his epistemic argument. "Christians" (any variety) do not claim that human beings or Christians have all the answers. So, no1 is setting up a strawman when he argues for the relative rationality of other spiritual traditions' position vs. ...[text shortened]... out people who turn to Eastern religion simply because they'd rather be anything but Christian.[/b]

Christianity has its initial heritage in an eastern philosophy (well, middle-eastern anyway). How do you feel about that?

Originally posted by stocken
Christianity has its initial heritage in an eastern philosophy (well, middle-eastern anyway). How do you feel about that?

The philosophy of the three Middle-Eastern faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is very different to that of the "Eastern/Oriental Philosphy" we are talking about. There are similarities, to be sure, but the differences are critical.

How do I feel about it? Not sure what you're asking - could you elaborate?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The philosophy of the three Middle-Eastern faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is very different to that of the "Eastern/Oriental Philosphy" we are talking about. There are similarities, to be sure, but the differences are critical.

How do I feel about it? Not sure what you're asking - could you elaborate?

Actually, I came in from the cold, jumped straight to this page in the thread and really have no idea what eastern/oriental philosophies you're talking about. My apologies, for that.

As for my question, it was meant as: Do you find it in any way disturbing that christianity, judaism and islam are all off-springs from the same basic religion? Or more to the point, isn't it puzzling how the same religion can be divided into so many off-springs that eventually it hasn't got much to do with the original ideas?

[Oh, oh, and... isn't that kind of like evolutionary events?.. where the original was like this, but then selectively adapted to its environment to become that?.. hmmm...]

Originally posted by stocken
Do you find it in any way disturbing that christianity, judaism and islam are all off-springs from the same basic religion? Or more to the point, isn't it puzzling how the same religion can be divided into so many off-springs that eventually it hasn't got much to do with the original ideas?

Christianity is a straight off-shoot of Judaism. Islam draws from a common Middle-Eastern cultural heritage that includes the Jews, but it is not itself a derivative of Judaism. All three derive their roots from Abraham - so they're probably accurately called the Abrahamic religions.

I don't think - in all three cases - that the subsequent development of ideas represents a fundamental "change" from the original ideas. We need to distinguish between evolution and revolution.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We need to distinguish between evolution and revolution.

Go on then.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Christianity is a straight off-shoot of Judaism. Islam draws from a common Middle-Eastern cultural heritage that includes the Jews, but it is not itself a derivative of Judaism. All three derive their roots from Abraham - so they're probably accurately called the Abrahamic religions.

I don't think - in all three cases - that the subsequent develo ...[text shortened]... tal "change" from the original ideas. We need to distinguish between evolution and revolution.

I beg to differ, sir!!! I object!

See, according to what I've recently learned, the whole concept of monotheism comes from a persian philosopher who lived way before Abraham (I think), called: Zarathustra.

Evolution and revolution? You just wanted to say that, didn't you? Come on now.. Be honest...

I look at the different scriptures and find that they're very much alike, and when looking closer I discover that there are subtle differences to them. Those differences may grow over time til the philosophies become completely divergent in nature, and so one could hardly speak of a revolution as it (edit: the revolution) takes place over a much shorter timeperiod and usually lead to the exact opposite (or at least initially) from the system being revolutionised.

Please, feel free to slap my hand...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]That--whatever its merits--was indeed his point, which you didn't address.

First, let's take his epistemic argument. "Christians" (any variety) do not claim that human beings or Christians have all the answers. So, no1 is setting up a strawman when he argues for the relative rationality of other spiritual traditions' position vs. ...[text shortened]... out people who turn to Eastern religion simply because they'd rather be anything but Christian.[/b]

You must be joking to say I'm setting up a "strawman" when this entire post is one! Let's actually look at what I said:

The "Christians" here want everything tied up in a neat little package with a big bow and a label saying "Just for You and the Other 1% of the Special People". Plus they want to pretend that only they can understand what is in the package, even though it's transparent for all to see.

Other spiritual belief systems acknowledge that there may be things that Man, at least in his present state, cannot understand though perhaps in other stages of being you will be able to understand them . That is entirely different and far more rational than a belief that you personally have special, secret knowledge because of intervention by an invisible entity that 99% of the world doesn't experience. The first is a recognization of Man's limited nature, the second is hubris and arrogance.

1) Notice first that "Christians" is in quotes and in the context of the discussion is referring to people who believe in the "Secret Decoder Ring" theory i.e. that believers like them have a special understanding of the Bible given to them by the Holy Spirit that others lack. Contrary to LH's post, they do claim that they have all the answers; read some of blindfaith's posts. His claim is all the answers are in the WORD OF GOD and "Christians" like him have a total understanding of it given by an "invisible entity" i.e. the Holy Spirit. Where's the strawman, LH?;

2) You might call "perhaps" a legalistic disclaimer, I call it an important word to contrast the professed certainty of "Christians"(again notice the quotes) with the more reflective nature of some other spiritual traditions. Again, trying to read the sentence without your preconceived blinders might be useful. The first sentence of the second paragraph states a proposition; do you deny its truth?;

3) The comparative belief that I was saying was "more rational" was not that there were "higher stages of being" (strawman) but that a belief that all men has limited knowledge is "far more rational than a belief that you personally have special, secret knowledge because of intervention by an invisible entity that 99% of the world doesn't experience". That is referring to the "Christians" like blindfaith101, RBHILL and others and the "invisible entity" is their version of the Holy Spirit. Again, the sentence states that proposition; do you deny its truth?;

To sum up, I didn't present any (so I could hardly "misrepresent"😉 any Oriental spiritual traditions at all. I also was referring only to the odd belief systems of a few, very vocal "Christians" who believe in the "Secret Decoder Ring" theory has the context of my posts make clear. I suggest that next time you read one of my posts you leave behind your belief that I have a "gripe against Christianity" and actually read and try to understand what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Go on then.

I think the first real revolution with the Semitic religions happened with Abraham. Now one doesn't have to believe in a literal Abraham, but I believe the story of Abraham represents the transition in religious beliefs of the early Jews from Mesopotamian/Sumerian polytheism to monotheism. Post-Abraham, there seems to be a split in the Semitic traditions - the Isaacite tradition (leading to Judaism and Christianity) and the Ishmaelite tradition (leading to Islam)*.

Although Christianity appears to have many revolutionary concepts relative to Judaism, I think it's more of an evolution from 1st century Judaism. For instance, Christianity uses the Jewish Torah as part of its inspired Scriptures.

When Mohammed preached Islam, the Arabs he converted were practising animists - so Islam obviously represents a revolution to the people. And, although the Koran draws from the Jewish tradition (most notably the prophets - including Jesus), it does not use the Scriptures of that tradition.

There are other differences as well, naturally, but this should do for starters.

---
* An interesting point I've seen theologians raise is the impact this has on the way the respective traditions view the relationship between God and Man. In the Judaic/Christian tradition, this relationship is familial/covenantal; in the Muslim tradition, this relationship is that of Master-servant. Interesting because Isaac was Abraham's legitimate heir and son; whereas Ishmael, though Abraham's son, was born to Sarah's maidservant.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think the first real revolution with the Semitic religions happened with Abraham. Now one doesn't have to believe in a literal Abraham, but I believe the story of Abraham represents the transition in religious beliefs of the early Jews from Mesopotamian/Sumerian polytheism to monotheism. Post-Abraham, there seems to be a split in the Semitic tradit ...[text shortened]... gitimate heir and son; whereas Ishmael, though Abraham's son, was born to Sarah's maidservant.

Although Christianity appears to have many revolutionary concepts relative to Judaism, I think it's more of an evolution from 1st century Judaism.

It's good to see that I've infected you... 🙂