The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by mdhall
You're missing the point.

I have a great love of the spiritual life and long for meaningful conversations and relationships with other deeply spiritual beings.

However, religions attract those spiritual people and brainwash them into total nonsensical Us-Them mind sets; and that's it! No more deep, meaningful conversations, because they always have to ...[text shortened]... o we heal and love ourselves so we may spread positive energy back into the universe?

The point, to me, of a spiritual life is to not judge others; to not focus on things that don't matter; but to be a better person and know yourself and try to live a good life; and not because Santa Claus/God/Yahweh/etc is going to spank you and send you to your room (hell), but because that is what a "good life" really is: being good (not worshiping an Us|Them belief system).

The point of a spiritual life is to know Christ; to develop a conversational relationship with him, follow him, worship and praise him, love him, be loved by him, and love all his creatures. I don't know what kind of church you were exposed to, but it sounds like you had an ugly experience. Unfortunately, you're not alone... I agree with you for the most part, except where you've made Christ equal to Buddha and Muhammad (of course). The heart of the matter is healing. But the truth is, only Christ has the power to heal.

Jesus Christ "clubs" populate the earth, call themselves "churches," and grind people into dust every day. I've seen it all first hand. The "club" mentality more often than not takes precedence over Christ Himself. I mean no disrespect by saying this to you, but - don't let them fool you! True Christianity (true spirituality) is a relationship, not a religion.

Christ isn't George W. Bush's fool, and He's not here to put you on a guilt trip either. People have always tried to silence Christ and they always will, even today people place Him in a box in order to be comfortable with Him, christening Him the benevolent dictator of a shameless, legalistic religion of bondage. Don't buy into that!

You might just assume I'm coming at you from yet another contrived evangelistic angle by saying all this, but I assure you I'm not. I know first hand how bad churches and bad people (masquerading as followers of Christ) can keep others from the Truth in Christ. I urge you to get to know the Man behind all the hoopla. I did and I am, and there is indeed healing and wholeness and freedom in Him. Unfortunately, there's a lot of crap that needs to be knifed through to get to that.

Start with a fresh reading of the New Testament. Meet God on His own terms.

(I apologize for straying off topic.)

Originally posted by epiphinehas

The point of a spiritual life is to know Christ; to develop a conversational relationship with him, follow him, worship and praise him, love him, be loved by him, and love all his creatures. I don't know what kind of church you were exposed to, but it sounds like you had an ugly experience. Unfortunately, you're not alone... I agree with you for the ...[text shortened]... heart of the matter is healing. But the truth is, only Christ has the power to heal.

I disagree with you.

The only person that has the power to heal you is YOU.
The only person that has the power to heal me is ME.

Christ/Buddha/Muhammad all had to find their own truths and learning about each offers us a wealth of experiences; however, it does not replace our own personal journey pr responsibility.

I understand that placing your life in a mythical figure's hands is extremely comforting and easy to do. It gives you an "out" for every difficult question you encounter in life. I have been there myself.

Today I do not choose to make excuses for myself.
Today I do not choose to run to a mythical being for "saving".
Today I choose to take responsibility for MY life and MY actions and MY reactions.

That is the difference between YOU and I.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I actually don't agree that quantum physics does any of the things you are saying. The world we perceive in our every day lives does not take in individual atoms or whole universes and so at a stretch one could say that the 'real' world consists of atoms and our large scale world is illusionary but I don't see it that way myself. Similarly, if atoms are a irm religion and I don't see how the spiritual view of life has any grounding in science.

Sorry, I don't consider the ideas in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism as particulary "vague". Nor is everybody who posits a realm beyond human perception a "mystic".

You are aware that the predominant explanation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is that no theory of reality is possible because we cannot separate the observer from the observed? And that the second most popular explanation (among physicists) is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which states that the universe is creating different universes every time a subatomic particle interaction takes place?

Quantum mechanics, which is probably the most successful scientific theory of the 20th century, leads to rather odd conclusions about reality, doesn't it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, I don't consider the ideas in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism as particulary "vague". Nor is everybody who posits a realm beyond human perception a "mystic".

I wasn't trying to imply that they were. I was trying say that that appeared to be knightmeisters argument.

You are aware that the predominant explanation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is that no theory of reality is possible because we cannot separate the observer from the observed?
No, I haven't studied a whole lot of modern philosophy.

And that the second most popular explanation (among physicists) is the Many Worlds Interpretation, which states that the universe is creating different universes every time a subatomic particle interaction takes place?
My understanding of quantum mechanics (as small as it is) is that the world is not very Newtonian in nature with action/reaction chains. So unless this multiverse idea is a lot more complex it simply does not fit the observed facts.

Quantum mechanics, which is probably the most successful scientific theory of the 20th century, leads to rather odd conclusions about reality, doesn't it?
Yes it does, but I do not see those conclusions being particularly similar to any conclusions drawn by mystics.

I really need to find a good modern book on quantum mechanics. So many such books focus far to much on the history of it and not enough on what is actually known and possible explanations.

I also think that it is wrong to claim that because what we see is merely the macro effects of the micro world then we are merely illusions. Similarly with quantum mechanics, whatever the hidden workings and however odd they may turn out to be, it doesn't make us any more illusory or 'unreal'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wasn't trying to imply that they were. I was trying say that that appeared to be knightmeisters argument.

[b]You are aware that the predominant explanation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is that no theory of reality is possible because we cannot separate the observer from the observed?
No, I haven't studied a whole lot of m ...[text shortened]... and however odd they may turn out to be, it doesn't make us any more illusory or 'unreal'.[/b]

You've offered no reasoning to support your statements; merely what you "think". How "mystical" of you!

Originally posted by no1marauder
You've offered no reasoning to support your statements; merely what you "think". How "mystical" of you!

So 100 years from now when they finally come up with a theory of everything, will I be one of those mystics listed as having intuited about it for centuries?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So 100 years from now when they finally come up with a theory of everything, will I be one of those mystics listed as having intuited about it for centuries?

One who admits an ignorance of both quantum mechanics and of the various spiritual systems of the East really shouldn't be so smug.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So 100 years from now when they finally come up with a theory of everything, will I be one of those mystics listed as having intuited about it for centuries?

You don't have to wait 100 years.
You can buy the book today, "A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality"

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Integral-Business-Spirituality/dp/1570628556

Originally posted by mdhall
Let's see...
You said the virginal birth was a fact.
You said Christ's resurrection was a fact.
Vistesd has the best explanation for the Holy Trinity.
You dodged the God's gender question.
You confirmed the VIP to Heaven silliness.

I'm sorry, but you don't really leave me anywhere to go. You'll refute anything to defend your security blanket concept ...[text shortened]... cated you are.

So, have a coke and a smile 🙂
I'll leave you to your own path now.

Let's see...
You said the virginal birth was a fact.
That I did: in opposition to your contention that Christianity holds to the virgin conception for its miraculous chemistry.

You said Christ's resurrection was a fact.
Again, guilty. Again, in opposition to your charge that Christianity holds to it without any religious reason. Of course, you failed to supply what constitutes a proper religious reason, but it sure sounds like you're saying something meaningful.

Vistesd has the best explanation for the Holy Trinity.
His panoramic explantion notwithstanding, I have not found a better "explanation" for the Trinity other than the Bible.

You dodged the God's gender question.
As specifically as you posed the same. God, being spirit, has no gender, per se. When the Son took human form, it was as a man.

You confirmed the VIP to Heaven silliness.
I'm guessing that your mind was already made up on the issue long before any of this discussion came about.

You'll refute anything to defend your security blanket concept of god through Christianity.
That I am in possession of substantive responses to honest doubt surely should not count against me. That you would accuse me of intellectual dishonesty says more of you than it does of my pursuits.

What I charged at first remains to date. You have yet to support your original complaints against the original post. While you have made specific (albeit incomplete and opaque) complaints against "Western Christianity," you still haven't come close to aligning any of them with anything from the first post.

I enjoy having honest debates about these things, but there's really nothing to say to a zealot, no matter how educated you are.
Zealot? Perhaps you should revisit your understanding of the word. I know it renders your intended insult, but it hardly fits the person.

Originally posted by mdhall
I disagree with you.

The only person that has the power to heal you is YOU.
The only person that has the power to heal me is ME.

Christ/Buddha/Muhammad all had to find their own truths and learning about each offers us a wealth of experiences; however, it does not replace our own personal journey pr responsibility.

I understand that placing your lif ...[text shortened]... y for MY life and MY actions and MY reactions.

That is the difference between YOU and I.

Christ/Buddha/Muhammad all had to find their own truths and learning about each offers us a wealth of experiences; however, it does not replace our own personal journey pr responsibility.
If the message that you heard regarding the Lord Jesus Christ had anything whatsoever about shirking personal responsibility, something was woefully lost in translation.

Today I choose to take responsibility for MY life and MY actions and MY reactions.
Among other important dictums, this sounds decisively like the thinking a Christian is commanded to have.

Originally posted by mdhall
I disagree with you.

The only person that has the power to heal you is YOU.
The only person that has the power to heal me is ME.

Christ/Buddha/Muhammad all had to find their own truths and learning about each offers us a wealth of experiences; however, it does not replace our own personal journey pr responsibility.

I understand that placing your lif y for MY life and MY actions and MY reactions.

That is the difference between YOU and I.

I understand that placing your life in a mythical figure's hands is extremely comforting and easy to do. It gives you an "out" for every difficult question you encounter in life. I have been there myself.

There are a few questionable presumptions here. First, that Christ is a mythical figure rather than a historical one. Second, that I believe in Jesus Christ simply as a convenient "out" for every difficult question I encounter in life. Regarding the former, I can only say that the evidence for a historical Jesus far outweighs Him being merely "mythical." Regarding the latter, such a presumption only causes me to wonder whether or not that may have been your reasoning behind deciding to be a Christian.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Let's see...
You said the virginal birth was a fact.
That I did: in opposition to your contention that Christianity holds to the virgin conception for its miraculous chemistry.

You said Christ's resurrection was a fact.
Again, guilty. Again, in opposition to your charge that Christianity holds to it without any religious reason. Of co ...[text shortened]... of the word. I know it renders your intended insult, but it hardly fits the person.[/b]

Panoramic?

I like that...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
There are a few questionable presumptions here. First, that Christ is a mythical figure rather than a historical one. Second, that I believe in Jesus Christ simply as a convenient "out" for every difficult question I encounter in life. Regarding the former, I can only say that the evidence for a historical Jesus far outweighs Him being merely "mythica ...[text shortened]... r whether or not that may have been your reasoning behind deciding to be a Christian.

I question Christs' (or whatever his real name was) existence as much as I question Socrates: not at all.

But I don't think Christ was trying to deliver any message of salvation through worshiping him. That is a decisively religious move. And I do not think Christ was resurrected, because, why would he?
What makes him special is not the mythical tales that religions have appointed on his behalf.

That's the "out": a life of salvation through, essentially, icon worship.

The goal is to lead a moral and ethical life; not waste time dreaming about how to egocentrically gain entrance to the promised land after a mortal death.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Regarding the former, I can only say that the evidence for a historical Jesus far outweighs Him being merely "mythical."

Of course as a Christian, what you will admit as evidence includes things like 'divine inspiration' etc. However as an atheist, the evidence that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is a reasonably accurate picture of a real person is very slim. In fact the evidence that a significant proportion of the Gospels is not historically accurate is considerable if you are a non-partial observer.

Originally posted by mdhall
I question Christs' (or whatever his real name was) existence as much as I question Socrates: not at all.

I don't know much about Socrates, but you should question Christs existence.