In respect of the great posts here, I have a question to Don, and to others who would say of themselves they are followers, or members, of a religious community. The question is:

   How important is it for you, if the founder of your religion is a real historical person, or if it is an ideal with no historical counterpart?

If we could slowly move, as a world-society, in the direction that the ideal is the important thing, we would have done a step forwards I think; as it is then not about worshipping a person/entitiy/god, but to put this ideal into practice.

It then would as well become more obvious that our basic beliefs about what is evil are society/historical dependant, but as well that there's still a core of moral beliefs which we all share, which only needs to be put properly in words as an axiom (which meant to the old Greeks something that is obvious, which can't be denialed and doesn't need to be constituted) as Doc did nicely; or maybe there is no need for this, when we already know this .

Spooky

DocM,

"If the Holocaust, a recent historical event could be brought into question, so can anything.  To debate the conspiracy theories never resolves the issue, and in some ways, gives more credence to the wackadoodle conspiracy folk, because even arguing with them, makes them say "well, at least there are two sides to everything and we have the right to agree or disagree."   In my own opinion, I would say: Bull."

Also worth noting is how the holocaust is used to justify goals by individuals, groups and governments, and how parallels can be drawn from the holocaust to something (then maybe to another something) not liked.

"This is a side product of our PC (politically correct) environment in the USA and other parts of the world.  There is a sort of moral relativism, that says in a PC world that "everyone's ideas are equal, no matter what they are, and nothing is really good or bad, nothing really right or wrong."" 

Turning the other cheek is then in the realm of moral relativism, as wrong is practically taken out of the equation.

"[..]for example, a satanist says "I should be able to desecrate sacred symbols and perform human sacrifice (using the argument that all beliefs are true and one is not better than another.........ie. moral relativism), we would all say "no, you may not - this is wrong."  We would all be referring to our idea that love is "good" and to act otherwise is "bad" or wrong action.  Eventhough we live in a PC world, it is clear that it is not correct to say that every belief is ok and equal and every action correct."

One example is human sacrifice, but if all or many is the keeper of truth, what's right and what's wrong, an afterlife board doesn't hold as much popularity as other experiental areas.

Volu wrote on Feb 17^th, 2010 at 10:41am:


Volu,

It may be fear, but in my case I usually do not have the whole picture and I am trying to flesh it out with input from other sources.  I am not afraid of my ignorance or another's perception of it as I am here to learn.

This board has been quite enlightening and informative and it has a tremendously varied spectrum of viewpoints, all of which bear reviewing.  To one and all, I thank you for sharing your comments and thoughts.

[Hawkeye:} "For some people religion comes from a book and/or from texts...not from their heart and from love, or for that matter.. from God. I personally dont need a cookbook in order to make dinner...I will stick to making my own meals. At least that way, I know what I am eating."

You have just expressed Paul's approach to unbelievers attending the church.  He warns that the cookbook approach forces seekers to be content with a second-hand spirituality.  Instead, "each person should be fully persuaded in his own mind (Romans 14:5)."  And so, "accept believers who are weak in faith and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong (14:1)."  "They are responsible to the Lord; sp let Him tell them whether they are right or wrong" 14:4)."  In other words, let them cook their own meals and learn by trial and error.  Of course, Paul would apply the cooking analogy differently than Hawkeye.  Paul's goal is to create an atmosphere in which seekers can mystically bond with Christ in a self-authenticating way that allows them to discover spiritual truths by direct experience.

Of course, Paul and Jesus also develop criteria for the exercise of tough love to open closed minds and wake people up to their addictive behaviors and thought patterns.  But their goal is to encourage a journey towards a truly unique and self-authenticating faith that immerses seekers in PUL.

Don

heisenberg69,

>>Setting up too many parameters may keep the fear at bay and hide it, but it's not dealt with

>To which fear are you referring ?

I was referring to the fear connected to language.

If light/good is on the very left of a long bar, and dark/evil on the very right, with a huge gap of gradation in between, I'd imagine hitler would be on the very dark side for many. What I've noticed is what seems to be different bars for different aspects of a character. Whereas a neo-nazi might be somewhere on the darker side of the bar regarding jews, he or she might be somewhere on the lighter side regarding their family. Different bars for different family members. And so on for different areas. The total of all the bars for a character might around the center, close to the extreme either side, and so forth, but there are nuances, and there are different views about it.

Also what seems to be left out when saying something is pure evil, is the pyramid structures the likes of hitler and many organisations operate with. One supreme leader, buffer, different sub-leaders with different branches, buffer, and downwards it goes, all the way to the to the foot-soldiers that are the foundation of the pyramid. It'd fall to pieces without the foundation. From what I know, hitler's planning and orders certainly are very dark, but also the whole machinery that made his visions possible. A holocaust experiencer might have had a very hard time with the actions of the wardens, and not with hitler's morbid thoughts. Connected for sure, but there are nuances here too.

Going back to the language bar, I've found those on the lighter side on this bar tend to want more limiting in the use of language. Say what you will of the spirits operating somewhere on the opposite side of the mentioned bar, at least I admire the honesty that can be found there. - Don't like it, think's it's terrible, think it's bullshit, whackadoodle and so on is basically the same statement with more power allotted in terms of language and wording. One option for experiencing opposing views is to learn that it's ok that your opinions aren't always liked, and vice versa. More gradated colours on the palette.

Using cooking mentioned earlier as a metaphor - different chefs working on the same meal. Some are suggesting the meal will taste awful if you aren't careful with the spices. Others want it to stop, disregarding both the other chefs and watchers/observers. Some are suggesting that the kitchen is on fire and the waffle iron has run amok. I do see that the friggen spaghetti is boiling, but I do also see dishes being prepared that need low heat for quite some time before it's done. And so on. Easier to prepare a meal by yourself, for yourself. But as far as working together, there are as many opinions on how to do that right as there are chefs.

heisenberg69,

"without rancour (that's important) I find two reasons for this. The first  is that it makes people feel that they are being 'attacked' and so they adopt a caricature of their real position (which I mentioned before) and secondly just because someone has a different viewpoint why can we not show respect for them ?"

If there's no respect, there's no respect. Among other ways, change can be forced, and change can come from within. The caricature may contain more honesty about a topic than putting make-up on (part/parts) of what actually is. It looks better, but still there.

"'What exactly are we afraid of here?' This suggests that we fear that without our guidance people will not think/believe the 'right' things."

Yes, got that and agree with you, but wanted to add another perspective. Anyways, it's a good observation and made bold to show respect for it. One ingredient in what can become a dark/evil soup, regardless of polarity.

"Notice I am not saying we are anything but honest with ourselves and other people but I would rather use communication with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel than a blacksmith's hammer !"

So close, but then you just had to slam the blacksmith's hammer. A new battlefield opens. Which is better, apples or oranges. Different tools for different replies.

B2, I was asking Don a question about his beliefs and his actions. We have covered a number of different items on this thread. Whether Hitler should be forgiven as an example. Don's work with this man, anouther.  Some could say both are evil. Hitler and the child molester. What Don is doing is the right thing. To extend a helping hand. To offer love and forgiveness from himself. To give compassion. All good things. (If he was to say that God forgives this man might be going over the line as I am not so sure that Don has a direct line to God.) I was asking how Don himself thought. Is this man evil? Is what he did evil? By being a priest, being a representative of God on earth,  and molesting little children, is that evil? (I highly doubt that it was only one child.) Perhaps its time to think about this child, and if he believes this man, the priest, to be evil. Who do you think is more evil to the child, Hitler or the priest? Its about perspective. Don can do all the forgiving he wants, but it may make no difference the long run. The only possable hope I see can be is if by offering PUL he will help in changing the man and he will be able to escape, possibly through the back door of this living hell he must be in, within this phyical life expearence, to allow him to move on to a better lifestyle and change of core belief. As for the church allowing these people to molest and rape children over and over again, well to me it shows an inherent evil to me. Again, I was wondering how Don felt, as he is an minister. He has a perspective that I can not relate to as I am not involved in "organised" religion. I know no people in the religion business.