A question for the "real" liberal Christians.

[trotsky]

Why is it that when some non-liberal views are brought up in this forum, like homosexuality being a sin, or women being expected to know their "role" in a relationship, it's the atheists who tend to be the ones disputing them?

This is exactly what's happening in real life. The fundies storm on stage, push their reactionary, racist, homophobic, sexist agenda, and the "good" Christians are largely silent. Christian DUers, break the mold! Challenge these views, ESPECIALLY then they are presented right in this forum!

[Don Claybrook]

1. what makes you say that?

Can you cite some examples? fwiw, I'm not a Christian, but I have much respect for the true-to-Christ liberal Christians. I fully understand that you cannot prove a negative, but maybe there are Christians here who excoriate those who are homophobic and so on, but without having to preface everything with, "I'm a Christian, and I think...".

[trotsky]

4. Just scan the hottest threads in the forum.

You'll find them.

[sui generis]

2. Oh but Mr. T

you forget how easily people of faith can believe they are being persecuted.

Likewise, while atheists shed that "link" in their psyche; a true believer has to walk a fine line in criticizing someone's practice of faith knowing how much of their identity is tied up in that faith. Knowing that being critical is disrespectful and can even cause psychic pain to another christian is readily avoided if there are atheists like us willing to storm in slay dragons.

It's okay - have you ever tried pineapple dragon or dragon jerky? My fave: dragon chateaubriand; I have some great recipes . . .

[Jo March]

3. I usually do if I see the threads

There are so many threads that it's impossible for me to know about them. Sometimes folks will send me links so I can give an opinion.

I'm sometimes very hesitant to get into those conversations, however, because many of them dissolve into flamefests instead of an open debate. Inevitably, someone says, "Who cares what your invisable cloud being says about <insert topic>" and then it's nonbelievers vs. believers. I have no desire to get into that.

There are many "liberal" Christians who belong to PFLAG and NOW and groups such as that and we are working for equal rights for all. So, don't assume that we are silent because we don't all jump onto a thread on a message board.

[Inland]

97. And the "who cares what the invisible cloud says"

mitigates against any rebuttal based ON religion, which assumes that the sky jockey exists and that it does matter what he says, but disagrees on what it is. Which is probably just as well. My only point is that one can't both assert that religious belief is irrelevant or just plain worng AND that the liberals should start engaging in a debate based on and between religious belief.

[catabryna]

5. Could you refer me to a couple of those threads...

And, please know that I'm not at all trying to be nasty in this request. I just can't recall the last time a Christian fundie posted those positions on this board and not been baraged by progressives, Christians and Athiests alike. I know that if I saw a post like that, I'd be jumping all over them. But, perhaps, I'm not spending enough time in this forum and need to do so. I'm open to being shown that my belief in not seeing these posts is incorrect and that I need to do a better job of expounding on my beliefs to those who take a more literal view of the contents of the Bible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Well, trotsky, I've been on DU since two months after it was founded,

and there are certain topics I just don't touch any more, especially if they're obviously started by fundie trolls.

That's on DU.

In the real world, the problem is press coverage. Pat Robertson spouts some nonsense, and it heads up the newscast or makes the front page. When mainstream Christians organize to lobby the Minnesota legislature not to cut benefits for the poor or when my church hosts a GLBT social night or sends two groups to Cuba to help with a building project or holds a memorial service for the victims of the Red Lake shootings, combining Christian and Ojibwe mourning rituals or joins with the other downtown churches to make sure that the homeless have no-strings-attached meals--well, they can't even BUY media coverage.

I bet everyone knows that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were for the Iraq War. I bet most people don't know that the heads of all the mainstream churches condemned the Iraq War, because that story was carried only in brief articles on the inside pages of newspapers and, as far as I know, was barely mentioned in the broadcast media.

[funflower]

7. Those are all great things. However, I think trostsky's point is that if

fundies will listen (at all) to anyone, it will be to their fellow Christians, not to atheists.

[salvorhardin]

9. I am not intending to be callous or to suggest you aren't doing enough...

...when I say this, but *you* are the media. If even 25% of church groups or interfaith alliances were to set up their own little blog, and cross-promote each other then you would quickly find that you have a significant voice. I'm wondering too if their aren't ways that atheist/humanist sites like mine can't work with liberal/progressive religious groups too. I know I'd be willing to promote the good works of liberal and progressive believers if they'd be willing to take a stand against religious extremists and encroachment of separation of church and state.

In any case, you do not need to rely on the old media any more.

[trotsky]

15. I just wonder why

so many Christians take your attitude and don't bother confronting these bigots when they're RIGHT HERE in our midst. The silence of liberal Christians and opposition by only atheists probably tends to reinforce the bigotry, that since no Christian is disagreeing, the bigot feels they must be right.

I can understand the desire to stay "above the fray," so to speak, but if media coverage is biased against you, why not try to have an effect wherever you can? And where can it be easier than right here on DU?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Well, I honestly haven't seen that many fundies here on DU

In the real world, yes. But not on DU. At least they don't last long enough for me to encounter them.

As for funflower's notion that fundies will listen to liberal Christians, guess again. Since liberal Christians outnumber professed atheists, the fundie leaders put a lot of energy into warning their flocks against US. Atheism isn't a real threat to their power, but a different flavor of Christianity is. They don't spend a lot of time warning their people against reading Richard Dawkins--your average fundie wouldn't even be tempted--but they put a lot of energy into condemning Bishop Spong or Jim Wallis, treating them as apostates and heretics and "wolves in sheep's clothing."

I've even seen my own parish condemned on a fundamentalist program on public access TV.

I do what I can when I encounter fundamentalists, but it's like any kind of argument with a convinced rightwinger. They change the subject, attack straw men, go off on trivial tangents, and use all the other techniques we have seen in freepers.

[jonnyblitz]

18. they are here lydia, trust me.

you might not identify them as that or you might not see those threads but there some on here who seem like it to me by what comes out of their mouths when the discussion gets heated and their true feelings come pouring out.

[funflower]

32. Actually, I HAVE seen some great efforts from the liberal Christian

community to communicate with the public, if not with the fundies. At least Jim Wallis gets a seat at the talking heads' table these days, whereas Jerry Falwell used to represent the supposedly monolithic voice of Christianity.

I agree that fundy leaders spend a lot of time immunizing their flocks against the dangers of librul ideas. However, people are more likely to listen to the Christian who is one step to the left of them than to somebody like Dawkins (who, as you say, is unlikely to even get a reading in fundy quarters).

The bottom line with fundies is that if you aren't one of them, they won't listen to you. It's probably a lot more likely that Jimmy Carter (who can at least make a credible effort to speak their language) can convince them to be nice to their gay brethren and take responsibility for the earth than that Dawkins can convince them God is a myth.

[beam me up scottie]

8. There has been an influx lately, hasn't there?

I can't imagine how someone who not only accepts the more discriminatory and hateful tenants of their faith, but actually endorses them by claiming "sinners" have a choice not to "sin", can claim to be a liberal.

[renter]

10. trotsky,

I am a Christian. This is my awnser. People have a choice, follow God or not. It is really that simple AND at the same time, that difficult. Who is God? What does he want and why? That awnser is in the Bible.
I am not going to type and tell you that I am an expert Christian, for I am not. I cannot quote you book, chapter, and verse for every question. That's why it was written down:).
History is a great thing, it lets us see the errors of the past. We can see the errors of man ignoring God in forming secular governments. Communism, Nazis, Fascists, and Imperial Japan. We see the errors of excessive wealth, it was Jesus, In:
Matthew 19:24
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:25
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Mark 10:24-26 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 18:25
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Luke 18:24-26 (in Context) Luke 18 (Whole Chapter)
In my own town, it is Christians giving shelter to the homeless and food to the hungry. There is also a Christian "health payment" plan to pay medical bills via www.medi-share.org. Or you can call 800-Psalm 23.
Acts 2:42,44,47--I will paraphrase somewhat,
"They(Christians)devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching of the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer... All believers were together and had everything in commom. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need... And the Lord added to their number daily those who were saved."
The only way to eternal spiritual life is this:
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:5-7 (in Context) John 14 (Whole Chapter)
So you do have a choice to make. But only a lifetime to make it.

[beam me up scottie]

11. "the errors of man ignoring God in forming secular governments" ?

:wow:

[Bill McBlueState]

37. wow

me too...

Which underground is this?

[beam me up scottie]

40. I'm beginning to wonder that myself.

Fundies?

What fundies?

[charlie]

12. You've got Japan backwards

Imperial Japan was hardly a secular gov't. Since its forced secularization after the war, Japan has become a much more egalitarian, self-sufficient, and prosperous (not to mention better behaved) nation.

[trotsky]

14. *Our* government was founded as secular.

Was the Constitution an error or affront against your god? It expressly states there shall be NO religious test for public office.

But apart from that, you didn't answer my question.

[MikeH]

29. The problem with the Bible as "Absolute Truth"

The only way to eternal spiritual life is this:
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
...
So you do have a choice to make. But only a lifetime to make it.

So, apparently, if somebody misses out in this lifetime on accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, no matter what the circumstances, that person is condemned to hell for all eternity.

For instance, apparently an "unsaved" murder victim is going to go to hell, while if the murderer later repents and accepts Christ, the murderer will go to heaven.

That, to me, illustrates the problem with accepting the Bible (or any other supposed revelation from God) as absolute truth, not to be questioned.

I respect that people get spiritual nourishment and guidance from the Bible. However I do not respect people not using their critical facilities in evaluating anything in the Bible.

Whatever else may be said about the Bible, I consider the Bible to be subject to human fallibility just like anything else that has ever been written.

[MikeH]

66. Adding to that

Adding to the above, I also cannot accept that a person who adheres the "wrong" religion all his/her life is going to be condemned to hell because that person supposedly did not come to God through the only right way, i.e. through Christ.

I.e. apparently a person is supposedly condemned for either not hearing about the only right way, or for guessing wrong.

[funflower]

33. Welcome to DU, renter.

Hang around a while. It's an incredibly educational environment.

[renter]

62. Thank you funflower

I'll try to educate people here on how to be truly progressive via God's word. Maybe then Democrats can be back in the majority.

[funflower]

65. Good luck!

:hi:

[MikeH]

91. Sounds like what needs to be done

I'll try to educate people here on how to be truly progressive via God's word. Maybe then Democrats can be back in the majority.

Sounds exactly what needs to be done. And I am sure that such an effort will be successful.:sarcasm:

[Zhade]

109. He might even learn the truth that this is a secular country.

One founded as such.

[sweetheart]

13. revolutionary

As a liberal buddhist, i don't give such trolls the power
of even discussing... as even a slap-down is a kick.
I change my focus to where i see light and goodwill,
ignoring where i don't.

You can't weed god's garden. God weeds it for herself,
on her own schedule, and i don't for a second believe
that my post against a fundie will change him. Whereas,
i could spend that time writing a poem that might give
someone a chuckle. I think god likes to laugh, and would
rahter tell jokes than talk to fundies. :-)

However when its important, like when people attack freedom of
religion indirectly by slandering religion and the people who
practice religion, i take issue, in this forum,
and call it swiftboating.

[trotsky]

16. Oh, I see.

Someone calls J.Z. Knight a fraud, and that's a call to arms.

Someone else says homosexuality is a sin, and that should be ignored.

Got it.

[sweetheart]

19. Have you met J.Z Knight?

She and her tribe are a religion as we discuss,
and deference is becoming discussion of all religion,
even ones we don't agree with... even more so, from a
theological POV, we can step back and not judge,
in order to study and learn.

So, yes, unless you can relay:
your expanation of what enlightenment is;
an example of a living enlightened person you've met;
and what exactly you experienced in the company of
Ramtha/Knight that leads you to think otherwise;
then your opinion on knight is as subjective as the
one-sided slander you've put forward on her.

http://ramtha.com/default.asp says its a school of enlightenment.
It is clearly a religious school based on the teachings
made public, and as much as its tax status is irrelevant,
a religious school is worthy of deference,
that you might hold your tongue about things you don't
know unless you have met in person.

Knight is holding a public event, according to the web,
in a book shop(s) san francisco way in early feb. You could
jet on down and give us some authentic original material
that shows you've matured as a journalist.

I have, over many years, brought over 40 complete skeptics to
meet enligthened persons, and every single one, without exception,
on actually seeing the real deal, became very humble and thankful
to have such a meeting. The mind puts up a lot of reasons and
excuses, but enlightenment is visceral from the heart, and it
transforms a persons consciousness to meet face to face. It then
becomes completely evident how jesus can ask a tax collector of
sound reputation to "follow me" and he would do it without a moments
hesitation. It is "knowing" that you are standing face to face
with full realization, not "thinking", and the only way to "know"
such a thing when you are not realized yourself is to meet an
enlightened person face to face, to either prove you are a fraud
or they are.

[trotsky]

20. Knight only has to do one thing to prove Ramtha is genuine.

Tell us where Atlantis is/was!

An enlightened person is awfully difficult to distinguish from a con man, if you aren't demanding proof.

Knight tells people what they want to hear, and takes their money. She is fabulously wealthy. To me, an "enlightened" person would have no need for material possessions beyond what they need to survive.

Knight is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, a thief. And you can attack me all you want for saying that.

But again, it is very interesting you will expend such enormous effort to try and defend Knight, but don't feel it is your place to counter anti-homosexual bigotry.

On edit, here's something neat about a supposedly "enlightened" individual:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/ramtha/ramtha1.html

In the eighties, Knight made enough off Ramtha to last her several lifetimes. But a series of events shook her credibility. Natural disasters Ramtha prophesied--California and Florida falling into the ocean, acid rain poisoning New England's water supply--didn't happen, causing many who'd sold their homes and moved to the Pacific Northwest for safety to question Ramtha's omniscience. The state of Washington slapped an injunction on Knight, who'd been telling followers that Ramtha recommended they buy her Arabian horses, at up to $250,000 each. Knight's former advance man revealed he'd come upon Knight in a non-trance state practicing Ramtha voices. And after Ramtha began making homophobic comments ("Mother Nature" wanted to "get rid of" gays, he said), other prominent channeled spirits, such as San Francisco's Lazarus, questioned how enlightened, not to say real, he was.

[Zenlitened]

23. Can't have a religion without a bit o' gay-bashin', now can ya?

It's right there in the business plan:

1. Find people with poor self-esteem

2. Tell 'em, hey at least they're better than those evil homos

3. Rake in your follower's dough

4. Repeat Step 3. Endlesly.

[sweetheart]

25. money

So its really about money. Compared to a buzillion ken lay
ceo's who make hundreds of millions, knight is small pickins
in the money game.

All enlightened people should be poor, or not make money with
their gifts... - THAT religious axiom is unwritten in your conclusion.

This website points to some 5 star enlightened persons, and via the links,
some excellent essays on what enlightenment might appear. This is the
POV i endorse on enlightenment, and i hold ramtha to this bellweather.
http://www.virtuescience.com/saints.html

This one gives ramtha a "benefit of the doubt", but a dubious source
that has very dated information on some gurus:
http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/RatingsA-B.htm

There are plenty of homosexuals on DU who speak for themselves.

[trotsky]

26. It bothers me when people steal money, yes.

It bothered me when Ken Lay did it.

It bothers me when Dick Cheney & Halliburton do it.

It bothers me when J.Z. Knight does it.

My views are completely consistent. I abhor anyone who misrepresents themselves in order to take money from others.

And besides:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/ramtha/ramtha1.html

In the eighties, Knight made enough off Ramtha to last her several lifetimes. But a series of events shook her credibility. Natural disasters Ramtha prophesied--California and Florida falling into the ocean, acid rain poisoning New England's water supply--didn't happen, causing many who'd sold their homes and moved to the Pacific Northwest for safety to question Ramtha's omniscience. The state of Washington slapped an injunction on Knight, who'd been telling followers that Ramtha recommended they buy her Arabian horses, at up to $250,000 each. Knight's former advance man revealed he'd come upon Knight in a non-trance state practicing Ramtha voices. And after Ramtha began making homophobic comments ("Mother Nature" wanted to "get rid of" gays, he said), other prominent channeled spirits, such as San Francisco's Lazarus, questioned how enlightened, not to say real, he was.

[Silent3]

28. Enlightened Beings?

From sweetheart's link:

"... we do not teach but quicken. I am stronger than you so your currents adjust themselves to mine thus causing the stronger magnetic field to affect, quicken the weaker".

Some people read those words and think, "Oooh! Aaaaah! Wisdom!". I read them and am utterly amazed that anyone else has that reaction. If this stuff is "deep", so are forture cookies.

[sweetheart]

31. Its an odd quote that

I read it as apparently in the context of a kundalini master, who is
transmitting energy in the teaching. Much of advanced meditation teaching
is the teacher transmitting blocks of attention during meditation, that
a devotee is able to de-bug their mind in the presence of a more-awake one.
The comment is obviously made in a context you don't understand, and
without the internet, would never have left the room. So often, as conextual
as enlightenment teaching is, quotes should not be taken out of context.

His list of enlightened teachers is spot on,
and the links to bios of a bunch of historic masters is very spot on.

In reading those bios, one can see the common elements in the lives of such persons.

Gangaji records on video all public meetings, that if such a quote is ever
so abused, the original video is avaiable to show the truth.

[Silent3]

34. It is so, sooo hard to reply to this last post of yours...

...and the other one without eye-rolling sarcasm. Really, you don't appreciate the struggle (already failing) to contain it.

And I just know that you take my response as evidence of my "unenlightened state", that your "positive energy" is being blocked by the "negative energy" of the "unenlightened teaching" I've suffered from... etc., etc. My eye-rolling response only increases as my mind probes the all-to-familar terrain of the defensive mechanisms which allow you to believe you're in possession of Great Wisdom, on a Great Journey, and how your wonderful openness to these wonderful teachers brings light into your life and into the world, a light to which I am so sadly unreceptive.

By what authority do you proclaim that "enlightenment is not intellectual"? By the self-referential support of numerous "enlightened beings" who cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny? (Ah, yes, I'm using intellect to state my case, sadly "trapped" trying to use the key of intellect to open the door of enlightenment -- a key which can never fit! My plight is so sad!)

Oh, well. I guess my last bit of restraint against sarcasm has failed.

Okay, so why do I get sarcastic? I'm sure you "know" why. The explanation is of course that my sarcasm and general negative reaction is a sign of a problem I have, and my reaction couldn't possibly be rooted in that to which I'm reacting. I'm "resisting" wisdom. I'm attacking the Wise, the way the poor down-trodden Wise are always attacked.

Someone else made this point before, but it bears elaboration:

People agree with you -- that shows you're onto something.
People don't respond to you -- that shows that what you know is too hard for them to grasp.
People disagree with you -- that's of course an "attack", and they wouldn't bother attacking you unless you were right.

You can't lose!

I'll give you my gut reaction to all of this, not holding back much... then you tell me why my response is "wrong". (He says, wondering if she'll take the "well, it's right for you in the stage you're at" escape instead.)

"transmitting energy in the teaching"? Drivel.

"teaching is the teacher transmitting blocks of attention" More drivel.

"a devotee is able to de-bug their mind" Misappropriation of computer science terminology drivel.

"in the presence of a more-awake one" Gag-producing drivel, founded upon assertion by wishful thinking that this person or that is a "more-awake" one. Yeah. I guess I just haven't been close enough to pick of their "transmitted energy" or else I'd appreciate their "awakeness". Gaacck!

My reaction is not because I "fear" any of this. My reaction is not because The Great Wisdom of Ramtha or the like "threatens" my world view. My reaction is more like externalized embarrassment, like overhearing a slightly retarded man hitting on a pretty girl, feeling sorry for him and his hopelessly inept approach and the cringe-inducing inappropriateness of his words, feeling like you wish the sad little drama would just end.

Well, that's how I feel. Now please, don't let me stop you from rationalizing it all away as evidence my failings and lack of Enlightenment. Obviously, if I was Wise, I'd be writing a pleasant poem to put a smile on someones face instead of writing this.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Bill McBlueState]

38. "like overhearing a slightly retarded man hitting on a pretty girl"

:spray:

[beam me up scottie]

39. I am SO glad I stopped doing drugs when I did.

:yoiks:

[Zhade]

116. Hey, she and I share the same pro-marijuana experiences...

;)

...and *I* don't believe nonsense like that.

Don't blame the drugs, it's the ability of the believer to accept as true things for which there is zero evidence that's the problem.

[beam me up scottie]

121. Actually, I was thinking of the

"Bob Dillon" effect!

Apparently, not ALL of the brain cells grow back...:evilgrin:

[sweetheart]

42. Indeed

It really is all context.

An empowerment from an enlightened master is transmitted
telepathically. Persons recieve that blessing according to
their ability to be receptive to the transmission, and to the
depth and power of the master's enligthenment. Consenting
adults who meditate and appreciate the subtlety of profound
meditation, find such moments liberating.

I'm describing things out of a context you are not familiar.
Just as you've no experience, does not make it bunk, or you wrong.
It makes you inexperienced. In discussing, of course there is
the natural tendency to ridicule things you don't understand.
I pretty much expect that from most persons, those who
already know better understand the folly of writing about such
things in public.

[Zhade]

111. "An empowerment from an enlightened master is transmitted telepathically"

Um...prove it?

[Zhade]

110. Man, you NAILED it.

The whole "I'm elightened, maybe one day you'll get it" approach to unproven mythical bullshit is laughable.

Wish I could nominate single posts...

[opiate69]

120. As someone who has actually seen Knight's compound,

I think it's safe to say her wealth is pretty damned comparable to Lay's..

[jonnyblitz]

21. seriously though, and with all due respect , sweetheart

do you believe religious fraud exists and do you believe dangerous cults that are harmful to people that are solely out to bilk money from them exist? If i were on a spiritual journey and I read of various instances of fraud and ex-member negative testimonies about a group I was interested in I would ..umm..take pause at least. :shrug:

[sweetheart]

22. fair enough

I listen and notice all that, but when in the company of an enligthened
teacher years back, i've observed similar slander attacks, and we found
that ALL the persons who were "ex-members" speaking out, had been
"deprogrammed". The persons, who were mature adults, being kidnapped
and taken to a remote place, where they are tied to a bed and sexually
intimidated and threatened until they renounce their religious group.

I know this because i've had friends who were "failed" deprogramming cases,
who simply said "whatever" to get back to their day jobs. The police
don't prosecute the depgrogrammers, though in the cases i knew of, were
convicted felons selling felony crime. One woman who i knew was sooo
terrified by the deprogrammers that for years afterwards, she was a real
nerve case... they really worked some evil shit on her. So it does not
suprise, that the ex-members in my own group were busy selling deprogramming
by felons to member's parents at 50K a pop. Witchhunting, kidnapping and
torture are completely acceptable. NBC even ran a public commercial for
known felons back in '96, selling kiddnapping services on the back of a
PR campaign to scare more parents to deprogramm their 40 year old kids.

But that's just me having seen how a meditation group can be attacked
by swiftboat media, and how nobody will stand up for fringe religions.
so my group at the time, hired a civil rights lawyer that specialized in
defending religious groups from such attackers. The lawyer from DC explained
to us many many cases of church (congregation) after church attacked by
the felons. They start out by moving in to town and pushing PR articles on
cult paranoia to the press. Then they contact systematically, the parents
of church members, loooking for a dissenting member or parents who are
willing to fork out to depgrogram... 50,000. When they get one, they go
after the church's money. They defame the group and spread a black list
around to all businesses of church members, saying that the persons are in
a dangerous cult and will theive from them, though when you meet the
brainwashed cult members, they'll just smile and act like normal people,
but don't believe it for a second. It is very hard to prove that you lost
a job because of a blacklist.

The attacks usually go after "money" and "sex"

They attacked rajineesh for "money", "sex"
They attacked muktananda for "money", "sex"
They attacked Rama for "money", "sex"
They attacked Adida for "money", "sex"
They killed the waco branch davidians for "guns, "sex"
They attacked maharishi for "money", "sex"
They attacked Ramtha for "money"
.
.
. . . pattern?

Ultimately "money" and "sex" are just proxies for "spiritual power" that
terrifies rome. Were jesus christ alive today, he would have to pay for
a place to meet with his devotees, and there would be "money" involved.
Probably "sex" was involved as well. Magdalene and jesus surely had
a profound time together, one of those lost gospels hidden in the vatican,
the gospel of magdalene. So were jesus christ alive today, he would
just be:

They attacked Jesus Crhist for "money", "sex"

We are just seeing the PR propaganda that the cult attackers use to attack
religious groups... and the defamation is so complete that unless a person
is very wise to propaganda, they are fooled, like the swiftboaters
did to john kerry. It is drive-by liabel, and for free, a generation of
lynchers and witchburners thrill themselves by their dedication to
attacking other people's religious groups.

If a person is on a spiritual journey, they will be drawn to their
true calling beyond rationality... and if such a person is drawn to
ramtha, no article will stop them.

Fringe religion will always be attacked as a fraud. Jesus christ was
deemed a fraud in his day. It is a rule nubmer 1, that if a person is
really enlightened, the only way to stop them from threatening the
establishment is to defame them completely, to swiftboat them, not
like kerry, but like Dennis Kucinich, to deny them all access to
equal-time media, and then just referring to them as "leftist crackpot."

In "long" ;-) , i agree, "take pause at least." But also notice the
pattern of centuries of media attacks against fringe religion.

[jonnyblitz]

24. i can't help buit be a skeptic about this sort of thing..

I would hate to see people like you get fucked over. I also agree that it's none of my business what consenting adults choose to do but I was never one to keep my opinions to myself. :P

i still think it's all hogwash based on what I use to determine such things.

Please be careful. :hi:

[Zhade]

112. Anyone who believes that kind of nonsense gets what they deserve.

When it's shown how such silliness is founded on unproven assumptions, and someone still believes in it, despite all evidence...I really feel no sympathy for that person.

Pity that they can so readily fool themselves, but not sympathy.

[Silent3]

27. Why deference?

What makes religion a special case for deference over anything else people discuss and disagree about?

Why should I, a non-believer, put religion up on a pedestal where I don't believe it belongs?

Why should I play the role of an enabler for religious beliefs by contributing to the believers' own mythology that religiosity is something worthy of special respect?

It is "knowing" that you are standing face to face
with full realization, not "thinking", and the only way to "know"
such a thing when you are not realized yourself is to meet an
enlightened person face to face, to either prove you are a fraud
or they are.

Yes, drink the kool-aid. Then you'll understand!

As for your "40 complete skeptics" -- not many self-proclaimed skeptics are good at skepticism. Not many non-skeptics would recognize the difference between someone exercising methodical reasoning, and someone simply being dismissive of the unfamiliar or strange.

If I meet one of these "enligthened persons", do I get to ask any questions that I like? Do I get to doggedly pursue any line of questioning when I feel the answers I'm getting are incomplete, evasive, or an totally unrelated talking points? I've certainly talked to many True Believers in many different things, and have yet to be impressed. So, the Big Revelations only come when in the Presence of special and rare Enlighted Ones?

[sweetheart]

30. spiritual enlightenment is not intellectual

It radiates like a profound ecstatic bliss in the room, that
the enlightened person is able, if they are a gifted master, of
"transmitting the flame", and all buddhist, hindu and eastern religion
has an allegory for this "satsang" - truth telling. This be truth telling
in that the persons present hold their communion sacred to only speak
or "know" the truth as much as they are able.

The presumption that people refrauded and duped is misleading.
There will never ever ever ever be a double blind test for enligthenemnt.
It is personal, subjective and direct.

I find people are awakened by all sorts of things, and for some persons,
an enlightened person can be a real assistance. Here is the cleanest
most difficult to slander enlightened teacher i know of: www.gangaji.org

She has public meetings where they charge only for the cost of the meeting,
and a female enligthened person in the tradition of Ramana Maharshi helps
people overcome their egos. SHE is magnificent, a master i discovered
rather recently, and am very honoured to have met.

Her teachings are broadcast on public access TV in to prisons i some
states, in many states. She teaches to large groups in many european cities
where the room is packed standing room only.

Given how much unenlightened teaching most persons have recieved in life,
usually several decades on how to not be enlightened... it takes a bit of
a shock to flip that coin. Just pretending it will happen between football
games is the instant coffee fallacy, when we can treat a world through
mental understanding, what is really profound and now known with the mind.

[greyl]

35. Listen,

All the preaching from Gangaji(Toni Varner) and others like her has to stop. All concepts and beliefs are useful along the way, but they’re finally in the way. They’re finally traps. If we believe our thoughts are reality, it’s crazymaking. It's better to forget all teachings.

[sweetheart]

44. forgetting all teachings

You got to climb the mountain before you jump off. Many Ph.D.'s and postdocs
i know describe that as they became more and more educated, they realized
how little they know, and how much a trap the orthodoxy and fundamentalism of
apparent knowledge.

Gangaji teaches tradtional Jnana Yoga, the yoga of discrimination, where by
direct reflection and observation of ones life and mind, one awakens to
profundity. This is a spiritual path, not involving any material powers.

Another Genre of teachers teach mysticism, the left handed path
of power, where a person develops their wordly abilities, gets advanced
degrees, black belts, earns money in business, sexual relationships and all
that the material life is sorted out. Then by teachings, you can develop mastery
over physical life, and at the same time, develop the spiritual life by
surrendering attachment to results. Some of the "creating your day" talk
in the bleep film refers to this. But core to mysticism is the intent
to transcend desire, even in the middle of worldy life. A master in
this sort of tradition will use kundalini empowerment to give the student
a high-voltage boost that the devotee experience the same profundity
in meditation that they would meditating in a cave for a year in the
high himalayas.

Many persons who meet Gangaji have already spent many years in other
spiritual paths where they developed their worldy life enough to be
successful and to have the means to pursue a spiritual life.

It is only best to forget all teachings, when you are at that point.
When you are not at that point, forgetting how to tie your shoes is
rather unhelpful. Enlightenment is a process, and along that path,
truth is relative. "forget all teachings" is only truth for those
who are at that point. For persons before that point, they need the
structure of their teachings, and for persons after that point, no
words suffice.

[greyl]

47. Hey sweetheart, Gangaji said what I wrote!

I only added "from Gangaji(Toni Varner) and others like her"

Maybe you don't comprehend what she's about. Have you met her?

"All the preaching from Gangaji(Toni Varner) and others like her has to stop. All concepts and beliefs are useful along the way, but they’re finally in the way. They’re finally traps. If we believe our thoughts are reality, it’s crazymaking. It's better to forget all teachings."

[sweetheart]

48. its a word game to you

I've spent much time with Gangaji and am very familiar with
her methods and approaches. She points out first off, that
she is "selling water by a river", and that you don't need her.
She suggests that words are a way to reinforce the
ego, and that the way to get in touch with a deeper awareness,
is to face the fear at the root of the ego that seeks to "do"
something rather than simply be.

She will also explain, that she does not teach for "all"
persons, but those who are ready for that teaching. That is
why i point out, that Gangaji is teaching "enlightenment 495",
not "101". I was filling in the lesson from 101, which is
get your physical life together, or all the other stuff won't
mean much because you'll be working 2 jobs and enslaved to
the world if you don't rise above it. She does not teach
material success, "manifesting", creating your future, or
even "intentionality". Yet, those teachings are presumed,
that those who come to gangaji are ready for her lesson.

Perhaps you should meet her, and then you'll know more than
to twist words around in a game she herself does not play.

She will tell you, when you meet her, that the only reason
for your meeting is because of the grace of her teacher, papaji (HWL poonjaji)
and how she herself recieved that final teaching. If seeing her
is too difficult, she's made an excellent audio teaching tape
called: "Who are you?" that gives a profound teaching worth
a million dollars IF a person is ready to hear it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1564554376/qid=1138302272/sr=8-7/ref=pd_bbs_7/104-5926648-6808765?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[trotsky]

52. How come we have to BUY her "profound teachings"?

Why doesn't she just post them for free on the web and ask for donations?

[sweetheart]

56. Because of her teacher's wish

Without money, she would not be able to teach. Her foundation
runs very modestly, yet has production costs. She does indeed
recieve donations, but renting large halls and the costs of
producing a public event where several hundred people are
comfortable costs a considerable sum, given that she does not
have a monastary. I last saw here in the student hall of the
southern oregon university in ashland oregon. There were over
200 poeple there for an afternoon satsang.

Her teacher wanted her to spread the fire of enligthenment like
shooting flaming arrows to transform poeple's lives. Without
money, she can't do this. I get to see her soon in london, and
then maybe if i'm lucky, in amsterdam, hamburg and zurich. The
costs of providing such classes at such a modest cost is all born
by donations. THe coost of her california prisons programme, is
all born of donations. Her public access TV work is as well.
She does not ask for donations. People who come to events find
her so valuable, they donate. Others come and pay just the entry
fee, For some persons who can't afford to even pay the csots of
a meeting room, there are donated scholarships to attend a satsang.

On meeting her, i think it has to do with her soul. She's an
ancient wise yogi soul, and ancient wise yogis meditate together
in a circle of love. She does not have pretense towards being
a world teacher, or a god, or "thoughts". But she does respond
to the demand for her company all over the world, by seeing it
as the dharma of her teacher, on his passing to carry the flame.

I love gangaji. She's one of the most beautiful people i've
ever met, really she moves my heart and my world. I am biased in
that sense, but i think if you were a god, and could see every
accounting figure in her life, you'd find her school to be
clean as a whistle.

[trotsky]

58. *snort*

People who come to events find her so valuable, they donate. Others come and pay just the entry fee

An entry fee? :eyes:

Has she ever released an income statement of any kind? How much is she spending on "spreading the word" versus enriching herself? I shouldn't have to be a god in order to find out how she collects & spends her money, especially when she is promising people things and taking their money to do so.

As a side note: do you think anyone could ever fool you?

[salvorhardin]

60. Silly rabbit!

If you were truly enlightened you'd know that every penny she spends on herself can only enhance her ability to spread the word. And then aren't we all blessed? Besides, even prophets have support personnel. :-)

[sweetheart]

61. Obviously you've never promoted an event

My heart is not fooled by anyone. When i see the real deal,
love is all i feel. If i spent 100 hours in someone's company,
as a discriminating individual, bush didn't fool me for 2 seconds.
I saw him on TV for the first time at the debate with gore from a
hotel room on Maui. My stomach contracted in to a knot and i
felt like throwing up, instantly. My body took 2 seconds to tell
me that bush was a very evil man.

Go to a hotel and ask them the rental cost of a meeting facility for 250
people. Now yourself calculate the cost of getting such facility in Hamburg,
make sure that the lighting and room are set up to hold a live satsang,
videotaped, where anyone who is asking question or sits on a chair on
stage by gangaji like in a chat show.

"Spreading the word" is different entirely than honouring the love of a teacher
that has gifted your life with profound blessings. The "entry fee" is an
attempt to share the costs load, as otherwise no event can be held to start
with. I have spent 20 years working in professional wall street finance. I
wrote myself in C++, the first generation bondwatch analysis system used by
the NYSE/SEC to track fraud in corporate bond securities trading for
frontrunning and tracking of correlated trades by networked agencies back
in 94. I am slightly aware of financial fraud, and what a meeting space costs
in Hamburg.

I've moved on to european corporate finance since, and the tracking
of fraud in the sarbanes oxley world has become crap. Nobody is responsible,
as everyone is busy checking/ticking boxes. And the banks are paid millions millions
to the brightest mathematicians and physicists money can buy credit derivatives
that are so complex that no regulator can regulate their transactions, and then these
are traded on secondary markets manufacturing the legal version of money laundering,
but whatever business wants, it gets from financial markets. Fraud is just a
question of speeding tickets when everyone is speeding... bust the guy going
the fastest and hope the others listen.... ego divergence from discussion, ..
but emphasis that i am slightly slightly aware of how financial fraud works in
various accounting systems, in various financial markets, and under various
political bilking regimens, and in religious groups as well.

When i first met her she was living in rental accomodation,
having spent all her savings on satsang after attaining
enlightenment. Her devotees managed to get her a house after several years
so she now has a home. People are too hung up on money. If you can't get
over a 20 dollar entry fee, then you're not ready to learn trust.

[Silent3]

63. Missing the boat worrying about money and fraud so much.

I'm far more offended by the breath-taking saccharine vapidity of things like "On meeting her, i think it has to do with her soul. She's an ancient wise yogi soul, and ancient wise yogis meditate together in a circle of love."

While there is no doubt fraud and greed among the guru set, I'm sure there are plenty of these self-annointed Wise Teachers who were simply followers at one time. Among the thousands upon thousands of gullible but honest followers of this hokum, surely a fair number are eager and capable of "teaching" the same crap they swallow, and their own variations on the various themes, and who honestly believe they're doing the world an enlightening favor via their work, whether they charge for their time and materials or not.

The existence of fraud, where it does exist, is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is a culture which does not teach or value critical thinking.

[trotsky]

64. Completely true.

I just feel like the fraud angle is the most tangible - these people end up living in luxury, and that's right there to point out. Hokey "feel good" advice is too abstract to be demonstrated as being bogus, especially when you've already committed yourself to believing it. Far easier to come to a realization that the person is a fraud rather than the "knowledge" they impart.

Decent critical thinking could bring it all crashing down, no doubt.

[sweetheart]

67. That is just ignorant

You are clearly very ignorant of eastern religion. I've been
around many teachers in buddhist, hindu, zen, shinto, american indian,
"est(s)" and so many varieties of traditions for 25
years now, and in all that time, have NEVER seen the ugly stupidity
you seem to believe is out there. That stuidity rather is in persons
who will not actually see something face to face, to form opinions
without evidence, and are all to quick to smear what they don't
understand.

There is a sacred guru-student trust that has been the basis of
religious teaching for thousands of years. The presumption that
you are suddenly wiser with your critical mind, western man, than
1000's of years of enlightened traditions is laughtable indeed.
All western man has done is rape the planet and mass murder
people... that rudeness comes across in your "critical thinking",
that masques ignorance and dresses it up as knowledge.

You talk science, but then cannot actually taste the soup, rather
trusting a quick scan of quotes from the chef to decide on how
the soup tastes. Your critical thinking does not wash with
the fact that you have no evidence. No quote from the chef will
EVER tell you the taste of the soup. And you can think about
soup critically, and talk about soup until you're blue in the face,
how corrupt the restaurant is, and how ugly the wallpaper is,
yet still know nothing about the soup. You'd think that someone
who could think critically would know that there is no proxy
for tasting soup, and without it, to be so firm in your conclusions
on soup is just ignorance.

[greyl]

69. Your smoke screen has lost what little effect it had.

And you know this.

There's too much bullshit in the world already, c'mon.

edit: Monday, quit your job. Run from safety. Be true to yourself.
Fuck prophets. It's your life.

[sweetheart]

70. Your smoke screen is based on no evidence.

The whole tribe of hackers in this forum who jump to conclusions
without evidence and then have the hubris to claim the mantle of
"science" and "critical thinking" is really charming.

The bullshit starts with people who are so stuck in their
fundamentalist views against religion and mysticism, that they are not
able to sample actual evidence that might shatter your views.
They are soup experts who have never tasted soup.

For all the words, some of y'all represent the antithesis of critical
thinking and scientific method, smoke screen indeed. When someone
is willing to actually consider the other POV, we can have discussion,
but that is not what we have here. We have some religious persons who
are clearly familiar with your POV, but who express otherwise, and
some chappies who are not really here to discuss or evolve POV's but
rather to hammer home their nihilism.

[trotsky]

71. Jump to conclusions without evidence?

I'm going to savor the irony of you saying that to someone else. :rofl:

Being open-minded and giving every single crazy idea equal weight in the realm of ideas is NOT what "proper" skeptics do.

Ever hear of the old quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

That's what we've got here. Say you come along and post that your own personal meditation has helped bring focus and peace into your life. Great! Fantastic! I doubt anyone would come alone to poop all over your own personal experience.

But when you start asserting that a person can channel a fictional being from a fictional place who has supposedly been dead for 30,000 years and saying that simply because we don't give this claim proper respect and consideration first, we're the "antithesis" of critical thinking, oh man, that's a riot.

It shows, more than anything else, that you don't know what critical thinking means.

[greyl]

88. When I quoted Gangaji,

your heart betrayed you. (so to speak, using your poetic language)

You argued with the words, because they appeared to originate from me.
That is intellectual prejudice writ large.

[Zhade]

113. Your entire expressed belief system is based on no evidence.

And, in some cases, is contradicted by actual facts.

Kind of like that of fundies, actually.

[Silent3]

72. No soup for you!

You are clearly very ignorant of eastern religion.

Tell me this: If I studied eastern mysticism for 25 years, and still thought it was a mix of common place wisdom that doesn't require someone to have a 2000 year-old soul to come up with, along with a goodly helping of mystical bullshit, would my opinion carry any more weight? Or would you move on from the charge of ignorance to the charge that my "heart wasn't open enough", or that my "mind wasn't ready yet", etc.?

There are billions of things I could spend my time studying. Something needs to show signs that it's worthwhile first before I devote much time and effort to it. Of course, many faiths, religions, and cults defend themselves from criticism by claiming that you can't judge from the outside, that you have to go inside and devote yourself to said faith before you "truly understand" -- a very convenient defensive mechanism to deflect all possible criticism from outsiders. In fact, by this way of thinking, there simply cannot be such a thing as valid criticism, because any criticism is simply taken as a sign that "you are ignorant" or that "you do not yet understand".

As for your soup analogy -- perhaps I won't know every nuance of the experience of the "soup" without tasting it, but that certainly doesn't mean I can't make plenty of completely valid judgements of the soup based on other things. If I don't like broccoli, and I see broccoli as a major ingredient in the soup, it's a fair bet I won't like the soup -- tasting might not really be necessary. If I see a bottle of ammonia being poured into the soup pot, I sure as hell don't need to taste it to know it's bad news.

There are no external signs that the "soup eaters" are than much better off for eating this "soup", or that they make the world all that much better of a place for it. Yet for you, nothing will do, not even a sip, but one must down bowl after bowl of soup, and even then, the only "valid" options are to say you love the soup, or that you're "just not ready for" the soup -- the soup can't ever, ever be the problem.

[kwassa]

73. Sweetheart is talking right over your head

and while I admire her perseverance, and agree with much of what she says, I don't think that those here of the atheist persuasion will understand it.

Kerry4kerry:
"Tell me this: If I studied eastern mysticism for 25 years, and still thought it was a mix of common place wisdom that doesn't require someone to have a 2000 year-old soul to come up with, along with a goodly helping of mystical bullshit, would my opinion carry any more weight?"

You wouldn't come up with this conclusion if you studied it for 25 years. You really couldn't.

But the issue, in my opinion, is that you haven't, and most here have no background or education in religion, or different spiritual practices, so you don't even possess the frame of reference needed to understand and discuss intelligently the basic concepts. It is like speaking in Greek to someone who doesn't speak Greek. Communication is impossible.

Except, of course, Sweetheart is speaking in English, and some small part of what she is saying might stick in your consciousness, and act upon your imagination at some future point.

[Silent3]

74. Ah, yes, crystal therapy and Ramtha are "way over my head"

If we were talking only about totally subjective things with no larger, extraordinary claims, it would be one thing. Like someone else said in another post (trotsky, I think) if you're just claiming that meditation brings you inner peace or the like -- fine, no arguments here.

But when you start casually talking matter-of-factly that someone is a "ancient guru soul", as if this were a patently obvious fact along with his name and address, you're living in fantasy land. This has nothing to do with communication problems. Where are the significant contributions to the understanding of history and archeology that all those reincarnated ancient souls could be making? Why can't they dredge up more from the past the unverifiable tales, forture-cookie wisdom, and breathing techniques? Where are the great contributions to public health from crystal healing and chakra alignment that go beyond routine placebo affect?

There are too many extraordinary claims made, claims that would have ramifications well beyond the lives of the believers, to write this all off as a mere problem of communication.

I'm a software engineer. I've been working with computers for 30 years. Most people can't understand what I do at all. But they don't have to in order to benefit from my work. They can use a web site I've created or an application I've written without the slightest knowledge of, or "faith in", Java, Perl, PHP, HTML, C++, etc., etc.

What do you or sweetheart or "Ramtha" have to offer which works without prior knowledge or belief? Why is all of this terribly impressive stuff subject to the "shyness effect" -- i.e., any attempt to validate or verify, any touch of skeptical "bad vibes," makes all impressive results vaporize. You'll have to pardon me if I take this to mean there's nothing impressive there to start with.

If faith can move mountains, but just one skeptic looking on keeps the mountain firmly rooted in place, skepticism must be pretty damn potent stuff.

[beam me up scottie]

75. "any touch of skeptical "bad vibes" makes all impressive results vaporize"

What do you or sweetheart or "Ramtha" have to offer which works without prior knowledge or belief? Why is all of this terribly impressive stuff subject to the "shyness effect" -- i.e., any attempt to validate or verify, any touch of skeptical "bad vibes," makes all impressive results vaporize. You'll have to pardon me if I take this to mean there's nothing impressive there to start with.

If faith can move mountains, but just one skeptic looking on keeps the mountain firmly rooted in place, skepticism must be pretty damn potent stuff.

Now THAT is profound.

[Zhade]

115. Mainly, it's that they probably know it's not real, and deny that fact.

Amazing cognitive dissonance.

[trotsky]

77. "of the atheist persuasion"

Well, no, of course not, because unlike most believers, we actually require a little real evidence before accepting a claim.

We're crazy like that.

[Zhade]

114. One doesn't need to have a background in bullshit to smell bullshit.

If there's no evidence, there's no evidence - and there isn't.

But I don't think believers with mindsets like yours are intellectually honest enough to admit that, or to admit that believing in something based on unfounded assumptions is no more revolutionary or enlightened than believing in Lucky the Leprechaun.

[toddaa]

76. Eastern Religion

You are clearly very ignorant of eastern religion.

This is an interesting statement. Having dabbled in eastern philosophy for the about a decade now, it's my experience that most Westerners claiming to be Daoists, or Buddhists, or Hindus, have absolutely no clue as to where their beliefs come from and how they are practiced in their country of origin. The rise of the American guru is particularly troubling as many of these so called gurus were run out of their homeland for various reasons or decided that spending long years training in a monestary wasn't going to make them a buck quick enough. No different from any major religion, though. You'll find that just about every religious belief is founded by a fraud or a raving looney.

As for Daoism, which I am partial to, I find most of the material available in the US is crap. Apart from scholarly work coming out of Asian studies departments, most is of the Tao of Pooh variety suitable for maybe Oprah watchers, but has no relation to the Chinese tradition of Daoism. Red flag indicators of fraudulent Daoist material are things like interpolations of the Daodejing, differentiating between "religious" v. "philosophical" Daoism, over emphasis on Laozi or Zhuangzi, or anything published by Shambala press.

Generally speaking, Westerners have this nasty habit of looting a cultural belief system, cherry picking the warm and fuzzy bits that they like, disposing of the rest, and then claiming expertise in the subject. This is precisely what happened to Daoism in Victorian England, and more recently in the 1970s when Alan Watts was hawking his wares. It's called cultural colonialism in academic circles, but I think that's too kind. I prefer the term cultural rape.

And no, I am not a Daoist.

[greyl]

85. You speak the truth.

"...it's my experience that most Westerners claiming to be Daoists, or Buddhists, or Hindus, have absolutely no clue as to where their beliefs come from and how they are practiced in their country of origin. The rise of the American guru is particularly troubling..."

I think most of those casual dabblers you speak of share a common religious upbringing. Most were brought up as Christians. As they matured they became disenchanted with the face of Christianity in this country. Having been deeply inculcated by mother culture with the idea that "God exists" but having lost faith in the brand of God they were brought up to believe in, they begin the search for a spirituality to trade up to, or at least are open to them when they float by. In many ways, the modern "new-age" products of Buddhism and Hinduism are sold as anti-christian-fundy spiritualities. As such, they're selling quite well.
Interesting to note how many who are in love with the Eastern Way to Salvation of their choice are also into just about every new-age notion out there.
So much for discipline, eh?

And referring to the OP, here's an interesting take on the phenomenon of people "with belief" avoiding public disagreement with each other:

None of them likes to be "lumped with the others" or as one Buddhist put it "tarred with the same brush." They can ALL find saving graces (as your friend did) that should exempt them from being "lumped with the others." Ask them, and they'll all produce the requisite sample quotes. The fact remains, however, that they're all products of the same culture and all view humans as the very "subject" of religion, innately flawed, doomed to suffering and misery, and in need of salvation (whether it be eternal life in heaven or release from the cycle of death and rebirth). Together, they function as our culture's harem of scolding wives: always moaning about their greedy and materialistic husband, always trying to get him to lift his eyes to higher, nobler things.

Ecumenism among our culture's religions is not about reducing competition among themselves but rather about standing shoulder to shoulder against the common foe---modern skepticism and contempt. They would like to be perceived as no longer squabbling among themselves over petty differences but as together representative of some great, undeniable fundamental truth that the common foe MUST respect. These cultural siblings would smile on my work if I was willing to introduce animism into their company as a sort of retarded little brother, but they're certainly going to object strenuously to my identifying it as humanity's ancient, mighty mainstream and relegating them to a very recently-formed (and now stagnant) backwater. Luckily I don't need (or even want) them to smile on my work.
http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=77

[Inland]

96. That actually steps on the OP.

If religionists are going to convince religionists, it really is going to have to be BECAUSE they cease squabbling and they DO stand shoulder to shoulder and there IS an undeniable, fundamental truth at least in their own minds that THEY respect, if only because it's a product of work. You can't ask them to find common liberal ground in christianity and then wonder why it is they are now united and not susceptible to skepticism and the oh-so-persuasive contempt of some other system.

[greyl]

99. No, it doesn't.

"If religionists are going to convince religionists, it really is going to have to be BECAUSE they cease squabbling and they DO stand shoulder to shoulder..."

It isn't lost on most of us, that skills of logical argumentation are undervalued and rare in right-wing theists.
For them, it's all about APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. (a logical fallacy)

The OP speaks to a reluctance to disagree with your 'brethren', for the sake of self-preservation as opposed to intellectual honesty or divine goodness.

[Inland]

101. Well, that isn't making much sense at all.

If the only way to appeal to the right wingers is an appeal to authority, that is, get in line with left america because god wants you to, all one can say is we then would have a religious unity and stand shoulder to shoulder around a set of left policy positions.

In other words, everyone becomes a left leaning christian doing what they do because they are agreed it's what god wants, pursuant to the big discussion.

And it's pretty clear that neither the OP nor you want or thinks that could happen. You can't, on one hand, taunt left leaning christians into risking their survival in order to convince their fellow religious in order to obtain religious unity and then be against religious unity.

I guess the real problem is that you and the OP ask the religious to have an argument on grounds you find illegitimate (an appeal to religious authority in politics) for a goal you don't much care for (religious unity for political purposes). If either one of you thought that it would be taken past the mocking and declaring of anathemas stage, you wouldn't be suggesting it.

[greyl]

105. You're thoroughly misunderstanding.

I am not saying the following: "the only way to appeal to the right wingers is an appeal to authority, that is, get in line with left america because god wants you to" and I do not "ask the religious to have an argument on grounds (I) find illegitimate" and I'm not taunting "left leaning christians into risking their survival in order to convince their fellow religious in order to obtain religious unity". Risking their survival? That's rich.

The goal of being outspoken about Liberal Christian values in the face of right-wing dumbassity is to ensure their survival.

[Inland]

106. Then I still am.

I thought you were agreeing with OP that there was a reluctance to speak out due to fear: "The OP speaks to a reluctance to disagree with your 'brethren', for the sake of self-preservation".

While I agree that being outspoken would ensure survival, it's still far, far removed from a religious discussion. The only thing that ensures survival is making sure a religious debate doesn't become a political debate. I, for one, am not looking forward to the day that all religious decide taht the consensus on what is or is not sin is going to be put into law, and if anyone ever thought it would get to a stage more fruitful, civil, and effective than the "discussions" of religious doctrine in this forum, it would never have been suggested.

[greyl]

107. I am agreeing with the OP. :)

I guess I did use the term "self-preservation", huh. Slightly different from blatant "survival", but I see how it was confusing. By now, though, the whole original point has been confused.

[Zhade]

117. Dude, "revealed religion" is all based on appeal to authority.

Not to mention begging the question.

[greyl]

54. Absolutely not.

On the contrary, it appears that Toni Varner plays word games, and you as an uncritical follower of her just play along. I quoted her words and you displayed, once again, your meandering prejudiced reaction to posts that originate from those you demonize as enemy swiftboaters.
Furthermore, as you've said that enlightment isn't an intellectual process, how the fuck can you turn around and describe Toni Varner's teachings as an advanced course in enlightenment? It's intellectually dissonant to do so, and I think the higher parts of yourself realize this, but I know, it's difficult for the ego to admit fault. I wish you success with your struggle.

Incidentaly, I think what I quoted from Toni Varner is decent advice that you should consider heeding.
But don't take it from me. (not that you would be open to)


" Although Gangaji is considered one of the top alternative spirituality teachers in the country, she eschews doctrines, beliefs and concepts, preferring instead, she said, to help people "forget all teachings, forget what you have and don’t have and find what’s at the bottom of it all, what was here before all this and will be here after all this – the simplicity and thrill of reeling back the mind and knowing the miracle of being here."

"All the preaching has to stop," said Gangaji. "All concepts and beliefs are useful along the way, but they’re finally in the way. They’re finally traps. If we believe our thoughts are reality, it’s crazymaking."

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/1231/life/stories/05life.htm

[sweetheart]

57. ha ha :-)

Gangaji is profound. She is respected by all of the most profound
people i've ever met. I have no question to her integrity having
spent about 100 hours meditating in her company. She transmits
Ramana Maharshi's lineage lucidly, and has enightened devotees in
varous parts of the world who enjoy a great samadhi with her.

Its not about words. She will blow your heart up like a nuclear
bomb if you let her, and when your heart explodes, the power is
immense. Om tat sat. Jnana yoga has preliminary practices in old
indian culture... 10-20 years of purification practices and meditation
on love. Then when in the company of a yoga master, the student has
the wings of trust to engage the master. Enlightenment is taught
through love. Nobody can write about love... it is in person.

Enlightened love is not forced or coerced. Gangaji is not out selling
her wares to you... if you want to meet her, she makes herself
available. That is the ettiquette of her lineage.

Gangaji is the name HWL Poonaji gave to her, and he was an
old school hindu in north india, he a devotee of Ramana Maharshi.
This is a quote from Ramana Maharshi(1879-1950) (from a book with
the forward written by C.G Jung)
Q: Does Bhagavan use occult powers to make others realize the Self,
or is the mere fact of Bhagavan's Realization enough for that?

Ramana: The spiritual force of Self-Realization is far more powerful
than the use of all the occult powers. Inasmuch as there is no ego
in the Sage, there are no "others" for him. What is the highest
benefit that can be conferred on you? It is happiness, and happiness
is born of peace. Peace can reign only where there is no disturbance,
and disturbance is due to thoughts that arise in the mind. When the
mind itself is absent, there will be perfect peace. Unless a person
has annihilated the mind, he cannot gain peace and be happy. And
unless he himself is happy, he cannot bestow happiness on "others."
Since, however, there are no "others" for the Sage who has no mind,
and the mere fact of his Self-Realization is itself enough to make
the "others" happy. -- The spiritual teaching of Ramana Maharshi

[trotsky]

59. D'oh! Busted! n/t

[Silent3]

36. Fade away and radiate

It radiates like a profound ecstatic bliss in the room

I'm sure it does. I'm sure it does. And if I don't pick up on it? Well, that's because I'm blocking it, I'm not receptive to it. Doesn't mean that the radiant enlightenment isn't there!

The presumption that people refrauded and duped is misleading.

I have no such presumption. Some BS is predatory, some BS is just BS. Taking away the predatory part isn't enough for me to like BS.

There will never ever ever ever be a double blind test for enligthenemnt. It is personal, subjective and direct.

Which translates to "Whatever I think is right is right. You can't prove me wrong! I'm self-sealed against any contradiction of my beliefs. Bliss!"

It's all incredibly convenient.

She has public meetings where they charge only for the cost of the meeting,
and a female enligthened person in the tradition of Ramana Maharshi helps
people overcome their egos.

I do not discount at all the existence of friendly, kind, well-meaning people, who may even actually possess a few useful bits of real wisdom, spreading BS to those receptive to BS, firmly believing they're making the world a better place.

Just pretending it will happen between football games is the instant coffee fallacy, when we can treat a world through mental understanding, what is really profound and now known with the mind.

So, am I going to be impressed when I finally get within energy-transmission range of an Awakened One, or not? Sounds like your 40 supposedly skeptical friends had an "instant coffee" experience to me -- even if it was just a sip, and not a full cup.

[sweetheart]

45. Predatory BS

"Whatever I think is right is right. You can't prove me wrong!
I'm self-sealed against any contradiction of my beliefs. Bliss!"

Advanced religion is completely subjective. The proof is in the pudding.
Direct knoweldge is not "beliefs". The very same mechanism of mind you
use to "know" truth is ultimately the same subjectivity.

You "know" when you "know".

[Zhade]

118. Except that you only THINK you know.

You don't have any evidence that what you think is true, is true.

But you believe you do.

Your belief does not equate to direct knowledge, and your direct knowledge could very well be all in your head and nonexistent outside your cranium.

[Zenlitened]

41. I think you've really put your finger on it. Thanks.

To encounter fundie-style hatethink on a presumably liberal board is disappointing enough. But the virtual silence that follows is even worse in some ways.

[trotsky]

43. Yeah, that's what bothers me the most.

I can understand the conservative/corporate media not wanting to give as much airtime to liberal religious views, and what's the average Christian DUer or even the average liberal Christian church going to do about that? Not much.

But here, on DU, where countering cretinistic views with an equally strong voice is just as simple as clicking "Reply," why the silence? These are Christians who supposedly buy into the majority of the liberal/Democratic platform, so they're really close to "getting it" - unlike a right-wing fundie. So why not confront them, discuss with them, etc.?

I just don't get it.

[Maat]

46. I am not seeing these threads (of course, sometimes I'm busy).

Please point them out to me, and I will be happy to respond.

I'm not a Christian, technically, but I am a person who goes to church (Church of Religious Science), an open, inclusive, welcoming and affirming church.

( www.religiousscience.org - see frequently-asked questions )

PM me, if you would.

We are forming a group that, hopefully one day soon, will network with the Interfaith Alliance. We will attempt to be the "Religious and Progressive" network.

P.S. Sometime this morning, I'm going to address a few posts.

[ex nec 8404]

49. trotsky, of a thousand posts.

One honest question please. Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

[Zenlitened]

50. I'd like to chime in with an answer: No.

:hi:

[salvorhardin]

51. ROFL!

Nominated for most unintentionally funny post of the day.

[trotsky]

53. Before I can give an honest answer: Which god would that be?

Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Tom DeLay, George Bush, and Pope Ratz all claim to believe in the God of the Bible.

Many liberals also claim to believe in the God of the Bible.

So, which god is the God of the Bible? And can you please then tell the appropriate group why they are wrong, and bring them back into the fold?

[hunter]

55. Yes, which God?

You might even want to widen the question to include the Zoroastrians, Jews, Moslems, Mormons, Baha'i, and so on...

And what about those Catholics, while we are at it? I'd love to hear what you think about them...

[carl_pwccaman]

68. Good topic.

I'm Gnostic (of the old school genus), which means I reject much of the Bible (both testaments) as lacking wisdom, as lacking in spiritual merit (not leading to good relationships, understanding, personal growth of character, or knowledge of reality), though I also see places where there are some things that would be salvagable, if understood in a certain way, yet I would not want to imply that the author(s) of such passages would actually agree with the best interpretation, either.

I think there are many gods in the Bible. Bible scholars point out layers of the Pentateuch that indicate different sources, a J source that refers to God as JHVH, an E source that refers to God as Elohim, a Deuteronomical source, a Priestly source representing priestly interestes, a redactor. They also speak of a common source of sayings uses in the New Testament gospels (Q, the 'lost Gospel'), which has different layers, that seem to indicate different time periods of evolution of the communities traditions about the Jesus figure. To add yet more complexity to this, in some passages in the Hebrew Scripture, Shaddai is used as a divine name, or El, and some of these are also names used by non-monotheistic people of the region (Canaan, Phonecia, Ugarit). The greeks could understand their words numerically, and in the Greek New Testament, the name Jesus connects numerically to Hermes/Thoth, and Magdalene is numerically connected to the sacred Pythagorean ratio of the fish. There were definitely platonists in the area, of Jewish and/or Zoroastrian background, or even with Egyptian background, and the New Testament does mention Magi (Zoroastrians?) at Jesus' birth, and a trip to Egypt in Jesus' youth, and is written in Greek. The similarities to Osiris and others were not unknown to Hellenistic Jews and to Pagan converts to the new cult of Christianity int the first century.

An effort can be made to sort it out, but is quite a mess, without some basis of wisdom and compassion, ethics, reason. People without that basis tend to fare rather poorly.

The Catholic and Orthodox Christians traditions have evolved since Biblical times, so their differences with the bible are organically connected, however divergent over time, in the view of Fundamentalists. Many of the faults you may find in the tradition and practice of Catholic and Orthodox DO have roots in the text of the Bible itself.

Though modern fundamentalists do not understand the ancient languages, cultures, history, tradition, and context of the Bible and its origins, and reject the organic developments/traditions of other denominations and Catholic and Orthodox, they do cling to the aparent meaning of the Bible in a very narrow and barren nit-picky sense. Many of their errors, authoritarianism, and a bit of ignorance, however, is still traceable to or parallel to errors, authoritarianism, or ignorance found in Bible passages, and some of it is in fact traceable to ancient primitive erroneous or brutal/authoritarian attitudes of the Bible author(s).

There is more to any culture, tradition, etc., over so many centuries, however, and there is wisdom that can be sorted out. But it is impossible to do so when one's method, or one's ignorance or perversion, forbid it.

There are certainly religious people who's ignorance or simply perversion, forbids sifting the wisdom and compassion, forbids emphasizing the positive fruit, forbids letting the fruit of ignorance or primitiveness or error, fall to the wayside. They do find rationale for that in some parts of the Bible, they filter that way on purpose, or simply out of blindness.

Many Liberals do a bit of filtering, albeit with very different criteria. Some avoid discussing it, some are not aware of it in full. Some are in a bit of denial about the basis IN the Bible for filtering it in a perverse and ignorant way. But the reason seems to be because they have found IN the Bible some important and plausible reasons for filtering things in a positive manner. And having done so, and found things of tremendous personal value, highly emotionally and intellectually charged and complex, it involves a bit of cognitive dissonance to ALSO see fully the way perverse or ignorant people understand the same scriptures.

The Bible is so complex, so many writers, so many pages, over so many centuries, it really can't be understood as a whole, all that simply or easily. The cognitive dissonance of attempting to do so can lead to a kind of trancey state, along with some confusion. In such states, some times people do better, others do worse, in arriving at an intuitive sense of a whole meaning that they abstract.

I think some people are defective in their reasoning or understanding capabilities, including their emotional/empathic intelligence, and this distorts what they come up with. Others are very pressured by their upbringing or peers. Many people have issues, one way or another, that distort what people get from the whole.

Only with self knowledge, and a desire to understand reality, can it be sorted out. That is another reason why I identify with the Gnostics. As bizaare, unprovable, metaphysical, as some of my ideas are, at least I have included a large measure of self-knoweldge, and a desire to understand, as a basis for my viewpoint. And my desire to know leads me to revise my views and challenge myself.

I believe there are different metaphysical and psychological and cultural factors involved in religious texts of all kinds, and that the sorting process is generally always a bit tricky. There is definitely a number of problem spots in the Bible, a lot of it because there are so many stories about ancient wars, matters of historical claims in ancient cultural contexts. It isn't just a collection of sayings and metaphysical or ethical statements, so it gets wrapped up in a lot of other stuff that can bog it down a lot easier. I.e., Q or the Gospel of Thomas or the Dammapada or Ecclesiastes, has a lot less baggage than a tale of ancient warrior kings and prophets puring a land of heathens.

[LanternWaste]

78. I'm glad you asked this question

I'm glad you asked this question. One possibility (and it's this very one that keeps me quiet most of the time) is this (in the form of a question, Alex)...

Do you realize how often we get chastised for "pushing our religion" on other people simply for praying in public or giving an answer in response to a question?-- and this from our very own dear brethren in the progressive community who like to use the ever so civil sobriquet of "Magic Thinkers" to describe us?

As soon as we base any posit or idea on the teachings of God, Christ, the Apostles or the Prophets, it's an automatic, "No fair-- you're pushing your religion down my throat!"

And you wonder why we get in the habit of biting our tongues and keeping silent when we would like nothing more than to speak out?

It's becoming a no win situation-- we speak out, we pray, we bring up Testament and we're accused of forcing our religion on other people. And nw, for added taste and extra zing, when we stay silent and keep our religion only in our hearts and the confines of our houses only (up til now, the definition of a "Good Christian") we get chastised for NOT speaking up!

Are there some rules about this I'm not aware of? E.g., I can speak loudly of my religion when it defends your position, but if it offends your position, then I should refrain from speaking? Or maybe I should only use my religion in counter to the Radical American Clerics, but keep my mouth shut about it at all other times?

And just so everyone knows-- the "good" Christians are there-- we just don't feel that advertising Christian morality and ethics on a sound-stage during a political debate is appropriate or honorable.

As Christians, there is a LOT of inter-Christian debate that sometimes falls into the silly and the secular, but you've done a darn good job of teaching us that our faith has it's place... and one place it's not supposed to be is on the public stage... lest we be accused of "Forcing our religion down your throat"

This Christian who is also a secular progressive has many lively debates with family and friends regarding the role of religion vs. politics in everyday life. But I've well-learned that if I talk about this outside of my home or Church, I'm branded a Bible-Thumper, Magic-Thinker, Chister, X-ian or a host of other clever pejoratives.

Missionary work gets little media attention (unless a Nun or worker gets killed). Meals-On=-Wheels is almost a non-issue on DU and stocking food pantries is well-nigh invisible unless there's a major catastrophic event that brings it to the fore. Is it my fault that these activities we "good" Christan's are engaged in bring little media attention. Should I go to the nearest news outlet and proclaim righteously and rigorously, "Look what I did! Look what I did! Put me on the air!"?

So I keep quiet, deal with my own weaknesses and do my best from preventing my God from forcing Himself down your throat lest you get offended.



For clarification: I use the pronoun, "you" in the plural, general sense. It targets no one specific person or poster-- it refers only to those individuals who get uptight and prudish when seeing a family pray together in a cafeteria, or get offended when a statement of faith is perceived as trying to brainwash someone else into believing precisely the way I do. Problem is (at least from where I sit), that happens more often than not on our very own DU...

[beam me up scottie]

79. Uh, Meals on Wheels is not a christian organization.

Just sayin':shrug:

[LanternWaste]

80. Meals on Wheels is not a Christian organization. Well, just "duh"!

And neither are many food pantries. I'm not saying they are. They are though, charitable organizations that, on a local level are headquartered through my church and are organizations that I'm involved in.

Before it eludes the quick minds and razor sharp wits, the examples I posted were examples of good deeds, not anything exclusive to Christianity, Judaism, Muslim-ism or any other religion.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Why should we recognize christians for volunteering with Meals on wheels?

What does their brand of religion have to do with that organization?

Missionary work gets little media attention (unless a Nun or worker gets killed). Meals-On=-Wheels is almost a non-issue on DU and stocking food pantries is well-nigh invisible unless there's a major catastrophic event that brings it to the fore. Is it my fault that these activities we "good" Christan's are engaged in bring little media attention. Should I go to the nearest news outlet and proclaim righteously and rigorously, "Look what I did! Look what I did! Put me on the air!"?

Missionary work isn't charity for the sake of charity, it's tit for tat.
They use food, water, medical care and education as leverage in order to convert native people.
I wouldn't call predatory faith "charity" since it destroys native religions in order to establish itself as the "one true religion".



Let's look at the rest of the reasons you're supposedly too scared to discuss the First Amendment on DU:

Do you realize how often we get chastised for "pushing our religion" on other people simply for praying in public or giving an answer in response to a question?-- and this from our very own dear brethren in the progressive community who like to use the ever so civil sobriquet of "Magic Thinkers" to describe us?

If you mean insisting on your "right" to establish prayer in government and/or public schools, that IS pushing your religion.

As soon as we base any posit or idea on the teachings of God, Christ, the Apostles or the Prophets, it's an automatic, "No fair-- you're pushing your religion down my throat!"

And you wonder why we get in the habit of biting our tongues and keeping silent when we would like nothing more than to speak out?

It's becoming a no win situation-- we speak out, we pray, we bring up Testament and we're accused of forcing our religion on other people. And nw, for added taste and extra zing, when we stay silent and keep our religion only in our hearts and the confines of our houses only (up til now, the definition of a "Good Christian") we get chastised for NOT speaking up!

Oh please...:eyes:

I seriously doubt you are as persecuted on DU as you pretend to be.

This is a forum for discussing and debating matters pertaining to religion and theology, if you would like non-christians to refrain from posting their opinions, post in one of the groups that doesn't allow opposing viewpoints.

Are there some rules about this I'm not aware of? E.g., I can speak loudly of my religion when it defends your position, but if it offends your position, then I should refrain from speaking? Or maybe I should only use my religion in counter to the Radical American Clerics, but keep my mouth shut about it at all other times?

Nice straw man.

I must have missed it, where exactly were you told to "refrain from speaking" and "keep (your) mouth shut"?

And just so everyone knows-- the "good" Christians are there-- we just don't feel that advertising Christian morality and ethics on a sound-stage during a political debate is appropriate or honorable.

Oh, we know.

This is exactly why your conservative brethren have been able to successfully use your religion to pursue their agenda.

As Christians, there is a LOT of inter-Christian debate that sometimes falls into the silly and the secular, but you've done a darn good job of teaching us that our faith has it's place... and one place it's not supposed to be is on the public stage... lest we be accused of "Forcing our religion down your throat"

The first part of your sentence makes no sense and the last is pretty ridiculous considering the op asked for the opinions of christians in this thread.

This Christian who is also a secular progressive has many lively debates with family and friends regarding the role of religion vs. politics in everyday life. But I've well-learned that if I talk about this outside of my home or Church, I'm branded a Bible-Thumper, Magic-Thinker, Chister, X-ian or a host of other clever pejoratives.

If you talk about religion outside of your home you're persecuted?

Nice story.

Did you conveniently forget that christians own and run this country and are presently well on their way to making this a theocracy?

Those of us in the minority don't have that luxury.

Besides, you should get down from that cross, Jesus needs the wood.

And since when is xian a "clever pejorative" ?:rofl:

So I keep quiet, deal with my own weaknesses and do my best from preventing my God from forcing Himself down your throat lest you get offended.

God doesn't force himself down our throats, christians do it for him.

For clarification: I use the pronoun, "you" in the plural, general sense. It targets no one specific person or poster-- it refers only to those individuals who get uptight and prudish when seeing a family pray together in a cafeteria, or get offended when a statement of faith is perceived as trying to brainwash someone else into believing precisely the way I do. Problem is (at least from where I sit), that happens more often than not on our very own DU...

For clarification, how about you back up your claims with examples?

Otherwise,

[LanternWaste]

83. Sheesh...

No... I don't feel persecuted at all re: my faith so all that followed re: that statement is invalid

And no, it's not a first admendment issue... it's simply avoiding flame-fights (much like the direction this one is going in) as they're mor often than not a coossal waste of time. Nor is it an issue of being scared... but my gosh; if I replied to every person who is offended by my faith or who offends my faith, I wouldn't be doing a whole ot else in life.

Examples of what? You'd lie to come to inter-denominational service sometimes and watch the civil debate between moderates, liberals and conservatives of particular faiths? Sure, go ahead and go to one... they usually don't require an invitation.

Examples of DU'ers telling other DU'ers to stop pushing religion down your throats? My gosh, pal! Use the search function. It's not like you're looking for a needle in a stack of needles.


Not on a cross, just answering a post. Big deal. Look for dramatics eslewhere... but it's a waste of your time.


So... can I assume you want me to use the same tactics of the religious right, regardless of how lacking in nobility or honor they may be to advance liberal christianity?
Neverminnd. Dn't answer. Just pretend I feel persecuted and pretend I think I'm on a cross. It's not true, but wat the heck... it's easy and simple to think we can put other people in a niche.


Sheesh ... can't you realize you just exemplified what I waspreviously referring to?

Anyone can find an insult when they really look for one... even in places where they don't exist.

Hope you had a great weekend and have a great week.

[beam me up scottie]

84. I can see why you don't like to participate in these discussions,

anybody who calls your bluff is picking on you.

Sorry to have to break this to you, but you're expected to be able to back up your bullshit claims in this forum.


I simply pointed out that Meals on Wheels is not a christian organization and you flamed me.

Now you're complaining about the response you received in return.:nopity:

[trotsky]

81. Well, that's quite a red herring you've introduced.

The good works of your fellow Christians are not being debated here. Nor do I care if you shove your face in front of a camera to demand credit for your religion.

I'm simply asking why liberal Christians don't directly confront conservative Christian ideas when they appear right here on DU. That's all. Care to answer that question, rather than write several paragraphs that have nothing to do with it?

[Inland]

95. Darned if you do and darned if you don't, for sure.

The atheists, of course, can only attack the notion of homosexuality as sin by saying nothing is sin, as sin doesn't exist. They could attack the idea of murder as sin on the same basis, and there really never is a discussion of ethics or law, but announcements that god doesn't exist.

But when christians engage in a discussion of sin vs. sin, they get closbbered for bringing all that religious stuff in. And get quotation marks around the word "real", too, just to let you know the sort of contempt you are going to get for engaging in the very discussion called for.

Fact is, the only thing worth discussing is what should be against the law, not what is sin. That's the way it is in a liberal society, based on a premise that law doesn't and shouldn't enforce mere morals. Then the atheists could weigh in with their values system of what is right and wrong, rather than tell someone else to have a discussion on sin to be later denounced for exactly the reason I stated above, namely, that what is sin to any particular person shouldn't matter. Frankly, the less talk of sin or religion as a reason to be "for" or "against" somebody or something in the public square, the better off liberals are and the country is. Just saying.

[TreasonousBastard]

86. Implicit in this question is that...

somehow I am required to take issue with the beliefs of these apparent infidels.

I've been away for a while and haven't seen any rash of fundie postings, but even if I had I'm not sure I would want to get involved.

For one thing, I'm not here to preach. I'm perfectly happy to express what I believe and hear what others think, but I have no interest in proseltyzing or claiming I have some special insight. I am personally convinced that there is great misunderstanding of concepts like "sin," but I'm not here to talk to walls and expect them to listen. If someone believes a religion proscribes abortion, homosexuality, war, the death penalty, telling the truth about one's sex life with his wife, playing the lottery, or any of the other myriad things people believe God speaks to them, I'm simply not about to argue if I don't feel it would be productive.

What I might have some responsibility for would be to respond to actions based on these beliefs that affect others. I probably can't (and also probably shouldn't) talk someone into having an abortion, but I can argue that they shouldn't stop others who don't share their beliefs. The same with homosexuality and so many other issues.

But, I do run into problems making such theological or ethical arguments. The most obvious one is how can I be against the death penalty and war but for abortion? I can answer that but it is admittedly, even to me, an incomplete answer. Not science, sociology, nor theology has really advanced far enough to give us proper guidance.There is simply no definition of human life that everyone will agree to.

And so it goes... Truth is, I don't really take much of this seriously. For all of the sturm and drang of the religious discussions not all that many people really have the slightest idea what they're talking about. It's easy to attack and far harder to defend ideas. The attacks can be made from any measure of ignorance, but defense must be cogent. And that's sometimes just too much work for too little return.

[greyl]

87. uh oh: "how can I be against the death penalty and war but for abortion?"

We'll need a new thread about that one. :)

"It's easy to attack and far harder to defend ideas. The attacks can be made from any measure of ignorance, but defense must be cogent."

Why is it not: Attacks and defenses are waged from various measures of ignorance, but it would be better if both were cogent. ?

[TreasonousBastard]

93. Perhaps I should have been clearer...

in that you are absolutely right that both should be cogent, but the attacks are often simple soundbites.

And, as we all know, a snarky soundbite carries a far harder punch than a two page rebuttal. Haven't we progressives been the victims of that bullshit for far too long to be doing it to each other?

[trotsky]

90. But this isn't about preaching.

As I tried to make clear, this is about right-wing values, justified by Christian faith, that are being espoused right here on DU. If someone in another forum started talking about how homosexuality is wrong and gays should be denied civil rights and/or marriage, they're (rightfully) be jumped on. But here in a forum expressly created for religious dialogue and discussion, such conservative religious views go unchallenged except for the rogue atheists.

The attitude you express in your post does shed a lot of light on just how the religious reich has been able to ascend to enormous power in this country, though. "Good" Christians don't feel they should counter it. We see how well that strategy has worked.

[TreasonousBastard]

92. I still don't see why I....

or anyone else should tell people they are wrong in their beliefs.

Should a Jew fight with me over the death penalty? Should a Lutheran fight with me over Just War? Personal belief is just that-- personal belief that comes from one's religious and social environment.

We Quakers usually unite over war, the death penalty and other criminal justice matters, racism and other matters of social justice, but even we cannot unite over abortion or homosexuality. What we do tend to unite over, though, is to make clear distinctions between our personal theologies and our actions. Even those who are aghast at abortion generally prefer to leave it legal and let the individuals involved make up their own minds when the occasion arises. In my meeting we have already attempted to address the marriage of several gay couples with little success-- most thought it would be a good idea to support such loving couples but some were adamantly opposed. When we opposed slavery, Hitler, and other evils we did it largely from our religious leadings, but with the knowledge that these things were evil in themselves. When we refused to fight even in "good" wars, we did not sabotage the war efforts, but became nurses and ambulance drivers.

So, quite frankly, when someone tells me his or her religious leading says abortion is wrong, I can't really argue from a religious point of view. If one believes life begins at conception, what could I say to argue the point except that I don't agree? My only argument is that religious belief should NEVER be enshrined in law unless there are secular arguments for such a law. In that case, the religious arguments are essentially irrelevant and simply coexist with the secular ones for those who have such beliefs.

That's the way I oppose the death penalty, for instance. I do have my personal religious reasons but I rarely mention them. I no more want the state to abolish CP for my religious reasons than I want it to abolish abortion or institute ID for the religious reasons of others.

I don't believe for a minute that the ascension of the religious right is simply because the rest of us don't speak up. They are ascendant because they have organized far better than we have along certain fine lines. The rest of us really can't organize the way they have because we don't have such unified goals and we really don't have that sort of interest in organizing political groups within our churches. We generally feel we have better things to do than impose our beliefs on others.

[trotsky]

94. Then why are you a Democrat?

Why are you on DU? Why do you bother voting? You are telling someone else they're wrong by simply doing any of those!

This is not about "imposing" belief on others, this is at least speaking out to let people know not everyone thinks the same way.

But hey, if it makes you uncomfortable, please just sit back down and someone else will stand up for you, I'm sure.

Unless they're already gone.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-- Rev. Martin Niemoller (Whaddya know, a Christian who regrets not speaking up to stop religious insanity!)

[TreasonousBastard]

98. Still don't get it, eh? If...

someone genuinely believes homosexuality to be a sin, I'm still not inclined to argue the point. I might argue the point that homosexuals should not in any way be discriminated against any more than other "sinners" who do no harm and such believers should simply mind their own business and perhaps occasioiinally keep their beliefs to themselves.

Little is accomplished by these silly arguments, and I have in the past worked with organizations like Pax Christi in areas where we are in full agreement and avoided talking about those where we are not. Case in point is the work to abolish CP in NJ-- one of the leading voices against it is a woman who is a devout Catholic who is also dead set against abortion. She perhaps did more to get the moratorium passed than any other single individual and I can't imagine getting into an abortion discussion with her when there is so much productive work to be done on the death penalty. Should she ever put her considerable talents toward eliminating abortion, I will simply avoid supporting her there and would likely work for our side on that one. I have far too much respect for her integrity to get into a shouting match over that.

Again, I don't see that any of us have any particular obligation to jump up and pound on someone who doesn't fit into a DU orthodoxy mold as defined by some. Out there in meatspace we do have to deal with people who don't agree with us on everything.

[trotsky]

100. No, I don't get the attitude

that puts religious beliefs on a pedestal, immune from criticism or debate. The religious reich is largely unchallenged because of that very principle, and you're playing right along. Do you like being an enabler?

I'm not asking you to "jump up and pound on" people who don't tow some kind of "orthodoxy," which is the strawman you keep trying to bring up. I'm asking why nearly all of the liberal Christians on DU completely fail to confront right-wing viewpoints PRESENTED RIGHT HERE IN THESE FORUMS simply because they're wrapped up in religion.

In a way, I guess you've answered my question. You're too timid to challenge harmful beliefs.

[TreasonousBastard]

108. They're not on a pedestal, they are...

simply pointless to debate most of the time.

Again, you are refusing to understand the difference between belief and action. I cannot possibly argue with a Catholic's beliefs on abortion because of Catholic teachings in Seamless Garment. I can, however, argue that Catholics should be able to allow others to have abortions if they do not accept Catholic teachings.

The schisms in all religions go back to this ridiculous arguing over theological points and the refusal to see other points of view. I respect beliefs of others in the same way I expect them to respect mine, even those beliefs I personally think are asinine-- and I think a whole lot of them are asinine. There are enough people out there claiming thay have the One True Way, and I'm not going to join their ranks and add to the noise.

For any discussion to be productive there has to be some meeting of the minds. Catholics, fundies and mainline protestants have environmental, peace, and social movements within them that I work with from time to time. Sidetracking over to issues we disagree on is decidely nonproductive and I usually refuse to do it. Besides the big issues, what if I were to take issue with anyone's contrary religious opinions on gambling, alcohol, sex, food, or any of the other myriad aspects of religious life? Perhaps I should argue about kosher or halal butchering methods or complain about turban wearing?

Nope, it's not about timidity but about choosing one's battles. Some just aren't worth getting into.

[trotsky]

122. "aren't worth getting into"???

How do you propose we secure civil rights (especially the right to marry) for homosexuals, if we don't confront religious beliefs? Is that issue not "worth getting into"? What about when the uber-religious take their opinions on gambling and alcohol and start making laws that affect your life? (Hell, they already do.) Will it be "worth getting into" then? When they take away abortion and birth control - how about then? When "intelligent design" is taught alongside evolution in science classes - still not worth getting into?

I'm sorry but at a bare minimum when somebody on DU expresses the homophobic and hateful idea that homosexuality is a "sin," I'm going to step up and oppose them. It would be wonderful if some so-called "liberal" Christians would do it with me, but this thread has served its purpose, at least. It's pretty clear why you won't confront the hateful Christians right in your midst.

[Inland]

103. There aren't a million sects because religious arguments bear fruit.

The different sects appear because of the disagreement that never gets settled. That's the root of t the idea of liberal democracy (and the overwhelming sentiment of atheists exhibited in any other thread) that making religious disputes into the stuff of politics is a recipe for civil strife and, in fact, a debate that doesn't have to be held.

But having found this concept that you are fluent in Religious and therefore can run out and do a few conversions, or maybe make a motion at the Pan-Religion Convention, you'll get a bashing for not doing it. And if you attempt it, you'll get somebody if not everybody repeating something similar to the paragraph above and you'll get a poll like this one. Look at the winning vote:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x47015

In conclusion, let me repeat what I posted before:

"I guess the real problem is that you and the OP ask the religious to have an argument on grounds you find illegitimate (an appeal to religious authority in politics) for a goal you don't much care for (religious unity for political purposes). If either one of you thought that it would be taken past the mocking and declaring of anathemas stage, you wouldn't be suggesting it."

[trotsky]

104. Oh please.

Enough with your cutesy bashing of atheists and what you THINK we believe.

A religionist, when confronted solely by atheists, can only assume that their religious beliefs are correct, because only the evil godless sinners are arguing with them - and not Christians.

I'm trying to say that it would be a lot more productive if just a few Christians would chime in and let these people know that their beliefs are NOT shared by other believers.

In other words, I'm trying to extend an olive branch, trying to appeal to our common goals, and you're taking it, stomping it on the ground, and claiming that I was going to whip you with it anyway. Because of course you know far better than I do what I really want to do. :eyes:

[Name removed]

119. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

89. I'm too busy making fun of woo-woos!

Just kidding. To give you a serious answer, I honestly haven't seen the posts you mention, but then I tend to stay away from religious discussions on the DU. I have been involved in those arguments in real life though.

[MemphisTiger]

102. I am a liberal and a Christian, I feel that God created us

all in his image. I feel that God created us gay or straight and it is genetic, therefore God had a hand in it. If you believe that being Gay is a choice then you could argue the more conservative side. I think what the bible was preaching against was the promiscuity of the time with respect to soddom and gammorah. Also, during these times a big family was required to run the farms and other buinesses, therefore without kids nobody was left to run the family sheep farm. Just my two cents.