When Prophets Come Alive

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

I recently accompanied my murshid on a spiritual retreat in Turkey, along with a group of dear friends and seekers. …

One of the lessons that resonated with me was the idea that we can relate to prophets and saints like Muhammad, Jesus, Mary, Buddha or Rumi not merely as historical figures, but as sacred personalities who belong to all humanity, rather than a particular religion, ideology or nationality. They represent transcendent qualities accessible through the collective human consciousness....

Understanding that prophets and saints reside in the potentiality of every human’s experience opened a deeper dimension of intimacy and connection for me. It’s also obliterated the cultural and religious divisions that I’d grown up believing separated people.

To read more:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/livingtradition/2018/07/when-prophets-come-alive/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Muslim&utm_content=49

[AZ8theist]

1. Muhammad, Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Rumi didn't exist.

These are all mythical figures invented to convince bronze age illiterates of a higher power necessary to control them.

If you believe in these so-called "prophets", you then must believe in the HUNDREDS of others throughout history,

And the recent ones...Joesph Smith, anyone??

Pat Robertson??

It's all childish silliness...

[cvoogt]

3. Rumi most certainly did exist

But was not a prophet, but a poet and mystic.

[AZ8theist]

5. Someone claiming to be a "mystic"...

is about as nonsensical as Doturd claiming to speak the "truth"...

Worthless...

[cvoogt]

7. I am not saying he claimed to be a mystic

But you can draw your own conclusions from his writings. Some of them are really inspiring, and some are outright hilarious. Well worth a read.

[Major Nikon]

6. William Davies, Sun Myung Moon, and David Koresh

[guillaumeb]

9. And you have a right to your own belief.

Which you demonstrated here.

[rogerashton]

31. There is little reason to think that Muhammad did not exist.

Some questions have been raised about the origin of the Koran -- I don't know what basis in historical research they may have, if any -- but I have not heard it claimed before that Muhammad did not exist.

As for Buddha -- well, there are Buddhas (why did Bodhidharma come from India to China?) but I know of no reason to suppose that Gautama Siddhartha did not exist, nor that he did not teach a mystical discipline of some sort. Recall, on the other hand, that Buddhism does not require belief in any Gods nor any supernatural powers whatever. (Nor forbid such beliefs, as best I understand.)

Jesus -- trickier. Clearly many of the stories with that name at their center were being told about other personages around the Middle East before 100 BC. On the other hand there is some reason to believe that there were people living in Jerusalem in 40 AD or so who said they knew him, and anyway, wandering wisdom teachers were about a dozen for a dinar there and then, so why not one named Jesus who hailed from Nazareth?

Mary -- still trickier. If there was a Jesus from Nazareth, presumably he had a mother.

Rumi, as noted, certainly did exist -- I have read some of his writing, and so far as I know, no supernatural powers or miracles have ever been attributed to him. (I could be wrong.)

Such a mixed bag -- except, maybe not. I think the point was: extraordinary human beings do live, from time to time, and their lives can be a resource to those of us who are more ordinary. In other words, it is one thing to believe in Gods, and quite another thing to believe in saints. And their sainthood can enrich our lives -- even if we don't always believe in the ideas they are said to have believed in. It is not their beliefs that matter but their lives.

[MineralMan]

2. Mythical or historical figures, who

either never existed or lived so long ago that they are only relevant to adherents of certain religions.

They have nothing but symbolic presence in today's world.

[cvoogt]

4. Mostly I agree

But Rumi is relevant still, and if more of the world embraced some of the ideals espoused in his writings it would be a very good thing. But I doubt Trump will be reading Rumi any time soon!

[guillaumeb]

11. Who would read Rumi to Trump?

Rumi never mentioned Trump, so it is unlikely that Trump would bother listening.

[guillaumeb]

10. Tell that to the 85% of your fellow humans

who disagree with your own personal opinion.

[MineralMan]

12. I think I just did.

See my signature line again.

[guillaumeb]

13. Well, no. Actually you told it to the small population at DU,

and the smaller fraction who frequent this group.

[MineralMan]

14. Uff da!

I'm not trying to speak to the entire planet, guy.

I would not be on DU if that was my goal.

[Mariana]

17. Of course, Gil's immense fan club don't post their opinions at all.

They only send him numerous personal messages, asking him to continue doing what his is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. One wonders why they are so secretive.

[trotsky]

20. So secretive, in fact...

that they evidently even refuse to recommend his posts. It's rare gil is able to manage more than 2 recs for one of his threads. Where are his boosters? Strange.

[sprinkleeninow]

27. I yam out here in the general population. 🤔 No secrets. eom

[Mariana]

30. Gil has explained that some of those

who send him numerous personal messages, asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group do not post here publicly. Therefore, while you may be one of the senders of the numerous personal messages he claims to receive, he could not have been speaking only about you.

[sprinkleeninow]

43. I do encourage him publicly here. As it is evident.

His aura alone is appealing. To me.

[marylandblue]

35. You are the only public member of his fan club

That makes you the president of the club by default
Please ask the other members to come out of the closet. We don't bite...much.

[Bretton Garcia]

38. So GUIL is a partly secret or prosecuted prophet?

[marylandblue]

42. Yes. Persecution is an occupational hazard of being a prophet.

Low wages, harassment by the authorities, disrespect in your own town. Really a thankless job. Nobody even appreciates your work until centuries after you are dead.

[Bretton Garcia]

46. So maybe Guil is an ancient prophet "come to life," literally?

But he doesn't like literal readings of the Bible.

So he's a prophet literally resurrected, come to life in our time; to protest literal resurrection?

[sprinkleeninow]

44. Okay I can dig it. Only I have no inkling of who the others are.

[marylandblue]

15. The nice thing about the internet is that they can all come here

and read MM's opinion if they are really that interested.

[guillaumeb]

16. Well, they could.

Or, they can keep their own personal opinions. And perhaps some of them have even thought about it, and read about the issues, and have reached a different opinion.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, I don't expect that, of course.

I'm addressing a small audience, by choice.

[trotsky]

18. Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

If it weren't for fallacies and propaganda techniques like whataboutism, I don't think you'd have much to say, gil.

[guillaumeb]

19. Funny, coming from you.

But every time you say "whataboutism", you demonstrate that you do not understand it.

[trotsky]

21. Point out the fallacies I've used, gil.

Go ahead. You're gonna throw shit at me, I'll going to call you out on it. Point out my fallacies. I think you're full of baloney and that you'll refuse to do it for that very reason.

And everyone has seen your ridiculous attempt at redefining whataboutism in a way that you think clears you from using it. No one bought it then, no one is buying it now. Which means that you're now gaslighting, and pretending like you've demonstrated you are innocent when you have not done so.

[guillaumeb]

22. I just did.

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2018, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Ands your use of the word "everyone", besides being incorrect, is an example of argumentum ad populum.


Thank you for demonstrating what you demonstrate.

[trotsky]

23. Good lord you don't even understand what the fallacies are.

When I said that everyone saw your failed attempt at whataboutism, I meant that because you posted it, EVERYONE saw it. This is not complicated, gil.

Please continue humiliating yourself though - as I've said, I'm always game for that. You are so good at it.

[guillaumeb]

24. Were you addressing yourself?

You still obviously do not understand the fallacy.

[trotsky]

25. Not when you use it incorrectly, no.

Guilty as charged. I don't understand how you have tried to redefine the fallacy.

And your utter humiliation continues. I'm beginning to wonder if you secretly enjoy it.

[guillaumeb]

26. This may, or may not, help:

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Note the highlighted area "in order to distract...etc".

When I wrote a post asking why the RCC could not get past the issue of priests preying on children, a few posters claimed that my post was whataboutism. The only thing that they proved was that they misunderstand the term. My post included an admission of the problem, but it also noted that this type of cover up is common institutional behavior. No where was the behavior excused.

[trotsky]

29. Yet that's not what you're doing, gil.

You're trying to redefine yourself out of guilt - and it hasn't worked.

In the case of the abuse scandals of the RCC, you have constantly tried to change the subject to the overall topic of abuse, which does occur at other institutions and groups. NO ONE DENIES THIS. But what you attempt to do is then end the conversation there, refusing to acknowledge the reality of the role the RCC's religious beliefs play in their scandal. That's why you are guilty of using whataboutism.

Let the humiliation continue!

[guillaumeb]

34. No, it did not help.

Because it conflicts with the narrative that you need to promote.

[trotsky]

47. The narrative that the religious beliefs of the RCC (i.e., canon law)...

have made the sex abuse scandal worse?

Guess what, gil - that's the narrative called REALITY. Come join us there anytime you want.

[guillaumeb]

50. And in case you have forgotten,

I posted about the issue of RCC Canon Law, and how it made the situation worse.

Speaking of reality...….

[trotsky]

53. But you didn't acknowledge it being a religious belief.

That's the problem. That's the distraction you keep trying to make. To you, it's never about religion when it comes to bad things.

[guillaumeb]

56. So a post about RCC Canon Law is not about religious belief?

I cannot respond to that because the assertion is illogical.

[trotsky]

57. I agree it's illogical. But it's been your stance.

You have repeatedly tried to categorize canon law as an *organizational* feature, not a *religious* one.

It's all part of your quest to make sure that anything bad associated with religion is NEVER allowed to be about religion, and only about faulty humans. Simultaneously, you endlessly promote any "good" news about religion to be due to the religion itself.

The truth of the matter is, there are BAD religious beliefs just as there are GOOD ones. I'd love for you to answer a question for me. If you answer it one way, I'll never question you about it again. Here's a statement:

Canon law AND the notion that it supersedes secular law are BOTH religious beliefs, and BOTH have directly contributed to the scope and scale of the RCC sex and rape scandals.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Please answer "I agree" or "I disagree." That will clarify your stance completely.

[guillaumeb]

58. I was speaking of your assertion, not mine.

And my own previous posts already made the points that you seem to feel I need to answer.

Why do you feel this need to ask what has already been answered?

[trotsky]

60. Because you haven't answered.

If you have, please link to the answer.

Otherwise, you could simply respond with "I agree with the statement" or "I disagree with the statement."

Or just play your stupid game. Your choice.

[guillaumeb]

62. But I did answer,

in the 2 posts referenced.

[trotsky]

63. Please link to these alleged posts.

Or you could just answer "I agree" or "I disagree".

Or play your stupid game and continue to humiliate and discredit yourself.

Your call!

[trotsky]

73. Do you agree or disagree with my bolded statement, guillaumeb?

I'm still waiting for an answer. You haven't given one. If you still want to claim you have, please link to the post where I can read it.

Thanks ever so much. I look forward to continuing this dialog. You're interested in dialog, aren't you? I mean, you claim to be. Surely you're sincere in that claim, right?

[marylandblue]

36. That's why I named Guillaumeb's fallacy after you

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2018, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

That's the variant of whataboutism where you first admit the point, then distract from it by talking about other, superficially similar situations. Since I am the first to identify this variant, I get to define it. However, since I named it in honor of you, you maydecline the honor and I will change the name.

[guillaumeb]

37. I am flattered, but confused.

The definition that I linked to is the accepted definition of the fallacy. Intent is a key component of any fallacy.

[marylandblue]

39. Your claimed intent is irrelevant

Intent is something imputed to you based on your actions. It's not something you get to use to shield your argument from criticism. Your variant of whataboutism does not reduce its effectiveness, it increases it because it gives more things to use for distraction- such as whether it is in fact a fallacy. Which is a wholly fruitless discussion.

[guillaumeb]

40. Your response is fallacious, unless you can prove some type of mind reading ability.

But your response allows you to set yourself up as the court of final judgment, so it is useful to you because it allows you to "win" an argument by attacking an opponent's credibility.

In logic, your response, this response, is called an ad hominem argument.

[marylandblue]

41. After claiming intent is part of every fallacy, and that I could not impute intent to you

You claimed I engaged in a fallacy, implicitly imputing intent to me. That's a nice maneuver deserving a name of it's own.

Fact is, I rarely argue about intent. I also rarely argue what kind of fallacy something is, or what makes something a fallacy. I look for meaning and effect. Regardless of your intent, your words often have the effect of diverting topics into side issues. If that is not your intent, then it is up to you to correct the situation. Or not, if you so choose.

[guillaumeb]

49. Your response dismissed my explanation because you claimed to have an insight into my intent.

And you implied that my hidden intent was to defend the RCC. That calls me a liar, and that is classic ad hominem strategy.

And if you, or others, do not understand the proper application of whataboutism, or the tu quoque fallacy, that misunderstanding does not make your claim correct.

[marylandblue]

51. Check. You can question other people's intent, but nobody can question yours. eom.

[guillaumeb]

54. I question, but you made an asssertion. eom

[marylandblue]

59. Check.

You can make assertions about other people's intent, but nobody can make assertions about yours.

You can also parse other people's words to you syntactical advantage, but I won't bother to do that.

[guillaumeb]

61. No, you asserted that in spite of my statements,

you were certain of my intent, thus justifying your labelling my responses as fallacious.

[marylandblue]

64. Yes, and you asserted that I made a fallacy

and asserted that fallacies required intent, which means that you were certain of my intent as well.

I did not intend to make any fallacies, therefore I could not have made one. If you don't believe me, you are calling me a liar.

[guillaumeb]

65. Circularity in evidence.

In your response.

[marylandblue]

66. The circle includes you, so I take it you admit your intent?

[guillaumeb]

67. No, I am outside of the circle.

It was you who claimed that you could see my real intent in posting.

[marylandblue]

68. You just made the same claim here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=294418

[guillaumeb]

69. No, I claimed to be a mind reader. eom

[marylandblue]

70. Which means you claimed to know his intent

Which means I can claim to know your intent the same way. Unless you are claiming that it is alright for to claim to know intents, but nobody else can claim that.

[guillaumeb]

71. If someone chronically engages in whataboutism and tu quoque,

I will intuit that there is no interest in real dialogue.

And if I post numerous times about the RCC engaging in obstructionism, any claims that I am a secret apologist for the RCC will be given no credibility by me.

[marylandblue]

72. You have your own patterns which allow others to intuit your intent

[trotsky]

48. guillaumeb's fallacy

Perfect.

[trotsky]

8. Did "Muhammad, Jesus, Mary, Buddha or Rumi" have any flaws?

Or were they perfect in thought, word, and deed?

[Doreen]

28. I do not necessarily belive in profits

but I do however believe these people were real people and were simply enlightened. I think they all really meant to teach the same thing which is goodness to each other, goodness to our planet, and self improvement. It is the meaning of the teachings that matter the most. I know I am simplistic but to me it just seems right.

[guillaumeb]

33. It is simplistic,

but very difficult to accomplish.
Thank you for the response.

[sprinkleeninow]

45. 😍

One may profit from a prophet.

I personally am fond of profits. 💰

[Karadeniz]

52. Beautiful Thoughts

I read the article you attached; it's beautiful! I had never considered the Jesus-inside-Mary thought, but it makes sense. The reason Christians "eat" Jesus' flesh/bread and "drink" his blood/wine is in the same vein; we're supposed to have that spirit within ourselves, cultivating it. In the ancient mystery religions, a chrestos (good one) was a beginner along the spiritual path; a christos was one initiated into the secret teachings. St. Paul implies that his movement is a mystery religion and he differentiates his "baby" groups from his "adult" groups, comparing them to what they're capable of "eating," "baby food" vs. "meat." As they say, we're immortal spirits temporarily locked into mortal bodies. The only way to escape the cycle of mortality/death is to develop the spirit/soul.

[guillaumeb]

55. A nice response.

Rumi made a similar point when he wrote that each of us has a spark of the Creator in us.