And remember... a Revelation without dancing is a revelation not worth having. :D — 0 thru 9

Awesome movie. I got to play Ciaphas on stage years ago.

I think it's worth noting that if there was a historical Jesus and/or Buddha, there's no way to reliably confirm that what they said or believed is represented by the texts that are considered cannon today. I'm not really familiar with the historicity of Buddha, but the cannonical gospels are only four out of many, and as Bittercrank mentions, none were first hand written accounts (all were written decades after when Jesus was proposed to have lived).

Both sets of teaching seem to express philosophical ideas that were new, but present in the culture of the time, and the current popular interpretations of either set of texts also reflect the morality and values of our time. If anything, Buddhism is taught as the cool alternative to western thought. Don't get me wrong. There is value in loving your neighbor, and in getting out of your head and stopping judging everything. There is value in looking for the middle way or in forgiveness. That's one of the reasons why those religions have stuck around for so long.

Interesting... Well believers are what make faith difficult for me too. As soon as I started to meet other believers, I felt that the lust for Christ that I was starting to feel sort of became lesser...

That statement by the catholic theologian you mentioned is a similar one to what Fyodor Dostoevsky made! He said quite the same thing haha

Yes... Christ is perhaps the more interesting and certainly the more mysterious one. As I said, I wouldn't even doubt to say Christ if it wasn't for the teaching of eternal torment in a lake of fire. But who knows... Perhaps Jesus never taught it.

Thank you for your very fine reply. And it is good to see that someone has experienced something similar to me but yet came out at the positive end. I personally, despite all the problems and objections I have felt towards christianity, can't seem to get away from studying the bible and wondering about who Jesus really was and is... It is all the doctrines and dogmas of calvinism, lutheranism, augustinianism etc that destroys me. Faith is supposed to be simple trust. Not some sort of dogmatic knowledge.

Yes... Do you believe in God or anything like that?

Not any god, nor anything like a god. No. Why do you ask?

I just wondered. What is your opinion on religions and such things? What has made you believe there is no God?

What has made you believe there is no God? — Beebert

That's sort of a weird question to answer. The strictly rational answer is "nothing". I see nothing to make me believe that there is any god, so I don't.

Like with most things, there's a more complicated answer too. I was raised a Christian. I believed, but I did notice things that didn't seem to fit into the conception of the world that I'd been taught. I also realized that the things that we now call "mythology", were once called religion, and believed as fervently as our current religions. It seems obvious to us now that Zeus was a superstitious way to explain lightning, personifying something we don't understand. It didn't take much to put two and two together from there and realize that Christianity (or Buddhism, or Islam...) fits into the paradigm of mythology as easily as the Greek or Norse pantheons do. It didn't happen all at once, because we tend to invest our personalities and senses of identity into religion, so it's harder to just let go of. But over the course of years, I just let go of a little bit at a time. Now, I'm as "unreligious" as a person can be.

And I have more problems with teachers of Christianity like John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Jonathan Edwards than with the New Testament itself. — Beebert

Right. Well, none of these guys died for your sins. But they occasionally had good things to say. Like Luther: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.”

t is all the doctrines and dogmas of calvinism, lutheranism, augustinianism etc that destroys me. — Beebert

If they bother you, then leave them alone. One can give a good reading of the entire Bible without consulting Calvin, Luther, or Augustine.

Are you a christian? — Beebert

I don't know what to call the beliefs i hold now. What do you call a dog of many different breeds? A mutt? I was raised Catholic with 12 years of religious school, so i don't think the Christianity would go away even if i tried. And that's ok. What i mentioned before about Enlightenment and the Holy Spirit being real, is as real as i have ever found any "thing" to be, for what it is worth. Also the Tao Te Ching has given much guidance and clarity.

Are you around college age perhaps? I ask because i think i could have written posts similar to yours here when i was about 19, including the Bible reading, fear of hell, and Dostoevsky influence. Good Fyodor knew suffering, and redemption too. What is your favorite work of his?

(btw, there have been several helpful recent threads on depression that you may or may not have seen, including this.)

Half the people in the world think — Joseph Campbell

"Half of the people are drowning, and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction.
Half of the people are stoned, and the other half are waiting for the next election." — Stephen Schwartz, librettist for Bernstein's Mass

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions...are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. — Joseph Campbell

(Y) Great quote. Joseph Campbell did all he could to make "myth" not a bad word concerning beliefs.

Right. Well, none of these guys died for your sins. But they occasionally had good things to say. Like Luther: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.” — Bitter Crank

Good ones! Both your quote and Luther's. (Y)

This means that the highest value in christianity is personhood. — Beebert

This is a valuable insight; I think you have the key here already, within all of your trepidations and frustrations. How could personhood be the highest value if sin sends someone to eternal conscious torment? Christianity has missed the importance of the person, of personality. The idea of eternal conscious torment is dehumanizing; it begins with man in a state of total depravity. The problem with this is there's no reference, within basic human experience, for why this is, or what it's measured against. Sin originally has the connotation of "missing the mark". But the way Christianity unfolded in history assigned a normative toxic shame to sin, and, therefore, to all of life; all aspects. The typical Christian ethos is one embroiled in shame and subsequent virtue-signaling. Shame creates an entire culture of pathological play-acting. But none of this has to do with the crux of the actual Gospel. There are other interpretations. Christus Victor places Christ as the victorious hero conquering sin and death; it's a cosmic battle that's already been won. If Christianity had adopted this view of the Gospel as it's basis, then the culture of shame that embroils it wouldn't exist.

Ultimately, toxic shame eats away at the sacredness of that personhood that you expressed. I personally think that personhood (I would say personality or individuality) is the highest value of Christianity precisely because Christ was God incarnated in an individual person. The sheer depth of symbolical significance of that fact, within the context of history, is staggering. It creates a connection between God and man; man has a need for God, but God also has a need for man. The notion that man's need for God is not reciprocated for need on God's end is nonsensical. Man has zero value if God does not assign value to him, and God cannot assign value to man without having a need. Any value assigned without need would be purely theoretical; value means need.

What all of this has to do with organized religion is anathema to me, at this point. I've had similar experiences to what you describe. I also resonate with the feeling of having "lost faith", and yet still finding belief in Christ to exist within myself. I've had a long, painful journey of coming to terms with these contradictory experiences, but to come to the realization that a belief exists, deeply within me, a belief in Christ, despite everything, has been a huge comfort. I sense that you're wrestling in possibly a similar way. There's a name for our ilk; "Doubting Thomas". Just think about the depth of Thomas's faith after having seen the wounds of Jesus with his own eyes. This is the beauty of our doubt; it leads us into deeper Truth. Keep it up.

Buddha seems much more realistic in this sense. He doesn't speak as much about reward and punishment, and you can always make up for your mistakes. Life doesn't end when you fail so to say. In christianity, if you fail when you know the truth, God is out to get you. Buddha doesn't even need a God. Also, Buddha stands above and beyond good and evil. The evil man who curses him is like a man who tries to spit at a cloud, but instead of reaching the cloud, the spit goes right back at him. Christians are obsessed with the division between sheep and goats. There, if one "spits" at God, then God will cast you in to a lake of fire. So, in my opinion, the "reward" in christianity is greater than the reward in buddhism, but the punishment is far far worse and makes the reward not worth it it seems to me. — Beebert

If you're interested in Buddhism, take time to read up on it. I myself have benefitted greatly from studying Buddhism and practicing Buddhist meditation. There's a lot of published material available nowadays, but as good a starting point as any is http://www.accesstoinsight.org - click on the 'self-guided tour to Buddha's teachings'.

As you've referred to Lewis, with whose writings I am not terribly familiar, I think it's is valuable to think over Lewis' saying 'the doors of hell are locked on the inside'. It might seem a shocking thing to say, but I think it is actually less shocking than the image of a 'cosmic penitentiary'. I think enormous damage has been done by 'threatening damnation by eternal hellfire'. It's such a punitive image, which I tend to associate with Calvinism.

Overall the Christian doctrine that I think most of is the notion of 'evil as deprivation of the good'. That is, evil has no real being of its own, in the same way that darkness is the absence of light.

When a thing is corrupted, its corruption is an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation of the good…Unless this something is good, it cannot be corrupted, because corruption is nothing more than the deprivation of the good…As long as a thing is being corrupted, there is good in it of which it is being deprived…If, however, the corruption comes to be total and entire, there is no good left either, because it is no longer an entity at all. — Augustine

I think the corollary of this is that hell is the fate of those who seek what is less than good, what is corrupted or lacking; having had the opportunity of seeking the very best, the highest truth, instead they have declined that and sought for something of far less worth. For this they're not 'sent' to hell - they choose it. Hence, 'doors locked on the inside'.

Yes. I struggle with this constantly; it's the question of exactly how much spiritual responsibility is placed on the individual. Is it a set amount, regardless of the person? Does it depend on their lot in life ("to whom much is given...")? Now, how much does human freedom play into that situation? If hell is "locked form the inside", is that state purely a result of the failings of the person who finds themselves there? Or is it something pre-determined? If total freedom exists, then it's purely the responsibility of the individual to attain heaven and avoid the so-called "self-chosen" hell; but if this is the case, how is this more realistic or humane than a hell in which judgement is based on action (i.e. right-action vs. sin)? Because now, suddenly, regardless of which view of hell one is espousing, action is once again the determining factor. In the "soft" view of hell that Lewis and you are suggesting, action still determines destiny. One still has to, for one's own sake, act rightly in order to achieve heaven. Not for the sake of pleasing God, but just for one's own sake. The responsibility is purely on you. This is a problem. And by the way, I'm using "action" broadly here; it would include metaphysical actions like "thoughts", feelings, motivations, etc.

I think we are responsible for ourselves - but I suppose this can seem a daunting prospect. The Buddhist view is that one's condition is a consequence of previous actions (karma) but also a consequence of avidya, usually translated as 'ignorance' or 'unknowing'. But in Buddhism, karma is not (or ought not to be) fate or fatalism, because at every moment, one still has the option to act differently to how karma would dictate, and all of us have the potential for wisdom 1. But I don't see why it is a problem that 'the responsibility is purely on oneself'; I am reconciled to whatever arises as a consequence of my actions. I think that is called 'owning your experience'.

But the attitude I'm trying to argue against, is that view of 'God' as being like a manager or superintendent, who then vindictively sends souls to hell, knowing all along that this would be their fate. That seems to be a logical consequence of Calvinism and the 'total depravity' idea. But my view is that Calvin and Luther were both highly un-self-aware. They deeply confused the symbolic with the actual, and had no sense of irony or humour. That is why I prefer Dogen and Lin Chi and their like.

Hui Neng, Legendary Sixth Patriarch of Zen

because at every moment, one still has the option to act differently to how karma would dictate, and all of us have the potential for wisdom — Wayfarer

I do feel this; this is one side of why I feel conflicted here. The other side is that some circumstances are not in one's control. Is this more of what avidya means, then? For instance, child abuse, whether overt or covert. I was extremely sheltered, for instance, as a child. Not my own doing. The problem here is, someone with a generally healthy upbringing would seem to be better equipped to be responsible for herself, than someone with an unhealthy upbringing. Maybe I'm generalizing or simplifying. But this still seems to be the tension, to me. I want to believe that we're each responsible for ourselves, but is this, then, a set reality for all of humanity? It would seem that circumstance dictates exactly how responsible a given person can be for themselves. A drug addict on the street, for instance; I live in the city, as I seem to recall you do as well. Do we tell them they are responsible for their actions? Thus telling them they are wholly responsible for the pariah state they're now living in? Where does charity fit in with responsibility? Here's the problem for me: many people never realize that "at every moment, one still has the option to act differently to how karma would dictate", as you say. The kid my age or younger who stands outside of McDonalds every day on my way to work, asking for change for food...does he know that, at every moment of his life of begging, he can act differently, thus changing his own karma?

The problem here is, someone with a generally healthy upbringing would seem to be better equipped to be responsible for herself, than someone with an unhealthy upbringing. Maybe I'm generalizing or simplifying. But this still seems to be the tension, to me. I want to believe that we're each responsible for ourselves, but is this, then, a set reality for all of humanity? — Noble Dust

A long time back, I was fortunate enough to have attended some self-awareness training. One of the things I observed is a lot of people who had had traumatic experiences that were binding them in some way, that they were encountering through the training this group was offering. Often for those people, remembering or realising these experiences would be very traumatic. There were often tears, although no overt conflict or strife. (Having very skilled facilitators helped in that.) That is the precise meaning of 'catharsis'. That is the work we all have to do, by some means or another. Unfortunately in our culture it is hardly understood at all; as I say, I consider myself lucky to have encountered it.

A drug addict on the street, for instance; I live in the city, as I seem to recall you do as well. Do we tell them they are responsible for their actions? Thus telling them they are wholly responsible for the pariah state they're now living in? — Noble Dust

Not outright, because that would just appear, to them, as another straight asshole hassling them. But I think any kind of therapy or treatment would require them to acknowledge that they have a problem, and that they would have to own it and accept therapy. If they don't, they don't. We can't change other people, we can try and help them where possible. Our responsibility is to know ourselves and be able to act wisely, that is, not out of some program or other, and not out of some hidden hurt. That is what Jung meant by the work of 'individuation', and it has to be done.

The big problem with many Christians is purely and simply lack of insight. As Joseph Campbell well knew, myths are metaphors, often for truths that can't be told directly. So of course the Christian mythos is profoundly meaningful and significant, but I think nowadays often totally misinterpreted. No more so than with fundamentalism, which completely misunderstands the meaning of myth. So for those, like myself, that have never believed that the Bible was literally true, the fact that it's not literally true is not significant. Whereas for the fundamentalist, if the literal truth is challenged, this appears as 'the devil', a complete threat to their worldview, and they react accordingly.

Another Augustine quote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

From The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Applies to all creationism, in my view.

That is the precise meaning of 'catharsis'. That is the work we all have to do, by some means or another. Unfortunately in our culture it is hardly understood at all; as I say, I consider myself lucky to have encountered it. — Wayfarer

Right. My problem here is that not everyone has access to this sort of thing. So, my questions remain in a philosophical realm (ironic for me). Assuming everyone doesn't have access to this sort of treatment, the question still remains; how much spiritual responsibility is reasonably placed on the individual?

But I think any kind of therapy or treatment would require them to acknowledge that they have a problem, and that they would have to own it and accept therapy. If they don't, they don't. We can't change other people, we can try and help them where possible. Our responsibility is to know ourselves and be able to act wisely, — Wayfarer

Fair enough; well taken.

That Augustine quote is ironically applicable to the present state of christendom.

s Joseph Campbell well knew, myths are metaphors, often for truths that can't be told directly. — Wayfarer

Christianity is not a myth, as I've explained to you in the other thread.

Did you read the fine print of what Wayfarer was describing as "myth" here?

Yes, well, the problem with christianity, despite its noble idea of the importance and eternal value of the individual, is as you mention the idea of eternal suffering for the "goats". Now, I can't even imagine how the "blessed sheep" can enjoy heaven knowing that many will be tormented forever and ever and ever. It sort of contradicts this idea of the eternal value of the person. It destroys it really, just as Calvin's horrendous doctrines of total depravity and double predestination destroys it. But to be honest, Calvin's ideas were horrible, but yet they were somewhat honest. They are sort of the only logical and honest conclusion one can make of the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient it seems to me. Because what God foreknows(which in reality means knows, since he is outside of time), he also wills. To me free will sometimes seems like an excuse made up by theologians in order for there to be a reason why God judges people. But my existence wasn't willed by my. I came, according to christianity, into existence by an external will. Now as I see it, the most profound teachings in christianity are the most profound ever. Like the idea of God reaching out to man instead of the other way around. But the less profound doctrines, which seem unavoidable if one really takes scripture seriously, are IMO among the less profound ideas in human history. So, to me, christianity has both the best and the worst ideas. Also, its claim on exclusive truth makes it a problem. It sort of "destroys" what Aristotle praised as the meaning of life: "Knowledge for the sake of knowledge". Christianity says rather that all knowledge that isn't christian, that in some way can make you question some of its dogmas, are dangerous. Therefore, it is better to just blindly accept what christianity says. And they have used hell as a tool to control people and make people not think for themselves.

I will look into buddhism more. I have some things I like about it(from what I know about the religion) and some things I like less.

Interesting. Yes, I am around that age. And Dostoevsky is wonderfully dear to me. My favorite work of his is Brothers Karamazov, which is the greatest book I have ever read. In fact, reading it was perhaps my greatest experience in life whatsoever. It was the best 2.5 weeks ever spent.

The most important commandment, from the standpoint of philosophy, is 'know thyself'.

I know... But is that possible? Even when I know myself, I might ask, "What am I?".