For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

Recent posts of Jan Ardena to me, or of Lori to me and many others.

The playing field is not equal.

It is the theists who come forward claiming they have The Solution. As such, they have greater burdens and greater responibilities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If what you are saying is true one would expect to see an absence of texts on defining qualities of a spiritual authority and also an absence of dialogue on holding the said spiritual authorities accountable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do good arguments guarantee?

So what?

Who knows if "weighing arguments and making considered judgments" makes for a meaningful belief in God.
I don't think it does.

Like I noted above: the playing field is not even. Theists have a much greater responsibility, a much greater burden, because they are the ones claiming to have The Solution to mankind's problems.

 

Surely, there are such texts. Such texts also disqualify run-of-the-mill people from making any judgements about spiritual authority.

The presence of such dialogue - although it is usually just a monologue from the side of the complaning party - does not guarantee anything. It's just bureocracy, diplomacy. And more of "It's just your jaundice / You're not advanced enough / etc."



EDIT:
If these authorities are so right, if they are so advanced, if what they talk about is so important, if people's choices about it will have eternal ramifications -
then how come these authorities can't or won't make people see it?
Why is the only argument that these spiritual authorities give for their superiority and advancement, our "jaundice", our "lack of advancement"?
Why don't these spiritual authorities do something that would positively inspire us?
Why is spirituality a matter of "grit your teeth and bear it, indefinitely"?
Why is the only way to see these spiritual authorities as advanced, by telling myself "I am too stupid to understand, surely they must be right"?

 

i won't argue about Jan (i'm scared of her), she is the exception not the rule..
and lori has already admitted she is just as messed up as the rest of us...

you have never been so excited to learn a new truth that you wanted to share it?

the problems come with how we communicate such truths, the bible says live it, be the example, not force everyone to be the example. a proper theist would not make an issue of how much of a sinner you are, and focus more on what God wants for them in their lives.(tangent night i guess..)

anyway the point was specific to sciforums..most new users start posting thing to validate their own opinions, there isn't any difference between theist and atheist in this respect,

and you added

so part of the burden and responsibility is to the listener to be sure he is hearing what he thinks he is hearing,and not dismiss it out of hand.
(see james arguments about being a good debater)

and i do agree with:

test all things and hold on to what is good.
---

why?
prove to me that the texts say that we are not responsible for our own spirituality?
or prove that there has to be an authority (other than jesus.)

where does it say that the only way to know God is through some man (other than jesus.)

my point is you are the authority of your own spirituality. not someone else.

----------

wouldn't rebelling against society (in your context,and in present day) mean one would join religion?

 

Actually they exist primarily to enable run-of-the-mill people to make such distinctions

If that was true one wouldn't see the social body that is attached to religious institutions bearing any influence on redefining the structure of teh said institution

Actually that is an argument for one's inability to adhere to the regulative principles of freedom from material existence ... something which can strike even advanced personalities (surely you must have heard about jada bharata falling down from the position of bhava)

"You are jaundiced/have material attachments" certainly does not render the speaker spiritually superior.

Spiritual investigation is about finding the association that does, rather than impersonally and unrealistically assigning an impossible category of behavior to the first aspiring spiritualist one meets

Its always the case that advancement is slow and painstaking and falling down is incredibly easy and quick. Thats why it is often talked about as a razor's edge.

If that is the only thing you are calling upon to determine who is a spiritual authority I think you have to go back to the drawing board with your definitions

 

Then why do they disqualify them in the same breath?

Yes, and officially, this is called "the degradation of religious society".

The same person who tells us they know what is best for us also tells us that the reason we don't see them as superior is because we have jaundice.

All we know about spirituality, we know from the same people who tell us that the reason we don't see them as superior is because we have jaundice.

We don't know anything else, we don't have any other source. It's either this, or nothing.

Reality is not like that.

In reality, there is a number of people, spiritual/religious organizations who claim to be spiritually advanced, who claim to know what is best for us, and who in their public addresses criticize the run-of-the-mill people as rascals.

One is supposed to join a religious or spiritual organization without any prior investigation.
We are supposed to come there, and commit fully the first time. If we don't, we're rascals.
If we're not inspired by them, we're rascals.

Spiritual/religious organizations make no allowance for a search.

And it is either these spiritual/religious organizations, or nothing.


EDIT: Given that we are supposed to choose among several religions / spiritual paths/ organizations (they certainly all want us to choose), how are we supposed to choose, when they all appear so similar? The names may be different, but the teeth-gritting and the insanities are the same in them.

Why do they keep saying that "chanting the holy names is sweet" and things like that - when so many have just the opposite experiences, for long periods of time?

Years of practice, and not a single positive experience. But people should just continue anyway, banging their head up against a wall?

Like any of those spiritual authorities would forgive me for doing so.
Moreover, I would be reading about those definitions from them. And then to use those same definitions against them?? What kind of logic is that?

 

Meaning, the whole point of making good arguments is to make oneself feel good about one's choices -?

No.

Jesus, or Allah, or whichever.

 

What is wrong with being a rascal. Try being a Micky shit house mouse for a while. Little Rascal's becomes a picnic . I don't listen to super preachers to much . They do have a tendency to be full of it . Jole Osteen . Him I kind of like . He is pretty up beat for a preacher . Not that I can listen to him that long either . I like it when he starts talking about the garden and the House and the good things that are coming . Me being a GreatHouse you can use your imagination what the garden is . Ah yeah Me likes Gardening. Plowing the garden is fun

 

disqualify them from what?
Reading?

regardless of what you imagine it is officially called, if it was true, you wouldn't see it happen
:shrug:

sounds like a good time to do some reading on the qualities of a spiritually advanced person (don't seem to recall anything about a need for them to personally establish themselves as superior)

ditto above

I seem to recall three authorities, not one ...

hence the issue of inspiring association

enter the analogy about choosing a medical procedure ....

so if you have a nice experience about anything, you only talk about it when others also have an identical experience?

a person cannot do anything for years without a single positive experience, no matter how it is dressed up

You have the authors of SB and the gita calling you a rascal?

 

From making assessments on who to associate with and how.

They have a number of followers who do that for them. And nobody gets to the guru except through his followers. Who are ever so ready to make it infinitely difficult for anyone else to come near.

There is still one source that tells us about guru-sadhu-sastra.

(Apart from those three, there is a fourth one - self-satisfaction. But I am not sure when one is allowed to count on that one.)

It's an issue, allright.

I've addressed this in the other thread.

How is that related to what I said?

Don't underestimate the power of discipline, misery, and pride.

Not by my first name, but to people like me.

 

Ten points Sir!

 

Prejudice,.... oh James, that's a low blow.

I simply do not believe in the deities people attempt to describe to me.

It really is that simple.

And here's the thing, you still can't give me a description of your god that makes sense, AND you know your target because you do not actually believe yourself, so _should_ be able to come up with something that avoids the regular criticisms, but you hung yourself from the outset.

 

Quote and link. Don't think you can hide behind assertions.

Which statement is that?: Quote me or get reported.

IF? Did I? What did I say?

All I require is a description that bears scrutiny. That has NOT changed.

Intentionally? Demonstrate with quotes, or be damned, sir.
This thread was for JamesR to make his arguments for God, not for others to divert the conversation.

13 pages of explanations? Hardly. All I've had from James is a couple is sentences that don't hold water. He's been too lazy to even tell me how he arrived at his beliefs. It's like trying to get blood from a stone. Believers should have sound reasoning to explain their beliefs, the fact we have 13 pages is rather proof that they do not.

 

I'm pretty sure that argument, IF you are making it, and not dancing around it, negates omniscience and omnipotence. So what are you saying?

It is if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

No it wouldn't, but surely God, being omniscient, could dispense with gravity and hold everything together by sheer force of his will over every single particle he created?

Pay attention, I already told you the 'God moves in mysterious ways' excuse has no value.

I'm not following your diversion. Do I need explain the purpose of this thread yet again? Simply, I ask you to explain your god to me. It's not a debate.

How do you prove it's not X?

I ask the questions, you answer. Stop with the diversionary tactics.

James, YOU are supposed to be giving me YOUR explanations for such here. You are supposed to be giving me YOUR definition, and telling me YOUR reason for belief and the motivations of the thing in which you believe. The above seems little more than an admission of defeat that you cannot explain yourself.

So, do you want to try again?

 

Weak. You know, as a scientist, the best we can do is statistical correlation. That does not mean everything is based upon Faith, nor that all Faith based propositions are equal.

 

Just look at this thread! I asked for a description of your God. You claimed to have drawn upon many sources to arrive at your conclusions, yet when pushed for your most recent definition, I get two sentences WITHOUT supporting reasoning. That's it? Two sentences?

'Supernatural',... well, you know that excludes proof, and that it's just a faith based proposition, yet you utterly fail to admit reasonable doubt.

Omniscience and omnipotence. The 'all powerful' part of your first sentence is a tautology considering you say 'omnipotent' later. I guess you have so little you feel the need to pad out the description!

So, 15 pages in, and the BEST you have so far come up with, is two sentences, and it's padded at that. I've had ego and attitude in spades, but very little content. But thankyou for that, because your attitude has proven to be you cannot support your claims honestly.

But anyway, just for laughs, let's hear you justify the few claims you have made, wrt omniscience, and omnipotence, given you have said God is supernatural and therefore you cannot have evidence for such.