Call for ecumenical throwdown!

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Out of all of them Hinduism or Buddhism seem to be the most accepting of different viewpoints, but then again Hinduism has the whole caste system in it

Just a small correction - Hindu society , regrettably , has the caste system ( in more rural areas ) , which has now , thankfully , been illegalised ( in the sense that discrimination on the basis of caste is now prohibited , except in certain , very specific , special cases ) . Speaking in a strictly religious sense , casteism is not ( to speak in the language which monotheists can understand ) any part of any commandment .



As for the Hindu view of Jesus - he is viewed as an enlightened man/soul/whatever , and the Church is considered to have corrupted his teachings over the years to suit themselves .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You can speculate about what really may have happened, but in the end all you have to go on is the testimony written by the people who were there, and knew folks who were also there. Given the choice between the speculation, as what might have happened, and between what these folks said happened, you have to go with what they say.

There it is, Sava, in all its glory.

Given the choice between THINKING and BELIEVING, you have to go with BELIEVING.

There are two kinds of people in the world Sava.

There are those who want to BELIEVE, and those who want to UNDERSTAND. And those who want to believe do NOT want to understand.

And that is all you really need to know about believers.

Then what would the guy who has written the quote below be - a "believer" or an "understander" ( try to read the bolded sections first , if you are impatient ) ?

All our knowledge is based upon experience. What we call inferential knowledge, in which we go from the less to the more general, or from the general to the particular, has experience as its basis. In what are called the exact sciences, people easily find the truth, because it appeals to the particular experiences of every human being. The scientist does not tell you to believe in anything, but he has certain results which come from his own experiences, and reasoning on them when he asks us to believe in his conclusions, he appeals to some universal experience of humanity. In every exact science there is a basis which is common to all humanity, so that we can at once see the truth or the fallacy of the conclusions drawn therefrom. Now, the question is: Has religion any such basis or not? I shall have to answer the question both in the affirmative and in the negative.

Religion, as it is generally taught all over the world, is said to be based upon faith and belief, and, in most cases, consists only of different sets of theories, and that is the reason why we find all religions quarrelling with one another. These theories, again, are based upon belief. One man says there is a great Being sitting above the clouds and governing the whole universe, and he asks me to believe that solely on the authority of his assertion. In the same way, I may have my own ideas, which I am asking others to believe, and if they ask a reason, I cannot give them any. This is why religion and metaphysical philosophy have a bad name nowadays. Every educated man seems to say, "Oh, these religions are only bundles of theories without any standard to judge them by, each man preaching his own pet ideas." Nevertheless, there is a basis of universal belief in religion, governing all the different theories and all the varying ideas of different sects in different countries. Going to their basis we find that they also are based upon universal experiences.

In the first place, if you analyse all the various religions of the world, you will find that these are divided into two classes, those with a book and those without a book. Those with a book are the strongest, and have the largest number of followers. Those without books have mostly died out, and the few new ones have very small following. Yet, in all of them we find one consensus of opinion, that the truths they teach are the results of the experiences of particular persons. The Christian asks you to believe in his religion, to believe in Christ and to believe in him as the incarnation of God, to believe in a God, in a soul, and in a better state of that soul. If I ask him for reason, he says he believes in them. But if you go to the fountain-head of Christianity, you will find that it is based upon experience. Christ said he saw God; the disciples said they felt God; and so forth. Similarly, in Buddhism, it is Buddha's experience. He experienced certain truths, saw them, came in contact with them, and preached them to the world. So with the Hindus. In their books the writers, who are called Rishis, or sages, declare they experienced certain truths, and these they preach. Thus it is clear that all the religions of the world have been built upon that one universal and adamantine foundation of all our knowledge — direct experience. The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their future, they saw their eternity, and what they saw they preached. Only there is this difference that by most of these religions especially in modern times, a peculiar claim is made, namely, that these experiences are impossible at the present day; they were only possible with a few men, who were the first founders of the religions that subsequently bore their names. At the present time these experiences have become obsolete, and, therefore, we have now to take religion on belief. This I entirely deny. If there has been one experience in this world in any particular branch of knowledge, it absolutely follows that that experience has been possible millions of times before, and will be repeated eternally. Uniformity is the rigorous law of nature; what once happened can happen always.

The teachers of the science of Yoga, therefore, declare that religion is not only based upon the experience of ancient times, but that no man can be religious until he has the same perceptions himself. Yoga is the science which teaches us how to get these perceptions. It is not much use to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, because people never went to the fountain-head; they were content only to give a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite. The modern idea, on the one hand, with the "learned" is that religion and metaphysics and all search after a Supreme Being are futile; on the other hand, with the semi-educated, the idea seems to be that these things really have no basis; their only value consists in the fact that they furnish strong motive powers for doing good to the world. If men believe in a God, they may become good, and moral, and so make good citizens. We cannot blame them for holding such ideas, seeing that all the teaching these men get is simply to believe in an eternal rigmarole of words, without any substance behind them. They are asked to live upon words; can they do it? If they could, I should not have the least regard for human nature. Man wants truth, wants to experience truth for himself; when he has grasped it, realised it, felt it within his heart of hearts, then alone, declare the Vedas, would all doubts vanish, all darkness be scattered, and all crookedness be made straight. "Ye children of immortality, even those who live in the highest sphere, the way is found; there is a way out of all this darkness, and that is by perceiving Him who is beyond all darkness; there is no other way."

The science of Râja-Yoga proposes to put before humanity a practical and scientifically worked out method of reaching this truth. In the first place, every science must have its own method of investigation. If you want to become an astronomer and sit down and cry "Astronomy! Astronomy!" it will never come to you. The same with chemistry. A certain method must be followed. You must go to a laboratory, take different substances, mix them up, compound them, experiment with them, and out of that will come a knowledge of chemistry. If you want to be an astronomer, you must go to an observatory, take a telescope, study the stars and planets, and then you will become an astronomer. Each science must have its own methods. I could preach you thousands of sermons, but they would not make you religious, until you practiced the method. These are the truths of the sages of all countries, of all ages, of men pure and unselfish, who had no motive but to do good to the world. They all declare that they have found some truth higher than what the senses can bring to us, and they invite verification. They ask us to take up the method and practice honestly, and then, if we do not find this higher truth, we will have the right to say there is no truth in the claim, but before we have done that, we are not rational in denying the truth of their assertions. So we must work faithfully using the prescribed methods, and light will come.

In acquiring knowledge we make use of generalisations, and generalisation is based upon observation. We first observe facts, then generalise, and then draw conclusions or principles. The knowledge of the mind, of the internal nature of man, of thought, can never be had until we have first the power of observing the facts that are going on within. It is comparatively easy to observe facts in the external world, for many instruments have been invented for the purpose, but in the internal world we have no instrument to help us. Yet we know we must observe in order to have a real science. Without a proper analysis, any science will be hopeless — mere theorising. And that is why all the psychologists have been quarrelling among themselves since the beginning of time, except those few who found out the means of observation.

The science of Raja-Yoga, in the first place, proposes to give us such a means of observing the internal states. The instrument is the mind itself. The power of attention, when properly guided, and directed towards the internal world, will analyse the mind, and illumine facts for us. The powers of the mind are like rays of light dissipated; when they are concentrated, they illumine. This is our only means of knowledge. Everyone is using it, both in the external and the internal world; but, for the psychologist, the same minute observation has to be directed to the internal world, which the scientific man directs to the external; and this requires a great deal of practice. From our childhood upwards we have been taught only to pay attention to things external, but never to things internal; hence most of us have nearly lost the faculty of observing the internal mechanism. To turn the mind as it were, inside, stop it from going outside, and then to concentrate all its powers, and throw them upon the mind itself, in order that it may know its own nature, analyse itself, is very hard work. Yet that is the only way to anything which will be a scientific approach to the subject.

What is the use of such knowledge? In the first place, knowledge itself is the highest reward of knowledge, and secondly, there is also utility in it. It will take away all our misery. When by analysing his own mind, man comes face to face, as it were, with something which is never destroyed, something which is, by its own nature, eternally pure and perfect, he will no more be miserable, no more unhappy. All misery comes from fear, from unsatisfied desire. Man will find that he never dies, and then he will have no more fear of death. When he knows that he is perfect, he will have no more vain desires, and both these causes being absent, there will be no more misery — there will be perfect bliss, even while in this body.

There is only one method by which to attain this knowledge, that which is called concentration. The chemist in his laboratory concentrates all the energies of his mind into one focus, and throws them upon the materials he is analysing, and so finds out their secrets. The astronomer concentrates all the energies of his mind and projects them through his telescope upon the skies; and the stars, the sun, and the moon, give up their secrets to him. The more I can concentrate my thoughts on the matter on which I am talking to you, the more light I can throw upon you. You are listening to me, and the more you concentrate your thoughts, the more clearly you will grasp what I have to say.

How has all the knowledge in the world been gained but by the concentration of the powers of the mind? The world is ready to give up its secrets if we only know how to knock, how to give it the necessary blow. The strength and force of the blow come through concentration. There is no limit to the power of the human mind. The more concentrated it is, the more power is brought to bear on one point; that is the secret.

It is easy to concentrate the mind on external things, the mind naturally goes outwards; but not so in the case of religion, or psychology, or metaphysics, where the subject and the object, are one. The object is internal, the mind itself is the object, and it is necessary to study the mind itself — mind studying mind. We know that there is the power of the mind called reflection. I am talking to you. At the same time I am standing aside, as it were, a second person, and knowing and hearing what I am talking. You work and think at the same time, while a portion of your mind stands by and sees what you are thinking. The powers of the mind should be concentrated and turned back upon itself, and as the darkest places reveal their secrets before the penetrating rays of the sun, so will this concentrated mind penetrate its own innermost secrets. Thus will we come to the basis of belief, the real genuine religion. We will perceive for ourselves whether we have souls, whether life is of five minutes or of eternity, whether there is a God in the universe or more. It will all be revealed to us. This is what Raja-Yoga proposes to teach. The goal of all its teaching is how to concentrate the minds, then, how to discover the innermost recesses of our own minds, then, how to generalise their contents and form our own conclusions from them. It, therefore, never asks the question what our religion is, whether we are Deists or Atheists, whether Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. We are human beings; that is sufficient. Every human being has the right and the power to seek for religion. Every human being has the right to ask the reason, why, and to have his question answered by himself, if he only takes the trouble.

So far, then, we see that in the study of this Raja-Yoga no faith or belief is necessary. Believe nothing until you find it out for yourself; that is what it teaches us. Truth requires no prop to make it stand. Do you mean to say that the facts of our awakened state require any dreams or imaginings to prove them? Certainly not. This study of Raja-Yoga takes a long time and constant practice. A part of this practice is physical, but in the main it is mental. As we proceed we shall find how intimately the mind is connected with the body. If we believe that the mind is simply a finer part of the body, and that mind acts upon the body, then it stands to reason that the body must react upon the mind. If the body is sick, the mind becomes sick also. If the body is healthy, the mind remains healthy and strong. When one is angry, the mind becomes disturbed. Similarly when the mind is disturbed, the body also becomes disturbed. With the majority of mankind the mind is greatly under the control of the body, their mind being very little developed. The vast mass of humanity is very little removed from the animals. Not only so, but in many instances, the power of control in them is little higher than that of the lower animals. We have very little command of our minds. Therefore to bring that command about, to get that control over body and mind, we must take certain physical helps. When the body is sufficiently controlled, we can attempt the manipulation of the mind. By manipulating the mind, we shall be able to bring it under our control, make it work as we like, and compel it to concentrate its powers as we desire.

Different races take to different processes of controlling nature. Just as in the same society some individuals want to control the external nature, and others the internal, so, among races, some want to control the external nature, and others the internal. Some say that by controlling internal nature we control everything. Others that by controlling external nature we control everything. Carried to the extreme both are right, because in nature there is no such division as internal or external. These are fictitious limitations that never existed. The externalists and the internalists are destined to meet at the same point, when both reach the extreme of their knowledge. Just as a physicist, when he pushes his knowledge to its limits, finds it melting away into metaphysics, so a metaphysician will find that what he calls mind and matter are but apparent distinctions, the reality being One.

The end and aim of all science is to find the unity, the One out of which the manifold is being manufactured, that One existing as many. Raja-Yoga proposes to start from the internal world, to study internal nature, and through that, control the whole — both internal and external. It is a very old attempt. India has been its special stronghold, but it was also attempted by other nations. In Western countries it was regarded as mysticism and people who wanted to practice it were either burned or killed as witches and sorcerers. In India, for various reasons, it fell into the hands of persons who destroyed ninety per cent of the knowledge, and tried to make a great secret of the remainder. In modern times many so-called teachers have arisen in the West worse than those of India, because the latter knew something, while these modern exponents know nothing.

Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain. It has well-nigh destroyed Yoga — one of the grandest of sciences. From the time it was discovered, more than four thousand years ago, Yoga was perfectly delineated, formulated, and preached in India. It is a striking fact that the more modern the commentator the greater the mistakes he makes, while the more ancient the writer the more rational he is. Most of the modern writers talk of all sorts of mystery. Thus Yoga fell into the hands of a few persons who made it a secret, instead of letting the full blaze of daylight and reason fall upon it. They did so that they might have the powers to themselves.

In the first place, there is no mystery in what I teach. What little I know I will tell you. So far as I can reason it out I will do so, but as to what I do not know I will simply tell you what the books say. It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practice, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study. There is neither mystery nor danger in it. So far as it is true, it ought to be preached in the public streets, in broad daylight. Any attempt to mystify these things is productive of great danger.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I believe, or I don't beleive, are the only two arguments. No others exist.

Jon Miller

No , my Christian friend , there is another , which , unfortunately , the Church cannot abide - "I experience , therefore I know , for I am God" . The best , and only undeniable proof of God's existence , is the realisation that you are He .

















































On a related note - the harm the Christian idea that that you have only two choices , that of belief or disbelief , and it's equally vehemnt insistence on only faith , is incalculable , and this idea and insistence and is a source of a great violence committed on the minds of people living in these societies .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sava





that's right...


CHOOSE ME OR BURN IN HELL


some choice

that should be proof enough that christianity is a false religion... because no just and moral God would ever create such a "choice"

I would hesitate to condemn Christianity in one stroke , because the word has two meanings .

If you take "Christian" to mean "follower of the core teachings of Christ" , then I'm fine with it , because Chirist himself taught the right stuff .

But if you take "Christian" to mean "follower and member of Church which claims to be sanctioned by Christ" , then I would , unreservedly , say that such "religion" deserves condemnation , because I hold the Churches responsible for the corruption of Christs's teachings .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sava

still

it doesn't matter

God is still bribing people for worship

the only way a true God would work is if there would be no consequences, positive or negative... for loving him...

Why do you assume God to be some external entity ?
Why can you not , for just a moment , break out of the mindset which dictates that God is some "being in the clouds , which we cannot percieve" ? What if the choice is not between positive and negative consequences , but between ignorance and understanding , which you impose on yourselves ( as you are yourselves God , you decide whether you want to understand or you want to just cover your eyes and not see yourself ) .

Originally posted by Sava

we would choose to love him of our own FREE WILL

NO STRINGS ATTACHED

What if you yourself are God ? You have the ultimate free will then - no strings attached at all ( nor the possibility of any ) .

Originally posted by Sava

that is why Christianity (and every other MANMADE RELIGION) is false and should not be believed in

And what if there exists a religion which does not demand belief ? What if it asks you to verify for yourselves whatever it claims ?

What then ?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by beingofone

There was a small find called the Nag Hammadi scrolls you might want to check into before you think it is all just 'blind faith'.
These texts are almost two thousand years old and confirm the historical eveidence.
It is not just faith that I believe in Christ but the evidence is overwhelming but you have to do your homework.

If you try to consider how your mind works, you will admit that you actively seek and welcome only evidence which supports your beliefs; and are immediately prejudiced against and seek to discredit evidence which tends to refute your beliefs.

This means you want to believe, not understand.

[aneeshm]

@ The Mad Viking

Could you please answer the question I posed in post #137 ( just a few posts back ) ? I consider it rather pertinent .

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Ridiculous.

So if you don't have sex until you're 18, you're biased against sex?

You said it was just a matter of choice. Statistical data indicates that it is overwhelmingly a result of your birth. How many Muslims are born in Nebraska or Wyoming? How many Hindus in Iceland? How many Jews are not children of Jews? ...

Some do simply reject or neglect their religious upbringing. A very small number make a considered and informed selection from alternative (ie. choose).

Religion is overwhelmingly an accident of birth.

so is atheism

most atheists I know are the children of atheists

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm


No , my Christian friend , there is another , which , unfortunately , the Church cannot abide - "I experience , therefore I know , for I am God" . The best , and only undeniable proof of God's existence , is the realisation that you are He .

















































On a related note - the harm the Christian idea that that you have only two choices , that of belief or disbelief , and it's equally vehemnt insistence on only faith , is incalculable , and this idea and insistence and is a source of a great violence committed on the minds of people living in these societies .

that is a beleif

JM

[beingofone]

Pekka:

Me: If you were to say a resurrection occured today and have it stick for a hundred years from now - how many eyewitnesses would it require to have legitimacy?"

You: How about more than 0?

Think about the idea that two thousand years later there is still enough credibility to have a debate on the internet about the incident.

This again, is a motive game. Not solid argumentation. Maybe they stole the body and agreed to lie that he resurrected, to save their own butt and not turn the body in. The same reason, that they were killed for.

If you seriously think the idea could be preserved under penalty of death by torture - and not a single eyewitness recounted the claim, then I would say you have great faith in the ability of a lie being exponentially more powerful than the truth ever can be.
Therefore we cannot trust anything conscerning history at all.

Why would muslim extremists blow themselves up and think they go into heaven with bunch of virgins, because they'd die in the process.

Because they are dying for a belief - not something they claim to be an eyewitness to.

Not necessarily. They might have been killed anyway for stealing the body. And maybe not all would have believed that version either, that he didn't resurrect. It's not THAT simple.

Dude - most of them died years later not on the spot. They died when they were old men. They still would not recant the eyewitness testimony.

I guess he had no name to begin with or something, but he should be discredited as mathematician just because of that.

He is known around the world. Swinbourn is one of the foremost authorities in religion and philosophy.
I do not know enough about statistical theory to say one way or the other.


Rufus T. Firefly:

Fun Fact: JFK won the 1960 election by a mere 120,00 votes out of about 68.5 million cast -- a margin of 0.175%. But a few years after he was "martyred," more that 2/3 of all Americans polled claimed that they had voted for him in 1960.

Quick reply sir; the difference being a vote and a resurrection are not in the same ballpark for memory recall. Do people remeber their wedding day?

Put another way: The historical truth of the Gospels hasn't been subject to nearly as much scrutiny as the historical truth of the Iliad, and we still can't say for certain whether there was ever a war such as the one Homer describes. If we won't let Homer off the hook yet, why should Matthew et al. get a pass?

Because.... in 1945 we did not unearth hundreds of texts about Homer - we did with Christian texts.

aneeshm:

[quote]"I experience , therefore I know , for I am God" . The best , and only undeniable proof of God's existence , is the realisation that you are He .[quote]

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

-- Jesus

You are right sir - most of Christiandom still does not 'get it'. How odd when we consider such a bright light as Jesus eh?

And what if there exists a religion which does not demand belief ? What if it asks you to verify for yourselves whatever it claims ?

What then ?

And then you begin building on the correct foundation. Jesus then becomes someone to identify with in his experience instead of merely adhored.

The Mad Viking:

If you try to consider how your mind works, you will admit that you actively seek and welcome only evidence which supports your beliefs; and are immediately prejudiced against and seek to discredit evidence which tends to refute your beliefs.

This means you want to believe, not understand.

You think I have never questioned?
Reverse your statement -
If you try to consider how your mind works, you will admit that you actively seek and welcome only evidence which undermines your beliefs; and are immediately prejudiced against and seek to discredit evidence which tends to support your beliefs.

This means you want to disbelieve, not understand.

[Jon Miller]

also experenice does exist in christianity, aneeshm

it is just not something most people have before they beleive...

and isn't repeatable in controlled environments...

hinduism also seems a bit like mormonism? (The whole you are god bit?)

Jon Miller

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
so is atheism

most atheists I know are the children of atheists

JM

Most athiests that I know are children of Christians.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


that is a beleif

JM

It seems you found it convenient to totally ignore my post about how nothing is to be accepted until personally experienced ?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by beingofone

aneeshm:

You are right sir - most of Christiandom still does not 'get it'. How odd when we consider such a bright light as Jesus eh?

Teachings are also often interpreted and mininterpreted by the society in which they are preached . Christianity was shaped a lot by the Roman society in which it was born . That re-shaping to suit the needs of the Church did it great harm .

Originally posted by beingofone

And then you begin building on the correct foundation. Jesus then becomes someone to identify with in his experience instead of merely adhored.

All great saints are people to not just idly revere , but to hold up as ideals of what you yourself can attain . Jesus is considered one of the ways of reaching God - the way of faith ( which is not very suited to today's circumstances , where other paths may be better ) . But the Church has , unfortunately , tried to deny the existence of other ways -

such as the way of knowledge , which was followed by the Buddha ( and all the great sages who were the authors of the Vedas ) ,

or the way of detachment ( you must live in this world , and do your job/duty to the best of your ability , and live ethically , but you must not be attched to this world - in other words , you must act , but not be attached to the fruits of your actions )

or the way of Raja Yoga , which is the most direct way , but which is also very demanding - it is the path which takes you , step by step , through the same thing which the other enlightened ones went through , by direct personal experience .




In all of these , you still must experience them yourselves , because belief before verification is unfounded , and weakens you , while disbelief after experience and verification is self-denying , and thus self-destructive .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
also experenice does exist in christianity, aneeshm

it is just not something most people have before they beleive...

and isn't repeatable in controlled environments...

hinduism also seems a bit like mormonism? (The whole you are god bit?)

Jon Miller

But unless experience is repeatable in controlled circumstances , what can you build upon ? Where is it's value as a foundation for building a religion if it is accessible only to those who are already believers ?

I don't know about Mormonism , but I do know that one of the primary schools of Hindu thought is the one that holds that the soul is simply an expression of God , whose ultimate destination is always realisation , through experience , of Godhood .