Interesting ... all extremes of anything are dangerous. Can make the extremist a danger to himself and quite possibly to society as well.
Fundies come in many guises - like Richard Dawkins with his anti-God stance - can't see, hear or deal with anyone else's point of view.
I'm reading a book at the moment by Jon Krakauer about some Mormon fundies - "Banner of Heaven" - these fundies murdered a woman and her baby daughter in the name of their religion. It's not a brilliantly written book and is not easy reading. However, I read it with a sort of horrified "deja vu" feel - so much of what the Mormon fundy leaders are reported as saying sounds so very familiar... scary. And the cavalier attitude to passing women around as "wives" with the very sad effects on women and children (especially young girls) is heartbreaking.
Under the Banner of Heaven
In 2003, Under the Banner of Heaven became Krakauer's third non-fiction bestseller. The book examines extremes of religious belief, particularly fundamentalist offshoots of Mormonism. Specifically, Krakauer looks at the practice of polygamy among the fundamentalist Mormon religion and scrutinizes it under the context of Mormon religion throughout history past and present. Much of the focus of the book is on the Lafferty brothers, who murdered in the name of their fundamentalist faith.
In 2006, Tom Elliott and Pawel Gula produced the documentary, Damned to Heaven, inspired by the book, Under the Banner of Heaven.
All these fundamentalists - from TWI, Christian churches, Muslims, Japanese religions - all need to be treated with care. But not given into.
There is, according to our Constitution, supposed to be separation of Church and State. So what difference does it make what the "religious" leaning of the President is. It shouldn't matter....all he does is sign the bills after he's managed to twist Congress' arm in order to pass anything of substance (heh heh heh).
Are you meaning to tell me that a Jew could not be president? How about a Hindu? Moderate Islamist? There, I've gone and done it now.....huh! Remember...in order to be President he must have been Born and American.
The concept of the separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.[2][3]
Use of the phrase
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[18]
Recommendation: "This brief, highly readable and responsible work of scholarship will serve as a fine antidote to the pious mythology which often passes for history on this subject." Peter W. Williams, author of America's Religions: From Their Origins to the Twenty-First Century.
TWI counts on the ignorance of people looking for "answers" and captures their minds not only for alliegence to TWI but for the broader movement called "fundamentalism."
Perhaps some people here will appreciate this article on why even some evangelicals fear fundamentalists.
With respect to the New York Times article you referenced, I have to chuckle whenever I hear of those who criticize evangelicals for being a "non-thinking" group. Then they point to things like climate change and evolution and shake their heads pitifully and accuse evangelicals of being "against knowledge", and "rejecting reasoning". I chuckle because in truth it's the critics themselves who are opposed to having their own beliefs questioned. They speak of evolution and climate change as hard facts and speak of anyone who questions these premises as ignorant and stupid. I'm not going to go into the arguments themselves except to say there are very intelligent people who with sound reasoning and logic question these two theories. Evangelicals have come under fire for wanting to present creationism as an alternative to evolution. Doing so draws ire from those who are "open-minded" and "pro-knowledge". Rejection of reason...give me a break! Having said that, yes, there are evangelicals who are extremists whose viewpoints are certainly questionable. Evangelicals aren't the only group that has those who hold extreme viewpoints.
In fact, it is generally accepted that the "founding fathers" were Deists, not Christians.
As I would agree with everything else.... I disagree that all of the founding fathers where Deists. Jefferson and Franklin I would agree with you that they were Deists. John Adams I would say he is a Christian or at the very least a strong believer in a personal God. In his letters to Abigail he talks about the prayers of Congress. He wrote " It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that Morning" He would continue in the letter "It will amuse your Friends to read this Letter and the 35th. Psalm to them. Read it to your Father and Mr. Wilbirt."
In another letter in July 3, 1776 he ends it " But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe". In his other letter about the declaration of Independence he writes "It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty.."
I just don't see a Deist saying these things between his wife.
To the article posted. I have read and I do agree with a lot of it. I even posted it on my facebook wall. I think this issue of reasoning is not just to those in Cults but also in Christianity. Where their beliefs rest on Pastors and since why when people get introduced into TWI
it seems so knowledge based and "reasoned" at a glance that they trust the information that is presented before them.
Source
The Norton Anthology AMERICAN LITERATURE seventh Ed. Pages 616-629
.... I disagree that all of the founding fathers where Deists.
As would I, as well.....ALL is much too far-reaching a word to use.
My point was simply this: We often hear the argument being presented that this country was based on Christian principles. That is neither accurate nor does it neccessarily negate the value of said principles. But, some of these "principles" are not exclusive to Christianity.
Thomas Paine had this to say regarding the issue.
"There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.
"But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes."
I tend to agree with Brokenarrow. What I see is intolerence. Those people think their puny little educational degrees are the oracles of God. Reminds me of something in Kris' book.
Everybody has a belief system. Belief systems are as individual as the person him/her self. Many align themselves with religions and social movements, but even in those, every individual has a different spin on whatever they label themselves.
In TWI we were told that the real you is Christ in you, but just how much time did any of us actually live that? Even VP once said that the longest segment of time in which he walked with God and "didn't miss anything" was 2 weeks. Like he said, "some of us commit them before breakfast". It would be nice if while we were manifesting Christ in you there was a green glow which went out when we were walking by the flesh. OK, that's TWI; the real you is Christ in you.
There are 3 references in Kris' book to an "original self". That everybody has an original self. Really? Where and when did we get this 'original self'? Conception? Birth? Puberty? Is it part of our DNA? How do we care for this 'original self'? Yoga? Therapy? Education? LSD? Different belief system, different "real you".
In the forward, Lorna Goldberg MSW/LCSW (whatever that is) says her "old original self" (later called her 'creative authentic self') was suppressed.Her belief system includes where she got her education. In the therapy notes immediately before chapter 12 she is asked "so you ignored yourself?" There's that self again. On the back of the book, a Kathryn Harrison says she "denied and betrayed" her self. Her belief system no doubt includes some form of education/therapy. The 2 povs are no different.
In TWI, believing that the real you is Christ in you caused some people to walk in love and caused other people to dangle a carrot in front of themself that would never be realized. In whatever education/therapy system Kris and her peers refer to, the real you is your old original creative authentic self, which causes some to think more spontaneously and dangles a carrot in front of others.
Personally, I don't believe in Christ in you OR old original self as a constant reality. I believe in the old man nature which includes death, the equalizer. Christ in you DELIBERATELY deals with the old man nature until death. So does education/therapy, howbeit unwittingly. But neither belief system is morally superior to the other.
The writers of the article are just as biased as any fundamentalist/evangelical they could name. They selectively reason and dismiss reason as they see fit just as much as the people they criticize. I call them the more intolerent.
You certainly do have a great disdain for higher education, don't you, John. Why do you suppose that is? Is it, perhaps, because we were conditioned to adapt this attitude in the PFAL class? I can't remember which particular session it was in, off the top of my head. Maybe someone here can supply that information. At any rate, I would have hoped you would have come away from the book with a realization that The Way, and Wierwille in particular, were not what we thought they were.
He went two weeks without "missing anything"?
hahahahahahahah!
Maybe what he went 2 weeks without missing was sexual gratification from the women he seduced.
(Remember, John, as a professed Christian, that would make these women your sisters in Christ. How does that make you feel, knowing he treated your sisters with so little respect?)
You certainly do have a great disdain for higher education, don't you, John. Why do you suppose that is? Is it, perhaps, because we were conditioned to adapt this attitude in the PFAL class? I can't remember which particular session it was in, off the top of my head. Maybe someone here can supply that information. At any rate, I would have hoped you would have come away from the book with a realization that The Way, and Wierwille in particular, were not what we thought they were.
He went two weeks without "missing anything"?
hahahahahahahah!
Maybe what he went 2 weeks without missing was sexual gratification from the women he seduced.
(Remember, John, as a professed Christian, that would make these women your sisters in Christ. How does that make you feel, knowing he treated your sisters with so little respect?)
I remember having a conversation with someone who is apart of a splinter cell group (for 3 hrs). His first remarks was about how much he knew studying for 28 yrs or so..... Then to tell me that all seminaries and bible colleges are worthless....... He didn't ask me my back ground till an hour later. I quickly learned their indoctrination to hate everything educated and I was told that the people who went to those schools where not thinking for themselves....... Ironic I guess but anyway ....... I realized with my background he wouldn't take anything I had to say seriously. Already knew it all.
Yeah, Wierwille detested anything that resembled true scholastic achievement. It's ironic, don't you agree?, that he, himself, subsequently allowed others to believe he actually held a doctorate. (You do know he wasn't REALLY a "Dr.", don't you?)
I tend to agree with Brokenarrow. What I see is intolerence. Those people think their puny little educational degrees are the oracles of God. Reminds me of something in Kris' book.
Just a question, who are "those people"?
As far as reason and religion are involved here.. there are times when my logical side saw me through, while the intuitive side went on some trip off somewhere..
and then there have been times.. my intuitive side waited for something good to happen (should I say believe?) when my logical side went nuts, counting up the facts..
then there is a part of me which tries (generally successfully) to mediate between the two.
I have theories about this.. but I don't know how much you want here..
maybe faith and reason are two sides of the same coin..
There are 3 references in Kris' book to an "original self". That everybody has an original self. Really? Where and when did we get this 'original self'? Conception? Birth? Puberty? Is it part of our DNA? How do we care for this 'original self'? Yoga? Therapy? Education? LSD? Different belief system, different "real you".
In the forward, Lorna Goldberg MSW/LCSW (whatever that is) says her "old original self" (later called her 'creative authentic self') was suppressed.Her belief system includes where she got her education. In the therapy notes immediately before chapter 12 she is asked "so you ignored yourself?" There's that self again. On the back of the book, a Kathryn Harrison says she "denied and betrayed" her self. Her belief system no doubt includes some form of education/therapy. The 2 povs are no different.
In TWI, believing that the real you is Christ in you caused some people to walk in love and caused other people to dangle a carrot in front of themself that would never be realized. In whatever education/therapy system Kris and her peers refer to, the real you is your old original creative authentic self, which causes some to think more spontaneously and dangles a carrot in front of others.
Personally, I don't believe in Christ in you OR old original self as a constant reality. I believe in the old man nature which includes death, the equalizer. Christ in you DELIBERATELY deals with the old man nature until death. So does education/therapy, howbeit unwittingly. But neither belief system is morally superior to the other.
The writers of the article are just as biased as any fundamentalist/evangelical they could name. They selectively reason and dismiss reason as they see fit just as much as the people they criticize. I call them the more intolerent.
About this "original self," I haven't read the book but am interested. Is it possible that this is equivalent to what VPW describes as "what makes you, you," ie the soul? I'm honestly interested, because something that used to bother me was the dismissal any time I brought it up of personality differences (which I admit turned out not to be very often), but I thought it a valid issue. How often was a problem between people due to differences in how they communicated or reacted rather than a doctinal difference that had to be dealt with sharply. Why would people gravitate towards certain kinds of verses or kinds of leaders/leadership? I could agree that the authentic self was suppressed as long as I tried to behave like the people I admired or made myself obey and do things that really, really seemed wrong to me. I can't really figure it out but it seems to me that the authentic self is also included in our spiritual life, in how the spirit communicates with our minds, in whether our "gut feelings" are valid or it's more a cerebral awareness. But I haven't read the book.
PS Hello to everybody. I'm still enjoying reading.
I'm not going to go into the arguments themselves except to say there are very intelligent people who with sound reasoning and logic question these two theories.
(snip)
I'd like to point out, for those who missed it, that Broken Arrow was speaking of people who included PhDs with
Doctorates in relevant fields, and THOSE are the people who use sound reasoning and logic in this instance.
I'd add they also use EVIDENCE.
Dissent in this, in many cases, is done BY people WITH advanced degrees.
=======================
On a different note,
I'm familiar with a younger Christian who's getting a more conventional Christian education
than any of us did in twi. He's non-judgmental (he's heard me out on many things) and yet
has a level of knowledge and UNDERSTANDING of the Bible that puts him among the top echelon
in ex-twi'ers. And he's still learning. (I'm judging this largely on his understanding
"from the hip", when I would just bring up a passage out of the blue and he already knew
all about it, including whatever "clever" point I was going to make.)
quote: (You do realize VPW wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)
You remind me of a twi leader. He was the territory cordo. The event was an open fellowship. Some guy came in there and said he was catholic. The territory cordo says immediately "roman catholic". From there it went back and forth...catholic! roman catholic! catholic! Roman catholic!...for about a minute. WTF? The territory cordo just HAD to keep saying roman catholic. It was his duty. I guess. You are the same. You just HAVE to keep on saying he wasn't really a doctor! Whatever, dude.
quote: I can't really figure it out but it seems to me that the authentic self is also included in our spiritual life, in how the spirit communicates with our minds, in whether our "gut feelings" are valid or it's more a cerebral awareness.
I think if it's a woman we call it 'intuition', but if it's a man we call it 'gut feelings'. Sometimes it's Christ's gut feelings/intuition behind our's. It can be either one (cerebral or spiritual). Remember when the rich guy (Matt.19:16) said to Jesus "good master, how do I get eternal life"? Jesus was contrary to him. He (Jesus) didn't need revelation to know the guy was being a phony. Being human, Jesus had a BS meter like everybody else. That was cerebral. Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom. If the guy had done that he either would have been blessed enough to absorb the loss of his goods and/or he would have gotten more earthly riches back. Not Jesus' problem the guy made the wrong choice.
You just HAVE to keep on saying he wasn't really a doctor! Whatever, dude.
psssst......hey.....You do realize VPW wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom.
But you really don't know that. Jesus could have said that because he was dealing with a rich person and he simply wanted to put him to the test, so to speak. Why would he need revelation for that? Simply stated there is no proof he needed revelation to tell the guy that.
You certainly do have a great disdain for higher education, don't you, John. Why do you suppose that is? Is it, perhaps, because we were conditioned to adapt this attitude in the PFAL class? I can't remember which particular session it was in, off the top of my head. Maybe someone here can supply that information. At any rate, I would have hoped you would have come away from the book with a realization that The Way, and Wierwille in particular, were not what we thought they were.
He went two weeks without "missing anything"?
hahahahahahahah!
Maybe what he went 2 weeks without missing was sexual gratification from the women he seduced.
(Remember, John, as a professed Christian, that would make these women your sisters in Christ. How does that make you feel, knowing he treated your sisters with so little respect?)
I think John makes a good point albeit maybe it could have been put a little differentally. Most people think their beliefs are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagrees with their point of view must be deficient in knowledge. Or, as the writers of the article say, "against knowledge". The authors of the NYT article implying that evangelicals are close minded etc. is the pot calling the kettle black.
Just like this article that was posted by the NYC...... People can be narrow minded on both sides. Look at their attempt to put words in Jeffersons mouth.
Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
9
32
13
Popular Days
Oct 28
15
Nov 7
14
Nov 1
13
Oct 27
13
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 12 posts
johniam 9 posts
waysider 32 posts
Naten00 13 posts
Popular Days
Oct 28 2011
15 posts
Nov 7 2011
14 posts
Nov 1 2011
13 posts
Oct 27 2011
13 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
And therein lies the crux of the issue. In The Way, we were told we were being given the necessary tools to do independent research (cough), yet if one were to venture outside the prescribed doctrine
WordWolf
I prefer to say that "the Theory of Evolution" HAS NOT MADE ITS CASE. If it is true and correct, I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the major points that are claimed. Adhe
waysider
As would I, as well.....ALL is much too far-reaching a word to use. My point was simply this: We often hear the argument being presented that this country was based on Christian principles. That is n
Twinky
Interesting ... all extremes of anything are dangerous. Can make the extremist a danger to himself and quite possibly to society as well.
Fundies come in many guises - like Richard Dawkins with his anti-God stance - can't see, hear or deal with anyone else's point of view.
I'm reading a book at the moment by Jon Krakauer about some Mormon fundies - "Banner of Heaven" - these fundies murdered a woman and her baby daughter in the name of their religion. It's not a brilliantly written book and is not easy reading. However, I read it with a sort of horrified "deja vu" feel - so much of what the Mormon fundy leaders are reported as saying sounds so very familiar... scary. And the cavalier attitude to passing women around as "wives" with the very sad effects on women and children (especially young girls) is heartbreaking.
Under the Banner of Heaven
In 2003, Under the Banner of Heaven became Krakauer's third non-fiction bestseller. The book examines extremes of religious belief, particularly fundamentalist offshoots of Mormonism. Specifically, Krakauer looks at the practice of polygamy among the fundamentalist Mormon religion and scrutinizes it under the context of Mormon religion throughout history past and present. Much of the focus of the book is on the Lafferty brothers, who murdered in the name of their fundamentalist faith.
In 2006, Tom Elliott and Pawel Gula produced the documentary, Damned to Heaven, inspired by the book, Under the Banner of Heaven.
All these fundamentalists - from TWI, Christian churches, Muslims, Japanese religions - all need to be treated with care. But not given into.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
cults suck
anyone who tries to get you to think you need them sucks
it's a shame their prey is many times the young
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. I wish the young had better choices to begin with..
well, maybe they do..
why do we absolutely have to have answers..
da cults haven't even defined the questions.. adequately.
"why can't I just be filthy rich.."
sometimes I re-ask that question..
I mean.. sheesh.. how many more hoops do I need to jump through..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
There is, according to our Constitution, supposed to be separation of Church and State. So what difference does it make what the "religious" leaning of the President is. It shouldn't matter....all he does is sign the bills after he's managed to twist Congress' arm in order to pass anything of substance (heh heh heh).
Are you meaning to tell me that a Jew could not be president? How about a Hindu? Moderate Islamist? There, I've gone and done it now.....huh! Remember...in order to be President he must have been Born and American.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The concept of the separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.[2][3]
Use of the phrase
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[18]
SOURCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, it is generally accepted that the "founding fathers" were Deists, not Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Thanks Waysider, I didn't know that....forgive my ignorance!
That was a good history lesson for me.....I hope the rest of you needed no correction!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Nice work, Waysider.
A great little book on this topic that I just finished reading is, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, by David L. Holmes.
Recommendation: "This brief, highly readable and responsible work of scholarship will serve as a fine antidote to the pious mythology which often passes for history on this subject." Peter W. Williams, author of America's Religions: From Their Origins to the Twenty-First Century.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
With respect to the New York Times article you referenced, I have to chuckle whenever I hear of those who criticize evangelicals for being a "non-thinking" group. Then they point to things like climate change and evolution and shake their heads pitifully and accuse evangelicals of being "against knowledge", and "rejecting reasoning". I chuckle because in truth it's the critics themselves who are opposed to having their own beliefs questioned. They speak of evolution and climate change as hard facts and speak of anyone who questions these premises as ignorant and stupid. I'm not going to go into the arguments themselves except to say there are very intelligent people who with sound reasoning and logic question these two theories. Evangelicals have come under fire for wanting to present creationism as an alternative to evolution. Doing so draws ire from those who are "open-minded" and "pro-knowledge". Rejection of reason...give me a break! Having said that, yes, there are evangelicals who are extremists whose viewpoints are certainly questionable. Evangelicals aren't the only group that has those who hold extreme viewpoints.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I prefer to say that "the Theory of Evolution" HAS NOT MADE ITS CASE.
If it is true and correct, I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support
the major points that are claimed. Adherents to it tend to make "a leap of faith" and
condemn the heretics who don't subscribe to it. One of the more fascinating things about
the history of the idea is that it supposedly is based on Darwin's work- and Darwin has
been proven WRONG on so many points. Darwin made a lot of suppositions that have been
proven wrong- and it's on those suppositions that his entire framework was built!
I mean, come on, the man believed in Lamarckianism! That's the thing that says that
giraffes stretched their necks a lot, so their children had longer necks when they
had kids. This is the same kind of thinking that says Arnold Schwarzenegger's kids should
have been born all brawny and bulky.
I'm open to dialoguing on what the actual evidence says, but I think it's more accurate to
say that all extant theories as to "the origin of species" are as yet unsupported and
unproven. I'm ok with someone presenting an argument for "Darwinism" but not ok with the
presentation of it as definitive.
I'm also aware that science is self-correcting. However, it can take any number of centuries
before the establishment accepts one thing when it WANTS to believe something else.
We had an amazingly long stretch of scientists who WANTED to believe in Steady-State, even though
there was no evidence for it, and all evidence supported "the Big Bang." They found it PHILOSOPHICALLY
acceptable, and the idea of an origin in space and time was so repugnant to them that they embraced
a speculation with no evidence rather than truly use a scientific approach.
We also had many centuries before geocentrism was rejected for heliocentrism. Personally, I think
we may face centuries before this one is changed- like geocentrism- and only with kicking and screaming-
like Steady State. Too many scientists take this subject PERSONALLY and approach it UNSCIENTIFICALLY
as a result of their "faith".
================================
On the other hand,
there are some ignorant people who are undereducated, and reject evolution because their pastor
says its wrong, and not because they've truly examined the evidence, and wouldn't understand the
evidence if they saw it. The earth and the universe APPEAR very old. The claims that the Earth has been
around for only a few thousand years are either based on lack of understanding the evidence, or else
a faith-based approach that says God made the Earth a few thousand years ago and made it so that it
LOOKED very old. (I can't say He did not- the evidence supports either conclusion, but the latter is
unable to be proven or disproven, as it's entirely faith-based.)
Then there are the amazingly-ignorant. I missed lcm making wild claims about history, and that's a good
thing. I can almost hear brain cells shutting down when I look over some of his exposition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, it is generally accepted that the "founding fathers" were Deists, not Christians.
As I would agree with everything else.... I disagree that all of the founding fathers where Deists. Jefferson and Franklin I would agree with you that they were Deists. John Adams I would say he is a Christian or at the very least a strong believer in a personal God. In his letters to Abigail he talks about the prayers of Congress. He wrote " It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that Morning" He would continue in the letter "It will amuse your Friends to read this Letter and the 35th. Psalm to them. Read it to your Father and Mr. Wilbirt."
In another letter in July 3, 1776 he ends it " But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears, to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe". In his other letter about the declaration of Independence he writes "It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty.."
I just don't see a Deist saying these things between his wife.
To the article posted. I have read and I do agree with a lot of it. I even posted it on my facebook wall. I think this issue of reasoning is not just to those in Cults but also in Christianity. Where their beliefs rest on Pastors and since why when people get introduced into TWI
it seems so knowledge based and "reasoned" at a glance that they trust the information that is presented before them.
Source
The Norton Anthology AMERICAN LITERATURE seventh Ed. Pages 616-629
Edited by Naten00Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
As would I, as well.....ALL is much too far-reaching a word to use.
My point was simply this: We often hear the argument being presented that this country was based on Christian principles. That is neither accurate nor does it neccessarily negate the value of said principles. But, some of these "principles" are not exclusive to Christianity.
Thomas Paine had this to say regarding the issue.
"There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.
"But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I tend to agree with Brokenarrow. What I see is intolerence. Those people think their puny little educational degrees are the oracles of God. Reminds me of something in Kris' book.
Everybody has a belief system. Belief systems are as individual as the person him/her self. Many align themselves with religions and social movements, but even in those, every individual has a different spin on whatever they label themselves.
In TWI we were told that the real you is Christ in you, but just how much time did any of us actually live that? Even VP once said that the longest segment of time in which he walked with God and "didn't miss anything" was 2 weeks. Like he said, "some of us commit them before breakfast". It would be nice if while we were manifesting Christ in you there was a green glow which went out when we were walking by the flesh. OK, that's TWI; the real you is Christ in you.
There are 3 references in Kris' book to an "original self". That everybody has an original self. Really? Where and when did we get this 'original self'? Conception? Birth? Puberty? Is it part of our DNA? How do we care for this 'original self'? Yoga? Therapy? Education? LSD? Different belief system, different "real you".
In the forward, Lorna Goldberg MSW/LCSW (whatever that is) says her "old original self" (later called her 'creative authentic self') was suppressed.Her belief system includes where she got her education. In the therapy notes immediately before chapter 12 she is asked "so you ignored yourself?" There's that self again. On the back of the book, a Kathryn Harrison says she "denied and betrayed" her self. Her belief system no doubt includes some form of education/therapy. The 2 povs are no different.
In TWI, believing that the real you is Christ in you caused some people to walk in love and caused other people to dangle a carrot in front of themself that would never be realized. In whatever education/therapy system Kris and her peers refer to, the real you is your old original creative authentic self, which causes some to think more spontaneously and dangles a carrot in front of others.
Personally, I don't believe in Christ in you OR old original self as a constant reality. I believe in the old man nature which includes death, the equalizer. Christ in you DELIBERATELY deals with the old man nature until death. So does education/therapy, howbeit unwittingly. But neither belief system is morally superior to the other.
The writers of the article are just as biased as any fundamentalist/evangelical they could name. They selectively reason and dismiss reason as they see fit just as much as the people they criticize. I call them the more intolerent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You certainly do have a great disdain for higher education, don't you, John. Why do you suppose that is? Is it, perhaps, because we were conditioned to adapt this attitude in the PFAL class? I can't remember which particular session it was in, off the top of my head. Maybe someone here can supply that information. At any rate, I would have hoped you would have come away from the book with a realization that The Way, and Wierwille in particular, were not what we thought they were.
He went two weeks without "missing anything"?
hahahahahahahah!
Maybe what he went 2 weeks without missing was sexual gratification from the women he seduced.
(Remember, John, as a professed Christian, that would make these women your sisters in Christ. How does that make you feel, knowing he treated your sisters with so little respect?)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I remember having a conversation with someone who is apart of a splinter cell group (for 3 hrs). His first remarks was about how much he knew studying for 28 yrs or so..... Then to tell me that all seminaries and bible colleges are worthless....... He didn't ask me my back ground till an hour later. I quickly learned their indoctrination to hate everything educated and I was told that the people who went to those schools where not thinking for themselves....... Ironic I guess but anyway ....... I realized with my background he wouldn't take anything I had to say seriously. Already knew it all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, Wierwille detested anything that resembled true scholastic achievement. It's ironic, don't you agree?, that he, himself, subsequently allowed others to believe he actually held a doctorate. (You do know he wasn't REALLY a "Dr.", don't you?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just a question, who are "those people"?
As far as reason and religion are involved here.. there are times when my logical side saw me through, while the intuitive side went on some trip off somewhere..
and then there have been times.. my intuitive side waited for something good to happen (should I say believe?) when my logical side went nuts, counting up the facts..
then there is a part of me which tries (generally successfully) to mediate between the two.
I have theories about this.. but I don't know how much you want here..
maybe faith and reason are two sides of the same coin..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cara
About this "original self," I haven't read the book but am interested. Is it possible that this is equivalent to what VPW describes as "what makes you, you," ie the soul? I'm honestly interested, because something that used to bother me was the dismissal any time I brought it up of personality differences (which I admit turned out not to be very often), but I thought it a valid issue. How often was a problem between people due to differences in how they communicated or reacted rather than a doctinal difference that had to be dealt with sharply. Why would people gravitate towards certain kinds of verses or kinds of leaders/leadership? I could agree that the authentic self was suppressed as long as I tried to behave like the people I admired or made myself obey and do things that really, really seemed wrong to me. I can't really figure it out but it seems to me that the authentic self is also included in our spiritual life, in how the spirit communicates with our minds, in whether our "gut feelings" are valid or it's more a cerebral awareness. But I haven't read the book.
PS Hello to everybody. I'm still enjoying reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Even "puny little educational degrees" carry more weight than a degree mill doctorate.
(You do realize VPW wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd like to point out, for those who missed it, that Broken Arrow was speaking of people who included PhDs with
Doctorates in relevant fields, and THOSE are the people who use sound reasoning and logic in this instance.
I'd add they also use EVIDENCE.
Dissent in this, in many cases, is done BY people WITH advanced degrees.
=======================
On a different note,
I'm familiar with a younger Christian who's getting a more conventional Christian education
than any of us did in twi. He's non-judgmental (he's heard me out on many things) and yet
has a level of knowledge and UNDERSTANDING of the Bible that puts him among the top echelon
in ex-twi'ers. And he's still learning. (I'm judging this largely on his understanding
"from the hip", when I would just bring up a passage out of the blue and he already knew
all about it, including whatever "clever" point I was going to make.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Just a question, who are "those people"?
The people who wrote the NYT article.
quote: (You do realize VPW wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)
You remind me of a twi leader. He was the territory cordo. The event was an open fellowship. Some guy came in there and said he was catholic. The territory cordo says immediately "roman catholic". From there it went back and forth...catholic! roman catholic! catholic! Roman catholic!...for about a minute. WTF? The territory cordo just HAD to keep saying roman catholic. It was his duty. I guess. You are the same. You just HAVE to keep on saying he wasn't really a doctor! Whatever, dude.
quote: I can't really figure it out but it seems to me that the authentic self is also included in our spiritual life, in how the spirit communicates with our minds, in whether our "gut feelings" are valid or it's more a cerebral awareness.
I think if it's a woman we call it 'intuition', but if it's a man we call it 'gut feelings'. Sometimes it's Christ's gut feelings/intuition behind our's. It can be either one (cerebral or spiritual). Remember when the rich guy (Matt.19:16) said to Jesus "good master, how do I get eternal life"? Jesus was contrary to him. He (Jesus) didn't need revelation to know the guy was being a phony. Being human, Jesus had a BS meter like everybody else. That was cerebral. Jesus DID need revelation to tell the guy to sell all he had and give to the poor. That would be word of wisdom. If the guy had done that he either would have been blessed enough to absorb the loss of his goods and/or he would have gotten more earthly riches back. Not Jesus' problem the guy made the wrong choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
psssst......hey.....You do realize VPW wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
But you really don't know that. Jesus could have said that because he was dealing with a rich person and he simply wanted to put him to the test, so to speak. Why would he need revelation for that? Simply stated there is no proof he needed revelation to tell the guy that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I think "those people" John is referring to are the writers of the NYT article that was linked to Penwork's original post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I think John makes a good point albeit maybe it could have been put a little differentally. Most people think their beliefs are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagrees with their point of view must be deficient in knowledge. Or, as the writers of the article say, "against knowledge". The authors of the NYT article implying that evangelicals are close minded etc. is the pot calling the kettle black.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Just like this article that was posted by the NYC...... People can be narrow minded on both sides. Look at their attempt to put words in Jeffersons mouth.
Always wanting to try to prove that the founders where anti God and religion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/10/atheists-billboard-thomas-jefferson_n_1035168.html?1319731892&ncid=webmail1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.