Who was Jesus

[karakara]

Sophus Ji,

I would encourage you to rethink this false leap of logic.. a 'false ergo'.  I take your word that you don't subscribe to any particular theology, but your assertion that you don't have a 'God' is just as unprovable as one who claims to have a God.  My faith teaches a different concept of God ... diffused, omnipresent, without shape or form, and definitely residing in every human soul. Take a close look in the mirror -- this might bring you closer to God than all the wild sermons and threats of 'fire and brimstone' that you .. probably rightly, dismiss.


Sat Nam

Let me first of all thank you. I had never examined Sikhism before and enjoyed learning about it.

I don't need to prove that I don't have a god to anyone other than myself. It seems to me you are suggesting I go by a feeling rather than a thought. A feeling which I believe can be explained psychologically.

My, my. We are veering from the topic of this thread. Is that bad? lol

I don't think 'veering off topic is necessarily bad, sometimes a welcome diversion! Of course you don't need to prove anything.. there is no burden of proof on you, nor is there one on me, as we are both dealing in 'unprovables. Either the cognitive or intuitive path can be  equally legitimate depending upon the subject being considered. Either can lead you to or from God. You may certainly entertain your own beliefs, as you mention, but from your generalization they seem loosely formulated... simply 'psychologically'.. maybe. but unless one has studied the psychological aspects of spirituality to an advanced level, ask yourself, what do I really know? Beliefs and knowledge can be in harmony, or can have nothing to do with one another. As a former Atheist of many years, I would simply suggest that for all my own fervent 'belief' in NO GOD, it was a baseless belief, because after I had had my own intense 'epiphany', all of my early theories, doubts, rational arguments, when out the window, supplanted .. virtually instantly, but a new world view based upon tangible experience.

Sat Nam

[karakara]

As a very brief follow up to my previous post, I'll make the observation that for many atheists , agnostics, etc., trying to wrap their brains around spirituality and/or God.. you can make an analogy to a blind person who is trying to conceptualize what sighted people are telling him/her.. or a deaf person trying to imagine sound from what he/she sees.. or even better: a person who has never experience orgasm, trying to image the experience from description.. sometimes, one must have an experience in order to understand, and all of the attempts to process the concept of 'God' through some sort of logical algorithm, and make it a perfect equation that ties everything together and fits nicely with science, history, etc... fail. You can 'believe' in God, and that's fine.. but you'll never be sure about your faith... until you have the experience of 'knowing' God. This, typically, is experienced suddenly, via 'Epiphany', or methodically and systematically, through 'Mystical' spiritual practices, many methods of which are used in many faiths.

I don't expect to convince a non-believer of anything, not my purpose. The human tendency is to believe what we want to believe, what we're comfortable believing in. I'd say, don't build a psychological wall, barrier, or 'firewall' against God.. or any aspect of spirituality, merely to conform to your own self-appointed label of 'Atheist'.  When we slap a label on ourselves, we often don't realize the harm that we are doing. Just as most of you embrace science.. and rightly so, as do I... I implore you not to perform de facto 'spiritual lobotomies' on yourselves either.. an open mind is a healthy mind. Slapping a label on yourselves leads to stagnation, ignorance, and ultimately stunts your potential for human growth.

[Sophus]

My beliefs, in any area, are anything but "loosely formulated." I always consider, think and investigate, especially in the search for a god as I was once a theist. So saying that I think the way I do because I have never experienced it doesn't work either. Having been on both sides I see that life is much more magnificent when you realize that it doesn't last forever.

Feelings can be deceptive. Logic is the only solid rock to form beliefs upon. An experience is composed of senses; feeling. Thus it can't be trusted. Have I experienced miracles? Sure. But was it something supernatural? No. It is only fate, the weight of circumstances. Good things happen. Spectacularly wonderful things occur actually more than expected sometimes in this world. And so do bad things and downright horrible events. Either way, these miracles and tragedies would occur with or without a god. We can be thankful for vicissitudes without needing to believe that a being a almighty force is behind it. Think of it this way: To be in the desert and see a mirage is an experience however false it may be.

What do I really know? There are a great number of reasons why I know there is no god or supernatural but to stay on this subject: I know that psychologically all religions are the same in terms of the reasons for their creation and their followers belief in it. If one were correct don't you think it would stand out?

The human tendency is to believe what we want to believe, what we're comfortable believing in. I'd say, don't build a psychological wall, barrier, or 'firewall' against God.. or any aspect of spirituality, merely to conform to your own self-appointed label of 'Atheist'.  When we slap a label on ourselves, we often don't realize the harm that we are doing. Just as most of you embrace science.. and rightly so, as do I... I implore you not to perform de facto 'spiritual lobotomies' on yourselves either.. an open mind is a healthy mind. Slapping a label on yourselves leads to stagnation, ignorance, and ultimately stunts your potential for human growth.

I completely agree. Now I'm pleased to find a theist who recognizes this concept but are you willing to practice what you preach?

I wished to remain a theist but my desire for truth was greater. And with some sorrow I left my old beliefs and adopted what I thought was really true. I still remain open minded. But again, all I am recieving from a believer, is that I should go by what I "feel." It is not in my nature to go by feelings. Before I commit my life to something I would desire at least some solid proof.

[karakara]

Sophus Ji,

I'm chuckling.. not at you -- I like what you've said.. but I have to sometimes just step back and chuckle at the wonder of the human mind.. of beliefs, reason, rationality, irrationality, logic, illogic...  I think our last few posts can serve as useful examples of people talking past each other.. as we are more or less trapped into doing by how we've defined ourselves, the sides and stands we've taken, etc. I'll comment, for what it's worth ;-)

My beliefs, in any area, are anything but "loosely formulated." I always consider, think and investigate, especially in the search for a god as I was once a theist.

I'm glad to hear.. I had nothing to go on but your simple assertion previously.  Bear in mind that you can 'consider, think and investigate' for a lifetime, and be 100% sure that you've arrived at a correct conclusion, and still be 100% wrong. The fact that you were once a 'theist'  is interesting, and parallels my own experience, in reverse. How amusing!

So saying that I think the way I do because I have never experienced it doesn't work either. Having been on both sides I see that life is much more magnificent when you realize that it doesn't last forever.

Well, the fact that you're a self-proclaimed 'former theist' is still meaningless, unless you define your 'theology' and your experiences, or lack thereof, of attaining union with God. The majority of people in all of the world's religions never attain what mystics call 'union' with God, or as Hindus say, 'God Actualization'... many names for this experience. An ecstatic union.. awareness of the Divine Presence, etc. I would agree with your statement about mortality.. it does give us a sense of purpose if we realize that we have an expiration date. Even for those who believe in 'Reincarnation'.. they still can't dispute that they will only live their current live once.. then it will be gone forever.

Feelings can be deceptive. Logic is the only solid rock to form beliefs upon. An experience is composed of senses; feeling. Thus it can't be trusted.

Absolutely. Feelings can be deceptive. What can't? At some point, you must embrace your humanity. You can only ignore your feelings and senses to a point.. after all, even for an evolutionist (as I am.. no conflict in my faith.. ) we did evolved our senses and feelings to help us to ascertain that which is real and true, correct? As a Sikh, my ultimate search is for Truth. In fact, one of our names for God is 'The True Name', and I believe my faith might be unique in that if science and Truth at some point in the future bear out that our founding Gurus were wrong, then we would be compelled to change our faith to be in accordance with Truth.. Logic,  'Mr. Spock', is a useful and often necessary tool..  but as we've seen time and again, Kirk's (Kirk.. coincidentally, Gaelic for 'Church') intuition always trumped Spock's logic, to make a useful analogy. Logic can only take you so far, then we must enlist our other gifts.. our feelings, our senses, and only when we take all of the above into consideration, is it often possible to arrive at Truth.

Have I experienced miracles? Sure. But was it something supernatural? No. It is only fate, the weight of circumstances. Good things happen. Spectacularly wonderful things occur actually more than expected sometimes in this world. And so do bad things and downright horrible events. Either way, these miracles and tragedies would occur with or without a god. We can be thankful for vicissitudes without needing to believe that a being a almighty force is behind it. Think of it this way: To be in the desert and see a mirage is an experience however false it may be.

I've posted on my own Sikhnet forum about miracles, and I agree with much of what you've said. I've lectured other Sikhs who have a tendency to believe in a supernatural explanation as the first answer, to embrace 'critical thinking', and to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation". However, that being said, much depends on one's definition of 'miracle'.

What do I really know? There are a great number of reasons why I know there is no god or supernatural but to stay on this subject: I know that psychologically all religions are the same in terms of the reasons for their creation and their followers belief in it. If one were correct don't you think it would stand out?

Indeed, what do you really know? You are patently wrong on your assertion that cosmology, cosmogony, and genesis of 'religions' all stem from the same psychological basis.. pls. don't quote Carl Jung and his Jungian Archetypes, I can turn that argument on it's head. Sir, with all due respect, you might 'believe' your assertion to be true, but you do not 'know' it to be true.

The human tendency is to believe what we want to believe, what we're comfortable believing in. I'd say, don't build a psychological wall, barrier, or 'firewall' against God.. or any aspect of spirituality, merely to conform to your own self-appointed label of 'Atheist'.  When we slap a label on ourselves, we often don't realize the harm that we are doing. Just as most of you embrace science.. and rightly so, as do I... I implore you not to perform de facto 'spiritual lobotomies' on yourselves either.. an open mind is a healthy mind. Slapping a label on yourselves leads to stagnation, ignorance, and ultimately stunts your potential for human growth.

I completely agree. Now I'm pleased to find a theist who recognizes this concept but are you willing to practice what you preach?

Yes, to be in accord wit the teachings of my faith, I must not only 'talk the talk' but 'walk the walk' . In what respect do you suggest I'm not practicing that concepts that I implore others to embrace?

"I wished to remain a theist but my desire for truth was greater."

Touche -- I was comfortable being an Atheist, but I discovered my true path, a path which emphasizes Truth above all else.. we call this concept: Sat .. .from Sanscrit:  http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sat .. I think this is where I started chuckling when first reading your post, as we both seek 'Truth', but both realize 'Truth' differently.. how human.


 

And with some sorrow I left my old beliefs and adopted what I thought was really true. I still remain open minded. But again, all I am receiving from a believer, is that I should go by what I "feel." It is not in my nature to go by feelings. Before I commit my life to something I would desire at least some solid proof.

The problem is, as I've come to realize (although, I admit that just because I came to this realization.. which makes it 'true' for me, it might not be 'true' for everyone) just as we label ourselves 'Theist', 'Atheist', etc., so also we attach too narrow and constrictive a definition to words, and the accompanying biases and constraints that they impose.. subtly, even subconsciously.  Just what would you accept as proof?? What if what is offered to you at some future time as a spiritual experience, or 'epiphany', you dismiss as something other than what it truly is.. just because you've hardened yourself to dismiss such an experience??? Possibly a psychological filter, or 'defense mechanism' to protect your existing world view? What if God gives you a gift, a message, a sign, and experience.. and because God doesn't play by your rules, or even acknowledge that you have barriers set up to prevent you from acknowledging what you  might experience.. well friend, in such a hypothetical case (which I believe in fact is a common occurence) you would have dismissed your 'proof', or 'evidence', because you won't accept what your senses, mind, and heart are telling you. But having said that, I can see you point.. after all, I once believed as you.


Sat Nam

[karakara]

Alas, friends, I have to work on the weekend.. such is life. I think it's important for me to say, this being an Atheist Forum, and as the banner reads, ".. for secular discussion", I'm not trying to bring anyone to religion. If the majority of the members of this forum subscribe to an ultra-logical, rational, and Secular world view, and this makes them feel comfortable in all areas of life, as well as in their own skin.. then my goodness, by all means I'm not suggesting that any of you would be better off joining some Hill Billy Church and dancing yourself silly while juggling rattlesnakes... I'm questioning assertions and occasionally expanding the discussion to consider topics or points of view that seem to be in omission... and also to Enlighten.. after all, my own Gurus tell us:

If you want to be Enlightened, then Be a Light unto yourself and unto others.

 and if you're good enough to consider my requests and arguments worthy of comment, great, of not, you're completely free to dismiss anything I might have to say.

Sat Nam

[Sophus]

I think you mistake my awareness of psychological illusion for a hardened heart. For it is what my studies have shown that will most likely hinder a belief in God founded on a feeling. Is that wrong? No. Not unless you have a psychological analysis or theory that can disprove that.

The possibility that your god is right and others aren't is so unlikely when the idea of god(s) is common among humans. One religion cannot be correct because each forges its own rules based on their perception of how things should be. However, amongst humans we cannot agree on a right and a wrong. Example: I believe abortion is wrong as I am looking at the rights of the babe. Another sees the rights of the woman being higher. Both have equally good intentions, we just see things differently. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Why would god create me and program in my moral fiber something contrary to his? It would mean denying what is right (I say "is" because the world is only what the mind makes it, thus it is wrong to me) to fake following something which will involuntarily be labeled a tyrant for making me turn on my other beliefs. It is foolish to let one conviction change them all.

Also, keep in mind we can know things and still be wrong about them.

[karakara]

I think you mistake my awareness of psychological illusion for a hardened heart. For it is what my studies have shown that will most likely hinder a belief in God founded on a feeling. Is that wrong? No. Not unless you have a psychological analysis or theory that can disprove that.

The possibility that your god is right and others aren't is so unlikely when the idea of god(s) is common among humans. One religion cannot be correct because each forges its own rules based on their perception of how things should be. However, amongst humans we cannot agree on a right and a wrong. Example: I believe abortion is wrong as I am looking at the rights of the babe. Another sees the rights of the woman being higher. Both have equally good intentions, we just see things differently. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Why would god create me and program in my moral fiber something contrary to his? It would mean denying what is right (I say "is" because the world is only what the mind makes it, thus it is wrong to me) to fake following something which will involuntarily be labeled a tyrant for making me turn on my other beliefs. It is foolish to let one conviction change them all.

Also, keep in mind we can know things and still be wrong about them.

Friend, quickly:

I seem to have you at a disadvantage because you know next to nothing about my faith.. which you are not obliged to anyway, so let me tell you this: We Sikhs believe that there are many paths to God, that no particular faith has exclusive rights! We also believe that anyone can find 'God' within the framework of any major accepted religion. We believe that we have a proven path to God.. and it has surely worked for me and millions of other Sikhs.. we are the world's 5th largest religion. As you say, the 'idea' of 'God' is common among humans, and now scientists even point to a 'God Section' of the brain.. maybe, maybe not. But it all depends on how your define 'God' and what your concept of God is.. when you just say 'God' and expect that this means the same thing to every faith, even loosely, then this is wrong. The Dharmic concept of God is both different to, and largely incompatible with the Abrahamic concept of God, etc.

You're also talking about moral relativism, another topic entirely. Well, you know what road is paved with 'Good Intentions'.. we all know. In other words, good intentions alone can still be 100% wrong..

I'm not sure that God programmed moral relativism into you, as much as society and your own proclivities.. nature and nurture.

Ok, enough here.. I'll concede you have made your point. Have a nice day.


Sat Nam

[Zarathustra]

... to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation".

 

[LARA]

I voted 'other' because to me Jesus is an rather complicated concept.  For me, Jesus is a larger-than-life character than may have been based on a real person or early political movement towards pacifism.  There is insufficient evidence to make any real conclusions, though.

[karakara]

... to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation".

 

The only exception(s) that I need to cite in order to bust that assertion that (I paraphrase) "All religions share a common genesis" are any 'Revelation-based Faiths', such as Islam and ... Sikhism. Our founding Guru, Siri Guru Nanak Dev Sahib Ji, received a revelation from God about the true nature of man, God, The Divine, and our relationship to each other. This type of foundation differs dramatically from a religion, such as Hinduism, which can trace it's theological history back many thousands of years, develops over a long period of time in thousands of incremental steps by many people and has a cosmology based on ancient mythologies, epic and heroic tales, and multiple deities classic Jungian archetype-based heroes and epic tales ... actually, these 'deities' are not a sign of polytheism, but Vedic/Hindu manifestations of the one God. Scholars who study Hinduism and the religious and cultural development of India can't really put their finger on the earliest dates/examples of myth/deities that survive today.. and have influenced the development of the religion(s) and basic Hindu culture for thousands of years.. it's quite likely that the Aryan tribes who invaded the subcontinent thousands of years ago from the north .. can trace epic tales and myths which eventually became the Vedas/Upanishads  back tens of thousands of years.. this is classic, classic Jung/Campbell.

Who's the guy in your avatar??

[PipeBox]

Voted other.  He didn't exist as depicted, but as with a lot of myths, there is probably some kernel of truth to the whole thing.  I suspect that if we could go back in time we'd be shocked at the disparity between the Christ of imagination and any historical Jesus.  But I'm glad you put the extra options, Titan, as the "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" argument, in its classic form, begins by discounting the possibility that he was any different than described in the Bible.

I could elaborate, but I've already made this post late into this thread and I'm sure someone else has made any points I would have, and with greater clarity and presence of mind.  

[Zarathustra]

... to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation".

 :raised:  Note that something being written in stone, does not count as certain in this kind of forum.  

The only exception(s) that I need to cite in order to bust that assertion that (I paraphrase) "All religions share a common genesis" This type of foundation differs dramatically from a religion, such as Hinduism, which can trace it's theological history back many thousands of years

Uhmmmm, no. I don't think you have understood Jung correctly. As far as I know, he was making a point about psychology. But you refute it as if it were a sociological/anthropological assertion. It is not! I'm sure it's correct that your religion has a different foundation historically, but to turn Jung upside down, you have to adress his asseertions in the right field.

[karakara]

Note that something being written in stone, does not count as certain in this kind of forum.

Aber nateurlich, vielen Dank, Ich kenne dieses Buch! I had a feeling you were a Nietzsche fan when I saw your name. Quite the guy, quite the thinker.. quite the character! But I think of despair when I think of him.. and of the impossibility of his 'SuperMan'.. who would want to live in Nietzsche's world??? We couldn't make enough prozac... yes, he said 'God is Dead', but didn't he mean that in the respect that in his day he saw religion and concepts of God as obsolete, as untenable, that people were willingly leaving church and God behind to believe in something else?? Didn't he also despise anyone who attached false 'religious-like' beliefs to, say, secularism, marxism, science.. as equally folly and futile.. he  thought men created religion and Gods out of fear... I disagree wit much of what he said, but I also acknowledge that he was spot on , on many things.. Nietzsche is trouble to me and to many people... wass fuer ein gefaerlicher Mann, gefaerliche Meinungen, Gedaenken!

Let's see.. could that possibly be, Yuru Gagarin.. I'm not so sure he changed anything, in as much as what he accomplished made us take notice.. I think some of the photographs from the moon of the earth, as so inspiring to Carl Sagan, did even more.. by U.S. astronauts...

ya sovsem, polnost'yu znakom s Yurim Gagarinom, s etoj istoriej!.. ... I read a bit about Gagarin when I was a student of Russian language.. Soviets published millions of book about him, quite the 'Geroj'/hero. Sorry folks, just having a little fun with Russian, love the language, almost as good for poetry as Punjabi ;-)

Uhmmmm, no. I don't think you have understood Jung correctly. As far as I know, he was making a point about psychology. But you refute it as if it were a sociological/anthropological assertion. It is not! I'm sure it's correct that your religion has a different foundation historically, but to turn Jung upside down, you have to adress his asseertions in the right field.

Yes, you are 100% correct about Jung, I stand corrected, especially as I did not elaborate on how I was referencing Jung.. quite misleading and inaccurate, sorry. I was making the leap into sociological/(cultural)anthropological territory as was alluding to Joseph Campbell's work and theories based upon Jungian Archetypes.. whether they're totally valid or not is a matter of debate.

Thanks for your corrections. About Nietzsche again, I know atheists love to quote his 'God Is Dead' , but what was he really saying, and is this actually what he believed, and is it anything worthy of carrying as your banner?? I don't think so.

[Zarathustra]

I'm using it as it's used very often by both Professors and authors of psychological and Statistics tomes and in general lecture vernacular..  if I'm guilty in butchering or misusing axiom, at least I'm in good company. I'm surprised, considering your background, that you haven't heard yourself in a class or come across it in print.

I highly doubt this!! If they're professors at any decent university, they won't use the term losely like that. I've heard the term numerous times in class and seen it countless times on print, but never seen or heard misused (by real professors anyway), like you claim. Except for on the internet of course. Where do/did you go to school??? Have you heard this yourself??
And just because it's on the web, doesn't mean you're in good company  :hail:

Yes, you are 100% correct about Jung, I stand corrected, especially as I did not elaborate on how I was referencing Jung.. quite misleading and inaccurate, sorry. I was making the leap into sociological/(cultural)anthropological territory as was alluding to Joseph Campbell's work and theories based upon Jungian Archetypes.. whether they're totally valid or not is a matter of debate.

Thanks for your corrections.

You're welcome, mate    Nice to see a religious guy admit a flaw! And thanks for the remarks on Campbell, I'll have to check up on that.

[Zarathustra]

[quote="karakara] About Nietzsche again, I know atheists love to quote his 'God Is Dead' , but what was he really saying, and is this actually what he believed, and is it anything worthy of carrying as your banner?? I don't think so.[/quote]

As I pointed out, this is a very interesting question, I'll set up a thread in the philosophy section. I sure hope you will contribute, as you seem to be an intelligent guy. And it's always interesting discussing this with people of a different opinion on Nietzsche.