Appreciated your comments.

I also agree with your point that each person is not always going to "enjoy" every piece of writing identified as literature. I'm not sure that is even the expectation. . . it certinly is not MY expectation. So, for me, I don't feel like I need to disassociate liking or not liking specific works of literature, as I never necessarily associated them in my own mind.

I think literature -- in one sense -- is a serious piece of writing that adds something to our understanding of the human condition. I think there are plenty of modern works that fall under that classification -- not just old, boring, lengthy books. I enjoy some literature that others may not enjoy; and vice versa. I have no problem with that.

I also don't mind using the term "literature" because I don't look down my nose at good fiction -- which is often just a great story, or a great character, or just a unique and valuable way of using language. I think there is plenty of room for both "literature" and "fiction". Sometimes something that was enjoyed as good fiction, over time gets labelled as literature. It was probably a great story in its day, but it also stood the test of time as being able to speak to subsequent generations.

I tend to enjoy a lot of the heavy literature because I personally enjoy philosophy and theology. I enjoy the depth, I enjoy seeing new perspectives presented to me. I enjoy being forced to re-think or to better defend (in my own mind) my own opinions and perspectives. When we don't open ourselves to other possibilities, I'm afraid we risk stagnation. (This is not to say I don't have and won't defend my opinions when I think they are right.)

I think religion is very difficult for people to speak about. (1) Those who hold their beliefs as sacred and with passion, tend to be pretty emotional in defending them against challenges. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, but it makes it difficult to discuss opposing views. (2) The terminology of religion can be ambiguous, making it difficult to negotiate strong feelings as we exchange ideas, in part because we often use the same words in different ways. (3) I think people often look to religion to accomplish different things. (4) I also think people have differing views on what religion is actually supposed to "do" and how it is supposed to "do" what it is they think it ought to "do".

Under "Resources," I opened a topic on what
BRADBURY thinks of religion -- based on what he says in his own writings -- so we could avoid defensive postures, and mean-spirited attacks, and discuss Bradbury's views (as near as we can tell) as we try to understand his own writing. The lack of any responses has indicated the shortage of a raging interest in that topic. (Or at least any interest in the way I framed the topic!)


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 02-01-2003).]

DanB:::

Explain this....

It's 'MY' opinion that the center of a circle is actually not the center at all, but 48 degrees from the outside curve...

Now, is this MY opinion, or is this what YOU think is fact, backed up by some people who all agree with YOU? ...based on some logics that seem to have a great following, backed by some science that seems to be considered the norm..(by YOU?)... backed by some whole bunch of people and places you can point to..... Does THAT make YOU right? Or am I right. Neither. Or only One?

All sounds pretty crazy, huh?

I think it IS crazy... endless conversation that proves nothing. A lot of philosphy is like that. Some of these postings are like that.

When I am 100 years old.... some kid is probably going to come up to me and argue that truth is subjective, is personal, or there is none at all, or that every one has their own 'truth'...that it's all my personal opinion. At that point, if I have any strength left at all...I will swat him as hard as my arm can possibly move....

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 02-01-2003).]

Nard: this may be further beating the dead horse, but here goes (I hope that perhaps I can avoid a possible swatting ):

There must be some center of a non-subjective truth, I agree, but to discover how to find it, I think we must look to how we aquire it. We base our assumptions about reality on 1) what we've been told by others, or 2)what we discover for ourselves. I know many people with very strong faith in one certain dogma or another. When really probed about why they believe what they believe, in my experience they either reveal that it was what they were always brought up to believe, or that their faith is something that just... is. Most people have some kind of combination of the two, if any at all.

I may be overlooking some theological or philosophical pratfall, but I've come to think that what we just "know" instinctively and unshakeably, is always some fragment of a kind of overall, absolute truth; that true faith is discovered through a kind of transcendence of ordinary thought. It just comes to me, and that's why I believe it. Because there is no other way. There are many complications as to how the two overlap, or how one might influence the other.

But we come to the problem with this, that what some people believe in is mutually exclusive to what other people believe.
I think the way that simple conditioning and lifestyle operates upon us the most is through an acceptance of belief systems that are mutually exclusive from one another.
It doesn't mean that everything is subjective, and it doesn't mean that nothing is.

I'm fascinated by the concept of alternate realities emerging from alternate perceptions, that there isn't only one reality. If that were the case, and I spent years studying my own mind and how to control it, maybe I could fly like a sparrow. However, when we really come down to it, there is a huge gulf between pure metaphysics and how we live our day to day lives. In that gulf is how we concieve reality, in our narrow spectrum of flexibility that runs from prejudices to halucinations. Nice stuff to think about, but if you fall into the void too much, you lose touch with the people you care about. In that light, maybe a contributing factor to what's "really" real is just that- other people.

Like the fine folk that post on this board!

In conclusion, I think it is always better to believe in what you don't believe in rather than to not believe in what you believe. Maybe one day something, that great other, that eternal reality behind everything will shake me down a little. If that happens, I'm ready. They say that faith has to be cultivated from within, but if that something is either there or not there, it's because of the work of the eternal non-subjective that most people call God.

A hundred years down the road, am I still getting smacked?

With Sincerity,
Dan

>>>> I think it IS crazy... endless conversation that proves nothing. A lot of philosphy is like that. Some of these postings are like that. <<<<<

And you might as well say a lot of *religion* is like that, and so on...

Sorry, but I get a little nervous when people start shouting "there is only one truth" because it tends to end up meaning "there is only MY truth" and it then it gets even worse from there.

Perhaps there is only one truth, but each of us glimpses that truth through our own personal prism (or even prison!) of prejudices and perceptions.

Thus I tend to think that we may reach the truth through INCLUSION of other ideas, thoughts, beliefs, rather than EXCLUSION.

Seems to me some of the world's greatest peace makers, such as Gandhi, worked from a place of inclusion, understanding, and tolerance. Whereas some of the greatest evil has come from a place of exclusion, single-mindedness, and a militant intolerance of those who do not share the exact same views.

And here's a little something from Bradbury (we gotta work him into the conversation *sometime*)

"When people ask do you believe in Darwin? Yes! Lamarck? Yes! The Old Testament? Yes! But how can you believe in Darwin, Lamarck, and God saying let there be light, all three!?" .... "Because...nothing is proven! Darwin, Lamarck, the Old Testament, not proven! So, why not believe all three?"

-- Ray Bradbury, "The Laurel and Hardy Alpha Centauri Farewell Tour"

[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 02-02-2003).]

"Perhaps there is only one truth, but each of us glimpses that truth through our own personal prism (or even prison!) of prejudices and perceptions.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Each person sees reality through their own perspective and experiences. This does NOT necessarily deny the existence of an objective reality out there. It may be that looking at multiple perspectives of the same thing helps us get a better understanding of the true nature of the object being viewed. It's like the story of the three blind men and the elephant. Each describes the portion of the elephant they feel. But if you had enough blind people, and they all compared notes, perhaps they'd end up with an accurate description of the elephant. If they argue about the other person's description, and refuse to listen, they will never go beyond their own experience. Are we blind men who need multiple perspectives to get at truth (I think we probably are) or are we individually self-sufficient in getting at a personal definition of all truth and objectivity? Even in the study of Christology, the fact the the New Testament gives us multiple perspectives of who Christ was/is, gives us a richer, more balanced, and more complete theology of Christ.

When all the members and even junior members write this volumes this site just can not be a hypocritical one. Reed all of these discussions only for a joke is just a waste of time. And no one wastes time here, so we all sail one ship forward.

Good point, ezh. Bradburysmells was never the point, and it's a shame that he thought that he was!

Writing reptile: I couldn't ...disagree ...with you more.... (Oh, maybe I could!) Read my posting tonight in Resources: What Is The Bottom Line.. etc.

Dan B: I think some of us should get together and put out a publication called The Dead Horse.....

>>>> Writing reptile: I couldn't ...disagree ...with you more....

I promise it won't be the last time!

I believe you've pinpointed some impressions left on our souls with the following insights:

quote:

Originally posted by Dan

I've come to think that what we just "know" instinctively and unshakeably, is always some fragment of a kind of overall, absolute truth; that true faith is discovered through a kind of transcendence of ordinary thought.

I'm fascinated by the concept of alternate realities emerging from alternate perceptions, that there isn't only one reality. If that were the case, and I spent years studying my own mind and how to control it, maybe I could fly like a sparrow. [/B]

Man's intended spiritual journey can only begin in a one-seated roller coaster that begins inside his own mind. Your absolute truth will not be the same as that of your twin brother. Casting off manifested religious supposition allows the alternate reality of transcendence with the Almighty to emerge. Just as when you cast off an unfulfilling job or relationship, you open yourself up to everything else.

If the masses are breed to believe going to church every Sunday and putting money into their pastor's hands will keep their souls clean, they may never seek the level of God union we are meant to achieve.

If more people questioned the universal truth, perhaps we'd all be able to fly with the sparrows. I highly recommend it.

Celestial

I am a cautious and critical consumer and a relatively well-read adult. Our family is active in civic affairs but not politically motivated or seeking to advance some special agenda.

Our "money in the hands of the pastor" (as you have called it) neither cleanses nor advances our souls. It does, however, offer an alternate educational environment based in faith and devoid of x-rated language and promiscuous hallway behavior. Drugs do not get sold in the restrooms. Courtesy and cooperation are not overlooked, they are expected!

Similar families (through their sacrifices & willing financial support - above and beyond their TAX $$$) supply hundreds of people with much needed additional resources of food, clothing, and - in extreme cases - shelter. It also offers our entire public community with activities that are wholesome and famiy-oriented while remaining non-pressured in its approach. It offers hope to the imprisoned and support to those in the last days of their lives, many times to those who have no other family. It is a place where college students who seek a spiritual setting can worship and be welcomed. Friendships are honest, trustworhy, and kind.

If this is not a part of the "universal truth" of do unto others, then what, might I ask, is!? Passages like the Sermon on the Mount (Beatitudes) and the Prayer of St. Francis (Assisi) are road maps for those that may be trying to find their way.

[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 02-03-2003).]

My statement about putting money in the hands of our pastors to cleanse our souls is a generalization meant to spotlight the homogenization of religion and it's many abuses cloaked in righteousness. Of course, mainstream religion and biblical insights can enhance our spiritual quest by serving as a springboard to reach even deeper levels of faith. Each generation should pursue better than the previous if man is to acheive a higher plateau.

The aim of my post is to encourage a deeper level of spirituality that many times remains dormant.

Fj., you certainly have exhibited a deep-routed faith superior to that of the average person.

Case in point: I had an Aunt Jo who went to church every Sunday and Holy Day. She gave generously in weekly offerings and prayed regularly. However, in her day to day life, she was overbearing and nagged her family for decades. Her children moved far away and have deep-rooted problems that stemmed from low self-esteem imbedded throughout childhood by an unhappy woman. There are thousands of good Christians with similar stories. When their lives are over, how are they to be judged? By the number of times they attended church and tithes given or how they ministered to their loved ones?

I do think we are not that far apart from the same place. We are just approaching it from a different direction.

Celestial




[This message has been edited by Celestial (edited 02-03-2003).]

Fj., I have to ask you and anyone else here with a valid opinion the following questions.

What's your take on the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Are you familiar with 'Course in Miracles'? written by Helen Schucman as dictated by God.

Just curious?

C.

Nard: Great idea! If we wanted to represent our divergent opinions and mix metaphors a little bit, perhaps it could be called, "Beating the Dead Horse of a Different Color"...

That's all I've got time for right now, but there's more to say later for sure...

Cordially,
Dan

Celestial,

Okay, here we go again. Veering off topic (I don't know yet how I'll drag Bradbury into this) but thought I'd add a comment or two.

You may not have realized it, and, of course, it wasn't your intent, but your comments about churchgoing and tithing come across as slightly condescending.

Of course, faithful church attendance and tithing doesn't make a good Christian; these things are ways to enhance the Christian experience. From your anecdotal evidence, it's clear this person was mistaken in their belief in that good deeds in one area of their lives could make up for other areas that were lacking. (Yep, I know, we're back to the debate of faith versus works.) Because a believer falls short doesn't mean the faith itself is somehow lacking.

And, as for the Dead Sea Scrolls question, I'm not very well versed in that area so I don't quite get your point.

Pete

P.S. I hope my tone doesn't offend you; I'm simply trying to make a counterpoint to your point. If it comes across as something other than that, I apologize in advance.

PT