The Process of Belief

[Ginkgo]

I would like to begin by stating that I do not care to debate the existence of God; for when considering the implications of human thought, Faith, and Reasoning, such a debate is as fruitless as a wooden sword fight between toddlers, and about as unappealing as watching a train wreck in slow motion. Rather, the substance of my thesis is founded upon the notion that building an integral world-view is like forging a key to Life with the intention of unlocking every decision that presents itself. Otherwise, one may find himself wallowing in a pool of apathetic diffusion, attempting to pave a consistent path through life only to hang upon the fabric of incongruous beliefs. The nature of such a sickness exhibits symptoms of agreeableness and indifference in such a person, who may also be considered the "Rational". These poor individuals find themselves agonizing at the consideration of every decision; for the outcome always hinges upon every scrap of evidence known and unknown from the expanse of the universe whittled down to the singular quark. The sustenance of such an objective preponderance requires God-like capacities; thus these people aspire to be like God Himself. Ironically, they are also plagued by the fear of insufficient information - lack of Faith. On the other hand, there are the "Faithful" - those who adhere to a given set of integral principles and pierce every decision like a pike through a tuna fish. Occasionally, there are moments when those principles must be questioned when an unprecedented situation arises in order to reconcile a refined world-view.

I, for one, find the very heart of my Faith in a single scripture: "And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)" -- Without God, there is no Love; for the very foundation of Love is rooted in the distinction between man and all other things. God made us in His image, and no other tangible thing is equal in his sight. If the contrary is true, then our fellow men are just as valuable as a misplaced garden hose or the Holiday Dinner. In the eyes of the absolutely rational man, all things matter are equally contemptible and lovable; which paradoxically defines and defies the premises of Humanism. This mentality of regarding all things with distributed divinity gives birth to materialism and pantheistic paganism - not Love.

 

[Mole]

Consent

Belief is induced by a trance.

And belief is almost always induced during the trance of childhood.

And a trance can be induced by simply suspending our critical faculties.

Of course children have yet to develop their critical faculties so they are perfect targets for the trance of belief.

However as we grow older our critical faculties can be suspended and a trance induced by any repetition. And of course an excellent example of this is religious ritual, which is highly repetitious.

And once a trance has been induced the suggestions of belief can be made without any fear of contradiction by the critical faculties.

And just as sexual abuse by the clergy is now considered to be wrong, in the future, the induction of a trance without prior permission will be considered to be wrong.

And in particular, the right thing to do will be to get permission before inducing a trance. And also it will be the right thing to get explicit permission to give any particular suggestion.

Today we don't have sex without consent. And in the future we won't be able to induce a trance of belief without prior consent.

 

[Jaguar]

You spun that waskly web well.

 

[Lark]

Belief is induced by a trance.

And belief is almost always induced during the trance of childhood.

And a trance can be induced by simply suspending our critical faculties.

Of course children have yet to develop their critical faculties so they are perfect targets for the trance of belief.

However as we grow older our critical faculties can be suspended and a trance induced by any repetition. And of course an excellent example of this is religious ritual, which is highly repetitious.

And once a trance has been induced the suggestions of belief can be made without any fear of contradiction by the critical faculties.

And just as sexual abuse by the clergy is now considered to be wrong, in the future, the induction of a trance without prior permission will be considered to be wrong.

And in particular, the right thing to do will be to get permission before inducing a trance. And also it will be the right thing to get explicit permission to give any particular suggestion.

Today we don't have sex without consent. And in the future we won't be able to induce a trance of belief without prior consent.

You're kidding right?

So the belief in conservative or socialist government is induced by trance?

Or are we just talking about belief in religion rather than ideology or methodology? Or are there trances involved here too, how do we know we aren all in a trance now?

I've to be honest that I'm surprised the extent to which people post their private prejudices on here as fact, no amount of supportive argument changes that essential quality and its generally pretty clear that's what's happening with the application of just a little reframing and perspective its obvious too.

 

[Lark]

This mentality of regarding all things with distributed divinity gives birth to materialism and pantheistic paganism - not Love.

Excellent!

That reminds me of some commentry I read from RC authors that the reformation prepared the way for athiesm by both attacking existing dogmas and trying to be even more dogmatic.

 

[Metamorphosis]

This mentality of regarding all things with distributed divinity gives birth to materialism and pantheistic paganism - not Love.

It also leads to the belief that humans are superior to everything else, leaving us to do as we will to the things around us without regard for their well being. It helps us love humans, and nothing else. But hey, at least we'll all be raptured before we can destroy everything.

 

[Ginkgo]

It also leads to the belief that humans are superior to everything else, leaving us to do as we will to the things around us without regard for their well being. It helps us love humans, and nothing else. But hey, at least we'll all be raptured before we can destroy everything.

Not necessarily. For the finite human to exist, finite means must be present. Therefore, there must be some regard for the finite world. So, in a minimalistic sense, attention to the infinite reduces finite consumption.

 

[Ginkgo]

Belief is induced by a trance.

And belief is almost always induced during the trance of childhood.

And a trance can be induced by simply suspending our critical faculties.

Of course children have yet to develop their critical faculties so they are perfect targets for the trance of belief.

However as we grow older our critical faculties can be suspended and a trance induced by any repetition. And of course an excellent example of this is religious ritual, which is highly repetitious.

And once a trance has been induced the suggestions of belief can be made without any fear of contradiction by the critical faculties.

And just as sexual abuse by the clergy is now considered to be wrong, in the future, the induction of a trance without prior permission will be considered to be wrong.

And in particular, the right thing to do will be to get permission before inducing a trance. And also it will be the right thing to get explicit permission to give any particular suggestion.

Today we don't have sex without consent. And in the future we won't be able to induce a trance of belief without prior consent.

Belief is not always obtained through trance. The induction of a trance detracts from one's Free Will. Free Will is the threshold of the path taken; and information guides us in our decisions. Belief is the sifting of information with Faith that it is true.

 

[Robert165]

as i stated on the other thread. we are not responsible for what we believe. should i be held at fault if i were unable to believe the moon was made of cheese?

 

[Ginkgo]

as i stated on the other thread. we are not responsible for what we believe. should i be held at fault if i were unable to believe the moon was made of cheese?

No, because evidence indicates that the contrary is true.

 

[Robert165]

No, because evidence indicates that the contrary is true.

evidence also indicates that no loving god would send people to hell. don't even think of a specific image. just think of someone in terrible terrible pain. now think about god. now think about god sending them to this painful place because they rejected him. now try to think of god as a loving being. i dont think you could do that. not honestly. one has to start making excuses for such a god, for that god to remain loving.

 

[simulatedworld]

is an elixir when you're weak

I must confess at times I indulge it on the sneak

(but generally my outlook's not so bleak)

 

[Ginkgo]

evidence also indicates that no loving god would send people to hell. don't even think of a specific image. just think of someone in terrible terrible pain. now think about god. now think about god sending them to this painful place because they rejected him. now try to think of god as a loving being. i dont think you could do that. not honestly. one has to start making excuses for such a god, for that god to remain loving.

I've already addressed this issue; and you're merely projecting human traits on God. There is a distinction between God's actions and the actions of mortals. The only evidence I can see is your own emotional bias.

God sent His own son to die for us. If that's not love, then everything I know about love is wrong.

 

[Synapse]

aww i wrote stuff then my computer overheated and lost what i wrote. tries to write a brief.

belief can certainly be a trance.

the theta waves travel globally according to the belief systems people pray to albeit the energy manifestation is disconnected because the spiritual manifestation isn't attuned to their chakra/spiritual energy that sends out the belief signals. belief is powerful the more energy there is that manifests from the people who believe in that belief the stronger the resonance. the intention changes though and reciprocity is like a mirror that bounces the beliefs back to people rather than being universal and connected. because we are too focused on our identity and reality and material things. and a lot of the beliefs are dismissible.

probably talking out of my ass, carry on.

 

[Lark]

as i stated on the other thread. we are not responsible for what we believe. should i be held at fault if i were unable to believe the moon was made of cheese?

Why dont you like responsibility? Maybe I'm reading you wrong but you objected to the ideas of hell and punishment in another thread too, get the idea you dont like responsiblity or consequences.

 

[Metamorphosis]

So, in a minimalistic sense, attention to the infinite reduces finite consumption.

How so? Materialism is not mutually exclusive with a belief in God. I'm failing to see how Christians would be less likely to use exorbitant amounts of resources than pantheistic pagans. I would find the opposite more likely, actually.

In the eyes of the absolutely rational man, all things matter are equally contemptible and lovable

You make this sound like a bad thing, but is it? I could argue, yes, in the sense that love for humans helps the continuation of the species, but that would be my "rational man" coming out. Limiting your love to only humans doesn't make your love for humans stronger, it makes your love for everything else weaker.

 

[simulatedworld]

I've already addressed this issue; and you're merely projecting human traits on God. There is a distinction between God's actions and the actions of mortals. The only evidence I can see is your own emotional bias.

God sent His own son to die for us. If that's not love, then everything I know about love is wrong.

Then again, since he's God and can do literally anything, he could have just arbitrarily forgiven us. It's painted as this great and painful sacrifice, this horribly difficult choice that God was forced into but chose us over his own son because he loves us that much, but that's under the assumption that God couldn't just change the conditions necessitating that a sacrifice be made.

Why couldn't he just say, "You know what guys? You've been bad kids, but I forgive you. After all, I am God!"

What external force imposed the condition that a sacrifice must be made in order to forgive human sins? Where does that condition come from and why couldn't God just decide to forgive us without a sacrifice? I mean, he's GOD; he can change any conditions into any other conditions at will.


"Well, son...you've really been bad this time. I think I can forgive you, because I love you, but...I'll have to crucify your brother first."

Wouldn't a truly eternally forgiving God just forgive us anyway without killing innocent people?

 

[Robert165]

I've already addressed this issue; and you're merely projecting human traits on God. There is a distinction between God's actions and the actions of mortals. The only evidence I can see is your own emotional bias.

God sent His own son to die for us. If that's not love, then everything I know about love is wrong.

i'm not the one projecting human traits on god. its the bible that does that. i'm just saying the bible can't project human traits onto god and then have god violate those traits.

 

[Lark]

i'm not the one projecting human traits on god. its the bible that does that. i'm just saying the bible can't project human traits onto god and then have god violate those traits.

Earlier cultures were anthropmorphic in their thinking, doesnt mean they were correct to do so, doesnt even mean it was God's will.

Its like any other sort of communication, between people there's going to be plenty of internalised filters, call them blinkers, prejudices, conflicted meanings, call them what you will, on each side to confuse things.

That's before you consider linguistic differences, such as speaking in different languages, or intelligence, whether its pure intellect, emotional, social intelligence.

That's just communication between people, now imagine communication between people and God, impossible? Nearly, likely to be channelled into the familiar context and language, which is time specific and likely to become dated if not properly interpreted? Definitely.

 

[Robert165]

Earlier cultures were anthropmorphic in their thinking, doesnt mean they were correct to do so, doesnt even mean it was God's will.

Its like any other sort of communication, between people there's going to be plenty of internalised filters, call them blinkers, prejudices, conflicted meanings, call them what you will, on each side to confuse things.

That's before you consider linguistic differences, such as speaking in different languages, or intelligence, whether its pure intellect, emotional, social intelligence.

That's just communication between people, now imagine communication between people and God, impossible? Nearly, likely to be channelled into the familiar context and language, which is time specific and likely to become dated if not properly interpreted? Definitely.

you're wrong. i can find plenty of examples of writing that is 3000 or 2000 years old that is completly strait forward and understandable.