Religions:Am I a Crazy Dreamer?

[elshiva]

I am a Feminist Jewish-Anglo-Catholic-Episcopalian who believes everyone will be saved. This is how. After an entity dies, instant purgation takes place. God cleanses all one's inquities, so that one is transformed to a God-like creation, an "angel," but more technically a resurrected being because God created angels, like Gabriel, separately. These resurrected beings help creation toward enlightenment and the Reign of God. The Reign of God will be a time of universal peace and harmony on Earth. There will be no war, no political parties, no religions, no natural disasters, and no hatred.
That is my belief in a nutshell. Does anyone agree with me here?

[saltpoint]

1. I don't, no.

[elshiva]

2. Wonderful, but

Why please?

[saltpoint]

3. I'm ok with you believing what you want.

But your scenario involves God, angels, and so forth -- things I do not believe in.

I personally consider belief in angelic beings or magical saviors to be a behavioral disorder, suggestive of delusional thinking.

Jerry Garcia once said that it's hard to do your thing when your thing is paradise on earth. Any number of us live in the flawed human world and we do it without the dependent crutch of magical messiahs and angelic beings.

--------
edit: word omitted

[Az]

4. It sounds nice, but then we don't have to agree with you

It does seem to be more consistant with a good God then the one that seems to damn people to hell it created. But it is still vexing why we had to go through this interem which for some individuals approaches hell like conditions. Why not cut out the middle process and just create angel like beings?

Do you draw this notion from somewhere or is it the result of your considered opinion based on the factors you believe to be true? Is this a fixed position or is it a theory in progress? If still in progress how flexible is it and is it based entirely on system internal logic or do you accept other sources?

Incidently it seems very similar to the Universalist proposition that Hell was abolished. The idea goes that when Jesus died for our sins he died for all of our sins. No secret handshakes required.

[elshiva]

8. Very insightful reply

Yes, I'm a Universalist because I am a Jewish-Christian (What half of me is saved and the other isn't?)
This is a theory in process, Az. I am an amateur Process Theologian and Pluralist, which means all belief systems go. I have no idea about the middle part, but I did not create the world... My beliefs are mostly Catholic Christianity, the idea of saints and angels helping us, which is consitent with some elements of Buddhism and Jainism. Throw into that a belief in fairies and Jewish Kabbalah and stir liberally. I believe in logic, too, but I believe in more. I want to know more about other religions and beliefs including atheism. Right now I am reading the Book of Mormon for the first time.
I try to be flexible because God is flexible. God is infinite, not limited to anything. In the end though religion does not matter.
"God is just a symbol for God."-Paul Tillich

[Az]

12. In reading the book of Mormon

Make sure you read on the background of its creator. Of particular interest are peep stones.

[elshiva]

19. Sorry what the freaking stomach pills

are peep stones? Drugs? Neato. It will come as no surprise to you that I am a distant descendant of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. I knew the old man was hip, but not that hip...cool...

[saltpoint]

21. Most scholars regard Smith as --

-- a shameless charlatan, and rightly so.

[slay]

34. South Park episode all about the Mormons and Joseph Smith..

Episode transcript here:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon134.html

[Az]

23. Heh, not quite

Joe had been working as a translator of untranslatable documents for some time by using Peep Stones before he struck upon the idea of the Book of the Mormon. What he would do is take these three stones he had and place them in a hat. He would then place the hat over his face and then place the document in front of him. He would then read the document via the Peep Stones in his hat and transcribe the text.

He translated the Golden Tablets in the same manner using the Peep Stones.

It is interesting to note that the second set of documents that Joeseph translated in the name of the Church still exist(unlike the gold tablets which the angel Moroni took back to heaven). These are the texts which opened to door to poligamy. At the time we did not know how to translate heiroglyphics. But Joseph with his Peep Stones had no problem. He translated the text and it turned out to be quite a list of comments from Solomon (IIRC). Today of course we can now translate heiroglyphics and funny... it turns out the text he translated didn't actually say what he said it did. Turns out its just a record of burial of some poor individual.

[elshiva]

32. Again, Az, thanks

Had no idea about this. That says a lot about by descendent. He was alot neater than I thought.

[slay]

5. You are not "crazy"

I like your God elshiva. God means different things to different people. To me, God is nature, truth, and love. It's what we live for. Besides, no matter which God one prays to, everything will work out in the end. Trust me, it is God's will. :)

[saltpoint]

6. Would it then not be just as valid to say --

-- "Trust me, it is NOT God's Will" ?

Equally valid responses to abstract ideas, yes?

[elshiva]

10. Yes, of course

It's not God's will that Dubya is "prez..." For God sake's, why would S/HE endorse a nut?

[saltpoint]

13. Your post was about religion, not politics.

The post I responded to asked if a negation of divine will is not equally valid to its affirmation.

What are your thoughts?

Within the range between the two would be the possibility that each single element in your liberal stew of ideas is inaccurate and false. Is that ok?

[elshiva]

15. As a Religious Feminist

I believe the personal is political is spiritual so politics does enter in here...
Yes a negation of divine will is equally valid to its affirmation, think different dimensions, string theory,but that does not mean my beliefs are false. Wildly inaccurate, yes, most definitely, thank you. I am a pluralist process theologian so do not hold me down to absolute accuracy.
And that's not liberal, it's LIBRUL, am from MD.

[saltpoint]

18. elshiva, I would like to respect your position,

but that response was positively surreal.

I have very little notion at all what you're talking about, and it sounds as if you don't know very much about it either.

Your original post involved God saving everyone. I don't believe in the need to "save" people in that manner. Donate food, clothing, money and medicine to tsunami victims -- there you have a respectable ministry.

I see no need at all for a God to be involved, or angels, or anything else abstract.

What is your reference in the immediate post to "librul" instead of "liberal"? I tend to be a poor typist, but I care enough about the language to at least try and spell the damn words properly.

[elshiva]

22. It is surreal

and I do not know what I'm talking about. Dr. Brian David Berry used to start his classes on the resurrection of Jesus by saying, "We don't know what we are talking about here..." and lecture another 50 minutes. It's speculative theology.
I'm thinking of donating money to the tsunami victims, thanks for reminding me. A tithe of my checking account would be the least I could do for these my neighbors.
Yes, you are right. You do have no need of God or angels or the abstract. That is good.
As to the Librul reference, I just dig the local accent. We MDers really do say librul. I like being a liberal, no matter how you spell it.

[saltpoint]

25. Another word for "speculative theology" is --

-- horseshit.

You can ride the free range of ideas all you want and not worry about "accuracy," but for the sake of forums, the commerce of ideas, and the notion of clarity and communication, I would personally suggest that you need to bring it down to a few topic sentences and work from there.

Stream-of-consciousness writing has been done. The Beats covered it. 'Howl" was the ecstatic anthem of its time and "On the Road" the syntactic roadmap.

You posted a religious belief system in capsule form. You asked if anyone agreed. I don't. I have nothing against you personally and my strong response is not an insult, no matter what your pal Maat thinks, but your belief system undermines itself because it is not clearly expressed. Your authority as its proponent is undermined, too.

[elshiva]

27. Yes, 'tis true

but where I come from it is called cowchips.

[saltpoint]

30. Having established that much, may I please recommend --

-- a book to you?

A.N. Wilson's JESUS: A LIFE.

It is a very imaginative treatment, one that won't bore you. You seem to have the energy to handle a wide range, and Wilson won't disappoint you.

Just a suggestion. But if you don't read this book, in any event, dump Joseph Smith. He's a flim-flam artist.

[elshiva]

40. Will read, thanks

, but in my circle (weirdly intellectual Episcopalians) A.N. Wilson is of ill repute because he did a silly biography of C.S. Lewis, which I must read also.
I won't dump Smith because he is a relation and I am too damn curious about anything religious.

[Az]

31. Ewww flashback

Johny Carson. Cowchip throwing contest. Nasty rule. You had to lick your thumb between throws. Ewwww ... Sometimes I hate my brain. :evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

37. : )

[slay]

26. Absolutely.. for most of my life I have considered myself an atheist

Just recently have I truly understood that science and religion can both co-exist in peace. Not the cult type hellfire/damnation stuff that passes for religion, but a true search for deeper understanding, appreciation, and acceptance of all life. For many years I fought back against the religious conservative attack on science by myself attacking religion. For me, the universe boils down to balance. That is why I know things will eventually work out. I am doing what I consider to be my part by promoting the values of truth, love, and nature to the world. God's will, and not God's will are the same thing. It just depends on which side you ask. It could also be looked at as something being not God's will, really is God's will because for it to be "not" means God willed it to be that way.

[elshiva]

28. Thanks, Slay

[Az]

35. Anything that is true

Can coexist with science. Science is merely a method for eliminating what is not true. A slow and laborious one. But an effective one.

[saltpoint]

36. Oh slay, you know that is not demonstrable.

Look what you did. You began in an overview which allegedly values both scientific inquiry and religious quest, valuing balance as a condition of your path.

Then at the close, you come right back to God's will. If a negation of that will is valid, and it is, then its "creator" is thereby brought into question.

Why introduce and work with the idea of "will" in the first place?

The tsunami that ripped the lives of 150,000 people last week -- was that God's will? What kind of god would that be?

An extraordinarily psychotic one, would be my answer.

I would suggest that you give this a whirl: consider "God" to be training wheels you no longer need to ride your bike. Take them off the bike and balance yourself down the road.

[slay]

42. Hahaha.. trust me, I am not a religious person

There is no God in the way most people think, I'll grant you that. And if there is a "higher power", I realize that as such, it is probably beyond my comprehension. Only the human ego makes us think that there is a "God" out there who will "save us". But there is balance. Many people "turn to God" when times get tough or their world is no longer what they thought it was. Bush's terrible actions are prompting an equally impressive reaction from those of us who oppose what he does. Many of us do so with no reference to God at all. Newton's 3rd law of physics says it nicely: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". To me, it's all about balance.

[saltpoint]

43. There ya go. Nicely put.

And I'll tip a glass to Sir Isaac in your honor.

Good wishes to you.

[slay]

44. And to you..

I will smoke a bowl of this excellent weed in honor of another great thinker we can agree on my friend - Jerry Garcia. :smoke:

[saltpoint]

45. Oh wow do I miss Jerry. More like a pal than a --

-- celebrity.

I don't have any weed, but I will light a candle instead.

Peace to you, slay.

[elshiva]

11. Right On!

"All Shall Be Well and All Matter of Things SHALL BE Well"--Julian of Norwich

[Maat]

17. Hang in there, elshiva.

And you might want to check out our new DU Group (on the lefthand side of the screen). Our group is called Seekers on Unique Paths, and we do not call people 'delusional' for having a religious belief system.

I'm sorry, folks. I was a mental health and social services professional for over a decade. Believing in God, and different religious concepts, is not delusional. And shame on you for saying so. I respect your right to question belief in God, but there is no need for insults. And I say that with respect. Just a gentle reminder.

[saltpoint]

20. You might have addressed me directly, Maat.

And I stand by my words.

'Delusional' does seem to meet the criteria for angelic beings and magical messiahs.

It's not an insult to assert a point of view, especially when temporal reality is on one's side.

You folks have a dandy time over there in your little gated community.

[Maat]

46. We will.

Thanks.

[saltpoint]

48. Ah, the Christo fascist gang mentality.

Gather your nails, mi droogies.

A disagreement in views is not an insult.

Your attitude should strive for the full range of expression, not just your own limited, narrow, and often arrogant positions.

[Maat]

50. 1) I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in Spirit.

2) Never said that disagreement was an insult.

3) Referring to one's spiritual beliefs by such terms as 'delusional,' 'psychotic,' 'mythical,' or 'superstitious' is totally inappropriate.

4) I, for the entire year I have been here, have consistently been for a free range of expression- just COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL free expression, and ...

5) I have thus far never been accused of a limited, narrow, or arrogant position.

My position is that our conversation should be respectful. The advantage of the DU Group is that it has ground rules. And one of ours is that we refrain from insulting terms such as 'delusional' with respect to another's belief system.

[saltpoint]

51. Maat, you wind up in this post merely repeating --

-- your original claim.

Many therapists also consider belief in magical beings to be delusional.

What problem, intellectually, do you have with that?

Why should someone who does not believe in magical beings accept that they are there?

What are you talking about?

And your 'respectful' sojourn on DU is not in question per se, but your remark in this thread clearly was not respectful, and you did not have the courtesy to address me directly as I have done with you.

You will find me versed and respectful in discussion about spiritual matters. But you should not proceed as if you or your viewpoint is transcendent among all viewpoints.

----
edit: typo

Even though the New Testament urges you to do just that.

[Maat]

52. If I seem repetitive, it is because I stand by my position.

And I still state that referring to someone's beliefs as being 'delusional' is disrespectful and inappropriate. And, I have a Master's Degree in Psychology, was a therapist-intern for years, and, subsequently, a social services pratictioner for years and years. Trust me, you will not find a mental health professional that views someone's religious beliefs as 'delusional,' unless they involve serious dysfunction in their life. Stating that you disagree with a DUer is one thing, and that you view something as belief in magic, even, is acceptable. Using the term 'delusional' - I just will ignore that from now on. It certainly is not what I want to see on DU. It's not that I dislike any DUer personally, it is just that I enjoy discussion about belief systems in a forum in which such terms do not fall within the ground rules.

Moreover, I just posted in support of elshiva, and suggested she go somewhere where she would be engaged in productive, respectful discussion.


And that's my last word on this.

[saltpoint]

53. You flash your credentials. Uh... no sale.

Your points are controversial and I for one disagree with them.

Hide away in your little insular group if you want.

If it makes you feel safe.

[Maat]

58. Safe and happy.

Have a nice day!

[saltpoint]

59. Modern Christianity is often criticized because it --

-- is hypocritical (it often is) and because it is anti-science and anti-intellectual (it often is).

You appear enthusiastic to continue the tradition.

[Maat]

60. For the last time, I am not a Christian.

I am a person of faith, but not a Christian. Buh-bye!

[saltpoint]

61. I know that and respect that.

I use Christianity here as the choice of a majority of the people in the West. I don't claim that everybody is a Christian, far from it.

It does appear to me, respectfully speaking, that people "of faith" behave in ways which place them in a morally superior position to those who do not share their path.

If a person "of faith" wishes to worship at a particular church or temple, that's altogether fine with me. Completely.

But the current model for people "of faith" is to cram it down everyone else's throat. Don't deny this -- it is ALL over the news. Perhaps this is the right-wing in the West doing most of the screeching and manipulating, but anyone "of faith" seems emboldened to put it in everyone else's face.

There has been, and will continue to be, a negative reaction to this assertion that people "of faith" are morally superior to others.

Imenja, who began this thread and then bailed out from listening to opposing views, is not advancing cooperation or understanding or shared experiences. This thread's intent was to cordone off, to isolate, to perform exactly the thing I mention earlier: to set aside some as morally superior to others.

I stand in the doorway of no church, no temple, no nothing, if someone wishes to worship. But when it crosses my path, I will object to it on the points.

Sorry if you can't handle that.

[imenja]

62. imenja

Imenja had not even read this thread until this very moment, so obviously I did not start it. You'll note this is my only post on the entire thread. You might do better to concern yourself with your own sense of reality and let others worry about theirs.

[Az]

54. Tactics

Lets say you disagree with someone concerning their beliefs. Not only disagree but have a basis for demonstrating that they are completely missing the big picture. Is calling them delusional going to free them of their delusion?

Assuming you are correct in your perception of their delusion, informing them they are deluded is not going to change their stance. Its only going to cause them to place their defences on high alert.

Assuming you are engaging in conversation with them to effect a change in their stance this tactic will have just ended your attempt and wasted your effort. It is advisable to find a diffent method to bring change about if that is in any way your desire.

A further consideration on the use of the term delusional. The human mind is not a perfect thing. It has a range of perception of reality. Some matters are beyond simple considerations. We become aware of some things that we cannot know of by our basic senses. Science and other methods have lent us some understanding of these things. But much of the universe is still inexplicible.

History shows us that many ideas and theories about the universe that you or I would consider nonsensical today, held sway. Unless you believe the inetellectual capacity of humans has increased substantially in recent history we must assume that humans have for most of this time been intelligent enough to struggle with these questions. And yet these individuals from the past continued to come to these conclusions.

It is the accumulation of knowledge that allows us to draw our conclusions that we do. But not all people have access to the same knowledge or have experienced it with the same attitudes. Thus same basic component of information may have a different impact on different people.

The journey people take through this world is based on the world they see. This takes into consideration all the filters they have learned and apply. Thus what may seem concrete and absolute to you may have little impact on another. They have had different experiences and learned different things. If you want to bring them closer to your position you are going to have to do a little more work than just throw out some facts that are important to you. You are going to have to figure out what is important to them.

We do not have an absolute clarity of this world. We need to work together to increase our clarity of this world. Each of us working like a lens to improve the image. If someone seems out of focus our natural desire is to bring them into focus. But its best to know how to focus the lens or you may break it in the process.

[saltpoint]

55. Generally agree.

But there remains the realm of delusion.

I'm pro-science, pro-enlightenment. There's no slot on the wall for angelic beings who appear PERSONALLY to warn mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt.

The Greek pantheon allows Hermes that role, but he serves everybody, not just a SELECT and CHOSEN few.

Christian angels are selective and exclusional. They don't serve everyone. That is the root of the problem.

Thereby, a "Christian" may claim special status. That is the root of the argument here.

I deny anyone that status, especially based on faith-specific angels.

The religion of Jesus is exclusional.

I do have a problem with that.

[Az]

56. Are you worried about Angels?

I'm not.

Not everyone gets to the same place at the same time. Some make leaps and bounds. Some mosey.

I believe it is in the world's interest to increase reason and scientific thought. I act on this. I act in ways that I hope are effective.

There are exclusionary beliefs out there and inclusionary ones. Currently one of my personal focuses is figuring out how to shift conservative fundamentalist Christians into liberal humanist ideal embracing Christians.

They are going to promote their beliefs. Thats the way it works. We claim to be the defenders of reason. Lets put it to use. Work on the problem that exists.

[saltpoint]

57. Call it self-confidence in the old-fashioned sense --

-- but I'm pretty good at working on existing problems.

[elshiva]

24. Seekers on Unique Paths

Tell me more, Maat. I like the name.

[Maat]

47. Go over to DU Groups, hit the "Seekers on .." button.

Then hit the top thread by Skinner. It contains a blurb re what we are all about. We essentially come from a Unitarian-Universalist point-of-view, since that is the most open spiritual position imaginable. We talk about all sorts of spiritual concepts. An example would be whether 'Spirit/God' is within us, or a separate entity. Things like that.

Also, while in the DU Groups, check out the Liberal Christians and Other Progessive Faiths Group.

One of them (or both of them) will be your cup of tea.

See ya' there!

[purduejake]

7. I don't know if you're crazy or not...

But you are entitled to your beliefs and I respect that. I'm not trying to change them in any way, shape, or form, but I personally believe there is a God and the afterlife is something we cannot even begin to comprehend.

One problem I have with many people's ideas of heaven is how intelligent life from other planets is thrown into the mix. How can there be separate heavens for different species if all life is assumed to be equally loved in God's eyes? To me, the afterlife may have answers to these questions. I don't really believe in heaven as a place. My "heaven" is infinite knowledge and understanding.

I believe we are on a mission to complete challenges to strengthen our soul by finding a purpose of our being. If we don't find that in the first life on Earth, maybe we try again until we find inner peace and a satisfying purpose.

This could be considered "crazy" by some and it is not based on any scripture or religion. It's the result of my own pondering and imagination.

[elshiva]

9. Heaven

"Heaven isn't a place," Sr. Eileen Eppig taught me in college, "It's a mode of existence." I just said "Earth" in original post cos I'm a an earthling. We don't know what God has created, but if there are aliens their Creator would not exclude them from Heaven.

[purduejake]

14. I like that...

Heaven is a mode of existence. That's a perfect way of describing how I feel in a clear, concise way. I couldn't do that before. Thanks for sharing. :)

[elshiva]

16. Thanks

That's the official belief of many Catholic theologians including Rahner. Sister Eileen Eppig is a School Sister of Notre Dame with a doctorate in theology, so she is quoting an official belief. I love the School Sisters!

[Az]

29. Let me just add this

You are not crazy. We each view the world through our set of beliefs. They do not always match the set of beliefs another has. Those that embrace a courageous approach to their world are willing to explore their beliefs and are not afraid of change should it come.

But in this exploration we each move within the range our beliefs present us with. Progress and change may lead to dynamic shifts over time. But the initial first steps are going to be well within the parameters of your current belief.

You are going to encounter individuals who will want to influence and speed up your journey (inclusive) and try to guide you to views more similar to their own. This is natural. It is the nature of how our minds work. From birth we learn from others trying to convey their sense of the world. And once we have some sense of a cohesive opinion on the matter we begin trying to convey it to others. This is how things are.

Not everyone is aware of the journey. Some simply find themself where they are and presume that it makes sense. Sense anyone should be able to understand. Thus they become frustrated when someone else cannot grasp their current view of the world. They do not mean you harm. In fact they wish you well and believe that coming closer to their view of the world is an improvement. It may well be. But in the end that really is part of your journey and up to you to decide.

[elshiva]

38. Thanks, Az,

Again insightful and profound. I believe in a free exchange of ideas. I got a B.A. in Religious Studies at the College of Notre Dame of Maryland (CONDOM), where I met a lot of deeply religious people like Dr. Berry and Sr. Eppig. CONDOM is a Roman Catholic all-women's college, but a lot of the students were not Catholic or theists. It was a Liberal Arts College with the emphasis on Librul (that's how the professors said it).
Anyway, this is a long way of saying I appreciate your posts because I like an educated, open, but critical approach to philosophy.

[OneBlueSky]

33. well . . . I certainly HOPE that's how it works . . .

my only concern would be that BushCo and their minions completely destroy the planet before enough enlightened beings have been reincarnated . . .

now that I think about it, though, it seems that there are FEWER enlightened beings roaming the planet (AND the halls of Congress) these days . . . log-jam at the Pearly Gates perhaps? . . .

[slay]

39. BushCo have - we the people - fighting against each other instead of

coming together to fight the inept, corrupt politicians who are tearing this country apart advancing their own personal agendas.

[OneBlueSky]

41. exact-a-mundo, slay . . .

until we realize that the REAL battle is between the people (us) and the ruling corporate oligarchy (them), we will remain at their mercy . . . and they have no concept of mercy . . .

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Yup..you're certifiable!

Just joshing ya! :) I think your assertion is very nice indeed. I don't believe what you do, but you don't seem the type to make others bow to your will, so you are cool in my book. Personally, I believe there will always be war, if there is to be peace; there will always be sadness, if there is to be happiness...and so on. To me there is balance (or lack there of) and that will always continue, until the universe ceases. I also believes a soul doesn't 'cease to exist' but goes into another state. I don't believe in "eternal" anything, not Hell nor Heaven. That's just me. :)

[youngred]

63. I do more or less

sadly not everyone appreciates the nurturing, maternal, forgiving God.

[GOPBasher]

64. I like your beliefs!

Pretty cool. :thumbsup: :-)