by Terry 99 Replies latest jw friends
Terry Thank you for your generosity.
*
If we suicide our Self by having FAITH, we have the hope of resurrecting our SELF by getting rid of that FAITH.
Very well put, that is what I was trying to say.
*
Faith is not in religion.
And I thought Terry was controversial!
Excellent article, food for thought! Totally makes sense!
The "self" is a personally-defined construct borne from self-identification.
At different psychological stages of growth this "self" can be flexible - meaning I may be capable of seeing my "self" as being limited to this specific body my awareness is rooted within, or I may identify my "self" with family, with social group, with Nation, or with the biosphere or universe.
We function as "self" in many ways, depending on need and situation. We can identify or behave in social contexts, and base our sense of "self" upon varying standards: functionally, emotionally, intellectually, sytematically. We are versatile that way.
To insist there is only one possible measure of "self" sounds rather cultish. We are herd animals.
Person might equal self, for some, at a particular psychological stage. But that's not a universal, for all persons, nor for all of a lifetime.
Differentiation is a process at a stage. There are others after that.
On the whole, I agree that religion is a mind-killer. But then, so is any cultish belief-system.
A book by Chuck Palahniuk called "SURVIVOR" addresses this in a story. I'm nearly finished with it but it concerns a cult that requires its members to commit suicide after the cult members off themselves.
It is a mix of twisted humor and the affects of the cult mentality when it comes to faith in the religion.
Ruth
The "self" is a personally-defined construct borne from self-identification.
Using a word to define itself leads to paradox.
We only truly possess identity as a unique individual when we step forward and offer something others do not offer.
Parroting groupthink is the death of self.
To insist there is only one possible measure of "self" sounds rather cultish.
Context is key! Self vis a vis Faith and individuality is our topic.
As John Wayne said in the Alamo soliloquy, "...you may be walking around, but, you're dead as a beaver hat."
On the whole, I agree that religion is a mind-killer. But then, so is any cultish belief-system.
The topic is FAITH, after all, isn't it? It isn't religion that kills the "self" and it isn't the "cult" either. It is FAITH in religion and CULT.
Why?
FAITH signals the disabled rational mind. Deuces are now wild. Whatever the authority authorizes is automatically accepted.
Jesus wants you to kill yourself.
"If you want to live, you'll die but if you kill yourself, you'll live forever." - John 12:25 - NBT (No Bullshit Translation)
What passes for "wisdom" in the Jesus "sayings" is about as good as the fortune cookie companies today.
It seems to actually be saying something. But, it is so general and amorphous and generic and metaphorical you are really
creating your own meaning.
So much for divine inspiration.
Assuming what is attributed to this Jewish man by the Bishops who did the editing is the first leap.....
*circa 1969, to the point of this discussion, Fred Franz marching, goose step style, from the podium to the dugout after the main talk at Dodger Stadium, then I read later what he said at the Scottish trial about marching together in lockstep no matter if we were right or wrong.
Group think, he was the Svengali of his day, and we were just cannon fodder.
I simply don't believe in vengeful gods anymore...The OT God, which is merely repeated in Revelation, for some reason (it's largely based on Isaiah, some of it word for word, even) isn't my cuppa.
I find what some term Pauline Christianity rather unpalatable, I think he was going back to the Jewish God and Jewish law just a bit, which is to be expected from a former rabbi!
But, it is one extension of Christian belief, I suppose. I tend to think of Paul as the first real big split of Christian belief, he obviously carried a lot of weight. Obviously, even then, there were those who disagreed with him for better or worse, but for some reason, Pauline Christianity became the basis for the majority at that time, at least, in the NT version of things.
I'm a Universalist, and to be honest, the only part of the Bible that floats my boat is the Gospels and some of the Psalms...even those I take with a grain or two of salt, but I do find Christ appealing, as do many people, even non-Christians. However, I find Buddha equally appealing. I also love reform Judaism and elements of Paganism. I've learned a lot from atheists, but I'm not committed enough to be one...I find it too restrictive, I have too much of a love of the potential or possibility of the metaphysical.
I'm sort of a Jewish Buddhist Christian Pagan, I guess. I take only what I think are the best parts of any belief system, examine them, and incorporate what appeals, and it's quite eclectic, although I find it interesting that all those belief systems have quite a bit in common, more than some people would like to think. I don't believe in "one size fits all" beliefs or ideas, so it works for me.
Faith should NOT be devoid of reason, they shoudl compliment each other as best they can.
"blind" Faith or faith inspite of reason to the contrary is/can be quite harmful.
I think that our faith in something will always be based on our experiences with that something.
