kitties_and_horses_oh_my!: The criticisms were merely an attempt to evoke another reply that would perhaps some kind of response to challenge mine. I definitely don't consider myself immune to being deluded, at least, not over some issues in my life. Nor was I lashing out; this thread is an intellectual pursuit. After all, the words that I say to anyone are not going to make anyone drop their faith, correct? That is, unless, I was so convincing that they saw the reasoning I used as sound and adopted it as their own - but I am not vain enough to ever expect this or even desire it, and still, that would be their choice and their own thoughts, regardless of the original source of the information. Changing the lives of other people that I am not more than vaguely acquainted with would accomplish no purpose for me. But I will take this as you wrote it - not directed solely at me - and you make very good points about how people will crash through life. One thing I should point out, though, that I feel is important; nothing you can simply say to someone , such as in a discussion like this, will ever control them. Stating opinions and refuting others' opinions with hopes of a debate exerts no control on anyone. It's their choice to participate, and it's their choice to just consider it, take it to heart, or ignore it completely. Nothing I or anyone can say will change that... Thanks for the warm regard, too.
formerout: I'm...not quite sure what to say. I think you should stop trying to psychoanalyze me. I really don't understand why you are going on like this. I'm glad you have grown from this discussion, but perhaps if you could limit your posts to trying to contribute to it rather than examining the interpersonal dynamics of it we could all have a more productive read.
ringo5: The nature of this discussion (or at least one of the questions) is to examine why people are involved with mysticism at all instead of nothing particular. No answers are final - including the crutches idea. Several points have been put forth as to why people use mysticism, regardless of whether their belief is in something real or fictional...good points, but perhaps there are more yet to be shown.
ringo5 (again): I don't think he understands that I have been out for seven years, that I barely know anyone and I am just trying to have a debate on the questions I asked. He'll come around, I hope.
formerout: As much as I don't want to stir up more analyses of my wonderful or horrible mind, may I point out that giving me respect is completely irrelevant. I don't care if you respect me, I just want an objective thread. Going on like this isn't achieving that... You make so many unfounded statements about me. Don't bother, whether you think they are true or not. No matter what I say, if the content doesn't make sense, argue the content back with something to see if what I said stands up when I reply. Making needless judgements about my personality accomplishes nothing useful, nor does stating distinctions between people. This means mentioning age, or saying someone is a 'teacher'. If they are so wise, let them argue my or anyone else's points and exemplify it rather than talking about their flaunted qualities. As for "evasiveness":
Rune's subconscious does not want absolutes but his conscious mind has been imbedded with the opposite so that his reaction has seemed to be rejecting our fairly wise thoughts.I'm sorry, which ones? :)
Very witty, but I don't think you would have posted the other comments if you truly felt that there were no "wise thoughts" here.
He was asking you to give specific examples of which of your thoughts you stated were 'wise' and why you think so.
ringo5: That's very vague, and also, are many of the religions people join really a mystery with 'clues' to be put together? I argue they are a prepackaged set of beliefs for someone to simply adopt as their own. The main 'thought' put into these beliefs is convincing yourself more and more that the things you have been told are true, without proof. This, I feel, is the vessel of faith. As for completely original sets of beliefs constructed by someone (or a group together at once)...are these clues solid and logical, or are they more likely subjective? Talking about it this way is probably too general.
LittleToe: Like formerout, you seem hung up on the social aspects of this conversation rather the information. Why?
There truly is more to life than facts and that which you take in with your eyes, ears and nose. My own experience has led me to believe that if that were all that life were about I would be experientially impoverished.
More to life such as what? There is the information gathered by your senses, and then there are your own thoughts. You declare the assumption that you aren't "experentially impoverished" - lacking in 'sufficient' experience, whatever that means - and go on while failing to even detail what you're talking about.
Perhaps if I take your last post as an example of what I mean about your "style" affecting the way people view what you say:
Pardon me if I fail to care any further about topics like this. It's nitpicking.
You appear to be assuming that "God" is merely a theological contruct to everyone, based solely on mythology, fantasy, and dusty writings. That would fly in the face of some of the expressions that you've already received about folks personal "connections".
No, I am not assuming that. I was trying to follow Narkissos' idea of the 'symbolical' level using "God" as an example since he did too. And furthermore, I think if you argue this then you should refer back to Narkissos' post, regarding the level between "real" and "imagination" as he so clearly said. In other words, no, in this sense "God" is not being considered just a bunch of mythology. "God" would stand for something 'more' without being given form on this symbolical level. With further speculation we could consider just what this 'more' is. These are just hypothetical suggestions:
God represents certain things to people, a certain definition, a set of qualities and characteristics, is what I think you are saying. In which sense, as one is not declaring God 'real', God is a construction of the human mind. Try getting a believer to admit to this one... there is so much mythology to get past.
frenchbabyface: You hit the nail on the head...nice post.
Narkissos: Simple and well put... There is really nothing I can think to argue on the basis of this idea. This doesn't explain
why people jump into the mystical, but it helps to understand that is isn't such a far leap from not doing it. All the same, I am still curious. The symbolic level is how we think, we all need that regardless of our outlook. All of this ties back to a theory I had run over a few times - that, regardless of the mythology, the extraneous ideas surrounding "God", that the real 'substance' of "God" is found in the collective minds of humanity (those who consider there to be only a singular "God", i.e. those who are Christian for the most part). It seems somewhat ironic when, if you read the part of the bible that says man was made in "God"'s image, when it as actually "God" who was made in ours - the omnipotence rooting from what is a
seemingly limitless symbolic realm to some. In the mythology, "God" actually behaves like a tyrant, yet people still profess "God" to be pure goodness and love. This of course, only blankets some of the human race, and probably not even the majority - for the "God" idea I mean - but it does show some interesting groundwork to analyzing other faiths too...
