Higher Power

[Sriram]

Just as not Matthew 18:3

What Brownie quoted is about gradual development. Similar to development from childhood to adulthood.

What you are quoting is about developing a trusting, simple, spontaneous and childlike attitude. Once we shed our competitive animal  nature  we will automatically become trusting, loving, spontaneous and childlike. Most saints are childlike people.

They above two are not contradictory.

[Brownie]

Both Sririam - maybe I am a 'slow' student when it comes to such things.  (Replying to your one before last post, just seen the latest one)

Regarding Matthew 18:3, there is a vast difference between being childlike and childish.

[Sriram]

Both Sririam - maybe I am a 'slow' student when it comes to such things.  (Replying to your one before last post, just seen the latest one)

Regarding Matthew 18:3, there is a vast difference between being childlike and childish.

Brownie....you are taking in all this much faster than most people....let me assure you! 

[Walter]

Yes...all religions have the same spiritual philosophy at their base. That is quite clear to me.

What do you mean ...'must take time'...?  Do you mean that the development will take time or understanding all this will take time?!.

what is there to understand? It reminds me of me and my friends as teenagers who talked of such stuff on camping expeditions to the lake district, we never got anywhere with it. Then one by one we grew up.

[Sriram]

what is there to understand? It reminds me of me and my friends as teenagers who talked of such stuff on camping expeditions to the lake district, we never got anywhere with it. Then one by one we grew up.

   Have fun Walter!

[Nearly Sane]

Both Sririam - maybe I am a 'slow' student when it comes to such things.  (Replying to your one before last post, just seen the latest one)

Regarding Matthew 18:3, there is a vast difference between being childlike and childish.

Is there? Or is  that a rationalisation to avoid contradiction.

[Sriram]

Is there? Or is  that a rationalisation to avoid contradiction.

We have to understand what the basic philosophy is all about. If we do...we can fit things together without any problem.

If we go merely by the words...we will always find lots of contradictions.

The issue is simple. Its about development and growth. Its about shedding our competitive animal instincts and acquiring a more selfless, loving, wise, non competitive, cooperative, spontaneous and universal nature. 

This is what all religions have been teaching for centuries. This is what spirituality is all about.  This is also what being civilized is all about.

Now...how we understand different biblical/Koranic/buddhist/Hindu quotes in relation to this philosophy is up to us.

[Nearly Sane]

We have to understand what the basic philosophy is all about. If we do...we can fit things together without any problem.

If we go merely by the words...we will always find lots of contradictions.

The issue is simple. Its about development and growth. Its about shedding our competitive animal instincts and acquiring a more selfless, loving, wise, non competitive, cooperative, spontaneous and universal nature. 

This is what all religions have been teaching for centuries. This is what spirituality is all about.  This is also what being civilized is all about.

Now...how we understand different biblical/Koranic/buddhist/Hindu quotes in relation to this philosophy is up to us.

Aren't these merely words?

[Sriram]

Aren't these merely words?

Here you go again...!!!

[Nearly Sane]

Here you go again...!!!

what, being logical? Probably.

[Walter]

nope, still sounds like a lot of bollox,

[ekim]

Aren't these merely words?

Yes but they are often accompanied by suggested practices which invite the initiate to discover the truth or otherwise of what is contained within those words.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but they are often accompanied by suggested practices which invite the initiate to discover the truth or otherwise of what is contained within those words.

but if the words have are essentially unimportant to the kevel that tgey can be contraductory than they cannot be used as something to validate 'truth' against.  The issue here is that picking what seems to correlate and ignoring what doesn't by saying what does not  correlate is just words is the definition of cherry picking.

[ekim]

Is there? Or is  that a rationalisation to avoid contradiction.

The next verse Matt 18:4 gives the clue, I think, it's about humility (rather than egotism).

[ekim]

but if the words have are essentially unimportant to the kevel that tgey can be contraductory than they cannot be used as something to validate 'truth' against.  The issue here is that picking what seems to correlate and ignoring what doesn't by saying what does not  correlate is just words is the definition of cherry picking.

I'm not sure I follow.  Can you give an example from what has been said so far, then I might be in a better position to reply.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure I follow.  Can you give an example from what has been said so far, then I might be in a better position to reply.

The Corinthians quote was taken as somehow a validation of a common approach. When asked about whether the Matthew quote was being rationalised as not a contradiction, Sriram states 'if we go merely by the words...there will always be contradictions'. It's that statement that means you cannot take any individual statements as confirmation as they are merely words.

[Nearly Sane]

The next verse Matt 18:4 gives the clue, I think, it's about humility (rather than egotism).

the point I'm making is that to take out of context verses such as Corinthians and proclaim a great commonality in religion is cherry picking. To use another example given the OT tells me how hard I  can beat a slave, is there a commonality in religions that I can own a person and beat them?

[Sriram]

The Corinthians quote was taken as somehow a validation of a common approach. When asked about whether the Matthew quote was being rationalised as not a contradiction, Sriram states 'if we go merely by the words...there will always be contradictions'. It's that statement that means you cannot take any individual statements as confirmation as they are merely words.

Ok...let me clarify. What I meant was that we have to read the meaning behind the words and not merely the words themselves.

For example, when the bible  says that we should become like children....it obviously does not mean that we should start crawling on all fours, start bawling, mess up our clothes, throw toys around and such things.   It means that we should be trusting and simple minded.

Similarly when the bible says that we should not be like children...it means that we should acquire self control, discipline, wisdom, cooperation, selflessness and so on.

Its all about understanding what the words mean in any specific context.


 

[ekim]

the point I'm making is that to take out of context verses such as Corinthians and proclaim a great commonality in religion is cherry picking. To use another example given the OT tells me how hard I  can beat a slave, is there a commonality in religions that I can own a person and beat them?

OK, I understand what you are saying.  Yes, it can be like cherry picking.  The commonality often comes from comparing what the mystics associated with the various religions have to say, rather than the scriptures.  Many of the mystics seem to be practice oriented (e.g. contemplation, yoga etc.) rather than scripture quoting.  I think, what was called, the Perennial Philosophy attempted these comparisons.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok...let me clarify. What I meant was that we have to read the meaning behind the words and not merely the words themselves.

For example, when the bible  says that we should become like children....it obviously does not mean that we should start crawling on all fours, start bawling, mess up our clothes, throw toys around and such things.   It means that we should be trusting and simple minded.

Similarly when the bible says that we should not be like children...it means that we should acquire self control, discipline, wisdom, cooperation, selflessness and so on.

Its all about understanding what the words mean in any specific context.

what is simpleminded about self control and wisdom.


Obviously we have to try to understand intentions behind words but you are doing it from a presupposition that there isn't really any contradiction. BTW what's the context in the OT about how hard I can beat a slave that fits in with wisdom, cooperation and selflessness?

[Sriram]

the point I'm making is that to take out of context verses such as Corinthians and proclaim a great commonality in religion is cherry picking. To use another example given the OT tells me how hard I  can beat a slave, is there a commonality in religions that I can own a person and beat them?

As I have pointed out many times, religions contain a base of spiritual philosophy that is largely common across the world. However, religions are also culture specific and evolve and grow in specific environments. Therefore, besides the spiritual base, they also contain many cultural, social, political, geographical, health related issues.

While most major religions would be in agreement as regards their spiritual base, they need not be in agreement as regards other aspects because they have developed and evolved in very different environments.

It is as simple as saying that all animal species have major similarities in their DNA....while being very different in their appearance and behavior.

[Sriram]

 what is simpleminded about self control and wisdom.

?  ?  ?  ?   

Ok...Goodnight anyway! Maybe tomorrow.

[Nearly Sane]

OK, I understand what you are saying.  Yes, it can be like cherry picking.  The commonality often comes from comparing what the mystics associated with the various religions have to say, rather than the scriptures.  Many of the mystics seem to be practice oriented (e.g. contemplation, yoga etc.) rather than scripture quoting.  I think, what was called, the Perennial Philosophy attempted these comparisons.

And much of this is included outside of religion, so to conclude that there is a central meaning given to religion and spirituality is a further form of begging the question.

Indeed there is a form of ad populum here which covers the idea 'look, some other people agree with me on certain things, we must all be right on those things even if we disagree on others'

There deems to me an attempt to give a faux privilege to one specific genre of thinking, I.e. 'religious' by pointing out that some of it agrees. It's hardly surprising given that we don't seem to have that wide a choice of thinking, and what Sriram is leaving out of his cherry pucking is also common across many religions, and what is keeping is coming in many secular positions. 

[Nearly Sane]

?  ?  ?  ?   

Ok...Goodnight anyway! Maybe tomorrow.

You said Matthew was telling people to be simpleminded, and Corinthians was calling for self control and wisdom. These don't seem to fit together to me.

[Nearly Sane]

As I have pointed out many times, religions contain a base of spiritual philosophy that is largely common across the world. However, religions are also culture specific and evolve and grow in specific environments. Therefore, besides the spiritual base, they also contain many cultural, social, political, geographical, health related issues.

While most major religions would be in agreement as regards their spiritual base, they need not be in agreement as regards other aspects because they have developed and evolved in very different environments.

It is as simple as saying that all animal species have major similarities in their DNA....while being very different in their appearance and behavior.

Most major philosophies have certain parts in common too. That you have cherry picked religion and the common parts you like is just your own cultural bias. It shows no argument that your choices are either actually common or prevalent, never mind uniquely common and prevalent to religious though as opposed to any other.