Violence and Spirituallty

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It's a pity that you take the position that because I admire him, he ought to be disdained.

It's humor man no one's disdaining him

Being able to communicate only in text prevents some humor from being understood.

the individual, acting on his own authority in determining answers to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything - setting himself as the ultimate arbiter of truth - is basically always wrong

I disagree with this premise because if we are not allowed to determine the meaning of life for ourselves then that means that someone else decides for us what the meaning of life is. I refuse to give this power to someone else because they may get it "wrong" or they may choose some meaning for me that simply doesn't fit.

I am a Christian but I remain wary of organized religion simply because there is too much possibility for people, being human, to abuse their arbitarily-granted power given to them by other people. The Pope is the Pope only because he was the least objectionable person upon whom the College of Cardinals could agree, not because he has more knowledge or godliness than anyone else. I attend our church regularly but I will leave it in a moment if I see any wrongdoing by the leaders or I hear a message that isn't true.

Unfortunately, no, I do not want the context of that statement. It will simply give you more opportunity to try and utter some nicely-phrased insult in my general direction.

[aliantha]

I really liked The Inner Garden. I may have to go and find it...

Back on topic!

Pagans, as a big-tent term, are a mixed bag when it comes to opinions on violence. The Wiccan creed is, "If it harms none, do what you will," so it would follow that Wiccans don't have much use for violence in principle. But we've also got Asatru, which is essentially Norse (or Saxon) reconstructionism. And you know how the Norse felt about violence -- the braver the warrior, the more assured was his place in Valhalla. Those are sort of the extremes, I guess. Personally, I've been known to say that my opinion of mosquitoes proves that I could never be a Buddhist.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent. A fundamental tenet of most faiths is "do not harm others" and violence clearly violates this tenet.

Even most martial art forms, many of which include elements of spirituality, train the student to use only as much violence as is needed to defuse a situation. Throw an attacker --> if he gets up and attacks again then hurt him a little --> if he continues to attack then make sure he feels it --> if he continues to attack then maim/cripple him --> if he continues to attack then make sure he cannot continue anymore, preferrably by knocking him out.

[aliantha]

I think you're right, Hashi -- most forms of spirituality at least pretend to be nonviolent. I also liked your comment about the Pope earlier. I too am wary of organized religion, parly for the reason you name.

To be clear, I don't think Asatru preaches violence. I gather that they mostly just like to get together and drink, and have contests to see who the biggest braggart is.

[danlo]

I'm, probably, presupposing what Highdrake would post here, but here is one of his favorite quotes from Zindell's The Broken God (taken from Ahira's Hangar) in regards to the nature of the Tao, as Danlo says,

"...the stars and rocks and dreams of men and women...the memory of all and everything is contained in the Elder Eddas. The Eddas are full as a cup overflowing with water, yet empty like the Void, infinitely empty, more empty than the nothingness out beyond the Southern Wall of galaxies. There will always be...a space for more memory. These things we have seen: that memory is always being created and always destroyed, and that it is eternal, too, preserved like pearls floating in an urn of blacking oil. And everything is memory, yes? The universe is like an ocean roaring with memory. I am the Elder Eddas, and that is my truth, and you are, too, and that is your truth, and people forget this almost the moment they see it as it is. It is hard to remembrance the Eddas. The deepest part. It shines through everything, the light that blinds. It is like a dance of starlight, an endless photon stream, always moving, always beautiful, impossible to really see. And the colors, shimmering, dissolving into each other, the infinite points of silver and violet and living gold - all the colors, and no colors that I have ever seen before, or imagined seeing. And behind the colors and the motion, there is a total stillness, a silence more real than rocks or wind or the ice of the sea. It is just pure memory. I am that silence, truly, and nothing else. As you are, and everything is."

[rusmeister]

It's a pity that you take the position that because I admire him, he ought to be disdained.

It's humor man no one's disdaining him

Being able to communicate only in text prevents some humor from being understood.

the individual, acting on his own authority in determining answers to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything - setting himself as the ultimate arbiter of truth - is basically always wrong

I disagree with this premise because if we are not allowed to determine the meaning of life for ourselves then that means that someone else decides for us what the meaning of life is. I refuse to give this power to someone else because they may get it "wrong" or they may choose some meaning for me that simply doesn't fit.

I am a Christian but I remain wary of organized religion simply because there is too much possibility for people, being human, to abuse their arbitarily-granted power given to them by other people. The Pope is the Pope only because he was the least objectionable person upon whom the College of Cardinals could agree, not because he has more knowledge or godliness than anyone else. I attend our church regularly but I will leave it in a moment if I see any wrongdoing by the leaders or I hear a message that isn't true.

Unfortunately, no, I do not want the context of that statement. It will simply give you more opportunity to try and utter some nicely-phrased insult in my general direction.

We haven't had much interaction hitherto. First I'll say that since quite a few people have openly dissed my favorite writers, it's hard for me to take any dissing of them here as humorous. It's only funny if it's absurd - and here it has been shown to be quite serious dissing. So I get that it may be funny to you and Danlo, because you really don't mean an attack on Chesterton (or Lewis) - but a number of other people here DO mean such attacks.

I largely agree with your general wariness of organized religion. I find, however, that logically, there must be an exception the the general rule that nearly all of them must be man-made and driven - and that is that if there is a divine truth, and God is, and the other dozen or more major propositions of Christianity are true, then it logically follows that there MUST be one institution that is NOT man-made, but actually divine in origin, and even being divinely guided.

In my case, I expect to see wrongdoing, even within the Orthodox Church, sooner or later, for the simple reason that "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". But the big assumption that seems to be sitting behind all objections to organized religion is that there must necessarily be people sitting behind the curtains who manipulate believers in their favor. I find that to be simply not true in regards to the faith that I accept. One of the biggest things I have learned is that Church leaders are totally bound by Holy Tradition - they can say or do nothing that contradicts that, without putting THEMSELVES outside that tradition, at which point I could, if thoroughly convinced of this, declare such leaders as schismatic, or even heretics. Just as any Anglican who actually valued his own tradition would and certainly should do in regards to this author and his book. If he is an active member of the clergy, he should be deposed immediately according to Anglican canons. But I do not believe the Anglican Church to be the true representative of the ancient Church established by Christ and built by the Apostles and maintained ever since by paradosis, so am not surprised that he gets away with this - all the more in view of the Anglican adoption of priestesses, fulfilling CS Lewis's predictions on what would happen, and the widespread acceptance, particularly within the US, of homosexual behavior among laity and clergy. The gradual folding of the Anglican Church is evidence that it has accepted as its guiding philosophy the paradigms of this world.

Furthermore, I never propose blindly turning over the guidance of my own thinking to "whoever" and never propose to turn my reason off. It remains on and active and continues to evaluate.

So to me, the idea that I necessarily blind and limit myself by accepting a greater authority than myself is not at all thought out - I agree that it could be true of any number of false religions - but know that there is a case where it is NOT true.

Lastly, it is interesting that you will interact with me in my own words, even though you may thereby be insulted by demonstration from a particular rational POV that the views you hold are inconsistent with truth and logic, but will not interact with a dead author who does exactly the same thing merely because he is dead. That is discrimination of the negative type, and highly undemocratic - and I think insufficiently self-critical as well. For my part, I will do battle with any words of any author, certainly those presented here, and do not discriminate against them simply because they are dead.

Hopefully, that gets something of a radically different POV across.

I don't mean that to distract from the issue of violence - but feel it necessary to clear the air there.

Back to violence, I will say that I was fairly solidly anti-death penalty on a categorical basis until quite recently - one of the few views that I have actually experienced a change on in recent years. It was Steve Robinson's podcast series on the death penalty that convinced me that there is a solid basis for supporting the death penalty (not that an Orthodox Christian need or must be pro-DP), or at least, for accepting it.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

"Hurling insults in my general direction" and "insulting me" are two totally different things, since I do not allow anyone to have the ability to insult me...or, rather, I retain the right to choose what I constitute as an insult.

Just because you hold the opinion that my views are "illogical" or "irrational" is only that--an opinion.

Now those words are in the past so it is time to move on.

[Fist and Faith]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent.

You can't err on the side of non-violence.

[aliantha]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent.

You can't err on the side of non-violence.

An excellent point.

At the risk of derailing this thread (and apologies in advance if it occurs):

I largely agree with your general wariness of organized religion. I find, however, that logically, there must be an exception the the general rule that nearly all of them must be man-made and driven - and that is that if there is a divine truth, and God is, and the other dozen or more major propositions of Christianity are true, then it logically follows that there MUST be one institution that is NOT man-made, but actually divine in origin, and even being divinely guided.

But it doesn't logically follow, rus. I can envision a Creation in there is a divine truth, and God is, and the other major propositions of Christianity are true -- but in which God then looses his children to enact their free will upon those truths, up to and including the churches they create based on those facts, and their varying interpretations of them.

I think actually a hands-off God ("Here's the facts, do what you will with them") is a better explanation for all of the different directions that Christianity has taken than yours, in which God has his finger in only one pot and all humanity gets to guess which one it is, and woe to those who get it wrong. A better explanation, and a more humane one, if you will.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent.

You can't err on the side of non-violence.

A clumsy phrase on my part, to be certain, but you get the point--spirituality tends towards non-violence.

[rusmeister]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent.

You can't err on the side of non-violence.

Uh, yes you can.

if you watch people being raped, murdered, tortured, etc, and do not use necessary force to stop it (doing what you can), then you are in error. Granted, the least force necessary is what is desirable, but failing to act can be just as evil as acting.

And as I said, as long as people speak about spirituality like a necessary good (rather Platonist in origins, I think), then they are not thinking at all about negative spirituality.

[rusmeister]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent.

You can't err on the side of non-violence.

An excellent point.

At the risk of derailing this thread (and apologies in advance if it occurs):

I largely agree with your general wariness of organized religion. I find, however, that logically, there must be an exception the the general rule that nearly all of them must be man-made and driven - and that is that if there is a divine truth, and God is, and the other dozen or more major propositions of Christianity are true, then it logically follows that there MUST be one institution that is NOT man-made, but actually divine in origin, and even being divinely guided.

But it doesn't logically follow, rus. I can envision a Creation in there is a divine truth, and God is, and the other major propositions of Christianity are true -- but in which God then looses his children to enact their free will upon those truths, up to and including the churches they create based on those facts, and their varying interpretations of them.

I think actually a hands-off God ("Here's the facts, do what you will with them") is a better explanation for all of the different directions that Christianity has taken than yours, in which God has his finger in only one pot and all humanity gets to guess which one it is, and woe to those who get it wrong. A better explanation, and a more humane one, if you will.

Well, Ali, you should note that I said

and the other dozen or more major propositions of Christianity are true

. I grant that as expressed, that is further down the line after a point at which we have already parted ways.

To try to bring the idea to a point where we haven't, I would refer again to the analogy of a banknote. The fact that we find any number of forged banknotes does not mean that there is therefore no genuine one; the very existence of the forgery directly implies that there IS a genuine one. It is far more probable that there is a definite and divine truth than that there isn't. Since I am speaking directly to the skepticism toward organized religion, which I have agreed that in most cases the skepticism may be justified on an absolute level and even in the case where it is not justified - an institution that DOES have a grasp on the fullness of the truth - not that it knows everything, but that it accurately knows the nature and purpose of man in the universe, we are sure to find behaviors on the part of individuals that may seem to justify the skepticism.

I would ask why these absolute skeptics - the ones who reject organized religion out of hand - do NOT turn that skepticism toward themselves - toward their trust in their own individual knowledge, wisdom and understandings - hypo-criticism (a distinction from deliberate two-faced positions that the word 'hypocrisy" generally assumes) - an unwillingness to criticize and be suspicious of one's own limitations. The advantages of an organization - like organized science, where knowledge is accumulated and passed on, enabling increased and superior understanding to that the individual can attain on his own, are hereby rejected.

[aliantha]

Some comments, rus:

1. My comment was an attempt to play in your court. I said specifically that I could envision a world in which all of your "ifs" were met -- there is a divine truth, God exists, other major tenets of Christianity are true -- but in which God was still a hands-off kind of guy, if you will: Someone who sent his Son to redeem his people by dying, and then took him back to Heaven, *but* then sat back and watched to see what humanity did with the information it gained by the experience, without giving any other guidance. You have said for years now that Orthodoxy has an inside track on the Truth. That -- and your comment that prompted *my* comment -- seem to indicate that you believe that God has somehow favored the Orthodox Church, by pointing it to, not just The Way, but The Most Correct Way. And my position is that it's more plausible that God hasn't favored any of the denominations, and any that has/have stumbled onto The Most Correct Way have pretty much done it by accident. Because I have trouble believing that a healthy-minded parent would create children and then deliberately favor one over the other -- particularly on so serious a topic as the afterlife.

2. "Organized science" (if there is such a thing) is not analogous to organized religion. There's no Science God with all the answers. Scientists work with ideas that they believe are true -- but they have no trouble junking an idea that proves to be untrue for one that is more accurate. Organized religion, otoh, insists on holding fast to ideas that were declared Truth some 2,000 years ago.

3. You might have missed where I said that I'm one of those folks who is wary of organized religion. I don't much like corporations or totalitarian forms of government, either, and for the same reason: too much power concentrated in the hands of too few people lends itself to the abuse of that power. Whatever you believe about the divine inspiration behind a specific religion, the agents of that religion are humans, with human foibles and the all-too-human desire to enrich themselves while the less favored go without. It's a situation that's ripe for all kinds of abuse -- from financial to sexual to mental. (All of which we have seen in connection with various sects of the Church.) My own religious ideas may lead me down the garden path, but at least they won't lead me to trust someone who will hurt me.

[rusmeister]

Some comments, rus:

1. My comment was an attempt to play in your court. I said specifically that I could envision a world in which all of your "ifs" were met -- there is a divine truth, God exists, other major tenets of Christianity are true -- but in which God was still a hands-off kind of guy, if you will: Someone who sent his Son to redeem his people by dying, and then took him back to Heaven, *but* then sat back and watched to see what humanity did with the information it gained by the experience, without giving any other guidance. You have said for years now that Orthodoxy has an inside track on the Truth. That -- and your comment that prompted *my* comment -- seem to indicate that you believe that God has somehow favored the Orthodox Church, by pointing it to, not just The Way, but The Most Correct Way. And my position is that it's more plausible that God hasn't favored any of the denominations, and any that has/have stumbled onto The Most Correct Way have pretty much done it by accident. Because I have trouble believing that a healthy-minded parent would create children and then deliberately favor one over the other -- particularly on so serious a topic as the afterlife.

2. "Organized science" (if there is such a thing) is not analogous to organized religion. There's no Science God with all the answers. Scientists work with ideas that they believe are true -- but they have no trouble junking an idea that proves to be untrue for one that is more accurate. Organized religion, otoh, insists on holding fast to ideas that were declared Truth some 2,000 years ago.

3. You might have missed where I said that I'm one of those folks who is wary of organized religion. I don't much like corporations or totalitarian forms of government, either, and for the same reason: too much power concentrated in the hands of too few people lends itself to the abuse of that power. Whatever you believe about the divine inspiration behind a specific religion, the agents of that religion are humans, with human foibles and the all-too-human desire to enrich themselves while the less favored go without. It's a situation that's ripe for all kinds of abuse -- from financial to sexual to mental. (All of which we have seen in connection with various sects of the Church.) My own religious ideas may lead me down the garden path, but at least they won't lead me to trust someone who will hurt me.

Thanks, Ali.
On #1, a major tenet included among the others is that Christ established a definite Church, which was then built by the Apostles and designed to pass on/hand down the truth (paradosis) that they had received. (This is the part that doesn't that essentially CANNOT change that you are referring to in Christianity without it ceasing to be Christian (thus that book about the pagan Christ as being decidedly un-Christian, whatever the author or admirers claim). So your vision of a 'hands-off God' is already outside of the common tradition of Christianity. Of course there are more people and groups separating themselves from that tradition today than you can shake a stick at, and so, also ceasing to be Christian, but the main point remains that from its inception, the Church, despite its fallible members, was charged with passing down the revealed Truth.

I would not at all say that God has "favored" the Orthodox Church. I would put it the other way around: The Orthodox Church has chosen to "favor" God by keeping the Tradition; by handing down the paradosis. (I personally think that many non-Orthodox Christian are pleasing to God, despite not being part of the Tradition that maintained the paradosis, but that's another issue.) So hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings over "favoritism". I do agree with what you said about it, and would find such an idea equally repulsive. So it appears that so far, we are on the same page.

On #2, of course. No argument. But I do question the general lumping of "organized religion" - it seems to cast all as somehow identical. The question that must be raised about dogma - a base principle not open to correction or change (although it may be open to clarification) is whether it is true or not. If it is true, then its principles logically follow. Principles of logic do not become "outdated". We do hold a holy dogma of the validity of reason and can not possibly "discover" that our thoughts are all, as GKC put it, "random movements in the mind of a bewildered ape". Neither can a Christian "discover" that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, or that He didn't really establish a Church. So I think we mostly agree - where we part may be in an assumption that any religious idea must be disprovable and ought not to be held dogmatically.

On #3, nope, didn't miss it at all. In fact, I have indicated that I am well aware of the disadvantages of organizations. I do agree with you on an order of 99% regarding human institutions. I merely hold that there can be an exception to that general rule that you rightly point out. I start with a premise that people in my own Church are likely to screw up, particularly in not consistently keeping the tenets that they teach. What I don't get is any thought about the question that I posed - on the limitations of the individual and the general problem of hypo-criticism of the self as authority and the advantages of being organized. It's good to be wary, but a thinking person aware of the problems can still avail themselves of the institution while not being required to 'check their brain at the door'. I know, from personal experience.

Overall, it looks like here only minor shifts are required to shift from your POV to mine - there is obviously a lot of common ground.

It's OT, but my opinion is increasingly that, if one won't be Christian, it may be better to be pagan - even if only neo-pagan, than anything else. And especially for you (Ali), a Chestertonian praise of paganism - it starts with criticism of the young neo-pagans of the time, but moves on: www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/All_I_Survey.txt
It's essay #29, you'd have to scroll down, but I think you might appreciate the positive things GKC says there. Obviously, the ultimate POV is Christian, but GK's ability to find the good in what he disagrees with is still something I only aspire to.

[aliantha]

On #1, a major tenet included among the others is that Christ established a definite Church, which was then built by the Apostles and designed to pass on/hand down the truth (paradosis) that they had received.

Right, I get that. But that's no indication that God has been reaching in and tweaking things since then. Even if the Apostles got it right -- and they were close enough to the source that I will allow that they likely did -- the further you get from the original 12 guys, the more things diverge from what the Apostles created. And eventually you get to the point we are at today, with -- what? hundreds? -- of offshoots of that first church vying to be considered the Truest of the True.

For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter which one *is* the Truest of the True. The point is that God hasn't visibly reached into the process, since picking up Jesus and resurrecting him, and pushed one or another of the offshoots in the direction of the Right Path. (Maybe He has and we just don't know what to look for. I've thought for years that the Holy Spirit is, or is a manifestation of, the Universal life-force that I've mentioned here before.) But the mere proliferation of views of that original church argues for a God who set the ball rolling for this new church and then let his children exercise their, ahem, free will with it.

Whether that's outside the common tradition of Christianity or not, it sure explains some things.

I would not at all say that God has "favored" the Orthodox Church. I would put it the other way around: The Orthodox Church has chosen to "favor" God by keeping the Tradition; by handing down the paradosis. (I personally think that many non-Orthodox Christian are pleasing to God, despite not being part of the Tradition that maintained the paradosis, but that's another issue.) So hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings over "favoritism". I do agree with what you said about it, and would find such an idea equally repulsive. So it appears that so far, we are on the same page.

Good. Thanks for the clarification.

On #2, of course. No argument. But I do question the general lumping of "organized religion", etc.

You saw the winky, right? I was joking. And you fell for it! This is where I get to laugh and point!

It's good to be wary, but a thinking person aware of the problems can still avail themselves of the institution while not being required to 'check their brain at the door'. I know, from personal experience.

Clearly you are correct. There are lots of thinking people out there who belong to an organized religion; we have several here at the Watch.

BTW, my wariness extends to organized Pagan groups. One of the reasons I decided not to join ADF was because they intend to set up a sort of Pagan church, with local groves (congregations) as members of a national alliance -- complete with an administrative headquarters and everything. Just seems a little too bureaucratic for me....

It's OT, but my opinion is increasingly that, if one won't be Christian, it may be better to be pagan - even if only neo-pagan, than anything else. And especially for you (Ali), a Chestertonian praise of paganism - it starts with criticism of the young neo-pagans of the time, but moves on: www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/All_I_Survey.txt
It's essay #29, you'd have to scroll down, but I think you might appreciate the positive things GKC says there. Obviously, the ultimate POV is Christian, but GK's ability to find the good in what he disagrees with is still something I only aspire to.

Now you're starting to scare me! Thanks for the link. I think this is the first piece of GKC's I've read that I can say I (mostly) agree with.

[rusmeister]

Thanks, Ali,

On #1, a major tenet included among the others is that Christ established a definite Church, which was then built by the Apostles and designed to pass on/hand down the truth (paradosis) that they had received.

Right, I get that. But that's no indication that God has been reaching in and tweaking things since then. Even if the Apostles got it right -- and they were close enough to the source that I will allow that they likely did -- the further you get from the original 12 guys, the more things diverge from what the Apostles created. And eventually you get to the point we are at today, with -- what? hundreds? -- of offshoots of that first church vying to be considered the Truest of the True.

For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter which one *is* the Truest of the True. The point is that God hasn't visibly reached into the process, since picking up Jesus and resurrecting him, and pushed one or another of the offshoots in the direction of the Right Path. (Maybe He has and we just don't know what to look for. I've thought for years that the Holy Spirit is, or is a manifestation of, the Universal life-force that I've mentioned here before.) But the mere proliferation of views of that original church argues for a God who set the ball rolling for this new church and then let his children exercise their, ahem, free will with it.

Whether that's outside the common tradition of Christianity or not, it sure explains some things.

It is true that God leaves us our free will, that visible miracles are not common - although they ARE reported and are certainly visible to the local mass of ordinary people who witness them. (One of the more bizarre ones, Zoya's standing (1956) comes to mind - while I got 20,000 hits in Russian, including documentary videos, I could find little in English for you:

After being freed from camp in 1955, Father was taken into the Kuybyshev diocese by its Bishop Jeronimus. In 1956 there occurred an event which shook the entire Orthodox world – the famous “Zoya’s stand.”

A certain Zoya, who was a worker at a pipe factory, decided to celebrate New Year’s Eve with her friends. Her religious mother was against merriment during Christmas Lent, but Zoya did not heed her. All the friends gathered, and only Zoya’s fiance Nikolay was delayed somewhere. The music played, the young people danced, and Zoya alone had no pair. Mad at her fiance, Zoya took down an icon of St. Nicholas and said: “Since my Nicholas is not here, I will dance with St. Nicholas.” At her girlfriend’s counsel not to do it, Zoya arrogantly replied: “If there is a God, let Him punish me!” With these words she began dancing. At the third round the room became filled with great noise, a whirlwind appeared, a blinding light struck like lightning, and everyone ran out of the room in fear. Only Zoya remained rooted to the spot with the icon of St. Nicholas clamped to her breast, petrified and cold as marble.

She could not be moved from the spot, and her feet seemed to have grown into the floor. However, despite the lack of outward signs of life, Zoya was alive: her heart continued beating. From that time on she could neither drink, nor eat. The doctors applied all possible effort, but could not bring her to her senses. News of the miracle quickly spread all over the city, and many people came to look at Zoya’s stand. But after a while the city administration suddenly realized what was happening, and all approaches to the house were barred, a police guard was put around the building, while the curious and visitors were told that there was no miracle and nothing had happened there at all.

There are a great many reports of miracles like these throughout the centuries, some have a great deal of corroboration, such as the Catholic site in Lourdes, France. Whether or not the reports are true, certainly a large number of people report being witnesses to them.

So to say there's no indication is even questionable. If one holds a dogma that these claims must be false - cannot be true from the get-go, then of course they will see no indication, just as people who are convinced of the truth of them WILL see the indication.

So I think that it still comes back to the question of truth. And if one studies Church history, it becomes apparent that there is little or no history, let alone paradosis - the faithful handing down without change - among 99% of the divisions of Christianity To me it is obvious that Christian claims only make sense if we have a continuously existing and visible Church As soon as we apply this question - where was the given church in 400, 750, 1200, and so on, most of the candidates have no historical legs to stand on at all. Call them on their history and they start stuttering - although many pick up at the so-called reformation and mention Martin Luther. But what good is that if the Church had been abandoned by the Holy Spirit for 1500 years? The real difficulty arises when we are left with the candidates that really can claim paradosis - the Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic Churches (I am talking about the sensibility of Christian claims, of course).

So for the unbeliever I'd say that as soon as we apply the historical test, and most claimants fall off, then the objections of unbelievers to what they claimed also fall off. If I have proved to my own satisfaction that the Baptists cannot possibly be "It" (and I have) then there is no point in railing against Baptist claims. (In your case it would be Episcopalian, if memory serves) But that does not thereby prove all divisions to be in the wrong. It would have to be on other grounds.

In sum, there are certainly claims, and a great many of them, of God's continuing interference, so "what is true?" remains the point.

On #2, of course. No argument. But I do question the general lumping of "organized religion", etc.

You saw the winky, right? I was joking. And you fell for it! This is where I get to laugh and point!

Doh! I fell for it!!! I'm not worthy! Shame! Reproach!

[danlo]

There's so much being said that I can't really keep up with it all-I will address the "you can't err on the side of non-violence" argument, however. It's seems to me you have to, sort of, divide this between personal spiritual belief and actions taken in the real world. Perhaps a pacifist would take no action if she/he witnessed a grave wrong, such as rape or murder (I'll have to delve into real sources on the nature of "pacifism" as it has been told to me in the past by people who fancied themselves pacifists that yes in such incidences they would take no action). One who practices non-violence can exist in a dichotomy; on one hand believing that they and others should do no harm and believing that part of God's overall plan is that we must meet this goal as a species. On the other the difference is that a non-violent person (as opposed to a pacifist, for example) can takes steps to defend themselves, their family and other (such as your potential murder and rape victims). I do not wish to harm an insect, an animal or any other living thing-but I have jumped in trucks to stop domestic abuse and wrestled people to ground to prevent them from harming each other.

I don't believe that a "spiritually" non-violent person could not help but act in those regards. Perhaps there is an inherent problem with pacifism?

Just to scratch the tip of the iceberg re: organized religion and individualism: I guess rus would consider me born tainted for my views. Even since I was born, I'm not joking, I have been non-violent and fairly anti-social. Of course you could argue that I'm misleading myself and that it all goes back to upbringing and nurture-but I know that I have always felt this way, and felt that way before I decided to come to Earth (OMG we're not going to talk about reincarnation now are we? -as a matter of fact I strongly believe in reincarnation-but that's another issue). Now I'll address the nurture part: my belief in non-violence always been tested as the situation arose; I was given guns and army men as toys and immediately rejected them, I've had my share of bullying and threats and even though I swallowed a lot of bile and thoughts of vengeance I've continuously worked on trying to let that go and flush it from my consciousness. I still have a lot of work to do-forgiveness can be a very tough subject.

I've operated the same way in regards to organized religion, I'm simply not a pack animal; I've sung in a Methodist choir, I've attended Sunday School, I've had people attempt to peacefully and forcefully ask me to join there particular forms of organized religion. At times I've wanted to join religions, at other times my attempts to join have been rejected (by Catholics and Pagans alike [well the Pagans I've encountered thought that I was either too argumentative or just plain crazy]) in any case within my attempts I simply could not accept organized religion. And, it really wasn't that I felt ostracized or rejected or held grudges and thought myself superior--I just couldn't believe in it--I'm just not built that way.

I do believe that everyone should be free to seek their own (non-violent) path, be it organized religion or whatever. If it really helps someone to join an organized religion I'm fine with it just as long as they strive for peace and the acceptance of ALL others (even lepers and homosexuals). But, I'm definitely against it if they use "Old Testament" talking points and violent words like "wrath" and "soldiers" and so forth and in any way advocate the harming of others. Maybe I was "tainted at birth" like Elena, but I chose to forge my own personal path without imposing it on others. Am I the path? Is the Tao the path? Am I on the wrong path? To me whatever path I'm on is part of God's plan, therefore I am part of God's plan-and you are too, wherever you are.

So the way I look at it is: the path is God's plan, God is the plan, you are the path, therefore you are God and so is everyone and anything else...

[Seven Words]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent. A fundamental tenet of most faiths is "do not harm others" and violence clearly violates this tenet.

Even most martial art forms, many of which include elements of spirituality, train the student to use only as much violence as is needed to defuse a situation. Throw an attacker --> if he gets up and attacks again then hurt him a little --> if he continues to attack then make sure he feels it --> if he continues to attack then maim/cripple him --> if he continues to attack then make sure he cannot continue anymore, preferrably by knocking him out.

just now got back to this thread....

The martial art I practice does NOT ascribe to "minimum necessary violence". Cimande styles of Pencak Silat assume ANY need to defend yourself your life is on the line. The emphasis is to do maximum damage in minimum time, as 1-on-1 is the exception rather than the rule. Thus, the emphasis on destructions....knee-breaker kicks...impaling punching fists onto elbow point to break hand...takedowns with arm holds to separate the shoulder. As you progress, less permanently crippling methods are taught, which are derived from the brutal basics. Rather than joint breaks, more precise muscle destructions.... then on to nerve strikes.

And to not thread derail....we are a very spiritual style. We develop the "Warrior Mind", or "Combat Trance", where our killer instinct (to use the western psychological term) is brought to the fore, and even projected. W project our spiritual energy (well, the advanced level people do) into our strikes, to damage our opponents body AND the flow of their energy.

This mentality, this approach, turns a lot of people off of our style. *shrug* I am VERY comfortable with this approach to fighting...."Avoid it if you can, if unavoidable do EVERYTHING to win."

[rusmeister]

From what I have read about spirituality, most forms of it err on the side of being non-violent. A fundamental tenet of most faiths is "do not harm others" and violence clearly violates this tenet.

Even most martial art forms, many of which include elements of spirituality, train the student to use only as much violence as is needed to defuse a situation. Throw an attacker --> if he gets up and attacks again then hurt him a little --> if he continues to attack then make sure he feels it --> if he continues to attack then maim/cripple him --> if he continues to attack then make sure he cannot continue anymore, preferrably by knocking him out.

just now got back to this thread....

The martial art I practice does NOT ascribe to "minimum necessary violence". Cimande styles of Pencak Silat assume ANY need to defend yourself your life is on the line. The emphasis is to do maximum damage in minimum time, as 1-on-1 is the exception rather than the rule. Thus, the emphasis on destructions....knee-breaker kicks...impaling punching fists onto elbow point to break hand...takedowns with arm holds to separate the shoulder. As you progress, less permanently crippling methods are taught, which are derived from the brutal basics. Rather than joint breaks, more precise muscle destructions.... then on to nerve strikes.

And to not thread derail....we are a very spiritual style. We develop the "Warrior Mind", or "Combat Trance", where our killer instinct (to use the western psychological term) is brought to the fore, and even projected. W project our spiritual energy (well, the advanced level people do) into our strikes, to damage our opponents body AND the flow of their energy.

This mentality, this approach, turns a lot of people off of our style. *shrug* I am VERY comfortable with this approach to fighting...."Avoid it if you can, if unavoidable do EVERYTHING to win."

I'm constantly struck by the assumption people hold that spirituality is essentially a necessary good. To me it is obvious that it can be equally an evil spirituality as a good one; in fact, I find it far more likely that if there is any truth to our lives (which there logically must be) then if spirits (something far more concrete and honest than a nebulous "spirituality") are pulling people in different directions, then most of them must not be good, however fair-seeming the direction.

But in any event, the assumption that spirituality is a good thing is not rational.

On "do EVERYTHING", I can imagine quite a few unambiguously immoral acts in that word, such as raping helpless little girls, etc. So there has to be a moral qualifier.

Let me add, since it didn't get addressed, that I consider ALL humans to have been born tainted. We are NOT glorified animals. We are broken gods. We are Fallen and are less than what we ought to be. But I do not consider anyone to be born 'especially' tainted.

If there IS a struggle between good and evil, then organization in the name of good is obviously better than its absence, though it is granted that an evil religion could also be organized. Looks like that word "organized" is treated as an unqualified negative around here.

[Vraith]

The martial art I practice does NOT ascribe to "minimum necessary violence". Cimande styles of Pencak Silat assume ANY need to defend yourself your life is on the line.

And to not thread derail....we are a very spiritual style. We develop the "Warrior Mind", or "Combat Trance", where our killer instinct (to use the western psychological term) is brought to the fore, and even projected. W project our spiritual energy (well, the advanced level people do) into our strikes, to damage our opponents body AND the flow of their energy.

It is unfortunate that I've seen these styles being sportified. [My wife has a "black belt" in one of them, undiluted, I study something even...hmm...less polite... though we don't really use belt system except to talk to outsiders for comparison purposes].

But this shows an interesting thing...or asks/points at it. Those things you speak of using do not, in fact, require any specific "morals" or "religion" or "belief system" or "faith," or even a belief that any spirituality exists.. any more than breathing in and out, using oxygen, requires you to believe in a God of Air, let alone follow its rules.

I guess I'm agreeing with Rus, at least in part. You can be very spiritual and dedicated to human sacrifice.
Of course you can be dedicated to it without being spiritual at all, too.