|
Evil...
Sept 17, 2005 20:44:38 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 17, 2005 20:44:38 GMT -5
Hey Tyler,
The other day I found this strange bead of glass that reminded me of the rest of the world. It was outside my office, so I had probably stepped on it for weeks, maybe years. It has no color of its own. Sometimes it is black, sometimes almost a translucent gray. When the light is very bright I think I see imperfections inside, little circles that separate it from itself. I can see myself inside it, or I should say, I look for me there. And when I hold it very close to my eye, my pupil swallows up all other reflections, a black hole with green tentacles spreading out across a tiny universe. When I set it to capture me all at once, I am usually upside down in there. If I can turn myself round right, I am invariably very small. I held it up to the sun and focused a ray on my skin—or did I beam an image of my skin up to the sun?
There is a way for me to put this bead between everything in the world and me. There is a kind of me that I would be if it were always there and a kind of world.
Nes Pas?
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 18, 2005 8:15:31 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 18, 2005 8:15:31 GMT -5
Ok, I understand what you are saying. The implication is that it's a nudge. The people who do wrong in the name of faith would do wrong regardless of the context. The nudge is there to point the world more toward understanding. Some people can't see. You can show them the most simple of truths and they turn away. So I guess it's back to blaming humanity as a whole rather than the religions.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 19, 2005 9:53:35 GMT -5
Post by rickus on Sept 19, 2005 9:53:35 GMT -5
By the way, I think replacing the signs and fliers with a "rogue message" would be much more interesting. I don't know if you looked at Cory's link to this or not but, I have to thank him for making this possible. Here's a link to Ron English's web page devoted to his "Illegal Billboards" www.popaganda.com/billboards/index.shtmlThis is kind of what I was referring to when I suggested "replacing" the signs your taking down.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 19, 2005 11:20:15 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 19, 2005 11:20:15 GMT -5
I really like this guys stuff, though some of it escaped my understanding. What do you think would be the core message to get across? What would you suggest to be the thing that would bring about the most impact?
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 19, 2005 11:39:23 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on Sept 19, 2005 11:39:23 GMT -5
Have you guys seen these?
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 19, 2005 12:42:42 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 19, 2005 12:42:42 GMT -5
Justin, have you seen deez? (_)(_) Sorry, I couldn't resist. As for the posters, they're exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 19, 2005 12:45:42 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on Sept 19, 2005 12:45:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 21, 2005 19:54:55 GMT -5
Post by CaptAdam on Sept 21, 2005 19:54:55 GMT -5
Tyler, I think you have finally got what Jeff and the rest of us have been trying to say for a very long time. Your issue isn't with the religian, but with the people.
People are flawed except for you, (what am I saying, you know your wrong and will always be wrong and when your dead you'll still be wrong) aahh I feel better now.
Tyler you know my dad to some degree and you've heard me mention some of the things he has done. As an example based on him and the strong influence he has had in my life, I should be one of those people that could be converted to your way of thinking just by reading a book or by just talking with this group. Cause you all bring up very good arguements and alternative ways of looking at things. But I didn't go that way, instead I've grown closer to God and my faith continues to grow stronger, I have yet to read anything to shake my faith or give me pause in my literal belief of the bible and God as a reality and not a medifor.
Now based off of your discriptions of Religian as a whole I can see I don't fit in with your idea of chirstianity, the one you talk of is anything but what I believe in.
You would probable have been cheering my dad when he threatend to beat the shit out of the Nazarene pastor back in 1990 right in the church parking lot and how my mom stood up and defide that same pastor when that same preacher when he tryed to call my dad a heritic during a Wednesday night service.
My mother never stop attending church or believing and my father has come back to his faith just in the last 2 years.
So if what you have been saying all along is true then Jody Hull would probally be your poster child for your belief system, trust me he would have no problems with pushing the button on Religian or he wouldn't have back then.
So as I've said more than once and what the Bible points out. Being a Chirstian is something only you and God know for sure about and if you want the rest of the world to know what you believe then yes you have to walk the walk and talk the talk no matter how many times you may trip and fall. The bible calls the christian life a walk for a reason, cause it is just that hour by hour, day by day and month by month, it's a life time and not all of us will persaver to the end, but that doesn't mean we aren't saved other wise eternal life wouldn't really be eternal.
ooh and for Katie a short answer to a question you ask on anther folder. What I known and believe that bible sayes is that Faith in Jesus get's you saved and that once your saved you can never loose it and God's love and mercy is what made it possible to be saved. And yes Love is part of the theme of the bible also, because it is through our love that the world will know who we are. In the bible love is an action that comes with emotions sometimes and not the other way around as the world's idea of love is simply an emotion that may or may not have actions attached to it.
As for buddism, I have no real problem with it in general, it has some nice values to live by. But I can get the same from Christianity. From the little I remember from college buddism is about works and how if you do your darma you will be reborn untill you can become a priest ( I may be getting this confused with hinduism.) Christianity you get saved by believeing no works involved unless you feel believeing is a work, then once you've believed you can either just be a believer (none active christian) or you can become a disciple (an active christian). But you can be a disciple with out being a believer first.
Hope all are doing well, be sure to ask Rick how much fun we had wiring on his house. (sitting here drinking a cold beer with the lights on, ooh yea.)
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 21, 2005 22:45:38 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 21, 2005 22:45:38 GMT -5
Hey Cap Ad,
I always enjoy reading your stuff.
Like you, I think religious language points to something. I just don't believe that our langauges or concepts are able to capture, in a literal way, the transcendent reality that you call God. I don't think that religion is just a complicated shell game in which we really cryptically discuss practical advice for living the good life. It is more.
I guess that I should write up something about metaphors. I don't do a lot of philosophy of language, but I have thought a little about this topic, thanks to Justin's questioning of my ideas.
If I get some time this weekend, I'll do that.
Jeff
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 22, 2005 9:12:48 GMT -5
Post by CaptAdam on Sept 22, 2005 9:12:48 GMT -5
Hi, Jeff always good to see what new discussions you people are into.
Though your view and my view are going to always clash when it comes to the bible until one day one of us realise that one of us is on the correct path and we can both get on board. Until that day I fear the discussions that I try to be a part of will always end back up into the same old circles. I can honestly say at this time that I don't see my views on the bible and salvation every changeing, but I do see that your continues to evolve and I hope it will lead you to what I already know to be true. Sorry if that makes me sound conceded, but I really do believe what I've been saying, just as I know you really believe in what you've been saying. I just don't believe there is a gray area at least not at this time that we can truly both agree upon.
As for Tyler, be very careful about wanting to be so hostile in your questions and responses. One day some one could just snap and take it all to personal and hunt you down. Then it might turn into a scene from Sin City with Marv makeing someone suffer to the point that what ever hell you went to would seem like heaven when they got done with you.
I know I've been guilty of taking some of these comments to personal and then responding way to hostile. Of course words typed from a far have far less effect than comeing from some one in person. I work very hard to keep my emotions undercontrol and I would give you this friendly advise to try and work on yours also. It's not a threat, I don't do that it's just good advice, but you have to decide what to do with it.
;D
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 27, 2005 12:14:30 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 27, 2005 12:14:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 27, 2005 13:15:25 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 27, 2005 13:15:25 GMT -5
On what layer of hell did Woody Allen put the televangelists in his Deconstructing Harry? Was it the 7th? At least now we know what Robertson's punishment will be: He must survive on a diet that consists only of his nasty protein shake.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 28, 2005 7:40:34 GMT -5
Post by Tyler on Sept 28, 2005 7:40:34 GMT -5
So, you're saying that the bible isn't instructions about how to live your life, or a primer on moral action. You're saying that it's an illustration on how the world is, not how it should be?
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 28, 2005 8:55:03 GMT -5
Post by rickus on Sept 28, 2005 8:55:03 GMT -5
Ty,
Are you really sure you want to start this agian?
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 28, 2005 9:08:50 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 28, 2005 9:08:50 GMT -5
Yes, Tyler. I am saying that the Bible, and all the best religious writing, is an attempt to describe the world accurately from a certain point of view. However, the features of the world religion deals with are slippery and nearly unapproachable. Sometimes music and poetry get close to them, but animal brains and mammal instincts are crude instruments for investigating transcendence.
I would guess that the medicine you need is this: A mature religious outlook does not seek knowledge but locations/relations/connections within a field of mystery. Science tries to understand and manipulate by replacing mystery with knowledge. Its task will never be complete. Alternatively, Religion seeks points of contact with the world whatever its ultimate nature.
(A little elliptical but I am in a hurry. I should also say, that at this point I can only be speaking for my own understanding of religion, as I think many would disagree.)
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 28, 2005 11:12:09 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 28, 2005 11:12:09 GMT -5
Earlier I talked of writing a paper on metaphor. I did some research over the weekend, and discovered a nice paper that expresses views largely consistent with my own. Here is a link: www.ac.wwu.edu/~market/semiotic/lkof_met.htmlI'll post more links as I find them. So much easier than actually doing the work oneself. BTW: Here is the key: "Metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (that is, the image-schema structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain." The literalist wants to say one of two things, either 1) That there is no metaphor involved, or 2) that the metaphorical mapping preserves ALL of the cognitive topology of the source domain. Both are easily shown to be false by merely observing that while God is metaphorically conceived by Christians as a father/man he doesn't grow old as men do. Conversely, those who want to deny the adequacy of religious metaphor desire either to show that 1) ALL religious language is metaphorical, hence fantastical, or 2) Religious metaphors don't map onto anything real in the target domain. The first is easily shown to be mistaken, as it trades upon a bad theory of metaphor. The second is more difficult.... More later! Jeff
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 28, 2005 12:33:38 GMT -5
Post by Betterout on Sept 28, 2005 12:33:38 GMT -5
Conversely, those who want to deny the adequacy of religious metaphor desire either to show that 1) ALL religious language is metaphorical, hence fantastical, or 2) Religious metaphors don't map onto anything real in the target domain. The first is easily shown to be mistaken, as it trades upon a bad theory of metaphor. The second is more difficult.... I've not read the paper, but I'm familiar with semiotics and its ultimate precursor structuralism (Sassure does a fairly good job of describing both in "A Course in General Linguistics"). Just as you'd expect, I'm going to mention language, which itself is based largely on a set of metaphors. No one actually believes that the sound made by English speakers when they say 'dog' bears any physical (read: real world) connection to dogs. The entire semantic component of that word is little more than an analogy that has over time been agreed upon as referring to some aspect of dogness. Does it mean that all the time? No. That's because our set of semantic relationships are themselves extensible, fluid, and analogous at best--not some hard and fast 1:1 mapping. So, we can call our friends "old dogs," and we can say that a problem has been "dogging someone." Furthermore, the nature of language allows for discussion of things that heretofore have no real world analogs. For example, I can stipulate that 'zhleet' is my word for the refreshed feeling I get right after I take a crap. Now, once it's set up, we can talk about zleets all day. But, you have absolutely no idea how I REALLY feel right after I take a crap. You've simply created a slot for it, and filled it up with contextual clues and what not. This is the essence of language, because children must acquire the concepts gradually over time, even when they're not enforced by real world perceptions. Maya for instance, has seen only a handful of dogs in her life, but she still shouts "buff! buff!" when she sees new ones, even though she had no conceptualization of them prior to seeing them. She doesn't know what all fits in the 'dog' category, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have access to extensions of that category. Language is little more than metaphor. The same is true of religion. In fact, the two are rather similar on several levels. Languages and religions both have their own sets of fundamental vocabulary, rules, and contexts. Both deal largely if not exclusively in abstraction and analogy. Both change over time, innovating elements of older vocabulary, rules, or context. That's why it's hard to speak to people from other religions with which you're not familiar. My first thought about transmigration was, "huh? Can you explain that?" Instead, transmigration is so fundamental it's used to explain just about everything else. This itself is an analogy to the concept of mutual intelligibility, albeit a fairly loose one.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 29, 2005 13:08:20 GMT -5
Post by CaptAdam on Sept 29, 2005 13:08:20 GMT -5
I'm only very glad that the my faith and the God I serve doesn't change. Nor is it so full of metaphors that anyone can interpet it as they see fit. This gives me the peace of mind knowing that the God I believe in is really in charge of everything and that he has the power to keep his word.
And your right Tyler the bible should be taken literally, except where it is plain that it is a parrable or such. If the group as a whole looked at the bible and God from my view I know you would agree with me. Just as when I step back and look at it all through your view point, I can only but agree.
But by your views I am left with nothing to believe in, no true assurance in my salvation. How can I come to know or follow a God or faith where I'm the authority in what it has to say. Thus makeing us each our own personal little gods. If that we truely true, I'm afraid I would be a terrrible and petty god at best, cause I would crush those who opposed me or make them suffer for a 100 years before letting them die or just cease to exist.
Do take care all, I'm always happy to talk about this subject, but you already know what my thoughs are and that they haven't (nor will the ever) change.
Talk soon
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 29, 2005 13:49:01 GMT -5
Post by amanda on Sept 29, 2005 13:49:01 GMT -5
Adam said: I would be a terrrible and petty god at best, cause I would crush those who opposed me or make them suffer for a 100 years before letting them die or just cease to exist.
You know, Adam, some folks might argue that that is exactly what God says s/he will do to those who oppose or deny him/her, except instead of suffering 100 years, the suffering is eternal.
|
|
|
Evil...
Sept 29, 2005 14:21:06 GMT -5
Post by Jeff on Sept 29, 2005 14:21:06 GMT -5
|
|