[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
There’s also something very childish about saying that “my religion is better than yours”. Which, in a very flowery, hippie-dippy way, is what he did.
He spoke with prejudice and bias while elevating new age and buddism by calling it adult. I don’t give a fuck who he is, he is being as asshole.
I think the Tao states that one should be as water and flow to the low areas.
Much of what he stated rings true to me. I question the need for it to be expressed.
I can’t recall the last Bhudist jihad or crusade. The world will be a better place when there is an awareness
of no seperation, Wall Street banker or Australian bush man all the same truth, the universe looking back upon itself.
The Tao cannot be stated. If it can be stated then it is not Tao.
Mr. Chek seems to be doing a little bit of religion/philosophy conflation, and appears to be coming down on the side that philosophy is better. That’s not to say that most religions don’t also have an associated philosophy, but you can have philosophy without religion: Taoism for example, is not a religion as it makes to attempt to describe the origins of the universe, and doesn’t give us a metaphysics. It’s merely prescriptive. Philosophy is more palatable, as there are fewer absolutes, and there is a more liquid transition from one to another. Religion, on the other-hand describes metaphysics and gives us a story or mythology about how it all began and why things are the way they are. You either buy into the story, or you don’t. If you kind of buy it, you’re just half-assing and lying to yourself. Agreeing with much of Christian philosophy, doesn’t make you a Christian. While different groups of Christians might disagree about what exactly makes one a Christian, the adhering to the precepts of the Nicene Creed is a good place to start. And that’s where you get that inclusion/exclusion aspect Mr. Chek doesn’t really like. But if you’re religion prescribes a creation story to explain EVERYTHING, then anyone who doesn’t buy it is WRONG. There’s not a whole lot of gray area there.
The “adult region” idea might be apt, but I think what he’s really saying is that religions are “for children”, and philosophy is for adults, i.e. region claims to answer things we couldn’t possibly know the answer to, so buying into them is naive and childish, where philosophy can be discussed, changed and adapted, and is more about how we conduct ourselves, than trying to describe the nature of the world. No doubt, some will find that idea very offensive, but all you have to do is become a historian of religion, and see that that ancient religions tended to describe a very dogmatic universe, where even very small things (like lightning) had a complex, specific, metaphysical explanation. And religion has had to withdraw from these areas, as the world we live in became more ‘known’, and a physical answer replaced the metaphysical one. We’ve come so far that in order to accept one of the Abrahamic religions are this point (for example), one has to suspend reason, and rely on “faith” (which at this point “having faith” seems to have become little more than a justification of cognitive dissonance).
On the other hand “New Age” philosophies (sometimes pretending to be religion), don’t offer the same kind of explanation and fulfillment that real religion can. It’s not the best of both worlds, it’s a different kind of “thing”. And the worst, and perhaps most intellectually dishonest (IMHO) strain of this New-Ageism, i when it purports to to eliminate the dissonance between various religions and fins “the truths” that exist in all of them. What a load of bullshit (IMHO).
I don’t mind Chek, I just wish celebrities and trainers and everybody would just do what their good at and not try to be philosophers. I am majoring in theology and I’ve learned that many of these pseudo-philosophers are really misguided. That is why I avoid discussing religions outside of class, even though I have taken dozens of religious classes I still don’t consider myself worthy to try to influence others.
The biggest problem with this is not Chek’s opinion or the guy from Georgia’s above or any of that. No the problem is that, just like politics, it seems people are incapable of having an actual debate on religion without it turning into a shouting and name calling match.
The fastest growing minority in America are those who affirm no religious affiliation. We NEED to have a structured debates on stuff like this or else we’ll be shouting all the way to our graves.
i guess i was surprised to see an article on him today, i had read all his former articles before, but its nice to see that hes still contributing
[quote]chrisd2147 wrote:
We NEED to have a structured debates on stuff like this or else we’ll be shouting all the way to our graves.[/quote]
How much more structured can a debate in a political forum be?
NO NEED FOR SHOUTING!!!
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”
New Ageism is a narcissistic, self-absorbed, pseudo philosophy/“religion.” It is only about attempting to deify the self, to turn yourself into a little god. It’s just the sort of philosophy that would appeal to a guy who talks ecstatically about his own fecal matter.
[quote]chrisd2147 wrote:
The biggest problem with this is not Chek’s opinion or the guy from Georgia’s above or any of that. No the problem is that, just like politics, it seems people are incapable of having an actual debate on religion without it turning into a shouting and name calling match.
The fastest growing minority in America are those who affirm no religious affiliation. We NEED to have a structured debates on stuff like this or else we’ll be shouting all the way to our graves.[/quote]
Structure? Structure is a major part of the problem as it is. Are you familar with discursive thought? Religion, atheists, as well as all major players exploit discursive (sp?) thinking and language whenever they create an arguement or debate. Add social alienation on almost every level (race, class, sex, even age) to the mix and shit hits the fan the minute these questions are opened. We all have way more in common than we even realize but discursive patterns prevent this.
Its no real wonder debates on the internet turn into arguements.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”
New Ageism is a narcissistic, self-absorbed, pseudo philosophy/“religion.” It is only about attempting to deify the self, to turn yourself into a little god. It’s just the sort of philosophy that would appeal to a guy who talks ecstatically about his own fecal matter.
[/quote]
ROFL that last sentence of yours is genius.
[quote]So far as I personally am concerned I had better state that I feel as little entitled to assert as to deny the existence of what others call God, for I must admit that I just do not know what this word is supposed to mean. I certainly reject every anthropomorphic, personal, or animistic interpretation of the term, interpretations through which many people succeed in giving it meaning. The conception of a man-like or mind-like acting being appears to me rather the product of an arrogant overestimation of the capacities of a man-like mind. I cannot attach meaning to words that in the structure of my own thinking, or in my picture of the world, have no place that would give them meaning. It would thus be dishonest of me were I to use such words as if they expressed any belief that I hold.
I long hesitated whether to insert this personal note here, but ultimately decided to do so because support by a professed agnostic may help religious people more unhesitatingly to pursue those conclusions that we do share. Perhaps what many people mean in speaking of God is just a personification of that tradition of morals or values that keeps their community alive. The source of order that religion ascribes to a human-like divinity â?? the map or guide that will show a part successfully how to move within a whole â?? as we now learn to see to be not outside the physical world but one of its characteristics, one far too complex for any of its parts possibly to form an ‘image’ or ‘picture’ of it. Thus religious prohibitions against idolatry, against the making of such images, are well taken. Yet perhaps most people can conceive of abstract tradition only as a personal Will. If so, will they not be inclined to find this will in ‘society’ in an age in which more overt supernaturalisms are ruled out as superstitions?
On that question may rest the survival of our civilization.
~F.A. Hayek
[/quote]
In the end what Check specifically balieves doesn’t really matter. the base of what he’s saying is that the mind, the body and the “spirit” all influence eachother and that not developing all three is robing each of potential.
The “spirit” being what is left of an individual when physical properties and intelectual abilities are excluded (that is a poor definition but it’s close enough).
The mind definetly influences the body and the right psychology makes extrodinary athletes. Having good morals/ethics and baliefe in somthing outside ourselves is also a quality found in most great athletes and people in general.
This of course does not have to be a religious or philisophical thing, but i would say that having a baliefe in somthing outside ourselves whatever it is (weather subject to change/evolution or not) and moral guidlines we live by (be them our own or someone elses) are what spirituality really boils down to.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”
[/quote]
What? Jammer that statement does sound childish, too bad that it doesn’t make sense and has nothing to do with what hes arguing.
I personally like some of the ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism. I see what Gandhi was able to do. He streamed through the thousands of pages of religious writing and got to the point.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
New Ageism is a narcissistic, self-absorbed, pseudo philosophy/“religion.” It is only about attempting to deify the self, to turn yourself into a little god.
[/quote]
I tried briefly to think of a way to expand on this. I gave up.
Very well said.
I would clarify, that I certainly do not consider Buddhism or Taoism new age.
Interesting.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Raided wrote:
I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.
[/quote]
Why? The cosmos owes you nothing, my good man. What’s truly childish is saying “I can do and believe whatever I like and, by golly, I’ll still go to heaven!”[/quote]
Perhaps what’s truly childish is believing in heaven.
Stranger in a Strange Land popularized the phrase “Thou art God” some 40 years ago.
In a letter to his editor in 1960, Robert Heinlein explained and summarized what he had intended that phrase to convey:
[i]That pantheistic, mystical “Thou art God!” chorus that runs through the book is not offered as a creed, but as an existentialist assumption of personal responsibility, devoid of all godding. It says, "Don’t appeal for mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he’s not at home and never was at home, and couldn’t care less.
What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy - live or die - is strictly your business and the universe doesn’t care. In fact, you may be the universe and the only cause for your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you are. So quit sniveling and face up to it - “Thou art God!”[/i]