Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, after reading bulma's post (and yours as well) the chart makes more sense.
I salute Bulma's explanation but there was nothing wrong with your critique either, Shirina. When we are in "we each get to decide what it means" territory, that means that for every Bulma-like interpretation, there is going to be someone who sees the issues you were concerned about.
That said, I don't have any better ideas on offer as to how to convey the concept behind the chart, if so be that the original intent was in fact as Bulma elucidated. Other than some explanatory / qualifying text, but then you end up with a as much text as chart and it sort of destroys the objective of representing it graphically.
This chart does call to mind the various descriptions of "spiritual maturity" that were advanced by Peck, Wilber and others in the past. Supposedly you start with chaotic thinking, move on to magical, then religious, then rational, and then finally a synthesis of what one might term "rational metaphysics". In such schemes we atheists are stuck one peg down from the top where folks like Rot likely see themselves or at least as aspiring to it. Personally I see an attempt to be open to the subjective / intuitive as anything other than giving your turgid rational mind a rest, as a partial regression, an understandable but still not very useful retreat from the harshness of bare-metal reality. A dog returning to its vomit, to use a Jesus-metaphor.
At any rate, the problem with all such systems is that the system trying to pigeonhole the messy drama of unevenly rational humanity into an orderly classification system. Even if you qualify that a person can be stuck or regress it is still a bit of a force fit. Still, they are not entirely useless as long as you recognize their limitations.
logical versus emotional comes to mind again. its stronger than "not entirely useless" they are more useful than not in many cases. Yes, All models fall short. Thats what we need to watch out for.
It's not "pigeonholing" as much as trying to make sense of uneven rational, as you pointed out. basically, get a fix on where I am so I can successfully navigate uneven waters. it's not about right and wrong. The disregard for , or deeming not useful, of the list should not be based on misuse (or personal fear) but rather dismissed on validity. People misusing the "tool" should be addressed at first. Then the " tool". Like cars, fire, and guns.
I just don't know if you are paranoid mort due to your big scar or just really scared. scared might be overstating a really, really cautious person.
People have patterns, and these patterns are great predictors of what is going on. To remove patterns (or say they don't exist) or cookie cut people patterns are equally as bad. For example, how one views a particular belief is based on past experience and knowledge. That's a simple harsh fact.
we all are striving to learn more or be a little better. To say we all are on the same path is one thing. To claim all spots have equal understanding is another. The harsh reality is that I won't be a professional sports player. The equally harsh reality is that not everybody can see that yonder sure.
The dog reacts to smells. Vomit it a strong smell. The dog may not even remember the puking event per say but he remembers some smells in the vomit and reacts to all strong sents.
Actually, this chart appears to be (mostly) accurate. I mean, there are exceptions, which provide ways to enlightenment, even when the person believes in stuff that appears to be lower level. But here's how it normally works.
The human grows up under tribalism, learning the culture of their family. If it ends here, we essentially have xenophobic narrow person. We call this "small-minded" and they tend to be the sorts of people that outright kill those different from themselves. Native Indians live in tribes. But this is different from "tribalism" which is more about small closed communities and family groups.
Next, with have culturalism. This is basically patriotism/nationalism, and is fine in moderation. But dying for a country or group is damned stupid as it will never do the same for you. No, really, ask what your country can/will do for you.
Next, we have paganism. Polytheism is okay, nature-worship is okay, but paganism has a whole load of persistent stupidity. Our "culture" has "traditions" and superstitions like not shaking hands over a threshold, that basically trap it in taboos that keep an us-them between them and outsiders. Think Fiddler on a Roof or Ukrainian culture. Thankfully, both Judaism and Wicca have moved past this. The reason this is lower level, is because we are not talking paganism as "polytheistic culture" but "superstitious taboo culture."
Sectism is where many budding religions stop, at cult status. The follower is given limited information (or free thought and questioning is restricted), and discouraged or forbidden to leave. This is a higher level thought than earlier stuff, but in some ways more restrictive. The members have just enough to start thinking about religious issues themselves, and "careful now, don't get too uppity."
A religion is allowed to join or quit as on wants, and has some contact with others. It has some of the problems of organized religion, like dogma, fooling around with incense, and bureaucracy.
Spirituality passes by the constraints of holy books and organized religion. They have the structure of the religion they belong to, but it's like Jesus said about neither worshiping in the temple or in the mountain but "in spirit and in truth." The time and place no longer matter, but they are faithful Buddhists/Hindus/whatever, just self-driven.
Awakening is... difficult to explain. In the most simple terms, this is where you begin to wake up and debate things. If you've been reading the Bible, suddenly you reexamine passages you know by heart. It also means awakening to the reality of the world. A hard worker suddenly realizes that some of their work climate is rigged, or maybe really weird, that their government is messed up, whatever. This is the point where you take notice of things going on, and begin taking action. Volunteering, trying to help improve the human condition.
Enlightenment, is sort of post-awakening. You have gone through the process, and have effectively moved through it. This is not so much being "so over it" into apathy, but more you have a sense that there is something larger than you, a cosmic Self rather than just your personal issues and prejudices. Very similar to this, in fact. It is possible to backslide, to temporarily go to a less advanced spiritual state. It is also important to note that the mundane processes are still a part of you, the difference is that the higher you go, the more meaning things have. There's a story of a man who before enlightenment chopped wood and carried water. After? He chopped wood and carried water. Same job. But now, it had meaning to him.
This is not so much a fixed point, as a growth progress, not simply for individuals, but one we hope will happen for all religions. To have all of its members grow in their own faith where they realize their purpose and their truth and their connection to the universe. In this model, the follower moves from dependence on family/nation to gradually more freedom, from ignorance to awareness. This is a model of spiritual evolution, and it works. What's unsupportable? It isn't cited, maybe, but it works as a model. The problem you have is that it's based on an awareness level, not on the words our culture uses. Chronology has nothing to do with this, a religion may be brand new, and yet have its member reach the highest levels. It may have been around a long time, and not be past the earlier stages. And "very sophisticated" or "very spiritual" is not the litmus test. This is a gauge of awareness not the amount of faith. Fundamentalist religions have super-strong faith but are usually stuck at the sect stage. To be awakened is to be aware that we have collective consciousness, to be enlightened is to arrive at the truth (which may indeed be highly personal) and be able to let go of attachment.
In terms of Native Americans... they were once a religion, and possibly higher. But we've wiped out their culture to a large extent, and lacking many of the elders to show them the way, have actually had to reinvent/relearn things. This means that they have the remnants of a much higher consciousness, but are stuck down at paganism, because they just know about their gods, they don't understand what their religion means. Given time, they will probably come up with it again, but this is a cultural growth deal (thanks, white people!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Your post pretty much sums up the chart bulma. I am happy that it is understood in the way it was meant to be. Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
yeah, bluma very well done. No christ sake you cleared up my thughts in my head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Yeah, after reading bulma's post (and yours as well) the chart makes more sense.
Ahh, yes, everything is now cleared up. I originally ask the question, "Are non believers out of line for confronting believers concerning the apparently foolish and child-like nature of their religious beliefs and claims?" And that question has clearly been answered. You all derive your religious/spiritual beliefs, and therefore your view of reality, from cartoons on the Children's Network Nickelodeon. This fully explains the cartoon-like nature of your opinions. The problem here seems to be me. Of course your beliefs are child-like. I thought all of this time I was dealing with adults. You will all have to excuse me now for awhile. I's my turn to be Batman.
Ahh, yes, everything is now cleared up. I originally ask the question, "Are non believers out of line for confronting believers concerning the apparently foolish and child-like nature of their religious beliefs and claims?" And that question has clearly been answered. You all derive your religious/spiritual beliefs, and therefore your view of reality, from cartoons on the Children's Network Nickelodeon. This fully explains the cartoon-like nature of your opinions. The problem here seems to be me. Of course your beliefs are child-like. I thought all of this time I was dealing with adults. You will all have to excuse me now for awhile. I's my turn to be Batman.
Well, oddly enough, I thought I've made it well known on this forum that I'm an atheist - perhaps even a militant one - so I'm not certain how all the sudden, after what, almost 3,000 posts, how I'm suddenly religious and spiritual, deriving my beliefs from Nickoledeon.
That's quite a leap -- and yes, you did quote me, so I'm assuming your post included me within your little snare. Sorry but no. All I said is that the chart makes more sense ... I didn't say, "WOW! After seeing that chart, well, dayum! I'm gunna get all spiritual and New Agey and chuck atheism into the trash!"
Just because I don't belabor every point or write long essays countering every last opinion doesn't suddenly make me ... uh ... a child?
If you can show me where I ever said that we non-believers actually ARE out of line, I'll eat my computer monitor.
Well, oddly enough, I thought I've made it well known on this forum that I'm an atheist - perhaps even a militant one - so I'm not certain how all the sudden, after what, almost 3,000 posts, how I'm suddenly religious and spiritual, deriving my beliefs from Nickoledeon.
That's quite a leap -- and yes, you did quote me, so I'm assuming your post included me within your little snare. Sorry but no. All I said is that the chart makes more sense ... I didn't say, "WOW! After seeing that chart, well, dayum! I'm gunna get all spiritual and New Agey and chuck atheism into the trash!"
Just because I don't belabor every point or write long essays countering every last opinion doesn't suddenly make me ... uh ... a child?
If you can show me where I ever said that we non-believers actually ARE out of line, I'll eat my computer monitor.
If your comment to bulmabriefs and Rotagivan was meant to be tongue-in-cheek then by the powers vested in me as the creator of this topic I absolve you of the charge of being child-like. Now, run along and play.
Ahh, yes, everything is now cleared up. I originally ask the question, "Are non believers out of line for confronting believers concerning the apparently foolish and child-like nature of their religious beliefs and claims?" And that question has clearly been answered. You all derive your religious/spiritual beliefs, and therefore your view of reality, from cartoons on the Children's Network Nickelodeon. This fully explains the cartoon-like nature of your opinions. The problem here seems to be me. Of course your beliefs are child-like. I thought all of this time I was dealing with adults. You will all have to excuse me now for awhile. I's my turn to be Batman.
yeah, sure whatever you say. you clearly understand it all. lmao.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is also important to note that the mundane processes are still a part of you, the difference is that the higher you go, the more meaning things have. There's a story of a man who before enlightenment chopped wood and carried water. After? He chopped wood and carried water. Same job. But now, it had meaning to him.
