In Defense of Doubt

[Mendalla]

OK, but I'd be thinking, that from an internal moral POV, it's the same thing, yes?

No, it is not. It is a higher standard. You can be a member of the UCCan but still fail the test of essential agreement to be a minister. If a minister is determined to not be in essential agreement, they can't be ordained, but they can still be a member.

And just to make it quite clear, I am a full member of a UCCan, and make my atheistic beliefs very clear quite openly.

And you're absolutely fine until you try to be ordained. Then you might run into problems.

 

[Mendalla]

And, to steer this back on course, I do not think doubt is going to keep you from being a UCCan member. It might keep you from wanting or trying to be one, but it won't keep you from actually being one if you so choose.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Agreed. I almost think that doubt and UCC membership tend to be very comfortable bedfellows. We are all on the road to Emmaus.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Uh, well, actually, I think you sorta have, pretty well since you joined us. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but that's the general theme I've heard from you.

And if you view a "spiritual experience" as totally subjective, which it must be (unless it's a shared experience, of which I have heard crickets here, and would be inclined to view such as "mass hysteria"), then how can there be a "Gold Standard" upon which to judge something so completely subjective?

There can't. If all it is, is subjective. However since the end of the second world war. Spirituallity has taken a different turn it now refers to the secular also. You and I both have places where we are most happiest, our spiritual home if you like. We both have people that make us feel good, that boost our happiness ratio. There appears to be a new kind of spiritually that doesn't seem to be solely to do with the human psyche. It is to do with wellness, comfort, etc. Possibly it should not be referred to as spiritual. Then there wouldn't need to be a gold standard.

You misunderstood what I meant by auras. The visual cortex in some people will create a pattern of lights in the visual field that seem to be in front of whatever that person is looking at. The first I experienced them was about 11 years ago. There was a polygon shaped band around about 80% of my visual field There were bands of colours at close to a right angle with band including white and black bands flowing around the band. The central 50% or do of the visual field was like looking through the focusing part of a good SLR camera when it is out of focus. The aura yesterday started with a small black and white circle in the centre of my visual field. The circle was replaced by a partial band with colours that varied in length and position. Every aura for me is different and had nothing to do with seeing colours around people or objects. They are imaginary but I have no choice in seeing them. I am unusual in that they are not connected to impending migraine headaches. Because you have not experienced them, they cannot be part of your truth. They are a part of my truth, not about something physical in the world, but part of the functioning of my brain.

And as such purely subjective so not truths. People are colour blind, dyslexic, myopic, etc. None of those are truths they are problems. Just because your eyes don't focus properly doesn't mean you are somehow special. You have a problem, called synaesthesia. But if you are happy with seeing these auras that is your prerogative. But they are not truths. Because truths pertain to everybody not just the self.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Because truths pertain to everybody not just the self.

Except that if Jim's auras are caused by a specific trigger in his brain, that can be identified by a neurologist, who could confirm that there are people for whom a certain stimulus can cause a certain visual anomaly, then it is a truth.

I have auras, too, usually without headaches, but not always. The zig-zaggy rainbows make reading an Excel spreadsheet something of a challenge...

 

[jimkenney12]

There can't. If all it is, is subjective. However since the end of the second world war. Spirituallity has taken a different turn it now refers to the secular also. You and I both have places where we are most happiest, our spiritual home if you like. We both have people that make us feel good, that boost our happiness ratio. There appears to be a new kind of spiritually that doesn't seem to be solely to do with the human psyche. It is to do with wellness, comfort, etc. Possibly it should not be referred to as spiritual. Then there wouldn't need to be a gold standard.

And as such purely subjective so not truths. People are colour blind, dyslexic, myopic, etc. None of those are truths they are problems. Just because your eyes don't focus properly doesn't mean you are somehow special. You have a problem, called synaesthesia. But if you are happy with seeing these auras that is your prerogative. But they are not truths. Because truths pertain to everybody not just the self.

I do not know what you mean by truth. One of my truths is that the sight part of my brain creates illusions. When I had the first event, my principal drove me to the nearby hospital as we were thinking I was having a stroke or something. I was given an MRI and other tests. The emergency doctor explained that the aura was not related to anything physical or biochemical in my body. It was just something that brains do sometime. Mine probably are not as disturbing as those of Bette the Red.

Why did you believe there needed to be some kind of gold standard for spiritual experiences?

 

[Luce NDs]

Gold Standards provide amber glows to illuminate the Golden Rule ... something denied in humanity a great deal ... as we demand more than the other based on some crazy flash ... outlandish auras beyond rational ones!

Is suicide on the same beam of scale as martyrdom ... a strange aura that doesn't auger well with those liking to enslave all other folks in their belief systems that may not have merit on the other side of the veil, vale, gap, or other divide that devises us in the squeeze ... good vices? Perhaps abstract escapism ... and without physical resources ... perhaps folk need CERB to finance the way out ...

Sort of like excavation into the field of gravity ... strikes me as a ode to feelings ... perhaps intuition alone ... the great alone is like that in admonishment! It may pop up as a demonising warning ... great powers hate such opposition to corruption! Thus the wastage goes down ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Except that if Jim's auras are caused by a specific trigger in his brain, that can be identified by a neurologist, who could confirm that there are people for whom a certain stimulus can cause a certain visual anomaly, then it is a truth.

No it isn't as the neurologist cant see them, he is only going by what other patients, and medical professionals have claimed.
I could say I hear a ringing in my ears, and an otorhinolaryngologist would say I have tinnitus, yet he can't hear the ringing. He only knows because of other patients, and medical professionals. Some things may be common. But that doesn't make them factual. Just common. Being colour blind, is only true to the victim.
My uncle David said he was colour blind between brown and green. Yet as humans we can see more shades of the colour green than any other colour, literally hundreds, due to our survival instinct. So where was the cross-over point for him.

I do not know what you mean by truth. One of my truths is that the sight part of my brain creates illusions.

Yes for you. Subjectively.

The emergency doctor explained that the aura was not related to anything physical or biochemical in my body. It was just something that brains do sometime.

Yes your brain. Only true to you.

Why did you believe there needed to be some kind of gold standard for spiritual experiences?

Because spirituality has changed in the past 75 years, and it means different things to different people, so it needs some clarification.

 

[Waterfall]

Because spirituality has changed in the past 75 years, and it means different things to different people, so it needs some clarification.

How would you describe your own unique spiritual experience(s)?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

How would you describe your own unique spiritual experience(s)?

Already have on post 64# This is taken from it. "You and I both have places where we are most happiest, our spiritual home if you like. We both have people that make us feel good, that boost our happiness ratio. There appears to be a new kind of spiritually that doesn't seem to be solely to do with the human psyche. It is to do with wellness, comfort, etc. "

 

[BetteTheRed]

"You and I both have places where we are most happiest, our spiritual home if you like. We both have people that make us feel good, that boost our happiness ratio. There appears to be a new kind of spiritually that doesn't seem to be solely to do with the human psyche. It is to do with wellness, comfort, etc. "

While there's much in that with which I agree, it's missing something. The negative. Some of the most stirring "spiritual experiences" I've ever had have made me feel very uncomfortable. Our last moderator, Jordan Cantwell, delivered a sermon in our sanctuary, which challenged me then, and still challenges me now, and not in a comfortable way at all.

If spiritual experiences only comprise the pretty, the pleasant, the loving, the comfortable, then we have entirely missed out on the possible spiritual benefits of deserts, of dark nights of the soul, of abandonment and despair. They, too, are teachers.

 

[Waterfall]

While there's much in that with which I agree, it's missing something. The negative. Some of the most stirring "spiritual experiences" I've ever had have made me feel very uncomfortable. Our last moderator, Jordan Cantwell, delivered a sermon in our sanctuary, which challenged me then, and still challenges me now, and not in a comfortable way at all.

If spiritual experiences only comprise the pretty, the pleasant, the loving, the comfortable, then we have entirely missed out on the possible spiritual benefits of deserts, of dark nights of the soul, of abandonment and despair. They, too, are teachers.

Now I want to know what Jordan Cantwell's sermon was about that challenged you.

 

[BetteTheRed]

It had to do with a personal relationship. I get forgiveness, I have done it, I have received it. This was about dealing graciously in the moments in which you are being abused. I still haven't forgiven that particular person (and that's sort of beside the point), but the whole sermon gave me some particular insights into my own character which I didn't really like. At all.

 

[Waterfall]

It had to do with a personal relationship. I get forgiveness, I have done it, I have received it. This was about dealing graciously in the moments in which you are being abused. I still haven't forgiven that particular person (and that's sort of beside the point), but the whole sermon gave me some particular insights into my own character which I didn't really like. At all.

Thanks for sharing, I've had similar experiences from sermons too.....sometimes they just speak to us don't they?

 

[Mendalla]

If spiritual experiences only comprise the pretty, the pleasant, the loving, the comfortable, then we have entirely missed out on the possible spiritual benefits of deserts, of dark nights of the soul, of abandonment and despair. They, too, are teachers.

Indeed. If spirituality is ultimately about how we live and engage with life, all aspects of life must feed into that.

 

[jimkenney12]

No it isn't as the neurologist cant see them, he is only going by what other patients, and medical professionals have claimed.
I could say I hear a ringing in my ears, and an otorhinolaryngologist would say I have tinnitus, yet he can't hear the ringing. He only knows because of other patients, and medical professionals. Some things may be common. But that doesn't make them factual. Just common. Being colour blind, is only true to the victim.
My uncle David said he was colour blind between brown and green. Yet as humans we can see more shades of the colour green than any other colour, literally hundreds, due to our survival instinct. So where was the cross-over point for him.

Yes for you. Subjectively.

Yes your brain. Only true to you.

Because spirituality has changed in the past 75 years, and it means different things to different people, so it needs some clarification.

So only experiences or observations that can be made by most people can be true by your definition of true. So true does not mean fact, just easily verifiable, by your definition. Not all humans can see hundreds of shades of green. So you can see those shades of green but they cannot. So it is not true that you see all those shades of green. You are imaging those shades. It is a subjective experience.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

So only experiences or observations that can be made by most people can be true by your definition of true. So true does not mean fact, just easily verifiable, by your definition.

No you completely missed it. Not my definition at all. That is exactly what you should not do you, should not call something true just because it is common. It only becomes true when it is deemed factual.

Not all humans can see hundreds of shades of green. So you can see those shades of green but they cannot. So it is not true that you see all those shades of green. You are imaging those shades.

Yes some humans can't see them all or any as the case may be. However, those are people who have mental or physical problems.
Yes it is true that humans see all shades of green, However, the ones with problems don't.
In the past they would have been the ones that became the victims of predators. The same as those who had hearing problems, or were aged.

It is a subjective experience.

It most definitely is, hence why it can't be deemed a truth.

 

[Luce NDs]

No you completely missed it. Not my definition at all. That is exactly what you should not do you, should not call something true just because it is common. It only becomes true when it is deemed factual.

Yes some humans can't see them all or any as the case may be. However, those are people who have mental or physical problems.
Yes it is true that humans see all shades of green, However, the ones with problems don't.
In the past they would have been the ones that became the victims of predators. The same as those who had hearing problems, or were aged.

It most definitely is, hence why it can't be deemed a truth.

Thus this can only be observed from where you are at ... if you can see how sympathetic systems mesh with the autonomous .... i.e. the neurotic vs the psychotic ... the latter being mostly in the dark ... so we don't know!

Like human communication of data ... much passes through like a dog's breakfast ... regurgitation of the mostly undigested feed ... some not even Ptah 'd lamb ... not chewed whatsoever!

Go figure on what we don't know is immense ... like a strange god ... causing great fear instead of interest in what can be seen from out-there! That bean objective seed ...

 

[jimkenney12]

So what makes something factual?

 

[Luce NDs]

Its a long shot considering what we don't know of immortal topics!