A Possible Republican future

[DrumR]

Hello Nick_A

Will
Abortion allowable under specified conditions is another issue a conservative should be proud to defend. It raises the obvious question of respect for life and when we have the right to kill.

I would like to see such a discussion based upon reason, if possible.

Will
Jeff is right. We need the Apollo Creed influence to kick some butt and clean house so that conservatism can again serve its legitimate purpose in society.

Such violence - and the extra work involved cleaning up the mess created in the first place. Most in-efficient.

(turn about is fun at times)

 

[Nick_A]

Hi DrumR

Well if you do play drums, we have that in common. I also played drums in bands for ten years or so. Now I'm a keyboard player.

I would like to see such a discussion based upon reason, if possible.

I would also but also wonder if it is possible. Republicans are lost on this issue. It should never be discussed in the context of pro life or pro choice but rather the value of respect for life that minimizes the need for choice.

Abortion is a short term pragmatic solution to the problem of pregnancy. It is seen as isolated and separate from the life process itself that begins at the quality of conception and concludes with the quality of death if one is concerned with things like karma for example.

Modern secular life is such that only a few consider the value of respect for the life process as a whole. This is a spiritual idea that conservatism should express in a sensitive intellectual manner. Young people are drawn to it since they feel the truth of it if presented right.

Can you imagine a college kid being asked if a woman has a right to an abortion? the majority would say yes. Ask the same kid if we have an obligation to respect life and the life process itself. What would they say. Then ask if there were a greater respect for life, would this minimize abortion from sex being taken more seriously as part of respecting the life process? You may inspire some thought. The question would be raised as to why respect life. This is a spiritual question. In Christianity the reason is that the Christian purpose is to participate in allowing "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." This means that we receive a spiritual quality from above and nurture the earth with it. It is actualizing respect for the value of life.

But these questions are never discussed in this way. the liberals don't want it and the fundamentalists don't want it. They stick to talking points. So a minority wishing to CONSERVE the value of respect for life must structure abortion within a deeper context rather than the norm.

Simone Weil wrote this beautiful short poem describing objective inner morality.

[SIZE=+2]There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
[/SIZE]

Can you imagine a woman coming to an abortion clinic and advised to do this? It would never happen. But I'm convinced that if more young people were taught to open up in this way, there would be less abortion from a greater respect for the life process itself which is actually natural for us.

 

[DrumR]

Hi DrumR

Well if you do play drums, we have that in common. I also played drums in bands for ten years or so. Now I'm a keyboard player.

I had tried my hand(s) at it (pun intended) when Bongos and Congos were the all the rage in my youth.

I would also but also wonder if it is possible. Republicans are lost on this issue. It should never be discussed in the context of pro life or pro choice but rather the value of respect for life that minimizes the need for choice.

Abortion is a short term pragmatic solution to the problem of pregnancy.

LIFO- Pregnancy, in itself, is not a problem but it is a natural result of copulation. Abortion, today, is a symptom of other social considerations.

IMHO - A rational discussion of abortion guided by reason is highly possible. It should not be construed that either the liberals or the conservatives are incapable of such an exercise.

The difficulties lie, as I see them, when the use of reason has fallen into such disuse and the convenience of "short term memory loss" is employed rather than resorting to the examination of that combination of histories, traditions, laws and, yes, reasoning that have "brought" us to this supposed impasse.

Regardless of one's political party affiliation I am of the belief that persons outside or inside the party structures are capable of initiating and solving for the equitable resolution to the supposed problem. Once the principals involved are discovered, and then made known, I can see no reason that such a process could not be started and completed within this thread and many reasons, as this is an Inter Faith Forum, that it should; for the end result might provide an acceptable model for all nations. Then again it may all come to naught.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi DrumR

LOL I should have said UNWANTED pregnancies. My error. I agree then that abortion is the result of other social considerations or conditioning which results in a lack of recognition and respect for the entire life process.

I would agree that this loss can be sensed by both what we call conservatives and liberals since the terms as they are used overlap. By conservative in this context I mean conserving what has been always known in one form or another as a respect for life by the great traditions. How we abuse it is another matter.

The difficulties lie, as I see them, when the use of reason has fallen into such disuse and the convenience of "short term memory loss" is employed rather than resorting to the examination of that combination of histories, traditions, laws and, yes, reasoning that have "brought" us to this supposed impasse.

If we only could.

Regardless of one's political party affiliation I am of the belief that persons outside or inside the party structures are capable of initiating and solving for the equitable resolution to the supposed problem. Once the principals involved are discovered, and then made known, I can see no reason that such a process could not be started and completed within this thread and many reasons, as this is an Inter Faith Forum, that it should; for the end result might provide an acceptable model for all nations. Then again it may all come to naught.

Here is where we disagree. Secular Interfaith IMO is powerless in this simply because it is the exchange of wishful thinking. It doesn't take into consideration the reality of the human condition. Who wants to admit their own hypocrisy? Only transcendent interfaith which takes into consideration the reality of the human condition that admits its hypocrisy for the sake of the greater good can IMO offer the sincerity necessary to deal with the human condition. It takes courage to admit the reality of ourselves

A successful model produced and admired by secular Interfaith will be based on wishful thinking and imagination. I believe then it would come to naught. Here is a classic excerpt by Dr. Nicoll speaking of the reality of our being:

Ordinarily, of course we imagine that man can grow and develop in what I might call the natural normal way, simply by education, example, and so on. Yet if we look at history, we find that man has not really developed, and particularly if we look at the present day we cannot boast that man has reached any further stage of development. Look for a moment at the horrors that humanity imposes on itself nowadays. Yet people are prone to imagine that time means progress and that everything is getting better and better as time passes. And as a rule people take the obvious contradictions as exceptional. That is to say, people are always inclined to think that what are really the usual and ever-present circumstances of life in a bad sense are exceptional. You will agree with me perhaps that people that people usually regard war as exceptional. Yet you must admit that if you pick up any book of history you will find that it deals with war in the main, with war, intrigue, people seeking power, and so on. Actually, unless we have the strength of mind to see what ordinary life on this planet is like, we will remain in imagination, or illusion, if you prefer the word. As you know, in this system of work, amongst many sayings which have a great density of meaning - namely, that take a long time to understand - there is one saying that "the level of being of a man attracts his life." This saying applies to humanity in general - that is the general level of humanity with regards to its being attracts the form of life that it experiences. It is useless to think that wars and horrors and revolutions, etc. are exceptional. What is at fault is the level of being of people. But nobody is willing to understand this and whenever war takes place, as I said, people take it as exceptional, and even speak about a future from war, as soon as the existing war is over. We can see the same process at work now. History repeats itself because man remains at the same level of being - namely, he attracts again and again the same circumstances, feels the same things, says the same things, hopes the same things, believes the same things. And yet nothing actually changes. All the articles that were written in the last war are just the same as the articles written in this war, and will be for ever and ever. But what concerns us more is that the same idea applies to ourselves, to each individual person. As long as there is no change in the level of being, the personal history of the man remains the same. Everything repeats itself in his own life: he says the same things, he does the same things, he commits the same things. And all this belongs to this immensely deep idea that the level of being attracts his life.

Secular Interfaith is concerned with how we should be. Transcendent Interfaith seeks to verify the reality of what we ARE and begin from there as the necessary foundation that leads to fulfillment of human potential.

Unwanted pregnancy resulting from our lack of respect for life is a result of our collective being. Respect for life can only be felt in our being through conditioning which changes or a connection with the influences of higher consciousness. Otherwise we are governed by power and force. Our increased secularization is just severing the connection more and more. I'm interested in conserving the connection and the means that serve to do so.. It seems sensible then that conservatism should assert the importance of the essence of religion in society rather then be afraid of certain agendas that openly attack it.

 

[DrumR]

LOL I should have said UNWANTED pregnancies. My error.

Regardless of one's political party affiliation I am of the belief that persons outside or inside the party structures are capable of initiating and solving for the equitable resolution to the supposed problem. Once the principals involved are discovered, and then made known, I can see no reason that such a process could not be started and completed within this thread and many reasons, as this is an Inter Faith Forum, that it should; for the end result might provide an acceptable model for all nations. Then again it may all come to naught.

Here is where we disagree. Secular Interfaith IMO is powerless in this simply because it is the exchange of wishful thinking.

This is where we should disagree, Nick_A, for I believe you have pointed to an organization whereas I have pointed to individuals without concern for organizational affiliations.

It is to the collaboration of individuals, in pursuit of a well reasoned solution/explanation, that I have addressed that which may be achieved here, or within another thread perhaps, and from that considered opinion the resultant draft may be promulgated to others of all walks of life. Surely this is not an impossible process.

 

[Nick_A]

This is where we should disagree, Nick_A, for I believe you have pointed to an organization whereas I have pointed to individuals without concern for organizational affiliations.

It is to the collaboration of individuals, in pursuit of a well reasoned solution/explanation, that I have addressed that which may be achieved here, or within another thread perhaps, and from that considered opinion the resultant draft may be promulgated to others of all walks of life. Surely this is not an impossible process.

I don't want to appear depressing but IMO it is impossible. The human condition is such that we say one thing and do another.

Have you noticed that there are no straight lines in nature. EVerything is turning in circles. There are universal laws that explain this. Man on earth is part of nature. Everything for us repeats in cycles in conformity with the rest of nature. This is ancient knowledge as described in ecclesiastes 3:

Ecclesiastes 3

A Time for Everything

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak, 8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

No amount of wishful thinking will change it. The laws of nature are such that everything repeats on earth. The only thing that can effect the flow of mechanical reactions are conscious actions. Conscious actions require first coming to grips with the reality of the human concdition and the sincere efforts to acquire consciousness. Without consciousness society continues to react mechanically in conformity with the laws of nature. Acquiring consciousness reqires conscious help from above which is always being offered. We are not open to it. No amount of wishful thinking or proclamations can change it. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is.

 

[bananabrain]

Einstein is differentiating between man made conceptions of a personal God as in secular Judaism and Christendom and the God outside of time in space that is nameless in Christianity and Ein Sof in Judaism.

er... as much as i admire einstein, i've never seen any evidence that he knew anything about kabbalah, or even the judaism that is believed in by numerous knowledgeable people, many of whom have advanced scientific degrees. of course, you should feel free to show evidence to the contrary.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

er... as much as i admire einstein, i've never seen any evidence that he knew anything about kabbalah, or even the judaism that is believed in by numerous knowledgeable people, many of whom have advanced scientific degrees. of course, you should feel free to show evidence to the contrary.

b'shalom

bananabrain

There are two possibilities. Either there is a personal God or there isn't. Einstein didn't have to study the Kabbalah to come to what I believe to be a sensible conclusion also come to by many from different faiths.

 

[Paladin]

Nick,
Please define "personal god"

 

[Nick_A]

Nick,
Please define "personal god"

A personal God is a being a person considers themselves in personal contact with. Believers try to please such a God and are concerned about offending this God. Secular Judasim asnd Christendom have a personal God for example.

The impersonal God is the source but we are so far from it that there is no direct contact. The essence of religion seeks to raise the quality of our being so a contact is possible at the level of a "son." Secularism in contrast pulls God down to our level corrupting the essence of religion.

If you are curious about this, read how Rabbi Cooper describes the impersonal God and you'll see it is not something usually referred to:

Parabola Magazine - Featured Selection

 

[bananabrain]

There are two possibilities. Either there is a personal God or there isn't.

or perhaps there's another set of possibilities around redefining what is meant by a "personal G!D". personally, i don't see what the evidence is that einstein means the same thing as you.

Einstein didn't have to study the Kabbalah to come to what I believe to be a sensible conclusion also come to by many from different faiths.

if you are claiming that einstein would have recognised the concept of EIN-SOF then that presupposes his familiarity with the base discipline from where the concept arises. what you actually appear to be saying (and that is all i think you *can* say, without evidence from einstein to that effect) is that *you* think that your idea of G!D is the same as both einstein's and EIN-SOF. so far, i'm not terribly convinced.

A personal God is a being a person considers themselves in personal contact with. Believers try to please such a God and are concerned about offending this God. Secular Judasim and Christendom have a personal God for example.

what do you mean, "secular" judaism? how does this putative judaism differ from normative religious judaism?

The impersonal God is the source but we are so far from it that there is no direct contact. The essence of religion seeks to raise the quality of our being so a contact is possible at the level of a "son." Secularism in contrast pulls God down to our level corrupting the essence of religion.

kabbalah conceives this by a varied set of theories, but this simplistic dichotomy you posit really reflects a misunderstanding of the various doctrines of emanation and contraction of the Divine Essence. as it the zohar says, "arousal from above" has a *dynamic* relationship with "arousal from below".

reading the link you give, although i think this rabbi cooper is familiar with the way the kabbalists think, the way you are understanding it is appears to be a sort of garden-variety deism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Paladin]

A personal God is a being a person considers themselves in personal contact with. Believers try to please such a God and are concerned about offending this God. Secular Judasim asnd Christendom have a personal God for example.

The impersonal God is the source but we are so far from it that there is no direct contact. The essence of religion seeks to raise the quality of our being so a contact is possible at the level of a "son." Secularism in contrast pulls God down to our level corrupting the essence of religion.

If you are curious about this, read how Rabbi Cooper describes the impersonal God and you'll see it is not something usually referred to:

Parabola Magazine - Featured Selection

An enjoyable read Nick, but it does seem to indicate that your statement that there is either a "...personal God or there isn't" a false dilemma since neither of your definitions include concepts illuminated in the article.

 

[Nick_A]

An enjoyable read Nick, but it does seem to indicate that your statement that there is either a "...personal God or there isn't" a false dilemma since neither of your definitions include concepts illuminated in the article.

How do you understand the following from Rabbi cooper?

It is taught in Kabbalah that our normative reality is ten degrees removed from the absolute reality of the origination of Primordial Light. What we know as the light of consciousness in our mundane world compared with the next higher level of consciousness is like a candle compared with the sun. We can barely imagine what would make our sun a tiny candle in relation to the Primordial Light of pure Awareness—a brilliance of such magnitude that all apparent differences dissolve into an ultimate Oneness that is not a number but a unity.
Just as we might speak and symbolize infinity, without having the slightest sense of its implications, so we can attempt to describe Ohr Ein Sof, the light of Boundlessness, without having any recognition whatsoever of its inconceivable dimensionless dimension. Yet, the contemplative practice of sitting quietly, mindfully, allowing each moment to arise in its own purity, brings us into momentary Awareness, like a brilliant flash, that can be repeated over and over again in a way that shifts our normative consciousness. In this potential shift, we can recognize a mysterious connection between our own inner light and the ultimate flash of Awareness.
Belief in the biblical God has benefited many people with great comfort, good deeds, charity, loving-kindness, ethics, compassion, devotion, and so forth. It has also led to inquisitions, wars, intolerance, hypocrisy, triumphalism, witch hunts, terrorism, and holocausts. We must be circumspect when engaging any belief systems, especially concerning thoughts that are rooted in fear, greed, self-aggrandizement, and any other identities that tend to lock us in a sense of separation and isolation.

He is referring to the relativity of cosmology I study. The illumination of the candle in comparisn to the sun is nothing and the sun compared to the source is nothing. So for us, the candle, how can the source be comprehensible much less be able to have a relationship with? This is why in Christianity the Son (sun) is the conscious intermediary.

RAbbi Cooper asserts that the biblical God has led to both compassion and horrors. This is normal for the hypocrisy of our "being."

Some people belive this biblical personal God exists, others don't, and still others like me believe consciousness to be relative and as in illumination having a source outside time and space and beyond our comprehension..

 

[Paladin]

Sorry Nick, you haven't proven your point, my statement stands.

Ein Sof is not a thing. It has no identifiable characteristics. Nothing about it can be differentiated. Nothing at all can be said or conceived about it. It transcends all thought. It is an ongoing, unending process, without limitations of time-bound ideas such as “beginning” or “ending.”
We cannot say that it has a will, for example, because the idea of God’s will is a concept, and Ein Sof defies all attributes, distinctions, or qualities. We should not even suggest that Ein Sof is infinite, for the concept “infinity” in relation to Boundlessness is like a rain drop in comparison with an endless ocean. All concepts we might conjure, theorize, or philosophize about Ein Sof are simply ideas based on limited human consciousness, reason, or faith, all of which are like wisps of vapor—vanity of vanities—that disappear in Boundlessness.
The use of language, reason, rationality, and concepts, by definition, fall far short of grasping Ein Sof. Yet, despite the inexplicability of Ein Sof, it includes the totality of the universe as we know it. By definition, nothing can be separate from Boundlessness, nothing can be excluded: no actions, words or thoughts take place outside of it. It is bigger than everything; it is beyond the idea of “beyondness

This is a possibility not accounted for in your definition, thereby the mistake of a false dichotomy
.”

 

[Nick_A]

Sorry Nick, you haven't proven your point, my statement stands.



This is a possibility not accounted for in your definition, thereby the mistake of a false dichotomy
.”

I still don't know what you mean. Imagining ourselves as a skin cell, are you suggesting that a skin cell could comprehend the human body and its functioning? Granted it is a part of it so is personal in that sense but I don't this is what people mean when conversing with a personal God. Am I still missing it? Are we aware of the personal concerns of our skin cells?

 

[Paladin]

There are two possibilities. Either there is a personal God or there isn't.

Nick, this alone qualifies as a fallacy, and your definition does not include any other possibilities.

 

[Paladin]

I still don't know what you mean. Imagining ourselves as a skin cell, are you suggesting that a skin cell could comprehend the human body and its functioning? Granted it is a part of it so is personal in that sense but I don't this is what people mean when conversing with a personal God. Am I still missing it? Are we aware of the personal concerns of our skin cells?

You see Nick, there are many possibilities in understanding actuality or to use your word "God" there isn't any getting around it, when you pose an argument saying it must be either this or that, you introduce a fallacy of logic.
No amount of reframing the argument changes that.
And to suggest that I am suggesting anything is another attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Nick_A]

You see Nick, there are many possibilities in understanding actuality or to use your word "God" there isn't any getting around it, when you pose an argument saying it must be either this or that, you introduce a fallacy of logic.
No amount of reframing the argument changes that.
And to suggest that I am suggesting anything is another attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Still don't see it. Regardless of how one defines a personal God that we believe we have a personal relationship with, we either believe in one or we don't. I don't see why you object.

 

[Paladin]

Nick you stated that there is a personal god or there isn't. Now you change that to "believe" What I object to is the lapse of reason. Using logical fallacy to get a point across.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick you stated that there is a personal god or there isn't. Now you change that to "believe" What I object to is the lapse of reason. Using logical fallacy to get a point across.

What is the poidnt I am getting across? There either is a personal God or not. Of course we all have our gods and goddeses but that is not what is meant. Either God, or the Source of all creation, is personal for us or is not. I still don't see your objection.