Is religion dead? (A question for theists about religious knowledge.)

[Hermes]

Another topic forked from this thread...

Religion is dogmatic relativism and blames others for what it fails at
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2955

Strident title?  Sure.  Read the OP for details...

[velkyn]

Velkyn - Scientifically measurable and applicable to me means I can - on my own - follow a procedure and get the same results consistently each time, (once I've become disciplined).  Also, it means I can observe it in others who follow the same steps.  While that part is more difficult, I can only really on other written sources and/or having dialogue with people who, seperately, have experienced the same results.  Mouravieff was able to give more physiological explanations.  He explains what one can expect to experience and why this is so.  The Worthington website explains this in terms that the bible student will understand.  Mouravieff explains it in a way that the esoteric student (for lack of a better word) will understand. 

Having begun the steps, (and it is a continuous work), I am experiencing exactly the things that both separate sources say that I will.  It is, I feel, both a spiritual as well as physiological experience at the same time; which is why - for me at least - both approaches are helpful in my learning.

However - I don't think it's the same thing as gnostic Christianity, though I think there are similarities, just as there are similarities, (or seem to be), in other religious teachings.

What happens if I do not experience the things promised?  Does this disprove the supposed theory? 

I have read a bit and feel very much "been there, done that" with comparing it to Godel, Escher and Bach. 

[Flamel]

Velkyn - I can only guess that one of the following is the cause:

A.) The person misunderstands a part or parts of the theory, and has misapplied it.

B.)  The person understands the theory but is unable to apply it completely to him/herself.

C.)  The theory is fundamentally wrong and the person shouldn't bother more with it.

I'm not familiar with the names you mentioned.  I'm VERY new to Mouravieff and have only just begun to be exposed to him.  I assume you're comparing him to those other people.  I will check them out.

I guess if it is not to your liking, or if you feel that his theories are incorrect then maybe you've found something else to be true for you.  For myself, it is a beginning of a new direction.

[velkyn]

Velkyn - I can only guess that one of the following is the cause:

A.) The person misunderstands a part or parts of the theory, and has misapplied it.

B.)  The person understands the theory but is unable to apply it completely to him/herself.

C.)  The theory is fundamentally wrong and the person shouldn't bother more with it.

I'm not familiar with the names you mentioned.  I'm VERY new to Mouravieff and have only just begun to be exposed to him.  I assume you're comparing him to those other people.  I will check them out.

I guess if it is not to your liking, or if you feel that his theories are incorrect then maybe you've found something else to be true for you.  For myself, it is a beginning of a new direction.

having "truths" being subjective seems to be an easy out for any supposed spiritual leader.  They can then never be wrong.

Godel, Escher, Bach is my abbreviation of "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Hofstadter http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach It strikes me as rather similar in the great conclusions drawn from what appear to be very vague claims. 

[Flamel]

I don't believe that truth is subjective.  I believe that the majority (if not all) people at one time or another believe in error. 

I also believe that while I or someone else may have "theories" that it is better to recognize them as such rather than to make a claim of something being a hard and fast truth.

I don't happen to possess the truth.  I'm trying to find it, though.  I also don't know anyone who does possess complete truth.

All that being said, it is in the area of esoteric christianity that I am currently spending time.  It is because of the evidences for it that I've personally experienced.  It was not from Mouravieff that I learned of this way.  It was from Hall and Joan Worthington.  I found Mouravieff recently and got interested in him because he seemed to be talking about the same thing; but from fifty some-odd years earlier. 

I'll have to look at the book you brought up.  I'm guessing from your comments that you weren't impressed with it?  And are you saying that Mouravieff is of the same ilk?

[velkyn]

I don't believe that truth is subjective.  I believe that the majority (if not all) people at one time or another believe in error. 

I also believe that while I or someone else may have "theories" that it is better to recognize them as such rather than to make a claim of something being a hard and fast truth.

I don't happen to possess the truth.  I'm trying to find it, though.  I also don't know anyone who does possess complete truth.

All that being said, it is in the area of esoteric christianity that I am currently spending time.  It is because of the evidences for it that I've personally experienced.  It was not from Mouravieff that I learned of this way.  It was from Hall and Joan Worthington.  I found Mouravieff recently and got interested in him because he seemed to be talking about the same thing; but from fifty some-odd years earlier. 

I'll have to look at the book you brought up.  I'm guessing from your comments that you weren't impressed with it?  And are you saying that Mouravieff is of the same ilk?

Yes. 

No one may possess the complete truth.  However, to say that truth is only in the perception of some is rather arrogant.  That's what I got from Mouravieff. 

[Flamel]

Velkyn - why is it that "no one may possess complete truth?"

[velkyn]

Velkyn - why is it that "no one may possess complete truth?"

we are finite beings.  BTW, I'm considering "complete truth" as complete awareness of everything, past, present and future.

[Hermes]

Velkyn - why is it that "no one may possess complete truth?"

Completeness implies perfection.  Nothing is perfect, so nothing including knowledge can be complete.

Here's something that I've written on perfection in light of what is good or bad;

Good and bad are contextual. As absolutes, they point toward a theoretical perfection. Yet, there is no such thing as perfection — only perfect for.

The example I use often is that of a perfect peach. Bite down into one and let the juice run over your lips … feel the taste and the texture.

There is no ideal abstract peach that this peach came from. No Platonic source of perfection. A cat — having no taste buds for sweets — would not be fascinated with that peach. Someone with an allergy to peaches, or someone with chapped and broken lips, someone with taste buds like the cat, would not describe that peach as we would describe that peach.

Yet, most people know what I mean. Slice by slice, a group of us could evaluate a bushel of peaches and at the end of our feast we’d be in general agreement on what peach was the best one — which one was ‘perfect’ (if any were).

What is perfect depends on context. It depends on the observers. It is not arbitrary, though, and it is not solipsistic. We can taste what the cat can not, but not all people can see or feel the same thing … or be tuned to it. As we are in the same world, though, and as humans share language we can reach a deeper understanding of the usually small ways where we differ from one another.

In the same way that the cat has contextually complete knowledge of what it thinks of the taste of a peach, it does not have an understanding of all contexts of knowledge of the peach, or even about the peach.