What do u think about christianity
What do u think about christianity? I mean if religious could dont let you to be a lucid dreamer?
Fortunately, the most cruel times of Christianity have passed. Now, it's about other religions.
It's bad. But Islam is far worse.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Gene wrote: What do u think about christianity? I mean if religious could dont let you to be a lucid dreamer?
Neither Christianity nor Judaism are oppose to lucid dreaming. It's in the bible; but one is not suppose to listen to the "dreams one makes" God talks to his saints only in the dreams he sends.
Mixed bag as far as it's believers go. Some of them are made better people by it, others much worse people and the Troll Christians have both a ready made forum for their hating and ready made organizations to use to oppress others.
You say it doesn't oppose lucid dreaming, Snaggle, but 'it's in the Bible'. You see the ridiculous and tedious oxymoron? The source of this confusion is the Bible, hence Christianity, as a doctrine that instigates doubt, is bad period. Christians might blame one another for not interpreting Biblical passages correctly; but then again one is pressed to ask why the revelation is not more explicit, consistent, and coherent.
This is one of the arguments covered by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet The Age of Reason where he denounces institutionalised religion and advocates a better way to believe in a Creator (deism).
Some people might be made better by Christianity -- or perhaps credit should solely go to them for interpreting the tenets of their faith in a positive way. Whichever the case, their improved condition lacks nobility since they need to be instructed to behave a certain way and seem unable to think for themselves.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
You say it doesn't oppose lucid dreaming, Snaggle, but 'it's in the Bible'. You see the ridiculous and tedious oxymoron? The source of this confusion is the Bible, hence Christianity, as a doctrine that instigates doubt, is bad period. Christians might blame one another for not interpreting Biblical passages correctly; but then again one is pressed to ask why the revelation is not more explicit, consistent, and coherent. - Summerland
Since Gene brought up the question of LD and religion it's a necessary point that neither Judaism nor Christianity are opposed to Lucid Dreaming, none of the pantheist religions oppose it either. Resistance to it comes mainly from your fellow scientistic believers who still mainly claim it does not exist and from ignorant Christians whom have never read their own bible and have been too lazy to consult it before expressing their Non-Christian "Christian" ideas.
You also let your hatred of Christianity blind you. The New Testament was written by Greeks and they were dominated by Platonism and Neo-platonism. Their writings were mean to be mainly inspirational. didactic and apologetic (just like the Ancient Greek Historians, e.g. we are told both what Leonidas said at Thermopylae and that their were no survivors to tell us what he said - lol at those who think Luke was a careful modern like historian). In both the the Catholic and Orthodox versions of Christianity the bible was mainly suppose to be seen the same way rather than a guide either to doctrine or real history. Protestants are the only ones who made the bible "the inerrant word of God" at least until the 19th century and Pope Pius IX (the pope whom also made himself infallible. That a collection of books written by people who were never Jews and never in Palestine and whom did not agree with each other on theology contradict each other when patched together in a single book can hardly be blamed on their God.
This is one of the arguments covered by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet The Age of Reason where he denounces institutionalised religion and advocates a better way to believe in a Creator (deism).
I don't think anyone whether or not a Christian or Jew would look to an Atheist like Paine for a better way to believe in God.
Some people might be made better by Christianity -- or perhaps credit should solely go to them for interpreting the tenets of their faith in a positive way. Whichever the case, their improved condition lacks nobility since they need to be instructed to behave a certain way and seem unable to think for themselves.
This is again a poor argument. Christians who want to love God better are always going to look to Christianity for how to not to themselves and seek to surround themselves with like minded people. That made better by it were likely always much nicer than the trolls is certain. Christianity contains plenty that will both make people more troll like and better and might do both at the same time. Reason is for the few not the many. The mass of people never were either really sane or rational and never will be - now that I've stated the true gets ready for the troll hordes ;)
SNAGGLE wrote:
'Resistance to it comes mainly from your fellow scientistic believers who still mainly claim it does not exist...'
This is false since science has already demonstrated, objectively, that lucid dreaming is real. The sleeper can communicate with the external world from the dream world and a hybrid phase state of the brain has been identified as its signature. Anyone, today, who denies lucid dreaming is simply being unscientific.
It seems to me, Snaggle, that you erroneously insist on seeing science as some sort of doctrine. Science is a method of enquiry, nothing more. It formulates theories which it then tries to verify or falsify. It once held the notion that lucid dreaming couldn't be, but, as you have witnessed, such proposition was still doubted within the scientific community and subsequently falsified -- because scientists are people, too, who also experience lucid dreams! No dogmas, Snaggle. No dogmas.
SNAGGLE wrote:
'That a collection of books written by people who were never Jews and never in Palestine and whom did not agree with each other on theology contradict each other when patched together in a single book can hardly be blamed on their God.'
I couldn't care less, Snaggle. Their self-contradictory books are founded on lies and superstitions. And their god/gods cannot be blamed because they are fictions, too. Men are to blame for all that pharisaic and philistine drivel. Taking their word for it -- without evidence or a proper basis for their proposals -- is what is unreasonable and unscientific. And before you launch another one of your anti-scientific claptraps, just remember that medicine has cured more people than Jesus -- really cured them. :mrgreen:
SNAGGLE wrote:
'I don't think anyone whether or not a Christian or Jew would look to an Atheist like Paine for a better way to believe in God.'
Thomas Paine was not an atheist. He was a deist. Try reading The Age of Reason and you will see how idiotic your averment is. Also, it's not just a better way to believe in a Creator, it is the only reasonable way to be a believer given the worldly circumstances as outlined in his argument.
For a man of his time it is venial to insist that a Creator is logically required. Had Paine been exposed to modern scientific theories and observations in physics and cosmology, he would have most certainly relinquished his deistic viewpoint and embraced atheism.
SNAGGLE wrote:
'This is again a poor argument. Christians who want to love God better are always * going to look to Christianity for how * to not to themselves and seek to surround themselves with like minded people.'
You just shot yourself in the foot there, matey, by proving exactly what I said! A poor argument? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... :-D
For reiteration, pay attention to what's italicised in the quote. Read it again...
[ Post made via Android ] Image
This is false since science has already demonstrated, objectively, that lucid dreaming is real. The sleeper can communicate with the external world from the dream world and a hybrid phase state of the brain has been identified as its signature. Anyone, today, who denies lucid dreaming is simply being unscientific.
But the believers in Scientism are just like the lazy Christians - they have certain opinions without having examined any evidence and as a group are no more "scientific" than Christians. They certainly have dogmas and act just like the Catholic church. They regard as true and scientific only what does not contradict their dogmas and faith.
It seems to me, Snaggle, that you erroneously insist on seeing science as some sort of doctrine. Science is a method of enquiry, nothing more. It formulates theories which it then tries to verify or falsify. It once held the notion that lucid dreaming couldn't be, but, as you have witnessed, such proposition was still doubted within the scientific community and subsequently falsified -- because scientists are people, too, who also experience lucid dreams! No dogmas, Snaggle. No dogmas.
You and Scientism have many dogmas you just don't realize they're dogmas, sort of making you worse than the religious as they generally don't lie to themselves about having dogmas. Science has no dog in the race between any metaphysical position and they don't matter at all as whether or not there is a God or spirit matters little to one's life. The flaw of both Scientism, all the ideologies, philosophical systems and realigions is that they're epistemologically defective and the ability to reason rationally is vital to any human being in their life.
Oh dear! 'Scientism', that fallacious word invented for jealous and insecure religionists to somehow derogate science with. It's simple: Science just happens to be the best method of enquiry humanity has come up with. Of course it is convenient for the religious to stress that it is something imperfect, because, after all, we are God's faulty creations, without Him we are no good; we never know what we are talking about -- only God knows! :mrgreen:
If there is something better out there, I cannot imagine it to come from religion. Such method would simply be science improved as this one is not a religion or cult -- it is a method! A method that reinvents itself according to what is discovered; so already scientists recognise that its present form is not the best it can be; scientists know there is more to learn -- thus the 'scientism' pigeongole misrepresents science and is self-refuting. :-)
To reiterate what I've asserted before: real science does not claim any more than what empirical evidence implies. Perhaps science, as a human method, can only expand our ken do far -- if you want to make this epistemic argument. But you can hardly compare a method which has proved to be practical, for all of us, with mass delusions grounded on unreason. You have a computer right now, which enables you to communicate with people all over the world, because of what scientific research has uncovered about the way reality is observed to work -- not because the tenets of Christianity had something to say about computing and electrodynamics. :-D
Now here's a challenge for you, Snaggle: Name me one scientific dogma! And I repeat, 'That which contradicts scientifically established facts does not merit consideration.' :mrgreen:
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I apologise for interrupting. I wanted to say that I like how you think Snaggle, but I wanted to point out that the difference is that in science, they release "updates" for their "dogmas", while in a religious if someone decides to be.. innovative, then the other believers must renounce him, which is the reason why the religions are and they will continue to be so broken. Only some Buddhists (though I think they are near extinction because of the corruption through the ages) I can say that they are open to possibilities and "update" their mindsets.
"...making you worse than the religious as they generally don't lie to themselves about having dogmas."
But they do lie to themselves about "scientism" having dogmas. They also have their own personal dictionaries, in which "scientism" is a real word. :D
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
I know, but I understand what Snaggle is trying to say.
So do we, which is why we are telling him, in so many words, that he is wrong. In this argument, Deschain is like professor Richard Dawkins and Snaggle is Mary Midgley. :mrgreen:
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Snaggle, what does the opposite of dogma look like if literally the antithesis to religion is dogmatic? Is there anything that's based on evidence in your world?
I mean, you can say that the scientific majority have some misconceptions about accepted fact--that's a bold claim, and requires significant and thorough explanation, with lots of evidence (lots of science) to support it. What you cannot do is equate the scientific method and its fruition to dogma. That is a linguistic atrocity.
And thanks, Summerlander!
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
deschainXIX wrote: Is there anything that's based on evidence in your world?
Sorry for interrupting again but "in you world" is a little abrupt. We don't know if Snaggle is religious or not.
But we do know that his model of the world includes a "scientism" that is based not on empiricism and deduction but on preconceived ontological notions that cannot be tainted no matter the evidence against them (dogma). That's sort of what I mean; I didn't mean it as a vitriolic bite.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
I'll have you know, Desert, that Snaggle is a polytheist who believes the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is a source of reason. He is clearly irked by 'ignorant Christians' and supports Catholicism (with a blend of Platonism) over Protestantism. :-D
[ Post made via Android ] Image
OK, then.
it's very difficult topic...
Yes, it is!!
Welcome by the way..
deschainXIX wrote: But we do know that his model of the world includes a "scientism" that is based not on empiricism and deduction but on preconceived ontological notions that cannot be tainted no matter the evidence against them (dogma). That's sort of what I mean; I didn't mean it as a vitriolic bite.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Entirely based upon induction and deduction deschain, Scientism had a definite founder who sold the new faith for reasons of state, as he did not believe in his own religion. It was complete at the moment of its founding and its dogmas have not changed at all since it's founding - even Christianity has evolving dogma lol.
I'll have you know, Desert, that Snaggle is a polytheist who believes the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is a source of reason. He is clearly irked by 'ignorant Christians' and supports Catholicism (with a blend of Platonism) over Protestantism. :-D
I expressed my views quite clearly Summerland - believer are "mental defectives". I just see that the followers of Scientism are even more believer than the religious. The advantage of being purely rational is that one can see the mistakes others are making in their epistemology and ethics, as scietism has no ethnics that's a really huge amount of irrationally. Science is a method, rationality is above science and Scietism does not use science any more than the other religions.
I'm a (mostly) rational, conscious being. A hammer is just an object, an inanimate thing. I can think -- unlike the hammer! But the hammer was designed for a purpose and it can help me to do things that I can't do without one. I hope this analogy demonstrates to you, Snaggle, that it's not about some things being above others; it is mostly about pragmatism. Also, as you've just conceded, 'scientism' does not represent science and vice versa. :-)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I acknowledge that science is based upon a "faith" in the legitimacy of induction and deduction. But this is purely lingual and even misleading. First of all, faith means taking something to be true on no evidence. We know this to be antithetical to empiricism and deduction. Perhaps what we can say is that science is a sort of phenomenological method. Now, in this sense science is superior in every sector, as we all surely can agree that all nuomenological claims are groundless and absurd.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Does the word "nuomenological" exist? If so, what does it mean?
Summerlander introduced me to the Kantian "phenomena/noumema" dichotomy here:http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15125&p=45749&hilit=Phenomena+noumena#p45749
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Here's the definition from the link Deschain provided plus a Daniel Dennett quote for Snaggle to read:
Dualism is nevertheless tempting as a copout. But it is a non-explanation. Immanuel Kant once made a distinction between two terms: phenomena and noumena. The former describes things as they appear. The latter is the concept of things as they are. To excise the dogma of dualism once and for all we need more progress on the noumenal side of consciousness. When and if we succeed, religion will be forced to go through a radical reform or be jettisoned altogether.
Here is a gorgeous quote by Dennett:
"There is the lurking suspicion that the most attractive feature of mind stuff is its promise of being so mysterious that it keeps science at bay forever. This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, its most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs. It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms, is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up."
- From "Consciousness Explained"
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm a (beginner) lucid dreamer and a Christian. I have heard the tabloid that Christians are 100% against lucid dreaming. No. The only reason that people thought this in the first place is in the Catholic Bible (is that what it's called?), it said something about the saints have to whisper in your ear what to do, instead of you listening to your dreams, because that could be Satan. Christians don't have saints. We pray directly to God. I can't, honestly, even name a saint. Thank you, goodbye!
Christians don't have saints? Are you sure? Cos from where I'm standing, the Vatican would disagree! Do you know how many people have been beatified and canonised by Popes? If you haven't heard and don't care much for the history of this predominant monotheism, there are those who uphold it who would argue that you are not even a proper Christian. (I find moderate wannabes--who don't know what they're talking about, mind you--more ignoble, more repugnant, than those who devoutly follow their faith.)
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I think she means to say that she doesn't find Catholicism to be a legitimate strain of Christianity. And you're right, Summerlander, to point out that Catholics wouldn't think she's legitimate. It's a "she-said," "he-said." The only problem, emmaisnthere, is that all Christians have the same Bible (Catholics don't have a separate holy text, though they do, apparently, have the right to declare some books canon and others apocryphal and most Protestants don't protest).
I used to be PM'd quite often by Christians worried that God would be displeased with their lucid dreaming, and I wasn't sure why they thought that. It's a broad conception among Christians, apparently.
I remember that most of my rightist Christian family thought lucid dreaming was some sort of defilement and abuse of our direct line with God. They thought that all dreams were messages from Him, and claimed to have visited both heaven and hell in them. As a Christian, I was just as confused by this stupidity as you are, emmaisnthere.
My mother is starting to renounce Christianity but she cannot shake the belief in an all-loving god who will make it all okay in the hereafter. She still thinks, however, that the lucid dream world is some kind of spiritual plane of existence populated by discarnate beings. At least she doesn't believe demons pretend to be our deceased loved ones in dreams!
[ Post made via Android ] Image