Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Brings Science to Spiritual Practices |376|

Yes, but you aren't a Christian! A Christian is supposed to believe the Bible, even though they only believe in parts of it! Christians accept the whole Bible - both testaments, so that includes (modern translation):



David

My understanding is that Biblical Literalism (as pursued with fervor) is a pretty modern thing. This is taken from Wikipedia:

"Church father Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor.[12] But Augustine also implicitly accepted the literalism of the creation of Adam and Eve, and explicitly accepted the literalism of the virginity of Jesus's mother Mary.[13]

Early biblical scholar Origen, due to his familiarity with reading and interpreting Hellenistic literature felt that some parts of the Bible ought to interpreted non-literally. Concerning the Genesis account of creation, he wrote: "who is so silly as to believe that God...planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life...[and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?" He also believed that such hermeneutics should be applied to the gospel accounts as well.[14]"

There were probably certain literalists at any point in time, but really in the 18th century we saw (from an intellectual perspective) a serious pursuit of literalism by fundamentalists for the first time. I don't at all think that somebody who believes in the Ressurection of Jesus has to be a Biblical literalist. Myths used to be extraordinarily valuable to cultures. They were really a main fabric holding societies together. Stories were all people had and they were entertaining and contained moral and cultural value in the form of lessons. The Bible clearly has this, but it also has some regular history thrown in it. There are things recorded in the Bible that have been verified by archeology etc. They are different books written by different people for different reasons. You can accept the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and still maintain that imperfect men were imperfect in their construction of what they call a Holy book. Myth has sort of become a dirty word in modern times. But they used to be so valuable. And some probably believed them literally while some did not, but that's not the point.
 
Aquinas said that although something may be objectively wrong, fixing the issue may cause exponential harm (I do not quote verbatim, but that's the gist). So while one can believe abortion is completely insupportable morally, shooting abortionists is not the answer because another abortionist will take their place, and life is sacrosanct. Arguing with anti-Christians is exactly like arguing with atheists. Their position (as this thread has shown repeatedly) is Christians must carry the weight of everything done in the name of Christianity at any time - a Carthusian in his cell in the Alps is a Westboro Baptist with better PR. Try telling a politician prosecuting a war that he is siding with every military atrocity ever perpetrated by sending in an army. It's Marxist style denouncement, guilty until proven guilty, followed by a quick disappearance.

I was surprised in some ways that Alex had Rupert Sheldrake for this interview. I am not surprised how it has spun out.
I don't at all think that somebody who believes in the Ressurection of Jesus has to be a Biblical literalist.
I totally agree. Modern literalism was a reaction to the enlightenment, an attempt to fight reductionism with reductionism. Intelligent design is materialism in a different hat.
 
I don't at all think that somebody who believes in the Ressurection of Jesus has to be a Biblical literalist.
Actually, I think belief or not regarding certain supposed events of this sort isn't the real problem (the virgin birth would be another example). I mean, in as much as most of us think that paranormal events happen in certain circumstances, this isn't a problem.

I think the real problem, is with conflicting moral imperatives in the Bible. Taking the old and new testaments together (if the old is to be demoted, why read from it in Church services), we find many conflicts with modern views - views that many consider morally superior to traditional Biblical views:

Should the Church exert any control over consensual sex in private?

Should gays and lesbians be condemned if they engage in sex?

Do any rules apply to all citizens, or just to Christians?

Should the Church enforce additional rules not contained in the Bible?

Should the Church ban euthanasia?

Should it ever endorse military action?

Etc.

My objection to Christianity, is that unless large chunks of the Bible - it's primary holy book - are arbitrarily ignored, the religion seems very mean (to put it mildly) and designed to whip up tensions with non-Christians. Christians can, and do ignore large chunks of the Bible, but there is no desire to remove these sections from the Bible. After all, the early Church sifted through a variety of texts and threw some out - why was that OK back then, but not now?

David
 
Actually, I think belief or not regarding certain supposed events of this sort isn't the real problem (the virgin birth would be another example). I mean, in as much as most of us think that paranormal events happen in certain circumstances, this isn't a problem.

I think the real problem, is with conflicting moral imperatives in the Bible. Taking the old and new testaments together (if the old is to be demoted, why read from it in Church services), we find many conflicts with modern views - views that many consider morally superior to traditional Biblical views:

Should the Church exert any control over consensual sex in private?

Should gays and lesbians be condemned if they engage in sex?

Do any rules apply to all citizens, or just to Christians?

Should the Church enforce additional rules not contained in the Bible?

Should the Church ban euthanasia?

Should it ever endorse military action?

Etc.

My objection to Christianity, is that unless large chunks of the Bible - it's primary holy book - are arbitrarily ignored, the religion seems very mean (to put it mildly) and designed to whip up tensions with non-Christians. Christians can, and do ignore large chunks of the Bible, but there is no desire to remove these sections from the Bible. After all, the early Church sifted through a variety of texts and threw some out - why was that OK back then, but not now?

David

Theres plenty of nasty stuff in there, to be sure. And it was all disappointing to me when I (as a Christian at the time) began to discover it. And none of the bad stuff in the Bible bodes well, that's for sure. But with regards to why the Bible isn't changed, it might be a similar situation we see with current materialists. They feel they cant go back on their position now. There's much at stake. There is also (and always will be) institutional and cultural value (still) to the myths. But also, there are so many different sects and denominations that no central authority as the authority to change it in the first place. The Catholic Church being a notable exception. All I'm saying, it that its possible that Jesus rose from the dead. And the actions of future historians (after Jesus' death/Bible authors) wouldn't alter that fact if it actually happened. But I'm with you when you say that all of this makes discernment of certain things impossible. I guess it comes down to what you think it means to actually be a Christian. Eventually I reached a point where my Christianity was SO liberal that I thought, "what's the point of even calling myself a Christian anymore?"
 
There was considerable debate whether the Old Testament should be included in the Christian bible, and it was decided the earlier books gave a context to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the back story to Christianity, but Christianity does not depend upon it. Most of the difficult passages are drawn from the Jewish bible, and it is these that atheists and literalists draw upon. For me the truth or otherwise of Christianity is in the empty tomb, which is a matter of belief but not blind faith. I don't expect people to agree with my conclusions, I can't prove it's true, and I have no interest in evangelising people on a psi forum (or anywhere else) to my conclusions, but it meets evidence about the origins and spread of Christianity in the world to my satisfaction. I resent those conclusions being held uniquely in contempt, but understand all kinds of agendas are played out in social media that are born of prejudice as well as negative personal experience.

For an example of how passages from the bible can be taken out of context and emphasis reassigned, look no further than this video:

 
There was considerable debate whether the Old Testament should be included in the Christian bible, and it was decided the earlier books gave a context to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the back story to Christianity, but Christianity does not depend upon it. Most of the difficult passages are drawn from the Jewish bible, and it is these that atheists and literalists draw upon. For me the truth or otherwise of Christianity is in the empty tomb, which is a matter of belief but not blind faith. I don't expect people to agree with my conclusions, I can't prove it's true, and I have no interest in evangelising people on a psi forum (or anywhere else) to my conclusions, but it meets evidence about the origins and spread of Christianity in the world to my satisfaction. I resent those conclusions being held uniquely in contempt, but understand all kinds of agendas are played out in social media that are born of prejudice as well as negative personal experience.
Well I actually think you are far closer to my position than you think!

A big part of the problem with Christianity is precisely that the OT was left in the Bible.

Saying that you believe the evidence that the tomb was emptied by supernatural means, is precisely analogous to any of us saying we think there is enough evidence for any psychic phenomenon! However becoming a Christian isn't that sort of act - it is blind faith - at least in those bits of the Bible that your particular version of Christianity holds to be true! I tend to think actual evidence for the resurrection is weak, but that is a normal discussion about evidence - like us discussing the significance of hellish NDE's, or whatever.

If Rupert Sheldrake had said that he felt that Christianity was closer to the ultimate truth than other religions, that would have been a matter of opinion - analogous to his views on NDE's or morphic resonance - views that we pretty much all share to various degrees.

That isn't the same as becoming an actual Christian, where you adhere to a form of thought in which the whole Bible is holy, and any part of it can be reactivated at will - basically because it was only humans that deactivated it in the first place. This gives legitimacy for any sect to reactivate Leviticus, for example. By contrast, the early Church actually discarded texts that it did not approve of.

David
 
A big part of the problem with Christianity is precisely that the OT was left in the Bible.
It was left in the bible because Jesus was seen as the fulfilment of the prophesies of the monotheistic God. Otherwise Christ did not have a context.
Saying that you believe the evidence that the tomb was emptied by supernatural means, is precisely analogous to any of us saying we think there is enough evidence for any psychic phenomenon!
If Jesus came back from the dead after three days, not as a spook but a flesh and blood person that allowed a doubter to feel the hole made by a lance that confirmed his suffocation, he is extraordinary in the annals of psi phenomena. The lead up to his death also contained inexplicable phenomena, like Jesus being seen in a brilliant light with two of the prophets, as well as the miracles he is said to have performed. They are consistent with the fact psi phenomena occur, but are of an extreme sort that invites complete disbelief or acceptance of what Jesus of Nazareth said he was, which is the person who would fulfil the prophecies. I don't regard that as blind faith. It would be impossible under materialism, clearly.
That isn't the same as becoming an actual Christian
What is Christianity except a belief in the empty tomb? One does not have to adopt a po-faced attitude to the world, and I don't think Sheldrake or myself do. It doesn't inhibit our belief in psi phenomena or systems that operate outside materialism. It offers spiritual practices from the informal (pilgrimages) to the ascetic (living in hole in the desert). Most Christian practice manifests itself through acts of charity and an acceptance that death is not the end.
That isn't the same as becoming an actual Christian, where you adhere to a form of thought in which the whole Bible is holy, and any part of it can be reactivated at will - basically because it was only humans that deactivated it in the first place. This gives legitimacy for any sect to reactivate Leviticus, for example
I disagree. The OT is too diverse a text to be read literally. It's people's incapacity to deal with tropes while maintaining fact that's the problem. It has to be all metaphor, or all literal. One does not even expect that of the TV news, and it's confirmed by cameras and on the spot reporting. We know information is spun, but that does not mean it's all spin. The Today programme and Have I Got News For You concern the same data. It doesn't mean everything you think about politics is wrong, though cynicism towards government is inherent in my religious tradition. It doesn't mean Catholics shouldn't get involved in politics, and people like Jacob Rees-Mogg do, with considerable effect.
By contrast, the early Church actually discarded texts that it did not approve of.
I'm no biblical historian, but from the letters of Paul to the newly formed churches it's clear he had to remind them of the core tenets of the faith he and the apostles delivered. The list of heresies shows all kinds of distortions of Christianity from the inconsistent to the plain bizarre, from the earliest days to the present. Then there were texts which contradicted every other one and didn't meet academic biblical research and were believed fake (gospel of Thomas). Given the conspiratorial tendencies of this board people assume the "hidden" gospels - most of which are available on line - contain some counter truth that "they" want to keep secret. This tendency is part of the reason Wikipedia report that typically 270 new protestant religions are created each year.

Sheldrake's reading of Christian spiritual practice threatens to undermine his reputation on this board, which given the opprobrium heaped upon his scientific critics for their prejudice is hilarious. G. K. Chesterton once said, "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing---they believe in anything." Damn right. I miss the days this place was about psi and NDEs and poking fun at materialist fundamentalists, before in became bogged down in Christian baiting and tinfoil hat conspiracies.

.
 
Sheldrake's reading of Christian spiritual practice threatens to undermine his reputation on this board, which given the opprobrium heaped upon his scientific critics for their prejudice is hilarious.
I wish you had prefixed that sentence with "If" - honestly there is no way this has lessened my respect for RS, and I don't imagine anyone here who appreciated him before, appreciate him less after his interview.

Over the years, I have shared a number of emails with RS, and he is remarkably ready to engage in discussion, given that he must receive so much correspondence.He is a fount of interesting knowledge and ideas.

We agreed to differ on the subject of Christianity!

David
 
I don't imagine anyone here who appreciated him before, appreciate him less after his interview.
Most of the thread assumes his beliefs are misplaced and his book misguided. How can that not effect his reputation? Why does morphic resonance get a free pass but his belief in the divine nature of Jesus condemn him as a sentimentalist who refuses to take on the grave burden you insist his beliefs entail? That's pure hypocrisy. This is a Christian baiting site. The tendency always existed but was balanced by more open minded views, even among non-Christians. The forum is now run and moderated by anti-Christians. It promotes a Christian obstacle course, even when people's beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand. Clearly Sheldrake couldn't care less about what you or anyone else on this forum think his faith entails, and that was clear from the interview. He's promoting his book to anyone who'll buy it.
 
Hi Laird!
I quote from the transcript: Sheldrake: "I agree, and biblical scholarship has revealed all sorts of things about the Bible and it’s clear that SOME (my underlining) elements of it are mythic, they’re stories that grow up" (...)"The key thing is, I do think Jesus actually existed. I do think that Jesus actually went around teaching many of the things we read about in the New Testament and most biblical scholarship suggests that that was the case."

See, I have no problem with that belief - personally, I am agnostic about the real existence of the historical Jesus and to be honest I am not even particularly interested in the Bible etc. But those statements by R. Sheldrake are clear evidence of his believing the key tenets of the "Christian belief structure" (as you refer to it). I never meant that one has necessarily to believe 100% of the Christian belief structure to be still considered a believer of that faith (especially since there are gazillions of Christian denominations which do not all believe in the same things - but they share enough common ground to still consider themselves Christian, and to be considered as such by others).

So, he's a believer of that faith - so IF at the same time he wishes to imply (this is not 100% clear to me) that Lord Ganesha or Unicorns or Scientology are equally true because the rituals around them work for other people, I am sorry but he is thus ignoring the elephant in the room: there can be only one Ultimate Truth (and this does obviously NOT mean that I know it!)

Which links up to a question addressed to me by Charlie Primero: there must logically be one and one only ultimate Truth (even if we don't know it), because even the assertion/belief whereby there is no ultimate Truth and everything goes, hence there was a historical Jesus and at the same time we can develop a spiritual connection with Unicorns or Santa Claus and at the same time Scientology is not bullshit etc etc (ie: an assertion whereby mutually conflicting beliefs would all be true at the same time) would in itself be "the Ultimate Truth", supposing things are exactly like that.

Problem is, the vast majority (though admittedly not all, but this is just evidence of their not thinking things through) of the believers of any of these religions/alternative philosophies/spirituality forms (call them what you wish) would insist that no, they are right and the others are deluding themselves (ask any Christian who is truly a believer and not just going to church because it's something nice or reassuring or just conformist to do on a Sunday).

And personally, I find it hard to imagine (let alone disappointing) that the Ultimate Truth could be simply utter chaos (an inconceivably irrational 'thing" where everything and its opposite are equally true and real). But hey, it could certainly be the case. However this scenario is hardly one that believers (in anything) would agree with. If there is something all believers share, is belief in an order that "makes sense" (regardless of our ability to see it clearly).

Finally, on the topic of the placebo effect, Baccarat: if you suggest that turmeric works because there may be ways in which it interacts with other "factors" you are implying that there are material reasons for its effect. However "the placebo effect" is a different thing, it suggests that there is another way of healing beyond the material (from wikipedia): "The placebo effect points to the importance of perception and the brain's role in physical health."

However what this "way/dimension" is we don't know for sure. And this is why attributing feeling better/ spiritual or physical healing to a spiritual connection with Jesus because he truly existed and is of course still out there somewhere or to Unicorns because they are allegedly real although in another dimension may or may not be just a delusion, but what is truly interesting and important is why it works, regardless of the actual truth of what specific people happen to believe in. THIS is what I am interested in, the ultimate Truth, not so much whether spiritual practices work or not.

The Ultimate Truth may in fact be that NONE of the things humans have imagined throughout the ages (Jesus included) are real. But they still 'work'. Why is that? Is there something behind reality that we have no clue about whatsoever but that seems to enjoy distracting (and dividing us!) by leading different people to believe in different things, no matter how outlandish, by producing 'results' for them, so that lots of different beliefs have something to show for themselves, but precisely for this (ie, there may be be something in each of them but none of them is demonstrably "the one") none of them can be considered THE right one, objectively?

I find this level of analysis to be truly important and although as I said I truly love Rupert Sheldrake I was disappointed that he did not address it. OK, he's not a philosopher, but I would have loved to hear his opinion on these deeper questions.

Not all Christian rituals work. In fact rituals often don't work. That's because we mostly don't understand what they are and why they work - so this is why we have ended up thinking 'ritualistic' is some kind of repetitive and empty behaviour. I just thought I'd get that out of the way.

The Ultimate Truth could be that all of these things humans have imagined are real - depending on what you define as real. If you mean 'existing' then unicorns are 'real' because they exist as ideas. If we imagine 'real' in terms of utility, a unicorn is not sufficiently real to be useful as something for me to ride in my physical body. But it is useful to amuse and enchant a child.

I think Ultimate Truth, by its very nature, must be inherently inclusive. Ultimate Reality is likewise inclusive. But when we get into things like Ultimate Utility or Purpose it is hard to go beyond Awareness of Being - since being is absolutely absolute and cannot be qualified by truth or purpose. And such Awareness has to embrace all that was, is and will be [which are the same in any case]. That kind of stuff just does our heads in, and we end up having to retreat into humbler questions - like what is the aspect of Truth that I am driven to explore? and 'How much of Reality can I encounter?'

Early Christian and Moslem mystics wrote of the divine that was beyond reason and imagination. That left them open to their own potential and their own freedom. That could be complete abandonment of religious institutions or habitation of them. It is at the mystical level that religions have a unified connection. It has been said that all shamans speak the same language and come from the same country and I think that is true of mystics as well. The zealot believer is not the same as the passionate mystic.

I heard in Rupert something of the mystic - but not totally. His engagement with his religion works for him on a number of levels - and I think a mystical sense of communion and community is important. Its about utility - what works for him, rather than any argument. Experience is the argument in a way - you try it and then let's talk. These days taking an essentially mystical approach to personal needs and being within a community who share the same thing is probably hard to find. The humble non-intellectual acts of the sacrament and the singing are immersive things we tend devalue or undervalue.

The complete mystic would not care whether Jesus was historic or not. It does seem that this problem of historicity inhabits the roots of the major faith traditions. There is no compelling reason why the founders of faiths have to give more than a glancing nod to the historical. If the divine plays a role in the founding of faiths then its primary realm is mythic/metaphysical, and becoming historic/physical does not add to the underpinning reality. At best the historic can be but a fleeting symbol of the mythic - myth flowering briefly and is gone.

I am not sure mystical Rupert cares, but scientific Rupert cannot resist rising to the bait cast by Alex - but only to mouth it and spit it out and return to a mystic depth.
 
I am not sure mystical Rupert cares, but scientific Rupert cannot resist rising to the bait cast by Alex - but only to mouth it and spit it out and return to a mystic depth.
Rupert Sheldrake has mixed with mystics of various traditions, psychonauts like Terence McKenna, and endured atheist materialist spokespeople who insist his work should be burned as heretical. Why would he feel challenged by a formerly pro-psi, now pro-conspiracy and anti-Christian podcast? Sheldrake's study of comparative religion and exposure to its practicalities is unmatched by anyone here. Ditto the materialist paradigm. No doubt he views his critics with wry amusement. I saw no bait, just an unwillingness to let Sheldrake expound his position and a deal of prejudice against his conclusions.

Here's the Russell Brand interview he referred to:

 
Not all Christian rituals work. In fact rituals often don't work. That's because we mostly don't understand what they are and why they work - so this is why we have ended up thinking 'ritualistic' is some kind of repetitive and empty behaviour. I just thought I'd get that out of the way.

The Ultimate Truth could be that all of these things humans have imagined are real - depending on what you define as real. If you mean 'existing' then unicorns are 'real' because they exist as ideas. If we imagine 'real' in terms of utility, a unicorn is not sufficiently real to be useful as something for me to ride in my physical body. But it is useful to amuse and enchant a child.

I think Ultimate Truth, by its very nature, must be inherently inclusive. Ultimate Reality is likewise inclusive. But when we get into things like Ultimate Utility or Purpose it is hard to go beyond Awareness of Being - since being is absolutely absolute and cannot be qualified by truth or purpose. And such Awareness has to embrace all that was, is and will be [which are the same in any case]. That kind of stuff just does our heads in, and we end up having to retreat into humbler questions - like what is the aspect of Truth that I am driven to explore? and 'How much of Reality can I encounter?'

Early Christian and Moslem mystics wrote of the divine that was beyond reason and imagination. .

Hi Mike and thank you for engaging with my questions :)

First of all, indeed, it goes without saying that not all Christian rituals work - the same can be said for the rituals of any religion/belief system! What I meant is that they work "enough" for those who believe they do that they keep practising them - "to work" may simply mean that they make them feel better, not necessarily that they produce results; btw some people stop believing precisely because they are disappointed with not getting results. Interestingly Michael Shermer is one of them ("Shermer stated the final end of his Christian faith was when a girl was paralyzed in a motor accident. Shermer prayed to God to heal her. She remained paralyzed.[2]" https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer). If all Christian ritual worked all the time (of course only when asking things that are compassionate and in line with Christian values....praying God to see someone we dislike die should not work :)) it would be pretty tempting (to say the least....) to conclude that this is because through such spiritual practices one is connecting with the Ultimate Truth.

And indeed I get you 100% when you say about rituals/spiritual practices "That's because we mostly don't understand what they are and why they work" - see scenarios #3 and #4" in my latest post here which speculate on what could be going on. It does indeed seem that rituals/spiritual practices are felt to work (albeit erratically, but still "well enough") by the respective believers of any religion/belief system whatsoever, making their effectiveness religion-independent. That is why Sheldrake, among many others, has written a book about rituals which (can) work within the framework of whatever religion/belief system. But again, that would confirm to an outside observer that the effects of spiritual practices are independent of the Ultimate Source of Truth that individual believes in and is trying to connect with (the believer necessarily must assume, whether he has thought this through or not, that his rituals work because his metaphysics is the right one, while the believers of other religions are just benefiting from some kind of a placebo effect, because there can be no "active ingredient"= reality in the spiritual entity they are trying to connect to).

(I quote you again): "I think Ultimate Truth, by its very nature, must be inherently inclusive. Ultimate Reality is likewise inclusive. But when we get into things like Ultimate Utility or Purpose it is hard to go beyond Awareness of Being - since being is absolutely absolute and cannot be qualified by truth or purpose. And such Awareness has to embrace all that was, is and will be [which are the same in any case]. That kind of stuff just does our heads in" -

I must say this kind of language is too deep/mystical for me to understand (sounds a bit like Heidegger :)) but I think you are opting for my scenario #2, which I referred to as 'logically impossible' (and in fact you used the expression "does our heads in"). I respect your position obviously. You seem to be inclined to follow the mystic approach, "the divine that was beyond reason and imagination" (as you put it), while I am not willing to relinquish reason, even if I may already have come to the limits of what reason can enable me to understand. But I keep pushing, because if the divine truly is beyond reason as you say I'm not interested in developing a proper relationship with it. But I think I still have a long way to go before fully agreeing that all of the divine is beyond reason, and knowing myself I'll probably only give up when I die :)

Oh and finally I also wanted to say that the existence of Unicorns or Father Christmas etc is not just a question of "usefulness" in my opinion. You wrote:

"The Ultimate Truth could be that all of these things humans have imagined are real - depending on what you define as real. If you mean 'existing' then unicorns are 'real' because they exist as ideas. If we imagine 'real' in terms of utility, a unicorn is not sufficiently real to be useful as something for me to ride in my physical body. But it is useful to amuse and enchant a child."

Problem is, we are not talking about children here. There are loads of grown up people who fully believe in the existence of Unicorns in other dimensions, and that they care about us and can help us. Just one example among many:

https://tesswhitehurst.com/5-unicorn-spells-to-try-right-now/

Do you really accept that the fact that some people believe in unicorns and therefore they "exist as ideas" in the mind of these people make them real in the sense that THEY (ie, unicorns, not the way our minds mysteriously work) have a will of their own and can help those who address them via spiritual practices? Do you feel that Unicorns must therefore be "real" for you, too, in some way, or not at all? And the fact that I have just now (for the sake of experimenting) imagined a bizarre creature in my mind's eye that I had never visualised before - does that make that creature 'real' too, including for you and everybody else? Just curious about exactly what you mean with "real" - because I have heard similar statements to what you wrote above from others, but still I can't grasp your definition of "real" and would like to bring it into focus (it's far too fuzzy as it is for me). Where do you draw the line between "actual spiritual entity with an independent 'existence' and will of its own" and simple "product of our imagination which we can imagine doing things that make us feel better"?

And if you just accept that "Unicorns are real for these people, and that's good enough" isn't this just a kind, ecumenical but ultimately "insincere" statement, because, truly, you yourself don't believe in Unicorns or Father Christmas, although lots of children believe in him, just like you don't believe that there was a real historical Jesus who said and did exactly what the Gospel say about him?

I hope I haven't been rude or anything (English is not even my native language)! I have only tried to be as clear and direct as I possibly could so that I could get clear answer from someone whose take is of great interest to me (you) - I am not here to question other people's beliefs, my aim is most definitely not that of attacking or changing anybody's mind, I simply wish to UNDERSTAND things better because I am a seeker and hence I DON'T have the truth, only a working theory, which I am constantly testing against other people's arguments and logic. This is where I come from, so hopefully you won't take it amiss if I have questioned some of your points. Thanks again for commenting on my post.
 
Most of the thread assumes his beliefs are misplaced and his book misguided. How can that not effect his reputation? Why does morphic resonance get a free pass but his belief in the divine nature of Jesus condemn him as a sentimentalist who refuses to take on the grave burden you insist his beliefs entail? That's pure hypocrisy. This is a Christian baiting site. The tendency always existed but was balanced by more open minded views, even among non-Christians. The forum is now run and moderated by anti-Christians. It promotes a Christian obstacle course, even when people's beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand. Clearly Sheldrake couldn't care less about what you or anyone else on this forum think his faith entails, and that was clear from the interview. He's promoting his book to anyone who'll buy it.
I get the strong feeling you never understood my argument, or that I failed to present it clearly enough (I prefer the first version!). Why not go back and read what I wrote?

To say that this is a "Christian baiting site" is really unfair. I have used none of my magic powers against you (nor do I intend to), I have simply presented my point of view - as anyone else can! You and I are on an equal footing, and indeed any moderation that is needed - to stop people selling penis enhancers, for example - is done as much for your benefit as everyone else's :)

David
 
Christianity is uniquely singled out for opprobrium on this forum, that's a fact born out by the history of the board not something I pulled out my backside. I've studied all kinds of psi phenomena, apparitions, NDEs, alien cases and a host of other phenomena for decades, and knocked ideas around with people of various religious convictions and none as equals. Only Christianity is held up as a junk belief system which taints all other conclusions.

Whatever magic powers you have are none of my business. Most people have already gone, another banning won't make any difference to the functioning of the forum. I'll continue to state things as I see them, and it's clear Sheldrake's privileged status does not exclude him from Pavlovian reactions to his metaphysics. If he was a Buddhist or Sufi mystic his beliefs wouldn't get a mention. It's prejudice, and deserves to be named as such. That you spend time diverting sex marketing is the price your pay for your "magical powers".
 
Christianity is uniquely singled out for opprobrium on this forum, that's a fact born out by the history of the board not something I pulled out my backside. I've studied all kinds of psi phenomena, apparitions, NDEs, alien cases and a host of other phenomena for decades, and knocked ideas around with people of various religious convictions and none as equals. Only Christianity is held up as a junk belief system which taints all other conclusions.
Well clearly that has something to do with the fact that Christianity is best known to most people here.

David
 
Well clearly that has something to do with the fact that Christianity is best known to most people here.

David
Well only one of us can be right. Either this forum is losing members like my dog sheds hair because it's authoritarian and uncompromising, not least towards the Christian faith, or you're right, and it's a happy go lucky kind of board where diverse opinions are welcomed on a non-judgemental basis and the punters are like pigs in clover at the hands off nature of the moderation. I strongly suggest it's the former but as the place is like an echo chamber most of the time it doesn't matter either way.
 
Well only one of us can be right. Either this forum is losing members like my dog sheds hair because it's authoritarian and uncompromising, not least towards the Christian faith, or you're right, and it's a happy go lucky kind of board where diverse opinions are welcomed on a non-judgemental basis and the punters are like pigs in clover at the hands off nature of the moderation. I strongly suggest it's the former but as the place is like an echo chamber most of the time it doesn't matter either way.
I simply do not understand what you mean. You are free - as is anyone other forum member - to extol the virtues of the Christian faith - and others are free to take a different opinion. I don't see where authority comes into that process!

Most podcasts do not even mention Christianity!

David
 
Which links up to a question addressed to me by Charlie Primero: there must logically be one and one only ultimate Truth (even if we don't know it), because even the assertion/belief whereby there is no ultimate Truth and everything goes, hence there was a historical Jesus and at the same time we can develop a spiritual connection with Unicorns or Santa Claus and at the same time Scientology is not bullshit etc etc (ie: an assertion whereby mutually conflicting beliefs would all be true at the same time) would in itself be "the Ultimate Truth", supposing things are exactly like that.
I have often puzzled over the sheer range of NDE experiences - because in as much as they expose a layer of reality that is closer to the ultimate truth, they are only partially consistent.

My feeling is that it is as though NDEers (and some OBEers) penetrate a realm that is at least as complex as human reality on Earth. If aliens examined random samplings of Earth life, they might include hiking up a mountain, eating too much, starving, solving complex mathematics, etc.

Thus while there must ultimately be one truth, there may be several layers to peel back before this can be recognised.

David
 
I simply do not understand what you mean. You are free - as is anyone other forum member - to extol the virtues of the Christian faith - and others are free to take a different opinion. I don't see where authority comes into that process!

Most podcasts do not even mention Christianity!

David
You're missing the point. Not only do I not have any interest in extolling the virtues if the Christian faith, I don't think my faith has any bearing on most of the subjects that used to concern this forum and podcasts. I don't put everything through some kind of Christian litmus test to see if it passes muster, it's the commentary that continually compares the marvels of whatever psychic or religious discipline to the poverty of the Christian model. You're completely free to do so, but it's the kind of casual prejudice that stains the debate. Sheldrake's spirituality triggered Alex's latest polemic, but it would be hard to find a podcast on any subject that failed to mention how stupid Christians are at some point.

I don't take such comments seriously, and certainly aren't offended by them, but it does shed light on the agendas playing out beneath the claims of open mindedness and following the data. It's no different to the blind spots of atheist materialists, and exposing them equally unlikely to lead to change.
 
Back
Top