Sun Oct 31st, 2010 at 04:58:57 AM EST
"Now, if you are fine with reducing your deity of choice to a purely personal and subjective experience that does not necessarily have any more applicability to my life than my love has to your life, then I have no particular quarrel with your god. But if you make arguments that rely on your god as their premise, then I will feel free to point out that those arguments are inapplicable to anybody who happens to not agree with your personal, subjective faith." (JakeS in reply to Lynch)
Negative experiences with The Church have made of some, private believers in their personal God. But the question remains: Is God more than ones personal goblin? If yes, say something!
This is a fast-forward of my view of the God-reality.
Sat Oct 30th, 2010 at 08:15:58 PM EST
"Why do you experience this [my faith] as "Truth"? If it's true or false, there must be some level of explainable logic behind the structure of these thoughts, which one would assume would be explainable." (ceebs/27.10.-6:35:01pmEST)
"It feels right" doesn't feel right for an answer. Neither, "this is simply so because this is what it's always been like."
The following is an attempt to continue what was begun in the debate following Sven Triloqvist's latest diary.
Sun Apr 18th, 2010 at 02:10:00 PM EST
Many moons ago, I wrote a diary on this blog from amidst my own spiritual journey and in which I explained the truth I had found in the idea of reincarnation, as it can be found in Eastern philosophies.
I found that reincarnation would explain injustice in this world or the unequal distribution of pain and suffering. Besides, ever-reincarnating souls would also provide an explanation for the rapid growth of our world population with the problems pertaining to it that are also a sign of biblical "end times".
I knew I wasn't the first to put forward such view and to associate it with Christianity.
I had tried to talk with other Christians about my views, not many, but they either did not react, were not interested or simply indifferent towards my findings. With no proof of the contrary, I felt confirmed in my newly found convictions and shared them here.
The ensuing debate revolved more around the existence or not of a god than my new discovery. I hadn't meant to proselytise this blog though the underpinning of my diary had been my faith in God.
Time has passed since, and my faith has been questioned, i.e. not my faith in God but my comforting views on reincarnation. For myself, it was surprising and particularly painful to learn that what I had believed to be true would finally be a misconception and not compatible with Christianity. I had asked earlier and found no criticism, mainly just indifference. Meanwhile, this wrong belief had become part of me, like my second skin.
It explained so wonderfully what I hadn't been able to understand or accept before about our suffering, and it acknowledged the reality of a belief prevalent in large parts of humanity. I felt judged by this criticism and through the arguments that stood against my convictions, also in the name of Hindus and others. Everything in me revolted against letting go of it.
This was an almost incredible experience, and I assume that I appeared almost ridiculous in it. I did not grow tired of asking, "Why? But why?" -
The idea of reincarnation fit so beautifully into what I wanted to believe in. It was almost too good to be true. But can anything be any good at all when we're not aware of what is True and what is Real? Can what others tell us to accept as true ever be the criterion? I believe that we need reference points that reach beyond our own (self) interests.
Eventually, I became aware of the mistake. I call it a mistake though its measure was not scientific evidence but the precepts of the Christian faith. I struggled but felt relieved because I dropped this distorted reality in my life.
This was the beginning of a larger process of transformation and change that I'm still undergoing . I'm peeling off onion layers one by one, or some outer force, God, is there that pushes me to continue the work begun. A friend of mine talked of `revolution'.
I also heard somebody say that from a Christian point of view, "sin" refers to a missed target. It has no substance in itself. It means that something is not the way it is supposed to be. Truth can correct this wrong and induce necessary change by which, little by little, our selves become purified and grow in the likeness of God. This sounds high-flying and easy but it is not.
I am still in the middle of this revolutionary process. My change of mind didn't end with dropping the idea of reincarnation. I am already in another painful but necessary change process and not sure where this is going to lead me. Letting go always comes with a loss of security and comfort. It is destabilising and scary. Everything may look chaotic around oneself when we're in the middle of it. We feel lost. The good thing to know is, that out of the chaos arises, a new order.
Out of the feeling of being totally lost, I wrote to a friend a couple of days ago, and she replied that it was amazing to see that the chaos was always producing order in the end. She had already seen this in my words - while I had not.
I sincerely hope that this diary won't stir any trouble. I simply felt the need to correct my earlier assumptions. I have not gone into detail to show why exactly I don't believe in reincarnation anymore since that earlier debate didn't revolve so much around this particular question, either but more around the existence of God. I have found explanations within the Christian faith. Should anybody be interested in those, I can get into more detail about them but I've discussed these questions already a few months ago, so would need some time to reply. Ultimately, though, it will remain a matter of faith.
Fri May 29th, 2009 at 06:08:26 PM EST
In part one, I mentioned 5 ways to make ET more attractive:
- Classify topics in sections; frame the ET agenda
- Attribute content to contributors
- Open up for linguistic communitarism
- Change the rating system
- Abandon the current front-page system
ad 1) Others have expressed their interest in creating sections but technical implications have been misjudged. The improvement wouldn't justify the workload.
A majority doesn't want to see any framed agenda on the site though there is agreement on the sites' "progressive social and political" leaning, its pro-European attitude and an unease with religion/faith entering any political discourse.
ad 2) The attribution of specialist knowledge or interests to contributors doesn't find interest at large though some wouldn't mind if it was there.
ad 3) Opening up for linguistic communitarism (maybe on a future platform) is welcomed.
ad 4) There have been heated exchanges about ratings. The community is split on the question. Poll results have been so far: 7 voters (53 %) did not like the ratings I suggested, 5 voters (38 %) did like it, 1 (7%) didn't care. - Some suggested other possible ways to rate comments. Frank and melo tried out melo's system. Some suggest that ratings be dropped altogether or that ratings be simplified.
The majority feels uncomfortable about expressing disagreement through ratings.
No consensus or majority in favour of some different system emerged.
ad 5) Few wanted that the current front page system be abandoned. Some expressed their belief that it is needed to keep the site going, and front pagers like their job despite the workload.
Other topics emerged and can be further discussed:
Thu May 28th, 2009 at 06:07:19 AM EST
Last night, I read whataboutbob's diary of May 23rd, "Hello ET community! We need more articles and writers!!"
and it reminded me of something I had been thinking of earlier.
I belong to the group of occasional readers and very occasional contributors to this blog. Since Finance & Economy aren't my major interests, I rather look for diaries in the features section, only that there is no such section. I have been around for a couple of months now so that I now know who will approach topics that interest me or whose diaries or what topics are prone to provoke interesting debates.
This is neither apparent nor appealing for any newcomer but it COULD be.
I have noticed that most news sites change over time. They become increasingly simplified and entertaining and less and less informative.
The ET news blog is and will remain on the informing side but it should become more user-friendly.
You will only attract contributors if you attract readers in the first place.
Sat Nov 22nd, 2008 at 06:14:08 PM EST
European Tribune invites « progressives » and presents an ideology as described in `About' and the FAQ.
Those who claim they don't have an ideology still live in this material world and will have some in the form of ideals, value systems, personal or absolute truths, beliefs, etc.
`Ideological' people will try to identify others as they belong or don't to their own ideology.
Sometimes it is difficult to accept ideological concepts and classification because someone doesn't clearly identify with one or the other because he/she has been inspired to develop a very different ideology that doesn't fit into the polarity of just two ideologies at hand - plus those situated between the two poles.
CASE IN POINT - myself