I like the way the paragraphs in this book flow, one into the other - the feminism thing for about half a page, then back into 'God', with no warning whatsoever - yet it works.

If it is not 'God' that's in charge, being the one who decides how things are going to be for us . . .

If, on the other hand, we are products of society, and if we find that our lives are unsatisfactory, then there can be no real solution until society is transformed. If we are radically free and can never escape the necessity for individual choice, then we have to accept this and make our choices with full awareness of what we are doing. If our biological nature predisposes or determines us to think, feel and act in certain ways, then we must take realistic account of that.

So we think about the following:

1) God? In charge, controls all;

2) We are products of society - society must change if we want to be satisfied with our individual lives;

3) If we live mainly through 'choice', then it's up to each individual how to live;

4) If what we are depends on how we're born then we must be realistic and work with what we're given to work with.

What do you think?

Through reading and thinking about all this, I think it's a bit of everything - might even go so far as to say it's either:

1) Everything I am is due to who I was when I was born;

2) Everything I am is due to environment - I am a product of my environment.

Both? Maybe . . . I am inclined to think that God gave us this privilege - we're here to make our own choices, draw our own conclusions.

God, being the supreme power of us all, I mean.

We are part of that God. Every once in a while, through meditation, or through just sitting silently a while and allowing spirit to touch us, we experience that power higher than ourselves. It's there - we can pray to it, commune with it - but still, we must deal with each and every thing that falls into our path through our own perception - God isn't going to put any big signs up on the road, telling us which way to turn, or what to think.

DWill wrote:Just acknowledging the existence of so many rival theories, just that alone...perhaps that tells us something important? In the field of psychotherapy, the existence of so many theories has caused some to realize that none of them can be true (in the sense of exclusively true), so there is talk of theory "convergence." I wonder if that could be possible on the much larger scale we're talking about here? It does seem strike me as obvious that none of these can be true, either, in the sense of exclusively true. Well, I hope to be able to say something more specific about this chapter eventually!

Will, sorry I haven't directly responded to your post here till now. Guess I expected you'd be in and out and we'd exchange views.

I too, having been reading and thinking about this, wonder about that - no one of those theories could be true - exclusively true, as you put it.

Not having read any of the 'Sage' stuff yet, I guess it's not the right time to speak of 'Karma'. But I can't help having the thought - if 'Karma', which I tend to believe in, is true, then our lives couldn't be led by 'environment' alone, could it.

Then again, if someone wanted to consider 'past lives' as being part of an individual's 'environment', then it would be true.

It's mind boggling. Since I started reading this, I am obsessed with commenting on each paragraph - and this is making me think more deeply on what's being said.

I'm not generally the 'intellectual' type, but when I meet an 'intellectual' kind of person, I tend toward being the one who throws her hand up to ask questions.

Hell bent on making an ass of myself, I guess, 'cause I usually get shot down. Heh! Heh!

The idea that occured to people back in the 18th Century is that religious truth was not absloute but relative. What the Muslim believed was just as true, for him/her, as what the Christian believed. Enlightenment thinking on religion was based in relativism, and I think relativism has a general acceptance today, even among adherents of a particular religion. Of course, fundamentalists of whatever persuasion are still in the business of convincing us that they are the only ones who hold the Truth.

One result of relativism is the idea that we can't criticize what other people believe, because those beliefs are valid to them, and our own beliefs might appear just as strange. Mormonism seems really weird to me, for example. I accept the principle of not criticizing those beliefs, but only as beliefs. When it comes to what people do in the name of a religion, that is different. Actions can be criticized and condemned. It might appear, then, that the beliefs that people profess as compelling them to act should be condemned, too. That may be, but for myself, I still focus on the action. A belief has no inherent power to compel anyone to action. People still must decide to act, and if they do they are responsible for the consequences of their actions; they can't hide from responsibility behind their beliefs.

The authors tell us that despite cultural relativism, we can use a rational process to deconstruct any system of belief. We can then say whether the system has validity in the scientific sense we have come to value. Maybe we can indeed do this, but as the authors also say, such an analysis may not mean anything to the believers, because their investment in the system is not dependent on reason.

I've always maintained that nothing - meaning not-one-thing in religion (s) can be absolute.

We have only religious scriptures to go by and they were written by people.

The prophets received their messages, burning bush, etc., but there's nothing to prove it was true, or just partially true, with a little imagination thrown in.

Religion is 'theology', not 'knowledge'.

Christianity occupied a similarly dominant position in Western society: heretics and unbelievers were discriminated against, persecuted, even burnt at the stake.

That's something Christians to this day forget when putting their thumbs down on the cruel ways of other cultures. Christians were once guilty of fundamentalist injustice themselves.

In the United states, an informal protestant Christian ethos affects much public discussion, despite the official separation of Church and State.

Aw, gee! I didn't think anybody noticed.

2. Christianity and Marxism Compared

Similarities . . . first, they each make claims about the nature of the universe as a whole.

Christianity - committed to belief in God . . .

Marx - condemned religion . . .

About history:

Christianity - the meaning is given by its relation to the eternal . . .

Marx - claimed a pattern of progress that is entirely internal to it.

Individuals:

Christianity -we are made in the image of God. We are free to accept or reject . . . doing so, decides whether we have a life after death.

Marx - denies life after death - denies judgment.

Problems:

Christianity - we are not in accordance with God's will . . . that's what causes our problems.

Marx - it's not 'sin', it's 'alienation'. Guess that means something the same, only the 'alienation' is from the communism - capitalism do not allow people to develop.

Christianity - once we accept Christ, we can begin to live a new, regenerate life.

Marx - the opposite - there can be no improvement until there's a radical change in society. Capitalism must be replaced by Communism!

Future:

Christianity - people restored to the state which God intends . . .

Marx - a perfect society where people may become their 'real selves', living in co-operation with each other.

(That'd be nice work if we could get it)

For Christianity there is the church . . .

For Marxism there are a variety of communist parties.

Each claims to be right.

-----------------------------------

Other "Idelogies" about Human Nature

. . . between Christianity and Marxism . . . some have suggested that the latter is as much a religion as the former.

Well, in what way? In the way they are both so 'fist down on the table 'right'?

The theories of the ancient Greeks, expecially of their great philosophers Plato and Artistotle, still influence us today.

. . . a variety of thinkers has tried to apply the methods of science (as they understood them) to human nature.

Hobbes, Hume - Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Freud

. . . have fundamentally affected our understanding of ourselves.

Scientists - Skinner and Lorenz

Chinese, Indian and African conceptions . . .

Islam - often seen as oriental - closely related to Judaism and Christianity in its origins.

China - Confucianism has been given some official revival.

They are all 'ideology', so says this segment.

But the theories we have selected to discuss all exhibit the main elements of that common structure we have seen in Christianity and Marxiism:

1. a background theory about the world;

2. a basic theory of the nature of human beings;

3. a diagnosis of what is wrong with us; and

4. a prescription for putting it right.

In this same section the authors are saying:

With the modern psychological or biological theories, we cannot hope to be up to date with all the very latest developments, for the frontiers of science and speculation are constantly moving.

Hmmmm ... guess the Buddha was right - nothing is permanent!

The Criticism of Theories

Christianity - so if God is so good, why does He not answer the prayers and relieve suffering all over the world?

Marxism - revolutions against communism haven't occurred in the 'heart of capitalism' in the western world . . . and communism collapsed in the late twentieth century.

So doesn't that Marx's theory to be no good?

--------------------------

Are we really free and responsible for our own actions, or is everything determined?

Do we live after death?

Is it true that we're made of nothing but 'matter', in the light of our ability to think and process knowledge?

Christians - believe only Christ can save us;

Marxists - believe that we can save ourselves.

Neither have proved to be right - neither institution, the church or the communists groups have been able to prevent the suffering of mankind.