That would depend on who you asked. People who share similar beliefs might think so.
My point of view is that she represented what she “believed” and “felt” God wanted or expected from a believer like herself. Her personal journey led her to her beliefs. I don’t know if she ever felt cause enough to question and doubt them.
Not everyone is or could be a mystic and not everyone would or could torture their own body (masochism) in the name of purifying their so-called sexuality and humanity.
It seems to me that what God so-calledly wants or expects is a projection from within.
If atheism is defined as the position that God can’t or doesn’t exist, than Atheism is a negative faith, no matter how rational atheists insist they are, unless they can logically prove why God can’t or doesn’t exist. However, I’ve heard atheism defined similarly to agnosticism: I don’t believe in God, but it might exist.
No matter how silly something is, like flying purple unicorns that defecate rainbows, it could exist, just not in our dimension, according to our laws of physics, in all likelihood, and these entities or this entity that exists on another plane or realm, could be interacting with, or even hath created the whole of our plane or realm, or aspects of it, like it might’ve created life, but not the earth life inhabits, or the stars.
It’s possible, unless you can demonstrate why it’s impossible.
Whatever can’t be logically or empirically demonstrated to be impossible, is possible.
Many contemporary theoretical physicists believe in alternative universes, they believe they can infer them from our universe, using some pretty wild and sketchy math, just as theologians use some pretty wild and sketchy logic to infer an intelligent designer from our universe, but neither of these claims can ever be empirically tested, in all likelihood, so who cares?
Pick your poison.
But what IS faith? Why would the atheist actually need faith albeit negative faith in order to see “no” God?
Paul says that “faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.
I don’t think that all atheists can be viewed in the same way. Perhaps some atheists have a deeply, psychological need to deny the existence of God (ergo, faith and hope of such) and for some ~~~ there is, simply put, NO GOD.
In other words, no need to argue a moot point.
We couldn’t see galaxies a couple of centuries ago, does that mean they didn’t exist?
We couldn’t see infrared or ultraviolet either, does that mean they didn’t exist?
Just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means that if it does exist, it doesn’t exist in your vicinity, or at least can’t meaningfully or observably interact with you.
I define faith as believing, or disbelieving without any proof, or against proof.
Yes, atheists could have psychological reasons for why they think they know God doesn’t exist.
Like maybe their mommy or daddy sent them to a private Christian school where they were physically or sexually abused by a priest or nun *shrugs.
Or maybe they don’t like the idea of some entity watching them all the time, even when they go the toilet.
I have no idea, but it makes for an interesting query.
Why do atheists insist there is/are no God(s)?
Yea different atheists likely have different albeit subconscious reasons.
What I find interesting is that lots of people who hold relativist positions, get really upset by other people’s actions.
If I said that the way to higher spirituality was in disemboweling newborn babies … it wouldn’t just be “different strokes for different folks” for most relativists. But it’s just as reasonable as any other relativist/subjectivist perspective on spirituality. Right?
AD … while your perceptions may not be unique … they are certainly not ‘main stream’. Your keen insight is usually a sign that one has traveled a long ways on a spiritual path.
Let me try to illustrate with some more of the St Teresa story.
The Catholic Church has always insisted on the role of a spiritual director … perhaps akin to the role of a psychologist, psychiatrist or dream analyst. The alleged purpose being to guide inexperienced spiritual seekers along their spiritual journey. The more likely purpose being to stifle, curtail, suffocate or terminate the impulses from the spirit in novice seekers.
How so?
The Judaic religions … as with most religions … were born in a particular space at a particular time. The original adherents took a “snap shot” of the events in this particular space and time … a freeze frame. Future adherents insisted in clinging to the original “freeze frame”. The Jesus story is a classic example. Thus the hostile attitude to heresy and nonconformist thought.
The only exception I know of are the Chinese religions … both the I-Ching and The Dao De Jing have constant/perpetual change as their foundation.
Back to St Teresa … she was a very strong woman. She allegedly insisted … “don’t send me any more stupid priests” (spiritual directors) ergo: priests who had no idea what the hell was happening inside St Teresa. She recovered and blossomed after meeting St John of the Cross who turned out to be a fellow mystic.
Atheists are the best hope in solving the “ills” of religion(s). You may have an exciting yet difficult road ahead.
I don’t think that that is me unless those actions do harm to others and to their selves.
Give me a “normal” “real” example and I’ll see what I think.
As to the former, see above.
As to the latter, now you are being absurd. How can disemboweling newborn babies lead to higher spirituality? I realize that conditioned cultural and religious beliefs may play a strong role in what people do in order to attain to a higher spirituality (and in a sense these people may experience that) but that is because of their beliefs BUT when that behavior leads to harm or death, where is the logic/reason/goodness and harmony within that?
Don’t you think that religion and religious practices ought to at least be based in reality and good reason?
Once you take up relativism, there is no real or normal. Everything is real for a particular individual. Everything is normal for that individual. Others may disagree but they just have their own personal opinions, their own perspectives. No person’s opinion is any better or worse than another person’s opinion.
So when you say:
You are saying that “spirituality” is whatever a particular individual thinks it is. That may include all sorts of “unique” practices.
I’m not being absurd, I’m using logic to find out where the relativist/subjectivist perspectives end up. If each person defines spirituality “from within”, then he can say that spirituality is whatever pops into his head.
Sure, someone can say that it’s not higher spirituality but that’s just another opinion. That causing harm or death is bad, is also just another opinion.
Iambig writes about this often and I think that’s one of his valid points. Once you fall down the relativist, subjectivist, nihilist rabbit hole, then psychopathy and narcissism become okay.
I suppose from the perspective of the interpreter all interpretations are valid. My guess is … even those who followed the man every day for the three years of his ministry failed to completely understand his message.
Krishnamurti earned the respect of a large international community yet at age 90 he still claimed “nobody understands me”.
I don’t know. Suppose one would have to first agree on the objectives of a spiritual pursuit.
The dialectic “Wu Ji Bi Fan” … “As soon as a thing reaches its extremity, it reverses its course.”
For the first 43 years of my life I was totally immersed in the crowd. The question … “Am I spending my life wisely?” never occurred to me. The crowd must be going the right way … I simply have to follow.
After being kicked out of the crowd … literally … I was confronted with the question … I had no choice but to consider it … my reliance on the crowd had disappeared.
My birth circumstances coupled with my life experiences brought me to where I am today. I’m quite comfortable … rightly or wrongly … claiming I had no choice but arrive here.
I’m also comfortable claiming atheists and agnostics are engaged in a spiritual pursuit … simply from a different angle/perspective.
Sure they can be engaged in a spiritual pursuit. But for atheists it explicitly excludes God. And if God IS and if God is important, then they are missing something. So a future based on that spirituality is lacking.
Of course if God ISN’T, then the theists are inserting an imagined extra part into spirituality.
I would say that ‘spirituality’ is concern with the non-material aspects of reality. ‘Pursuit of spirituality’ is an attempt to better understand those non-material aspects.
Unless someone claims that all reality is purely material, then he/she can be spiritual and pursue spirituality.
That can easily be satisfied by consumerism, politics, economics. Accumulation of wealth can be considered “finite time spent wisely” and therefore spiritual. But lots of people disagree - probably you do also if I read you correctly.
Yes, sexual hedonism. Some do consider it spiritual.
The human lifespan is short … pursuit of spirituality reflects an individual’s hope/desire to spend his/her finite time wisely. In this context, ‘wisely’ means sincere consideration of the possible existence of non-material reality.
Pursuit of spirituality’ is an attempt to better understand the non-material aspects of reality.
A sincere willingness to consider/contemplate spirituality independently … independent of the religious crowd … independent of the atheist crowd … independent of the agnostic crowd.
The “non-material reality” is ‘relationships’, so clearly it exists. For example, ‘love’ is non-material and exists. Which is why “God is love” is such a common idea.
I don’t think that this independence is required. Why would it be?
