The dishonesty of preaching theism

[Iwannaplato]

Well, it may be difficult to think of them that way... and it may be unnecessary... but it may be helpful to stand back and see from a broader perspective sometimes. For example, the Christian saying 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

There is an irony that your going to religion for a defense of the idea.

Yes, I know. I see value and insights in all directions.

I am interested in responding thoughtfully to your posts when I have more time to do that. Thank you.

It's fine to pick just a piece and respond. I can be wordy.

[dattaswami]

Belief in a god is a personal matter. No one knows anything more than what feels true for them. To preach such a thing to other people as if it is an absolute truth/reality that other people should subscribe to, ends up requiring a great deal of manipulation and dishonesty (whether conscious or not) in forcing a particular pattern.

Where else in life would we allow such unchecked mind control and programming that claims to be crucial for our souls?

Why do we think theism needs to be preached at us? Why not ask each individual what their view of the divine is, if they have such a view, and then learn and be inspired by the commonalities between them? Why is this idea of preaching at people to tell them what to believe considered divine? What is really behind such a thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqx5yWnrgF8

[Lacewing]

I think it's going too far to think of loving them.

I'm thinking of a broader view and broader kind of love, perhaps... not the kind that is dependent on details or circumstances. Loving humankind despite their faults. Or, like Jesus was credited with saying, "Forgive them, they know not what they do." That's a great idea of love and understanding. That doesn't mean, however, that we must love what people do... nor that we must be complacent about their misdeeds.

I think unity makes more things acceptable and understandable, perhaps, whereas separateness just divides and resists things further.

I don't think this is true. I think it is true for some people, but I think there are others who need to be even better at boundaries. Empaths need to stop letting some people in, for example. Some separateness is good.

Again, I'm trying to speak about a broader perspective. Perhaps it's not possible for me to accurately describe the kind of love I'm talking about. I'm certainly not saying that people should not have boundaries. I just think it's possible to love from a different level/perspective -- and that may be a healthier state of mind than one that is convinced of unavoidable division and hatred. Many people have shown tremendous love despite horrific circumstances. I think that's inspiring.

But even in my soul, I need to think of them and feel them as more separate.

Understandable. I'm just suggesting a potential which I think is intriguing to consider.

[Lacewing]

Why do we think theism needs to be preached at us?

There's a cultural aspect to all this too, for me.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

My question did not point well enough to why I was asking it. Your response has truths. I just happen to think it's outrageous that theist cultures still justify the need to preach at everyone as if:
> We aren't all made from and of the same stuff, and as if...
> We cannot access spiritual truths for ourselves, and as if...
> Some kind of all-powerful god is so deficient as to need puny human help and interpreters, and as if...
> There have not clearly been greatly diverse views of spirituality throughout history and around the world

Essentially, I see no reasonable/logical need for one person to preach to another about a god: what it is, and what it thinks and says and wants. That's the creation of man.

I think dattaswami is from another culture in this. Not the obvious that he is likely Indian and but even more importantly a guru, both of which bring cultural elements in, the latter vastly more important, I think, when thinking of posting behavior.

Of course it's fine to come to an online forum (forum indicating a focus on discussion) and post old lectures in great numbers. To consider his focus pontification. So, even when he responds, it is generally not really a response, but an opportunity to lecture some more.

But it makes no sense to do this where it is so obviously mocked and ignored, instead of in an environment that aligns with it. It's more likely that he comes here because he cannot get away with such preachy spam in other forums.

Henry/Walker is right in the sense that one can simply ignore them.

Because it is excessive, it creates a lot for people to wade through. If we all did this... creating thousands of posts that preach rather than engage... the forum would be unmanageable, and probably ruined. So, for any person to come here and do that is extraordinarily disrespectful to the forum. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. We shouldn't have to ignore excessive bullshit. Henry and Walker certainly aren't masters of ignoring stupid bullshit -- they have plenty to say when it matters to them.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm thinking of a broader view and broader kind of love, perhaps... not the kind that is dependent on details or circumstances. Loving humankind despite their faults. Or, like Jesus was credited with saying, "Forgive them, they know not what they do." That's a great idea of love and understanding. That doesn't mean, however, that we must love what people do... nor that we must be complacent about their misdeeds.

Don't worry, I didn't take it as accepting their misdeeds. For me, at that level of abstraction, I wouldn't refer to it as love. Not for me anyway. And I don't work on the idea of forgiving. I do forgive and I'm glad when it happens (either direction), but I don't try to forgive or to convince myself to forgive. If it comes great. And I can think of things the other person can do to speed this up and make it more likely. Time also can lead to something like forgiveness...I just seem to no longer feel anything negative about the person. I don't like hanging onto the rage or whatever intentionally, but I don't try to get rid of what's there either. I view this as my personal choice, not as a position I need others to take up.

Again, I'm trying to speak about a broader perspective. Perhaps it's not possible for me to accurately describe the kind of love I'm talking about. I'm certainly not saying that people should not have boundaries. I just think it's possible to love from a different level/perspective -- and that may be a healthier state of mind than one that is convinced of unavoidable division and hatred. Many people have shown tremendous love despite horrific circumstances. I think that's inspiring.

Sure, if it comes, it comes. I think however different people need different things. Some people have been too forgiving. An extreme example is battered woman. Often they explain away the behavior of their abusers. To suggest to that group that they need to forgive more or understand the humanity of their abusers and love them more is not good advice. Others who hold onto grudges and nurture them and see other people as subhuman, well then the advice is good. These are extreme cases, the former with specific characteristics and dynamics, but I think there are many people who while not in formally abusive relationships, still go out of their way to understand other people, to forgive and love them, in a way that is self-abusive. It may seem like love, but it's guilt.

I think this is much more common than is acknowledged. That guilt is confused with love in a general way. Too many aspire to a kind of sainthood (and not necessarily with the slightest bit of religious overtones like that word seems to hint at). Sainthood leanings. Their visions of what goodness is and how they fall short.

[Iwannaplato]

Because it is excessive, it creates a lot for people to wade through. If we all did this... creating thousands of posts that preach rather than engage... the forum would be unmanageable, and probably ruined. So, for any person to come here and do that is extraordinarily disrespectful to the forum. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. We shouldn't have to ignore excessive bullshit. Henry and Walker certainly aren't masters of ignoring stupid bullshit -- they have plenty to say when it matters to them.

It's funny. Roydop recently returned and posted three threads, each with a different title but each pretty much just a link to the same video where he preaches for an hour. My first reaction was hm, perhaps I can start a thread and invite both him and dattaswami to it. It could be funny if they got locked in a room with their mirror image for a while. But I wisely chose not to notice Roydop and so far no one has responded. Out with the old guru, in with the new. And sometimes I noticed when a toxic poster becomes obsessed with another toxic poster and, well, it's lovely. Because suddenly traits that are unpleasant take on a positive air. Most people should not be exposed but other toxic posters, hey it's fine with me. It's a bit like their are acting like an immune system. Killer T cells are just fine when aimed at cancer cells or cells with viruses but if they get aimed at your cells in general or healthy cells, well, bang, you have an autoimmune disease.

Right now this is happening. Instead of the autoimmune phenomenon, or at least along side it, we have some of our killer T cells aimed in the right direction.

[Lacewing]

sometimes I noticed when a toxic poster becomes obsessed with another toxic poster and, well, it's lovely.

Yes it is!