Believers and Non-Believers

[Nick_A]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

As I se it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves. They feel a connection to a psychological inner direction that leads to the source of objective "meaning." A belieer doesn't have to have rigid beliefs but only the belief that there is life greater than his own.

It is natural for me to sense meaning as having a source beyond my acquired preconceptions, far greater in quality or wholeness, and desire to become open to it. My gut feeling is that it is not the inner search for meaning beyond oneself that is the turn-off to non-believers but the misguided beliefs that often result and the harm caused. But they overreact and deny the search for meaning by limiting it to the results of dual associative thought........a shallow level of reason as compared to contemplation.

But to imagine myself as a non-believer requires me to think what life would be like if I believed that all this contradiction and hypocrisy around me natural for mankind in history as well as in our current lives, was the norm upon which the search for objective meaning and purpose could have meaningful results. That seems absurd. And yet there must be non-believers who think the search for meaning and purpose more than what is open to direct scientific verification is equally absurd. But at least in this way the essential difference between the two becomes more clear.

[Nick_A]

>>>the essential difference between a believer and non-believer...<<<

Is it correct if I assume the following (?):
- Believer: a person that believes in God/'spiritual mode of life';
- Non-believer: a person that rejects God and/or anything to do with 'spirituality'.

Christian teaching recognizes three modes of living: the carnal, the psychic and the spiritual. Each of these is characterized by its own particular attitude of life, distinctive to itself and dissimilar to that of the others.

The carnal mode of life is one wholly devoted to the pleasures and enjoyments of this present life, and has nothing to do with the psychic and spiritual modes of life, and does not even have any wish to acquire them.

The psychic mode, which is situated on the borderline between evil and virtue, is preoccupied with the care and strengthening of the body and with men's praise; it not only repudiates the labors required for virtue, but also rejects carnal indulgence. It avoids both virtue and vice but for opposite reasons: virtue because this requires toil and discipline; vice because that would entail forfeiting men's praise.

The spiritual mode of life, on the other hand, has nothing in common with these two other modes.

Matthew 11

8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

This passage suggest the quality of scale both evolving from the earth and involving from above. Assuming what you say is true, then carnal life is that of a dog for example and oblivious of anything more then this. It is neither good nor bad by secular standards but just is what it is or part of the "good" of creation.

It seems as though the psychic mode which should allow for the transition between being born of woman and being born from above has become corrupt due to our fallen nature.

Why do you say that the spiritual has nothing to do with the other two. It seems that the conscious recognition of these two is what allows its conscious development.

"Purity is the power to contemplate defilement." --Simone Weil

It seems that this recognition is essential for the conscious passage between being born of woman and becoming born from above.

[daedalus 2.0]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

As I se it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves. They feel a connection to a psychological inner direction that leads to the source of objective "meaning." A belieer doesn't have to have rigid beliefs but only the belief that there is life greater than his own.

(See, cnorman, this is what I am talking about.)

The believer only has one thought: the purpose of life is God's purpose. Since there is no consensus on what that is, people make it up. They are no different than any other person on Earth.

Basically, you, the OP'r is being arrogant and assume that you have some arcane knowledge of the purpose of life, but, for the life of you, can't tell anyone what it is.

Look at how you describe it! Its in vague and meaningless terms.

Pray tell: what is the objective meaning? "A life greater than his own" is NOT objective - it is the epitome of subjective.

Come on!

[Catharsis]

>>>Why do you say that the spiritual has nothing to do with the other two. It seems that the conscious recognition of these two is what allows its conscious development.<<<

The spiritual mode of life is different because it seeks dispassion and labors for something higher and divine, rather than worldly riches, pleasures and earthly passions. That's the main difference.

I'm not sure how much conscious development there is because the carnal and psychic mode of life, for example, both do not wish to seek the 'divine'. For the change of mind to occur, a spiritual conversion has to happen (or metanoia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia

[MagusYanam]

I beg your pardon, Catharsis, if I am completely misconstruing your argument here - but it seems to me that your 'carnal' and 'psychic' and 'spiritual' modes of life (I assume these come out of your Orthodox background?) are strikingly similar to the Protestant existentialist (Kierkegaardian) distinction of spheres of existence: the 'aesthetic' (devoting oneself to worldly pleasures), the 'ethical' (devoting oneself to 'doing the right thing' for impersonal reasons) and the 'religious' (for whom pleasure and righteousness are relatively important, but personally devoting oneself as an individual to God is considered of the utmost importance).

I'm seeing some parallels in your line of argument here - though the 'psychic' as disinterested in either virtue or vice based on the perceptions of other people seems construed differently... but now you've got me interested.

[Nick_A]

>>>Why do you say that the spiritual has nothing to do with the other two. It seems that the conscious recognition of these two is what allows its conscious development.<<<

The spiritual mode of life is different because it seeks dispassion and labors for something higher and divine, rather than worldly riches, pleasures and earthly passions. That's the main difference.

I'm not sure how much conscious development there is because the carnal and psychic mode of life, for example, both do not wish to seek the 'divine'. For the change of mind to occur, a spiritual conversion has to happen (or metanoia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia

I agree and assert further that the Crucifixion is the final struggle between these two levels of reality that comprise man. The lower wants the status quo and the higher seeks "home." But it would be impossible without the lower influences.

This is why Jesus said "get behind me satan" rather than "go to hell." This influence is necessary for conscious evolution.

Hey Magus: what are you doing in this neck of the woods? Good to read you.

[MagusYanam]

Hi Nick - good to see you here, too!

It's definitely an interesting passage (I assume this is St Matthew 16:23, when Jesus says 'get behind me, Satan!' to St Peter?) - but it is interesting to note both the previous and the following statements that Jesus makes. Jesus is describing his own trials, the greatest trial that he will have to face in life and in death as the son of God, as God in a personal relationship with humanity.

It is interesting to note that Jesus says 'get behind me, Satan!' to St Peter only when he takes Jesus aside and starts telling Jesus that this must not happen to him - that he tries to lift the burden of choice from Jesus' shoulders. But what does Jesus say in response? He doesn't say why he must undergo this trial, he says, 'you are a stumbling-block to me'. St Peter is trying to understand things from the ethical, universal sphere of existence.

Jesus then goes on to say that his followers have to 'deny themselves' and 'take up their cross' and 'lose their life' - paradoxically, in order to regain their life in the right sort of way. What profit would it be, Jesus asks, to gain the whole world and still forfeit your life? Jesus is urging Peter out of the ethical (which places the whole world above the individual) and into the religious sphere of existence (where the individual, paradoxically, is placed above the whole world).

I agree with you, Nick, that this entire exchange seems to be happening at the convergence of two modes of existence, two ways of understanding. But I think part of the picture is, St Peter doesn't understand Jesus' trial, and what's more, he can't understand Jesus' trial. The best he can hope to do is to face his own personal trials in the right way, carry his own cross.

[Nick_A]

Magus

I agree with you, Nick, that this entire exchange seems to be happening at the convergence of two modes of existence, two ways of understanding. But I think part of the picture is, St Peter doesn't understand Jesus' trial, and what's more, he can't understand Jesus' trial. The best he can hope to do is to face his own personal trials in the right way, carry his own cross.

I also find Peter both a fascinating and necessary character in the NT. He obviously senses something of special significance in Jesus but cannot separate it from secular significance. He cannot yet separate the "Kingdom" and the domain of what Plato calls the "Beast." Peter seems to think that Jesus' message is for the Beast but it really is as you say for the individual at the expense of the Beast.

Naturally peter thinks that Jesus is too special to fall victim to fools without realizing that it is precisely what is necessary. When Peter cut the ear off of the soldier upon Jesus" arrest, Jesus said he was only preventing the message.

I remember when I first started reading Simone Weil and felt something special right away. Then when I learned of the lawful abuse aimed in her direction I got angry. Then I broke out laughing since I saw I was being just like Peter. She was referring to things that must make many angry or at best indignant.

I've learned that there are essentially three qualities of truth expressed in the Bible. stone, water, and wine.

Stone refers to literal truth but not yet felt on the inside. It is the law without any inner understanding. The commandments are etched in stone because they touch only the outer shell of Man.

Peter is the expression of literal understanding which is why he is the "rock" or foundation of the church.

Living water is a quality of truth that can be digested. It is the living part of the law. In John 4, Christ offered water to the Samaritan woman at the well that was beyond the understanding of the collective well that satisfies the thirst of the seeker.

Wine is made when inner understanding of the water is so complete that it can be expressed into the world as an awakening influence.

Peter then for me is the essential beginning. Our trouble seems to be in first experiencing the living water and not confusing the awakening influence (wine) with egotism that modern secularism and fundamentalism seems to do.

[Catharsis]

Hello Magus, how's it going...I hope all is well.

It seems that what you say is indeed similar to the carnal/psychic/spiritual modes, but I am not very familiar with Protestant works so it's tough to compare.

You are right about the Orthodox background. The explanation of the modes of life come directly from a book called "The Philokalia", which is regarded as almost a Second Bible in Orthodoxy. Specifically, the carnal/psychic/spiritual distinctions come from Nikitas the Courageous, who was a disciple and biographer of St Symeon the New Theologian.

The following is an excerpt from the book; an explanation on the psychic mode of life (there are also explanations on the other two):

Those who pursue the psychic mode of life and are therefore called 'psychic' are like the mentally defective whose limbs do not function properly. They never exert themselves on behalf of virtue or in the practice of God's commandments, and they refrain from acting reprehensibly simply in order to gain esteem of other people. They are completely under the sway of self-love, nurse of the destructive passions, and they seek out whatever fosters physical health and pleasure. They repudiate all tribulation, effort and hardship embraced for the sake of virtue, and they cosset our enemy the body more than they should. Through such life and behavior their passion-imbued intellect grows cloddish and becomes impervious to the divine and spiritual realities whereby the soul is plucked from the world of matter and soars into the noetic heaven. This happens to them because they are still possessed by the spirit of matter, love themselves, and choose to do what they themselves want. Void of the Holy Spirit, they have no share in His gifts. As a result they exhibit no godly fruit - love for God and for their fellow-men - no joy in the midst of poverty and tribulation, no peace of soul, no deeply-rooted faith, no all-embracing self-control. Neither do they experience compunction, tears, humility, or compassion, but they are altogether filled with conceit and arrogance. Hence they are totally incapable of plumbing the depths of the Spirit...

[Reflectionist]

Note that Theism does not equate to Spirituality. Spirituality does not have to include, or even associate with Theism, or vice versa. You can be just as Spiritual by doing other a-theistic things, (not to associate with atheism, specifically) like, chakra meditation, or zen buddhism, or being in a platonic relationship. These things are spiritual, yet, not necessarily religious.