On how I think Humanists should treat people who have had an encounter with the holy. From Gatheringwater's ever-pouring coffee hour thread.
I'm pretty standard issue humanist as far as I know, and I do tend to approach such things with skepticism. But I'm not rude about it. I do believe that sometimes our dreams are significant to what's going on deep within us. (E.g. I dream often of saving people and protecting people and indeed the tension of wanting to save those who cannot be saved or who do not want to be saved is a major one in my life.)
While I think that is a psychological deal and not a spiritual deal, I have respect for it as a process.
Online, there's little point in getting into such things unless you've known one another for a long time. Offline, my general standard is that people who ask God constantly for minor things and talk about it tend to think the world revolves around them in other arenas. But people who have had one significant experience needed to be told something.
I'm not willing to call it God, though I might not tell them that. But I am willing to help them out.
CC
4 comments:
Where can I find this discussion? Being a semi-humanist who has had her own "Religious Experience" puts me in an odd position, so the topic kind of interests me.
Sometimes I just say "God is a Humanist". It's sort of a koan. Or "God is an atheist" when I'm feeling more confrontational.
I do actually have a button that says, "Thank God I'm an atheist!", but nowadays no one gets it.
--Kim
Sure thing, Kim!
This discussion is right here.
CC
"While I think that is a psychological deal and not a spiritual deal, I have respect for it as a process."
A thought that occurred to myself as i read the aforementioned,
Objective reality is not necessarily confined to the space that is salient to our senses.
If we allow ourselves to think that, we ourselves eventually become confined to that space which is salient.
What precisely can we say about something that we cannot at all sense?
CC
Post a Comment