When Relatives Go Holy: Turning to the Dark Side?

Often I Feel Like Obi-Wan Kenobi Who Lost His Padawan: When Relatives Go Holy—Turning to the Dark Side? 

Real-Life Stories and Personal Experiences

We have all encountered religious zeal in our families to some extent. I enjoyed listening to biblical morality stories in my school assemblies; I do still value them, but I say let's keep everything in moderation. When my fathers side of the family attempted to exorcise me though, I began to draw a few lines! 

I'm not alone. 

It's frustrating to see another relative turn deeply religious and scriptural. He considers himself a humble philosophy enthusiast and speaks highly of modal logic, as well as the philosphy of moralty, and cosmological arguments, and theories of time. You might know where I'm going with this. He and I might spark up a debate, and often, it will seize up, because my eristic socrates will even deny established fact or adopt futile pedantic semantics solely to pose as being right; for example, he once used the common layman definition of 'proof' to argue that the existence of Jesus's tomb is a proven fact, despite knowing that a proper Richard III level of verification is needed to do so. The bible alone, he argued, sufficiently validates it. He openly admits his dishonesty and enjoys playing the contrarian. Has this happened to you? Did it affect your family dynamics? His reading of philosophy is admirable, but he undermines it, as he does with the core virtue of his religion, namely, the teaching on honesty. The online Cambridge definition of 'Philosophy' and 'Christian' are:

Philosophy: the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of the real world and existence, the use and limits of knowledge, and the principles of moral judgment. 

Christian: of or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: 

    ● a Christian charity/organization

    ● the Christian faith

My kindred thinker is not impartial to dismissing science, even after nudging his scientific data to promote prayer potency on poorly patients. Anti-science rhetoric is mostly thrown around by those who confuse science with anti-theism. I'm not anti-spiritual or an atheist, my own personal path simply isn't a mainstream religion. I'm just saying, reason and faith can be opposing attitudes, just as Christian Moral Realism is illogical. Imagine the conflict of being gay and Muslim. Our nature as humans is imperfect, I dont accept unwavering religious conviction, despite such belief being an expectation, or a vague 'ought' for you to have, simply because it's 'good'. This unrealistic concept of unwavering belief, would, if it worked, remove our fear of death, and scriptural eternal damnation would have prevented all crime in the clergy. You see, genuine unwavering belief would flood the cities and streets with crowds of believers desperate to save their non-believing friends and loved ones from the nearing nightmare of hellish unending fire and damnation, but where are these believers? Strings of belief animate us, but here, they droop under laissez faire puppetry. I just want my relative to go back to the way he was before!

When I ask myself what strengthens wavering faith in a world of natural disasters, horror, war and madness, I usually put it down to bravado and self-deception. I consider the theology of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving Israeli God (omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) to be devoid of philosophical thought; people promote their God's unchanging nature, immutability or everpresence. However, there's a conspiracy of silence in churches who aren't inclined to explore any of the key religio-political transformations during the history of the God of Israel. Theology and historical sciences differ.

      'This wrathful and jealous lord of the old testament has gone all 'love and peace' clearly quite a significant change in just two testaments. Where's the unchangeability here?' 

                                                                                                       Me ranting. 

Free Will, Omniscience, and the Illusion of Choice

Judeo-christian theology lays it all out; Yahweh gave us free will and we defied him—we ate from his fruit tree! Undoubtedly, these theologies have also respectively been developed, every Abrahamic religion acknowledges that our free will does continue to lead us into sin or wrong doing. I guess it does follow that Yahweh, the unchanging, all-knowing, all-powerful and now, benelovent God (who walked amongst many gods), knowingly let humans fall into their own quagmire. 

This all-knowing God, would, by his nature, have known that humanity would choose to commit sin after creating us; so here's the question begging to be asked: does this mean free will was always just an illusion? If so, in this tradition, omniscience has undoubtedly facilitated sin, and it has nurtured human evil, even priming its ideal breeding grounds in that garden! 

What punishment did this loving god create in order to steer us away from the sin he enabled? Banishment from paradise? or even eternity in hellfire? Does it seem right? What an irrational theological burden! It goes too far, loses coherence, detracts from its own concept of divinity. Surely better ideas exist elsewhere? 

The Pointless Sacrifice and the Selective Intervention

When Yahweh lovingly appointed his so-called son, Jesus, to be tortured and then, to die for a weekend, no evils ended; it didn't even alleviate the roman occupation, nor did it avert our twentieth century wars for that matter. The problem of evil was not resolved by Jesus Christ. Christianity was persecuted at the start, but we did, however, see an increase in interesting church-made, brain derived theologies that had equally cruel consequences. Fair dues, there are fantastic Jesus moralty stories, maybe they are best left there, or is that avoidant? People don't like to think about the jewish trials and tribulations that followed the crucifixion, such as the seige of Jerusalem. Rome slaughtered ridiculous amounts of Jewish people, just like in the Bar Kokhba revolt. Does the fact that the God of Israel's chosen people actually lost Israel not suggest anything? Jewish people endured centuries of persecution from Christendom, how is that not a sign something is off? The horrors of the holocaust go without saying. I've said all these things to my philosophical Christian sage to no avail and it is frustrating. I should leave him to his own devices, I really should.

After running both modal logic and Bayesian analysis, mundane removal of the body is the likely explanation for the historical events that inspired the resurrection story of Jesus. It rests well with contemporary grave robbings and confiscation measures to prevent religious dispute. Scripture is understandably pro resurrection, but its objectivity is very much questionable. The story is central to the Christian Church, despite its improbability from an entirely historical perspective. As a myth, it is wonderful and packed with ethics and wisdom we should embrace. 

Surely, in theory, such an all-powerful and all-knowing divinity, could have originally designed our genetic predispositions to be repulsed by doing sinful things, right? Yes, of course. So why do people hold on to an irrational reliance where the Almighty relies on religious agency such as teachers, scripture writers and churches? It's simply club membership perks. Our DNA already steers us away from doing quite a few unsavoury things and that doesn't detract from our perceived free will, so its a fair question to ask. In fact, if we consider those enslaved to gambling, sex or drug addiction, stealing and other forms of sin or wrong doing, the free will theology loses appeal because we naturally become enslaved. There is a paradox of divine persuasion here.

This omnipotent, Israeli God, who has fought tribal wars against Baal and Chemosh, and once revealed his presence in the ancient Jewish sky; so why has it stopped? Why does he not appear to all the nations and order an end of wars? We can all visualise an ancient divine strategy, some coceivable solution that could've literally wiped out thousands of years of pointless hide and seek theology and slippery debate. The reliance on evangelism and dubious clergy with which Jesus himself clashed could all have never existed via a bit of genetic tweaking, but, instead; we are sadly left with cryptic scriptures and promises from orthodox people and holy relatives who all interpret things differently.

This changeless and evolved deity doesnt fit his own theology. After sharing the archeological history of Yahweh with my kindred of Christ, and moral realist, he stopped, listened and began to think, instead of just trying to win for once, before spouting out a theory on societal realisation for the deity. Poof! Out of thin air! Not too much unlike an apologetic, he thrust his idea of a gradual revelation of the God with a forced conviction by claiming that Yahweh had only been properly truly understood in his full godly form by Christian era theologians. It was very disappointing guillotine decapitation of historical and cultural acquisition. The scripture and all the pertaining archeological discoveries hit the floor, rolling centre stage to become his reimagined version of the God of Israel. I always said, people created God and not the other way around, unfortunately, he proved me right in the end! I found a new level of ignorance that day. I have found self-righteousness in Christians in my life, I guess it's only a minority? 

 

The Mystical Experience: Blending into Religion

Unveiling the Mystery: Exploring Mystical Experiences Across Cultures

The Mystic

Don't you think 'The Mystic' sounds pretty dramatic? I'm sure it might conjure up jedi-like imagery, something a bit merlin or those stigmata marks on devoted monks. What springs to my mind are those orange clad sitters who tranquilly await enlightened, but equally, there are shamanic seers, and the Islamic Sufi who can also enjoy mystic experience. Regardless of any cause, be it neurological, or even the psychological, spiritual, drug induced or even a traumatising event, they're all experienced and often called mystic. 

No tradition, faith or ethnicity can claim exclusivity of this sort of thing, even though we might think otherwise. It's unique, personal. We can see for ourselves how mystical experience go by a variety of names across the globe, here are a few: moksha is Hindu meaning liberation, gnosis was secret experiential knowledge stemming from antiquity, nirvana is a Buddhist state of bliss similar sat chit ananda in Vedic tradition. Satori is a temporary zen buddhist state of enlightenment, and theosis is a term found in orthodox christianities describring a state of unity with their concept of God.

Theurgy is interesting; just going on the esoteric basis of working with divinities and altering consciousness, it holds mystical, religious and occult themes! Samadhi is an eastern term meaning a profound absorption into the absolute, for Jewish people devekut signifies their deep unity with HaShem through veneration. Islam has fana, a sufi death of egotism resonating with Advaita Vedanta and then, we have 'theoria,' admittedly, it is quite an interesting form of mystical experience. It's triggered by a sufficient point of philosophical contemplation. All of the above hold qualities and some overlap. 

Profound mystical moments are hard to put into regular words, because human language itself is a limitation.  You could liken it to the task of putting a brand new, totally unseen colour into accurate words. Such a task would involve referencing other existing colours and anything similar to it. It is a 'burden of interpretation.'

The Challenge of Interpretation:

After a mystical experience fades, it's just as the christian mystic, Meister Eckhart describes, 'the well overflows, and then it runs dry,' and so, as the moment will gradually diminish; we might begin doubting the mystical union. When a shift has taken place as such, those who try to salvage the last dregs of water with their leaking bucket, will likely spill it and make a mess. 

Qualia and the Limits of Language:

It is fair to say that any mystical experience we rationalise will often end up catagorised, mentally stored away, re-interpreted, re-questioned, reframed, processed and reformed. In various religious scriptures, we see textual descriptors or criteria of awakenings, especially in Eastern traditions. There are so many lenses to view these experiences. Which are true? Where is the consensus? We will explore this soon. 

Qualia, the inner subjective experience we have of something, namely, the mystic experience itself for this point of this blog, is rooted in a valid, 'what-was-it-like?' means of comparatively judging something. It's measuring against another object or idea: 'this soup tastes like curry' 'the culprit looked like a camel,' or ultimately, 'my mystical experience was like the religious figure 1, 2 or 3 telling me X Y or Z'. When we strongly try to carry the last of the well water with 'what-it-was-likeness' bucket explanations; we leak all the unexplainable, and we spill the most abstract and lose the finest detail. 

To support this we should consider the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which states that speakers of languages with a greater vocabulary for colour, for example, will enjoy a richer intellectually colourful dialogue than basic languages. Imagine having a ton of words for different shades of blue, see what I mean? That's just blue. Even the various sounds and rhythms of a language (accents and pronunciations) will influence how speakers feel about such words (with more connotation and concepts) and what they mean to them as speakers of that language. What makes one mystical insight more valid than another is hard to say, but there are determining factors with interpretation, as we are slowly beginning to explore. 

Similar to mystical experiences are Near Death Experiences (NDEs) which are culturally specific phenomena. I always supposed this cultural specifity was based on an inbuilt psychological defense mechanism evolved to help us face end of life stress. You know, like the explanation for the brains DMT secretion near death? But, we do, as people, tend to season our strange experiences with familiar flavours in order to digest them more easily; it seems there is an element of phenomenal relativism of interpretation here. 

By phenomenal relativism of interpretation, I mean the preconceptions of the world that we utilise in our interpretation of and processing of new and unique experiences. This really would be great to apply to hypothetical paranormal experiences as an example. 

If a UFO was to tour our planets skies, international interpretation of the phenomena would differ:

    ●Westerners, generally construe UFOs through a sci-fi lens, usually as advanced spaceships flown by extra terrestrial beings.

    ●In Japan, on the other hand, these mysterious flying anomalies are yokai, a more earthly, organic spiritual being living parallel to us. 

    ●In Africa, the same Yokai or alien ship would be a star being, once considered to be ancestors who now come back to visit. 

The phenomenal relativism of interpretation is clear. I chose to leave my other examples out, because three does suffice. For further observations on this relativism of interpretation, compare the numerous cultural and historical variants of Jesus Christ across the globe. If you don't believe in Jesus, or see him as a historical cult leader, his depiction show our bias. 

Shared Themes Across Traditions:

UFOs and NDEs aside, I should say, there are mystics like Teresa of Avila, who would describe mystic experiences as simply 'ineffable,' which is putting it as something impossible to articulate properly in words. Instead of, let's say, trying to play Einsteins theory of relativity on a trombone; some individuals who have mystic experiences might acknowledge that taking up such a difficult challenge is pointless! This is why we have a plethora of mystic experiences, by trying to explain the unexplainable. Countless gods, deities, ancestors, spirits have been reported in the realm mystical experience. Yet, I must add, despite the common themes, they cannot all be correctly interpreted. 

Transformation and a Lasting Impact:

Even though specific details of mystic experiences fade, they still bring new perspectives. This doesn't mean you'll turn into the next mountainside guru living in a constant state of bliss—that's psychologically unhealthy. It's a stereotype. Enlightened people can be grumpy like anyone else. It's unnatural to force yourself to be something you are not. Self-learning is a common theme across numerous spiritual and philosophical practices in which, we might obtain satori. Primarily many spiritual and religious beginnings come with accepting our imperfect biological human nature, and to be aware of our ego. It's not easy. The Mystical is personal, a private gift. 

A World of Perception

I guess I painted a picture of a world where our perception is not passively impressed upon us. If our senses are just the recording equipment, and the brain is the organiser, the mystical experience will grip the heart of phenomenal consciousness itself bypassing reason and consistency. 

What's the deal here? 

The cause of mystical experience is beyond the scope of this blog. All we could conclude here is how we should question how people interpret their own experiences of ineffible occurences. It is like the paraple of the blind men and the elephant; they all touched the beast, each saying it was a different creature!

More Starmer vs Sunak? Really? What's The Point?

Televised Debates: An Ultimate Frustration-Fest

Ugh, mate. Where do you even begin? With the fact that debates aren't usually rapid fire responces? Come on, questions need more than a forty five second TIME LIMIT!? Maybe we'll begin with that weird popularity-gameshow-feel? It could have been aptly called 'Don't get booed!' It knobbled any real meaningful exchange—great thinking, itv! Public discourse is an outlet and they're supposed to be a grand showcase of political excellence, flirting their grand ideas to the masses, that's right, isn't it? 

Like a telly debate

This supposed itv debate was a real chance to show my family what the Keir Starmer was really about with regard to all the important issues. Yep, his father was a nurse or some b*****ks, and his mother made tools. That was most of it, well, unless you count his anti-Tory, parliamentary programmed polemics, which was no more than stating the bleeding obvious that the country is ****. 

First off, can we acknowledge that CONSTANT interruptions need to change? It was a bit of a one way assault from a terrified Tory—noisy, rude, with scare tactics, my face rarely left my palm. Sir Keir had no bite, like Stallone in one of those old Rocky films where the dude isn't fighting back. Rishi, playing the angry posh kid did whatever he could to get his way. Neither party had a chance to properly explain anything and the moderator was a news reader—did itv let her do a news report on herself?  

We shouldn't forget the dodgy facts. Look, everyone has different viewpoints, but straight off bull***t shouldn't be allowed in these debates, we used to have fact checkers but that's clearly gone. Don't you think a candidate should be dishonourably disqualified if they lie or twist the truth? 

It may appear that I'm saying televised debates are a complete waste of time, because I am, quite frankly. They're about as informative as a hayes mini cooper manual for fitting a kitchen. As this is my blog, I have a responsibility to call out for some kind of meaty, proper lengthy debate—maybe a Netflix or YouTube event would do it justice because itv are sporting a no frills value lettuce.