Scott wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2021, 6:51 pm
In the quoted text, Dr. Dyer did not say that the New Testament of the Christian Bible taught kindness, love, concern, and peace. He said that Jesus taught kindness, love, concern, and peace.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 7:30 am
But the sum of what Jesus was supposed to have taught does not amount to kindness, love, concern, and peace.
It amounts to a threat. If you do not act in the way I says you will be damned. Jesus also says you need to jettison family and follow me, or else. Be subservient to me, or else. Be celibate, or else. Jesus says you are born ill and commands you to be well, or else.
I disagree. May I ask if you have read the full New Testament of the Christian Bible? If not, whose summary are you paraphrasing as a secondhand summary?
Steve3007 wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 7:32 am
I've probably said this before, but I think this philosophy is essentially a form of Libertarianism, or is very similar to it.
Spiritual libertarianism? You could label my overall spiritual philosophy as that, and it wouldn't necessarily be incorrect, but I wouldn't label it that way personally since the word
libertarian is so equivocal and context-dependent. In other words, I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I would worry it would be prone to being misunderstood. Instead, I prefer the label
spiritual freedom a.k.a.
self-discipline; I think those are a bit less equivocal and thus a slightly more accurate/clear label for my overall
spiritual philosophy. In other words, at least in this spiritual context, I think
freedom is a clearer if not more accurate word than
libertarianism. Very generally speaking, I find words ending in
-ism to be especially equivocal, even more-so when the first letter of the
ism-word is capitalized (a point that is surprisingly apropos, considering Dyer's comments in the OP).
Metaphysical libertarianism could be defined as belief in the existence of free-will incompatible with causal determinism. I would say I am generally agnostic about that, but the term "free will" in metaphysics is very equivocal too.
If you are talking about political libertarianism, then I don't see how that relates to Dr. Dyer's comments quoted in the OP. I think Dr. Dyer's comments are more accurately interpreted in the context of spiritual philosophy or the philosophy of religion. Granted, I often use political freedom as an analogy for broader spiritual freedom, such that the self-discipline that is spiritual freedom is an analogy for the self-government that is political freedom.
Ecurb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 10:20 amBy the way, Fundamentalists and Evangelicals agree with your distate for priests and hierarchical authorities. Such disapproval is the essence of their faith. So some "organized religion", at least, is on your side, and that of Dr. Dyer.
I don't have a distaste for priests. My own sister is a rabbi, and she is very wise, very well-educated in theology formally, and very kind. I deeply value her opinion, and I have reached out to her on many occasions to ask for her opinions on various things. I don't happen to have an immediate family member who is a Christian priest, but I hold no favoritism for Jewish rabbis versus Christian priests or vice versa.
I also wouldn't say flat out that I have a distaste for hierarchies. For instance, I have a deep respect for my muay thai and jiu jitsu coach, and I work to be especially respectful when I am a guest on his mats or in his ring, a privilege I pay for with money. The same goes for my boxing trainer.
I do have a distaste for blind faith (as well as olives). So as a rule of thumb I usually aim to avoid engaging in blind faith (and avoid the eating of olives). I like olive oil, though. It's hard to believe the oil is made from those nasty tasting olives.
I believe liberty is the mother of order.
In analogy, both sexual abstinence and consensual sex are compatible with my philosophy. Unhealthy discontent addiction to either one is incompatible with my spiritual philosophy. In regard to my political philosophy of political which can as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom, both rape and forced abstinence would be incompatible with my political philosophy.
As I wrote in my topic
The artistically creative diversity of spiritual freedom, posted in the philosophy of the arts section, I believe
the beauty of freedom is in the creative diversity it not only allows but also engenders.
When it comes to (1) being addicted to X, (2) having blind faith in X, or (3) violently forcing X on someone, we must not fall into the false dichotomy of thinking the only other option is simply -X (the opposite of X), or even worse (1) being addicted to -X, (2) having blind faith in -X, or (3) violently forcing -X on someone. Freedom is a second dimension entirely that transcends the one dimension between -X and X.
Excessive asceticism can be an addiction just the same. Even excessive moderation can be an addiction, which is the wisdom in the old adage,
everything in moderation including moderation, which is a paradox when looking at things one-dimensionally. Always blindly doing
the exact opposite of what a wanna-be master says is just as much of slavery or foolishness as blinding doing what the wanna-be master says, regardless of whether the wanna-be master is an aggressive human bully or a feeling like fear or the urge to shoot up heroin. Replacing forced abstinence with forced sex (i.e. rape) is at least just as problematic, not a solution. Freedom cannot be understood in a one-dimensional way, let alone a binary way. Rather, it requires analyzing situations with at least a second dimension (i.e. a transcendental dimension) of freedom, which allows diversity on the original dimension (e.g. the dimension between sex and abstinence, between drinking tons of alcohol or being totally sober, between respectfully listening to my jiu jitsu coach or storming off and quitting).
Ecurb wrote: ↑March 24th, 2021, 10:20 am"What would Jesus do?" is a standard mantra for Christians, so I don't think they're at odds with Dyer's approach.
Yes, I agree. I think Dyer's approach on this matter as quoted in the OP is very agreeable. It's probably already essentially practiced many, especially those who live in a particularly diverse country or region in terms of culture, ethnicity, and/or religion.