romansh

While what Jesus thought what we need saving from is an interesting question, what we think we need saving from would be far more interesting. There is some evidence that Jesus was an Essene, a Jewish sect who were determinists ... and by implication that did not believe in free will. This apparently was why Jesus kept butting heads with Pharisees, a sect that did believe in free will. So if, Jesus thought we did not have free will, it makes being saved an interesting concept. If anyone needs more info on this, PM @Ogdin or take a look at Dr Lott's youtube in the free will thread.

And the third in this particular series Christianity 101: Does Jesus Save Us? | PlainSpeech with Philip Gulley And his salient point: This is my take on it: The salvation of man is through understanding and in understanding I'm not sure salvation is the right word either. What is there to be saved?

It would seem our Phil does not think Jesus was born God incarnate. Presumably, he thinks he did not rise from the dead either. I realize that this is perfectly in tune with Progressive Christianity, but it would seem an anathema to the bulk of Christianity. Phil is on his way to joining the likes of Gretta Vosper and John Shelby Spong.

Heresy ... I like it. One step closer to implicit atheism.

I would remind everyone of the French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who predicted in the 1800s, we will never know the composition of the stars. Little did he know the science for determining such things had been developed a few years earlier. We are always learning, or at least I hope that will be the case. All are products of the universe and not separate from it.

👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍 Remember this applies to people who don't care for one another too.

This is sort of why I like Joseph Campbell he tried to divine the meaning of the various myths we have floating around. Not sure he succeeded, but he tried. Again ... what are the properties of this "god" we are supposed to be (in)validating? If we get close then we will get the chapter ... we cannot truly know God. As an agnostic, I have some sympathy for this position. But tell me, what can we truly know? And having said that, with a few assumed axioms I can be fairly certain that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. And that it revolves around the Sun in an ellipse. I am fairly sure your science of god being Christian is pretty much a Western point of view. Islam and Subcontinental religions will likely have their own god science departments. Behave is a tough book ... (remember the last four pages ... if you feel the need to give up.) Yeah ... I keep pounding away at this. Nature versus nurture debate. There is no dichotomy here ... there is no separation between us and the environment (universe). The separation ... is an illusion.

We need God to be caring to one another?

Sorry, could not resist: Theology ... a subject without an object. Overall I thought it was a good sermon for people who are entrapped in a doctrinally dogmatic Christian sect. I suspect there aren't many in his flock, but his blog will have some outreach, I suppose. His comment on "God" not being the province of science, I thought was particularly wrong and misleading. If there is a cause and effect then science, if we put our minds to it, can have its say. Unless we think "God" has no effect and did not do anything, then God may as well not exist. Experiences of profound and deep clarity, joy, forgiveness, reconciliation, compassion, understanding, etc is God really? I call them experiences. I recommend to Phil he should read Robert Sapolsky's Behave: The Biology of Humans at Their Best and Worst. It's a dense read ... Alternatively ... in a library or bookshop read the last four summary pages. In a Spirit rooted within us? ... Needs more clarification and supporting evidence. Ultimately I see this as a step towards standing on our own two feet and going about the world understanding our connection (inseparableness) with it.

What happens to 'you' when one has a well-administered anesthetic? The second law of thermodynamics makes me very skeptical about life after death. Life appears to behave as a 'catalyst' for increasing entropy. And edit ... welcome David

This could have gone in many threads. Here Gus talks about how the Bible might be interpreted as being a determinist document at least in places.

Funnily enough, I see this related to free will. No surprise. I posted this before ... Will – rom's corner (home.blog) Desire is an aspect of our will. Just be aware that we have them and try and get a sense of where our desires come from ... similar to our 'aversions'. Letting go of our desires is a little bit like letting go of our egos. Somehow we want "better" and not being content with where we are now. A desire to rid ourselves of desire.

This young man, I think, does a god job against compatibilist free will.

And here we have a scientist telling a grieving rabbi what religion is. I think Einstein nailed it Letter to Dr. Robert Marcus - Albert Einstein (organism.earth) A human being is part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.

I don't know about religion itself, but I hope the practitioners might take the word religion a bit more literally and understand all is connected.

There's a lot going on here. There was nothing wrong with Derek's use of expletives recently. Was there any need to censor them? I think not. Would some hypothetical person be put off this forum possibly? Would some passer-by be put off if Derek was censored and possibly censured for using the expletives, possibly? Campbell quote coming up: You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. In this case, you are the arbiter of what is civil. So was the lecturer or I choosing to offend when we linked to the Islamic art depicting Mohamed? At some point, people might realize, or more like wake up, and choose not to be offended regardless of the others' intent. I understand it is not a free choice.

I don't think this would happen unless we were infected by a troll, and that would be dealt with in the normal course of events. I also don't think we need expletives to descend into senseless insults ... we can be far more eloquent than that. And this is by convention, and here we reinforce that convention. To me, it seems ridiculous that I could not quote certain passages from Mark Twain verbatim because of some cultural taboo. Cnut is still verboten but pussy got promoted to the ranks of respectable? You say a line needs to be drawn and you draw that line. Fair enough. But the world, never mind this forum, did not collapse with Derek's expletives. I would argue in the context and intent they were used all is in order. So ultimately, we are policing intent rather than word use, are we not? I am not saying don't censor word use, but be aware of what is really being censored. And back to Hitchens' argument being offended is not one.

Ahh self-censored.

Here's a case in point: Is this forum somehow better for asterisks?

Tricky ... what's your objective Paul? Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer used a derogatory word. Does it mean we should not use derogatory words under any circumstances? What you are trying to do here (I think) is manipulate intent. There was recently a case where a teacher was censured for telling off a student for using the n-word. But I suspect we give the n-word power by cowering before it. Is this our intent? Do you think dictionaries should censor words? Or should we enter an Orwellian realm where we can have no thought crime? I think my short answer is "No". I remember in high school, in English Lit. coming across the term "Spade" for a black person. I had a moment of cognitive dissonance when the expression "call a spade a spade" popped into my mind.

There is seeking to antagonize, being indifferent to antagonizing, and inadvertently antagonizing. I suppose similarly we can have a similar set to being antagonized. Speaking personally, I don't intentionally antagonize (often), but I do find myself reflecting the tone I perceive in someone's interaction. The latter is not intentional, but I can become aware of it. But I suppose horses for courses, but generally, I don't think being antagonistic works, but then does an emotionless logical argument work? Depends.

A trailer for a discussion coming near you soon:

Here's an interesting article on offence. Though it seems it's gone beyond offence to harm And the harmful picture is: Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg (720×542) (whyevolutionistrue.com)

Welcome wandering ... Sounds like your path has had its twists and turns. If you require any thoughts from a straight old atheistically inclined agnostic, just let me know; I'll be all too happy to oblige Have fun with your stay here rom

Hmmn? ... OK? At an Aussie rules match, I presume it is similar to a real football match (I'm rattlin' the chain here) do opposition fans sing derogatory songs about one another? Or is it banter?