romansh

I must admit I find Audette's position unsatisfactory. I really can't speak for all pantheists but being that way inclined ... evil is not a problem! Evil is literally a figment of my perception. Big difference. In my world there is no evil. (On a slightly sadder note there is no good either). Evil becomes what I dislike and good becomes what I like. I have little control, if any, over what I like and dislike. Panentheism ... just cannot quite let go of duality. If god and the universe are one then there is no need for magic ... everything and nothing can be seen as "magic". What I like about pantheism is a point where atheism and theism become one. Regarding free will, if microbes have free will then so does everything. This simply becomes a semantic issue.

Why? for me is potentially one of those nonsense questions. If we mean what are the causes of the starvation, then that is fair enough. If we mean what is the purpose of them starving ... plainly nonsense ... at least for me. Now should I pray for the starving Ethiopians, will it help? Opening a cheque book is a small start though. Certainly not a final destination I would want to seek.

You have the advantage over me Joseph ... the only Buddhism I have been exposed to, at least academically speaking, is Buddhism for Dummies and Joseph Campbell's interpretations. For me there is no self that ends at some arbitrary boundary ... usually the skin or perhaps a brain. I don't think we are disagreeing here, though in reality I only have the vaguest of ideas what of what Buddhism means, at least to others. Buddhism for me is one of those parallel paths.

I think the phrase not self rather than no self is used. But not of great import. I think they are pointing to the concept there is no intrinsic self, ie a self that is somehow independent of our environment. This I think aligns with the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. For me aligning this with a concept of free will is a bit more tricky.

Perhaps ...If these parallel universes do not interact then the others are irrelevant to us pragmatically. If they do interact then there is a oneness in this multiverse. Either way the word is not limiting ... what is limiting is our capacities to perceive reality.

Bill I pretty much agreed with your reply. But the quote above - I see things differently. As individuals we may take on responsibility or assign it to others. You said the universe behaves exactly as you would expect it to, People are of this universe. Now we may not see how the details unfold, but unfolding they are. The universe is unfolding, including the ground of being (whatever that is assuming it exists), we may as well come to terms with it.

I must admit I don't find the word universe limiting. My concept or thought of the universe may well be limiting.

mcarans I would tend to agree that Jesus never travelled further east. Though if you would like a interesting and perhaps a slightly irreverent tale about this I can recommend: Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff. Jesus's Childhood Friend. Christopher Moore. But then it is hard argue that the subsequent writer's who put many (if not most) of the words into Jesus's mouth were not influenced by the Eastern traditions. Like Joseph says we will never know for sure. Of course I suspect that the Old Testament would have been influenced by other neighbouring religions, don't you think?

Joseph The atoms/energy that makes up me are continually added to, replaced and eventually returned. The pattern of the atoms and energies change overtime. It is like a vortex we see in a pond sometimes after an ore has moved through the water. The vortex sucks in water from the surrounding pond and throws it out again. Eventually it fades. Nevertheless whilst it is a vortex it remains a vortex. I must admit I find the phrase ground of being not very illuminating. The only thing that makes sense to me is if it is more or less synonymous with universe. And here is the point where theism and atheism can become one ... in pantheism. Or sexed up atheism as Dawkins described pantheism. I suppose a similar charge could be laid against Spong's world view. Which is not so bad I suppose.

Have you considered how much of the New Testament was influenced by Buddhism and what other influence other religions had on the Bible in general? If these religions do influence one another how surprising is it that certain interpretations of the Bible might look like another religion? Turning it around how much of traditional Christianity today has concretized the Myth of Christ and turned poetry into prose. There are host of traditional Christian world views, each believing they have the truth. Now I suspect Progressive Christians also have their beliefs, it is very difficult no to, but they do seem to be more accepting of other people's world views, even though they might not agree.

What we must also realize is that the wiring of our brains affects the choices we make (major and minor). We somehow see some ephemeral being giving instructions to our brains. To me this makes no sense. At best our brain gives itself instructions and ultimately those instructions are shaped by the environment.

I definitely am not a mystic. So I will let people who are mystics or at least feel they are, tell me what it means. Having said that Joseph Campbell studied and taught comparative myth for forty years or so. So I would say he has some qualifications on the matter. I think Campbell was talking to oneness rather than nothingness. Surrender all ideas of the ego? Perhaps. When you say my soul pattern communing with a greater source this is part of the classical duality the many if not most Christians embrace. If this duality is what mystics aspire to, then it is definitely not path I will walk.

My apologies Jen, I was under the impression that you thought Christ was literally the son of God. Regarding Mystics ... I like this quote from Joseph Campbell But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.It sort fits my monism (world view)

I suspect there is ... and we get glimpses of it at times. But to have faith it means we believe something as true though we can never be sure. Today I had a 4.5 hour drive through the Rockies ... a beautiful drive. I believed I would get to my destination without incident? Is this faith, belief, or reasoned thought? Because if I thought I would have an accident I would not have started the journey. Some people put their faith in a personal God, some people don't even think about it, and some understand their capabilities, the engineered roads and the probabilities involved. While it was not necessarily true I would get to my destination safely, it did turn out to be an accurate description of the events. There are two terms noumena (things as they really are) and phenomena (things as they are experienced). Some of us think we experience god, but that does not mean there is one. And vice versa. I suppose my point is we are forced pragmatically to have beliefs and make choices, but that does not mean we have to believe them as true. Not quite sure of the point I am trying to make, but I will work on it further.

The immediate question is who is letting go or removing the perceived ego. Often we are encouraged to be egoless in some way or another. I would not be who I am without my ego ... At best my ego at times can be aware of itself, and this usually is enough to dampen its spirit. If you see what I mean.

I find it strange that some people somehow always conflate: The historical Jesus The Mythical Christ and The Truth. While I like the idea of live and let live ... social pluralism in a way. I don't think I have an infallible access to the truth, but there are ways for us mere mortals to winnow out untruths.

The configuration of your brain causes you to express this particular world view. I don't think my brain configuration will have much impact on yours fatherman. Having read rest of the thread now As Dave Allen used to say, .... thank you, and may your God go with you.

Bill Just one more comment on my history ... When James died, it left me in a fragile state. In the sense that new ideas and concepts could enter my life. Time in some ways has shored up that fragility. I wonder if that "strength" is a desirable thing at times. My son's death was a gift, a gift I would gladly return; but a gift nevertheless. And here I use the word gift in a metaphorical sense.

As threads go this is a baby. As a concept for debate ... at least two millennia. A while back you asked, have I taken Jesus into my life, or something similar. My answer would be the configuration of my brain does not allow for such an action. Similarly choosing a traditional Christian God is not in my brain configuration. That a potential alcoholic avoids alcoholism is desirable from an individual's or a societal point of view; that potential alcoholic did not lift himself off the ground by the bootstraps.

Bill You have my thoughts with you. I also lost my son eight years ago, a little over. These things are events in an ocean of causes. We pick out a single event and not surprisingly hold them special. I would not be here without my special event. These events are our touchstones. My wife and I discussed James's death on the way home from the hospital. My wife asked in a round about way, Why? I answered, it just is. "My" event lead me here, to now. It led me to my lack of belief in free will and to some of the resultant possibilities. It taught me the difference between acceptance and apathy. As the years pass, your bit of the universe will unfold too. Just some chaotic thoughts. All the best my friend.

A recent post caught my eye. http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3591-christianity-in-a-pluralistic-world/?p=42556 It mentions quite a few times that we have free will. From a scientific point of view it is really hard to justify the concept of free will. Essentially all of science depends on the concept of cause and effect. As does medicine and psychology. But leaving that aside for the moment. What does the Bible say about free will? Surprisingly little actually. Certainly we don't have a phrase like God given free will or something similar. But there are Christian apologists that say the Bible does speak to free will. The link below gives a sampling of verses that supposedly speak to the concept of free will: http://www.openbible.info/topics/free_will Now when I go through this list, I don't find that they speak to free will per se. They do speak to the ability make choices. Of course no one is claiming that we do not make choices, it is the nature of how the choice is made that is in question. Are the choices in any way free of cause. So what does the Bible say about determinism? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/determinism.html Now I don't necessarily believe in things being predetermined or ordained, and one or two of these examples I found weak, but the language here is much clearer. Anyway so what? Well I can't help thinking (I have no free choice) that a belief in free will leads to some of the less desirable traits in society regardless whether Christian, atheistic or some other world view. With an absence of free will, it is difficult to take the following seriously. Pride Guilt Shame Retribution and vengeance Blame (forgiveness becomes unnecessary as there is nothing to forgive) Also we don't have to give ourselves god like properties of initiating a first cause. Some might argue this absolves of responsibility. Yes in a sense it does - we can let go of moral responsibility and take on a more accurate causal responsibility. And before people start to object: Genesis 3:22-23King James Version (KJV) 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Ultimately we will walk our own paths. Sometimes we walk in opposite directions to others, At times we walk together, We cross paths that others have blazed, Sometimes we can hear people on parallel paths. Sometimes we are just alone, It is OK,

Yes this par for the course, at least somewhat often. But when you come to the conclusion that knowledge of how certain muscles must be used to sing is an inappropriate tool to teach, that is using intellect. I have been taught useful tools for teaching basic squash strokes. This is using my intellect appropriately or at least efficiently. Now if I have to believe certain things as a tool to be "nice", like a literal belief in Christ, then that for me is an inappropriate tool.

I could give you a reason, but it would be a confabulation. If I were a troll I would have been sent packing a long time ago. Like Paul I am an agnostic and he is a moderator here! I don't particularly believe in free will, so the answer has to be ... the universe unfolded this way.

Mike One of the literal translations of religion is to reconnect There are others but this seems to be the most commonly accepted from the Latin. The question becomes reconnect to what? For the theistically minded to god? To the secularly minded to one another? to the scientifically minded to the universe. I think this song nails it for me ... it is a little camp, but true for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk