thormas

Now that is interesting. Like Jesus, he believed the apocalypse / the Kingdom of God was at hand. No time to marry, no time to do anything but prepare since it was happening in their lifetime. So, I guess he had a sexual orientation but perhaps (most likely) didn't act on it - would have fit in perfectly with the Catholic Church (orientation if ok, you just can't do anything about it - love that compassion). Paul, other than Spong, do you have actual biblical scholars who weight in either gay or straight on Paul? I have read a number of scholars but have to go back and check - I simply don't remember, so this was probably not a big issue for them. I truly like Spong (still do) but some of his claims are outlandish and have been questioned by biblical scholars - Spong is not such a scholar.

Hard copies - what do you mean? Scholars only date the general contents, what does that mean? What gap? Irenaeus in the mid to later 2nd C CE refers to 20 or 21 of the 'books' of the NT canon. If he is doing this as a middle age man, then by the middle of that century, most of the NT canon (general content - 20 of 27 books?) were known and accepted by the Church. This is roughly 50 - 70 years after John's Gospel is dated. Where is the 250 year gap? Scholarly source?

Just a question: "closest we have to the 'real thing' concerning the NT books and letters dates some 300 years after Jesus" - what do you mean? Paul dates from the 50s some 20-25 years after Jesus and it is probable his ministry begins within 3 or so years after Jesus. And, all the gospels date to the 1st C CE - so 40-70 years after the crucifixion. The 'official' canon comes later but the 'book' include in that canon are roughly dated this way. Before saying, "...and misogyny (admittedly Paul was living in a highly patriarchal society that often treated women like property, however he is a sole voice in the NT when it comes to putting women 'in their place')" which letters are you attributing to Paul? Some are from Paul's hand and others are (seemingly) not Paul's writings. Also, Paul writes about women in the Church and Christian society, including leadership roles, in very un-misogynistic ways.

Agree, the 'evidence' has to start with the claim of Paul being homosexual (although it does not matter one way or the other if he was). I do remember Spong on this but would have to refresh my memory - however sometimes the Bishop went a bit too far with his ideas, for example that Mary was raped. Rather than rely on Spong, one should consider some of the critical biblical scholars who have studied Paul.

Maybe I misread it but I didn't take it literally, merely a bit of a put down on Alabama's Moore and defenders. To think that gay marriage would literally lead to these is so absurd (so I agree with Paul) that no serious person could accept this nonsense.

Agree, it is only speculation, not hard evidence, that Paul was gay, repressed or otherwise.

"........to question why a particular child has to suffer while others don't assumes that a healthy, long and pain free life is somehow a birthright." Does this mean we cannot question on a macro level (if you will) why this happens? Also, many, believing in a loving, all-powerful God, do assume it is a birthright or at least what such a God would want for humanity. Not sure I agree with you on the young terminal child and conditioning. Plus it is not so much about limitations; they are part and the package of being mortal. What people question is what some call 'tragic suffering' that is sufferimg above and beyond what could/would be expected for mortal beings - again, especially in light of what is believed about God. Selfishness (did you mean selflessness?) as a "watered down?" Regardless, selflessness is the living out of the great commandments; it is the opposite of selfishness which is the very definition of sin. Plus, there is a continuum: giving one’s physical life for another is part and parcel of the same selflessness (Love) that holds a door for a stranger, refuses to cheat on a test, refuses to bully another (and on and on). There is attempt to convince ourselves that Jesus didn't mean literally giving up physical life (however when we die with Jesus in baptism and rise with him to new life we don’t take that death as literal, physical death), merely the recognition that his death was a piece with his life of selflessness. 'His example' shows that he did not turn from the inevitable when 'they came for him' and it demonstrates what others do in similar circumstances - but it is also something he never desired (if we take the story of the Garden to heart) nor is it something that is to be desired by others. If it happens, as it does for many, those many don't want it but are willing, in the worst circumstances, to risk all for another - but that does not 'water down' the lives they lived up to that point or the lives others live daily. No Christian, nobody should look for physical death to demonstrate his/her devotion to Jesus. It is the life of selflessness, the life of love that is asked/demanded of those who accept this way. And, there is no permission given (or asked) to stop short: it is not easy to love, to be compassionately concerned for others: there is a cost demanded and willingly given - and I suspect that many, even most, who live this life, would if circumstances demanded it, pause in the garden with Jesus, and then continue, as did he, the life they had always lived – even unto death. Jesus/God does not demand sacrifice (physical death), he desires Love and sometimes Loves chooses/gives itself unto death. Such a life is not for the weak, not for the fear filled (found difficult, it is often not really tried); it does not ask for permission to stop but has the courage to go - forward. There is no shortfall. I think it does matters that we work to overcome pain and suffering, oppression and poverty - not in order to selfishly live a long, healthy or prosperous life, but to make the life of the world, the lives of the children of God better (on earth as it is in 'heaven'). For me, my opinion, is that as Christianity has sometimes been (rightly) accused of looking beyond this world while keeping its eye on the next, so too we should not be concerned with the 'grand sacrifice' but the slow, painful work of incarnation; when we love, we are the embodiment of mercy, compassion, empathy that looks to overcome the 'tragic suffering' that none deserve, to make easier the suffering (and death) that is inevitable for mortal beings and to enable the ‘Kingdom’ to begin here and now. This is how we make use of the brief time - not merely to build our collective awareness but to better all life - to create it.

It does seem that the bar is continually lowered in the USA under the present power structure: big into re-pression, not so much pro-gression.

Perhaps I misunderstand you but the idea that God gives us only what we are capable of handling in ability and responsibility seems to take too literally the power and role of God in human affairs. A child suffering cancer seems less 'capable' than many an adult (generally speaking) to deal with the devastation and perhaps even the reality of death that is coming her way. Also, if one believes God is 'giving' us such things, it is fair to ask why God would do such a thing. Seemingly, people throughout history have been given much, too much to handle and it has broken many. Why not give people, especially little children or the most vulnerable a pass? So too, one can ask if Luke, writing 50+ years after Jesus, is quoting him or giving his own take on Jesus. Beyond that, even it we take it as the words of Jesus, should it be tied to saving and losing physical life or is it about giving oneself (in love) rather than being concerned primarily for one's self (selfishness) at the expense of others. If one loses selfishness for the sake of love, they find and become their truest self that not even physical death, when it comes, can hold. I don't disagree with your comments on fear or the other insights but I do disagree (if I understand you correctly) with the literal take on the above issues.

it never gets old...............

.........and that's the parables, I was referring broadly to the scriptures

First, welcome. I agree that it is valid and important to have discussions concerning our subjective take on biblical texts. Not sure though if I agree that 'any interpretation is a personal one......based on personal experience." Or, would the interpretation be better, even more helpful, if we tried to know more? One is certainly free to have any interpretation but there are people, good people, who have learned ancient languages, studied and researched for decades and spend their lifetime studying the Bible. Certainly, it can be said, even they bring their 'experience' to their work, but it is also obvious that they try to let the 'evidence' speak and try to figure out whether we are taking about the authentic words of Jesus or later additions or interpretations by Christian communities (and it is not just opinion, they are obliged to 'state their case', present their 'evidence' before their peers - like professionals in other disciplines). Plus, there is some consensus among some/many of the critical biblical scholars and historians. So, I think, although not necessary, it is important to have some awareness of this work - depending on one's time and interest. Some examples: were some (many, all?) of the conflicts with the Jews reflective of Jesus' experience or were they experiences of the later Christian writers/communities? Can we then consider whether or not the Jews yelled 'kill him' or whether Pilate (and Rome) really washed their hands of the death of this innocent man -with responsibility for his death then falling squarely on the Jews? And what would the different interpretations mean , or have they meant, for the treatment of the Jews throughout history? Or the biblical passages on homosexuality, slavery or women. Were they reflective ofJesus (or God) and if so are we bound as believers to those words? Specifically, on women, does it matter if one has the personal opinion or interpretation that all the epistles attributed to Paul were written by him - or is it important to know that scholars believe that some of those letters were definitely not by Paul's hand and others are still questionable? What would (did) the different interpretations mean for women throughout Christian and western history? And finally, did Jesus preached the Kingdom of God as we have come to think of heaven in Christianity or did he preach a Kingdom that would be Here, on earth - and that had already begun. Would difference interpretations affect the way we pray, the way we worship, the way we see this world, even what we tell loved ones of family member who has died, "that they have gone to a better place." If he preached that the Kingdom was meant to be established here, what could be better? And on and on.

Great quote Paul, I always loved Borg. The Way is to be lived not merely 'some thing' to be believed..........

One can still believe John's gospel and search other religions, just as one might study the history of countries other than one's own. On a separate note, one must (or can) ask if John is quoting Jesus directly or accurately - but either way, I don't read this as Jesus' statement that other religions are false. There is only One Way, Truth, Life - but it comes to different men in different ways. Further, we could discuss that, if so spoken, Jesus said these words as a practicing Jew among other Jews. So which is the true religion:Judaism or Christianity? Especially interesting when we consider that not only some Jews but some Christians reject Jesus (explicitly or implicitly by their lives).

Well, again we go to definitions. So, I say yes, in the ordinary events of life - be it reading, proposing, an event that stops you in your tracks, the kiss of a child, the death of a friend - there can be the extraordinary and a heightened awareness different from the so- called everyday awareness. Sort of like eternity.

There are periods of heightened consciousness, i.e. awareness, and they are different from both ‘ordinary’ awareness and autopilot experience. One might 'feel more alive' in certain moments (hopefully one was when you proposed - if not that might be an issue with your spouse) and/or you remember ‘where you were’ for certain events with great clarity (as if they were yesterday, example 911). Heightened (awareness) experiences are different than the ordinary and autopilot drive - however in all these events, there is no difference in that one remains a being who is conscious of self: the 'I' is our underlying reality and center and 'I’ know it.

Referring back to a Burl question on one's definition of consciousness, the link given by Rom begins, "Am I conscious now? Of course I am. Yes, I am conscious now. But something odd happened. When I asked myself the question it was as though I became conscious at that moment." Yet the use of the word 'I' and the asking of the question are evidence of consciousness of (and reflection on) self: one is standing 'outside' himself, asking a question of self, about self and positing an answer in time about time and a change of the self in time: now and becoming (conscious). This, to me, is self-consciousness different in kind from animal consciousness/awareness by which an animal is in the world and navigates that world.

Insectoid consciousness - I like the way it sounds. Still, you asked in the beginning of the thread, ".......what do you think goes through an insect's mind?" You asked for opinions, correct? And now you ask, "How do we know more goes on in our minds throughout life than in an insects?" Well, what we think or what (we think) we know, for some of us, is that it is not the same as man. Even the look I did to the Smithsonian confirmed this stance. The conclusion to date seems to be man is the being conscious of self. Could there be some interesting discovery in the future concerning insects? One guesses there there could be. So, perhaps some day but seemingly not now. However, if it is discovered that insects are like little self-conscious beings we have got to draw up a treaty to govern the actions of mosquitoes, flies, ants and in particular fire ants. Otherwise there will be war!

Actually, it is more than we imagine. Life is present to all and all, seemingly, have some 'awareness' of it but it is man, the one conscious of Self, who see bliss (eternity?) and as Campbell urges, grabs for it (knowing both that there is something to grab and that he is the one who is grabbing it). Consciousness could be an illusion................. but it probably isn't.

You are reading too literally as I was playing off Burl. However, even if we allow that, be it the bus or a large hand (in the case of the insect), and that not much goes on in either mind at the moment of sudden death, much more went on in the minds of the self-conscious man throughout his life. Be that as it may: as mentioned previously, I believe that insects have consciousness or awareness or are sentient - however they are not self conscious as man is. As an article from the Smithsonian puts it: "aren’t arguing that insects have deep thoughts and desires, like “I want to be the fastest wasp in my nest." Note the 'I,' is there an I? Awareness? Yes! Self-consciousness? Not so much. This is not a judgment of how we think things should be but how we have believed things are. As for animals, more seems to be going on like monkeys, perhaps dolphins, some dogs (others not so much), horses questionable, elephants, can't remember. Interesting stuff (and I would be delighted to know for certain that some of these fellow creatures have an awareness of self - akin to man's) but many of us are still trying to figure out and live with the one we know is definitely self-conscious: man.

perfect.......the artist would be pleased!

the mic is dropped, Burl walks off the stage.....................the crowd goes crazy

I'll go with conscious/sentient but self-awareness seems a bridge too far............however the ideas of considering themselves born-again is highly entertaining and could play a part in Burl's Heathers section.

We learn, dissect, classify, value, speak of higher and lower and ........through all these, we are (hopefully) seeing and becoming enlightened; we are coming to Be. We come to be in dialogue, in relation with others and the world and it is in and through such dialogue (and our response) - the conversations, the classifications, the valuing and on and on and so much more - that we continually make our way. So, it is all part of and, indeed, it can be fun. And, I'm sure there is some missing and some wandering, fits and starts and re-starts: none are perfect (yet) and it is work that takes time. Now what is it you want to be asked about seeing?

True enough Burl: good distinction. Not sure what is meant by giving value to questions but it is the nature of self conscious men to ask questions - and both perceive and assign value. I see man as more - so better (?), higher value (?) - than insects and a higher form of life: so do all one suspects who have swatted a fly, killed ants or roaches in their home or gone on a killing spree against mosquitoes