glintofpewter

from 49 ways to love God the first ten. It is the easiest way I've found to stretch the point. If the qualities of character listed on the right of each line are ways to love God. I don't think it matters if we name God. Yes the author has inspired interpretations to reach the words from the passages but I think there is truth here. We say it over and over again - it is our actions that.matter. Jesus tried to throw away laws and creeds. Jesus asked us to put these truths deep in our hearts and to live out of them. If we live out of our best selves are we not honoring how we evolved or became individuals. http://billgothard.c...ist/49commands/ Repent—Matthew 4:17—Humility Follow Me—Matthew 4:19—Meekness Rejoice—Matthew 5:12—Joyfulness Let Your Light Shine—Matthew 5:16—Generosity Honor God’s Law—Matthew 5:17–18—Love Be Reconciled—Matthew 5:24–25—Responsibility Do Not Commit Adultery—Matthew 5:29–30—Self-Control Keep Your Word—Matthew 5:37—Truthfulness Go the Second Mile—Matthew 5:38–42—Deference Love Your Enemies—Matthew 5:44—Creativity Dutch

There was a local story about a gun range owner who had talked with the shooter and on a gut reaction decided to deny him any access should he return. Too bad language isn't fast enough to serve one of its original evolutionary purposes: gossiping so that wrong-doers can be thwarted.

thanks for the compliment. either all or nothing, eh? Actually I agree. that sort of insistence led me here. As for the Blackmore essay - it's missing something IMO. Perhaps she is careless with the word consciousness. Dutch

Thanks soma, Taken at my daughter's western themed wedding in Helena, MT

a couple thoughts 1, We don't hesitate to examine what was meant by "demon possession" but there seems to a reticence to inquire about the nature of the divinity Jesus has a relation with as described by the authors of the Gospels. 2. I often run a across a three part description of our involvement with ideas about God. Jesus talked about God, talked to God, and acted as God would, in Jesus' understanding. There is ineffable ultimate reality. Perhaps ground of being or the matrix or the breathe from which comes. Many humans choose or create a personal language to live into their relationship with this ultimate reality. Many find this relationship to be one of love. Some see as perhaps Jesus did that we are to live out of this experience as God participating in the creation of more love. Only dogmatic westerners then write these ideas into creed to belief. They do not need to be. The first seem to be about experiences and not doctrine. the third is a call to action as most here agree is Jesus's call on our lives. I don't hesitate to take communion. I do it to honor all the wonderful experiences I have had in the past. I also participate where there is an attempt to fence the table to challenge this human attempt. If it is a divine event then no humans should fence it and if it is not divine it is a social events that can be meaningful with those involved. I do not feel that it a creedal statement. It is merely a cultural ritual in which each find meaning in different ways. Dutch

Yvonne, Congrats on upcoming ordination. Dutch

I think the distinction between "life" and inanimate is not a useful one. All entities in the universe are related.That is the unity. what is often missed is that there are external relations which are commonly the scientific observations and measurements and there are internal relations. There is a mental state, so to speak, of all atoms, molecules, cells which link all with each other. Rocks or chairs are not entities but aggregations and so are not seen as in their aggregate form as having relationships as rock or as chair. BUT the atoms and molecules and cells in those rocks and chairs do have relationship with all other entities. When a human dies the cells and elements in the body change relationships both externally and internally with the rest of the universe. In this view the mind or self it might represent returns to the source or perhaps more accurately returns to the flow. Dutch

George, Some random thoughts- Well if there were a record of his mental problems and the Colorado Bureau of Investion's gun unit found it he would have been denied. (I work across the hall from them). Those who say more of us should carry concealed weapons may have been proven wrong. A shoot out with an opponent in full body armor might last a long time. I wonder if 12 people had rushed him would fewer people be dead or wounded? Certainly some would have died. Dutch

Two more days of vacation. My eyes has been overwhelmed by the amazing scenery. And my emotions by being with my wife everyday after 3 years of separation. Struggling to separate old patterns from best self Our family grew up in Aurora. If my daughter were still living in Aurora instead of Montana - her western themed wedding went well - she would have been at that screening at that theater where the shootings took place. My wife worked in Aurora Public Schools and continues to check with fellow co-workers for any information about Aurora students who might have been there. Certainly many more die in Syria each day but we have been in Aurroa and in that theater and will find we know names of some involved. Just closer to home. Dutch

On our vacation I often start driving with this song loud. The band started as a Christian band so how I read this song is influenced by that frame. Some day I will wear it out, but, for now, I continue to find meaning and encouragement here. For now I will comment on only one line: Try and prove the poets wrong Can't help but think of Ecclesiastes Needtobreathe– Drive All Night Lyrics I ain't lookin for a free ride home Back to the middle I need a new locale I need a girl who calls me baby I need to know if she can save me I need somewhere I can drive all night Out into the darkness Follow the headlights down I gotta know if they can take me I gotta know if they can save me Focus in on every word Change my path Maybe I could leave a mark Try and prove the poets wrong There must be time Maybe we could be the song To march us on I ain't lookin for a free ride home Back to the middle I need a new locale I need a girl that calls me baby I need to know if she can save me I need somewhere I can drive all night Out into the darkness Follow the headlights down I need to know where they can take me I gotta know if they can save me Beg the book to turn the page Cause I get stuck where the villains get away Somewhere in this wretched tale there must be a line Where the victim gets his way Just one time I'll get mine I ain't lookin for a free ride home Back to the middle I need a new locale I need a girl that calls me baby I gotta know if she can save me I need somewhere I can drive all night Out into the darkness Follow the headlights down I need to know where they can take me I gotta know if they can save me Drive all night Hold on tight Close your eyes Say goodbye

Paul, This is a clear statement of what I think is the best explanation. Thanks

I think it has happened for many. I think I know which words you will emulate so I will say yes. There are atheists and non-theists who are Christian - but one must always ask just what kind of G_d are we not believing in? Is ground of being sufficiently non-theistic to be a negative answer to the question? Is suggesting that evolution has brought us to the point where love and compassion as our highest value and as a reuslt it is appropriate to say that G_d is love - is it sufficient to say that the G_d of love is the result of evolution not the cause of it? Dutch

Is the mind finite in the sense that, like an eyeball, it no longer exists, after my death? Or is it like hydrogen and in an individual a sufficient quantity has coalesced to be useful and after death is continues to be present as the mental aspect of the atoms and molecules of the decaying body or ashes of cremation?

Eclectic, Welcome. I look forward to our conversations - which can be boundless. Dutch

I think Susan believes that asking questions about now is somehow being in now. Now is tricky. One can prepare for it and attend to all those things which determine our experience. It is in this first attending that our will might be most free. In the now of continuing moments there are no words. Words are abstractions and can not be the experience. The words after now are not now and can be only part of the observations of the now-just-past. I think Susan considers those words and thoughts as part of the now. They are reflections on something that no longer exists. One can prepare for experiencing now and one can reflect on the experience but neither is now. I can ask if my attending was of such quality that I had the greatest freedom. Susan seems to use being conscious as an evalution of one's experience of now. Hers is a yes or no answer. I think the answer is less or more consciousness (paying attention) Dutch

Just curious did anyone read Susan Blacmore's essay? If so, any thoughts? ------------------ I thought the essay was about paying attention. Attending is perhaps necessary for the will to be free as much as it can be. Attending is one of those activities of the mind that influence the functioning of the brain.

Some say that a brick will not have a mental experiences because it is an aggregate of entities. The atoms and molecules in the brick are entities and have limited mental experiences. Bacteria and viruses, being entities not aggregates also have some mental experience. In these cases it is not a non-sensical question. I don't think this rules out the possibility that the mind is more than the brain. Since they are in a relation better described as one of influencing each other than cause and effect then deteriorization of the brain will affect the mind just as the mind's deteriorization can lead to defective functioning in the brain. I don't think reduced consciousness which correlates with pathological events in the brain is proof that the mind and brain have the same boundaries. If all entities have some rather limited mental experience and then these entities arrange themselves in more complex ways, not as aggregates (the brick) but as organisms then this mental aspect becomes more complex in relationship but not as the result of cause and effect. As the brain and body deteriorates so too does then the mind deteriorates but it is not a direct correlation. What was once our complex identified self is now part of the universe. In this scenario the mind does not come from no-mind but from an increased complexity of the mental aspect of simpler entities. When the body decays then the mental aspect is limited by the reduced complexity of the individual entities remaining: atoms, molecules, bacteria, carbon, water, etc. Out of the universe the self 'coalesces' and in death returns to the universe, sense of self now lost. Dutch

First let me refer you to the following thread in which Soul, Spirit, Mind and Self are discussed because altough I personally make a connections between these I think it would help keep this thread focused to only use the concept of mind. That is, as Rom observes, hard enough. I believe that the mind evolved. That perhaps everything has something we might call mind. That the reason we think the mind is ephemeral is that we had no sense of self before we were born and none after death. But maybe mind is like hydrogen. Everywhere but occassionally becomes part of an entity. When the entity ends its boundaried exisitence the hydrogen stills exists but as part of other entities. Or maybe it is like an eye ball. When the body decays there is no universal eyeball into which it melds. There is just absence of that particular eyeball. Dutch

While it is not appropriate to use this board as a blog, it is appropriate to start a a thread about a topic one is knowledgeable. And appropriate to keep the discussion focused. Post #21 might have been a good place to do that. Unfortunately the opportunity to refocus the conversation was missed. I think it is okay for anyone who speaks as if they accept the 8 pts to participate in this section. Politeness wins. Dutch

Natural evil does not exist. The perception that there is natural evil is not an excuse for harming any other part of creation. Dutch

HI, Jen, Thanks for the introduction. I am glad you joined us for this part of your journey. Dutch

Rom, This followed an entanglement with compatabilists Later I said and you replied. Yours is a complex view, because this discussion seems to involve the question of whether the will is free (to choose). Is that correct? would a discussion of the mind highlight your thoughts on materialism and physicalism? Is the mind wholly and sufficiently caused by the biochemical events in the brain? what does it mean to say that the mind can influence the brain? What does the mind consider when it considers itself? Is mind a result of evolution? Can mind evolve from no-mind? Dutch

Well, Paul, I wish you wonderful time playing and good hunting - for work. After 3 years separation Diane and have been apartment hunting and questioning our decisions. etc. - and signed the lease. And planned a two week vacation which starts tomorrow. Although I have willed all this from a deep place in my heart it takes a lot of energy to listen to my ego all the time. So I have not had any left energy for engagement here. But we have planned short travel time each day and lots of down time so I appear more here. Dutch

Myron, I am also glad to see you back. -------------------- The video presentation is designed to elicite a variety of emotions as Haidt delivers his talk. Several times, he mentions an emotion called "elevation" ------------ Thanks for pointing this out. Dutch

When my daughter taught biology to home schooled students she did not use the E-word. Change over time she called it. She hoped they would learn the scientic method. I was told the leviathan in Jonah was a dinosaur. More proof )) CRI has tours down the Grand Canyon explaining how all the layers were shaped by the flood. Dutch