glintofpewter

soma, I always enjoy reading what you write. My notebook contains more than few of your words.

Dutch

i count the future as hypothetical with no real existence in reality.

 

Yes, but I disagree that's ok. I would say that the future is 'hypothetical' and however unrealized its potential is part of our reality.

Dutch

PS Perhaps, in my view, 'free will' could be best defined as ..... Not free from influences, but free to make intelligent choices. (Peter Voss)

 

I certainly agree with that.

Do the evolutionary processes lie within the boundaries of the beyond or are they co-extensive with that beyond. Are all the ideas about what is to come already present in the beyond?

Or does what is now have an influenced but undetermined future?

Dutch

I think there are spiritual/psychological practices that enhance one's "freedom" in willing an action

Is willing something new not the same as having free will?

I don't deny all the qualifications to the execution of this free will or the possibility of willing something new.

I think that accepting what can't be changed is mentally healthy.

I think there are difficult and nuanced conversations about intention and accountability in the criminal justice system.

I don't think "what is" was meant to be. It seems to me that usage is a remnant of the language of the victor or survivor or the chosen or the status quo and it is a barrier to seeing something new. (It is also a wonderful feeling when you think that a special relationship was meant to be.

Sometime ago when I googled school shootings and followed one series of links I found an early 20th century editorial that responded to a local shooting by opining that since young men carry guns the shooting was inevitable. Unavoidable, can we say , "Meant to be."

I think that seeing an alternative, something new, is deeply and profoundly connected to, arising out of, the essential aspect of the process of evolution.

In theological language one can say the insights, dreams, plans which lead to something new are the way that God draws us forward into heaven on earth.

Dutch

HI,

I would say that "God" is an "attractive" force, pulling us forward. Process theology applies to the Judaism also. Google if you want resources

If Jesus is your focus There's a 2000 yr tradition of considering Jesus as a rabbi in essence and substance. The sources for many of the sayings of Jesus were Hebrew texts. And these texts often are about being in harmony with God. The two great commandments, love your neighbor and love God are quotes from the Hebrew Testament. Jesus said that if you understand the ramifications of these you will understand all else about being in relationship with God and the world. I don't know if that makes Jesus acceptable in your household or to you.

You might think of it as being a better follower of Jesus. Being a Christian is something totally different in my mind but that is another topic.

Dutch

romansh,

"Evolution" is to me equivalent with "universe unfolding". I think if nothing new ever happened there would be no evolution. Evolution is evidence that in creation, new does happen. I take that as evidence that everything is not determined and therefore there is the opportunity to do something new. Hence we have freewill, however limited.

Check out all the lectures at Edinburgh University

http://www.ed.ac.uk/...ectures/archive

The Gifford Lectureships (held at the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and St. Andrews) were established under the will of Adam Lord Gifford (1820-1887), a Senator of the College of Justice at the University of Edinburgh.

Established to 'promote and diffuse the study of Natural Theology in the widest sense of the term - in other words, the knowledge of God,' the Lectureships have enabled a most notable field of scholars to contribute to the advancement of theological thought.

This is wide ranging series, many of which are available on youTube.

For example

Alan Turing Centenary: Legacy of a Code BreakerThursday 10 May 2012, 6pm - 6.41pmGeorge Square Lecture Theatre, George Square, Edinburgh

Presented by Professor Jim Al Khalili, Professor of Physics and Professor of Public Engagement in Science from the University of Surrey. The Gifford Lectureship Committee is delighted to support this joint lecture between the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh School of Informatics

Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch: Silence in Christian History: the witness of Holmes’ Dog23 April - 3 May 2012, 5.30pmSt Cecilia's Hall, Cowgate, Edinburgh EH1 1NQ

A series of six lectures delivered by Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The University of Oxford.

Find out more about this series of lectures

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: David Hume and Civil SocietyTuesday 25 October 2011, 5.30pmPlayfair Library, Old College, South Bridge

A lecture delivered by Lord Sutherland of Houndwood.

Find out more about this lecture

Joseph, Daniel,

Thank you for the kind words.

I liked the German understanding of the word forgiveness. "Christians forgive everything" still concerns me. Too often it is more like "CHRISTIANS forgive everything" and others don't. I am sure that is not what you meant, skyseeker.

Dutch

As Hal points out it is a set complex problems caused the behavior of selfish aggressive people. Our criminal justice system is our best response and I don't say that lightly. Occasionally I read a court record where the offender has been given many chances to change behavior - if only to show up at a scheduled time. Often the sad end of the story is prison time that could have been avoided. Our courts, our professional people are involved in this on-going conversation about responsibility and accountability. It is our best effort and it is good enough.

Here is a series of worthwhile lectures. The first link is for the sixth in the series

Check out all the lectures at Edinburgh University

http://www.ed.ac.uk/...ectures/archive

Dutch

Do you think paedophile attraction is natural, is a mental illness, or do you think paedophiles choose to be attracted to children rather than another sexual orientation?

As much as I would like to have an opinion now I am waiting on the science to inform me.

Dutch

I don't think we have to be trapped by the language we use in one debate as we move on to another. I think that "natural" and " not harmful" could be seen as a two part argument for acceptance of homosexual orientation. A scientific use of "natural" was a rhetorical tactic because "nature as God intended it" was used as a defense of heterosexual orientation. Once homosexuality is seen as "natural" the second defense was that is harmful to our children, our way of life, our own marriages. It did not have any traction. If a majority of us felt the homosexual orientation were in any way harmful it wouldn't matter whether we felt it was natural - like volcanoes and earth quakes.

That you used only the "natural" argument doesn't mean it wasn't the only one. And I think the "natural" argument depended on no harm being done. One had to prove no harm to effectivly argue " natural" The opposition just felt "not natural" was the best one and lost. Their second, that it hurts, found few believers so you didn't need to argue that it did not

The "natural" argument is a 'postmodern' argument. All local level group or individual worldviews are equal. The 'post-post-modern' argument is that some are better than others. Even if it is 100% natural, some natural events hurt and some don't. We avoid the ones that hurt.

Dutch

Joseph,

I appreciate your signature, "The only separation between you and me can only be in your mind." And the following snippet is consistent

The point being that in essence when you forgive another you are in essence actually forgiving yourself because it is you that placed any perceived need for forgiveness by your own judgments, measures and self made laws.

but I don't think "forgive" should be collapsed into an internal process only. My therapist often asks "What do you gain by making this judgment?" (He has the opportunity to ask that often. ) In the situation where I make judgments I think your observation is a good one. I need to stop and notice the separation judgment creates between me and you. Certainly releasing my judgments closes the distance. I don't think forgiveness is about judgments we make of others.

And I ask that we don't deflate "forgive" of its meaning. Forgiveness is something that happens in a relationship. To say that I forgive someone who has refused my gift or that I forgive the shooter at Sandy Hook, in my mind is arrogant. I have been harmed by neither event. In these two cases it is all in my mind.

However, perhaps to many who are lost in the thinking mind that continues to measure and make conditioned judgments of others, an invisible veil/ barrier is created that separates them in mind from the Divine.

Daniel,

you make an interesting distinction between Hebrew forgiveness and Christian forgiveness. I don't get it. And "Christians forgive everything" makes no sense to me except in the prejudicial way I mentioned before. That we Christians, and any other part of creation, can "be a blessing" I understand.

4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

In this passage from Mark 1 I see both yours and Joseph ideas. Jesus (as Christians might model) observes that sins are forgiven when the human/divine barrier is broken. That it is the breaking in of that roof that makes the sins forgiven. Jesus may even facilitate this. His audience understood that the sins were against God, they broke God's rules and God's heart. and there must be some transaction across the divide to restore the relationship, Who acts to achieve this forgiveness? Not God and not Jesus. When the roof is broken open and a man is at his feet, Jesus observes - he takes no action - Jesus observes, "Oh, I see that your sins are forgiven." At some point in the future we may hear or see a story about the Sandy Hook, and observe, in an OT frame of mind, "Their sins are forgiven." Something has transpired that has led them to healing and wholeness. In Joseph's view I guess the veil between human and divine has been torn.

Even yet, as flat as we might make the meaning of forgiveness there is still the concept that something is wrong, less than it could be, or has missed the mark. If nothing is wrong what can be forgiven. Joseph says the wrong is the veil between human and divine created by our thinking and judging. And that is self-reflexive - the 'sinner' and the 'sinned against' are the same. When we recognize that, the roof caves and light streams in.

Dutch

Daniel,

I understand "being a blessing" but for me that use of "forgiveness" does not work. I can't get away from the implication of unequal power or value between the one forgiving and the one forgiven when there is no harm to forgive. I can't help think that it is related to the idea that creation has acted in such a way that needs God's forgiveness.

I do see that a church or pastor might use the word that way for a sermon or study but I am not comfortable with it at all.

Dutch

Paul,

In my opaque way I was making the same point.

Dutch

but forgiving something might in some cases be the same as not taking offense.

For me to take offense because you did not accept the gold bar I was offering, in my opinion, is arrogant. I am assuming that I know what is good for you. That I know better than you what you need. And that there is only one possibility. In a religiously pluralistic world this in an exclusivist viewpoint which says the my way is the only correct way; there are no other ways to God. Personally I think there are many paths and I am not sure they all end up at the same place.

Are you a Universalist? Will all be (eventually) be drawn up into Christ?

But I do think there's a problem when some people don't accept Christ.

I am interested in what you think the "problem" is. Do they, you or God have the problem? If we are fully dependent on "grace" and Christ will gather all up in the end what is the problem?

We can decide not to take offense but forgiveness is harder, I think. It requires relationship and repentance. We can refuse to be consumed with a need for "justice" - a code word for revenge - and not be burdened with the death of a friend at the hands of a mass killer but I don't think we can forgive the killer without being in relationship with him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2202316/Chris-Donovan-trust-We-hugged-thugs-kicked-son-death--job.html#axzz2KGiCiZv4

Dutch

May or not be helpful to make some distinctions courtesy wikipedia

For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15–19), see Ephebophilia.

-------------------

Pedophilia is a sexual interest in children under 11.

Dutch

Paul,

Whatever the percentages the criteria is still wholeness.

Dutch

Sky seeker,

I still don't see how the evangelist is harmed. That someone rejects my good idea is not a sin against me. Since there is no monopoly on truth I don't get where you are coming from.

Dutch

We can go on a mission, to convert people to our faith, but if they don't want it or if they cannot listen to us, we can just forgive. And when we forgive, according to Jesus we are forgiven as well.

------------------------

Sky seeker,

What is there to forgive? The evangelist has not been harmed. So arrogant to my mind.

Irenias (sp?) Would be alarmed that just anyone could decide what to ignore or keep. He thought only bishops should do it. What is the mechanism for correcting 'incorrect readings?

Dutch

Bill,

Take care.

'Til next time

Dutch

non-religious

---------------------

Unbound

a-ritualistic

My friends don't go to church

Dutch

I collect trinities. Here are a few.

although we cannot name [God] and we cannot describe [God] we can know the presence of [God] when we experience wisdom, compassion, or creativity, a trinity worth our focus and meditation.  

John Spong

Source of life

source of love

ground of being

So, God to me is the source of life, and I worship God by living. God to me is the source of

love, and I worship God by loving. God to me is the ground of being, and I worship God by

having the courage to be everything I can be. John Spong in conversation with Michael Dowd

Generator/Creator/

Operator/Sustainer/Holy Spirit

Destroyer/Transformer/Jesus

The destruction and transformation of the known world with its lack of vision beyond itself and in desperate need of novelty, is found in the promise of a new resurrection in Jesus.

the following does not need the existence of God

Three Dimensions of God

Jesus spoke about God, (infinite face of God)

Jesus spoke to God, (intimate face of God)

 Jesus spoke as God. (inner face of God)

And Jesus invites us to speak of God in those three ways ourselves

The inner face of God—was Jesus’ true divine self. That was his Christ-consciousness; that was his own image of God that he was and that was being expressed in human flesh. Jesus was a spiritual being on a human journey, and he invited us to know that we too are spiritual beings on a human journey.

  Paul Smith in conversation with Michael Dowd

Skyseeker,

What I sometimes feel missing from liberal christianity is the belief that God is a person that can act in this world. IE, there is the Father, there is his son Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and that we can interact with this triune deity and that He interacts with us.

-------------------------------------

Yes. You are right that liberal Christians don't believe that there is a God that acts in the world. Sometimes it an agnostic stand that says no we cannot say anything about God. Some of those agnostics will use intimate language to talk about God in spite of that unknowing. just like one here who said succinctly and in my mind perhaps correctly that we must act morally because there is no source for morality. (I botched that paraphrase) We assert a love relationship with ultimate reality - either wondrous evidenced based or the unknowable other - in the face of not rationally knowing.

Dutch