PaulS

Greed too is an emotion that seeks to benefit the object also and indeed people have been prepared to lay down their life in order to obtain this benefit. Certainly the emotion of love can result in a person willingly sacrificing their life in order to benefit others. Indeed, a man I know of committed suicide when faced with bankruptcy so that his wife and young son could receive a hefty life insurance payout and not live in poverty. So yes, on a simplistic level 'love' can result in a willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of the object, but I don't think that is THE descriptive factor for defining 'love'. Actually, I don't think there is a single descriptive factor as our language has limitations. If we take any number of the the Greek words for love, how many of those would involve the sacrificing of one's life to obtain? You would kill yourself if you couldn't have sex/eros love? When do you lay down your life if you don't find ludus love? If your pragma love ends with your spouse dying, should you also die? Maybe death is too dramatic (I was just picking up on your John quote). But how are eros, ludus even pragma love, evidenced by the willingness to incur loss so that another party may benefit?

I think people have been willing to sacrifice their lives for pride, hate and anger as well. Emotions will do that to you. Love has distinguishing characteristics, as do all emotions, that's why we have labels for them: Love is the desire for sex - eros Love is the desire to find an appropriate mate - ludus Love is a pragmatic partnership that benefits the species and raises offspring - pragma. Love is a word, with limitations, used to try and describe various emotions our brain produces. So we can distinguish love from hate, pride, trust etc. Is that what you are asking?

I don't think it's about inflexibility of love so to speak, but the actuality of the emotion changing that demonstrates that love is an ever changing emotion based on our experiences and the brain's chemical reactions. Hate and pride are some other particularly powerful motivational paradigms and these also ebb and flow depending on experiences and the brain's reaction. Maslow's theory of motivation calls up physiological needs and safety needs before love as a motivator, so I don't think it is as far removed as you think. Refer to my initial post in this thread - Love is an emotion. Love is an emotion just like hate, anger, trust, joy, panic, fear, and grief are all emotions. Like all of those other emotions, love is an emotion generated by our brain. The emotion of love has evolved along with our species, most likely because there was a benefit to the human species in employing such.

It's interesting that to experience agape love that you think one must choose to implement such love, that it doesn't just come naturally. That being the case, I question what 'love' is really being demonstrated here - love for the person that it is supposedly being directed at, or love for the understanding that that is what one is meant to do/be? For instance, I didn't fall in love with my wife because I thought that was what I was called to do and to be, but rather I would say it seemed that I had no control over that love, had no choice in the matter. Which ties in with what I suspect is chemical reactions based on on subjective experiences in life which produce this emotion we call love. I look at the chimpanzee and see love expressed differently than how we are talking here. But it wasn't all that many millions of years ago that we were like chimps ourselves and as such didn't possess that love in kind. What has changed - evolution and development of the human species. So for me personally, it seems obvious that love is more a 'development' of evolution than a reflection of some God waiting in the wings for us to develop and then bestow us with such 'love'.

Endurance of love is simply a prolonging of the emotional response. Sometimes that response changes through time (a marriage couple may experience a deepening of their love whilst another couple may experience a lessening of their love for one another, all based on their experiences and chemical reactions throughout the period). Love can certainly be satiated at points in time, including eros where sexual desire immediately diminishes following sex, but is often soon restored. I think your quote from John points to precisely how love can be satiated or can diminish over time. I may be prepared to lay down my life for you today, but I might not be prepared to do so in 10 years time based on our experiences between now and then.

Greek comprehensiveness for emotions isn't restricted to love. Anger for instance has several words also for it's different types, as it does in English. I don't see Christian Love as Agape - i.e. unconditional. That may be an elusive goal, but I certainly don't see it as a regular practice. I'm sure even you would acknowledge that your Christian Love does have some boundaries and if there are any boundaries at all, then it is not unconditional, not agape. When people say 'mere' chemical reactions, I don't think there is anything 'mere' actually about that. In fact, I think it is pretty amazing that the human species has evolved to this degree. With evolution our concept and understanding and use for love has also evolved. Because our love seems to be different to that displayed by 'lower' creatures we see ourselves as holding some sort of 'superior' love, but in reality, what they are, we once were, we have simply evolved further along (at this point).

I think love is simply the word we use to try and describe several different types of emotion. Traditional Greek actually utilised 7 different words to try and describe the different types of love: Storage: natural affection Philia: friendship Eros: sexual and erotica Agape: unconditional, divine love Ludus: flirting Pragma: committed, married love Philautia: self love Other uses for the word love have developed along with culture and we now consider 'love at first sight' to be a 'type' of love and Thormas mentions above 'Christian Love', but I think both of these, and others, are just the words we use to describe the different emotions/desires we experience. The experience itself of love, of any of the above definitions, sits alongside all of the other emotions we experience such as anger, hate, jealousy, etc. The emotions themselves are generated by cultural exposure and chemical reactions. Obviously I don't see anything mystical in love or any of these other emotions so to speak.

Indeed, there are many similarities, probably the strongest being the inclusiveness of both for all peoples regardless of gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, or even religious beliefs for that matter. Probably the most striking similarity is recognition that nobody has a monopoly on God and that God means all sorts of different things to different people.

I regard progressive Christianity as a broad brush applied to people who no longer find doctrinal 'absolutes' as speaking truth in our modern world. Christianity is changing as it always has, and as we move into a new age many Christians question 'traditional' teachings and weigh them up against other experiences in the world. It's about questioning what was written thousands of years ago and what such actually means today to our modern society. Some people are comfortable trusting that what was written way back when is entirely 'accurate' today, but many don't feel this way and I think that's where progressive Christianity started from. I think sites like the main site to this forum try to outline what PC is, but I don't think the intention is to lock down the definition and say "this is what PC has to be". Not having concrete borders can be difficult for some. Many people like hard and fast labels. I don't think PC is trying to define itself specifically.

Seeker, This forum is a lot broader and has a lot more to offer than simply whether people agree with you or not on a particular fictional TV series, but if you only want agreement with your views then yes, perhaps this forum isn't for you. That said, if you are open to other opinions and genuine discussion/debate, then there is a lot to be gained from hearing other views I think. I've never watched the show myself and don't have much interest, but from what you have described it would seem the creators have deliberately modeled their show in a lazy fashion simply for popularity and publicity. Satanism isn't usually about the exact opposite to Christianity and it seems the producers have just chosen an easy road to push out a TV series easily swallowed by the general public for entertainment. Most western societies have at least a general understanding of Christianity so this show is probably easy for many to relate to which is what the producers want. And as much as you abhor the show, it seems the creators have managed to get you to watch the whole series and raise discussion about it! I am reminded of the saying "There is no such thing as bad publicity." It seems the creators have you doing exactly what they want you to do - talk about the show and get more people watching it! Perhaps it's a cultural thing (I live in Australia) but I don't see kids rushing out to practice Satanism based on the TV show. Maybe I'm giving our kids too much credit, but I tend to think that the majority of Australian kids these days see this type of show as entirely fictional and don't think there is much merit in summoning demons or gods. I'm sure there will be some that dabble, but I suspect they are by far a minority. I do note that you think it's obscene that the show portrays Satanists as another persecuted group while Christianity is portrayed as a the persecutor, but then go on to point out that Christianity states plainly "Suffer ye not a witch" and you say that even by the most liberal standard, Satanism must be considered evil....that there is no such thing as a good witch or warlock. You seem to be reinforcing the views of the show. I don't know - maybe the concerns about Satanism are a lot more dramatic in America than they are here for me. Whatever the case, I think the best way to vote against something is with your choices - i.e. don't watch the show! But that's just my opinion. Cheers Paul

Just to correct you on a couple of things Deadworm - the visit was of Jung visiting Freud, not the other way around. So it was in Freud's house the noises were heard, not Jung's. There is no report of Freud leaving visibly shaken and indeed, he probably didn't leave at all because it was his house and Jung was the visitor. Freud did send a letter to Jung which is detailed as follows: "I do not deny that your comments and your experiment made a powerful impression upon me. After your departure I determined to make some observations, and here are the results. In my front room there are continual creaking noises, from where the two heavy Egyptian steles rest on the oak boards of the bookcase, so that's obvious. In the second room, where we heard the crash, such noises are very rare. At first I was inclined to ascribe some meaning to it if the noise we heard so frequently when you were here were never again heard after your departure. But since then it has happened over and over again, yet never in connection with my thoughts and never when I was considering you or your special problem. (Not now, either, I add by way of challenge). The phenomenon was soon deprived of all significance for me by something else. My credulity, or at least my readiness to believe, vanished along with the spell of your personal presence ... ... The furniture stands before me spiritless and dead, like nature silent and godless before the poet after the passing of the gods of Greece." I think it was Carl Sagan who said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It seems that as far as Freud was concerned there was no indication of even ordinary proof in this event.

It seems to me that progressive Christianity is more a community that gets away from systematized, exclusive absolutes, happy to question what evangelicalism tries to sell, and as such is not 'driven' by faith. Faith 'working well' seems to be an already arrived at decision, whereas questioning one's faith, even to the point that that faith then falls down, seems to me to be more genuine and have more integrity. Personally I hold those values higher than maintaining faith. As for you looking in vain for evidence of a rich inner life, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This site is quiet, no doubt. But thousands of people are reviewing the archives and discussion threads every year, they just don't participate in many of the threads. Where Evangelical Christians seem to require a different level of support and hand holding (i.e. a more stringent need to be reassured they are 'right'and that socializing with others who agree with their views supports them in that), I think progressive Christianity attracts those who are tired of being told this is what you must believe, and so they take a back seat when it comes to 'discipleship' and blind adherence to what preachers and pastors tell them is the truth (when oh so often they have gotten the truth 'wrong'). Others see that as threatening or diminishment of a person's faith, I see it as honesty and integrity. As opposed to evangelical christianity which likes to keep people in little boxes and labels, PC welcomes participants of all stripes including conventional Christians, questioning skeptics, believers and agnostics, women and men, those of all sexual orientations and gender identities and those of all classes and abilities. So it can be very hard to have discussions which intimately involve all those different opinions and interests and which engage a greater audience. Personally, I prefer PC with a little 'p' - that is that I don't like it to be seen as another religion or stream of dogma that has to be adhered, but rather it should stand for the opportunity for others to question what they doubt, to have some confidence that the people who flog all the answers actually don't have them, to provide an opportunity for people to think for themselves and determine conclusions about the unknown because frankly, it is unknown. That is by far less attractive than absolutism, than certainty, than reassurance from the already convinced that this is what you must believe, which is something that we humans as pack animals, as a troupe, find reassurance in. You get that with evangelical Christianity - thank god you don't with progressive Christianity.

I wonder what members here think are the main reasons for quite a number of people living homeless and on the streets? I'm sure this happens in many major cities, so I'm assuming most people here are aware of this typical scenario. Do people think it's the fault of the homeless person? Do you think the homeless can be helped? Do you think you are doing whatever is appropriate to help them?

I think technically speaking liberal Christianity is more referring to a methodology of studying Christianity, whereas progressive Christianity refers more to the philosophical side of Christianity, although there is a lot of overlap and intermingling and I think loosely speaking some might think progressive Christianity is liberal in its politics so to speak. This forum used to be funded by The Center for Progressive Christianity which has relabeled itself Progressive Christianity.org. Due to cost cutting that parent site had to let go of this forum, but a number of members who saw value in maintaining this forum have chosen to personally sponsor the site themselves to keep it available to all.

I don't think I do in particular. I sometimes enjoying a tarot reading, but don't really hold a lot of confidence in that. Perhaps I embrace paganism as well as I find it as simply another way of trying to capture that of which we don't really understand (kind of like philosophy I guess). I think all religions are trying to find answers about things we feel, but don't know why we may feel them.

Currently I perceive 'God' (I think that word carries a lot of baggage) as community spirit, our humanity, our sharing of this life together. For me I don't believe in any supernatural or external God but believe that we are in God, in that there is no differentiation for who we are and what we do, to their being 'a' God.

I suppose I like meditation and calming of the mind associated with Buddhism.

I don't actually like to label myself as anything in particular, although I acknowledge that Christianity is my foundational culture and progressive Christianity fits for me because one of its main tenets is to reach out to those for whom organized religion has proved ineffectual, irrelevant, or repressive, as well as to those who have given up on or are unacquainted with it. That particularly fits for me as a born and bred fundamental Christian who threw it all away at 19 but who at 40 revisited my position on many things. I personally found progressive Christianity and the members who inhabited this site back then (about 8 years ago) to be particularly helpful, embracing and compassionate during that troubling time and my hope is that this forum and its archives will remain for others who may also face such issues in their lives.

Welcome Dee, I too am a fellow Aussie over here on the west coast in Mandurah which is about an hour south of Perth. I hope you enjoy the forum and participating here. Cheers Paul

Of course we are not here to convict anybody for anything whatsoever. I only use the court context because it was first raised by Burl and then I tried to clarified the meaning of 'evidence' by referencing how 'evidence' is actually regarded. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything with mass delusion - I'm just suggesting there may alternative ways of looking at the 'evidence' as put forward for NDEs/OBEs. I value debating and arguing subjects - it helps me think through the pros and cons, the 'evidence' for and against. But maybe I need to be more cautious around other people's sensitivities, I agree. I may be mistaken, but I don't think anything I have posted so far doesn't seems to have dampened any other poster's preparedness to continue. If anybody interprets from my posts the appearance of cynicism then I would suggest re-reading my posts that make it very clear that I am expressing being 'skeptical' of the proposed, for the very reasons I have outlined in my posts. I myself see a huge difference between that and outright cynicism, but maybe I am missing something in how I see things.

It is evidence in the sense that it has the right to be put forward as a claim of truth and it can be representative of the facts, but conversely it can also often be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts. Hence why courts very rarely convict people on one person's 'word' against another. Typically courts will require corroboration and verification of any evidence to establish its view. I am not saying personal testimony cannot be considered as evidence, but rather I am saying that just because a person seems sober and sane and even well intentioned in their testimony, that this is not necessarily evidence of the facts (and indeed is not readily accepted by any court as evidence of the facts on its own merits). So if you happen to be directing your comment to me when you say "Why refute NDE's or claim they are just imaginings unless one knows for certain", let me say that I am not refuting them, I am just highly skeptical that they actually occur and that they are perhaps explainable by other mechanics of the brain that we don't fully understand as yet. Scientifically, mass delusion has been established as something that occurs, so just maybe there is some other scientific explanation to NDE's and OBE's? But if all that is sought here is storytelling and reaffirmation that NDEs are real, I'm more than happy to leave those to it who want to enjoy that experience.

I agree shared/group consciousness is relevant in this discussion and I never said it wasn't, but I don't feel as strongly as you do that it should be accepted on face value as 'evidence' of the facts. There can be other interpretations and perhaps a better understanding to come when we as humans, better understand the workings of the mind. I am simply skeptical because these events don't seem to be able to be replicated under any sort of controlled or scientifically observed circumstances and at best, they seem to rely on people's own feelings and experiences, even in a group situation. Gravity I could demonstrate to you whenever you asked - NDE or OBE seem to be much more difficult to replicate. I don't agree that these experiences dis-affirm group consciousness at all and nor do they dis-affirm the idea that consciousness does not survive death, but of course you are entitled to your opinion, whether valid or not.

I think we all have a tendency to like our groups and often form views that make us feel comfortable with our tribe. It can be a challenge for many to remain open minded about all manner of things and when it comes to religion and spirituality, the scale of sensibility seems to go off the Richter depending on which position one takes. How can you argue (i.e. debate meaningfully) with somebody who is already convinced in their heart (and their head) that they are right?

Burl, you never disappoint. Indeed you are blessed with an eagerness to make a snarky comment. Whilst I never understood those who referred to 'oneness' as some sort of supernatural experience, I don't think a) you can claim that evidence or theism is supporting such or that b) they seem to have lost any faith in their ideas. Would you care to post something constructive to demonstrate support for your claims? Not understanding it still doesn't seemed to have restrained you from claiming evidence for it and other people's loss of faith, apparently. But to correct you, anything presented to a court can be called evidence, whether the person is sane or a raving lunatic. It's whether that evidence is accepted by the jury or presiding authority which gives it any credibility. But maybe such insight and discussion of the available evidence for this topic will provide some basis for a better understanding for all.

Maybe not, but it'd make for a pretty bloody boring debate and dialogue thread, don't you think!