PaulS

No other possible explanation for myths such as these?

Better not to believe in curses against all of humankind resulting from some primitive myth, in my opinion.

Not at all, but if that is how you view your life with the beliefs that you currently hold, then I can understand why you need to hold onto your myths, 'prophecies' and other God stories to help give your life purpose.

Progressive Christians who believe what precisely? What about a 3rd choice - neither a new world with people reborn, or a movement to higher consciousness (whatever that means) and any 'necessity' to transcend this life/world, but rather, simply an understanding about trying to get along and be the best of what we are.

I agree that the 'modern' confusion is incorrect, but it does appear that the ancient view (in Jesus' day and shortly thereafter) was that the arrival of God's Kingdom was imminent and was an end times scenario of sorts as Rome would be overthrown and Israel, with God at its head, would rise above all). But of course, that didn't happen.

I have it on good authority that there is a work directly written by Jesus titled "The Narrow Way Is Through The Vege Garden". Perhaps, like much of the Jesus message, later authors attributed meat eating stories to Jesus in order to make him more attractive to outsiders!

The 'earliest' Christian writers (e.g. Paul and those pseudepigraphic authors who pretended to be Paul) seemed to think the Kingdom was imminent and was going to happen in their lifetimes. That does seem to be in line with Jesus and the OT messiah talk (to a degree). Later 'early' Christians then seemed to turn the 'good news' into this other future 'kingdom' that relied upon either faith or works (depending on which view you take of elements of the NT) and definitely excluded people who didn't make the grade.

I think those sort of words may have been placed on Jesus' lips by some NT writers. I think it's pretty convincing that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed the coming of the Kingdom was imminent and that the evil powers (Rome) would be overthrown 'in this generation'. When Jesus got executed and 'this generation' didn't see the coming of the Kingdom, Christians began to 'interpret' Jesus differently and make up new stories about the Kingdom.

You might be jumping to some conclusions there Burl - don't get too excited.

Jesus made it clear that some would not enter this 'Kingdom' that Jesus believed was imminent, including hypocritical Jews and of course those outside of the Jewish faith. The Old Testament also seems to represent the era to be brought in by the Messiah to be a new life, but only for some and not all. So if it wasn't an afterlife, where did Jesus and the OT expect these 'others' to end up? Was the Kingdom going to be like its own country with borders, or was it expected that the non-starters would somehow be wiped off the face of the earth instead?

Wine to represent his blood and only bread to represent his body! A good steak might have been more realistic for his body, but we can only speculate that Jesus was actually vegan!

Indeed, probably none less so than the environmental impact and costs associated with raising meat for food as opposed to a vegetarian diet. Maybe more importantly though, is what if Hinduism is on the money and God is a cow? Do you think cow-God will be happy with all these meat eaters! I think Judaism may have been onto veganism early as Genesis reports that God specifically created animals to be 'helpers and companions' of man rather than food. In fact, God even pronounced that He had given every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; as food for man, but no mention of meat for food. Perhaps God's wrath will come upon those who eat meat! Perhaps embodying the love of Jesus should include being kind to other sentient beings rather than slaughtering them and tearing apart their flesh for our own satisfaction rather than need! You can see how my early childhood zeal for evangelicalism can easily be transferred to a diet-related subject

Best as in what food types most benefit our body and digestive structure. For instance, we may be able to eek some nutrition from grass but we'd probably be best off eating other more nutritionally rich foods that our bodies have evolved to better utilise than grass. I use the term 'should' like I have above with 'best'. To me it makes sense that if our bodies have evolved to benefit the most from certain types of food, then it makes sense that our bodies would benefit more from eating those types of foods than if we were to veer off to other foods which may provide some degree of survival nutrition but they may also make it harder for our bodies and thus may introduce other diseases or ill health (cancer, ulcers, reflux, etc). Fair enough. I appreciate the explanation.

I question that logic - just because we can survive as omnivores (perhaps as carnivore like a dog can on high protein, vegetable dog biscuits) does that mean that is the diet we are best off following? Is it the penultimate diet our stomachs evolved for? It was more just an observation that often people defend meat eating as part of our natural diet but often totally overlook how very little a part of our diet that should probably be. And when I say should, I simply mean it in the sense concerning how our guts evolved and what our guts may expect as the most beneficial way of eating. One could of course take a moral stance, which I have done in the past and which I have now abandoned, but that wasn’t my meaning in this discussion. We need to deal with the elephant in the room. Nietzsche's dragon with "Thou Shall" inscribed on the underside of its scales. I hear you about the “thou shall”, but I am simply questioning here what we have evolved to be, not necessarily just how we have adapted to deal with our limited environment. I’m not favouring one view over another, just having the discussion.

With meat only comprising of 3% of their diet, that would be like us eating one meat sausage per week! I think we go far and beyond that certainly.

Rom, do you think humans eating meat like the Inuits did was an adaptation or has our species evolved to eat meat like it does (and digest it)?

The Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Lost Epistle to the Corinthians and the 3rd Letter to the Corinthians, and 1 Clement. I like these because they are a sample of early, accepted Christian writings which hundreds of years later didn’t make the cut of the cannon because of how beliefs had developed since they were first written. So for me it’s hard not to regard the NT more as man’s word than God’s. I respect that people felt compelled by the writings that did make it into the NT, just as others may have felt compelled by their preferred books that didn’t make it into the NT, but I don’t think majority rule was nessecarily the best way to determine the makeup of the NT. Well, I should say I don’t have faith that the people who decided what version of the NT we should receive, were accurate or right. But if I had to choose from what became the finalised version of the NT then I would say the earliest writings of Paul. As misguided as I think he is, I think he had his heart in the right place in his attempts to encourage people to live a life he thought would be beneficial for them. He lived his beliefs so I give him credit for that.

I think the table you provide actually may contribute to more misunderstanding, Rom. It paints a misleading comparison. For instance, in reality our guts better reflect those of our immediate anscestors (primates) than they do a carnivore such as the wolf (which has a much stronger stomach acid and much shorter gut). Clearly primates eat a largely vegetarian diet, with some insects and very, very infrequent meat eating. Also, comparing our system to that of a species that has developed to eat nothing but low nutrient grass, naturally shows a huge distinction. It seems that eating some meat may have moved our ancestors in a different direction to other similar species at the time. In today’s modern diet though, eating meat actually has very little to offer nutritionally and without a doubt, generally we all consume way too much meat! Countless studies demonstrate the benefits of vegetarian diet. I think if we were honest with ourselves our diet should best reflect that of primates, but that wouldn’t be all that popular I imagine.

I would have to say evangelicalism, primarily because that was the theology I was indoctrinated with and that which ultimately helped me research and understand Christianity better when I rejected it as an adult.

Welcome Lucian, I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

I’ve never considered it but it appears to be goer! I will have to give it a crack! Just about any fruit can be used to create wine. I see too that watermelon mead wine is also possible. As it is currently melon season here I shall look into both. Thanks.

My favourite vegetables would include bok choy, asparagus, and potatoes. Oh, and rhubarb for some home made wine! Fruit-wise I love mangoes, watermelon and grapes (again, for the wine!). A few years ago I gave up meat for over two years primarily because I felt for animals. I must admit that even though I didn’t miss eating meat from a dietary perspective, I did miss eating it and sharing the experience from a cultural/social perspective and so reverted to my meat-eating customs.

My point really was that there isn't a single religion that doesn't promote some sort of belief in a beneficial afterlife for adherents of that religion. Judaism perhaps less so for the ordinary punter, but hope nonetheless if you should happen to exceed that ordinariness and become one of that God's 'select' few (say Moses or Elijah). However, in regard to establishing 'God's Kingdom', this too in essence was/is an after life because it was referring to a life completely different to the one that Jews of the day actually lived/live in. They didn't/don't see the Kingdom as simply a better way to live but rather a specific occurrence which would distinctly mark a new way of living (i.e. a distinctly different time to be brought in by the hands of a Messiah). Christianity changed The Kingdom to be about a more inclusive, better way to live. Even PC does this (if it should be regarded as another religion instead of a philosophy) - it may be vague about what any potential afterlife should actually look like, but by saying 'everything will be okay' it does still promote a beneficial rather than negative view of death and as you point out, gives adherents 'hope' and 'trust' about an afterlife. It might not be the 'focus' so to speak of in day to day interactions for any of those religions, but the underlying 'carrot' is always there and is a primary message of those religions. If not an outspoken message then at the very least, as in PC, it is promoted as a positive of all things being part of some grand scheme and therefore death is beneficial to the adherent. To me the stand out is that NO religion ever says "this is all there is", "Live a good life for you and the benefit of humanity because there is nothing else to follow and when you die, you cease to exist". We can speculate about the reasons why NO religion actually sells itself on the premise that this life is all that one can possibly expect.

Chapter 4 for me: I don't really disagree with much that Tolle says when he talks about relieving ourselves of our anxieties, about choosing to worry about the past or not, and being mindful of our emotions and thoughts and how they may be affecting us. These are all pretty standard psychological practices I think. To me it makes sense to take the time to try and observe our thoughts and feelings and how they are affecting us, and to consider taking actions to either alter them (or the situation) or accept them.

When the author says 'religion', does he actually mean religion in the proper, broad sense of the word or is he referring only to Christianity? I could probably list a number of religions and religious beliefs that have been successfully replaced throughout the development of our species, but this author seems to be taking a much narrower point of view and is looking at a speck along a grand timeline. Certainly though in the west Christianity is the dominant religion, but I think this is more about culture and politics than it is about some well understood, universal truth. However, it does seem to me that 'religion' is a common means to an end in achieving 'community', something we by and large are driven to want for ourselves. I suspect the human species developed a need for this search for community and meaning in life when we started developing self-consciousness. Historically this need has been filled with all sorts of religious and non-religious ways of living, but religion has held an elevated place in society (whether that religion be zoroastrianism, belief in the Greek pantheon or other polytheistic beliefs, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, or some localized version of tribal belief, etc). I think that is perhaps because ultimately each religion has a 'good' message for us - i.e. there is hope for one in life after death. I think self consciousness has developed in us a 'fear' of no longer existing. I don't know if there are any religions that don't offer this carrot, so I am not surprised religion has a larger following than other secular ways of living one's life. But it would seem that western society is starting to move toward believing that there is no life after death and what we do in the here and now is all that matters. Perhaps people are turning away from religion due to this understanding, but some people still feel the need for hope and meaning because they are actually still alive and our human instinct is to be part of our community, and so they search of have an affinity for other 'beliefs' that give them satisfaction. That, and quite naturally, they don't want their existence to end, so maybe that's why they try to trust other beliefs.