PaulS

But for the Christian, just so we are clear, we are talking about the same God who wanted babies heads dashed against rocks, who wanted virgins from other tribes captured and kept as rape brides, who wanted adulterers stoned to death. That God of Jewish history, which is love? Or maybe people back then simply held a different ideal about God as to what you do in today's culture and society? I think if you have a particular view they are obvious. To me, they are not. Yet like you, process philosophy cannot point to what 'fully human' actually means to anybody in any real, practical sense. It talks about being 'better', about not staying static, of which i agree with - all part of your fully human-ness as you are. You seem to use 'fully human' as a term for an ideal that you think we should be trying to meet, although you don't seem to be able to pin it down to any specification per se, more a general notion as I see it. Commendable I'm sure, but accurate, I don't think so in my opinion. The traits you like are just as much part of being fully human as the traits you don't like. They are all part of being fully human - the good and the bad. Hitler is and was very much seen as human (who doesn't see Hitler as human?) it's just that some of the traits he displayed were horrendous for community in this world. To me one can be a better human who doesn't harm others, but that person is no more fully human than Hitler, in my book. And we call people animals/monsters/inhuman because we don't like the traits they are displaying - we don't want them to behave that way. We, as a community, find it obnoxious and harmful. But we still recognise they are human. I don't disagree with you that we see better humans than others in this world, but this is based on our judgement of them and how we see them affecting our world. As a species, our judgements and ways of reckoning these 'better' behaviours has changed throughout time, societies and cultures.

It would be both - it would be subjective because it is my view based on my societal and cultural development. Had I lived 2000 years ago I may have a very different stance. It would also be a living statement that the other stance is wrong, because that's what I think. But who am I to judge? To not show and live compassionate concern for me is only missing the mark in that it causes harm to the community I live in. Once upon a time people didn't even consider this factor to be lacking compassion, so I doubt they would have considered it failure to self actualise in the likeness of God. In fact, to the contrary, even today many people actually think they are self actualising in the likeness of God by hating gays. It seems to me that their idea of fully human may differ from yours. So who's right?

Agreed, and I think this may apply to terms such as fully human and love - these change throughout time depending on our very human cultural and societal developments. What one considers today to be fully human, I expect may be very different to what one considered fully human back in Moses' day.

I guess where we differ is that a religious person first needs to determine what God is in order to determine what a likeness of God and an image of God actually looks like. To interpret God as love doesn't really mean much to me because the definition of love is still ambiguous - is love striking a child to correct 'wrong doing', is love using harsh words such as 'you fool' when trying to explain a point of view, is love having a tirade because of how you interpret some to be disrespecting your understanding of God, etc etc. Is love executing somebody so as to give some peace to the victim or victim's family? Is love stoning to death an adulterer? What precisely do we determine as love and what does God look like to be called simply 'love'? To me these terms of love and fully human seem to be rather loose and very much subject to interpretation (which perhaps explains why religion is so wide and varied). Historically I get that many people have always looked toward something more to be as though what they are is not enough. For me it doesn't make sense to look outside of our humanity but to simply understand that we are human and we have good eggs, bad eggs and many, many shades in between. For me, all of us are fully human, including Hitler and others. Some of these fully human qualities do not benefit the wider community but nonetheless, they are/we are fully human. But it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

I will await for your response to my question above, but this comment too goes partly to that question - what constitutes fully human? Are you fully human if you support LGBTQ rights or are you fully human if you don't? Is it self-centredness to believe that gays should not have full and equal rights as non-gays, or is it the other way around (or something else in between)? Like Rom asked, is it fully human to accept all immigrants with open arms or should borders be protected with force and hopeful immigrants denied access unless they follow the present laws concerning immigration? Are all of the above situations that display full human-ness?

I'm not confused over your use of the term human or person. What I am asking is how do you measure when one is fully or truly human or fully or truly a person if you don't consider them to be so already? At first you seemed to propose that it is something to be achieved, something to be obtained. If so, how do YOU quantify or qualify that something? You seemed to reject my notion that we are already fully human because we have certain traits that can be less beneficial or even harmful to our community - so for me the obvious questions is when do we reach your mark of being fully or truly human? What parameters to you say "this person is now fully and truly human or is now a full and true person"? If your meaning of being fully or truly human is about a journey, and you relate that journey simply to making a 'better' version of ourselves, i can understand that but would still say, as Rom points out, that this measure is subjective and more aligned to our cultural and societal expectations. Nonetheless, I can live with that subjectiveness if it makes my life feel okay because that is all that we have as humans/persons. So my simple question remains - when do you consider one to be fully human? At what point would you say "this person is now fully human" because it seems to me that you don't consider us to be fully human now (as I would say we actually are).

I am confused - is being fully or truly human simply about being a better person, perhaps even the best you can be, but not in itself actually being 100% complete human and therefore not actually being fully human? Indeed, can one actually attain the 'fully-human' level? What does it mean to be 'called' to be fully human if we cannot in fact reach fully human status or if it is not an actual thing but rather simply an experience and/or purpose to your life? Are you using 'called to be fully human' as a phrase to describe simply having a purpose in life to be a better kind of human than otherwise - to simply be a better person than otherwise, but subsequently not actually fully or truly 100% human? If our purpose is to strive toward fully human status, who precisely determines what that fully human status actually consists of? It seems to me that you suggest being fully human is about attaining a certain level of humanity, about overcoming self-centredness. I think you said that self-centredness keeps us from the reality that is 'fully human'. So when do you know that you have overcome self-centredness to the degree that you have then become fully human? Do you have a set point where you can identify fully human, or is it an elusive ideal to strive towards without an actual 'you are now here' point? Going back to my initial point, this is why I am saying you are already truly and fully human, warts and all. We all experience different lives and create our own purpose to life. What seems to be acceptable to some can be less acceptable to others. So we seem to create this dichotomy of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong', what makes us fully human and what doesn't, and the difference depends on who you ask. Typically, this is framed around what we consider to be a socially and culturally acceptable way to live our lives.

To what degree specifically does one need to minimise these drives - Do you have a specification to hand? When do you consider one to no longer be a slave? When do you define one as a 'slave' compared to one who is 'more' human because they have nurtured your said virtues? I'm sure we can all agree there are 'better' ways to behave than others, but where does one 'draw the line' concerning what is adequate and what is not? But that aside, this terminology likening some human behaviour to slavery suggest there is a master who requires a certain degree of adherence to achieve that which is required. If it really is about the journey and not achievement, how indeed can anyone judge what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? It seems to me you are suggesting achievement by another name.

I'm all good with a journey - we are all on one. But when we say we are 'called' to be 'fully human' or not able to be called fully human until we overcome certain behaviours, that indicates to me more a destination sought than a journey experienced. If 'salvation' is about overcoming some of these behaviours, then that too indicates a destination - something to be achieved. But if Thormas is now saying it is about the journey toward being a better person, then I'm on board with that. It's just that i would say that whilst on this journey, one is fully human already.

Yes, to me 'perfection' seems to be a judgement and what constitutes 'perfect' is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure we can agree there are some behaviours that we see as beneficial to living in a community, but the specifications of what constitutes perfect, changes from person to person. I would see 'perfection' as something to strive towards as an ambiguous illusion which will change through time depending on the audience.

The difference for me is that there is no 'perfect' to become or work towards - we are completely human as we are. The perfection is that this is what humans are, warts and all. Whilst it may be an aspiration to work towards being 'better' I don't think there is anything more to being 'truly human' than what you are now. Could you be a 'better' human? - I imagine we all can to different degrees, but to think of 'truly human' as some status that is to be achieved misses the point, in my opinion, that we are already fully human, perfect humans as we are, but some of those frailties of being fully human is that we all have different behaviours and things about us. Sometimes these behaviours don't help and/or negatively impact on the community and so the rest of the community says "we don't like that". The non-religious person similarly recognises the need to overcome problems in community if we want to get along reasonably well together and experience the most pleasant life we can. I would suggest they don't see an overall 'broken-ness' of being human but rather recognise that humans being humans, the majority may work with the community for overall benefit but we also recognise there are those who may go off on another tangent which can harm community.

I should have said we are 'perfectly human' rather than perfect humans. Of course, everybody has there own opinion as to what should be considered perfect. For me, we are already fully human and self centredness is simply an aspect of being human. Some are unfortunately better at it than others. Certainly, self centredness doesn't contribute to the well being of the whole troupe, but I don't think that makes one any less human. For me, I can't link improvements to our behaviour and conduct as 'salvation required' but rather I see such as simply a better way to live in a community.

You lost me at 'needing salvation'. You are a perfect human as you are. We have our weaknesses, our strengths, our moments of doubt and our moments of certainty. All of that is only relevant to where we are, who we are with, and what it matters at the time. The rest as they say, is history. I would say, try to enjoy your life whilst you can - it's the only one you have got. But if you don't want to enjoy it for what it is at this moment, do whatever you want to do and expect the consequences (or not) in this life, not after it.

For me personally, I expect it all can be explained by natural causes of the human brain and thus psychology, if the psychology of the matter was properly understood. Personally, whilst it may seem very real to the individual, I doubt it is at all really real. My take on it is that it only seems to be 'religious people', if I may so broadly paint that picture, that seem to believe in this sort of stuff. The non-religious seem to have no experience, no interest, no belief in the matter. Personally I think it says much about the issue that only people who might regard themselves as somehow 'spiritually aligned' with these sorts of experiences, actually feel they are true. The rest of us typically don't. Is a person who says they are demon possessed, actually demon-possessed? For me, no. They just think they are.

Welcome to the forum Derek, I hope you find it beneficial reading and discussing things here. Cheers Paul

I don't see the difference though - he is using his mind to watch his mind - I don't think there are two separate entities (although I appreciate that's probably not what Tolle thinks). I do wonder if this identity shift is just the ego changing (i.e. the mind now aligns the ego with a different name for itself). That doesn't necessarily detract from the effectiveness of what he is suggesting but it just makes me question his description of how it happens. Yet I think you use your mind to put yourself into that position. I can't question your personal experience but to me it seems the benefit comes from knowing how to use our mind rather than allowing it to run itself, muck like what we do with the rest of our body and cells - we manage ourselves a certain way or we suffer the consequences. Agreed. I look forward to continuing the read.

Chapter Three for me: If I read this book as a tool for how to feel better by living in the moment, by not being burdened by my past or feeling anxious about my future, no problem. In fact, I think Tolle makes many good points about how to use our mind to make us feel alive and in the moment. He doesn't say we are using the mind, in fact he says the opposite, but I don't accept what he's saying and to me he seems to just be using different words for what I would say is the mind being used. If I read it as a more mystical text then I think it loses its way and talks a bit of gobbledygook about mind, time and being. It seems to me that Tolle requires us to use our mind and our ego to release ourselves into the Now. I have no problem with that but I don't see our mind in any way being separate to our consciousness. In fact, it seems to me personally that my consciousness only exists because I have a mind - i.e. me as consciousness did not exist before my mind developed and I believe my consciousness will cease when my mind (brain) ceases working as it should. As yet, I haven't seen Tolle verify anything different. But I do agree that past and future can cause us angst and worry so parking those and focusing on the present seems a good tool for happiness. However, if I don't keep a mind out for the future then I would probably starve to death and my mind would no longer allow my consciousness to exist.

Still too dramatic a description of somebody for me, personally.

I try not to take myself, or others, too seriously. Sorry my joke annoyed you. I do think you commenced this thread too strongly defining bigot (and continue to do so), but obviously we disagree.

I don’t agree with what Dawkins said and I find it detracts from his message because people then focus on a couple of sentences from an entire rational speech (and kazillions of other rational, thoughtful, non-bigoted speeches and debates he participates in). As I agreed with Thormas, his comments lean toward intolerance in those instances. But I cannot label him a bigot because he sometimes says those things. You seem to. Your choice. I think you are lowering the bar as to when we do and when we don’t label somebody a bigot. You don’t. Oh well then.

Now you're just being an intolerant bigot!

You disagree with me, but your example agrees with me. I am saying that when we start calling people bigots because they strongly, even vehemently, disagree with other beliefs, then we are lowering the bar to what should rightly be called bigotry i.e. where bigots are not just 'intolerant' because they don't accept another's beliefs (or even refute it), but where that intolerance is associated with hate and desire to harm the other side. That is what a bigot is. We start calling people who disagree as 5% bigots then you are indeed scaling down the seriousness of the word bigot.

We're going off topic a bit but if I were to consider the history of atheism (which existed long before Christianity) and the best examples of persecution by atheist dates as recently as early 20th century, I'm going to go with Christianity being the bigger offender. I think if you were to consider the 'settlement' of other countries and continents and the total displacement of the indigenous inhabitants by Christians, the impact of those persecutions far outweighs what you cite against atheism. But again. maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Thanks. I'm glad we've sorted that. This goes to my case in point - the fact that you would even consider the Soviet Union & China's deadly oppression of religion and Richard Dawkins as comparible bigotry indicates to me that you are using a far too precious interpretation of the word bigot. Bigotry involves hate and I don't think Dawkins is hating even though he vehemently disagrees with religious belief. We are gong to have to agree to disagree I think. I base this on my overall viewing of Dawkins and how I have seen him act and talk. Hence why I argue that we need to very carefully choose and use our words and the definitions of those words - of which I have no doubt I am often an offender myself! But as others should call me out, so too will I (without bigotry though I would suggest).

Yes, I think the comment does go to the intolerant side of things but I struggle with judging the man as a bigot because he gets carried away sometimes. I mean, to the contrary of this 2012 speech, he apologised to Christians in 2015 for mocking their beliefs because he acknowledged he can’t prove there is not a God. I find it hard to label the man as a bigot in the face of such. That and the way I have seen him conduct himself in debates, TV interviews and conferences - always tolerant of the others views whilst strongly disagreeing with them, but allowing them their say fairly. And his book the God Delusion does not contain bigotry or intolerance but simply presents a case for its beliefs and refutes others - again, that is not bigotry or intolerance. But I’m sure there will be times when RD lets some of his strongly felt beliefs get the better of him. It’s no excuse, but Christianity has been so much more bigoted throughout history, yet many Christians have no truck with that because such is on their ‘side’. Indeed some of the bible includes the most horrendous, bigoted words one could read, yet the tolerance granted religion is incomparable with the tolerance granted in other beliefs.