Jump to content

PaulS

Administrator
  • Posts

    3,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by PaulS

  1. Yes, I have always found this puzzling that largely Christianity completely overlooks that much of what is taken for granted today as the immutable word of God wasn't even around for those actually living in the time of the said writings! People in Old Testament times weren't reading from the Old Testament! Christians for the first several hundred years of Christianity didn't even have a New Testament. It's taken Christianity hundreds of years, even millennia, to refine itself into the narrow band of ideology that it is today. I'm not convinced there actually is One who speaks, whether that be Eternal Logos or other, and I think that most likely it is our human reasoning that is deducing there is 'something' higher than ourselves when in fact there isn't, but I am open to the concept still.
  2. Same, Rom. Nothing objectionable, but nothing to get particularly excited about either for me.
  3. For me, the paragraph that saddens me most is this truth: ...Despite that, most of Christianity embraced a theology of gloomy despair, telling us over and over that we were fallen, full of sin, deserving of and destined for everlasting punishment. The great philosopher George Carlin described this religion to a T when he said, “Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you.” It is incredibly amazing to me to try and fathom that so many well-meaning Christians in the world, who in so many ways demonstrate compassion and caring, somehow think it is fair and reasonable for 'God the Father' to send their friends and loved ones to an eternity of hell and suffering, because they didn't get their theology right during their short life span on this blue orb. 70 or so years vs billions and billions of years (eternity) of pain and suffering equals justice and goodness? Yet so many Christians adhere to this belief. Why?
  4. Welcome to the Forum, Lily. I hope you enjoy reading and participating here. There's a lot of conversation threads in the archives too of many subjects discussed. Cheers, Paul.
  5. I would tweak Phil's right and wrong and suggest we have the ability to discern when we are causing harm to another or not (generally speaking anyway). We also have the ability to take action and choose not to harm that other if we so choose. Yeah, I'm not comfortable with defining happiness as a product morality either. 100%. The ultimate arrogance concerning belief in God is not accepting that at least a little part of your beliefs (if not all of them wholesale) could be wrong.
  6. I can only imagine that it is the familiarity with a life-long journey within Christianity that keeps him tethered to this lens. Perhaps its the hope of life after death in some form or another that keeps him (and others) tethered? That 'hope' you know. Maybe it's just a bit too much to acknowledge that whilst it's all wonderfully awesome and all, this does all end one day, not that we'll know that when we pass.
  7. Yes, when I first requested permission to post them, and invited him to participate if he so wanted to.
  8. Yes. Thanks - I added that to clarify. Yes, it's from his newsletter which is subscriber based (free) so presumably it attracts those that are partial to his messages.
  9. From Phil: Good morning, friends. It is good to be back after yearly meeting and Fifth Sunday. After speculating three Sundays ago that if Jesus were alive today, he’d be a humanist, I am announcing the beginning of a new series entitled, “You Might Be a Humanist If…” In the Sundays ahead, I will be sharing with you the priorities and values of humanism, which I believe to be consistent with the moral precepts and historical priorities of Quakerism. You’ll remember we defined humanism as having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. Though the word humanist has been used as a pejorative by many evangelical Christians, I want to affirm my appreciation for the aims of humanism, which include the assertions that 1) knowledge and wisdom are best obtained by studying the observable world using the scientific method as opposed to words from a god whose existence we cannot indisputably prove and whose actions we cannot reliably predict, 2) that humans arose through evolution, are self-aware, possessing the ability to discern right from wrong, and 3) that our moral principles are not determined by divine commandments, but by examining the results that our actions yield in the lives of real men and women. Simply put, if our actions result in happiness and well-being for ourselves and others, they are moral. If not, they are immoral. Today, I want to speak about the first assertion, that knowledge and wisdom are best obtained by studying the observable world using the scientific method as opposed to words from a god whose existence we cannot indisputably prove and whose actions we cannot reliably predict. You’ll remember from high school that the scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. We trace its origins to the early 1600s and attribute its founding to the Italian mathematician and astronomer Galileo and the English philosopher Francis Bacon. For their efforts, Galileo was placed under house arrest by Pope Urban VIII and Francis Bacon died in disgrace, bankrupt and alone, confirming the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Where does knowledge come from? I was at yearly meeting last week and heard a man say that God is the giver of all knowledge and that if we wanted to be wise, all we had to do was ask God to show us the truth and God would. I tried that in high school after failing to study for a chemistry test. I sat quietly at my desk, bowed my head, and asked God to fill my mind with the Periodic Table, but apparently God was busy helping another high schooler because I flunked the test. When I started having gallbladder attacks this summer (Have I mentioned my gallbladder attacks?), if I had gone to a doctor and they had placed their hands on my abdomen and asked God to cast out the demons tormenting my body, I would have found another doctor. Instead, the doctor employed the scientific method, objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation, thereby deducing my gallbladder was, in her words, “underperforming,” which Mike Goss noted was the theme of my life. Let’s think about this. In nearly every aspect of our lives, we employ the scientific method, whether we’re seeking medical advice or financial guidance or relational insight, we’ll seek out someone who depends upon the scientific method to acquire their expertise. When we do that, we are affirming the value of humanism, whether we realize it or not. Several years ago, I was at the Dairy Queen and another pastor in town was standing in line behind me. He said, “Did you know I had a heart attack and almost died?” I said, “Yes, I had heard that. I’m glad you’re alright.” He said, “My wife drove me to the hospital, and they airlifted me to St. Vincent’s and the doctors operated on me and here I am. God took care of me.” I couldn’t help myself. I said, “Not to mention the helicopter pilot who took years learning to fly a helicopter and surgeons who spent fifteen years learning to do heart surgery. Plus, the scientists who invented the drugs keeping you alive today. And let’s not forget your wife who drove you to the hospital in a car someone else invented and manufactured. They helped too.” He said, “No, it was the Lord.” And there you have it, friends, the utter refusal to admit our indebtedness to our fellow beings for their contributions to our well-being. Humanism teaches us how to be grateful. Humanism asks us to be honest about the observable, verifiable facts of our lives. Humanism allows us to be appropriately aware of and appreciative of the good things that happen in our lives. To acknowledge that we have been blessed by human knowledge and kindness in no way denigrates God. It’s no secret that I have married one of the finest persons on Earth. If I were to wake up each morning thanking God for Joan but neglected to whisper a word of gratitude to her, I would be thoughtless and inconsiderate. It’s important in this life to know when and to whom to be grateful. Friends, there are many bright and helpful people making real differences in our world. To discount their contributions is to deny the value, worth, and dignity of humankind. Goodness is goodness, wisdom is wisdom, to be appreciated no matter their author. For God to be good, humankind need not be evil. For God to be wise, humankind need not be foolish. Today, I am grateful for Galileo and Francis Bacon, who with so many others, have taught us not only the value of observation, but the importance of knowing whom to thank and when and why.
  10. I've looked and looked and can't work out how. I vaguely remember it being a membership thing - the more posts you make and duration of membership increased one's 'allowances' for posting and editing. I seem to be able to edit from a decade ago almost - but maybe that's an Administrator thing. How old is the particular post that you are trying to edit? I could possibly edit it for you? I think another part of it may be that you shouldn't edit something that a lot of people may have since commented on as that would disturb the continuity of the thread. Depends on what the edit is I guess.
  11. From Phil's weekly newsletter: I was thinking this week about how computers make everything so much easier, which is good and bad. Computers spare us from drudgery and make it possible to accomplish more work. Before we had computers, it used to take me 3-4 weeks to spend my paycheck, but with a computer, I can now blast through my paycheck in a day or two. Computers also make it easier to communicate with people, which is good when I wanted to send out a meeting-wide email about Kay Frye this past Thursday. On the other hand, it makes it much easier to send people nasty emails. Before I had email and was mad at someone, I had to find a piece of paper and a pen and envelope, track down their address, and write them a letter telling them they were bad and going to hell. It was a lot of work to be mad in the old days. I’d write the letter, which sometimes took hours, then put it in my desk for the night, and by the time I got up the next morning, I wasn’t upset anymore, and I’d throw the letter away. Now with email, I can fire off angry letters right and left, leaving a trail of bruised and broken bodies in my wake. I got an email like that this week. A man wrote to tell me he’d read all my books and sermons, but no more. I’d made a joke about Florida, saying the good thing about climate change is that the rising ocean levels will eventually sweep Florida out to sea, and he took offense to that. You know times are tense when you can’t tell Florida jokes. His email went on and on, accusing me of various sins and shortcomings, then ended by calling me a humanist. It sent me to the dictionary to look up the word humanist, which is defined as someone who has a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. I thought, “Well, that’s a lovely thing, to be a humanist.” I was flattered. It’s the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a quite a while. So I emailed him back to thank him for calling me a humanist. I do indeed have a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity, I told him. Thank you for noticing. It was kind of you to say so. He wrote back saying he didn’t mean it as a compliment, but how is being called a humanist not a compliment? Being a humanist is the best thing ever. How is that not a compliment? Some of the people I admire most in the world have a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. I’m thinking of Socrates, Aristotle, Margaret Fell, John Woolman, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesus. We mustn’t forget Jesus, who after all told his followers to love their neighbors as they loved themselves. I know what the man meant to say, because I’ve heard television preachers rail against humanism. He meant to say I was an ungodly, New Age heretic who believed in evolution. That’s what he meant by humanist, but that’s not the correct definition of humanism, which I also told him in my reply. Then I mentioned Jesus was a humanist, and that’s when he told me I was going to hell. We too should have a strong interest in and concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. Just like Jesus did. In fact, I’m starting to believe in humanism so much, I think it should be a requirement for anyone wanting to join the church. From what I’ve seen, Christians who aren’t humanists do a lot of harm. I think anyone who is Christian should be concerned for human welfare, values, and dignity. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it? If Christians in Germany had been humanists, Hitler would have been diagnosed as the troubled soul he was and given therapy. If Christians in the South had been humanists, slavery would never have been, which means the Civil War would never have been waged, which means the racial animus that still divides our nation would never have existed, if Christians had been humanists. If Christians in Russia were humanists, children in Ukraine would be playing on playgrounds instead of huddling in basements with the debris from bombs raining down on their hunched and tiny forms. We could all use a little humanism these days, couldn’t we? I heard a woman say the other day that the greatest problem in the world is that too many people aren’t Christians, but our greatest problem is that enough people aren’t humanists. There’s not enough concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. We have too many Christians who aren’t good humanists, too many Muslims who aren’t good humanists, too many Jewish people who aren’t good humanists, too many Hindus who aren’t good humanists, too many atheists and agnostics who aren’t good humanists. I want to be a good humanist, just as Jesus was a good humanist. Think of that word for a moment. Humanist. It’s related to the word humane. Now there’s a lovely word. Humane. Having or showing compassion or benevolence. When I was a kid, I spent a lot of time in the woods and wanted to be a forest ranger when I grew up. Then I became a Quaker and thought it would be interesting to be a Quaker pastor. Then I started writing and thought it would be fun to be a writer. But now I want to spend the few decades I have left as a humanist, showing compassion and benevolence, having a strong interest in human welfare, values, and dignity. I was texting with one of my favorite humans in all the world this past week, Mark Strietelmeier, that great mystic, humanist, and winner of the Columbus, Indiana Reader’s Gazette subscription contest as a child, for which he received a baby pig. We were discussing humanism and I was wondering to myself what God thought of humanism, when Mark said, “Don’t forget. It was God who put humans in the center of the garden.” Now if someone asks you what religion you are, you can tell them you’re a Quaker. But as sure as God made little, green apples they won’t know what that means, so you can save yourself a lot of trouble and tell them you’re a humanist, a devotee of the first religion instituted by the Lord God Almighty some 300,000 years ago. You can tell them you’re a card-carrying member of the beloved offspring of God, started smack dab in the center of Eden. Of course, then they’re going to ask you what humanists believe, and now you know what to say. You look them in the eye and say, “I believe you are my brother, (or sister, or sibling, whichever the case may be,) and I have a strong interest in your welfare, worth, and dignity.” And then you can prove it, by loving them as you love yourself.
  12. Hi Mockument, Welcome to the forum. I look forward to the discussion threads that you may raise. I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul
  13. Interpret is probably not the right word - rather 'apply'. How the Supreme Court Justices apply their logic of how the Constitution answers the Roe v Wade question, is clearly open to interpretation affected by personal bias.
  14. The logic is correct, but it would also be reasonable for one to take into account that poor Freddie may have suffered a mischief and might have departed from the norm through no fault of his own. One's personal bias of how to interpret that logic comes into play.
  15. I wonder if some would argue though that the psychedelic is 'opening' a gateway to the spiritual, as opposed to only causing a chemical reaction that creates a certain state of mind?
  16. I think that point is too simple though - they apply a legal process in interpreting the law, but it's still 'interpretation' and interpretation can't really be executed without personal bias, intentional or not.
  17. I think his last point is what sums this decision up for me: "But remember that courts are political, and the Supreme Court in particular can willy-nilly rule on rights when the court itself isn’t accountable to the voters." So in this case we have a lot of supporters who are in favour of the Dobbs outcome crowing that it's the right legal decision to overturn Roe v Wade, but not recognizing that whilst 5 Justices felt this way, 4 didn't! So do they think the other 4 Justices can't properly understand law? If it had been 5 to 4 the other way, does that make the decision any more 'right or wrong'? The original Roe v Wade was a little different in that 7 Justices supported the legal decision, and 2 didn't. But again, were the dissenting 2 ignorant to the law? Clearer to me than anything, is that these decisions are political, and not made on some firm and inarguable legal basis. At the end of the day, it is an INTERPRETATION of how to apply the Constitution. Today the anti-abortion interpretation, won. Another thing that occurs to me is that many Americans seem to cling to the Constitution like they do the bible. Both are ancient texts (albeit the Constitution is only about 230 years old and the youngest writings that made it to the bible are some 1800yrs old), but it's crazy to think that both are inerrant and that somehow they capture all possible future scenarios for our developing standards around human rights. But I do agree it is up to lawmakers to make law on behalf of its community, so how long it now takes for laws to be established to support women in need of abortion, remains to be seen.
  18. Is the chemical reaction an illusion? Perhaps. Maybe a little less convinced as you, I'm not as certain there is nothing 'more' to al this, even if I suspect there isn't. I guess people dressing it up as spirituality could come from two positions - 1. Still clinging to older notions of God, or 2. Genuine experience or feeling that there is something 'more' to all this. Of course people could be wrong about that. I don't know. I'll check it out.
  19. Yes, but I guess that at least makes it real then? No doubt. The literalist I can't help, but as for progressives or others, I guess may they take inspiration to lead a fulfilling life from wherever it suits them. Good question. From what I can gather, Phil is defining spirituality as being in touch with one another, regarding ourselves as interconnected parts of the whole, and as such the goal should be to do 'good'. How that really 'helps' - I'm not sure. You have to really wonder what the pint is of even discussing spiritualty. I mean if as Phil proposes we are all part of the one anyway, then whatever we do/however we live, is part of that one anyway. I guess he's just joining that human tendency to help others, with what he sees as help (i.e. being spiritual, not religious). Maybe there is something to this if indeed it does help people live a more fulfilling life, but then again, life is life so why should it matter?
  20. Do you think that being at one with the world, whether we recognize it or not, means we all experience the same degree of spirituality? Maybe a higher degree of spirituality results from a higher degree of recognition of being one with the world?
  21. Well I doubt he would love 'the act' of that judgement, but I'm guessing he means showing love to the Pharisee who is saying that about his grand daughter. Expanding spirituality by practicing love?
  22. No, I think it's the interpretation of the axiom. Whilst the 7 to 2 Justices 50 years ago were happy to say that Roe v Wade warranted a constitutional right to abortion, the 5 to 4 Justices recently said it didn't. I think 'technically' both decisions can claim to have followed the law (i.e. interpretation of the application of the Constitution), but their individual personal interpretation (undoubtedly influenced in both cases by personal beliefs) is what has resulted in differing views.
  23. More from Phil... I have a friend who teaches in a Catholic school where the children are required to attend weekly Mass. I’m well acquainted with this custom since I grew up Catholic and my mother was the principal of a Catholic school. I remember once asking her if I could go to her school for a day, unwittingly picking the one day of the week they celebrated Mass, resulting in my attending church twice in one week, which was excruciating, like having to eat spinach twice in the same day. But back to my friend. The priest at my friend’s school was sick so they brought in a ringer to conduct the weekly Mass, a priest from another parish, who during the homily told the schoolchildren that people not educated in Catholic schools grow up to be evil monsters who harm children. I’ll just let that sit there for a minute while you contemplate the irony of a Roman Catholic priest boasting about the moral superiority of persons educated in Catholic institutions. Sometimes people ask how I became bald. In my case it was genetic. I hail from a religious tradition whose theological absurdities caused me to pull my hair out by the roots. There is no institution so holy, no theology so orthodox and pure, that it guarantees its members moral superiority. In my final message contrasting the differences between religion and spirituality, I will observe that far too often religions see and assume the worst in others. In religions, there are always demons aplenty. Though spirituality is keenly aware of the reality of evil, it begins by seeing and assuming the best in others. Because religions often see the worst in others, because it has eyes for the wicked and depraved, it usually finds it, absorbs it, and is eventually consumed by it. Conversely, spirituality sees the best in others, and because it has an eye for beauty and goodness, it usually finds those virtues, absorbs them, and is ultimately consumed by them. If Quakerism had a shining moment of theological brilliance, it was when early Friends spoke of humanity’s Inner Light, when other Christians were emphasizing humanity’s inner darkness or original sin. When a religion begins with the assumption that people are evil, sinful, and estranged from God, it must provide a fix, a way of getting people right with God. Pay careful attention to see who claims the power and authority to do that, whether through a sacrament or a prayer or some other ritual designed to get people right with God. It is usually a pastor or a priest. Notice the power they accumulate, the authority in which they drape themselves. Notice the deference they receive, the esteem in which others hold them. And all because they have perpetuated the myth that you are broken, that God is mad at you, and that they alone can fix it. Think of the power we give them. Whenever a politician votes against the public good, we too often discover they have been paid to disregard their duty. Their corruption is usually brought to light by examining the trail of money. Look who’s profiting from a new law and there we’ll find the source of corruption. Follow the money, we say. This is true not only of political corruption, it’s also true of religious corruption. Except in religion, we must follow the power. We must look to see who benefits from bad theology. Does a particular theology permit some to accumulate power over others? Follow the power. If a religion demands forgiveness and restitution, look carefully to see who has given themselves the power to pronounce that forgiveness, or impose that restitution? Follow the power. When you follow the power in religions, you will not find a god, but a person claiming to speak for a god. You will find a person persuading you of your sin, and then persuading you that they have spiritual authority you do not have, that they alone can announce forgiveness and restore you to God. Follow the power, and if at the end of power’s trail, you discover someone hard at work convincing you that you are less than, that you are morally deficient, you can be reasonably certain you have found yourself in a religion. But if you discover light and promise not only in others, but also within yourself, you will have discovered the golden treasure of true spirituality—that God’s light is given freely and joyfully, in equal measure to all. There’s a psychiatric term called projection, where one displaces one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. Jesus taught about religious projection when he spoke of those who railed against the splinter in someone else’s eye, while ignoring the beam in their own. Last Sunday, our 7-year-old granddaughter went to her other grandparent’s church where a Sunday School teacher told her she was full of sin and would go to hell if she weren’t saved. Our granddaughter, who shares her candy, who does her farm chores cheerfully, who befriends everyone she meets, who cuddles her five kittens and makes sure they’re safe, who cried on the last day of school because she already missed her teacher and friends, is apparently so full of sin God cannot stand the sight of her unless Jesus advocates on her behalf. The Sunday School teacher who told my granddaughter she was full of sin is a product of that dark and bitter philosophy and considers it her divine duty to pass that poisonous perspective on to others. I don’t think she’ll succeed with my granddaughter, who said to me later that day, “I only prayed with her because she made me.” While I want my granddaughter to treat others with dignity and respect, I suggested that the next time someone told her she was full of sin and headed to hell, it would be perfectly appropriate for her to tell them they were full of beans. At the end of his life, the Quaker James Naylor was robbed, beaten, and left to die in a farmer’s field. Discovered by other travelers, he was carried to the home of a fellow Quaker. These were some of his last words. “There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end…As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thoughts to any other.” Did you catch that? As it bears no evil in itself, so conceives none in thoughts to any other. Religion and spirituality are the same in this regard—they both give you precisely what you expect to find. If you look for sin and evil, you’ll find it every time. So too, if you look for goodness and beauty, you will awaken each morning surrounded by it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service