PaulS

By 'supernatural' I mean something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. In my opinion, much of what you were saying in your treatise actually sits in this space. Each to their own. I read your treatise, thought about what you had to say, and didn't see any hunch I felt desire to explore because I have already explored to some degree in my own way and come to the opinion that it isn't so. What about if they explore such possibilities and come to the conclusion that those possibilities are not possibilities at all? Yes, you inaccurately see my position as dilettantish idea twiddling. I enjoy playing all games, and discussing ideas. Please don't be offended if I don't agree with you. Personally, I don't think anybody can 'choose' to believe or not. Belief happens whether we like it or not. I guess one could pretend they believe or don't believe, but that would only be pretence and not true belief/non-belief. I can't make myself believe in Father Christmas for instance because I have developed non-belief in Him. Similarly, I used to believe that Jesus Christ was my lord and saviour, who died on a cross as a sacrifice on my behalf to satisfy God and thus be saved from a Godless eternity. I did not choose to stop believing that but nonetheless, I don't believe that anymore and couldn't change it if I tried. Frankly, I think belief is over-rated because it simply relies on a personal brain computing information and drawing a conclusion. As we all know, there are many, many beliefs that are incorrect, even harmful, yet people still hold those beliefs. Footnote: I reserve the right for my beliefs to change at any time, as they have done throughout my life to date.

Not sure where that came from all of a sudden David, but in general, no, I don't think Catholicism was thinking 'turn the other cheek' when it came to Hitler's actions and sex-abusing priests. I think in these instances it was more about politics and protecting positions of power. I wouldn't lump every RC in those boxes and perhaps many of them have/would have tried to stand up against these evils. Possibly there were some who had a mindset that it was a lesser evil which ultimately served a greater good. I imagine some humans could very easily conceive ignoring Hitler or paedophile priests would in some way allow them to further God's work otherwise. That's not an excuse for them but simply an observation on human behaviour. Disclaimer - I've never been a practising RC and I get very bored when I attend a full-blown RC wedding!

The Thoughts you expressed in your Treatise are reasonable. I think they are personal interpretation which can be supported a thousand different ways in a thousand different religions, as well as non-religious thought. I posted that I don't think there is anything supernatural to our existence which I considered my quick summation of your thoughts towards a progenitive Source expressing Itself in Being and your 'fact' that we are in 'It' no matter what paradigmatic scheme of Reality (Life, Creation, God, Self-Realization, Being-Becoming, Evolution, etc.) one subscribes to. Your beliefs outlined in that Treatise are personal opinions which cannot be argued by 'proof', but by personal 'experience' and 'gut feeling' etc. They are true for you and I'm not knocking that. You may well be right and millions of others wrong (that is not an endorsement of millions of others either). I don't think anyone has ever "knowingly spoken and acted ‘in the name’ of said Consciousness" because I don't believe there is any said Consciousness per se. Will I be proved wrong one day - who knows! My personal experience is that there are many who wholeheartedly believe in 'something' that others are not able to 'grasp', but if only they were to open their eyes to the 'truth'! But how I respond to that is to argue for the principle of Occam's razor and select a hypothetical answer that makes the fewest assumptions - that is to say I think humankind has existed for millions of years and followed a zillion different Gods, philosophies, religions and principles throughout existence. The fact that millions of years later we still can't land on one agreed way forward would suggest to me that there is no 'source' beyond the fact that we exist here and now. What we do with that is completely subjective to each and every one of us. And as per other posts I have made, if it causes no harm to others, then all power to you. I'd also add that I don't think Quantam Physics does actually explain why and how and things ‘manifest’. QP may 'point' toward some theories and assumptions but using QP to support your understanding of a Creator is not a done deal in my opinion and I don't think it is fair to suggest people haven't intelligently grasped the implications of the postulates and research findings of QP if they don't agree with your view on that. Now I'm not sure if you expected me to respond to your treatise with my own lengthy treatise and address every different point you make in yours, but as I said, I thought I summed it up when i said I don't think there is any supernatural consciousness to tap into. I don't have the evidence to support that any more than I suggest you do to support your beliefs outlined in your treatise. But that's just the way it is I guess.

I'm not saying what the wisest course of action IS but merely discussing what I THINK Jesus was alluding too. In fact, I don't actually think there is any single 'turn the other cheek' approach to be applied in life but rather different reactions for different circumstances. Yes, personal interpretation/gut intuition may well be all we have to go on when interpreting what Jesus really meant. Clearly the likes of the Quaker movement have a different take on pacifism than other Christians might - I'm not saying one's right and the other's wrong but rather that this whole 'what did jesus really mean' game is a personal one for everyone. At the end of the day, if whatever people deduce or believe hurts no others, I am all for it. If it enriches your life, gives you meaning and purpose, guides you in a manner you find helpful, without causing pain and suffering or harm to others, rock on! I often quote lyrics from a Ben Harper song (Burn One Down): My choice is what I choose to doAnd if I'm causing no harmIt shouldn't bother youYour choice is who you choose to beAnd if your causin' no harmThen you're alright with me My pleasure. I enjoy discussion and debate (more particularly when I have time to do so). I know I am not always right but often I will debate because the answers provided don't provide me with satisfaction, no matter how convinced the other is that they are right. I think sometimes some take that as threatening to their position (they need to be right for whatever reason) and others will tolerate me until the cows come home!

I think this is an important point too easily overlooked in any discussion about what Jesus meant. Jesus lived in a time, culture and society very different to most of us today. Applying Jesus' words, or any teaching in the bible for that matter, as information that was definitely intended for this population today, across all different cultures and societies, isn't wise IMO. Whilst we can take inspiration and interpretation from the bible, it simply was not written for all people at all times. To me it is very clear the various authors (and scribes during the journey to a modern bible) had their own agenda and culture in mind when they wrote what they did. That's not to say there isn't wisdom in such writings but rather just thinking out loud that there is both wheat and chaff amongst such writings and how we discern which ones mean something to us and how to apply them in our modern world is often an individual thing. Perhaps one of the very reasons we have a Debate & Dialogue section here on the forum .

Yes Thormas, I would agree that I think Jesus' focus was certainly the short term with what he truly expected was the imminent coming of the Kingdom, and that this behaviour of turning the other cheek and ending the circle of aggression/retribution was how he saw people living in said Kingdom. I don't disagree that we can use those words as inspiration for how we handle matters today, but I also don't think they are a hard & fast rule set or that they are set in concrete (I'm not suggesting you do, I'm just mentioning it). I think sometimes turning the other cheek (whether it be preparedness to let go, protesting injustice or some other interpretation of what to do) is inadequate and a failure to act on stopping the aggression in the first place may only cause more harm to others. Imagine if we 'turned the other cheek' to a school shooter or a war criminal - I think the harm their behaviour would continue to exert is not covered of by Jesus' turning the other cheek, even if one doth protest the injustice of it. I guess what I'm saying is that the words about turning the other cheek may provide inspiration, but they fall short of being the answer in all situations.

I do remember, but really it wasn't me who brought it up, but rather Jesus reportedly did in the verses immediately following the 'turn the other cheek' verses. I just thought if we're going to talk about what 'turning the other cheek' means then it should be in context with the rest of the conversation from Jesus. For me, putting those verses in context doesn't lead me to the conclusion that Jesus was promoting protesting injustice. I'm not trying to convince you, but rather just responding to your question about what others here think about Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek. I'm not arguing for a nice-nice approach but rather commenting that i don't think what Jesus says (in these verses and elsewhere) correlates to protesting injustice. But if that works for some people so be it.

I have heard this concept mentioned before. Not sure if it is historically supported but would probably suit either interpretation of these verses - 'yours' concerning protesting injustice, but also 'mine' about ending the circle of retribution and being content to walk away at peace with yourself.

Whilst no doubt there are beggars trying to exploit people's good will (I have seen one in particular in my own city) I don't think this is what Jesus was referring to in the same conversation where he was encouraging turning the other cheek against evil doers. To me it seems out of place if Jesus was actually telling people to protest injustice. Then again, maybe Jesus didn't say "Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you" and somebody else just added that bit to Mathew along the way?

I take your points David and would say that your understanding of God and Jesus / Father and Son sits quite comfortably with my understanding of human consciousness and where it has been/ where it is heading. I suppose differently to you though, i don't think these exceptional people throughout history tapped into anything supernatural or otherwise outside the realms of being a normal, everyday person. In fact, I don't think there is anything supernatural to our world (but am open to discovering otherwise). I do think there have been people in the past who, for whatever reason, have an idea who's time has come. These people stand out because of the contrast of their thinking to that of the accepted 'wisdom' of the day. But IMO this isn't restricted to spiritual wisdom and I would put great inventors, entrepreneurs, even military leaders in a similar category. Whilst it could be said they have 'accessed' a wisdom or knowledge that normally sits elsewhere, I would suggest they have simply had an idea/s that was there all the time for anybody but hey happened to be the one who first mentioned it. Why these people and not you or I (well, definitely not me anyway ) - I think it is their experiences in life that have fired something in their brain that hasn't in other people's. I think we all have original ideas and some resonate with more people in general, whilst others don't. Perhaps there is some 'greater consciousness' to be tapped into somehow through certaint practices and beliefs, but I suspect there isn't. That's me anyway. As for what Jesus really meant - I truly doubt we will ever, ever know. But it is certainly interesting discussing such and if that gives our lives greater meaning for doing so, all the better.

I'm certainly no expert in understanding what Jesus meant if he said such things some 2000 years ago (in a society ruled by a religion whilst simultaneously being oppressed by a militarily superior neighbour) but for me I don't see Jesus in the sermon on the mount as promoting protestations about injustice, but rather simply trying to say "stop the circle of violence and retribution - let it go". Whilst this act in itself may have some social justice ramifications (e.g. maybe the evildoer will feel less empowered) I'm not convinced that in the context of what else Jesus is reported as saying in the surrounding verses that he was suggesting one should be seen as 'taking a stand'. By turning the other cheek to the evildoer (or giving even more to the plaintiff than sought in court, or walking an extra mile if forced to walk one, or giving to beggars and also not refusing anyone who wants to borrow from you) I think Jesus is saying show your preparedness not to perpetuate acts of aggression and retribution, not to harbour unhelpful baggage in life (i.e. wishing for revenge) and maybe help others not carry such baggage also - the aggrieved beggar who doesn't get help, or the destitute friend who desperately needs a loan to carry him through - both whom may be left feeling scorned if we don't help them when we could. Jesus was contrasting his comments against the understanding at the time of an 'eye for an eye' approach, which I think he was saying was just a recipe for a non-ending circle of retribution, anger and hate which served no purpose other than maybe momentary satisfaction (if one managed to achieve retribution). I think what Jesus was proposing was more a "let it be" approach to these things. I think his radical statements concerning swords and family turning against one another is a different kind of message as he was delivering it only to his disciples and it was apparently in the context of the persecution they could expect if they followed his 'way', that way being a different way of looking at things and living one's ;life compared to the Judaism they were used to. Hence family members will turn against one another because Jesus' way could be polarising, particularly to those who fervently believed or accepted things as they were. Well, that's just what i think Jesus meant anyway. To me that doesn't contradict working for social justice but rather simply gives one a different angle about how to feel about ongoing social injustice - do what we can do but also acknowledge that revenge, being bitter and twisted, and desiring harm or retribution toward another, is just a waste of time and energy.

Burl, Australian Churches of Christ are part of the International Churches of Christ with an excess of 2 million members (>1.3m in the US) and which was formed out of the Restoration Movement in the 1700s, but not recognized until 1906 (how many generations that is, I’m not sure). I also mentioned the Baptists - they formed in 1609 (obviously not their Australian branches) and have about 100 million members. Last (but not least) the Salvation Army - established in 1865 and membership over 1.5m. They are all Churches that sit in the Protestant camp. I think they pretty much qualify as traditional Christian Churches irrespective of your wishes. But that is Christianity for you - everyone else thinks everyone else has got the Bible wrong! I might just add to that by your criteria for 'traditional Christianity' , the leader of the pack would have to be the Roman Catholic Church. All those points I outlined are very much supported by that church. You might find some more progressive Catholics, but I know you will find many more who haven't moved to that end of the scale. I know several people who would say their Catholic upbringing was similar too, if not worse than my 'pathological' one, as you say (which at first you said was a good thing, so go figure).

As for pathological, whilst I’m not convinced yet that Burl isn’t being somewhat sarcastic, I don’t see my upbringing as pathological because it was facilitated by genuine, mentally-well people. Your mother included too probably for that matter. They just ascribed to a doctrine and set of beliefs passionately and couldn’t see an issue indoctrinating their children with the same. That doesn’t make it right and I believe such an approach to life creates much damage, but I’m not sure it fits the definition of pathological (hence why I think Burl is actually having a dig). Now pathological does certainly seem to apply to your President! It appears from the outside that ‘The Donald’ isn’t plagued with ‘grey’. His messages, even when perplexing or contradictory, usually have a tone of certainty which to many seem so pathetic. Yet others are encouraged and embrace him. I do see the US suffering strong division due to his presidency though. I hope for the U.S.’s sake (and others) some grey creeps into his thought processes and approaches to matters.

Thanks for clarifying (I think) Burl, but I wouldn’t credit anything of being relatively well-adjusted to traditional Christianity. By traditional Christianity I am referring to believing and indoctrinating or trying to convince others that: -people need to plead forgiveness to a God for basically, being born. If they don’t, their life will always be lacking. -the Bible is conveyed from God so God wants you to follow the Book. Varying degrees of calamity in ones life may result if not followed/interpreted usually in the way one’s Christianity community interprets it. -evil in the world is caused by a real-life, opposing power to God (Satan) -in short, your life cannot be good unless you are Christian -that doubt and investigation outside of what you’ve been taught is bad for you. These are pretty traditional teachings which do nothing to assist young adults when their eyes are opened to the world outside of that upbringing/community. My apparent well-adjusted state is more a result of the hard work put in to better understand just how wrong all those traditional teachings are and why. By the way, getting to that so called well-adjusted state meant years of agony, disconnect from family and friends, consideation of suicide to escape the pain of such, and generally plenty of time not being well-adjusted. Tradional Christianity - run far away from it!

Is that really what you took from what I was saying or are you being antagonistic? Maybe you are using sarcastic humor? I’m not sure. I couldn’t disagree more about such an upbringing and I think it’s a shame that adults can’t see the harm they cause when indoctrinating children with their own personal beliefs around God and their own personal ‘certainties’ concerning religion and biblical interpretation. If possibly by ‘traditional’ you mean some other sort of Christianity than what I was exposed to, I would disagree with your interpretation of traditional.

No, I am not talking about the variety of shades made famous by author EL James, but rather how I see life as countless shades of grey when it comes to virtues, values, knowledge, integrity, principles, ethics, morals, etc. Mostly these shades appear in the most basic activities in the ebb and flow of my life (work, parenting, friendships, etc) and sometimes they cross over into less serious territory such as politics, law and order, religion, atheism, and sport. Grey makes the matter sound drab, depressing, ‘bad’ - but I see it as simply being what it is – decisions and viewpoints made on specific circumstances based on my perceptions of the matter. And these positions move and change regularly as new data comes to me (or how I perceive that data). Often only by minute degrees (a tweak here or a twerk there) but sometimes it may be a major shift in my position - but still there is wriggle room and acknowledgement that nothing is ever a one-size-fits-all. Nothing. I see this in a positive light from the point of view that it is encouraging that we as humans continue to evolve into our capability to acknowledge our own shortcomings/misunderstandings/lack of knowledge (even when we think we know) , empathy (increasing on a world-wide scale with technology advances making us so more intimately aware of others), sympathy, compassion and better understandings of how people and things work. For most things in life I would have to say that I don’t have a rock-solid, unchangeable position. What I may think is an unchangeable value applied in one circumstance often requires amending when faced with a similar yet slightly different circumstance. For my first 18-19 years of my life this was not the idea sold to me by my family and Church community (for the record, the first 17 years of my life were strictly Churches of Christ - Australia, followed by a dabble with the Baptists and the Salvation Army, before abandoning the lot in my 19th year). In these environments, doubts about Christianity were discouraged and the answers were all there within the Church doctrines and of course the ‘correct’ interpretation/understanding of scripture. I have discussed before how as a young police officer my worldview was severely challenged, both religiously and non-religiously (e.g. how laws are made out to be immutable but really they apply to all sorts of situations where ‘wriggle room’ is appropriate IMO), so I won’t go into depth again, but suffice to say it’s about then I started to see the world as shades of grey. No doubt many people see the world like this and I see many like minds here. So I don’t know why I am writing this, but just thought I would.

Davy, I wish you well in your studies and hope you succeed in what you're working toward. There are many different views here about Christianity and lots of discussion around what it means for different people. We are all on our own journey and have all had our different experiences, which often makes for discussions that might not usually make it into many church prayer meetings. ? I hope you enjoy participating here and perhaps even have a look at some of the previous discussions held. Cheers Paul

The strength and resilience of children amazes me.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable approach to me, Scott.

Welcome to the forum, Scott. Here there are lots of different views and takes on religion in general and Christianity in particular, and we love discussing them! I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

I don't disagree that they're nice thoughts and that they work well for some, but I would suggest that they only work well for a minority, hence why Christianity (or this style of society) just hasn't caught on in the last 2000 years across the globe. There are elements of Christianity within most societies, but I don't think there is a single 'way' that works across the globe that would be very practical or easy to implement (and history would seem to support that). The communities you mention are by far a minority in the world - there is a reason for that - probably because it just doesn't work for the majority, for whatever reasons. That said, I do think capitalism has taken mankind down a path where not everything coming from it is beneficial to society's well being and communal growth. I just don't think 'Christianity' is the panacea, per se. But, there is much that society today can take from Christianity.

Early Christianity's growth wasn't particularly outstanding prior to Constantine's conversion and making it the official religion of Rome. Perhaps it offered alternate structures but other reasons contributing to its development included being the only missionary religion in the area, it was an exclusivity religion (converting to Christianity meant abandoning your old religion which wasn't usually the case for pagans changing to other gods), equal status offered to women (in a hugely patriarchal society), and lack of competition (e.g. in Israel it was only up against Judaism). Constantine's conversion was THE game changer. There were also lots of different types of early Christianity, so it is hard to imagine them all lining up to provide a better society (i.e. they seemed to argue more on theological grounds) - Ebionite Christians, Gnostic Christians, Docetists, Arian Christians, Marcionites, Roman Christians, and the later Melitians, Donatists, and Monothelites, to name a few. I think there are commendable thoughts concerning Christianity proposing a way forward of fairness, but any detail of how to actually implement such seems to be fairly lacking for any real application which is where I see it falling down. That said, seeds being planted concerning better ways to do things are of benefit. The fact that 2000 years later we still lack an alternative social, economic and political order that all would call fair and just indicates to me the impractical application of Christianity as a 'system' of governance. But again, there are commendable aspirations in there that are of benefit I think.

Welcome to the forum Timothy, Apologies, but I don't have much to offer in either area, but I hope you might find some assistance here. Cheers Paul

Sorry, not my strong suite.

I'm not trying to prove they exist, just saying that the thought is out there for some. Maybe given a few thousand years of alienology they'll have their own revelatory book from the King Alien which guides them in their thought processes. What I am saying here is that I'm sure monetheism sounded utterly ridiculous to many when they first heard of it, but look where we are thousands of years later.