PaulS

Distance or our place on this planet is just an illusion, Rom. As you read this you can hear my voice and see me talking (even if it's only in your head) so I must be within your hearing distance!

Certainty is certainly one thing we can be uncertain about.

I can see how this can go around and around in circles with no right answer or proof. Has anyone maybe got a holy book I can refer to for a rigid answer?

I think I can understand the illusion of 'self' but that doesn't deny that we physically exists and that our bodies can physically suffer and fail to work how they're meant to under circumstances such as starvation, temperature extremes, oxygen deprivation, etc. That stuff is very real.......isn't it?

How do we know when our access is limited and when at other times is it unlimited? Surely there must be a point where reality aligns with, well, reality, and not illusion?

I think it's both at the same time. Some things are illusory, or rather, are based on our perceptions of things. What is ugly and what is beautiful is a good example of illusion or perception. But then some things are very real I would say - such as starvation, cruelty and pain. Sure, their thresholds may be different for different people based upon people's perceptions and experiences, but this doesn't make them any less real. Based on our previous discussions I think I know where you're coming from, but for me, my perception is that a view that starvation and death is illusory just doesn't make sense

Yes, it could well simply be my perception of the world that sees such suffering and pain as a bad thing and not something to be celebrated because it is 'all God'. I think it is wise not to be dragged down by the misery suffered by so many - otherwise we too become another one of the miserable. But, we recognise there is something manifestly unjust about the differences and so we help such people, to the degree we are comfortable with. Indeed my perception of such suffering causes me to react in a way, not dissimilar to many, but at the same time worlds apart from others. That is not to say I am right and they are wrong, but to agree that our perception influences our actions (or lack of). But I can't help feeling it's a little bit of a cop out, or perhaps a very human way of dealing with that which we don't want to deal with, to attribute all this to something other than our own personal responsibility. When I read statements like christs-love's opening one above, they seem so arrogant and self-righteous that I can't help feeling they are simply that person's own mechanism for justifying their religious beliefs; their particular selfish perceptions rather than a genuine attempt at understanding how the world works. It would be nice to discuss this further with the author but alas, they haven't bought in to the discussion which makes me think their words are more like a drive-by posting for us sorry lost souls here at TCPC. Perhaps I am wrong though. I read the links you included, but my perception is that maya is somebody else's way of justifying the unjustifiable as a way of mentally dealing with the pain and anguish we see around us. Yet pain and suffering is not imaginary or something to be welcomed (as perceived by me anyway), it is very real. I can see it, hear it, smell it. To then deny all that reality and justify it by saying "it will all be okay in the end" doesn't sit right with me. However, of course your understanding of things could be right and I could be wrong. One thing I am convinced of is that neither of us can be proved right or wrong by any proper sense of the word, but only to the degree that we feel right or wrong about our opinions.

I know we've discussed this before Joseph, but to me the term 'perceived suffering' just seems so arrogant when I look at people suffering extreme physical and emotional loss (but I know you are not meaning it so) and not 'perceived sufferings' such as what I would consider relatively minor sufferings such as bankruptcy, divorce, loss of faith, etc. Prayers like the one above just seem so hollow, so weak, when putting yourself in the place of say an Ethiopian mother who is nothing but skin and bone and who has just watched her two surviving children slowly starve to death. I don't see God treating her tenderly and with love as nobody else could provide (although she'd probably just be happy with a bag of rice and worry about the love later). Let's be real - she does not have a future full of hope regardless of what she thinks about God - she's suffering a tormented and miserable existence that will one day end with her death granted, but in the meantime she suffers much more than any of us privileged first-worlders. And I just cannot translate what sort of friend people understand Jesus to be when this friend supposedly has the power to intervene but instead won't lift a finger other than to be "helping, consoling, strengthening, healing and guiding". All the time standing by idly and just watching. NB: Obviously I don't think there is a Jesus in that regard that exists/acts in this manner, but that thought process is what I question here.

I just can't imagine that if one's sitting there starving to death slowly that they might feel tenderness and love as nobody else could. I can't imagine feeling you are God's only child when your own children are painfully starving and dying before your eyes, particularly if you actually believe that God has the power to intervene, but chooses not to. It just seems such a First-world statement to me, no matter how tough we think we have things in our privileged lives.

I would suggest food and drink are primary in the scheme of things. Without those one would not be able to have any knowledge (their brain wouldn't work). 'That which sustains us' would do very little sustaining if one didn't feed their body. Some might see it as insignificant but I can guarantee you would've have seen your 60 plus years if you simply relied on any spiritual relationship to sustain you, Joseph. But yes, I agree it's very agreeable to feel protected, loved and looked after at the end of the day.

Look, I get it that beliefs and statements like this are very reassuring for some. But really, what do statements like this say about the families of over 19,000 children who die every single day around the world from malnutrition and preventable disease? They must be asking themselves what's wrong with their relationship with God that their lives mean so little.

It sounds lovely, but I would fully encourage maintaining eating and drinking whilst you're on this earth. No matter what your relationship with Jesus, you will not survive without those. ?

I agree with you that personality can be subjective, but in the context I am using the word I am simply talking about the attributing of a personality to something (in this case a God or gods) in order to identify it in a more personal way (which is what I am saying atheism is about - the non-belief of such God or Gods). In the context of our discussion, considering spirituality in general and/or a 'force' or some other 'beyond our physical capabilities' existence, is very different to thinking of a God or gods as say the God of love, war, peace, etc, or indeed that God or gods being assigned a name such as Jehovah. Those Gods are considered to have a personality (the likes of which is subjective I agree) which I think is what distinguishes them as God or gods which atheists don't believe in.

I would suggest the defining attribute of 'God' or 'gods' are that they are generally attributed a personality, as though they are a specific being/entity. Yahweh God, Jesus as God, Buddha (although not traditionally a God is viewed as such by some), the pantheon of Roman Gods (all having a name or identified somehow), etc. Supernatural on the other hand is something that is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. So I still think that being true to the word 'atheist', believing in or being open to spirituality, is different to believing in God or gods. But maybe that's just me

As I have nothing to prove or convince anybody else of, I am quite content to associate myself with Christianity in the sense that I believe that Jesus had some excellent teachings for all of us to consider and maybe adopt. I think that Jesus' teachings are useful in many ways. Now I understand that 'Christianity' is a loaded word and it means so many different things to so many different people, but so what. Needing to prove that one's Christianity is the only 'right & true' Christianity is the sort of crap that starts wars!

I actually think it comes down to the word Atheist - which is from the Greek atheos, meaning 'godless, denying the gods, ungodly'. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is actually about a 'lack' of belief. So rather than atheism meaning a belief in logic, science, what can be proved etc, true atheism simply means one doesn't believe in God or gods. Maybe some atheists feel the term is being 'stolen' from them, but really this is just being true to what the word means. But yes, superstitious thinking can be a concern. Reading 'spiritual' messages into things can be dangerous. Alternately, closing one's mind to anything at all possibly existing which currently cannot be proven, might mean we are missing out too. I think minds can be open without having to be superstitious.

I think I understand your pet peeve Overcast, and if definitions were to change, then so be it. If you had the power to change the definition of Atheism to as you suggest, then we would be working with a different definition for the word than is currently understood. If you personally think that Atheists should claim no belief or support for anything beyond the realms of what can be proved by scientific method, then you are trying to rewrite our language as it stands today. But as it stands, the current definition for the word Atheism would seem to allow room for spirituality (which is different to not believing in a theistic God or gods). So I wouldn't consider such people as being misleading and I would suggest you have no reason to be annoyed. People are just following current conventions. I share your concern that it in some way may legitimse others who cling fast to what I regard as harmful religious beliefs, but to a degree I accept that I can't live my life worrying about what others believe.

Maybe I've missed something, but I don't believe Progressive Christianity in general has any stated goal to prevent Christianity's extinction - but rather it seems more like some people who identify with Christianity see the 'bad bits' associated with that religion as not healthy and perhaps not aligned with Jesus' original teachings (because it would seem these contradict the 'good bits'). At worst, I think PC's may tend to think the 'bad bits' associated with Christianity are misunderstandings concerning Jesus and Christianity and that we'd be better off aligning Christianity with modern biblical scholarship, logic, and reason. Perhaps as how it was meant to be received.

Labels try to put people in a conveniently marked box because generally as humans we seem to be happier if we 'know' everything's place. As for the label of 'Atheist', I know one agreed definition may be hard to find but generally I have understood Atheist to be the opposite to Theist. A Theist believes in the existence of a god or gods and more specifically in a creator god who intervenes in the universe. Conversely, an Atheist doesn't believe in those things, but I fail to see how that excludes an Atheist from having a spiritual dimension. I call myself an Atheist because I don't believe in God (i.e. God being a stand-alone separate entity either watching over us or some other way external to us), but that doesn't mean I don't think there could be a spiritual side of life that we don't understand. To me, the term God can be so misleading and responsible for so much misunderstanding. What if 'God' is simply the energy/vibration that we all come from and is not something outside of ourselves but rather we are it fully?

I'd like to yell "get the hell out of there while you can", but probably shouldn't. Really, if what they say and think doesn't sit right with you now, how do you expect it to change? My experience is you can't change somebody else's beliefs unless they want to change them themselves. As for the people you are teaching, I think you have a responsibility to teach them responsibly. Teaching gay teens to remain celibate, to not enjoy love and life like their heterosexual friends, is horrendous. You have to make your own choices but I couldn't be a part of that. And it sounds like your Senior Pastor is putting you off by failing to address your concerns and referring you to prayer. He's directly responsible for setting the tone within that community and so should be prepared to step up. I don't think it's a good sign that he's not. As for teaching and reading, I can't think of one magic book that holds all the answers, but I do know extensive reading on biblical scholarship and alternate interpretations of traditional Christianity can be enlightening. My favourite authors are Erhman, Spong & Borg.

In the immortal words of one of my favourite singers, Ben Harper: my choice is what I choose to do and if I'm causing no harm it shouldn't bother you your choice is who you choose to be and if your causin' no harm then you're alright with me 'Delusional' or not, if somebody's personal beliefs makes their life better, then I'm all for it. Where I think it enters dangerous territory is when it tells others to do the same or believe the same (and even worse when threats come into it - i.e. if you don't believe what I do look out). But without that negativity, then I could care less if somebody was 'delusional' or not.

Whilst it would be nice if spirituality simply came down to making one more loving or not, I think Overcast raises a valid point - believing in something that doesn't exists (if that is the case) could be dangerous. Whilst somebody might believe in a loving God, they might also believe He could answer their prayers concerning healing cancer rather than them taking conventional medicines. So in that instance, perhaps their spirituality could be dangerous.

Yes, that is interesting Azvanna. Thanks.

My take on it - Jesus never said this. The author of the Book of John (written some +60 years after Jesus' death) is clearly the most spiritual of the gospels and talks about Jesus in ways the other three haven't developed yet. Personally, I think this is more of the author's selling point about Jesus than a true representation of the real, human, Jesus and what he may/may not have said. Cheers Paul

Keith, It's hard to know who Jesus really was when we don't have any account by himself and in fact only have writings (well, copies of writings) by people who may/may not have known him directly and where pen wasn't put to paper until at least 40 years after his death. A lot of exageration and mythology can develp in that time, particularly amongst a society that was looking for a saviour and was focussed on the supernatural. But somewhat like Fatherman above, I think that we call carry a divine spark because we are human, but that perhaps Jesus was more in touch with his humanity than many others at that time. Cheers Paul