Inthedark

Very well put Neon Genesis, there is nothing shallow in there. Paul

I recall Marcus Borg talking about the differing paradigms through which we can view Jesus. He made the distinction between the pre and post easter Jesus saying that he was human pre easter, and divine post easter. This is how he explains some of the additions to Mark's Gospel that we have in the other Synoptic Gospels where a faith community has added to the base story to show how it feels about Jesus, in it's own context, some decades after his death. The later Gospels seem more post easter focussed, some of which is transposed into their pre easter narrative as a consequence. Those around Jesus were obviously exposed to the man, a very human character, enlightened, with huge charisma and something about him which made his followers down tools and leave their families, home, work etc to be with him. I suppose in this context it was only a matter of time before they came to think of him being closer to G_d than they were, but he was still human. Once he was dead, the divine aspect in the Christian story really starts to grow wings. An atheist might simply identify with the pre easter Jesus as an enlightened individual who was a wise moral teacher, able to supress his ego and put others before himself. Having said that, I think Borg may have also stated that this version of Jesus is fine, but shallow. Personally I think a person can be a follower of Jesus' teachings as a humanist; and if they follow Jesus then I suppose they can call themselves Christian, if that is what they want to be known as. What is in a label anyway? Paul

Thanks George, I'll look into it. Paul

Slick for the masses on the internet and as much self promotion as the promotion of a theory, but nonetheless, as the intended market, I felt he made some interesting points which certainly resonated with me. Jen, you answered my rather poorly worded question perfectly. Thanks. Paul

Thanks for your thoughts Jen I found your comments very thought provoking. I'm not sure how to intepret what happened to me and I suppose that is why I don't mind discussing it with others in a forum such as this, to try and make some sense of it. I do know that the brotherhood I experienced in the environment of an operational submarine was like nothing I have experienced since. Away for long periods under tremendous psychological pressure, from 99% of your time being routine (pure boredom), lack of exercise, no fresh air, no sunlight, no natural colours, constantly dirty, your eyes never seeing further than about 12 metres in front of you and 1% remainder of your time with the "enemy" or the environment trying to kill you and your mates. In this circumstance, any one of us would have sacrificed themselves for the others in a heartbeat, with barely a second thought. You seem to be saying that the giving of the self and becoming part of the whole is actually the opposite of that and it is the individual discovering the real self behind the ego. Would that be right Jen?

Thank you for your reply Dutch. I have heard some criticism along the lines you mention of Haidt in recent times for this media savvy presentation, or rather its content. I think you are right in that homo-duplex seems a little simplistic, your either this or your this... Transcedence is a funny thing. What some would call transecendence, losing oneself in the whole, might not be what other might call transcendence, such as those from an eastern tradition. As I mentioned in the OP, I was in the military and experienced a version of this "losing yourself", in a submarine, which could quite easily have been lost in the particular circumstances. I don't recall any member of the crew showing any outward emotion, other than focus on their job. I remember feeling a warmth come over me as I accepted I might die at 21 years of age, it was a lovely feeling and I felt no fear. I was part of that whole that Haidt talks about. I worked away at what needed to be done, as did we all and thankfully we managed to turn that situation around and come up again. That was a case where group selection had our particular tight little group of 110 men initially circling around the value of doing your bit for your country etc etc, but that value infact turned out to be the 110 men doing what needed to be done for each other because of their tight relationship with each other, because of their shared experoiences and ongoing situation. I can't speak for others but they appeared to be in the same boat (if you'll pardon the pun) but personally I did transcend my own petty wants, needs and fears and did what needed to be done. This warmth and loss of self was a lovely thing, not something to fear or resent. On another occasion I had a criminal I was tasked to locate pointed a loaded rifle at my head and threatened me. I was unarmed and my colleague was just beneath me on a stairway unable to see what was going on. Again I felt the warmth, turned around expecting the lights to go out and simply told my off sider we missed out, nobody there and we slowly walked away. Once we were out of the driveway to the property, I told my offsider what had happened and we arranged suitably attired staff to come in and take down the criminal. This again was one of those times where the self was lost in the moment and the decisions are made for the (perceived) best of the whole, not the individual. Is it driven by the individual or driven by the circumstances or both? Both I reckon, but still, group selection appears to be at work in a variety of situations out there including religion.

I recently showed this TED talk by Jonathan Haidt to my Ephesus Group, which is a group which explores topics such as spirituality, ethics, religion and other topics for discussion. We are mainly from a Christian background with some from other religious backgrounds, mainly liberal in outlook with some atheists thrown in for good measure. It started quite a discussion about social glue and combined suffering for a group being a requirement for individuals to self transcend in that context, similar to what Jesus might have done in his context, amongst other topics. I wondered if anyone here would have an opnion. Is a group situation and suffering required for self transcendence? Is the lack of suffering in modern society preventing us from rising up the staircase? Are we homo-duplex; the majority profane with a select few sacred? Has anyone here lost themselves at any time and become simply part of the whole? Any thoughts?

Hi Deborah and welcome. I'm on the path as well Paul

Dutch, you got me started on Process Philosophy a while back! I found Whitehead almost impossible to decipher, the language is so dense for my non academic mind. I went and sought out a book called Process-Relational Philosophy by C. Robert Mesle and it has explained his work in terms I can understand. I found it incredible that Whitehead was able to come up with what appears to such a complete theory, coming out of the Cartesian dualist background we in the west have been working with since the time of Plato. What a thinker. Massively under rated in my opinion. Do you think he is under rated because of the dense language he used, making it not accessible to the likes of me? Paul

I believe we are all at different places in our journey and as a consequence romansh, I suspect we all have slightly different views about what God is. We all view our world through our own lens of experience and therefore our opinions about God will reflect that. For me God is a creative "force" of nature that is both part of nature in that it permiates everything in the universe, and creative from within nature by permitting our universe to evolve through process according to the laws of nature. In doing so, God is evolving with us. So my answer to your question romansh is that nothing is outside of nature.

Interesting. It could be as Jonathan Haidt suggests, group evolution, where it isn't survival of the fittest so much as it is survival of the group with the social glue to co-operate and work together. Traditionally this social glue has been religion, but I see no reason why science couldn't fulfil the same role with regard to a psychological drive to identify around a common theme with a view to increasing the survivabilty of the group. I suppose really the instinct might be simply an extension of the family or tribe mentality. Maybe. Paul.

One of the bigger mysteries in the Christian story. Of course it only became the Trinity 300 or so years after the death of Christ, which might be part of the problem. My church used the usual analogies such as "3 berries jam" and "Neopolitan Ice Cream", which of course always come up short but make the congregation smile. I think it is one of the curly ones that simply must be accepted on faith, or as you appear to have done simply agree to disagree and put it to one side. I have to admit, I have a few of those things sat to one side which I am unable to reconcile, but it's not the end of the world. I have pondered the usual questions in relation to the Trinity: How can Jesus be God and on the cross ask why God has forsaken Him? What was the Trinity before the birth of Jesus? If Jesus was God, does that mean that the crucifixion was some sort of cruel pantomime? What value is there in a "fake" death if you are God? Surely death is a human (or animal) thing and being human is what makes it a sacrifice to give up life. etc. Regards Paul

Welcome Wolf. What a coincidence that you should mention the link between the quantum world and spirituality, I have not long since read Quantum Theology and Reclaiming Spirituality, both by O'Murchu and thoroughly enjoyed them. The deeper we seem to get in the quantum world, the more everything is connected and interdependant. Fascinating stuff. I'm sure you will find some food for thought in here Regards Paul

I would attend that church Dutch. I'd love to hear more, a mystical approach is very attractive for me. Paul

Amen to that. If it works for you Paul, then that is great. It has compassion, justice and love in there. All good. Paul.

Interesting Paul. I think you know your friend better than me so I won't comment on that. I had a person from my church who kind of invited himself into my home and decided that I was a person he was going to be friends with. Once I expressed my rather liberal views, he was speechless. He could not begin to comprehend where I was coming from, he was so certain of the literal intepretation of the Bible. He left my home a short time after that and now barely acknowledges me at church. I guess I should be relieved that he doesn't want to visit me in my house any more. I can tolerate his views because they are what give him comfort and that works for him. He cannot tolerate my views because they make him very uncomfortable. I'm not sure what this means but I'm ok with it. If he ever wants to discuss it with me I'll be more than happy but at this stage, he's keeping me at arms length. Whatever. Thats cool Paul

If our matter, the heavier elements were born from hydrogen and helium in the belly of a dying star and blown out into the universe to come together billions of years later in such a way that it formed you and I with all that entails, I'm sure our matter will again be recycled into that beautiful machine that is the universe for ever more. Of course it's less of a machine, more of an organism with all its interdpendant parts working in unison, us being part of that organism. All atoms are like littles solar systems, full of and held together by energy. That energy permiates the entire universe in one form or another. I think of this energy as God, inside creation and part of the process, growing and evolving with us. In this way, I know I'll be part of the universe for eternity. What that means for my consciousness, another form of "energy" who knows, I can only hope. Paul

Thanks for your comments Neon Raven and George. I might chase some of that reading up one of these days. Regards Paul

I've recenlty read O'Murchu's Reclaiming Spirituality in which he describes the 70,000 years or so prior to the agricultural revolution shows little evidence of warfare, as this was prior to states and nations. He argues that this mindset arrived with the introduction of the patriarchal thinking which was born out of our need to break up and control the land, nature, people, resources etc. It was a necessary method of thinking once people grouped together in larger settlements and tried to control the land and nature and their environment. This "noble savage" may well have existed up until about 10,000 years ago. Maybe not, it's just another theory, but there is little evidence to show that warfare between people happened in that timeframe, such as wounds on remains etc. Regards Paul

A modern take on morals and ethics might be that there is no right and wrong as such, simply a spectrum of conscious actions or inactions, from which there may be flow on consequences. As Christians you would hope that we aspire to be as much like Jesus as each of us is capable of being at any given time in our lives. As such I would hope that our actions are taken through this lens, with others in mind. We are all human, susceptible to our emotions and make mistakes, but as long as we do our best, then that is all we can do. Paul

I agree Hollis we have come a long way and we do look back with rose tinted glasses. Having said that, progress isn't all smooth sailing by any stretch either. We still have a patriarchal society even in this modern age where men are paid more than women for the same work, there is an elite class of wealthy and then the rest of us, the same can be said of an elite class of countries as well, holding power and influence over countries who are unable to break the chains holding them in poverty. The vast worldwide boom in population has meant a greater pressure on resources and as the new god called "Capitalism" is worshipped with consumerism, more and more pressure is placed upon the Earth Mother we walk on. I think we have lost some of our ancient spirituality, our connection with nature and the planet. We are currently obsessed with the "he who dies with the most stuff wins" mentality, all about self. I think some of the points raised in this thread so far are valid when they point to a loss of community. As I said above, only 35 years ago I played outside on the street, with other kids doing the same. I would roam in the woods, rock climb, explore caves, fish, ride my bike for miles on end until I was lost, all without adult supervision or them even knowing where I was half the time. As long as I turned up for tea, nobody worried. This was a fantastic childhood which unfortunately kids today, including mine, do not have. There are no more paedophiles in the community today than there were back then but that is what modern parents perceive as being on every street corner. The children are no more or less likely to be abducted, kidnapped, robbed, beaten up or lead astray any more so than they were 35 years ago and yet our perception is that they can't leave the house without an adult. What has happened? Why the massive shift in perception which has so seriously affected how we bring up our children and what are the consequences going to be? Technology, progress and access to a rampant media are part of the reason. So yes we live longer and have better education. Still there is worldwide poverty and still there is slavery, we don't calll it slavery any more but that is what it is. The masses doing without more so the elite few can live in luxury. This is not what Jesus had in mind when he tried to introduce to people a new way of thinking - not patriarchal, not about heirarchy, not about the self but about the Kingdom of God here on earth. Now, where did I put my i-phone, I need to check my stocks... ;-)

I am no expert but of course I have an opnion! My opinion is that we are better off in far many respects with regard to the development of technology and increased levels of education, but possibly worse off spiritually and socially for a number of reasons. The loss of spirituality in that which is the post enlightenment mechanistic Newtonian world view has left a void that science cannot fill. This together with the breakdown of community as we seem to have less and less to do with our immediate neighbours in our street where we live, whilst at the same time embracing technologies which enable a more superficial social interaction with relative strangers, where little or no emotional investment is required. There are many many reasons for the shift from community to the family in isolation in a community, but all the same, it seems to be happening more and more, and to a greater extent. I used to play in the street with neighbours, know all the adults in the street and they all knew me. This shared "parenting" was a natural consequence of knowing your neighbours and a real community. Today, you'd be lucky if a parent would allow their kid outside to play on their own, without a cell phone or a minder. We've all gone mad! Paul

We are our only frame of reference for thinking about the Divine so I suppose this is a natural consequence. I would argue that Native Americans prior to the arrival of settlers could be an example of people living in small groups, in tune with themselves and their environment (re. the Earth Mother post I mentioned previously). Paul

I've been reading Reclaiming Spirituality by Diarmud O Murchu and he has a chapter devoted to this topic, chapter 7 - Reclaiming the Femanine Heart. His position is that we had a much more even playing field in the 70,000 years prior to montheism and the patriarchal religions. In that rather lengthy peiord prior to the agricultural revolution and subsequent development of monotheism, Earth Mother was the predominant philosophy/religion and our existence related to nature and the animals we shared the planet with, not our need to have power and control over these things as has been witnessed through patriarchal religion. The need for power and control is a male streak relating to our evolutionary drives, however it is quite destructive on a large scale without some parameters. Diarmud quotes Caitlin Matthews as saying: "We in the West are haunted by the loss of our Mother". Paul

I work with some of the criminal people you have discussed in this thread. As others have pointed out, homosexuality has nothing to do with the others in the list who partake in criminal offending. There are usually mitigating circumstances in why a person chooses to abuse children, or rape or commit other crimes; things that have happened to them in their past at a critical time in their development, which allow them to behave without remorse in their partular "normalised" behaviour. A child abuser I dealt with some years ago was repeatedly raped by his father every other night as a young boy, always together with violence. The boy grew up to do the same, to seek out opportunities to act out what happened to him and he did this through a church group. The investigation uncovered that over a 5 year period he sodomised many young children. Most parents were unaware but some did become aware and chose to pray for him together with him rather than report the abuse. Imagine how their son felt when he gets the courage to reveal the offending that has taken place against him and they do nothing except pray, and so the systematic sodomy continued night after night. I'm getting off track... I suppose my point is the people who commit these types of crimes are damaged, possibly beyond repair with regard to right thinking. They can try to control their feelings if given the right tools to do so but they may "fall off the wagon" on occasion. When they do so, lives are destroyed as a consequence. They will seek out opportunity to offend or at least fantasise about offending, so church groups, scouts, youth groups are attractive places for certain people with particular interests. There is a trust that comes with being with such organisations, which is not earned but tends to be given simply by association with that organisation. There are signs for others to see if their eyes are open to the signs. These people are in our community whether you like it or not and they always have been. Be smart as to risky situations but be Christian in your values I suppose is what I am saying. If you are aware of their feelings and they are trying to control that side of them, support them. What other choice do we have? People are still people. Just be smart about it. I know of at least one male in my congregation who has sexual fabtasies about young children. He is married with a couple of kids and a puppeteer amongst other things. I simply manage situations where my kids are at church in whatever environment so that I know there is no oppportunity for him to offend - he has not offended that I know of, simply had the thoughts. Just be kind and be smart. I'm rambling again. Regards Paul