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 that Raven. 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

Thanks for replying Dutch and Yvonne. I have just ordered a book by O'Murchu called Quantum Theology based on seeing this talk from Professor Cox. His day job is at the Large Hadron Collider so you would hope that he knows what he is talking about. Of course Dutch might be quite correct, I could have misunderstood Mr Cox, but he seemed to me to be saying every electron in the universe is connected and must behave according to the Pauli Principle, which meant as a consequence that if there is a change in state in one electron in a quantum field, then every other electron in the universe in a quantum field must adjust slightly, meaning that everything is connected to everything quite literally. I hope to learn a little more now my book has arrived. If I do I'll let you know. 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 apologise up front for not being an expert in a topic which I introduce for discussion, but that is one of the main reasons for doing so. I recently watched Professor Brian Cox deliver a talk on TV (via the internet of course) about quantum physics and the make up of everything - matter and energy. One of the things he talked about was the Pauli Exclusion Principle which if I am to put into simple language means that any electron cannot occupy the same quantum field as any other electron; he simplifies this in the talk by describing quantum fields as energy levels. A consequence of this well proven principle is that whenever a change in energy level is brought about which changes the state of one of these electrons in its energy level, such as heating it up, then every single electron in the entire universe must change slightly to allow this change to occur. In other words, everything is truly connected to everything else at the atomic level. This to me was quite profound and it started to sound like Theology, where science and religion seem to be, dare I say it, converging? Here is a shortened version of the talk which solely pertains to the Pauli Exclusion Principle but you'll find the full length show at the side somewhere, the long one is about 58 minutes. The short clip below is 1 minute and 42 seconds. Any thoughts? Paul

Yes just the regular Sunday service. Today was about love and what that means and again we broke up into groups of four or five half way through the sermon to discuss things, then back into it after 10 minutes or so, onward and upward so to speak. I enjoy the interaction and the differing views on topics. I attend a Presbyterian church by the way. Paul

I attend a contemporary church where there is a real mix. It gets interesting when we often break into small groups during a service to discuss points, then come back and a spokesperson from each small group summarises the group discussion to the Minister and the rest of the congregation. Some are very much literalist and struggle with my perspective (even I struggle with my perspective!) but not so much as to halt proceedings. I've hardened to their sensitivities when the feathers get ruffled, and they have in turn tolerated and listened as I explore topics in my way. It has actually been quite good and healthy, now that I am getting used to having an opinion which I don't mind sharing in the church environment. They seem interested in how I find value in a non literalist approach to Christianity. I think as long as we all give each other room to explore in our own way and maybe even listen to each other, it has to be a good thing. To be fair, it has been as much about my attitude as it has been about others. I spent a long time in church being quiet and feeling like an imposter but since I have "come out" as it were, I feel much better about discussing things and just because I'm in the minority has not meant I have been made to feel like anything other than part of the congregation. That is how it is for me at the moment anyway. Paul