romansh

PinkAzalea mentioned she does not feel sinful. The original sin was tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:22 God is complaining to the other gods that Adam and Eve have become like gods being able to parse things into good and evil. They could no longer remain in the Garden of Eden. Plainly Genesis is an allegory. As John mentions above, the snake is an interesting character. He is the one who encourages Eve to think in terms of good and evil. So who are the "snakes" today that encourage us to think in terms of good and evil? Pastors, priests and preachers etc come to mind. Of course there are lots of other people who are of this mind. In today's western landscape it is difficult to think of Putin as not evil. So in this sense Christianity built on salvation is based on a huge misunderstanding of Genesis.

So what I am reading into what you are saying you want to choose a "right" flavour of Christianity and in the next sentence you think it will have little meaning. Hope I am not being to "pushy", that's my style. I certainly accept you feel this way. I certainly don't believe you don't have the capability or intelligence to work out a plan for yourself, your family, community and the world in general. As to the need for where the want comes from, I suspect you missed out one important aspect, social pressure. You rightly noted evolution as an aspect, humans have evolved as social animals and social conformity is a valuable trait. I find hedonism is given a bad rap. Firstly hedonism, it is about doing things for pleasure. In its shallow aspects I agree, buying stuff for oneself, partying etc I agree does not do much after a while. And if you don't get pleasure from helping the poor or those in some kind of hurt then fair. I know you are not saying this. But if you are looking for something "more", then is this not looking for some form of pleasure that you feel you do not have at the moment? A more sophisticated form of hedonism, if you like? I think intelligent Christians discard this idea completely. I have seen people argue that the Genesis myth is really an analogy of how we create our own hell and whereas we could be metaphorically in the Garden of Eden. So ultimately your interpretation of the "horse's mouth" will be based on the myriad of influences you have had in your life? The fact that you have settled on the Bible is a reflection of those influences. Are you going to read/investigate criticisms of the Bible? Hopefully I planted a seed that causes you to examine carefully all the influences around you. When I lost the tiny bit of faith I had in Christianity, I was all to aware of its effects on society, some I agreed with, some I find horrendous.

Highlight the bit you want to quote and you should get a little pop-up saying "quote" ... click it.

And then we have hate No doubt we will have expert apologists to explain this away in terms of context etc. and give an opposite meaning. Ultimately we end up believing what we believe.

My reply was not particularly aimed at you, but more hammering home my position. I am aware in a cold analytical sort of way. I don't think you mean that though. Pollan and Harris extoll a drug induced awareness or perhaps a regular euphoric state of awareness induced at looking at the night sky will do? I look at some of the oligarchs' yachts that have been sequestered. Up until that point their outcomes had looked pretty good.

Before claiming zero percent, I would like to get a sense what spiritual means, to whoever is using the word. Welcome back by the way. You described awhile back the question do you believe in god as meaningless. This concept is close to Ignosticism, we having theological discussions without well defined terms as meaningless. So overall I agree. I have seen churchgoers sing themselves into a sort of a euphoria. This may well be a spiritual event for them. Definitely not me. I can remember seeing the Milky Way for the first time. That was a kind euphoric awe for me ... if that is spiritual I can't claim zero percent.

Sorry, I'll try to be kind. Assuming there is a God, why do you think she would want you to choose a religion? Why not live your life as you best see fit? Why choose a dogma that comes with many religions? Gandhi's Be the change you want to see in the world comes to mind. To me this seems like sound advice. Well this seems like the basis of Pascal's wager. The problem for me is what is the cost of knowingly living a lie? For some it may well be zero or even a benefit. It is not something I could do, but you no doubt will decide for yourself. Again what is making you choose? Do you need need a holy text to guide you through life? I have my own guidelines for living life, as honestly as I can. I also have a wife that tells what to do. But of course not all circumstances will fit the guidelines, and it will require some thought and action to get a desired outcome. I don't see any gods coming to our rescue. My advice is to live your life to the best of your ability, try and do what makes sense. By all means be kind and generous to those in need as it hopefully will lead to a more equitable world. If you want a dirty great big luxury yacht start saving now. Another suggestion is to examine your wants, where they came from and where the might lead.

While I did read the rest of your post, I got stuck here! Largest? While Christianity as a whole is the largest, which denomination has the intellectual property on rightness? I have heard Evangelicals argue that Catholicism is not really Christianity. Also a large consensus is not a measure of being right is it? For example, there have been times that people have believed the Sun goes around the Earth. Right? When you say right do you mean accurate, useful or something else? Say Calvinists are a little circumspect about free will. It takes some special pleading to make sense of salvation without free will, does it not? Do you think the Russian Orthodox patriarchy is interpreting Christianity "right" given the current situation in Europe? Do we take some Evangelicals insistence on the Bible as being literally true as right? Is the almost atheistic take by late John Shelby Spong and the definitely atheistic take of Gretta Vosper somehow right? Likely? You seem to suggest that we have some insight into the probabilities of being "right"? This is a bit of a bookmakers fallacy. Where punters believe the bookmakers have an insight into the outcome of a bet. The bookmakers don't care. What they care about is how much money has been placed on each bet. What you say is about as logical as if I were to argue, most of the people on Earth are not Christian therefore Christianity is likely wrong. I think a study of Bayesian probabilities might be in order here. I can't help thinking your opening line is a reflection of your biases (which of course is fair enough) and what follows is a confabulation or motivated reasoning. What if pantheism or deism are closer to the truth?

For me this "connectedness" is a matter of physics and logic. While it might be nice to feel this "connectedness" I don't have the need. Some people (Harris and Pollan in their books) have recommended entheogens (psychedelics) to obtain this feeling. Again I don't feel the need and so far have not. But I am sort of curious. Having said that, I think consciousness is the great trip of a lifetime and I am always suspicious of wanting "more". Anyway ... physics and logic tells us we are connected to the universe, never mind one another, whether we like it or not and whether we are aware of it or not. We can't define articulate spirituality and yet it is important in our lives? Is it important in the sense of getting a report out on time otherwise there might be consequences we don't like? You just iterated my point of Is it important that we are spiritual or not? For me, if a person is oblivious to this connectedness (don't like the term) that is fine, that is how the universe unfolded. That I might proselytize for connectedness, akay for Islam and you for a progressive Christianity that too is fine. Does the concept of mattering exist beyond the human mind (perhaps some other minds)?

Is Phil aware you are reposting his blog? Either way a link to it would be in order? Perhaps an invite to Phil, to participate, would be in order also?

Perhaps, but I am far from sure I know what it is. I don't even know if it matters. I am not religious in the everyday sense of the word. But I could argue I am religious in the semantic literalist sense of the word. What if someone claims they are not spiritual, what they have seen of it is hokum, and have no intent chasing after this ephemeral state of mind. Does this in any way decrease the 'value' of this person's being? Is someone who is seen as or feels spiritual, better than someone who isn't? Perhaps being indifferent to spirituality is the root of spirituality. Maybe it is like enlightenment, knowing you have not found it is the enlightenment. It might be like Joseph's acceptance and my understanding. Perhaps Joseph might not be accepting of everything and I don't understand everything, but that too is OK.

I agree with you Paul ... though I would express it a bit more strongly. In previous articles he says you find spirituality in your own way and here he is saying it's got to be done in this prescribed way. It's pablum. And then to dispense that nonsense about Mother Teresa ... While Christopher Hitchens is not a completely disinterested observer, he is not completely jaundiced either: While people were donating to the terminally ill in Calcutta, Bojaxhiu opened 500 convents. To be fair to Phil, a lot people were taken in.

So what what did the chemical reactions going on in his brain really mean? You seem to be suggesting that he really did not mean what he reported as his thoughts? I am not sure I buy that.

This is where I god stuck the other week when I read this: Now that he wanted Putin dead and hoped/prayed for his benign death, was not the problem. I get that, personally I would not be bothered about the benign bit. And I too admit, this is a dark side of me I am not overly happy with. It's the bit that Gulley thinks he has some insight into how these things work. As written he does not seem to realize that his hopes and prayers are, to all intense porpoises, irrelevant. That he thinks his prayer that God carry out an benign assassination at is behest would be heard never mind ignored I find totally amazing. I am not sure this belongs on a Progressive Christian website other than for discussion.

If you are trying to garner some sympathy I think you are fresh out of luck. The Aussies inherited a vaguely sensibly state of affairs from the Brits. As did the Canucks. Whereas, the poor old Yanks appear to have evolved a state of permanent political purgatory.

I read this a while back ... well half of it, got stuck in the middle. We seem stuck in some Christian dualism with the author. Zinn looks like he was an interesting guy. I think Gandhi summarized it in Be the change you want to see in the world. A critic described Zinn as having a Manichaean view of history. Had look up the word. Having said that, some Republicans want his books banned from schools, so he can't be all bad

I don't think one communicates with god, not in any meaningful way. If you are looking for a sense of deep connection, almost awe, then that's a different matter. I look out at this valley, this world, this universe ... this is enough for me. I don't want or need more. The god you are looking for may well be an illusion. This world is real, this is what we should be be having a relationship and communicating with. Does this make sense?

In pantheism ... you cannot disconnect from god. That is about as close as I get to god.

Welcome Noodles. Have fun.

Hi Elizabeth ... welcome In some ways I can't help, I never was very religious even at my peak in my youth. Only with a vague concept of god that did not interact much with my day to day existence. Over the years that too faded. My childhood by and large was good and life has been kind. Loving parents (but not necessarily good at parenting), a good education that I could take advantage, a loving wife of forty five years, a job that I enjoyed that took me to places all over the world. Basically a fulfilled life. That changed in some ways fifteen year ago this month. Our sixteen year old son died from a seizure that was not caught in time. This left a gaping hole in our, my, life. I suppose I now ask questions like how is this universe unfolding. what makes it tick, to fill that gap. I'm finding that the concept god is not necessary to fill that hole in my life. The fact we might look for answers in Jesus (or Genesis pun) is simply an accident of birth. It's like the proverbial drunk looking for his keys under the street light because it is where he can see and not because it is where he lost them. For an agnostic/atheist like me faith is not something I want to be attached to.

Welcome Soliloquy It is a quiet community and for the most par quite thoughtful rom

:rolf:

Occasionally I find a thread narrows and only takes up the left half of the monitor. I must have clicked on something, but for the life of me, I can't find how to go back to the full page. Does anyone else experience this and if so do they know the secret of getting back to the full page width?

The usual answers work here: moves in mysterious ways, infinite wisdom, beyond human capacity to understand etc etc. The questions for me are more philosophical than theological. What are the underlying causes for my beliefs, what are the mechanisms for the process called belief? But my point was Anaxagoras was ahead of his time, not beholden to the then going deity of his culture, had explanations for the reflected light of the moon. But not surprisingly, he was quite wrong in other aspects. ie the Earth was flat.

Good luck on your journey and hope you find your boots not too comfortable ... for me not being sure is an asset not a detriment. Google Gretta Vosper, you may find a kindred spirit there. Or at least you can compare the latest style of shoes ...