romansh

Welcome Dan Your post epitomizes the legacy that reverberates around Christianity. Seeking of perfection and its unattainability. It is a cross that many Christians bear ... so to speak. If we accept that human beings and indeed everything else are the chemistry and physics doing its thing, then many concepts like perfection and imperfection fade. That we might think a one human being is more perfect or imperfect than another is nonsense ... at least in my opinion. Perfection, Christ's or someone else's is an illusion. rom

Can I suggest Gretta Vosper ... She is from Kingston ... I don't know where her ministry is now. Perhaps if you can get hold of her somehow, she can recommend something sensible. (I have heard her speak ... I think she is a good halfway house).

Yes especially in my province, BC, where where non-Christians outnumber Christians.

You are right Jimmy ... the story is all rainbows, fluffy unicorns and teddy bears. What the world needs is more:

Not being a Christian J3:16 leaves me cold. What a horrible concept, and based on a faulty premise too.

So effectively you are an atheist? Baring in mind Dawkins described pantheism as "sexed-up atheism". I never said you did, yet you seek out religious people in preference to say non religious ... with the exception of your atheist wife of course. "Divine" is one of these words that is bandied about, like "spirituality", I must admit I am losing my grip on the understanding of these concepts. Is the feeling of the divine an illusion?

For you how is this different from pantheism? Yes many describe this in terms of transcendence ie beyond understanding. Out of curiosity can you provide some examples of these values and and perspectives that unbelievers don't have? This is obviously false ... you appear to know God is unknowable. I agree I found that serious life experiences can make one amenable to all sort of things.

I must admit, I find this the logical position to take. I am not sure how it limits us to wondering about this supposed 'more' and perhaps we should consider a supposed 'less' while we are at it. But we can be reasonably confident things are not as they seem. As you likely are aware I am not overly fussed about any alleged gods, but I am curious as to how people ascertain the alleged properties of their god. And probably as I mention before, pantheism seems the closest position to any theism I could entertain. I can't help thinking when people point to God, in reality it is a distraction. The wonders of the universe are my 'more'.

Fair enough Steve. But my point remains the more well defined Gods like those of the Norse, Greek, Roman and Abrahamic versions, or at least the literal interpretations of them can be discarded. I suspect we hang on (as progressives) to the various labels for a variety of reasons. We take the stories and interpret them as metaphor and debate which interpretation is better. With the science being in the "knowledge business", the knowledge is always provisional and in fact could be seen as fundamentally as agnostic to the understanding it produces. And the eighth and final letter has been issued. Have not read it yet ... but we can find some commentary here.

Yes belief is like that. Until it fades. Welcome again.

Welcome fuzzy ... and I must admit I like the concepts of fuzziness and chaos. I transitioned to atheism/agnosticism in my mid twenties and haven't looked back. Having said that I never was a strong believer. For awhile I looked at God as a loving God, but there was too much evidence against that. Anyway, glad to share a path with you for a while. I live in Canada and find the politics in the USA completely bewildering, makes our nonsense seem sane rom

Could the world be other than what it is? The universe is unfolding and our actions are part of that unfolding. This is all part of the free will debate. And a quote by Joseph Campbell: You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation. I'm not suggesting Campbell believed in evil, but that seeing the world through the lens of good and evil (better and worse) is where the mistake is made. Genesis 3:22 gives us a clue to this point of view, if we are inclined that way.

And here's the mistake.

Is this true for the metaphorists as well? Or are they OK to make up their interpretations as they go along?

Well ... if we define God in some substantial way or with properties we can interact with, then we could argue we can disprove the well defined God. For example the "God is Love" brigade, would seem to imply God is fairly limited, unless we delve into some heavy semantic shell game. Now of course some people will point out quite accurately (I think) science is not in the proof business. But disproof, is slightly different. Take the Morley Michelson experiment for luminiferous ether or do we still need to consider the concept of phlogiston as a viable prospect. I think when "metals" get heavier when they burn, is sufficient evidence that the concept of phlogiston is on the wrong garden path.

My question is, what are the reasons I should care? It's not as though the Bible is some oracle I need to decipher?

I get it ... Me thinking of the chair as red benefits me more than the chair. But I am not sure how ignoring the illusory nature of forgiveness or the chair being red is of an 'ultimate' benefit. Would not "understanding there is nothing to forgive" be of benefit as well? To think of forgiveness as a benefit, one would have to think that there is some sort of independent good or not good floating around. Think of Alan Watts' Chinese farmer story here. Maybe?

The strange thing ... in a no free will universe there is nothing to forgive. Actions that seem to require forgiveness are like objects that are red. And the irony is ... Christianity as practiced by many is a really judgemental religion. Even here ... some actions have been judged as requiring forgiveness?

Oh I would. A lack of consciousness is not even dependent on no brain activity. A well administered general anesthetic goes a long to demonstrating this fact.

Meaning? Things have meaning in the same way as my kitchen chair is red. A longer explanation available on request. Death ... I am not expecting an afterlife. So I am attached at the moment to the experience I (perhaps we) call life. This universe is a zero sum enterprise, perhaps even a negative sum. I have been lucky, I have had more than my share of what this universe has to offer, so I am happy to hang on a bit longer. At some point I may have my fill of more than my share. So non existence may seem attractive at that point. I don't think suicide or euthanasia should be stigmatized. Not encouraged but understood. I had a squash buddy who committed suicide. Apparently his daughter came home to find him. There's got to be a less painful way. You seem maudlin today?

The sixth and seventh letters have been published ... debating whether there is "new" knowledge in art and literature. I wonder if art and literature can be thought of as a proxy for religion? Are The Methods Used By Science The Only Ways Of Knowing? (letter.wiki)

So what is the attraction of looking at these ancient texts? Physics describes the behaviour of the universe: thermodynamics, relativity, quantum phenomena gives us insights into how the universe ticks. Quantum phenomena link the infinitesimally small to the unimaginably large cosmos. It shows the universe is all interconnected. We certainly don't have all the answers or certainty for that matter, but that is OK. Chemistry describes to us how the building blocks of life come together, how biochemistry shapes us. How chemical patterns over time have evolved to form life. It shows we are all connected biologically. Again we don't have all the answers but that is OK. We can examine the interconnections of our psyches with our biochemistry and environment. We won't get it perfect, but that is OK. It is time, I think, to reconnect to the universe at least conceptually and in so doing, to one another. We might not get it all right, but that too is OK. Incidentally, reconnect is the literal etymological translation of the word religion. Trying to "harmonize" contradictions in the Bible is definitely taking our eyes of the ball. Checking for contradictions in our understanding of our place in the universe might be of more benefit. Some 2000 year old text might get some things right, but I think we have more accurate sources these days.

I think you know my position well Paul. Why would someone look to a two thousand year old world view to live life by? Surely, there are more current sources. The ancients do not have a monopoly on truth, never mind unchanging truth. I would argue our understanding of evolution and the resulting interconnectedness of life and the inanimate 'should' give us pause to give a momentary sense of awe.

John, I replied to you on this topic in the science and religion thread on March 14th

Welcome Anona Hope you find what you are looking for here. If you would like a view from a very secular and devout agnostic, I am happy to provide mine. Welcome