romansh

I do not need this particular vessel Craig, but I wish those who sail in her well. Is this vessel your destination Craig?

Genesis 3:22

A while ago there were an alternative (secular) set of ten commandments floating around, which I thought were not bad, but could not agree with completely. Anyway had a go at them back then for myself ... only came up with eight points: 1) Be aware of ourselves, our environment and how we interconnect. 2) Make an attempt to understand this interconnectivity and its ramifications. 3) Be aware of our desires and the likely consequences of their implementation. 4) Avoid thinking in terms of right (good) and wrong (evil). 5) Remember we came into this world as stardust; we will leave in the same way. 6) Our access to existence is incomplete, so cut ourselves and others some slack. 7) Evaluate our beliefs by corroborating them with observation using logic; it is an iterative process. 8) Be a little uncertain in our personal beliefs.

Burl wrote Well I have been trying explain Burl. Perhaps as an example ... for the next fifteen seconds, Burl, choose to believe there is no God, just fifteen seconds. Apparently we can choose our beliefs?

Then do yourself a favour and avoid my posts Burl.

Hi Craig As an afterthought ... are you after modern interpretations of how the Bible could be interpreted or effective fellowship? Going to point 4 Perhaps finding out about service clubs and their activities might be for you? In that it is what we do that matters and not some academic debate of Paul, Jesus and Totems?

Hi Paul Just to pick on one the points ... perhaps one I hold dear. We have to pick from a diverse set of sources; we have no choice, free or otherwise. Even if we use just one translation of the Bible as the source, our interpretation of it will be affected by experiences in our daily lives. It will be affected by our ability to understand complex inter-related issues. The question for me is how do we work out whether a particular principle (or set of) in a particular situation will get the result we are striving for. How do we error check?

Thanks for your reply Craig. I am not expecting proof, but a little bit of evidence would be a first step at least for me. We drop the word God and replace it with surrogates like Unity and Oneness, even Sacred. Are we allowed to question divinity and the Sacred and if so how vociferously? Fair enough. I can't help thinking it is the spin we put on the these principles. Every action has a reaction and in a societal context the reaction can be vastly more complex than the original act. You assume a positive value in these principles; perhaps? But every principled action will have unintended consequences, some could very well be harmful. So working off a set of principles might be a useful shortcut but we do need to evaluate how they might be applied and are they effective. If I were to be critical of the secular community, is that it is not really a community. This in part we are coming out quite religious societies and it is not always easy to display a lack of belief; some parts of the world it is downright dangerous. I can't help to some extent the secular community has thrown out the baby with the bathwater when disavowing religion. Or at least the broader concept of religion. Having said that the more socialistic governments have at least taken on the mantle of caring for the disenfranchised, allowing the general community to distance themselves from the problems a little.

Well I am impressed by your beer fridge. I must admit I like red wines, particularly shiraz and malbec. I do look out for the Barossa Valley wines. Either a local box wine or a bottle 15 to 20 $ range. The Californian ... Apothic Red has been good value. Every two or three years take a trip to the Okanagan Valley and stock up on some reds. Beers ... generally IPAs. The best ever (2007) was at the Glacier Brew House in Anchorage, fermented twice with hops and served at 14 C ... which is/was really unusual for the States. Spirits ... generally try different single malts. Glenn Fiddich is the boring standard go to

you asked for the context ... it's in the link

It's a quote from you

The "issue" for me is when we catch ourselves saying things like:

Non-Progressive Christian are not allowed post in the Progressive Christianity thread. Which is fair enough. Anyway this led me to clarify for myself, if no one else, Why I am not a Progressive Christian. Progressive Christians: Point 1: Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life; Not sure I believe in the Sacred. The uppercase Oneness and Unity fill me with a little trepidation, I suspect it could be pointing to something that is not really there. I can see a unity and a oneness in existence but ... Point 2: Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey; Sacredness and Oneness of life, again the upper case. Sure the teachings attributed to Jesus might lead to the understanding the S and O of life. But I would argue it is not that we can draw from diverse sources ... we have to. Point 3: Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, ... I have no problem with this, but the wording is strange (I thought). While the word all is in upper case atheists are not mentioned but agnostics are. Also the incentive to write this post to some degree is caused by a lack of "complete" inclusiveness. OK I understand the wish to protect parts of the community; but ... Point 4: Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe; In a way I agree with this statement. It is a bit more complex than that. My behaviour alone is not the "fullest" expression of what I believe. Point 5: Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes; Again not sure what is meant by grace ... but using my definition (an ease) I would agree. But I have admit I find value in reconciling the results of our searches with the scientific method. Point 6: Strive for peace and justice among all people; I have no problem with this, but it is a bit of a motherhood statement,. Point 7: Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth; This brought me head to head with the free will debate. Can the Earth be any other way than it is? Now I might want it be different/cleaner/whatever but then, the universe unfolding will determine whether or not I will do anything about it Point 8: Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love. Well I have had a life-long path of learning. All of us do that to some degree or another. When the universe unfolds I may or may not find compassion Selfless love? "Love your neighbour as you love yourself"? Overall this 2011 version (for me) is harder to argue against than the original eight points highlighted in the front page of the forum. Perhaps it is time to update the points to the new Eight Points? Overall I cannot call myself a Progressive Christian, though (I think) I see fairly closely eye to eye with Paul when it comes to the profane and Joseph when it comes to oneness and unity (note the lower case ) Would others like to comment on where they agree or see differences in their take on the 2011 Eight Points.

Thormas wrote OK Paul may have chosen to look at other evidence. Perhaps there were cracks developing in his belief? Upon looking at a more complete data set Paul could no longer sustain his belief and lost it. Looking at another data set is not choosing to believe ... and I cannot say it more clearly than that. Perhaps? cf But that is fine ... what is your evidence for it not being an illusion - not as it seems?

I am not allowed to post on the Progressive Christianity forum ... it is as simple as that!

I am not allowed to post in that thread ...the Rulz

Thormas ... I am not allowed to answer on the Progressive Christianity thread and Agnosticism is a more appropriate thread anyway Paul's position makes perfect sense to me. Again when choosing beliefs to say we choose beliefs you are using the phrase in a non standard way. For example as a child I might have believed the sun goes around the Earth. it certainly seems that way and language certainly reinforced that point of view. I certainly did not choose to believe the sun went around the Earth ... I just did. As I went to school. my parents explained, saw the plethora of evidence that the Earth spins and goes around the Sun ... I ended up believing in a different model of our solar system. There was no "conscious" choosing. So are you not buying in because you don't want it to be an illusion? Here I would refer you to my short essay on free will.

Yes, it has been addressed in this thread on this site in various forms and places. Very simply, we are a product of the way our chemistry (and all the other sciency bits) behave. Our bodies, thoughts and resultant actions have prior causes, that stretch back to varying degrees into time. Consequently the perceptions/thoughts about an independent self are an illusion. Ultimately our "selves" are product of and part of the environment they have crystallized from. A scientific perspective of interbeing or bit of discussion on this site

While I understand the answer to be a joke and frivolous ... which is fair enough. It does not address the deeper aspects of tea and not-tea .... the self and not-self.

And apparently I did (at least according to the Gospel of Thormas) ... The tea I chose did not contain a single leaf of Camellia sinensis Therefore I had tricked myself into drinking a non-tea. And this all plays into the duality of language. What is tea and what is not-tea. Where does tea stop and the rest of the universe begin.

And here we have Thormas in reply My beliefs are not a choice in any of the usual senses of the word choice. I cannot choose to believe in life after death for the next five minutes, but I do believe I could choose to make a cup of tea ... and I believe I will. But my choice to make that cup of tea [or not] will not be free of prior causes.

I find even with agnostic tendencies that I have to tread uncertain steps; having said that I can't help but think it would be foolish to throw away the thousand times something worked, just because it might not on the thousand and first step. I have never met anyone who thinks they know everything ... perhaps you are confounding having an opinion on everything and knowing everything [of importance]? And I could ask are your posts opinions or are you stating some "knowing"? And if I may ... I can't help but think the underlining and the mixture of cases and bolding detracts from clear expression.

Paul said on the Progressive Christianity channel While I see this as fairly safe and innocuous and even "good advice", but seen through the lens of no free will it seems a little strange, especially the first sentence. Through the lens of no free will all we might do is either we will or will not do "the best" and be happy or not. Our belief in free will creeps into our language all the time.

My immediate reaction is: I don't really understand your point. Second ... I have never met anyone who sees themselves as closed-minded ... but then I am likely missing a lot.

Higher senses? I would settle for developing reason or at least common sense.