romansh

Fullness of Life? Continuation of life? Beatific Vision? Heaven Oneness Unity Communion Faith in God Real Self All proper nouns? Dismissing the beliefs of others ... no more so than you might be dismissing mine? But whether I am dismissing the beliefs of others or not is irrelevant in that I do not (or might not) share them. Is arguing against a belief dismissing it? Recognizing that beliefs come and go in individuals and societies at large is that dismissing? Thinking that some beliefs are more accurate than others is that dismissing those less accurate beliefs?

Thormas ... I am not writing anything off as a fad. Just that I think fad is a accurate description at least in some ways. I am sure if we were to research the nature of Christian afterlife over history it would not be a constant vision. This vision will be a reflection of humanity's understanding at the time and no doubt other memes that are floating about. As prayers go I think Eckhart's Thank you works ... But then having an afterlife as a thank you makes little sense to me. Life more deeply lived? True Self? Real ... In some ways it is amusing .... my internet avatar romansh has a lower case r. This is a happy accident in that my world view came to match the mistyping. The universe did not have life so it could know itself either. Teleology not withstanding.

Yes all peoples seem to have had some strange beliefs regarding the afterlife at some time or another. At least strange to me. Never being strongly imbued with the Christianity meme it is not a hot topic for me ... A Christian afterlife. But how these things came to pass? We can take a look at certain fads take hold in society today. Take a look at how political correctness is taking hold. Voltaire's I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It. Can be safely dismissed in some quarters simply because it was spoken by an old privileged white guy. Anything disagreeable is now open to censure. I suppose this to will pass. But many cultures have a belief in an afterlife. These can be seen (I think) as memes, aids or enticements to living a "better" life. The memes evolved over time and the most successful ones survived and replicated efficiently ... to take a page out of Dawkins's book.

I can't remember in which of his books it was, but I would bet I read it in the Power of Myth and perhaps another. My friend Google seems to agree https://www.google.ca/search?q=etermity+is+not+a+long+time+now+Campbell&ie=&oe= “Eternity isn't some later time. Eternity isn't even a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now that all thinking in temporal terms cuts off.... the experience of eternity right here and now, in all things, whether thought of as good or as evil, is the function of life.”

Campbell's point (if a read him correctly) was that eternal/eternity means a long time in the present day vernacular ... but a better translation is now. Campbell is explaining how eternal should be interpreted.

Why? What is the cause or what is the purpose? Any purpose we find I suspect will be a confabulation in what is ultimately a universe without purpose. What is the cause of the belief? The universe is some shape form or another. Carl Sagan said We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. I think he could have said it more accurately ... We are a way for the cosmos to understand itself .... but what the hell. The way I read Campbell it is now that we experience and life is not eternal “Life is like arriving late for a movie, having to figure out what was going on without bothering everybody with a lot of questions, and then being unexpectedly called away before you find out how it ends.”

You mean conscious like I am in a deep sleep?

Joseph Campbell suggests that eternity/eternity is not some really long time or some point in time in the distant future but it is now. ​In Buddhism Stephen Batchelor says the point is not to be continually reincarnated but to get to the point where reincarnation does not occur. And from a scientific point of view, to have some sort of eternal life would require an external energy source to maintain some form of "usefulness". So what are we to do with this eternal life that is sucking energy from somewhere and dissipating it? I can't help thinking it is some leech like existence. The world was just fine without me, with me and it will be just fine again without me. I suspect this eternal life thingy is a metaphor that has gone off the rails by being taken literally.

Fair enough Matthew So how do you choose your Christian values from those that are available to you? Looking over the fence, so to speak, in to the Christian garden, there appear to be a variety of values some of which are diametrically opposed. Moral teachings of Jesus ... hnmmm? In some way it does not matter, but when you refer to these teachings are you referring to Christ (the mythical figure later authors ascribed to Jesus) or the historical Jesus that we know very little about and we can actually attribute very little directly to this figure? I think you can understand why I might be a little skeptical as to what are the actual causes behind your beliefs. You describe yourself as skeptical ... and yet you say They may be a clue to a real supernatural reality. ​I can't help thinking the supernatural is a contradiction in terms. If the supernatural does not respond to cause and effect ... then it may as well not exist. If does respond to cause and effect it is not supernatural in any meaningful sense of the word. Anyway just some thoughts. rom

Mathew ... Hi, Welcome too. The question that comes to my mind is where do our wants come from? But that belongs on a different thread. But why Progressive Christian and not Progressive Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu? Why not a Progressive Atheist or better still a Progressive Agnostic? I think it is positive that you recognize this want or need for a "Source". Personally I would try and examine/understand the cause(s) of this need. And by definition it can't be nether-worldly.

Burl wrote: Christianity will never make any sense if you ignore Jesus' divinity. ​And here divinity seems to be taking on a meaning of having an extra dimensional capability (ie beyond the four we readily experience). so this might be rewritten: Christianity will never make any sense if you ignore Jesus' ability to access other dimensions. So we might ask: Assuming this is true are these extra dimensions supernatural? Can any of us access these dimensions? Do these dimensions (and contents, if it even make sense to think in these terms) respond to cause and effect? If so, can these extra dimensions described by laws of physics (albeit brand new ones). Or should we might bite the bullet and come to the conclusion Christianity does not make sense, or at least the more traditional interpretations of Christianity?

Tom As a point of disclosure and you being new here (welcome by the way) ... I can be seen as: the resident skeptic being agnostic (Paul is too but I am a little more outspoken) viewing things scientifically, I have a scientific background so I tend view things through that particular lens being by some definitions an atheist ... I cannot call myself a Progressive Christian Again the universe exists (as far as I can tell). It appears to be interconnected and this is reflected in some traditions ... eg dependent origination in Buddhism. For me it is far from clear that there is any intelligence etc guiding the universe unfolding. This guiding intelligence fails Occam's razor, at least in my opinion. It seems to stem from an argument from incredulity, I can't possibly see how it was done; therefore [God, god, The Source, The One, {insert your own}] shaped universe. Simple systems can result in extremely complex patterns.

The Source and the universe? Well if were to state mybelief based on limited evidence I can muster then they must be one ... not two sepearte entities. Just letting go of that final dualism. I am sure as I can be of the universe without resorting to some sort of solipsism.

It is more about finding descriptions of that order and understanding the causes underlying that order. Here is an example of a chaotic/random process creating ordered shapes from one simple rule and a dice.

Yep ... trees brought to you by the chaos in the universe.

Yep ... this is still true for me ... even after living thirty years in Canada. I can't even get on a bicycle from what passes as the correct side here. In London you can get away without a vehicle. But understanding how the universe ticks and how we in it dance to its beat is academic.

Not to sully the other thread ... Well it might be largely academic, but for me it is an interesting academic. It leads to all sorts of 'spiritual' outlooks. And those too are largely academic for some. One nice academic aspect is, whilst driving I find myself looking in the mirror and then thinking I'll check what is behind me. I wonder if you observe the same phenomena when looking before crossing the road?

Disbelief is considered a positive belief (philosophically speaking) ... ie someone might say I believe god does not exist. And saying I don't believe is a negative belief again philosophically speaking. So not believing in pandimensional white mice is fine agnostically speaking. Though who knows, they may exist in some universe, but I have my doubts about this one. If disbelieving in pandimensional white mice is an uninteresting nothingburgerso be it. But believing in things that make no sense is fun too.

I knew agnostics were great.

And what about rubbish ... I liked that. Though knackered has two broad slang meanings tired and damaged. The latter meaning is epitomized in the knacker's yard ... slaughter house. It was not clear to me which meaning George was pointing to when he asked do you believe in God?

The cosmos is chaotic! It is the interesting bit. Not say there is not order in it, but that order is very definitely overwritten in chaos.

I must admit I am very skeptical of a "free" choice. See you on the free will thread (or not :-) ) Note- Moved 4 posts to Free Will thread HERE (JosephM as Moderator)

The world is just fine ... I will play the game and participate.

Joseph I never meant to suggest the ego is me. But it is a particular pattern of thought, memories and viewpoints that appear to come from the shell that is me. Of course that shell is a lot more than the individual bits and pieces. It is a reflection of the environment I have come from, which in turn is a reflection of the universe we find ourselves in. The ego to me is more like a sense of my place in the great pecking order of things, for example if I were to say I am a chemist that would be moving towards ego. I might say I am a more qualified chemist than Joseph (likely accurate) and even more towards ego. To be clear I am not suggesting this sense is anyway necessarily accurate. But I think you are right I am a lot more than my ego suggests.

Well as I said before ... I would not be who I am without my ego, And Joseph Campbell asks the pertinant question whan who is wishing to still the ego?