romansh

I must admit you guys are missing the point a little ... in my opinion anyway.

If we look closely (use our awareness?) our consciousness is not what it is cracked up to be. 

I am sure I have linked to this before ... an interesting [meditative] take on personal consciousness.

I must admit there are elements in the excerpt that I can relate to; the book I thought was worth reading. As to spiders having consciousness? Consciousness could well be an illusion.

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎31 at 5:45 AM, thormas said:

Good stuff, who is the mythologist?

How or what does the mythologist say about existence itself (mistake, happenstance, purpose) and what does he/she say about the here and now dimension called eternity? It seems fine to define it so, but what is it or what does it mean? What is the 'function' of life in good and evil, in all things?

 

It is Joseph Campbell of course:

• People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive

Here is a nice selection of quotes.

If you had not read Power of Myth I strongly recommend it. If you do get the Coffee Table version. You can get it on DVD but I preferred the book.

• Religion turns poetry into prose.

3 hours ago, Burl said:

What is time to an eternal being?

Now

from my favourite comparative mythologist:

“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.”

7 hours ago, tariki said:

https://www.facebook.com/BBCOne/videos/1647755921911486/

 

Just thought the above video link says much about your topic Paul. 

Can you give the gist of the video please ... as I really do not want to open a facebook account.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I read an article today about an almost complete fossil of the giant 'lizard fish' Ichthyosaur being unearthed in India.  This fish-like reptile is dated at about 150 million years old. 

For me, reminders like this of how old the earth and the existence upon it really is, make it very hard to contemplate a God particularly interested or invested in the human species.  Terms like 'God-is-love' and recent discussions about Jesus breaking down barriers between man and God, mean little to me when I stop and think that if there was a creator God, our supposed involvement in his creation represents only 0.0004% of existence (earth being about 4.5 billion years old and human beings about 200,000yrs). 

For around 4.5 billion years, this God did not seem to care for the existence of humanity.  Often I hear God being portrayed as wanting to be in close relationship with us, so I wonder what anybody who leans toward that sort of view of God might think in relation to God's apparent lack of interest in having any such relationship (for the bulk of time) since he first created earth.

 

Yes I must admit tying God to Love is a strange concept to me. Why just love and not hate or indifference as they are of the same substrate. OK that love thing might make us feel happier, but then ...

1 hour ago, Burl said:

The Bible never claims to be the true word of God.  It does claim that all of Scripture (which includes more than just the Bible) is useful in the teaching of righteousness (2 Timothy).

But people and some religions do.

I am not going to argue with you about this, but there are verses in the Bible that seem to contradict you here.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God~s-Word-Is-True

Here is a quote from Billy Graham in his book Angels first published in 1975

Quote

I do not believe in angels because someone has told me about a dramatic visitation from an angel, impressive as such rare testimonies may be. I do not believe in angels because UFOs are astonishingly angel-like in some of their reported appearances. I do not believe in angels because ESP experts are making the realm of the spirit world seem more and more plausible. I do not believe in angels because of the sudden worldwide emphasis on the reality of Satan and demons. I do not believe in angels because I have ever seen one--because I haven't. I believe in angels because the Bible says there are angels; and I believe the Bible to be the true Word of God.

Apparently Graham has more faith than some. Here is my take on Graham's book.

But yes, wow indeed.

I can't help thinking religion as it practiced by traditional congregations (not just Christian ones) and the Oxford Dictionary etymology of the word (religion) to reconnect are very difficult to reconcile.

Reconnect to what God? Community? The environment? Each other? The universe? Again my camp video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

Thanks for the reminder ... I have been going through a series of Peterson university lectures ... started at about number 18 got to the end and started back at 1 and am at #4. This is a timely reminder to get back on the treadmill.

Not a fan of Jung. Really like Campbell though not that I agree with him that much. This is one of my favourite Campbell quotes ... I'll post it again:

Quote

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts, has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

1 hour ago, Burl said:

One reason for the decline of Christianity is the sin of egoism.  People simply believe what they want to and ignore posted warning signs.  

 

Oh perhaps it was just faith?

Of course it may not be the fault of Jesus that he did not return within a generation. In that he may well have never made that prophecy. It could be that later scribes made that prediction on his behalf.

If so what was the motivation of these later scribes? Or was it simply "Chinese" whispers in action? And yet today we try and paint a metaphorical reality on to approved translations of texts or at least some of them from two millennia ago. 

16 hours ago, thormas said:

Some think the beliefs should never have been taken literally and if that is part of the problem, a different interpretation might be worthwhile. People can indeed go out and live without a new or another interpretation but some feel there is value in the Christian story and a different take is worth a go.  So, why not for those interested?

In spite of new insights and better education some still desire faith and those involved in new interpretations already live by your 5 concluding points. Spong is a case in point.

That was the point ... even today people like Spong are taken as atheists as they do not have a literal belief. Did Spong and others start off with a literal belief? 

Is this metaphorical interpretation a post hoc belief? Was it for you? Personally I never had a literal Christian belief. 

Yes we all are to some degree indoctrinated in our beliefs ... I cannot choose to be a Buddhist at least not in this moment. 

But because of the new insights and better education fewer people have this desire for faith. It is difficult to be indoctrinated into faith when those around you are faithless. At university very few of my associates were religious and if they were it did not show. At work (in a science and engineering type world) there were fewer religious people so it was more difficult to pick up this religion meme. 

And finally they are not my points ... Those points were a distillation of what some religious scholars/investigators believe we can reliably ascribe to Jesus. There are a large handful.

You can find the complete list here.

Why would Christianity decline in the West?

Well if the literal beliefs that Jesus was the "Son of God" and at the end "He resurrected to sit at God's right hand" are no longer compulsory to be a Christian, then why bother taking them as a metaphor? People can go out and live their lives without developing a new interpretion  (or another interpretation) of texts that stretch back two millennia or more. We have had new insights about the way the universe ticks in the last two thousand years, the majority of the people in the West have much improved educations and can reason for themselves. Of course some might reason they have a pretty good interpretation of the Christian texts. Perhaps they do. But then so what? It does not mean the ancient scribes were right. 

• Otherwise, avoid rules and follow the truth you discover yourself.
• Act from awareness, not habit or convention.
• Don’t blindly repeat rituals.
• Don’t trust those with spiritual pretensions.
• Question those who presume to speak for God

Apparently Jesus's words.

3 hours ago, thormas said:

All are belief statements about (objective) reality.

This too is a belief statement about objective reality.

Also my statement is a belief statement about objective reality.

And onto infinite regress. It is not terribly helpful, I find, dismissing other people's as beliefs as beliefs Thormas; especially if they can bring corroborative evidence to the table with them. 

3 hours ago, BillM said:

Not to contentiously resurrect or derail a thread, but agnosticism is, IMO, simply a humble approach to what we limited humans can claim to know. Scientists say that we currently probably know (scientifically speaking) about 0.08% of what can be known about the universe. That leaves an awful lot to what we don't (yet) know and to our claims of objective truth. Objective truth (reality as it really is) may exist, but we only know it through our subjective senses and ponderings.

Most agnostics are reluctant to claim to know for certain, as certain knowledge seems to imply omniscience, something that we don't have. So most of our knowledge centers on probabilities, on what seems most likely. For instance, as an agnostic, I don't know for certain that there is not some kind of consciousness that created the universe. I suspect that maybe there is. But it is highly improbable, IMO, that it is the deity of the bible. On the other hand, there have always been mystics who claim to "know" the sacred through experience. I find such claims interesting and worthy of serious consideration. But I don't find them to be binding on me.    

Welcome back from your travels Bill

I agree with your assessment of agnosticism ... Here are Huxley's own words on the matter ...  as he coined the term:

• Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology.

Now sure meanings change but this agrees with your view somewhat and it is in contrast to Thormas's point of view. And for Thormas I would point out the likes of Mark Vernon, who describes himself as an agnostic theist ... ie someone who cannot be sure god does exist but believes anyway. Either way agnosticism need not be simply relevant to god, but to how we approach life.

Gods appear to come in two general flavours: Theistic (personal) or deistic (impersonal) in character. 

And as an aside many modern atheists describe themselves simply as someone who does not believe in god. ie a negative belief in the philosophical sense as opposed to someone who believes god does not exist.  ie the positive belief. 

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎29 at 9:20 AM, thormas said:

OK -  isn't it assumed given the big bang theory that some star dust eventually become part of the oak (and all). Sounds like love.

Yep ... some of the stardust configures into some parasites too. Yep that is love too.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎27 at 2:52 PM, thormas said:

Wasn't focusing on cause/effect more on the possibilities inherent in something: example, the acorn. It's possibility is to become a tree.

And why limit it to acorns ... star dust becoming an oak?

Burl, the only teleology I am aware of are the confabulations of humankind. An example of this physical teleology please?

3 hours ago, thormas said:

It is 'determined' that as the acorn is to grow into a tree, so too, we can only grow into our nature. However, by predetermination, I mean it is not determined prior to existence who will and will not be successful. So agreed.

Determined in the sense cause and effect result in the acorn growing into an oak or not.

Cause and effect will also determine what natures, if any, we will grow into.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎20 at 1:43 PM, thormas said:

My understanding is that teleology when it pertains to theology (or religion) is concerned with the purpose and design of the world. Believe mine is therefore on record.

Teleology is explaining things by purpose. The purpose of an acorn is to grow into an oak.

For some teleology is a nonsense, in that humans think they have it therefore other junks of the universe have it too.

On ‎2017‎-‎08‎-‎21 at 5:30 AM, thormas said:

So a human being will not become an elephant but unlike that creature, his/her fundamental life is not 'predetermined?'

You are right not necessarily predetermined ... in that I don't know or can't be absolutely certain. Having said that, I am certain as I can be, fundamental life is determined. It is almost a definitional thing. But this is a different thread.

Joseph

While I can't immediately put my finger on it, I think there are some major differences between my waking perception and dreams in general. But end of the day as I think you are suggesting both are products of past experience, chemistry and genetics etc.

The largest difference I think is the immediacy of my waking perception ... it stretches back just a couple seconds, though it does draw on historical events from my local past and evolutionary past. Whereas dreams by and large draw on almost forgotten pasts if not forgotten ones. Dreams at least for me are of little sense to me. Tough to remember and generally rapidly gone.

Dreams and waking perception are both of the universe unfolding. I can't help but be reminded of a tom Clancy quote"

• The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense.

For me my waking perception (of reality) makes more sense than my dreams.

For me losing the life quote, I interpret as understanding an intrinsic self is an illusion and moving on from there. What the ancient scribes meant by this, I don't know. And where did it come from and was it borrowed from some earlier Eastern tradition, again, I don't know.

Well thormas I find it interesting that we as human beings confabulate a teleology for not just for ourselves, others, but also for animals, plants etc, sometimes for inanimate objects, the universe and an imaginary entity that is present to everything. If you find teleology fertile ground here go for it.