romansh

Just curious ... materialism has two broad meanings ... the scientific sense that everything can be considered material ... or the attachhment sense? Which one is he pointing to?

This picture is a little old now ... 2008 Taken in the Andes (about 5000 m altitude) In the background there are some dino footprints in positive relief, estimated to be 120 million years old. So nine years out of date is not bad. Down the road (0.5 km) on the other side there were some footprints in negative relief.

I agree with you here Paul (more or less, you know me ). The question, for me becomes, then how do we interpret the religious texts. How do we calibrate our interpretations? Do we calibrate between other so called Christian interpretations, do we look over the fence at the other tribes beliefs and interpretations? Or do we do something courageous? Armed with some rudimentary guidelines, do we step out into this world, put reason to work and find our own way? Adjusting our guidelines as reason and experience might be want to inform us? Sure we will make mistakes ... but that is OK.

No belief is not a choice ... at least not in the usual sense of the word. That is the conclusion/opinion I have found myself at. I can't help but believe the scientific method is a reasoned approach to life. I don't know how I could choose otherwise. While I am aware much of the time I actually am on some sort of autopilot. In the vernacular I might choose to put sugar in my tea. But is putting sugar in tea a belief in any meaningful sense of the phrase? Regarding "Well I don't believe in that God either", I can juxtapose Campbell's "I don’t think you can call a person an atheist who believes in as many gods as I do.” Me personally ... the only "god" that I so far don't disbelieve is a pantheistic one.

Depends on what you mean by gave and God I suppose. If you mean some thing like: the universe unfolded and gave us a capacity for thought that can make not totally unreasonable observations and predictions about our environment .. then definitely. I will transliterate a Latvian word for you labdiena ... in its original it is labdiena. So how is this easier to read? A translation (literally good-day) is better I think, which is more useful. Anyway just a curiosity. Which of the Hindu traditions should I read first ... they are older and therefore better, no? And this goes back to my original point to Lissy, why Christianity other than this is a Progressive Christian site and that is her belief system. I suppose it is fair enough, but not very questioning.

I am just curious about the value of transliterations ... other than we can put on our own spin in the translation of the transliterated phrase. Is this what you suggest I am agreeing with?

double post

Well ... this one as far we can tell is a very accurate description of the way the universe ticks. And not taking this observation into account is also potentially limiting. But a bit more on track ... Looking for strategies for dealing with the so called human condition relying on a modern interpretation of a close to two thousand year old text while interesting is also potentially limiting. Thinking about are our proposed actions is also limiting as is not thinking. Ultimately our ball [desire, will, etc.] is what we are talking about here.

Is that the conclusion you have come too?

What is pure freedom of mind? If you are asking me it is an illusion. Freedom of the mind is not being able to see the strings. And as much as I like Batchelor I think he is misleading us when he says creative freedom of awakening. ​Simply because we cannot see our sources does not mean they are not there. We live in a chaotic universe and occasionally two disparate sources bump into one another and we think of as creative.

It did not work for a certain minority in Germany in the last century. It is tough to be on the high ground when your adversary thinks you are actually the low ground. We can point to all sorts or religious, texts morals, ethics etc But if some reasoning does not enter into the equation then the whole lot is nonsense, at least in my opinion. We can interpret these texts every which way. But end of the day our actions and the consequences are the proof of the pudding. We can point to ancient texts as a guideline and hope we have interpreted them correctly. Or we can look at history of past actions and consequences and use those as a guideline. And likely even more efficacious would be use history and our ability to reason and predict consequences, recognizing we might get it or wrong and there will be unintended consequences.

I would say it is impossible ... but then so what?

I am sort of with this ... though I am highly skeptical of morality and to some extent ethics. If free will is an illusion, then morality needs a good careful look. And I think Genesis 3:22 points the way. Why look at this through a Jesus or even a Christ lens. Why not look at it through a 2000 y old lens? Are there not improved lenses to look at the human condition since then? Why not make our lens? Insights from various aspects of science, evolutionary psychology is one example.

Thanks tariki Wow I never realized it suggested so much ... I must admit I am not overly familiar with what the four concepts perhaps with the exception of the apophatic (I was familiar with the process but not the word). To me it suggested the concepts of interbeing and the not-self. Monism in philosophical terms.

Recently Still Seeking described herself as a Christian Baby. I can't help thinking of this as a baby step towards a greater realization. And I will quote Joseph Campbell to direct my thought: This is also from the Power of Myth Now I can't help thinking of this as sort of accurate from a scientific point of view. Not that I understand perfectly what Campbell was trying to say. Well I am still a universal baby. I just can't help thinking aiming to be an Christian Adult (if that is what we are doing here) is potentially limiting.

Did he now? Or did later scribes pen those words into his mouth? I don't know. Do you?

Oh I don't think so ... I have not been banned yet.

Steve Sorry I have just come back from the bar ... a couple of drinks inside of me. Personally I would cut some slack to Artyop. I have no idea what translating from the spoken word into a sign language into a written language would be like. Chinese whispers is bad enough. If it were me, I would hope for some form of error checking much as is done in electronic communications. Communication between to English speakers can be fraught confusion.

Aaagghh ... Sorry ..Lissy. I will blame that on my biological spellchecker.

Unless you are referring to a nice single malt, I can think of a few exceptions.

Welcome Libby ... I am agnostic by inclination ... so you can treat me as your adversary ... in the nicest possible way of course. rom

I can start making jokes about your and Tariki now?

I too am an oustsider and welcome. I am agnostic by nature and confused and skeptical when people talk of things spiritual. The closest thing for me might be awe and wonder. I was intrigued by your observation English might not be my first language. For me this can have two meanings or perhaps a combination. Firstly your greater community is not English speaking or that whichever sign language you use is not really "English". Anyway welcome again.

From the gospel of Thomas Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift the/a stone and you will find me. ​​If I may ...If I were you I would get clear in your mind ... What you mean by Christ and by Jesus, especially if you are not taking the Bible literally. The two have different applications. Also here is a link to the words we can actually ascribe to Jesus (at least according to Rex Weyler). It is short and I think makes for an really interesting insight. Tot ZIens

Hope the studying goes well ... A couple of Campbell quotes and a story I like to whet your appetite: In one such story, Campbell recalled that as he emerged from a banquet he was approached by a member of a religious cult who asked, “Do you believe in God?” Campbell replied, “Young man, I don’t think you know the implications of that question. I’m acquainted with hundreds of gods. (But) I think I know the one you’re talking about. I believe in Him, too.” The cultist then asked, “Sir, are you an atheist?” and Campbell replied, “I don’t think you can call a person an atheist who believes in as many gods as I do.”