romansh

Where I think we agree is that reason and logic are essentials. God gave us brains for a reason so we ought to use them. Right?

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.

Even Rom agrees with me in his peculiar way, but he will probably deny that three times before sunrise.

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

that our reality is "chaotic" are notmy conclusions.

 

Such conclusions are potentially limiting.

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.

I find now that I do not wish to draw conclusions.

Is that the conclusion you have come too?

​​What is a pure freedom of mind? I'm reading a biography of Dali at the moment. There is no doubt that Dali was free of all inhibitions and the writer (who spent much time with Dali) speaks of there being many small jewels amidst "the garbage" of Dali's life. How do we judge "freedom"?

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.

Somehow, I doubt you would have gotten where you are without having first been where you were.

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

 

In my own way of seeing things, good works/ethics are a by-product of Faith ( as a Buddhist, a by-product of wisdom......."wisdom defined as the mind/heart, thirsting for emancipation, seeing direct into the heart of reality")

 

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:

... 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.

 

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.

Yet.

 

Seriously, Jesus was not accepting of other faiths and spoke harshly. He did call people hypocrites and vipers, and railed against those of "lukewarm" faith who tried to get along without conflict.

Did he now?

Or did later scribes pen those words into his mouth?

I don't know.

Do you?

I just realized Artyop's post demonstrated that if Jesus returned today and posted on this site He would probably be banned very quickly.

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

Hi Art,

 

Personally I think you might need some professional help. You don't sound quite rational to me. I'm not saying that to be mean-spirited - just being honest.

 

In the process you might get some asistance with this whole "spiritual gift" thing. Bouncing around from one forum to another probably isn't going to be helpful.

 

Steve

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.

Also...the name is Lissy

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

Any "advice" given is probably less important than the spirit in which it is given.

 

Steve

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

 

 

Amen to that Tariki.

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.

I just want to stop hiding all traces of Christ and Christianity and I live at home. I live with my parents and I generally never go out on Sunday and now I would like to go to a church in the city. They are going to start asking questions and then I do not want to lie...

You are right that I don't have to say anything but that also means that I will have to lie at some point and that doesn't sit well with me.

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

I will check that out once I do not have to study anymore. Thank you for the tip!

Hope the studying goes well ... A couple of Campbell quotes and a story I like to whet your appetite:

There seem to be only two kinds of people: Those who think that metaphors are facts, and those who know that they are not facts. Those who know they are not facts are what we call "atheists," and those who think they are facts are "religious." Which group really gets the message?

Religion turns poetry into prose.

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.”

.I agree that I should focus on my actions and making them as Christian as possible, but this really is about not wanting to lie nor deny Christ when I fully accept him. I am now, as I said in a reply to another user, literally hiding my Bible.

My apologies on my assumption ...

Personally I am an agnostic and not really of any faith other than there is a reality beyond my perception and that my perception is at least to some extent a reflection of that reality. So based on what I have seen the Progressive Christian faith is a reasonable model to base one's actions. I think acceptance in the sense of understanding is a reasoned path to take. That is not to say we will not have adversaries (humans and situations) in our lives and we will have to interact and deal with, be one with etc.

You will find that at this forum people will draw from various traditions and texts, not just Biblical when they want to make a point. Again personally I am skeptical of the traditional personal Christian God. I accept Christ as a myth, and here I am not being derogatory. I don't know whether Jesus existed or not, but I certainly don't believe in any literal interpretations. The tricky bit is how to interpret these myths and you will have no end of fun working out your own interpretations.

Can I suggest The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell (the coffee table version) It originally was a TV series on PBS and is available from libraries on DVD. It gives an interesting view on how to handle our major religious texts. I did not agree with much of what Campbell wrote but it was interesting nevertheless.

Either your parents will understand or they won't.

You are not entering into a relationship with your parents, you already have one with them. But here is a question or two ... are you seeking a god because you are entering a relationship with your Christian partner? Will he love you any less regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof? Will you (both) be happy?

In Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, she had one concept I heartily agreed with, she was gently admonishing Christians for focussing on their belief whereas Christians 'should' be focussing on their actions. This is of course true for those that have a lack of belief or an active disbelief.

So both from a parental and partnership point of view, never mind beliefs, what are your actions going to look like?

 

Ah ha! "Buddhism for Dummies". My own personal favourite is "The Bluffers Guide to Buddhism" which I can heartily recommend. That said, many of those who I have found myself paying attention to have said in one way or another that there is no logical "answer" to the human situation - "situation" in the sense that there IS suffering and that we seek not to suffer.

 

The Buddha claimed to teach "one thing and one thing only - suffering and the ending of suffering." Long ago, on a Buddhist Forum, I opened a thread "In what sense does suffering end?" and in my usual manner, included a quote in my OP, some words of a lapsed Buddhist who spoke of not wishing to indulge in some path that led to "some pseudo evolved transcendence of personal pain", and further, he was did not actually wish to rid himself of the personal pain of the loss of loved ones, that such would be a form of betrayal. My memory fails me as far as the "answers" I received went - I suppose even then I just took what I needed and left the rest.

 

I have found that indeed there is no "answer" as such. The lure of the word "enlightenment" suggests that there is, just as the word "salvation" calls to the Christian.

 

Some Zen koans speak to this conundrum. "A clearly enlightened person falls into the well. How is this so?"

 

"Enlightenment" is just not what we (or I should say, I) thought it was.

 

As you say Rom, Why would I want to be independent of this cause and effect - in fact why would I want to be independent of the universe at large?​

 

The strange thing is that such is not "giving up". To share in the becoming of our world, not indulging in the mental gymnastics that would seek to transcend it, to "let go" and accept, is for me to become human.

When I lost our son, I found myself making a conscious effort not to avoid grief. But to experience and be accepting of that emotion. Evolution has imbued us with that capability so why try and avoid it? When I asked my sister in law about when she lost her husband and how she coped with the grief ... she answered that now it was like an old friend that comes to visit. I found those to be surprisingly true.

Neuroscience tells us suffering/pain is not what it seems to be .. nevertheless pain is or at least can be painful.

"Just take what you need and leave the rest" Merton's words gave me clarity in the context of "one ways", "only ways" and "truth/Truth" as being freedom of mind. I was about to emphasise in a response to Thormas - where he said "well said" to me - that as far as "Christian speak" goes I'm more into being chosen than in chosing, in being accepted just as I am, than in accepting.

 

It does get complicated given my own non-theistic position.

My Buddhism for Dummies said the same thing more or less. I found I left most of it.

For me it is very simple ... there is cause and effect ... I am (we are) a result of that cause and effect. While this might not be the Truth^©, it does appear to be true. Is there more, is this "more" independent of cause and effect?

Why would I want to be independent of this cause and effect - in fact why would I want to be independent of the universe at large?