romansh

The vast majority of growth in Christianity is in the southern hemisphere and is pentecostal in orientation. I venture that 98% of world Christianity could not describe the differences between a Spong and a spork.

Over forty years ago as an engagement gift we got a set of Splades ...each could be used as a fork, spoon, and knife (not necessarily at the same time). The cutting utility was out of necessity fairly minimal. I think a spork would have been more descriptive. We still have the complete set.

http://www.steelcitycutlery.com/partyforks.html

You were sort of wrong. You clearly stated self-identification and not theological correctness.

My apologies Burl, I did not recognize that you were in possession of the one and only true theological interpretation.

Have a nice evening.

No. I clearly referenced theological Islam, which is not the same thing as self-identifying as muslim.

So I was sort of right ... but a variation of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

At that time I just liked his way with words - I'd be willing to consider the thought that then I admired his ways of expression rather than exactly what was expressed, maybe why I've often been blown about by the wind..... I do remember seeing him somewhat later on the BBC. He was one of a small coterie of divines facing up to a couple of the Monty Python team, taking great offence at "Life of Brian"., especially the "blessed are the cheesemakers" bit. Yes, he did come across as pompous, bless his heart!

 

What more can you say!

I went to the Wiki page om Muggeridge before I posted ... Cleese was complaining Muggeridge came in part way through the film and criticized it, where Palin said something like Muggeridge was being Muggeridge ... Palin must be a Buddhist ... acceptance of Muggeridge being Muggeridge.

Thinking back, I remembered again a long dead wordsmith by the name of Malcolm Muggeridge. I think, once his libido had weakened somewhat he became a Catholic convert, inspired by an interview he had with Mother Teresa, which he called "something beautiful for God". Anyway, Mr Muggeridge was someone I admired in my late teens. As I say, a wordsmith. he had a way with language, and I read one or two of his books.

I must admit I was never a fan of Muggeridge in my teens. We philosophically crossed paths. As youngster I went from the right to the left socially speaking. I remember watching Muggeridge on the religious chat stuff (BBC?) ... He was certainly erudite ... but the substance of his erudition for me was worrying.

Having said that ... that would have been late sixties, early seventies - just a vague impression of the man

... we will never think of God correctly. We can visualize some woo woo concept or visualize an old man named Howard. We are going to be wrong whatever visualization we pick.

This requires omniscience on your part Burl. For all you (or I) know I might have a perfectly accurate visualization of god. Note I don't believe it ... but I can't assert it like you do.

There was a comment by some new members that they were looking for religious truths?

If it were me I might have been looking for truths ??? Well OK to narrow it down a bit ... truths relevant to my existence.

But then just about everything is relevant to existence. Now as supposed individuals we might not see that way?

Why just religious truths?

Interesting.

I think it is well evidenced that ISIS are mercenaries who are not adverse to murdering muslims. This alone puts them well outside of theological Islam.

Are you suggesting these mercenaries are not muslims (ie think of themselves as muslims)? And how is muslims paying mercenaries to murder other muslims any different?

Unless we are going down some no true Scotsman argument this makes no sense.

If not, I would like to see the evidence.

Rom's pilgrimage to his blastomere is unique, but I think it fits and indicates this is a human behavior pattern spread across multiple belief systems

 

.

No not really ... another time I was eel fishing at night on a lake at night with my Dad ... saw the milky way for the first time (I was seventeen, and I lived in a big city in the UK). I went there and then to a "sacred space" or at least as close as I will ever get. I have seen the milky way again in Chile; I was at moderate altitude and the night sky was clear. Went there again. My colleague got out of a car to take a phone call and I got out to stretch my legs ... immediately was on my pilgrimage.

I can't decide between Osaka and Cairo.

I can generally recommend Japan ... I thought a very civilized country and people. There seemed to be an inner peace. War for them must be such an aberration.

The bus drive from the airport into downtown Osaka at night, I thought, was magical,

I don't know, but I am not sure it would be much different if I was healthy.

Visit family?

How does one distinguish all this from narcissism and self-delusion?

They are both products of the universe Burl ... I have got over my self delusional narcissism.

Having said that we are much better identifying narcissism in others ... I don't worry about it any more.

What do people here think of those who claim that the Bible depicts many violent and unjust actions of God? Initially, I was skeptikal of these claims, but I am committed to research, and now I feel confused after finding out a lot of stuff that I didn't even know was in the Bible. Even though I've read the Bible for a while, I guess I only focused on the more popular parts, and didn't notice some of the other details, stuff like what this website shows:

http://exposingchristianity.org/

 

Has anyone else thought of this? I'm interested in seeing what other opinions are on this; ultimately I will research with an open mind and try to find the truth.

Here's my take. The Bible is not be taken literally with food or even water.

The God as taken literally in the bible did not kill anyone, anymore than God killed 225 000 people in the tsunami of 2004.

The Bible for me is a mixture of a fog of history, myth and metaphor.

What ever God is it is not the personal God of literal interpretations we have, at least in my opinion.

Spiritual pilgrimage ...

Peering down a microscope looking at a four-cell pre-zygote that could have been our child.

Wasn't planning on going there, but went anyway.

No way on Earth did I suggest you had a free choice!

Well, at least there is comfort in the choice I made in a partner to share.............ah, damn: cause and effect. and if that was not enough, the universe made me do it.

Thormas ... I could dissect your whole post line by line But I will pick on this one as it is close to my heart.

I have been with my partner for over forty years ... I am happy with the way it unfolded (not that I am not choosing to be happy, I presume you are not choosing either, you just are.) We have had our ups and downs ... couldn't have kids and loss of an adopted son, and that our son for over ten years of his life suffered from serious bouts of epilepsy would count as some of the major downs. But without those downs I would not be the individual who I am today. [and for the benefit of Burl, my illusory intrinsic self]. We would not be the couple we are today either.

Thinking damn it was not your illusory self that made the choice is at the heart issue. Evolution has imbued us with lots of emotions ... including guilt and pride. And I am sure they are quite "useful" in an evolutionary but pragmatic way. But as evolution is directionless and ultimately purposeless these emotions don't make sense in the light of day.

Again when I met my partner back in '72, she was not my type. In Dec of '74 she made a pass at me ... suddenly she was my type. I was aware of the raging hormones passing through my body (as emotions) ... bonding my eddy with hers. There was no choice about it. And I am happy, again no choice, that it is the case.

Can I suggest when you think or use the word choice, have in the back of your mind in what way is it a free choice? Is that choice somehow independent of your body chemistry?

Just turned the new year here .... Happy New Year from rom as well.

With the sunrise ...

I agree the environment or universe is communicating with us 24/7. We are the ones that erect barriers to the connections.

I don't think we do erect barriers to the connections. It is just the way the universe has unfolded makes it seem that we have.

On a similar note ... a few years ago I was doing some sanding and put up some polythene sheeting to minimize the dusting.

As I walked in through a second door I could see polythene sheet move because I slightly pressurized the room by walking in. (and by inference depressurizing behind me).

Now the sanding is done I don't "observe" the air movement. Do I believe it not happening ... not for 1 millisecond (more likely 50 ms on a brain timescale).

To me this was a clear demonstration of the 'unseen' interconnectivity we have with our environment.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, is there noise?

A better question would be is there vibration in the air? Noise is simply the brain's interpretation of the air vibrations.

Similarly for the diffracted light ... the photons are there regardless of the existence of an observer. The brain interprets them as a colourful arc ... or rainbow.

I don't think of photons as coloured. The rainbow is there but it is not as we perceive it.

Freedom is an illusion Soma ... Freedom is simply a lack of awareness of the casual mesh we exist in. (At least "freedom" in the philosophical sense we are discussing here, not the every day trivial sense).

Being "empty" has more potential for me. Telling myself that I'm a speck of dust or on the path to deification......well, both seem restrictive in their own peculiar ways.

 

Actual Reality is counter intuitive. We walk on a flat, stationary earth.

What is the actual speed of a ping pong ball being struck on a moving train? Who or what measures?

Interestingly ... according some if we add up all the energy in the universe (including matter, dark energy, dark matter, gravitation) the sum total is zero or at least within experimental error zero.

This accords nicely with the first law of thermodynamics, that we don't get something for nothing ... though existence does seem like the biggest of free lunches we can expect.

Regarding relativity (classical and Einsteinian) they are reasonable approximations and fit for purpose if used appropriately.

"What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"?"

 

I think I like this guy, and especially this quote. What indeed gives us the right to be arbiter of the cosmos? We are mere specks of dust.

I like John Bell too.

But I do think his point is valid (and not so much about the right to be arbiters). My individual collection of atoms has the same right to arbitrate the universe (in the Bell's sense) as a 86 kg pile of dirt in my backyard ... or yours for that matter.

Come to think of it, use of the word "one" is probably incorrect. And what in the world is "one-NESS"? Excuse my contradiction, but it is far too "dualistic"!

 

Steve

Oh one is correct ... where do you think atonement comes from?

Here is a quote from the late John Bell. Some say he would have won a Nobel if it were not for his premature death

It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about "results of measurement", and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less "measurement-like" processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time?

Sometimes I find the New Agey interpretations as weird.

Personally, I'm not a "oneness" kind of guy. And, the notions of dualistic/non-dualistic seems a bit of "dualistic" irony. It can't even be grasped conceptually, and it is not how existence is presented to me. So, I get where Burl is coming from. The pragmatic approach is generally the smart play.

 

Steve

Steve

I get where Burl is coming from too. I spent fifty years of my life believing this dualism/illusion to be true.

If one believes cause and effect to be true or at least a sensible proposition, then a form of oneness is a logical conclusion if not the logical conclusion. Now I personally don't buy into this kumbaya oneness either ... nor I do believe God is love etc. Having said that I am not sure who has bought into this lovey-dovey divinity ... but I have not certainly proposed this.

Despite Burl's protestations.