romansh

soma I agree and like the concept of going to war with compassion, but our leaders are manipulating the masses with the whip of fear and hate. I don't get the sense that Obama is getting the fear and hate whip out. Trudeau my new "leader certainly is isn't. And what do we expect our leaders to do other than advocate for the positions they have come to? They can do this by leading by example, appealing to our reason, but ultimately they have to appeal to our wishes and fears. We all manipulate ... your posts (and mine) are a form of manipulation. You have put a negative connation on the word (I think). I still don't know how to get the other side to the table and after they leave how do you know we can trust them?

At this moment we are fighting power with power creating more power and it is not working and has not worked in the past. I can find examples of where talking has not worked: For example from The Neville Chamberlain School of appeasement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls First, we must take responsibility for causing the chaos and then realize they are humans just like we are and with that attitude people will in turn open up. Before we can do take responsibility for causing chaos, we have to understand the nature of cause and chaos. When we talk of attitude and similar we are living in our minds ... not necessarily the best reflection of reality. We can go to war without hate or fear ... we can go to war with compassion. But I suspect it is easier to get funding for hate than compassion.

I am sorry soma there is something that bothers me about your post(s) and it touches back to my monism comment. You say things like: Chaos rained on Iraq mostly caused by the Sunnis after that. I get what you are saying ... but this is ultimately a highly dualistic (perhaps pluralistic) interpretation. Again I get that you have been "caused" to have this view point (and I have been caused to have mine). For me the "Unity" you spoke of earlier is like the modern circular evolution trees we see. Each country, society, individual, etc are position on that ever expanding circle. All is interconnected to each other and the past. This is true (for me) at either the quantum level or the aggregated quantum world we seem to inhabit. Sometimes I tell a story about how a wave knocked me down when I was three years old and how that event shaped my life. While the story is true in the sense commission, it is almost completely a fabrication in the sense of omission. Christ did not "say" not to have enemies, just that we love them. Having said that I am still not sure what you are proposing ... Who is going to sit at the table and more importantly how are we going to persuade any of the many sides to that table?

Fair enough ... what mechanisms are there to bring ISIS to a table and what are the positive attributes of ISIS that we should feed. Why would ISIS want to come to a table if they think they are winning and why would essentially a "Western" ideology work? Do we need to take care that we don't feed the negative aspects at the same time inadvertently?

I had an opportunity to spend ten nights in Iran back in 2000. Iran is not what is portrayed in our nightly newscasts. And depending on one's perspectives it can be "worse" and "better" at the same time. The one striking memory I have when returning to Heathrow, women wearing chadors getting on the plane immediately disappearing into the bathrooms and emerging from their cocoons in skinny jeans and generally in western apparel. I like Bohm, I like his approach to quantum phenomena, but I find his more philosophical ruminations close to impenetrable. What I think you and he are describing is monism and I am aligned with that world view; though I have sneaking feeling nihilism might have a truth in it as well. Pluralism (philosophical) and dualism can be useful so long we are not married to them, and accept them at times as useful approximations. So what does walking in the middle of the road look like in more real world terms?

Just curious. From an Progressive Christian point of view, what is an appropriate response to the recent events in Beirut, Egypt, Paris and now, Mali?

I would phrase it differently because there is very little that we can be certain of as a human Jesus. I would say ... the myth of Jesus should be evaluated with care, ...

How to teach your children: Teach them to be evidenced based. To critically review the evidence. If necessary come to a hypothesis. Review if the hypothesis agrees with the existing evidence. Review what predictions the hypothesis might make see if new evidence agrees with the hypothesis. If it does not go back to point three and make a new hypothesis. If it does agree look for new predictions and go back to point five. Be aware at some point that your hypothesis might become your worldview. Be aware that your worldview might be useful but it could be subject to falsification with new evidence. Tread lightly.

I was reading a (fictional) book where a young girl who wanted to be vegetarian, but was persuaded by her guardian to eat beef by pointing out the cow (bull) had eaten nothing but grass. Well I thought it amusing.

I take your point Bill, We walk our path whether we seek it or not.

I must admit I find Audette's position unsatisfactory. I really can't speak for all pantheists but being that way inclined ... evil is not a problem! Evil is literally a figment of my perception. Big difference. In my world there is no evil. (On a slightly sadder note there is no good either). Evil becomes what I dislike and good becomes what I like. I have little control, if any, over what I like and dislike. Panentheism ... just cannot quite let go of duality. If god and the universe are one then there is no need for magic ... everything and nothing can be seen as "magic". What I like about pantheism is a point where atheism and theism become one. Regarding free will, if microbes have free will then so does everything. This simply becomes a semantic issue.

Why? for me is potentially one of those nonsense questions. If we mean what are the causes of the starvation, then that is fair enough. If we mean what is the purpose of them starving ... plainly nonsense ... at least for me. Now should I pray for the starving Ethiopians, will it help? Opening a cheque book is a small start though. Certainly not a final destination I would want to seek.

You have the advantage over me Joseph ... the only Buddhism I have been exposed to, at least academically speaking, is Buddhism for Dummies and Joseph Campbell's interpretations. For me there is no self that ends at some arbitrary boundary ... usually the skin or perhaps a brain. I don't think we are disagreeing here, though in reality I only have the vaguest of ideas what of what Buddhism means, at least to others. Buddhism for me is one of those parallel paths.

I think the phrase not self rather than no self is used. But not of great import. I think they are pointing to the concept there is no intrinsic self, ie a self that is somehow independent of our environment. This I think aligns with the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. For me aligning this with a concept of free will is a bit more tricky.

Perhaps ...If these parallel universes do not interact then the others are irrelevant to us pragmatically. If they do interact then there is a oneness in this multiverse. Either way the word is not limiting ... what is limiting is our capacities to perceive reality.

Bill I pretty much agreed with your reply. But the quote above - I see things differently. As individuals we may take on responsibility or assign it to others. You said the universe behaves exactly as you would expect it to, People are of this universe. Now we may not see how the details unfold, but unfolding they are. The universe is unfolding, including the ground of being (whatever that is assuming it exists), we may as well come to terms with it.

I must admit I don't find the word universe limiting. My concept or thought of the universe may well be limiting.

mcarans I would tend to agree that Jesus never travelled further east. Though if you would like a interesting and perhaps a slightly irreverent tale about this I can recommend: Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff. Jesus's Childhood Friend. Christopher Moore. But then it is hard argue that the subsequent writer's who put many (if not most) of the words into Jesus's mouth were not influenced by the Eastern traditions. Like Joseph says we will never know for sure. Of course I suspect that the Old Testament would have been influenced by other neighbouring religions, don't you think?

Joseph The atoms/energy that makes up me are continually added to, replaced and eventually returned. The pattern of the atoms and energies change overtime. It is like a vortex we see in a pond sometimes after an ore has moved through the water. The vortex sucks in water from the surrounding pond and throws it out again. Eventually it fades. Nevertheless whilst it is a vortex it remains a vortex. I must admit I find the phrase ground of being not very illuminating. The only thing that makes sense to me is if it is more or less synonymous with universe. And here is the point where theism and atheism can become one ... in pantheism. Or sexed up atheism as Dawkins described pantheism. I suppose a similar charge could be laid against Spong's world view. Which is not so bad I suppose.

Have you considered how much of the New Testament was influenced by Buddhism and what other influence other religions had on the Bible in general? If these religions do influence one another how surprising is it that certain interpretations of the Bible might look like another religion? Turning it around how much of traditional Christianity today has concretized the Myth of Christ and turned poetry into prose. There are host of traditional Christian world views, each believing they have the truth. Now I suspect Progressive Christians also have their beliefs, it is very difficult no to, but they do seem to be more accepting of other people's world views, even though they might not agree.

What we must also realize is that the wiring of our brains affects the choices we make (major and minor). We somehow see some ephemeral being giving instructions to our brains. To me this makes no sense. At best our brain gives itself instructions and ultimately those instructions are shaped by the environment.

I definitely am not a mystic. So I will let people who are mystics or at least feel they are, tell me what it means. Having said that Joseph Campbell studied and taught comparative myth for forty years or so. So I would say he has some qualifications on the matter. I think Campbell was talking to oneness rather than nothingness. Surrender all ideas of the ego? Perhaps. When you say my soul pattern communing with a greater source this is part of the classical duality the many if not most Christians embrace. If this duality is what mystics aspire to, then it is definitely not path I will walk.

My apologies Jen, I was under the impression that you thought Christ was literally the son of God. Regarding Mystics ... I like this quote from Joseph Campbell 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.It sort fits my monism (world view)

I suspect there is ... and we get glimpses of it at times. But to have faith it means we believe something as true though we can never be sure. Today I had a 4.5 hour drive through the Rockies ... a beautiful drive. I believed I would get to my destination without incident? Is this faith, belief, or reasoned thought? Because if I thought I would have an accident I would not have started the journey. Some people put their faith in a personal God, some people don't even think about it, and some understand their capabilities, the engineered roads and the probabilities involved. While it was not necessarily true I would get to my destination safely, it did turn out to be an accurate description of the events. There are two terms noumena (things as they really are) and phenomena (things as they are experienced). Some of us think we experience god, but that does not mean there is one. And vice versa. I suppose my point is we are forced pragmatically to have beliefs and make choices, but that does not mean we have to believe them as true. Not quite sure of the point I am trying to make, but I will work on it further.

The immediate question is who is letting go or removing the perceived ego. Often we are encouraged to be egoless in some way or another. I would not be who I am without my ego ... At best my ego at times can be aware of itself, and this usually is enough to dampen its spirit. If you see what I mean.