romansh

Rom,

 

I can understand you not wanting to be labeled a heretic. However, it seems to me, many great strides have been made by those who have been labeled such in the past..

Oh I don't mind being a heretic, but in my present state do you think I am one with Christ?

 

Rom,

 

It seems to me that many of the letters attributed to Paul in the NT speak of this oneness in Christ many times. Also John indicates in Chapt 1:1-4 that the logos was with God in the beginning and its what created all things that were made and that life was the light of all mankind. ( my wording and emphasis)

 

Also one that speaks to me as the real mystery from a Christian standpoint isl Col 1:26-27 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

 

In a nutshell, the Christian is to sacrifice or die to self to reveal the Christ in himself which is the presence of God or becoming as One. Christ is not a single person as in Messiah as often defined. It is more in the Greek as coming from root words as smearing together with God .

Not as explicit as John 10:30

I think it would be a heresy for me to say Christ and I are one, regardless of my beliefs and my actions?

I can imagine those studies you mention. If emotionally one has a strong tie to what they believe, all the evidence and logic in the world often cannot move that person. Yet, when something emotionally triggers a change, the change comes naturally.

So to manipulate people, well some people, (and here I use manipulate in an neutral sense) we have to engage their emotions to get them to move in the direction we want.

It sounds cold and manipulative (in its negative sense).

Reason and logic I think tells us that reason and logic is incomplete, I have no problem with this. If we decide to live our lives on some emotional level, that is fine but I can't help thinking reason and logic should point in vaguely the same direction for some sort of guidance to our emotion? As we have seen in these threads we can't argue or discuss our individual perceptions of faith, because these are highly internal.

But we can discuss our internal assumptions (axioms) and how we have applied logic to those assumptions. Here we have a way of reviewing our direction.

Those that rely on faith (as described in the other thread) simply either agree with one another, or if like me on the outside looking in, wonder what g on. I have friends who are YEC, and when sufficient evidence is provided, they simply pull out the "faith" card and assert an inerrant Biblical old Earth .

Not knowing why

Why? seems to come in two flavours.

The first we could paraphrase as to how some thing might occur.

The second is as to what is the purpose of something.

The first meaning seems to make sense to me.

The second I routinely confabulate an answer.

'

This becomes even more significant when it is acknowledged that to "understand" as far as Buddhism is concerned is to LIVE it, BE it, not merely to have/seek an intellectual grasp.

Anyway, thanks for your interest.

tariki ... I can't say I live the not-self, I am not even sure I completely understand it. But then I am comfortable in that as well.

Having said that I do by and large understand my "illusion of an intrinsic self". Zen practitioners like Susan Blackmore seem to have some success living this way.

This is OK, but it is not my path or at least not at this time.

I live the life I lead. Some claim other paths are better.

And this brings us back to the free will thread ... whether I will take on a particular mantle will depend on dependent origination will it not?

The edit function seems to have been shortened again

A bit of fact checking ...the Buddha quote is not quite accurate ..

Apparently the original (or at least an earlier version) can be found here

Either way ... the internet version can be seen in the same light as how later scribes improved upon the Jesus story.

And Confession of a Buddhist Atheist

A much more eloquently put argument than I could come up with:

 

http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/the-transgender-body-of-christ/

Paul

He expressed it primarily in terms that would be meaningful to Christians or more generally followers of the Abrahamic faiths. This is fine of course.

I have heard that there are studies to getting people to change there attitudes, logical debate and evidence can end up being counter productive. It just entrenches their deeply held views. So while the argument within the link does nothing for me, I think it might be appropriate for a Christian community.

I have posted this before ... but it seems apt to repost:

by Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha):
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

My observation, analysis and reason seem to think this is something I can live with.

II made changes to my post 1 minute before you posted. I guess you got a copy of what i first had written. That happens with longer edit times.

That's why I like the longer edit times, one gets to clarify one's thoughts ... so long as the spirit or intent has not been changed. And even if that too has changed that too is OK.

In my experience, of ideas thoughts and suggestions etc as Stephen Batchelor alludes to, I don't think I have come up with truly original that is "mine". What has happened is various implanted ideas and thoughts have been jumbled up dissected and recombined to get what might be new ideas, or at least ideas/thoughts that are new to me. Also I am not totally aware of whether "my" ideas are simply regurgitated from a piece of work long hidden in memory. This is why I would like to talk to Stephen Batchelor, to discuss the dialectic.

Evolution has given us a capacity for love and fear ...

We want to make ourselves somehow better (more successful?) ... evolution I don't think has this want.

For Stephen it appears compassion has dissolved the sense of self ... for me it was reason and logic of the observable world.

I have read not-self is a more accurate than no-self. wrt anatta.

Incidentally, spontaneous has very specific meaning from a thermodynamic point of view. It essentially means something is thermodynamically favourable.

The only line that I am aware of, in the Bible, that speaks to the lack of division is John 10:30, interestingly I gather a concept added by later scribes, or at least as some literary Bible scholars suggest.

Are there any others?

 

Perhaps it is essentially powered by the same source but could one side be nothing more than make-believe fiction or illusion?

I suspect both sides are illusions ... at least ultimately. And this is, I think partly, Tariki's point.

I don't think of the universe as symmetrical or asymmetrical, but it is I suspect balanced. Chaotically perhaps, balanced nevertheless.

I am told (possibly read) that the not-self is a better translation rather than no-self. I tend to use the term intrinsic self (which we seem to assume in our daily lives)... a self that is somehow detached from its environment. That for me is the illusion. I am a product of the universe ... it took a whole universe to make me. You, Jen, Paul, Tariki et al. are contributing to my evolution.

I can't say I have read any of Stephen Batchelor's books, but I do visit his (and his wife's) website periodically.

I came across him with his piece on Buddhism and agnosticism and have followed his works at a great distance since then.

There are things I find contradictory in Buddhism such as beliefs in not-self and dependent origination (which I think are fine) and yet many Buddhists, I gather, believe in free will.

I also gather from the little I have read of Batchelor he does not believe in free will either.

Regarding your quote from Batchelor, I would love to discuss it with him. I have similar experiences and perhaps conclusions.

But when we talk of love, compassion and other positive attributes ... the source is of the same place as is our fear, loathing, hate. I have no problem for striving for the former but denying God's place (whatever your God happens to be) in the latter, to me seems ridiculous.

Should I ever have a gravestone here is my personal sound bite I would be happy to have on it:

When I look deep inside myself,

I see the universe staring quietly back.

For a long time I have found questions are far better than "answers" in my own stumbling path of unknowing (and of not wanting to know about some doctrines.....)

Yes questions are fun ... for ourselves and in the Socretean tradition to test other people's thoughts.

But the good thing about answers is that they lead to other questions which may lead to new places or even undermine the very answers we thought we had.

ps is not a Doctrine (an answer) that can be questioned?

Science does not deal in proof unless we are dealing in alcohol. And here the Imperial degrees proof is stronger than the US version.

What science does have is corroborating evidence, no evidence one way or another or evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. What is the corroborating evidence for an experience of God?

That is beyond me.

So ultimately it is personal testimony that we are discussing. Except that when that testimony is questioned it can be upsetting to people.

My beliefs aren't real Paul, therefore they are no more valid than his. If faith is the same thing than i am telling you my faith isn't valid so i have no quarrel with the Muslim.

I have no quarrel with a <insert appropriate faith here> terrorist anymore than I do with a tornado or tsunami, at least intellectually speaking.

An 'experience" is just that an experience. Calling that experience faith, even if it is the love of all humankind, to me does not seem what the discussion of faith is all about.

...Love has no opposite at least in my limited experience.

 

Some claim indifference is the opposite. In fact it is the opposite of hate also. Love and hate come from "caring" about about some particular aspect of the world. I can only love and hate actions that I care about.

Complete indifference could be seen as absolute detachment.

Looking at the faith discussion it seems to me similar to the no true Scotsman debate.

Consciousness is a fogged up window into our immediate past, I would argue. Even an intellectual understanding falls under this description.

PS happy Jāņi

Just an aside Paul ... there are some who might argue that God is love, compassion and other positive attributes. others claim God is all and infinite.

I think a pantheist might accept the supposedly negative aspects of humanity and include them their God as well. Similarly I being monistically inclined accept all of the universe as it is. I have been shaped to like certain parts of it more than others, but that is OK too.

I love this quote from Joseph Campbell ... it just about nails it for me!

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 has opened up some interesting debate about faith though. This shooter aside, I see passionate, faithful people fighting for Allah with the likes of ISIS & Al Queda. I think many of these people have faith just as dear as many Christians do, but obviously in different ways. Obviously 'our side' would view 'proper' faith as a loving, wondrous experience with our God, and the fundy Islam's faith as an error of judgement (to say the least). Of course the fundy Islamic would most likely see things the other way round and would not believe that a Christian's faith is genuine.

Yes there are some interesting speculations going on here. But ultimately the are a variety societal behavioral patterns that for various reasons may or might not imprint on us. (This I think is true for all of us, me included). We don't always have sufficient understanding of the situation, (the myriad of causes that make us who we are) and this allows us to think of ourselves as somehow separate. The ultimate illusion is that we are somehow separate from one another, from the animal kingdom, from life in general, the inanimate and even the universe itself.

It took the whole universe to make you who you are Paul ... and you are "shaping" the whole universe, but the apparent bits of shaping are not immediately or easily observable beyond your immediate environment.

A commonly accepted literal translation of religion from the Latin is to reconnect. But reconnect to what? I think for some this is to reconnect to God, for some it is humanity, for others it might be compassion or love. For me it is to reconnect to the universe (here I use universe in its broadest sense). And by this, perhaps unfortunately, I don't mean in an emotional sense; but, I mean in a deep intellectual sense.

This position is I think is applicable to both pantheism and atheism, militant or otherwise.

Paul

I don't think we can explain these things solely in terms of neurology and psychiatry. While no doubt very important there are other considerations like gun culture of the US, societal acceptance of homosexuals and what his particular brand of religion suggested to him as a reasonable course of action.

Did he have faith he was doing the reasonable thing? I don't know. But I certainly hope so; in that doing such terrible thing when you are not sure would not make any sense at all to me.

Are there progressives who believe Jesus literally rose from the dead to save us from a fallen world? Is that a valid belief?

Tell me what are your axioms (assumptions) and I will give you my opinion as to whether your belief is valid.

Having said that we should also test our assumptions for their validity, don't you think?

The problem with prayer is it means different things to different people.

Intercessory prayer does not work as far we can tell .. at least based on any serious studies we have done.

Now some claim God works in mysterious ways ... so from that point of view anything (but anything) is God's will, especially if the thing is positive or glimmer of positiveness can be seen in some tragedy..

Now does prayer affect our brain structure? of course it does. Everything we do affects our brain structure.

Thinking rationally and not accepting 'truths" on faith also affects our brain structure.

Our source? The universe or whatever? I can say that my beliefs and actions are more than likely a product of my environment ... I am a product of my environment. I am not sure my environment has a direct or significant access to my prayers. But my environment does respond to my actions.

Actions speak louder than prayers.

While I might be "progressive" I don't particularly label myself as Christian.

There is a vast amount of evidence against the Biblical proposition from a variety of scientific disciplines. I think the hypothesis can be safely dismissed until there is some actual evidence from outside of literal interpretations of the Bible. By the way ... you should define (I think) what you mean by God?

It's possible, in my view, that praying does change things. Prayer can strengthen ones resolve so that one can step up from a depressed state to a more positive outlook that finds opportunities that may be missed in a depressed state.

It may well ... placebos often work too, at least to some degree. Unfortunately so do nocebos .. as highlighted by the STEP project I meant to post before.

Perhaps it is a phase we all must pass through ? For now i personally don't presume what people should or shouldn't be praying for.

 

Nice You Tube video concerning how we create our sense of self through the brain. The Matrix was one of my all time favorite movies. Thanks.

My apologies ... I meant to post this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer#The_STEP_project

Concerning prayer specifically for those who are suffering, It seems to me, typically, when told that people have been praying for them, it makes them feel better knowing that someone else cares enough to take the time to petition on their behalf.

The Step project

I must admit I wonder here.

Perhaps people should be praying for the ability for each of us to shed our personal delusions.

Just curious ... why the really short time span to edit one's post?

Is it possible to lengthen the editing period?

The site logs whether and when edits are made.

Also many fora allow editing for hours or days.

I get distressed when I have sentences that don't make sense or grammatical errors that I have made blaring back at me.

proof reading as I post does not work for me.