romansh

I don't have anything specific for Spong ... but I can recommend the works Joseph Campbell.

I think Spong and Campbell would have enjoyed each others perspectives.

My favourites are:

Power of Myth ... available in DVD ... I prefer the transcript.

Myths of Light

Pathways to Bliss

Welcome ...

I can't say that I speak for any PCs here and certainly I am not one as such. But I think many would identify with this Joseph Campbell quote I came across today.

 

If myth is translated into literal fact, then myth is a lie. But if you read it as a reflection of the world inside you, then it's true. Myth is the penultimate truth

And understanding there is nothing that actually requires forgiveness, where does this sit on the strength scale?

Welcome overcast

As a devout agnostic and atheist by some definitions ... Progressive Christianity is harmless or in the updated version of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, mostly harmless.

it is a play on Douglas Adam's writings ....

"Salvation"?

Personally not a lot.

I hear it used in, for what is to me, a really sad way ... primarily by Christians of various orthodoxies.

I like the metaphor of Indra's net.

Something is a reflection of every thing (the universe)

Every thing is a reflection of that something.

Everything and something are one.

We shape the universe much in the same way the universe shapes us. We and the universe are one.

I have read some quote 'embrace the mystery' of death, and for me this works. It is mysterious, I am uncertain, one day I may find out, but I just can't imagine it being a 'bad' thing.

Paul ... I would embrace the relative certainty of the here and now. Like you say, I too can't imagine being dead as a 'bad' thing.

Whether I am a true Christian, I don't know. I know I have practiced it in the past but I strayed away from religion itself.

One of the literal translations of the word religion is to reconnect.

For me the question becomes to reconnect to what? Is it each other? To God or god? The universe?

The fact that you are asking am I a true Christian is likely a just a reflection of your environment. If you were bouht up in India would you be asking am I a true Hindu?

Speaking personally it is all about having a connection to the universe and understanding that connection.

I have found that some people were hypocrites. Those were the few who distorted religion.

I must admit I find the word hypocrite a judgemental word ... which in itself is a judgement, so I too am 'guilty'. I think the point is to cut others and oneself some slack.

Anyway, it is nice to know you, especially from BC. Fairly close to where I live near Seattle, WA. Take care.

You are 8 h drive from me which I suppose is fairly close by continental standards.

Welcome zzmel,

In terms of full disclosure I do not consider myself Christian.

Personally I do not fear death no more than I fear going to sleep every night.

I am not looking forward to the act of dying ... but it is something I don't think I will be in a position to choose the how and the where.

I trust it will be swift.

Regarding the afterlife ... as a devout agnostic I pay lip service to not being sure, but as somebody with a scientific background it has to be a nonsense ... other than some Lion King Great Circle of Life ... that sort of makes sense to me. So my advice would be, we should make the most of our years whilst we are alive.

And finally to your question ... If you call yourself Christian then that is fine by me. You may not be Christian by some dogmatic definitions, but I suspect the few people that are here pay little heed to dogmatic definitions, it is your actions that count not your beliefs.

I think if we first separate Christ from Jesus, then we can put the two concepts back together again.

If John 10:30 is as accurate for me as it was for 'Christ' ... that tends to lead us to some pantheistic world view ... I think.

Can't really describe myself as any kind of Christian,

but I am giving up sobriety for Lent.

For me the two videos are about interconnectedness ... it is not just our interdependence of one another ... it is about out our interdependence on everything.

To think of oneself as somehow separate from the rest of creation is for me, one of the greatest dogmas that we don't even have to preach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422411861&v=hwyuQbIb0Xs&x-yt-cl=84924572

related ....

I wonder if anyone else would like to comment on it?

Maybe.

Here is a useful link on free will ... from a naysayers perspective:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/category/free-will/

the latest blog, 13 Nov 2015, is quick review of Dennett's review of Mele's book.

Is golf a sport when you can drink, drive and smoke while playing?

Only if you can incorporate some sex during play.

an interesting view point

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/

Truthfully, that which we call life is impossible without and inseparable from what we regard as inanimate. If we could somehow see the underlying reality of our planet—to comprehend its structure on every scale

and what is life?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428655.800-widen-the-goal-in-the-search-for-alien-life.html#.VLdXNk05DIU

So how would you define life?
To the extent that the question makes sense, as a "far-from-equilibrium dissipative system".

Is there any sensible evidence that god has wants and desires?

Often we wander off into the territory where god is transcendent, ie beyond all categories of thought. So any answer we come with as to the reason for population density of our galaxy is by definition unverifiable or meaningless.

So it is left to those who god is made in our image to explain why there may or net be life on other planets. See my previous paragraph.

Well if fundamentalist interpretations (seemingly literal) are true then god definitely is not great, and it has a great deal of explaining to do at least for me.

Of course god is not going to do that, then it is up to fundamentalist apologists to do that on god's behalf. But I must admit I question do these people have any greater access to the interpretation of god than say, I do.

ps

In the book - Ehrman describes himself as an agnostic ... so he can't be all bad,

Earlier in this thread Joseph said Now it doesn't really matter to me whether Paul really said that or not, when referring to a particular passage in the New Testament. While I might not agree with Joseph's following sentences, I think the first one is key from the perspective of this discussion.

Hi Paul ... I agree it is an excellent book, and I agree with Ehrman, that Jesus did exist.

I also agree with Ehrman rebuttals of mythicist positions'. A Campbellian take on myth is very different from that of a mythicist. Campbell might argue that whether Jesus existed or what might be ascribed to Jesus is unimportant. What is important is the meaning of the overall myth. Whereas I would argue that for a mythicist all that is important is whether Jesus existed or not.

A quote by Campbell ... mythology is what we call someone else's religion.

Just a note on my personal nomenclature.

Jesus is the historical character that the myth of Christ is built on. So the combination of Jesus Christ would be an oxymoron if you found me writing it.

Now I am fairly sure other traditions were incorporated into the mythical Christ, as were actual events and that later sages added their own ideas. But that is OK (in the Campbellian sense). So the question becomes how do we interpret our religious texts in today's context. Campbell argued that we should be evaluating these texts with our modern understanding, not some two thousand year old understanding or even an understanding from the nineteenth century.

To carry on with the alliteration of 'Liar, Lunatic or Lord' - I think we can an add legend (in the sense of myth) ... and here I use myth in a positive (Campbellian) sense.

My land line has never been able to access Facebook.

Plus I would have to join Facebook ... frankly I can't be bothered.

That someone applies a logical argument( based on observation) on whether god exists, I think is quite reasonable ... literally.

I am not sure what other options are .... throwing bones, faith, meditation? While all these are nice ... I would check the outcome against observation and logic.