romansh

I think that we can only use our richest faculties of our mind, and they are surely not the faculty of having mathematical concepts.

This is a matter of opinion is it not?

but the faculties of emotions, feelings, silence, irrationality.

If that is what you believe then fair enough ... But this would include fear, hate, shame, anger, impatience, greediness to name a few. Perhaps the only feeling I might vote for is acceptance ... but speaking personally I don't think I could feel acceptance unless I had a feeling of understanding ... which brings us back to the logical part of our existence.

I've got a feeling, a feeling deep inside
Oh, yeah, oh, yeah (that's right)
I've got a feeling, a feeling I can't hide
Oh, no! Oh, no! Oh, no
Yeah. Yeah! I've got a feeling, yeah!

But if we think love or an expression of oxytocin is an expression of God or something similar ... I can't argue with you, I suspect any definition of God will end up being wrong somehow. So then why even think in terms of God?

I can be humanistic without God or gods ... in fact I suspect I am.

To me, Good and Evil are subjective concepts.

I must admit the objective and subjective are a little bit like one those illusory opposites we take a look at from time to time.

Energy comes to an object (we call that energy objective) that energy is in some way reflected or re-emitted from the object (and we call that subjective). Think of a mirror ... light hits a mirror and its reflection is perhaps distorted or incomplete.

And a quote from Joseph Campbell:

• If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

   

I must admit I have technical difficulties of the infinite being synonymous with oneness. ie a mathematical concept being god.

Bearing in mind the universe appears to be finite or if Lawrence Krauss is right the whole lot adds up to a big fat zero in terms of energy. Then there is Cantor's an infinity of infinities ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

But I think you might enjoy The Infinite Book by John D Barrow, a Christian view of the inifinite

Relativism for me is a philosophical position that allows us to hang on to duality or perhaps pluralism.

While the experience of oneness that Joseph talks about, I can't say I have experienced it; but philosophically and logically it make sense for me.

Angel ... this interpretation does not make sense to me.

So when Adam and Eve taste the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, does their knowledge of such things become perfect? If not why not and if so what is the problem?

I could interpret it as a nihilistic approach to good and evil, rather than a relativistic one. And frankly that makes way more sense, at least to me. And saying distinguishing good from evil is impossible even for God, does not make sense to me either ... If "God" can't tell the difference then evangelical interpretations of hell make no sense whatever.

The problem with metaphors, their interpretations are in the eye of the beholder.

Paul

In my experience the majority of Christians don't believe in a literal Genesis ... But to be fair these Christians don't generally enter into debate. This is based on twenty five years in the UK and a similar number in Canada.

And even the literal belief of an immaculate birth is waning.

People tend to interpret the original sin as breaking God's command and don't seem overly bothered by what the command was or what its contents meant. Now that later commentators see this command breaking as sin is interesting and that later generations have taken the commentary as gospel is somewhat sad at least for me. Where in the Bible does it explain why we should not know of good and evil? I don't recall ever seeing a good explanation.

“That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.”

This can be interpreted as not doing evil stuff ... which of course is debatable or it could be interpreted as don't do what you don't want done to you. Fairly straight forward with a few caveats.

Paul I can't speak for literalist Christians ...

I do not understand what would make anyone think the Earth is six thousand years old ... You need to be asking YECs ... by and large they don't last long here.

The fall is Man tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Do people people actually believe there was a physical tree that bore fruit of knowledge and evil? ... I have never heard anyone argue for this literal claim. It is always Adam broke God's command that is the fall and the original sin.

Yet it clearly states that ... knowing of good and evil is the problem.

Genesis 3:22 and 23 are fairly explicit ,,,

What do you read in to those two lines?

I am an ex-catholic priest, no longer priest, nor catholic.

Welcome Angelo

I am trying to think of something that I was always ... I'm coming to the conclusion whatever it was it is bigger than me.

When I look deep inside myself,

I see the universe quietly staring back at me.

Angelo

There are several aspects to this

There are couple of formal philosophical monisms.

There is only substance

there is only matter possibly one kind of substance.

There is a a slightly newer kind of monism ... scientific monism ... where all is connected ... this concept is a relative of free will's determinism.

Buddhist's dependent origination and Indra's net.

Anyway ... that we can divide things into is and is not ... see Joseph's thread on opposites ... is interesting.

Here is a question ... when a carbon dioxide molecule goes across the boundary ... say a stomata on leaf ... at what point does the carbon dioxide molecule become tree? When the leaf falls of the tree does it cease to be come tree? Do we include the symbiants that have coevolved when we say tree?

The loving oness I personally don't buy into but is OK if that is what launches your boat to get to yonder shore.

I think you are right Steve, Rumi might not be a monist.

Which is not terribly surprising in that today's expression of Islam is not monistic either ...

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/oct08/4.htm

I wanted to put this in the What Does Progressive Christianity Thread Mean to You?

But it may fit in here better.

I was pondering PCism. Just reading the posts concerning PCism, for some it means a touchstone for walking one's path using the teachings of Jesus. Some it may extend to the teachings of the 'mythical' Christ. Most seem accepting of teachings from other traditions.

All this seems fair enough.

Now from what I have read ... what we confidently ascribe to the teachings of Jesus is fairly limited. Most of the teachings appear to have been added by later scribes to the teachings of Christ. For example John 10: 30 I and my Father are one. The blasphemy that got Christ crucified was added later, at least according some Bible scholars.

So what are the influences that Progressive Christians to sail under the flag of Progressive Christianity?

Joseph Since we are limited by language, i think it is fair enough to use attributes for God though i admit they can be easily misunderstood.

I don't think we are limited by language, though I would agree language has its limits.

Joseph I would say God is both transcendent and immanent though one could say God is neither and i would not debate it.

God is transcendent and immanent ... this I think is one of those dualities our language forces us into. The only concept of god that makes any sort of sense (to me) is the pantheistic one. I also can't help thinking I agree with Richard Dawkins that pantheism is sexed up atheism. - ie the god of Einstein or Spinoza

As an agnostic I can't help thinking our biological sensors, computers and outputs, can't help but be a reflection of the biology. which in turn is a reflection of our environment and ultimately the universe. Is this in someway limiting?

Why?

What is the cause?

What is the purpose?

The universe unfolding might be an answer.

I must admit I have a problem with these type of questions, unless they are aimed at literalist Christians.

In one breath we say g(G)od is transcendent (ie beyond all categories of thought) and then in the next we ask what are the attributes of g(G)od?

We stand a better chance with the ineffable philosophical conundrums than with effable theology. Hope the pun was OK?

You are talking to a devout agnostic here Paul ...

Yes I agree more evidence/data may come along ... and change our view of universal purpose. Some no doubt claim it is already here. But the question becomes after being able to see things in a new light, another Brand will come along and suggest another new light ... and so it goes.

The question becomes OK, so what do we do now with our interpretations of the evidence regarding universal purpose we already have? The interesting thing we all have the identical evidence (the universe); it is our perspectives that differ.

just 'do' the first video link ... a universe from nothing.

Is infinity anything more than a mathematical construct?

Love and energy are both ways of symbolizing infinity? I am going to need some of Paul's/Brand's new light here.

Paul

I would argue this is seeing things is an new light as such ...

It is very definitely taking logic and evidence/data and seeing where it leads us.

So I am not sure how seeing things in this new light can lead us to there being a universal purpose.

He did ask the question about where did the energy come from to create the ingredients that led to the big bang,

Lawrence Kraus has an answer here to that question ...

http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1203

Now is Kraus right? It is a new light to see things in.

On another thread Soma said ...

Organized religion can prepare and lead individuals if they set up a way for Christ to speak directly to the believers in contemplation. Vigorous interactions with mental discourse are also a healthy way to encourage, deepen and strengthen the communion of God and humans.

Although Soma does not say it has to be through a Christian lens, I can't help wondering does it have to be Christian, does it have to be God or god, does it have to be a divinity, or the universe or spiritual, or can it be family or community?

Just wondering.

Joseph asked are opposites illusory?

Our language makes daily use of words commonly referred to as "opposites" such as good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, hard and soft, dark and light, hot and cold ...

We have a tendency to delve into relativism here. eg Is a cold star cold? Not by human standards. What makes something hot? Motion within that object. The motion within the star is fast compared to the motion within us.

At work I have come across solids that are 70% free water, yet they behave as a relatively dry material ... I could walk across a pile of this material though I would not because I know it is thixotropic. On the other end of the scale some solids can contain 8% free water and behave as though they are bone dry.

The properties I have described are physical properties I can use a meter to measure these properties. Like hardness, illumination, acidity, voltage, mass, current, time, you name it.

Thing like beauty, honesty, goodness, morality ... I am not aware of a meter that can measure such things with any reproducibility.

We parse things into is and is not ... evolution has endowed us with this capacity to perceive differences. It also has endowed us with the capability to perceive colours. I am far from convinced colours exist outside of our minds. (This of course does not make the perception of colour any the less beautiful, but it does make their perception wondrous). Similarly ultimately I suspect the parsing of is and is not is also illusory.

I think Brand is proposing of a different mindset that once we possess it, new avenues of thought and understanding will open up.

If he is suggesting new data/evidence will crop up that might create new models of our existence? Then he is likely quite right. If he is suggesting alternatives to reason and evidenced based logic then I am dubious.

We are finding out more about our brains all the time ... for example there is a mechanical component to our brain's function other than just electrobiochemical we observe. This did not change my word view.

I must admit I am a bit of materialist ... if we do discover some new mysterious force, energy, vibration etc ... then the materialist in me will just adsorb the new reality into my world view.

Is Brand suggesting there is a purpose to the universe? If so what is his evidence?

Back more on topic of Universal Purpose ...

This sort of implies:

1) Some entity's purpose for the universe and its contents.

2) The universe has a purpose for its contents

3) The contents bestow a purpose on the universe or the supposed entity's purpose for the universe.

I am having trouble getting my mind around any of the three.

As the universe unfolds saying that the purpose of the universe is to unfold is in effect a tautology for me.

Evolution has endowed us the capacity to perceive suffering.

Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery.

Paul ... when people talk about the frequency of consciousness, I have no idea what they are on about. Worse still, I suspect neither do they.

This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now.

If we take away the so called machinery, what is left? Certainly not any pontification or arm waving. Brand seems to be going back to some magical interpretation. While it is true we don't understand everything about this universe, in fact it is likely we understand very little, but we do have an understanding of biochemistry and physics. I am pretty certain without my biological robots (this is obviously a metaphor) we will have little understanding (whatever that is) in general.

The little bit of Brand's thoughts sounds like a hail Mary to the end zone, in the US vernacular.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

Of course it could be a duck hunter.