romansh

Curriculum Vitae Or resume in American. edit Tot siens Coen

Something I find with Campbell ... his oral work that has been transcribed I find much more accessible than his purely academic writing. The Hero with a Thousand Faces, I got to page 27 and turned to the last page.

I can't recommend Jesus for the non religious. As an agnostic I found the book tedious ... a disection of Biblical quotes that supported a non traditional interpretation. Whoever this book was aimed at ... I did not fit the bill.

Alors, mais oui I have read several of Campbell's books .. My favourite is Power of Myth ... available from library interlibrary loans as a DVD. Having said that preferred the book .. glossy coffe table version. close runner ups are: Myths of Light and Pathways to Bliss

Joseph Cambell is a must.

A response to Spong's twelve theses, which I thought was interesting https://www.phc.edu/UserFiles/File/_Other%20Projects/Global%20Journal/9-1/Stephanie%20Monk%20vol%209%20no%201.pdf

Wright's position is when a society falls on harder times the gods also become a little harder.

Robert Wright makes a similar reflection in his book The Evolution of God.

Personally I am on the the verge of actively disbelieving in an interventionist/personal god, much in the same way I disbelieve in unicorns being literally real.

When I have too much time on my hands I watch what the bots are reading. Came across this interesting thread. Taking a fairly broad interpretation of the word religion - to reconnect. Relativitism and pluralism are both descriptions of the way some of us see the world. Taking the scientific world view it is easy to see relativitism as a reasonable description, from Galeleo and Newton to Einstein they all realized that at least the physical world can be described in relativistic terms. Science itself can be quite pluralistic - it divides and conquers, When a scientist does an experiment she does her best to isolate the variables from extraneous factors. End of the day she realizes no matter how how good a job she does the rest of the universe has not been isolated. Our understanding of gravity, magnetism and quantum mechanics predict the effects extend to infinity. The amazing thing about Schrodinger's cat is not (would not be) a dead and alive cat in juxtaposition, but the box that could keep the universe out. Science for me points to a monistic description of the universe where everything is connected (hence religion). So both relativitism and pluralism are useful like Father Christmas in pointing us in a particular direction, but they are ultimately false.

The Four Horsemen

Here is my take on the original sin: Man was not thrown out Eden because he is in some way evil (commits evil acts, or is sinful) but because he learnt to differentiate between good and evil (parsing things into is and is not). To get back into the GoE we need to stop thinking in terms of evil (bad) and good. This is what the original sin means to me. It's almost the exact opposite of today's traditional Christian message. To be fair this was Joseph Campbell's interpretation and I have taken it on. Where he got from I don't know.

I think these things start with or at least have an essential component - demonizing the opposition ... for example giving them evil aspects. Don't you?

The gloves really came off with this document

When googling came across Romans 14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+14&version=NKJV

I think the book is probably what it is; though I suspect some interpretations/assumptions are closer to being flawless than others.

Can I suggest Lamb: The Gospel of Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal The book is ficticious, hilarious, respectful of Christ and imagines what might have happened during these years. It also points to the various Eastern influences in Jesus's teachings. This is book I think would make it to my top ten all time reads.

For what it is worth ... here is my point of view. A disclaimer first, my point of view is from a fairly devout agnostic point of view. I can't really call myself a Christian in any traditional sense of the word, and I don't think I fit into a progressive Christian definition, but I suspect many of my thoughts do overlap. I think that the many versions and and interpretations of the Bible have stopped (to some extent) evolving (being tampered with or partially forged) after the James VI version came into being. Sure we have had refinements and perhaps supposedly more accurate translations and hence more refined interpretations. But the whole thing has been concretized into dogma for many people. There is a broad general concensus that there is some definitive version/interpretation that should be adhered to. So hats off to progressive Christians who enrich the Bible (or more accurately their lives) by encorporating other traditions and our most accurate understanding of the way the universe ticks to evolve Christianity further. That some would express this as watering down of Christianity to me seems strange. My two cents.

matte ... Not only do you seem to miss Norm's point, you seem to misrepresent science. Science nor it's methods requires faith. It requires that for a scientific hypothesis to be used or to be useful, it should fit with observation. How is that faith?

Hmmn I would say something like Jesus was born for the same reason as any other person and dances in the whole. Why? is a misleading unless we asking as to the cause (I think).

The koan is not mine (ultimately nothing is), but I like it too. I would disagree it is my universe. Just my perspective and even there the metaphor does not quite fit. The experience of the tree is shaped by events in my life and like Indra's net is simply a reflection of the universe. Both the tree and my experience are a reflection of the universe. I remember driving home from the hardware store listening to some music on the radio, and understanding the music was playing me as much as I was playing the radio. The car, road and scenery were playing me too. That was as far as I could see, but I am sure the players were not limited to what I could see.

Afterthought How about? I have not reached enlightenment, but where I am is close enough.

How about I create my own duality, suffer because of this duality, in unity I understand duality is an illusion. I agree that our very tools of our thought process create duality. Why I point to a tree in my back garden, I immediately create a class of that specific tree and everything else that is non-that-tree. When we communicate we step into that dualistic world of is and is not. Exactly and hence the illusion that we are separate .

I almost succumbed to these words Steve. I think enlightment is not what it seems ... what comes to mind is the phrase I carry water and chop wood. I gain enlightenment and then carry water and chop wood. Thinking about having enlightenment is like if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him. If you think you have gained enlightenment you have not.

For me it means I am the universe ... metaphorically speaking, sort of.