romansh

"I" am here because it is the way the universe has unfolded.

Or are we looking for an after the fact rationalization?

Juris, can I ask, if you are not in need, why, as an affirmed agnostic, does a Christianity forum interest you?

 

Most Christians would affirm that God exists. If your mind is already made up about that, what do you seek here? Are you, perhaps, looking for some kind of "progressive Christian" insight where James is concerned? If so, I think it is a fair statement that progressive Christians have a wide range of views on what is usually called the afterlife and we are usually very non-dogmatic about it. Personally, I think we all return to our Creator. What happens then? Now, that, I am agnostic about.

Perhaps this is a case of equivocation on either or both our parts.

Needs ... Do I have a need to be here? I don't think so. There is no conscious part of me that says, "I need to be here on the Progressive Christian website"

This Clarence Darrow quote gives a sense where I am coming from

 

Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails.

Why am I here? I chased a Spong thread and I am here for a while. This is definitely not my "home" site.

This is.

I see some value in the Abrahamic texts, so long as they are not taken literally three times a day with food.

Is the Christian shell better than any other religious shell? I suspect not, but it is more readily available.

Rom,

 

What is it you are in need of to make it enough? Just curious.

Absolutely nothing. I am not in need.

Strange question I thought.

Regarding Bill our Lockheed Martin metrologist - giving examples of sizes in Imperial Units. Apparently somethings from before the nineteenth century are still in fashion.

I wonder if LM measures force (thrust) in poundals ... I somehow doubt it.

Me too.

Not for me.

Just my lame attempt at humor, romansh. You're right about agnostic/atheist semantics.

Eastern thought, it seems to me, is a contradiction in terms as it seems to value non-thinking.

As would I, Rom. I suspect the only times are brains aren't thinking is when we are dead.

Bill I have to admit when I juxtapose your two quotes I get a certain degree of cognitive dissonance.

 

How do you pick one to believe?

A book I have just finished called Zealot, presents a convincing argument that Jesus should be taken in context of his culture and time. This book points out that Jesus himself stated several times that his 'message' was to the Jews, not the gentiles. It would seem that Jesus' 'message' didn't extend outside that circle - so to love your enemies wasn't to turn the other cheek to the Roman soldier torturing you, but was intended as a message for Jews to love their fellow Jews.

 

It seems that Paul took Jesus' message and chose himself to expand it to include gentiles.

 

Whilst the Gospels may present Jesus' currently understood message 'clearly' I think we should be at least conscious of the fact that with the gospels having been written at least 40 years after Jesus left, it is highly likely his 'message' was lost a little in translation.

 

That said, nothing stops us (or Paul) from building on that original message and developing it even further for our world today.

I would have a lot of respect for Reza Aslan, if he announced he was going to write about a similar study of Mohammed.

Is that potato/potatah, romansh?

Well this question is mainly about pronunciation, is it not?

The difference between agnostic and atheist is more about semantics and the ensuing logic ... I think.

 

I think you will find much in common with people here .... even those who may choose to carry a different label.

I am not so sure about that Joseph ... Gaylord is an atheist and I consider myself a devout agnostic.

Eastern thought, it seems to me, is a contradiction in terms as it seems to value non-thinking.

This is a misrepresentation of how our brains work, I think.

I would argue our brains are thinking whether or not we are aware.

 

If I am anything I am a mythicist; I believe most all the Bible and all other religious scriptures are compellations of myths, which are essential to cultures if they are to understand who they are.

Welcome Gaylord

I was intrigued by the line above.

I just finished reading Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman. His conclusion was almost certainly ... Jesus of Nazareth. ... existed.

Implicitly Ehrman defined mythicists as people who believe Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Would this be an apt description of your view?

From a personal nomenclature point of view for me Jesus is the historical character or seed that the myth of Christ has been built upon.

Welcome again

rom

Here is how I treat the concept of rational Bill.

Everything is rational.

When two billiard balls collide the go off in predictable directions and speeds. if they don't there is a cause, eg spin on a ball that was not accounted for, perhaps a dead fly on the table in a ball's path, They behave rationally. Similarly if I experience demons in my mind then it is rational for me me to be fearful of those demons. If god gave humans rationality it gave everything rationality. (In my opinion).

Irrationality is akin to magic.

While I agree the the danger of a metaphor or poetry is that its interpretation is shaped by a persons experiences, genetics, body chemistry ... you name it. Nevertheless our forbearers try to express their truths in these formats. Take a look at physics and the sciences in general ... here we try to as objective as possible and yet we have widely differing interpretations of what it all means.

Regarding Eastern/Western modes of thought ... tell me rationally what is a tree.

I thought I'd give this thread a bump in the light of Bill's understanding of my position. This may give a more accurate view of where I am trying to come from.

I thought one had judgments - good food and bad food - about what it was eating and the other did not.

Sure we cannot help but have judgements.

Now I happen to enjoy bacon. Is this a judgement? I would say no ... it is an observation of my condition. If someone won't eat bacon, because say on religious grounds, is this a judgement? I would say no. If that same person would say eating bacon is wrong/evil/breaking a covenant with god .etc ... then I would say yes, they are passing a judgement.

if someone thought eating bacon was ethically/morally wrong because we are eating another sentient being they too are passing judgement. If that same non bacon-eating person were to say they won't eat bacon because they don't want to eat sentient beings ... that in my book is not passing judgement.

While in all this have I exercised judgement? Nowhere did I say judgement is wrong (or right). It is an unavoidable fact of human life. But at times we can try and still our minds and try to see things without our mind chatter. Look at a tree and not think tree.

I can't help wondering about the words have faith, believe, know and think.

Here's how I see the words or at least try and use them.

I believe ... I have a fair amount of evidence to support my position and hence behaviour.

I know .... I have so much evidence to support my position and behaviour it is not true.

I have faith in ... I don't have convincing evidence but I believe it anyway.

I think ... The perceptions I have, that have been formed by the universe.

Here is an example of a teleological argument.

I go into the doctor's and she says that the tests have come back positive for some nasty disease. I ask what is the false positive rate? She says 5% and it does not give false negatives. I say what I have a ninety five percent chance of having this nasty disease?

What is my doctor's correct response?

Apologies in advance for overthinking this problem

Rhino

If in fact any posts did actually cause any confusion or unhappiness, it was not from over-examining. I would argue quite the opposite.

The last few posts are a good example of how over-examining something can lead to confusion and unhappiness.

Rom,

 

I think I understand exactly what you are saying. There is no such thing as good or bad. And even the most abominable things should be accepted and encouraged. This kind of thinking is the hinge-pin of moral relativism. I find it interesting that you can assert these things with no challenges, but my post stating that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones against moral relativism is rated down.

Bill

That you think I am promoting some moral relativistic position does show that you do not understand my position.

For the record I think moral relativitism as dualism gone mad. A sense of morality (or more accurately our ability to have one) is an evolutionary trait. As far as I can tell the stardust that I am composed of is amoral. Also as far as I can tell so is that of the neighbour's cat and the rock in my garden. Now why would a human being's pattern of stardust be moral and that of a rock not?

Bill,

 

Perhaps you are taking things out of context??? If you examine my post you referenced, i said " Love, as defined by the majority of people i have met, indeed doesn't click as God for me either" As i think you will find i have often referred to God as Love but not in the context of what many humans might define as Love. Anyway, no big deal. Effective communications are often difficult for us all. Perhaps i could do a better job at making myself clearer.

 

Joseph

I won't speak for what is what is god ... I have a sense of what is not god, at least for me.

Love has many facets ... acceptance (and even letting go) are a couple of them. The problem with the word acceptance when juxtaposed with something is that is most abominable plainly can lead to an emotional reaction. Which is fair enough.

I am not saying we should stand by idly when rape pillage and murder occur. Far from it. I would try to deal with the causes prior to these events.

If I had to emphasize a facet of love it would be understanding. Evolution I think has endowed us (most of us) with an ability to have a sense of good and bad (evil). This is ability while useful has some room for improvement, I think.

Bill

i really think you have misunderstood the point/position I am trying to make here.

It surprises me.

Rom, I'm not sure I think of our language as dualistic, but I do think it is comparative. Words have meanings by comparing them to one another, but I don't think they always fall into one of two boxes. For instance, there is a difference between you and I as humans, but that doesn't mean that one of us is human and one is not.

I suspect it is ... the parasites and symbiants shape a tree and vice versa. Yet we think of them as separate. Is the light that falls on a tree separate, is the water and air that a tree takes in separate? Our language is definitely a reflection of the way our brain processes these concepts.

Are you and I separate?

 

As far as God goes, no I require neither proof for or disproof for God. I've already shared what I believe God to be and how I experience God. But Campell's notion, if it has been correctly represented, that there is no such thing as good or evil (or right or wrong) would certainly go along way, if it were true, in dismantling my notions of God, wouldn't it? Personally, living in such a society where nothing is considered to be right or wrong would not appeal to me. Although I sometimes question them, I do think we need social mores to guide us along the way.

I think we need to be more honest with ourselves. And understand the origin of those mores. We can put a thief in jail without thinking the thief's actions are bad or thief himself bad.

Campbell is fairlyy circumspect as to his beliefs. In my opinion ... I have just extrapolated from what I have read of him. But here is anpther Campbell quote:

“ … one of the greatest challenges in life is to say “yea” to that person or act or that condition which in your mind is most abominable.”

Look at it from a panentheistic point of view. If god is in you, me, rocks, the neighbour's cat and that thief ... then there is a certain cognitive dissonance in thinking of that thief or thiefly actions as bad. In my opinion. If that thief has an absence of god then we need understanding not a condemnation as "bad".

Don't you think?

 

I do believe in free will of mankind, and everything happens because of a choice that is made by someone, past or present.

Welcome CD

Just curious though ... when you say mankind ... do you mean man collectively or individually?

rom

 

Rom, if, according to JC, we need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad, then to say my prerequisite could be bad fail does not follow, does it?

Why are you still expressing yourself in terms of good and bad, when Campbell never did and I carefully did not express it as such?

This is how Campbell expressed it:

• “That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.”

To be fair he goes on to say:

• “Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life."

 

And, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't find it beneficial at all for humanity to adopt a "no good, no evil" policy about ourselves or our world and just let anything happen.

Quite ... but then the universe has unfolded in such a way that you would think that. Has it not?

 

To me, if current astronomy tells us anything, it is that life in our universe seems to be rare. So I think it should be cherished, enjoyed, and respected.

Well I enjoyed my beef and vegetable pie tonight. I suppose I respect the bovine, carrots and whatever the green bits were. I will have to work on the cherishing though. Sorry I thought you said gastronomy.

 

The fruit of the Spirit, the Golden Rule, and Jesus' two commandments are a few ways we can do that. It has nothing to do with proving (or disproving) an Old Man in the Sky like we find on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Ultimately our language is dualistic. It parses things into what is and what is not. We do this for trees, bovine creatures and god or God. This is the orinal sin, I think. I am not going after the old man in the sky - there is no need by and large for that. I am going after the language we use though,

Do you actually need a disproof of god?

 

Is love God?

Or is god a reflection of our biases?

or perhaps as Rhino put it

 

God is the sum of all that we worship

 

Give me evidence that these qualities are bad or that they don't exist, and we will have a good starting place in disproving God to me. Fair enough?

Let me make an assumption that JC's, no not that one, Joseph Campbell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden story is right, and if we want to get back to the Garden of Eden we should stop thinking in terms of good and evil (bad).

So your very prerequisite that qualities could be bad fail at the first hurdle.