romansh

CS Lewis's trilemma is more of a pentalemma ... I am sure there are other options to.

Bill A few years back I was leaning the same way ... Now I take a more Campbellian view toward myth Here is an excerpt as to what (Rex Wyler thinks) can be attributed to Jesus. from The Jesus Sayings

I was wondering if anyone would ask this question? There is a philosophy" called ignosticism as opposed to agnosticism that sort of asks the same question. If god is transcendent ... we end up saying what god isn't and that is everything we can think of? Interesting

I do like DNA, his writing pushed me from a vague deism to a devout agnosticism. I find myself revisiting Adams' thoughts while searching for whatever. Incidently it's Romans (my middle name, prounounced almost like romance) or rom for short. While I would not describe myself as a pantheist, I suspect my position would be difficult to tease apart from pantheism. Panentheism ... hmmn? For me an enlightened form of deism but still a dualistic view. I can't help thinking this is a hangover from our traditional Christian beliefs (as you suggest below). Simon Blackburn asked an interesting question in one his books ... why do we assume nothing as the default state? ie requiring a first cause? Well now that I understand your position is more deistic rather than theistic (at least by my nomenclature) I might be able to avoid that faux pas. But you are right we cannot help but be influenced by our experiences.

Fair enough Bill. But I don't want devolve into some relativistic post modern point of view where everyone can be right. Some interpretations of the Bible have to be more accurate than others. Certain ones like the Earth is six thousand years old, and closer to home Jesus was literally the son of god and was resurrected are tough to believe with the evidence that is available to us today. Again fair enough ... but I never said it was unChrist like. I suspect that some people have an idealised view of Jesus/Christ. Events like killing a little girl. They are sad and I think we should try and stop them. Having said that, passing judgement on these such as the killing children is evil we should avoid. I believe this is a reflection of your belief in a traditional dualistic Christian God. I personally don't believe in a literal heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are here and now! And we can avoid them if we can "unlearn" the concepts of good and evil that we have learnt from tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

No problem disagreeing Bill We can play the definition game if you want Bill. My definition of Christ is something like this ... Christ is a mythical character that is likely loosely based on a historical person (Jesus) who was crucified. You don't see Christ like actions in us ... eg throwing hissy fits when a fig tree needs cursing, sending demons into pigs, and throwing merchants out of synagogues? Curious? It is the acceptance (I would use the "understanding") of these things in ourselves that is important. Interpretations of Christianity, take on various shades ... from the completely literal to completely metaphorical. And regarding your PS, what did Jesus say about people who claim everyone was Christ? Not the Christ. Jesus is supposed to have been crucified for saying he is one with god.

If god is transcendent (ie beyond all catergories of thought) then anything I manage to put into words is not god. If god is not transcendent then you are quite right to question my statement. Does this rule/logic work for you Paul? I would argue every person is a living Christ - not just has potential to be. You are all Buddahs. There is nothing that you need to achieve. Just open your eyes. -- Gautama Siddhartha edit to add quote

If one can put god into words, it is not god?

Do we know we are not God? John 10:31 ??? Many of us have a belief in free will which is pretty much godlike. Actually I agree with I and the Father are one ... A wonderful monistic point of view. It is only literal interpretations that say this statement does not apply to you, minsocal. There is no distinction between me, a lump of coal and god.

Why is God love? because God is (at least for some of us) a reflection of what we perceive as our better selves. For some acceptance of everything ... while I agree it is a useful position, I question is it God. Love? I had no choice but to love (and eventually accept) my wife. God being love ... does not make sense to me.

I would say not that the divine is in me ... but that I am divine. (ultimately there is no intrinsic I) So my neighbour's cat is divine A rock in my yard is divine There is no separation between me and the divine. I would argue we need to work on the last vestiges of dualism that pervades most of Western culture. If you see what I mean?

In the words of the great Zaphod Breeblebox Just take care when we give our egos qualities whether good or bad - just what is giving them those qualities?

Funnily enough this is what Islam believes. They hold Jesus in very high regard. He was born of god, by the virgin Mary, performed miracles and was crucified. Though he did not die on the cross, he was not resurrected, nor was he "god" in the shape of man. I would bet Jesus was a historical character, though I don't think we can ever be sure. We can also bet that Christ is a myth. I don't mean this in negative manner. Myths can be extremely powerful with a "useful" interpretion.

Dr Don Here's my take on things that are inerrant and infallible - not just the Bible. We all interpret stuff and at some point we convince ourselves that we are inerrant or infallible, at least in certain aspects. So consequently we can have interesting view points from evangelicals who with honesty admit that they are not inerrant or infallible, but that their interpretation of the Bible being I&I is not. For me as a devout agnostic I find this very paradoxical. But then we all fall into similar traps. Joseph ... regarding evidence for god. We talk about about personal and impersonal gods. Ultimately our religious texts point to such a concept of god as being transcedent. So by definition (in the eastern sense of the word) - we don't know what we are talking about. So for me any god I have managed to conceive so far I have been able to dismiss, both from the scientific point of view and from a matter of logic based on using the definition of beyond all categories of thought for transcendent. Anyway this is sort of my current I&I opinion. rom ps Welcome NiteWatchman - To know is not to know. And not to know is to know. It could be an agnostic's mantra.

Baggage? He ain't heavy he's my brother Welcome Sean

I must admit I don't get our deep love affair with sin. Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's will and tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Therefore when thinking in terms of good and evil all of a sudden we have a requirement for fig leaves etc. The result of this knowledge is we start having pain and suffering. There is a parallel in the Upanishads two bird poem - where one bird partakes in the joys and sufferings of the world and the other sits quietly. So to answer your question Rhino - I would say no. Just be aware of our actions and their consequences. As to becoming addicted to our primordial instincts - I am addicted to breathing amongst other things. In short ... the original sin is thinking in terms of good and evil. rom

http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Gospel-of-Thomas-Scholars-Version.pdf http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm http://www.swami-center.org/en/text/gospelofphilip.pdf

Here's my take on heaven and hell - simply states of mind or at least metaphors for states of mind. The tricky bit is is can we choose freely which state of mind we are in? I would argue no. Sure we can choose, but freely? Nah!

Another similar view of eternity ending with a slightly different Campbell quote:

The static? It was the universe singing to you.

I don't want to rain on JC's intro thread. But, I don't think you have a soul. But you do have something much better. You have the universe. The universe has made you the person you are today.

I like Campbell's view or eternity and eternal When we start thinking of gods in terms of eternal, it pays to realize there are other interpretations of the e word.

We all review things subjectively? Is the a subjective truth or an objective one? I must admit I have a problem with this postmodernistic relativism where all is subjective. I can't help thinking this dichotomy between the objective and subjective (noumenon and phenomenon) is somehow a false dichotomy. And of course the postmodernistic relativism is a dualistic view of things. For example it does have anchor point of good and bad, it is just that we can't access them in that they dependent on our perspective. Anyway to get back to the topic. A monistic point of view might lead us to an Einsteinian, Spinozan or perhaps a pantheistic type of god. Whereas a dualistic point of view might lead us to a panentheistic, deistic or theistic type of god. Of course a postmodernist view will suggest all these types are equally valid. So if it does not matter, why bother discussing this? And to answer the semi-rhetorical question, a quote from Clarence Darrow: Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never.

Does belief in God matter ...? What sort of god are we thinking of? Pantheistic, panentheistic, deistic or theistic? I'm sure there are other flavours. For me? In the great scheme of things: not one iota; but then I am an agnostic in the weakest sense of the definition. And for you?

Perhaps - Are you saying viewing things subjectively leads to a monistic view point? If you are, I would say my experience leads to a dualistic view point. Have you read anything by Rex Weyler? He wrote a nice book The Jesus Sayings about what words (he thinks) we can ascribe to the historical Jesus. I have a them here. Funnily John 10:30 is not amongst them. Does it matter? Yes and no.