romansh

A form of dualism (in my opinion) but dualism nonetheless

Knowing that segregating one thing out from the universe is a fallacy.

Welcome to the growing Nova Scotia contingent I do take issue with: I live in...ahem....God's Country Oh course this is the Kootenays in reality, but please don't tell anyone your occasional resident agnostic rom

Render unto Caesar

For me the spiritual moments are few and far between. Maybe half a dozen in my life, that I can recall at the moment. They only last a few seconds but they are intense. The last one: was high in the Andes - seeing 120 My old dino footprints. realizing I too am a footprint and will leave them, metaphorically speaking. Another was sitting in my back garden insisting to myself there has to be something more to life than this. Looking at our prezygote under a microsope and knowing this could be the begining of a human being. Watching an image of something like napthalene crystallize between two glass slides in one of old fashioned slide projectors. Two days later watching the classroom of kids see the same magic

Not only is the concept arbitrary it is also unnecessary. If Paul had said: homosexuality is a sexual orientation it would not make any difference to the argument. Paul goes on to say and not a choice. I would have qualified it a little and called it conscious choice. But that leads into the concept of free will and I don't think we have an appetite for this at this time.

Personally I am uncomfortable with the natural/unnatural divide. In my book mankind is part of the universe ... so is there anything unnatural in the universe? Perhaps a literal Biblical God? If we are honest about this subject, it is whether we are comfortable with homosexuality paedophilia or not. While I am not, I can look back on myself and see some of the causes. (Primarily societal indoctrination). I am suggesting a brute honesty - I don't like something therefore I will advocate against it. Rather than give it a label like "unnatural". There are no unnatural atoms in this universe! And before some smart alec suggests that elements103 above are unnatural, they also have to say two ions smashing into one another producing fleeting new atoms is unnatural. Atoms smash into one another in the stars all the time.

This I think is pertinent to our existence. When my 85 kg body does something, I assume agency. DrDon - science does not pursue "proof". Evidence and models - definitely Agnostically tilting at windmills, so to speak. Merry Christmas all. rom

Even the words we choose tend exacerbate duality - for example god in Jesus - Even Christ says he was one with with his father. Not that god was in him. We too should be one with god and therefore with everything else as well.

Will, Which parts of the Bible does Dr Collins suggest that we take literally?

Why? is a strange question I find. When a teenager asks Why? are they not asking what are the consequences? When a younger child asks Why? that child is asking about the antecedents perhaps. Causes and effects - and we are stuck in between. Science focuses on the causes and perhaps religion on the effects. Just waxing lyrical here. As an aside, the word religion is not its root - to reconnect?

That we might think PCs are free agents is OK in the trivial sense of the word free. Of course in the absolute sense of free as in free will, this claim is bit more of a stretch. I have seen a free will thread knocking about. Well it seems reasonable to me, to ask what are the reasons (or causes) for a person to follow a progressive Christianity. Joseph - do you think reasons (or causes) for an atheistically minded person to follow or label themselves as Progressive Christisans is irrelevant to the question: Is It Possible For An Atheist To Be A Christian?

The main focus is on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (not knowledge as such). Adam and Eve were not forbidden the fruit from the tree of life (at least not until they gained knowledge of good and evil).

My last post here got me asking this question: If the majority(?) Progressive Christians do not believe literally that Jesus was the son of God and was literally ressurected, and PCs are willing to explore actively alternative religious traditions, then why retain the Christian label? I understand this is the tradition we are familar with, but it seems curious as to why PCs would hold Christianity in someway? It reminds me of the Buddhist metaphor of when we reach the yonder shore there is no need to carry the boat. While understand interpreting the Christian texts as metaphors can provide interesting insights into our existence, but so can a really good novel or a book on the nature of the cosmos.

I understand Pete, even agnostics and atheists can't quite agree on definitions For example the poster boy of early twentieth century atheism, Betrand Russell, said: For pragmatic reasons I might define a Christian as someone who has the minimum literal beliefs that Jesus was literally the son of the Abrahamic god and that he died and was ressurrected for our sins. If someone claimed that they were Christian and did not have these literal beliefs then that is OK too. rom

I'm pretty sure it is in PoM for clarification I have read PoM several times Pathways to Bliss not so carefully but a couple of times (may be time for a reread)> And Myths to Live By So any quote I have will almost certainly come from the first two books. Sorry for the delay in replying

hmmn? My wife? My son? My son's death, PoM - Joseph Campbell? The realization it is all one?

one of the best 117 minutes I have spent

Campbell: Unless there is death, there cannot be birth PoM

Thank you for your interpretations: The bird on the higher branch I feel is the soul. It sees unity for example, you can't have good without evil or evil without good. For me the this bird is the silent mind - once we enter fruit eating bird's world do we shape our world whether it be unity or otherwise. The bird on the higher branch the soul just witnesses and is in bliss enjoying the movie on the lower branch and yes the bird on the lower branch eats good and bad food and learns I hope from the indigestion and heartburn I sort of agree but I would not use the word soul - as this, for me, implies a separateness from my body and everything else. If the birds are "inseparable" then perhaps the notion of the "two birds" is human illusion? Other translations substitute "identical" for "inseparable". Is this really a denial of mind-body dualism? My interpretation would be that it is a denial of dualism. The two birds a comrades, inseparable: they are one. I think Campbell described them as firm friends. And yes the motif of the tree is important, GoE, Buddha - but I don't have an interpretation formyself as yet. Again thanks for your points of view. rom

Back to the original question. I don't recall, but someone suggested that atheism means without a belief in god - which is likely not bad shot at it. But it does somewhat depend on which interpretation of ism we take. For example baptism and plagiarism are states or conditions rather than beliefs. Dualism could be a state or a belief. Anyway, whether an atheist can be a Christian, is purely a philosophical dilemma. We by and large have our logic in place. All we have to do is agree with our axioms (the hard part). For example, apparently ancient Greeks and Romans considered Jews and Christians atheists, because the Abrahamist god was none existent, so by definition Jews and Christians did not believe in god - hence atheist. It's logical according to their axioms.

I must admit I like the Upanishads two bird poem. I was intrigued, when I read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, by the Vedic metaphor of the two birds that Campbell alluded to. Here's the the original translated prose/poem: Two birds of beautiful plumage, comrades, Inseparable, live on the selfsame tree. One bird eats the fruit of pleasure and pain; The other looks on without eating. According to my absolute minimal reading, Vedic interpretations hold the bird that partakes in life in greater esteem. Whereas later Upanishads interpretations puts the observing bird on a higher branch and suggest it is something to aspire to. I can't help thinking both of these interpretations miss the point slightly. Surely we need both? We need to be a part of life and we should try to be aware. I think Campbell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden story also points to this (from the PoM). "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.” The aware bird. “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.” The partaking of life bird. Any thoughts?

In the parable about the attacked wayfarer, I wonder if it mattered to Jesus what the Samaritan's faith was? Was this not the whole point of the parable?

Dutch How else are we going to examine our consciousness? Now I don't meditate so can't comment on the process or the various different types. But as koans go asking Am I conscious now? is a good as The sound of one hand clapping? I suspect she is in the now as much you or I am. I know of no other place, even when I daydream of the future, past and other nows. Again I am not agreeing with her conclusion, though I experience something similar to what she writes. At the very least this experience tells me that consciousness is not what it seems. Joseph You say - being conscious is a state Being unconscious is also a state. And what I think is conscious when I examine it carefully seems more unconscious in reality. But to go back to the is the mind a result of evolution? - evolution is a result of the greater environment. But then again so are stream beds, rocks and bricks.

Neon It would depend on how we interpret John 10:30. If this is as true for me as it is christ then a lot can be interpreted atheistically. As there are many authors and editors, so how can we be sure of Jesus's central message? From a purely pragmatic point of view it may be worthwhile looking at Jesus the historical charcter and Christ the myth. But both ultimately are one and both have their place.