romansh

I'm not so certain that a genetic component to morality is so clear. We might think it is clear right now, but clearly 'our' morality is differrent to other cultures in the past. Some cultures thought nothing of human sacrifice, rape, child abuse, torture, etc. If it is genetic, why does their morality seem so different?

There is a huge genetic component I suspect, I can suggest Robert Wright's The Moral Animal (and The Evolution of God). Having said that there is societal aspect that can overwrite to some degree our primitive programming. This is why I don't think morality whether for fiscal, sexual, etc responsibility should be our touchstone for behaviour. At the end of the day, morality is both genetic (evolutionary) and societal imprinting. This is where our disgust etc comes from. So our intuitive morality has been a useful guide in the develoment of the human race, I would argue there are better tools today.

In the Bible there are numerous appeals to casting aside this emotive type of judgement. Admittedly this is difficult.

You should read Haidt. There are good reasons for the gut feelings and they are part of our evolutionary development as humans

I agree, but the pace of the evolution of human progress and society have far out paced the tools that billions of years of evolution have endowed us with.

Under my system, if one wants the legal benefits of marriage, they must undergo a civil union.

How does one celebrate this civil non-marriage union? Sounds pretty non spiritual to me. I think executives have more fun signing a legal contract.

Are arguing that all morality, or just this issue, is relative?

George

No I'm not arguing that morality is relative. I'm suggesting there may be better tools for dealing with thorny issues than morality.

End of the day morality is just a gut feel to what is right and wrong. At least from my perspective.

There is probably no human endeavor in which we cannot find someone who finds it morally objectionable.

This is sort of my point - why through the lens of morality?

However, I think most people now, and historically, find prostitution to be morally problematic at a minimum. How many parents aspire for their daughter to grow up to be a successful hooker?

 

George

If I were to be in this line of thought, I would aspire my daughter to be a successful prostitute rather than an unsuccessful hooker.

That I would not aspire my child to be a garbage collector (dustman) is also neither here no there. We are conditioned from early childhood to what is proper and what is not.

Soma, I think we could say at a minimum that it is morally problematic. It is not the same as cutting hair, doing nails, cooking burgers or whatever.

George

Why does morality keep shifting? Why even look at it through the eyes of morality? For some eating burgers is morally reprehensible, ergo cooking them has to be up there aswell at least for those that think eating meat is immoral.

I agree. Civil union should be a matter of state, marriage should be a private religious or other type ritual.

So if were married in municipal registery office I would not be married?

We will have to create a new verb here.

Does marriage belong to people or to religious, private or state organizations? But I agree, if an organization does not want to marry my sort, then fair enough. Of course this is a bit more problematic if it is a governmental group that is disenfranchising me.

I think 'is' and 'is not' are useful categories especially on this subject. Or, maybe a better agnostic first-cut division would be 'could be' and 'is not.'

George

I think I understand what you are saying here, but I would say necessary rather than useful. I suspect it is the only way we can communicate.

I think this quote by George EB Box is insightful.

All models are wrong, but some are useful

Three questions come to mind:

1) if the is and is not model is wrong what is a more accurate model.

2) what is wrong with the more accurate/useful model. And finally:

3) what is wrong with Box's model that All models are wrong, but some are useful

I could chase my tail here for a long time.

Agnostic in the sense that I have no idea if a God exists, although I lean toward there maybe being 'something' behind all 'this'.

The way I look at it is - I have a pretty clear vision of what god is not, but I'm far from sure what god is. Then perhaps I'mtrying to parse into is and is not?

I agree. Without semantics, language would be just a bunch of meaningless sounds (by definition). But, sometimes we can get hung up on trying to make fine distinctions when it is unnecessary or serves some ulterior purpose.

Ahh purpose, there's another quandry.

Rom,

Thanks for the introduction. Self-labels aren't all that important here and semantic battles accomplish little in my experience and i can relate to your disinterest in such . I do like your forum motto.

Thanks for the welcome Joseph and Paul.

In some ways I agree with you here Joseph, but semantics are important. What would happen if I were to suggest someone who is a follower of Spong is not a Christian. I suspect I would be put on the mat pretty sharpish and quite logically so (from my perspective). Just try calling me an atheist and see what happens .

On the otherside:

Imagine the word tree. For me it conjures up some non-descript deciduous thing. But do I include insects, birds animals in my thought? Do I include rain, air, rays of sun? Do I strip the soil, moisture and nutrients from the tree; what about lichen mosses and other flora? Where does a tree stop and the rest of the universe begin? This is what a label does, not always well, but it splits things into is and is not.

Paul

I can't specifically speak to the way. But it all boils down to parsing (for me) the historical Jesus, the mythical Christ and the interpretation(s) thereof. I started down that path and Weyler's book The Jesus Sayings I found a great resource. Whether it is an accurate reflection is another matter. Anyway his punch line can be summed up here. It is (I think) a beautiful little poem based on what were, for Weyler, Jesus's historical words.I have to admit I was enamoured (and I suppose I still am) with these thoughts. So far so good.

But I was then asked why parse the words of the historical Jesus and the mythical Christ. Cannot there be insights into the cosmos and the human condition in history and myth? Is that not what we are looking for?

Some art becomes myth but not all. I thing myth involves group consciousness. If art participates in that then it is myth. Perhaps more often it participates in the myth rather than being the myth. I think Star Wars is like that. And Prince of Egypt. Andy Warhol. Duchamp's urinal.

Dutch

I can't speak to the influences of your latter three and their consequences. In some sense it could be said they have not taken hold.

But to Lucas's Star Wars it was definitely influenced by the works of Joseph Campbell - eg Hero with a thousand faces.

And the myth of Star Wars is being concretized as we deliberate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

The Evolution of God. Ronald wrote A Short History of Progress.

George

And The Moral Animal, the book put evolutionary psychology to the forefront.

Hi Spiritseeker,

 

I'm a reincarnationist, and do not see that as necessarily antithetical to Christianity.

 

Adi

In a previous life I was a star. Today I'm stardust.

Hmm. I don't think an acknowledged fiction would be considered myth although it could be art. Stories about the future would probably not be described as myth. I think 'myth' is limited to ostensibly historical events, but as Harris & Platzner's definition suggests, it expresses some truth.

 

George

However, biblical scholars use the word differently. Here is how Harris and Platzner (The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible) define it: The term denotes a narrative expressing a profound psychological or religious truth that cannot be verified by historical inquiry or other scientific means."

Does not art (at least good art) express a profound psychological truth?

I'm not referring to Dan Brown's latest thriller.

Romansh/George,

I like the way the Indian storyteller says it in the tale - "Now I don’t know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true."

Paul

Art is lies that tell the truth. Picasso

And what is myth, but an art?

I really don't know what Price, or any other individual mythicist's, motivation might be. But, I suspect that fundamentalist Christians generally would argue in favor of a historical Jesus because without this, their theology would collapse. And, I suspect that some of the mythicists argue against it for the same reason; it would undermine traditional Christianity.

I have to admit I have done very little research on this topic for a few reasons, but my take on this subject is Jesus was real, but Christ the myth has built up around him.

Now that may have sounded derogatory, it certainly was not meant that way. Because in some sense myth should be held in higher esteem than history. I'm not sure I have explained myself well, but I'm happy to elaborate if required.

Paul

I got stuck on the second page - none of the answers fit me.

So I suppose I'm not going to get reincarnated.

I understand this is supposed to be a bit of fun but it does propagate a particular aspect of Buddhism and it reminded me of an essay by Stephen Batchelor, where he says:

That’s one thing [reincarnation] I have a very agnostic view about. I don’t personally believe that you have to hold any belief in reincarnation to practice Buddhism. To me, reincarnation is a very good example of a metaphor of consolation. Traditionally, rein­carnation is actually what you’re trying to escape from. It’s very ironic that Westerners actually think that reincarnation is something to look forward to, because it’s actually what the Buddha was trying to get you out of.

from

Two books of this ilk I can recommend

The Case for God by Karen Arnstrong and she has a nice TED talk aswell

and The Jesus Sayings by Rex Weyler

I enjoyed both books, though I did not agree completely with Armstrong

I'm a 44yo woman living in the Detroit area. I have two daughters and two granddaughters. As a reluctant atheist I'll probably have more questions than meaningful input, but I thought I'd pop my head in and say hi.

Hi from a kindred spirit (agnostic in this incarnation)

Joseph kindly asked that I introduce myself.

So here goes.

Hi

I am what can be considered an agnostic, and I suppose by some definitions an atheist. But that is a semantic battle I have little interest at the moment.

I am a moderator and administrator of a little known agnostic forum. It's motto is A forum for people of all persuasions. So if anyone is interested to see the dark side - they are more than welcome,

I have been thinking about Spong's works and wanted to find out more and his website pointed me here. I don't know for how long I will stay as our little agnostic forum can be a black hole for time. Anyway I posted a link to a Spong video and I got the expected reponse from our resident fundamental Christian - that Spong is not a Christian. If any one would like a peek, here is the thread. Anyway I will trawl though Spong forum to get alternative points of view.

My apologies if I have broken some cardinal sin in linking to another site.

My influences in life - the universe (I tend to be monistic in outlook). But from a pluralistic point of view my wife, my late son James, my family and a pretty good science education (despite the material the pedagogues had to work with) have been huge influences on me.

Two authors that have shaped me Douglas Adams and Joseph Campbell. I have never been terribly Christian, my peak would have been when I was confirmed as a skeptical 17 year old (Lutheran). I could never get the hang of the literal bits one requires to be a traditional Christian.

Enough about me.

Have fun

rom

I think we need to take a slightly longer term view and maybe a broader perspective

and

I accept particular minorities may at times experience a reversal in acceptance.

But the overall trend is for the better.

Meister Eckhart wrote:

Of course he might have been wrong.

rom

Dear Bishop Spong,

You state in one of your books that if we as humans are created in the image and likeness of God, then God must be a two sided coin. God/Satan, Jesus/Judas, good/evil, etc. Am I reading you correctly?

Hi Rob

Speaking as a devout agnostic, I don't quite see it the same way as you. I like Joseph Cambell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden Story - Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining a knowledge of good and evil. So to get back into the Garden of Eden (metaphorically speaking) we have to give up thinking in dualities: ie no more Jesus/Judas, God/Satan.

Ditto for man and God. This is what was meant when Christ said "I and my Father are one". We too should endeavour to be Christlike. Be one with God and not merely have the holy spirit in us.