thormas

Come on Joseph, make a guess. Which answer to you lean to?

I have always thought that, with the exception of man (that is to the best of our knowledge) other forms of life simply are alive yet not self-conscious - not able to 'step out of themselves' and see themselves alive. Animals and (I guess) insects have consciousness but It is man, who is both blessed and cursed with self-consciousness. Not sure what 'answer as if our hair is on fire' because we are the one who can sit back and say we should answer that way, don't think you'll hear an insect buzzing about that :+} It will experience either being on fire or not, flying one second, squashed the next. Whereas man can 'contemplate' being on fire, being squashed, being worth it, dualism and nothingness (although I suspect we can't really know nothingness since we experience ourselves as always being - not nothing). As to the eternal question, are we better off than the insects? I answer with the Immortal words of Burl: "When you smack a spider the last thing to go through its mind is its butthole;" However, it is not the last thing that goes through the minds of men.

Read Campbell and also Armstrong's 'A Short History of Myth.' Not sure there is a divide between seeking meaning and (truly experiencing life) being alive: if one has a meaning (whatever it is, although probably life enhancing works best) then, I think, one can 'experience life' or live that life more deeply. Seems that those who can't find meaning, also don't have deep or 'healthy' lives (this is obviously not the case with atheists or agnostics). I agree with Andrew Greeley (priest, Sociologist, novelist and writer on religion) when he wrote in 'The Jesus Myth' that we all need some rough and ready answers to the questions posed by the mere fact of being alive. I prefer books also and thanks.

Welcome Scott.

Thank and I like your review - I too will be lost in the quantum section.

Haven't heard that one about Christianity but it is catchy :+} With the end of expecting the apocalyptic time and with a more progressive take, Christianity is more about "human and becoming human' with the accompanying ending of sin: one can hope. And what are the little books?

Ok, we're safe here too. I immediately discount reports from a group where all wear Guy Fawkes masks and I read about 'lots of evidence' but no examples of said evidence. And reports of great revelations but then still no revelations. I allow for many possibilities in life, including 'alien' life but see no indisputable evidence..........so we're safe for the foreseeable future. But I do love Star Trek, so I remain open. Again, if the 'evidence were out there' I think it too would bump Trump (please god) from the pages and news programs. P.S. Sorry Scott, if one does not read the bible literally, then the idea of Watchmen in Eden makes even less sense - and then we have the contamination of the gene pool by giants having their way with the women of the earth?? But how did things fit? I mean a giant defect by giants - and people were smaller back in the day, and women even smaller (I mean how tall was Eve, maybe 4'6"?). And then God got pissed and killed everybody - the same Abba whose Word died for a sinful humanity? And what was with the women in Noah's family if the giants took a pass on them? Couldn't have been their choice since the giants did not ask permission? Also, if angels continued to defile earth women, shouldn't we have some larger than life, angelic like, humans around today? And who corrected the 'giant defect?" The church is probably silent on all this stuff for the same reason it is silent on DC vs. Marvel.

Ok, I can return to normal life: National Geographic reported the photos were a hoax and those who ran it admitted they were taken in. Wondered why, if it were established fact, it wasn't reported everywhere, all the time and bumped Trump off the pages of the major papers and networks. Now, onto to aliens but think I saw the movie(s).

I know it's not peculiar to the Judeo-Christian scriptures...........and I' don't equate angels, fallen or otherwise, to aliens. Still...........???? Not sure about the indisputable testimony on aliens. But since it is Halloween, I will check the aliens and the giants, then put on my Batman suit and go trick or treating - given the subject, probably the former :+}

Good stuff, who is the mythologist? How or what does the mythologist say about existence itself (mistake, happenstance, purpose) and what does he/she say about the here and now dimension called eternity? It seems fine to define it so, but what is it or what does it mean? What is the 'function' of life in good and evil, in all things?

Well, that's a ray of sunshine from Buddha. One suspects our experience is not the final word but fun to speculate when time permits. But what is the latest from Quantum?

Simply, wondering if you are accepting the mere 'mention' of the dozen different spiritual beings in the bible or, given the comment on open minds on the subject, possibly accepting the spiritual beings literally? I get that elohim might denote supernatural beings (angels or otherwise) but is this poetry or something else? I get the point on the Hebrew being the original language but translations into other languages are also accepted 'literally." So sons of god or supernatural beings: taken as poetry or 'literally?"

But is that accepting a literal reading?

My first reaction is, who knows? And I mean that seriously. My take is that 'in the beginning' God created time and space: man is a historical being, that is part of the reality of our being and if we find our being in God (or, if God is redemptively present) then in some way God is 'in time.' Further I was trying to relate the belief that most men probably don't fully become the 'likeness of God' in a short 90 years or so, or far, far less for some of us. So, believing that the fullness of our humanity is what we are born for and that it is, in some real way, our responsibility and our achievement (in relation with God), if it is not achieved, the journey continues. I think some theologians believe this and I think the idea of purgatory (not a place, not taken literally) is an attempt to articulate this belief. So, if there is a continued purging of selfishness to become Human, the question is how/where does this happen. If it does, I believe God waits for all time (agains suggesting our continued bodily existence in achieving Humanity) until this is done and then, time ends - and all is the Eternity of God/One. So the time/eternity piece is an attempt to find some way to articulate this belief. But, who knows?? Perhaps with death, there is a separation and traditional heaven and hell. However, the reality is most of us have not become truly Human. Is it automatic when we die, we instantly close the gap? But if so, it is no longer our responsibility, never our achievement. And, what of the worst of us? Automatic forgiveness and entry into heaven? Or it it to hell for the prodigals who run out of time before they turn back to the Father? I do not believe in hell (for eternity), I do believe in the promise of the PS parable, and I believe 'achieving' our humanity is our responsibility (in response to God) - which takes time, sometimes more than we have here. So, I believe God waits for all time, for as much time as it takes - and then time melts into eternity. But, as I began, who knows, I leave the details to God. Note: the being worth the wait was to acknowledge the reality that we 'arrived' late to the universe - and that, if Being/God/Reality 'created' then this was the evolutionary process by which we came to be. But we're worth it, don't you think?

Agree on the non-scriptural statement, just wanted to clarify. Thanks.

Agree with Rom's first sentence: some people do and Billy, by his own words, is one of them.

Many/ most of the NT citations can't be speaking about themselves, i.e. the NT, because the canon was not yet set: they had no way of knowing there would be and/or that their work would be included in a 'Christian Scripture / Bible.' In addition, Paul and Mark with their apocalyptic beliefs would never have expected such a thing as a canon or a sacred scripture of Jesus to be needed. And, again, the others - no way to expect it (canon or their inclusion) especially with the many other 'christianities' in the decades of the first and early second C of the common era. I read these NT citations as beliefs/statements about Jesus speaking the truth about God. One would think the writers weren't lying but it seems that it was obvious to them, for example Matthew and Luke, that they were 'diverging' from Mark and perhaps the other common source (Q) and adding additional or ever different information. They don't seem to be making a statement on the Bible, as commonly defined, as the true word of God. Same might be said of the OT citations but I have less experience and interest in the OT. When were 'books' written, when was the Jewish 'canon' set?

I remember the days as a little kid when I played with my dinosaurs even as I 'studied' the story of Adam & Eve: we had pictures (larger than life picture books mounted in front of the classroom - obviously authentic :+}) and we took it very literally - but we still had our toy dinosaurs. I look at such amazing finds in a completely different way. Even, in Genesis, which I don't take literally (anymore), we are presented with a 'world' and then man is placed in or becomes part of it. I look upon the story as a tale or belief that God had a relationship with the created order - before man even made his appearance. It seemed to line up nicely with science and also provided a possible rationale for concern for the earth (mirroring God's initial relationship with mother earth). Many of us move among theism, denim and other isms when it comes to creation. Even though I'm not a deist, but seemingly God 'sets things in motion' or give the 'word' and then existence, time and space begin to unfold (so to speak). But as a former theist, I don't believe that God merely sits back and as a panentheist, I believe that all 'this' exists in God or, conversely, that God (unlike deism) is intimately involved in the ongoing creation. So my completely different take is that God was/is completely interested or invested in all creation with particular emphasis on the human who is meant (from the faith perspective) to share the fullness of Life and, as Teilhard, says, reach back and pull all of creation along with it. I have no other term for it than (God-is)-Love. I have always loved trees - when my house was being built, we were insistent, unlike some neighbors, that most of the trees remain. And I have always been a dog lover (they loved to chew on the dinosaur toys) but all this was nothing compared to having a friend, falling for a girl, marrying my wife or having a child. There is, as I'm sure many would agree, a 'difference' in being in (and enjoying) the world and sharing it with human beings than seems to make the love of trees and the dogs - even better. So, reflecting on love, I get why God could 'love' creation with all it has to offer, but still love even more, human beings: we are worth the wait. Plus, we are bodily creatures that need a 'home' in which to grow: the earth and the universe is the 'place' where man and woman (and perhaps other intelligible life?) are given the chance to become. The idea, which I always thought the believers in evolution among us understood, was that 'all this' took time: there was evolution, the laws of nature rule and we were part of that development - albeit and naturally, at a much later date. But worth the wait! The 'caring' was always there but so was the 'letting be' for the natural process that we so value.

And a Wow to Billy too but like the separation from UFOs , Satan and demons. But politely disagree with his take on the Bible but we'll leave it there rather than explore what else must be believed if one believes the Bible to be the true Word of God.

Wow, just Wow!

This doesn't speak to me at all and hasn't since I was a little kid in Catholic schools. Such a belief misses the Christian understanding that God's forgiveness is freely given, it does not have to be earned. Nor does one have to 'work off' a sentence of punishment given by God. Such a view also persists in the belief that God is a Divine Person who must be appeased and demands his pound of flesh from men and women - some of whom have been weighed down, defeated by life but not being perfect still have to 'do time' in purgatory. Didn't they pay enough in this life? And, where is purgatory? Simply consider the Prodigal Son: the Father is always there, waiting for the son to turn back and once done, that Father gives no thought to punishment for past sins, rather he rejoices, throws a party and scolds the older son who does not understand. This is the model. Man becomes truly Human by Loving (image and likeness of God): this is the only way 'To Be' and to Live. If man does not love, if he 'misses the mark' (sins), there is 'nothing:' he/she does not have Life (Oneness). Yet the Father waits, I think for all time until each and every man/woman Returns. Only then is the 'redemptive work' complete. But what if one (as most probably do) dies without fully turning and before they become truly Human? Some theologians have suggested that life 'continues' as one further 'purges' him/herself of sin/self-centeredness and becomes Love. In this, the purging is not a place to go, it is something to do, something to be. Yet the Father waits 'until hell freezes over' :+}. Some theologians believe that there is no hell or that it is not eternal; only 'heaven' (One with/in Divinity) is eternal. That is the point and the destiny of creation. Obviously there is no way to prove anything in this thread, yet the Prodigal Son parable seems to allow for such a belief in Life Eternal/Oneness for all - without punishment. Note: it is interesting to wonder if the purging of selfishness continues after death, even though the emphasis is on something to do, not some place to go - how/where does this occur? The answers that some theologians have given include reincarnation to this place, or other worlds in which we still have bodies because we are bodily creatures and since it is not a holding cell but a life to be lived and actualized, we need bodies to live. I have no idea and actually no opinion as the mind begins to boggle. I simply accept the ideas contained in the Prodigal Son story and leave the details to God - as I/we have enough to contend with in this life, with these bodies.

I don't think there was a future for Jesus to have an eye on. By that I mean the Kingdom had begun. And, once (fully) established, there would be no future, nothing to prepare for, rules and regs unnecessary because the Future was Present. There are rules for behavior to get somewhere or to establish something, for example, a better, just society or there are rules and regulations that govern golf or bowling - but the Kingdom was all God's doing (according to Jesus): rules and regulations followed by people would not bring the Kingdom. As such, rules and regs had no place. I do agree, with the 'delay' of the Kingdom or the 2nd Coming, it became a rule of Christian behavior - necessary to get 'into' heaven. Perhaps we understand barriers differently: don't think Jesus was merely easing 'strict' barriers - he was overcoming (and therefore erasing) all barriers between humanity and God: in the Kingdom, there is (so to speak) direct access: all are 'One.' Jesus did not demand belief in himself or acceptance of his death as atonement for sins (unless one accepts a literal reading of certain gospels) . The NT moved to this and it was firmly established by the growing Church but for Jesus it was whatever was done to the least......the two great commandments. This is how one lived if one accepted the coming Kingdom (one lived knowing or as if the Kingdom had begun and of course this is how one would live when the Kingdom came). I also don't see how believing in Jesus (if required) or loving (the commandments) would be a barrier at all, rather it is the way to overcome barriers. With Jesus (Prodigal Son) and with Christianity (properly understood), forgiven is never a quid pro quo: forgiven is not a reward for action, rather it is gratuitous, a gift freely given - always there waiting for man. There is nothing conditional about forgiveness or relationship with God. I agree with you that the article oversteps with the 'uniqueness' of Christianity.

I agree with your disagreement: the 'evidence' is only solid for adherents of Christianity (perhaps). However I disagree that Jesus set rules and regulations: given his (probable) apocalyptic belief, he thought the End (the establishment of the Kingdom on earth by God) was 'now' - in the lifetime of his followers - there was no time for rules and regulations, only time to turn to God and be ready. I do agree that Jesus was erasing barriers: the point wasn't maintaining Judaism because with the establishment of the Kingdom, Judaism would be 'over' because God's reign would be established and extended beyond the Jews to 'all nations and to the world.' The citation from Luke, if authentic, shows the imminent arrival of the Kingdom - nothing, nothing (not riches, not status, not earthy power, not friends or family) was more important that preparing for the Kingdom: if friends and family were with you, all the better but you could not let them hold you back if they were not with you, not preparing for the Kingdom. I also disagree on disciple: it is one who follows the Teacher, Wisdom, the Way and in following one is or becomes a son of God. As for Buddhism, what they call a relationship with everything, the Christian calls a relationship with God/creation (i.e. everything). In both the wall is the lack of relationship (which is breached or disappears in relationship with All) and the Christian too believes he/she achieves bliss (oneness with God/All) and in both cases it is not (if properly understood) a requirement, it is the (only) Way - which, I guess, is its own requirement.

Schmemann's statement that "Religion is needed where there is a wall of separation between God and man" is actually intriguing although it might not fit the definition of religion. If one no longer accepts or has (in some real way) breached that wall, do they need religion? Is, for example, Sunday worship a celebration of Jesus erasing of the barrier, is it a symbolic reenacting of His accomplishment or is it the recognition that the barrier still exists - thus the worship? This, in part, plays into my understanding that Jesus is not meant to be and should not be 'worshipped:' the point is to be - not worship - Jesus. If we worship him, the barrier remains; if we strive to be (like) him, the barrier is being erased. On another note, whether or not people are traditional or progressive Christians, what does "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" mean or how can it be made intelligible (if it is meaningful) to 21st C people?

Good one: very possible