minsocal

The centrality of Jesus is that I know love by being loved and by loving ... it is a reciprocal process.

Dutch, As I noted in a prior post, Sadler was a student of Freud and associate of Adler and Jung. Adler and Jung both broke with Freud on the issue of the nature of the unconscious. In fact, in Jung's last public encounter with Freud (October, 1913) he stated that no theory of the psyche that followed either Freud (the extravert) or Adler (the introvert) could do justice to the human condition. For Freud, the Urantia Papers would be nothing more than accepted myth. For Adler, the Urantia Papers would be a personal myth projected onto the outer world. The key phrase in Jung's departure from Freud is "to do justice" concerning the positions of Freud and Adler. The progressive perspective I have tried to maintaIn here is that Freud and Adler were both attempting to say something true about the world (Searle, 1992). It is a matter of your orientation in relation ... world-to-mind or mind-to-world. Jung and Whitehead agree on the grounds that we need to keep a balance in this relationship, but that balance keeps changing as we adapt to the flow of life itself. Myron

Are you seeking to define "one path to G-d" based on your experience. That sounds like dogma. Myron

Brent, I think it would help if you tell us what intentions Dr. Sadler had in introducing the Urantia Papers. Is he talking about the comos inrtojected into human psychology or human psychology projected onto the cosmos? Myron

"Acting out of wholeness" is very close to Jung's definition of Individuation. It is also a favorite theme found in Whitehead. Spontaneity, creativity, adaptation, are overlapping constructs. The "center" or "centering" is also a major concept found in Jung. The exercise of "walking the labyrinth" is intended to facilitate the process of realization or finding the "true center" of the whole person. Contemplating a mandala is similar in function. Myron

Brent, Dr. Sadler was a student of Freud, and associate of Jung and Adler. He spent a year in Vienna studying their theories of the unconscious. Whether Jung, an expert on Gnosticism, maintained contact with Sadler I do not know at this time. Jung, however, would have understood the content of the Urantia Papers. Myron

Dr. Sadler was well known around the Chicago area. He held several titles, one of those being Fellow, American Psychiatric Society. Myron

From a church bulletin ... "For those of you who have little children and don't know it, we have an infant quiet room at the back of the sanctuary."

Two Omega Point Theories with theological implications. Who knew. Now i'm left looking into both. Myron

Yes, I've mentioned this before, but it is worth repeating. I rely on sources that have a solid reputation for academic honestly. One of those is the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Under the heading of "Intuition" it states ... "One can have an intuitive awareness of God." And that's all it says. No further explanation is possible because that is how intuition works. It's "just there", that little voice keeping track of how things fit together and sometimes telling us what is missing from our rational processing. Myron

Dutch, I see now where my confusion originated. The omega point I am familiar with derives from the Third Law of Thermodynamics, which was wriiten to define what kind of mater could reach a state of absolute zero (no energy). Attempts have been made to generalize this law in order to describe how a closed system reaches a state of entropy, a process of devolution rather than evolution. Myron

I can't figure out how evolution and perfection are related. What am I missing?

More often than not, I now conclude a prayer with "... and thank you G-d for listening, that's what I really needed just now." Myron

Woody Allen, " Hey listen — I've proved a lot of things. That's how I pay my rent. Theories and little observations. A puckish remark now and then. Occasional maxims. It beats picking olives, but let's not get carried away. "

No, left them outside. Fell asleep beside me after eating the bird though.

Been busy accepting gifts from my cat. In the last few days he has given me four lizards, two large moths and three large grasshoppers. But he ate the bird.

There is something about alternate ways of framing a particular problem that seems to grab my attention. I was in the middle of gathering information to start a thread on Whitehead's Process and Reality when I found this: (emphasis in original) It is the "displacement of static stuff with with the notion of fluent energy." Keep in mind that Whitehead is talking here of 'actual' human beings in an 'organically real' world. Organic reality - this I have to reflect upon. Myron

I don't think there is any problem with science. The problem is in the "ism" and the "ist". I think John Searle is right when he says that for some it is like a high stakes poker game. The winner, the one who "gets it right", passes into the immortality of history. The loser is forgotten. Myron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance This is behaviorism? Myron

What the branches of science explore are subsets of reality, not the whole. Myron

Mike, I agree with your position. The following might be helpful: This is from Wikipedia ... " ... neuroscientist Roger Sperry, in his Nobel prize lecture in 1981, described modern scientific concepts of the nature of consciousness and its relation to brain processing as follows: "The events of inner experience, as emergent properties of brain processes, become themselves explanatory causal constructs in their own right, interacting at their own level with their own laws and dynamics. The whole world of inner experience (the world of the humanities) long rejected by 20th century scientific materialism, thus becomes recognized and included within the domain of science." This is John Searle's stance ... (Searle is a very vocal opponent of Dennett) Consciousness is an emergent property of lower level physiological processes of the brain, but is not reducible to those processes. Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, consciousness includes the capacity for intentional causation (Searle, 1992, 1995). The key concepts are "reductionism", "consciousness", "emergent properties" "epiphenomenalism" and "intentional causation". Science cannot explain consciousness. Searle's criticism of Dennett's stance includes the observation that since Dennett cannot explain consciousness he uses the old trick of denying that consciousness exists! I like this quote from Searle best ... "If we value life, justice, beauty ... it is only as conscious beings that we value them (Searle, 1998)." Myron

Also an interesting resource: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html In Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), John Boswell makes a similar argument.

First, let me say that I am gay, the Pastor of my church is gay, and the denomination I am affiliated with (UCC) supports gay marriage. That said, I would then reverse the question as originally framed and ask "What do homosexuals think of Progressive Christianity?" If, as Bishop Spong does, one places the humanity of the individual before sexual orientation, then I think Progressive Christianity in on the right track. Would I treat a "heterosexual" as an "object" seperate from all humanity? Generally, the thought seldom crosses my mind.

Words and images are very powerful. This anti-war video uses the song "The Sounds of Silence": Explosions in the Sky

Janet, You are correct. The Bible has very little, if anything, to say about homosexuality. Most significant is the fact that Jesus was silent on the subject. For myself, I find the assumption of 'total depravity' very disturbing and not in accordance with what we know about human nature. As I understand it, at the time Jesus taught there was a significant difference between the text of the law and actual practice. In short, an "abomination" was more of a misdemeanor than a capital offence. Myron