|
Post by Lee on Oct 2, 2014 0:19:29 GMT -5
Briefly ..... Christ lived an unconventional life, spoke the unconventional truth, and died an unconventional death at the crossroads of a politically, religiously, culturally, and economically-charged scene, as scene that might typify our world today. His actions and words challenged the altruism of our pursuits and passions and beliefs about God. Historically, some of us reacted with violence and expedience, still others founded a memorial religion that continues to this day. Lee, That is an interesting observation.
Jesus (he was made into The Christ later) as a Jew, certainly did live at a time that was, as you say, at the crossroads for the Jewish people. The destruction of the temple & diaspora of the Jewish people came just some 30 years after his death. However, the Jewish people had been at many crossroads through out their history before.
I do not see, however, that Jesus life or death was that "unconventional" for that time. History shows that many would-be messiahs led the kind of life he did and died the same as he did.
The people were longing for someone who would bring them out of the bondage from the Romans and many seem to have thought that was their destiny.
When you realize that what he was said to have spoken was basically narrated by the gospel writers, we can't even be sure that it his own "Truth."
God works in families. From the record, Jesus was the sharing type.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 2, 2014 0:27:55 GMT -5
Lee, That is an interesting observation.
Jesus (he was made into The Christ later) as a Jew, certainly did live at a time that was, as you say, at the crossroads for the Jewish people. The destruction of the temple & diaspora of the Jewish people came just some 30 years after his death. However, the Jewish people had been at many crossroads through out their history before.
I do not see, however, that Jesus life or death was that "unconventional" for that time. History shows that many would-be messiahs led the kind of life he did and died the same as he did.
The people were longing for someone who would bring them out of the bondage from the Romans and many seem to have thought that was their destiny.
When you realize that what he was said to have spoken was basically narrated by the gospel writers, we can't even be sure that it his own "Truth."
God works in families. From the record, Jesus was the sharing type. "God works in families.?" What do you mean by this?
"Jesus was the sharing type?" Can you give examples of what you mean? From what record.?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 2, 2014 0:31:09 GMT -5
While reading and considering the posts made on this thread I have formed a few questions and would appreciate responses from any who are willing to express them. 1) I hear the word "paranormal" used frequently. In truth, what IS normal? Can anyone honestly define "normal"? Is our perception of "normal" something we have created from our limited experience? I have been known to use this term. When I do I am, unless stated differently, using the common definition of the word. Paranormal events are events that can not readily be explained by the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.A person levitating would be an example of a paranormal event. Extrasensory perception would be another. Be it observed that atheists hold that dissenting humans are an absolute authority on truth and experience. In contrast, theists defer to an external authority, God as it were.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 2, 2014 0:38:39 GMT -5
God works in families. From the record, Jesus was the sharing type. "God works in families.?" What do you mean by this?
"Jesus was the sharing type?" Can you give examples of what you mean? From what record.?God is proved by the things that resist possession.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 2, 2014 0:53:54 GMT -5
"God works in families.?" What do you mean by this?
"Jesus was the sharing type?" Can you give examples of what you mean? From what record.? God is proved by the things that resist possession. How is "God is proved by the things that resist possession?"
What "things" do you mean?
How is he "proved?"
"Resist possession" by whom?
Decode, please.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 2, 2014 1:01:46 GMT -5
God is proved by the things that resist possession. How is "God is proved by the things that resist possession?"
What "things" do you mean?
How is he "proved?"
"Resist possession" by whom?
Decode, please.
I can't. Our thought-currencies can not be bridged with equivalencies.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 2, 2014 1:02:47 GMT -5
I have been known to use this term. When I do I am, unless stated differently, using the common definition of the word. Paranormal events are events that can not readily be explained by the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.A person levitating would be an example of a paranormal event. Extrasensory perception would be another. Be it observed that atheists hold that dissenting humans are an absolute authority on truth and experience. In contrast, theists defer to an external authority, God as it were. Oh, then do you believe that as a theist, that a person can levitate?
PS: You still haven't gotten the definition of atheism correct.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 2, 2014 6:10:31 GMT -5
I am not questioning your aspirations, yknot. When I read this: Willingness to favor the probability of a higher consciousness, opens up (for me) avenues of learning and growth that go beyond the generally accepted bounds of "evidence-based" experience. Intuition, inspired insight of elders ("sacred texts/myths"), meditation ("prayer"), perhaps even some aspects of phenomena that might be dismissed as paranormal, might all contribute a mosaic of understanding and comprehension that could lead an individual or even a species to greater participation in the welfare of all.I wondered if you were assuming that folks who do not think it likely that there is a "higher consciousness" are closed to things like intuition, interest in sacred texts and myths, meditation, etc. Matisse, I am not sure how to communicate my meaning any more clearly. ". . . opens up (for me) avenues . . ." is about as specific as I can get. I hope you can appreciate that I cannot enumerate every experience that conditions my specific worldview at this moment in time, but they have been many and varied. I was B&R in the F&W community so that has conditioned some of my thought processes. My training and career have been in the sciences, conditioning my thought processes in different ways. I am a "people watcher" that conditions my perspective. I enjoy reading non-fiction, mostly history, that shapes my outlook on life. I really enjoy taking courses on-line, that influences how I analyze situations. As is evident from this thread I get a kick out of conversations and discussions that probe beneath the surface of challenging questions. I have become fascinated with the unique and complex personalities of our pets. During the summer I can be found from time to time lying on my back staring straight up into the night sky, as far as I know my mind is blank, I am merely awed. I go to yoga class from time to time. I enjoy the competition of sports. I enjoy volunteering. Sometimes I vacuum, sometimes I build things from wood. I vote. Sum all these experiences (the majority of which are common to most people) and what conclusions can be reached concerning my views about a "higher consciousness"? None. The way I do the math I am unable to say much about my own views so I can assure you it is quite unlikely I will make assumptions about what anyone else thinks about the topic, although highly probable that I will ask them if I can find the right words to use. The frame of reference that I personally use today is one that favors the probability that a consciousness greater in capacity and complexity than my own, exists. I have zero material evidence to support that belief. To sustain the belief, therefore, I must have faith in the belief. At this moment, I do. To process experiences through a lens of faith rather than a lens of empirical evidence is a different, unusual, occasionally uncomfortable experience for me. One consequence of remaining with that discomfort is a type of growth that I have not previously experienced. Building any sort of understanding on a platform of faith rather than a foundation of tangible evidence leaves me feeling vulnerable, lonely and uncertain. At the moment, I find the benefit to be worth the cost. It alters the way I perceive self. I am a fan of Joseph Campbell. He interprets a Japanese saying: "ge, ri, mu gai" as "individual realm, general realm, no resistance". It is the question: "Am I the consciousness? or "Am I the vehicle of the consciousness?" I would be unable to engage the intrigue of that contemplation were I to remain wedded to evidence-based experience, as trained. I hope this brief summary helps dispel any anxiety as to assumptions about other folks, that type of work is well beyond my pay grade. Yes, yknot, this is very helpful. I would have been happy with a simple statement, "I am speaking strictly for myself" but I am glad you went much further! I am also a fan of Joseph Campbell. Watching the Moyers (PBS) interview series, The Power of Myth, was life-changing for me.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 2, 2014 10:08:02 GMT -5
I have been known to use this term. When I do I am, unless stated differently, using the common definition of the word. Paranormal events are events that can not readily be explained by the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.A person levitating would be an example of a paranormal event. Extrasensory perception would be another. Be it observed that atheists hold that dissenting humans are an absolute authority on truth and experience. Is this a declaration or personal manifesto? I don't think atheists hold they are the absolute authority but depend on demonstrable, reproducible, and falsifiable verification. The first step in making this a truth would be to provide evidence that this external authority, god as it were, exists. Otherwise it is just your belief.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 2, 2014 13:08:13 GMT -5
Re. the painting elephant: I was initially astonished....but upon looking at the snopes link you included,snow, it looks like it's more like a guy painting the picture using an elephant to hold his brush for him!
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 2, 2014 23:06:52 GMT -5
Re. the painting elephant: I was initially astonished....but upon looking at the snopes link you included,snow, it looks like it's more like a guy painting the picture using an elephant to hold his brush for him! In one video I saw though, and it could have been doctored, the trainer was not anywhere near the head like he was in the snopes video. He was over to the side, some distance between them, and just handing the paint brushes to the elephant. Who knows. Maybe some are better trained then others? youtu.be/QZxSPSWxwjI
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 2, 2014 23:08:12 GMT -5
How is "God is proved by the things that resist possession?"
What "things" do you mean?
How is he "proved?"
"Resist possession" by whom?
Decode, please.
I can't. Our thought-currencies can not be bridged with equivalencies. Surprise! Surprise! That is what I guessed!
In other words, -you don't think in logical, rational terms?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 3, 2014 7:57:12 GMT -5
Sorry, this is a big off topic, but you mention your fascination with pets. Recently I saw a video of an elephant drawing. It was pretty neat to see. I checked Snopes, which I will add also, to see about it and it isn't actually drawing what they want, but it still is pretty intriguing that they can do what they are doing. Maybe not so off topic, snow! Did you (or anyone else) happen to catch the PBS Series " Your Inner Fish"? I highly recommend it. I think we might gain considerable insight about human behavior by looking at our evolutionary roots. Consider the Evolutionary Layers of the Human Brain. (Link is to a McGill University site, but the PBS series discusses similar ideas.) The human brain stem and cerebellum, for example, are thought to be a carryover from the brains of reptilian ancestors (not the ones from outer space!). Here's an excerpt from the second link: IMO, fascinating, thought-provoking, humbling stuff. "Wisdom/Insight" from our ancestors!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 3, 2014 7:58:35 GMT -5
I can't. Our thought-currencies can not be bridged with equivalencies. Surprise! Surprise! That is what I guessed!
In other words, -you don't think in logical, rational terms? Not strictly..I'm not a computer.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 3, 2014 7:59:22 GMT -5
Computers don't even do that -consciously.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 3, 2014 9:06:02 GMT -5
IMO, fascinating, thought-provoking, humbling stuff. "Wisdom/Insight" from our ancestors! Talk to NathanB regarding the reptilians. From what he has said they are driven by the reptilian part of their brain.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Oct 3, 2014 9:32:26 GMT -5
IMO, fascinating, thought-provoking, humbling stuff. "Wisdom/Insight" from our ancestors! Talk to NathanB regarding the reptilians. From what he has said they are driven by the reptilian part of their brain. There may be a grain of truth buried in there!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 9:55:23 GMT -5
BobWilliston, in many ways, my sense of things as I started this thread is captured by your grandson's observation. The idea that there could be meetings where folks could explore these feelings and experiences seems so genuine to me. The point would not be to set aside or abandon all of the rich traditions that have informed the development of our experiences and beliefs (Maja's post addresses the importance of these touchstones). Rather the point would be to open up to new expressions of the wonder and awe that many of us experience in our lives. Would like to hear more about your readings in Ecclesiastes as they relate to these topics. There is no mention of salvation -- the end for all is the same. As an aside, I would really recommend Lee Harmon's new book to you.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 10:09:21 GMT -5
I would like to take a crack at this question rational. But first I make an assumption that may not be valid; I assume that you intended your post to ask the question "What, exactly, do you see as perfect?" not "What, exactly, to you see as perfect?" If my assumption is not correct I will withdraw my response. Your assumption is correct. The 'to' was the relic of an earlier version that was phrased "To you, what is perfect." that was poorly edited. The post to which I was responding strongly implied that the perfect fit and form was the result of a creator god. First, it is not all that perfect. As those in the medical field can point out there are some serious flaws. Certainly thing work well in the great majority of the cases but is this the result of a plan or the accident that has the highest probability of success? From time to time I have been known to amuse small children with soap bubbles (well, I claim it is for the children) and it is always a marvel the way the films of the bubbles interact with each other. The patterns and the refracted light. Do I give myself credit for the perfect fit and form of the matrix I have created it is it the simple interaction of the matter that the bubbles are formed from that makes the design? Drops of water are carving rock as I write this. The eventual result could be spectacular. Or not. Niagara falls, once an unbelievable display is working its way back to nothing but rapids. The vast majority of species that have developed, and perhaps flourished, are extinct. They do not really fall into the 'perfect fit and form" definition. A lot of what we see here on earth seems to fall into the "perfect fit and form" definition but think how that all could change if an asteroid hits the the earth. The example of the carbon cycle is good but it is only good because of the environment where it is found. Chromatiaceae (purple sulfur bacteria) would not see the value of it at all. Why do we see beauty in these things? Is there actually beauty in them? Could there have been a universe that had no beauty, that did not arose awe .. made out of perfectly uniform mono-coloured squares? Were our perceptions built to interact with the universe in such a way that it would or could be beautiful to us? Why are we here wondering about these kinds of things?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 10:11:43 GMT -5
i know your going to find fault with whatever i say but how about human breath out carbon dioxide plants take it in and produce oxygen which we then breath in...perfect I don't see the perfection. Animals developed as they did because of the environment in which they were developing. Millions of species did not make it because they could not develop in the environment. It all works wekk now because of where we are right now. Over time the CO 2 concentration could become so high that respiration would no longer be possible. Perfection goes out the window. Ebola is presenting a situation that does not seem to demonstrate a "perfect fit and form". I think you have distorted your vision of "perfect fit and form" with selection bias. The kind of wonder and awe that I am asking about does not exclude ebola. Some terrible things can still have a terrible majesty as we well know from volcano explosions, thunderstorms and tornadoes.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 10:37:14 GMT -5
Thanks a lot Alan... now I have 'Aqualung'stuck in my head Great reviews by the way! Aqualung my son, don't you die away uneasy, you see it's only me .... Me too. I haven't actually heard the thing since the 70s.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 3, 2014 10:53:22 GMT -5
I think some of the beauty we see and hear is due to the way we process information. Some colors look good, to us, next to each other because the wave lengths are such that the objects of each color remain in focus when looking from one to the other. Some colors, red and blue for example, produce an effect called chromostereopsis which makes viewing sometimes uncomfortable. Think about bright blue letters on a bright red background. Our vision has evolved in the world we live in to accommodate the objects that exist in a way that provides us with the best possibility of success.Perhaps we would have evolved in a way that made it appear beautiful to us.Or did they evolve, guided by the environment in which we live?Some people do and some don't!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 3, 2014 10:55:57 GMT -5
I don't see the perfection. Animals developed as they did because of the environment in which they were developing. Millions of species did not make it because they could not develop in the environment. It all works wekk now because of where we are right now. Over time the CO 2 concentration could become so high that respiration would no longer be possible. Perfection goes out the window. Ebola is presenting a situation that does not seem to demonstrate a "perfect fit and form". I think you have distorted your vision of "perfect fit and form" with selection bias. The kind of wonder and awe that I am asking about does not exclude ebola. Some terrible things can still have a terrible majesty as we well know from volcano explosions, thunderstorms and tornadoes. Remember that I was responding to a post that was pointing out how perfect the universe had been created. I was reminding the posted that you have to accept the warts with the milky white skin!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 3, 2014 13:49:18 GMT -5
Sorry, this is a big off topic, but you mention your fascination with pets. Recently I saw a video of an elephant drawing. It was pretty neat to see. I checked Snopes, which I will add also, to see about it and it isn't actually drawing what they want, but it still is pretty intriguing that they can do what they are doing. Maybe not so off topic, snow! Did you (or anyone else) happen to catch the PBS Series " Your Inner Fish"? I highly recommend it. I think we might gain considerable insight about human behavior by looking at our evolutionary roots. Consider the Evolutionary Layers of the Human Brain. (Link is to a McGill University site, but the PBS series discusses similar ideas.) The human brain stem and cerebellum, for example, are thought to be a carryover from the brains of reptilian ancestors (not the ones from outer space!). Here's an excerpt from the second link: IMO, fascinating, thought-provoking, humbling stuff. "Wisdom/Insight" from our ancestors! Yes, I saw "Your Inner Fish." "Evolutionary Layers of the Human Brain."
I had known before about the Evolutionary Layers of the Human Brain. The different layers of our brain evolved as each species themselves evolved. Instead of a brand new brain for each new species, the newer brain was added on top of the older one.
Actually, it is one of the best arguments for evolution.
If as the "creationists" advocate that some "god" had "designed" and created each new species, wouldn't that god have just put the newer brain directly in place & not on top of the older one?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 15:14:26 GMT -5
The kind of wonder and awe that I am asking about does not exclude ebola. Some terrible things can still have a terrible majesty as we well know from volcano explosions, thunderstorms and tornadoes. Remember that I was responding to a post that was pointing out how perfect the universe had been created. I was reminding the posted that you have to accept the warts with the milky white skin! Sure, but I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, just asking a question or questions.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 15:31:18 GMT -5
This morning I read perhaps two-thirds of the posts on this thread, and thought I should put a few thoughts down on this intriguing question.
Of course, I'll want to rephrase the question or problem slightly. The issue, the way I see it, is the gap between the Christian experience, that is, God as explained in the Bible, and any common sense explanations of who God is in a physical sense, as we might understand him outside of the Bible.
The God of the Bible is primarily a personification, God the Father, while God as expressed in a physical sense is thought or described in quite different ways. Here are a few: 1) God is Love (as quoted on the thread). 2) God is the Creator of the Universe who set the Universe in motion. 3) God is IN everything. 4) God IS everything.
These kinds of descriptions or ways of thinking about God are more tangible and accessible to many people than God as explained by Christianity, e.g. as per the Trinity doctrine.
So a few observations. 1) Those who are wholly immersed in the experience of the God of Christianity simply won't understand the difference that we are discussing. I was that way when I was a child. I was raised in a church environment, went to Sunday school, told that dinosaurs never existed and that evolution was a lie, and I believed that wholly and unconditionally until around the age of 10. It's not a bad way to be. It's not wrong, although it can easily lead to some wrong conclusions. There are quite a few people who live there still, and many do now believe in dinosaurs and even evolution. But the explanation of God offered in the Bible is complete for them, and they ask no further questions. 2) To most Christians, and especially liberal Christians, there is a gap between the kind of God personified in orthodox Christianity and our notion or concept of who God might actually be. It was much easier before there was much science, and we could think of God sitting on a throne in the sky. Elijah and Jesus *ascended* to heaven. God could be accessed from the tops of mountains. Since that historical concept of a God no longer works, then how do we understand the kinds of personifications employed in Christianity?
3) yknot raised the question of prayer. Who are we praying to? Does He have an ear to hear? Does He answer prayer? The idea of prayer seems to imply that God is a kind of person, or like a person.
More ...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 15:51:06 GMT -5
Lee Harmon, whose recent book I like quite a lot, wrote an interesting passage on how to picture God in prayer, that I liked. If I can I will quote it later this weekend.
I do interact with God through prayer, worship, and in my thoughts. I can't provide a complete explanation as to why it is valid to do this; I will say that I find it valuable and beneficial.
I have only a few incomplete thoughts on how to reconcile the gap between God, as I visually or naturally picture Him, and God as a personification.
Visually, I don't think of God as a person on a throne or even a person. I don't believe he intercedes on Earth in a supernatural, physical way. I don't believe, for example, that the Earth physically stopped in the battle of Jericho, though I have no doubt it was a long day.
I do think of God as Love, and I also think of Him as a force. I believe that His Spirit is how he interacts with us. Those are suppositions that don't even require Scriptural support, and you can well think those things and not be a Christian.
I believe the Bible is an attempt to understand and relate with God which is highly conditioned by Jewish culture of the time. It is a window to 'truth', not 'truth' itself.
I also believe that 'God the Father' is purely a metaphor to explain God's love. Further to that, 'God the Mother' is equally valid to think of, but the writers of the time were conditioned to make God male.
By saying it's a metaphor does NOT mean that 'God the Father' is just a product of the imagination. What it means is that the explanation is incomplete, and we are given an understanding of God's love in a way that has meaning to us in this life.
I'd say it this way, God has a Fatherness/Motherness in the same way that humanity and even the animal kingdom has fatherness/motherness. The love of a father/mother for its children is among the deepest and most profound things we can know in lifetime, and its reach extends beyond the corporeal plane of life and into the basic wiring of the universe at a metaphysical level. It's not just a product of evolution, and the mechanics of evolution are not sufficient to understand it. It's no wonder the Bible writers saw God as a Father because it's such a deep and rich process within life.
Should I get into the male/female union and how the allegory of Christ the Bridegroom, and the church as his bride relates to that? Again, it's an attempt to take the deepest things of our human experience and show how they are a shadow of a heavenly union between humanity and its Creator that will take place in the after-life.
In the Christian experience I see an attempt to idealize the essential elements of our humanity. Not so much intellectually, that is, to understand the workings of the Universe or how things tick. I'll rely on science for that. But as an experience, to bring us out of ourselves and give meaning to our lives.
dmmichgood, if you read this, I'm not saying that we find meaning ONLY in the Christian experience. I state only that it is A way to give meaning.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 3, 2014 16:03:49 GMT -5
This process of 'giving meaning' needs explanation. It's not a process of providing answers to questions. How was the Earth created? Who created the Earth? What physically happens when we die? It's not for that.
I would first argue that all humans impart meaning to life that we have no right, purely through science and logic, to impart. Why does a father or mother love their children? Some construct out of evolution that keeps the species going? A survival strategy? Perhaps, but those mechanics don't give the answer. If they do, then my question is why did the evolutionary construct produce something so powerful, so emotional, so overwhelming, as a mother or father's love for their children. There is no answer to that question. Does not need to be. It's just something that we accept and that awes us.
Most of what concerns us in life, and what we say and do, is far beyond science. Tomorrow I will see an old friend, we'll talk about old times, is there enough gas in the car at the moment to make the trip? What does science have to say about that? Nothing.
So, why are there cars, gas stations, roads and maps? Where is all this going and why? Most of the physical world is an artificial construct made out of the human imagination, but very real all the same.
And then the social world, seeing my old friend .. why do that? Probably the highlight of this week, and my life is constructed, and I feel blessed, because of such events. This also is beyond explanation.
So my experience as a Christian, which above all, I really enjoy and find fulfilling, even though at times it is also a cross to bear, why do that? I think the answer is that I'll just continue doing it, because I find it fulfilling, and it 'provides meaning' in my life. At the same time, there are aspects of the Christian experience, as commonly understood some hundreds of years ago, that I can no longer accept. But the experience for me does involve dealing with a personification of God, and at the same time, I do pray in a certain kind of way. I'm going to look for Lee Harmon's quote.
|
|