Re: "I re-read the whole Bible every few years. I think it is important to refresh my awareness of what is actually in those books."
This was re-broadcast on PBS recently. I caught the last part. It's quite well done if you haven't seen it. No, it isn't a cartoon version. "From Jesus to Christ": From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLIN... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ FRONTLINE explores the life of Jesus and the rise of Christianity. Drawing upon new and sometimes controversial historical evidence and interviews with... View on www.pbs.org http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : We seem to have many points of agreement concerning less sophisticated forms of religious beliefs. I think our major difference would be in how we value the concept of faith in traditions. I consider faith to be a serious impediment to the development of human thought in and out of the sciences. And we seem to agree on the limits of science. We may differ in where those limits are because neuroscience is knocking at the door of an explanation for consciousness. I would not rule that out yet. Also I value knowledge from the humanities as much as from science, so we have some more gray areas than the duality of science and religion in human thought to understand life. I re-read the whole Bible every few years. I think it is important to refresh my awareness of what is actually in those books. It is a beautiful collection of myths and some clear insight into people's behavior and a whole lot of complete nonsense that never should be given the hallowed respect those books get. If more Christians would actually read the whole thing and make a note where they disagree with something or know it to be false, we might be able to discuss the book's ideas more rationally in our culture. Here is something you say that I fully agree with: J: I'm tending to believe that the mystery is more sublime than we can ever imagine. C: Beautifully said. J: So, for humans, it is necessary to distinguish the truth by using his entire being, C: Still with ya here. I am doing my best in this area myself. J: tradition and faith. C: And here with a friendly handshake, we must part company and you must go on here alone. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Curtis, Your questions are thoughtful and excellent. IMO, humans are endowed with a certain quality that can understand intrinsically the deeper meaning of both the physical and the spiritual. The tradition of MMY would call it consciousness, or the Self. The Jewish tradition would describe it in the name of Adam himself, which means he is in part the spirit of Yahweh, as shown in the "A" or the aleph in Hebrew, and in part of the earth or mud, as shown in "Dama", meaning mud in Hebrew. (There's an excellent video clip on this idea posted by Carde about two weeks ago) As such, human beings have the capacity and the ability to recognize and fathom truths that have been handed down by tradition, such as those in the Old and New Testament. Also, I am not denying the importance of faith in this regard, which is probably the most important of all. Throughout history, humans have shown that they can also discern the truths through logic and science as seen by the works of Plato and Galileo among others. However, scientific knowledge is limited in the sense that it only applies to the physical and the measurable. It cannot address and has no business in addressing areas regarding the spirit, faith or consciousness. Regarding the question of what happened before the Big Bang, I don't believe science can answer this question at this time. On the other hand, logic and metaphysics may be able to address the ultimate beginning. But pure logic and metaphysics may not be enough to describe the entire meaning of creation. I tend to believe that there are still some mysterious secrets. MMY's samhita model of the Rishi-Devata-Chandas may not be enough either. I'm tending to believe that the mystery is more sublime than we can ever imagine. So, for humans, it is necessary to distinguish the truth by using his entire being, tradition and faith. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Here are a few atheist objections to theist claims: Why do you consider one book of human literature to be different in its source than others so that they are considered "scripture?" I get it that you may not feel this way about any book, but most theists do. So you get it that we may not feel this way about any book. You've answered your own question. Next . . . Does a person really have a good claim that the experience of unity consciousness is fundamentally different from being saved for example? No. But believing oneself "saved" or experiencing "unity consciousness" are very different from our everyday experiences which lead some to resign themselves to accepting they are nothing more than a jumped-up simian. Is darshan from their master different from what people experienced around Sun Young Moon? How do they know? How, even in principle, can someone claim to make such distinctions? "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7: 20) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Dr. David Bentley Hart criticizes the new atheist movement. He calls their arguments to be shrill, shallow, glib and stupid. <snip> C: Notice that none of those qualities actually address the content of the atheist objections to the claims of theists. It is a "you are a poopy pants" based argument. There is nothing shallow or glib about the epistemological objections to people claiming to know things about the nature of the universe that have poor supporting reasons. Here are a few atheist objections to theist claims: Why do you consider one book of human literature to be different in its source than others so that they are considered "scripture?" I get it that you may not feel this way about any book, but most theists do. Their reasons for assuming that their scripture should be taken more seriously than other literature are not solid. They do no KNOW that God had a hand in any human book. How do people distinguish the epistemological solidity of subjective experiences well enough to separate their reasons for believing in their own but to deny others? Does a person really have a good claim that the experience of unity consciousness is fundamentally different from being saved for example? Is darshon from their master different from what people experienced around Sun Young Moon? How do they know? How, even in principle, can someone claim to make such distinctions? These and many other questions lie at the root of atheist thought.They are not silenced or answered by making comments about atheists being too much of one thing and not enough of another personally. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Dr. David Bentley Hart criticizes the new atheist movement. He calls their arguments to be shrill, shallow, glib and stupid. However, he recognizes that Europe has entered the post-Christian era, which he believes, will not disappear anytime soon. On the other hand, he states Nietzsche is dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE
