The ASK LEBELL Thread: Philosophy and Religion

[Empty_One]

I was wondering what you trhought of the Universalist/Uniterian church. Both their historical origins, and how it has evolved to what it has come to believe today.

http://www.uua.org

[Lebell]

Originally posted by clavus
Why do (most) Christians go to church on Sunday? The 10 Commandments tell us to keep the Sabbath Holy. Jesus Himself went to "church" on Saturday. Nobody argues that the Sabbath is actually Sunday, do they? What gives?

BTW- you started an excellent thread.

Dear clavus,

As you've rightly pointed out, it is in the 10 commandments that God commanded Moses and the Israelites to keep the Sabbath Holy:

Exodus 20:8-11 (NRSV)

Remeber the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

And yes, people still argue about what actually is the "Sabbath" day.

So lets pull this apart and examine it a bit.

First, it should be remembered that for much of western history, the Bible was considered a verbatum history of the creation of mankind. In otherwords, God really did create the entire world in six 24 hour periods and then rested on the seventh day. If a person believes this, it becomes easy to see why they would want to figure out exactly what day of the week this "resting day" or Sabbath falls on.

And this is exactly what the Hebrews and later Christians have tried to do.

The Jews and some Christian denominations (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists) believe that that Sabbath is on Saturday and therefore do all their worshiping on that day. Other denominations (Catholics, Methodists, etc.) believe that the Sabbath falls on a Sunday and therefore that is the day that is set aside for worship and rest.

And in this viewpoint, one day is clearly right and 6 others are clearly wrong.

With me so far?

Ok. So the interesting question becomes, what if you don't believe in a literal 24/6 creation of the Universe and there is no specific day that you can point to that God "rested"?

Well, contrary to what some more fundemantalist individuals may claim, this really poses no problems. Looking at the text and seeing what it is trying to say, it is clear that it was important that God intended that people take time to relax from their daily grind and focus on the important things in life: self, family, friends, and God. In otherwords, BALANCE is important in one's life.

Today, we see the importance of this early wisdom. Men (and women) work work work and ignore their spouses and children. Family dinners are rare, relationships deteriorate and perhaps break, children grow up feeling alienated from parents, etc. We then wonder why why why our lives are screwed up and we go to therapists who tell us all these things that deep down inside we already knew.

So, in the end, I don't believe that it is necessary to argue that one day is the "Sabbath", but in reality, it IS important to actually TAKE a day and MAKE it your "Sabbath" and as God commanded, keep it holy

Thanks for a great question!

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Empty_One
I was wondering what you thought of the Universalist/Uniterian church. Both their historical origins, and how it has evolved to what it has come to believe today.

http://www.uua.org

Dear Empty_One,

Several years back I had the pleasure of working with a Universalist Unitarian minister in a social concerns group and learned a bit about their beliefs.

All in all I can say that I very much respect their beliefs while knowing that their particular church is not for me.

I certainly can understand and appreciate the origins of those beliefs. Many many denominations and sects have started from a dissatisfaction with the current understandings and interpretations regarding religion in those times, usually coupled with the abuses that are inevitable whenever humans are involved in anything.

I especially appreciate the compassion that seems to be central to Universalist Unitarians. In that department, they are second to no religion/denomination.

Where I start to diverge from them is in my own preference for how I worship and in my general philosophy on religion and daily life in general. While I admire them, they are perhaps too hard to pin down on what they believe, (this perhaps being one of their greatest strengths). While I've been accused of similar, I still feel that some surity is necessary in daily life, even if it may be incorrect.

But that's just my own feeling.

[Empty_One]

It's actually pretty easy to pin down what they believe :

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

* Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
* Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
* Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
* Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Anything after that, depends on you. I've only been going to the church by my house in MIlwaukee for a month or so, but I have already learned more about the history of religions, Jesus the man, the Jewish religion, and humanists than I ever knew before.

A few weeks ago, there was a discussion group after Service. In it were athiests, Jews, pagans, Roman Catholics, agnostics (me ), and a Buddist. It was a very interesting hour, to say the least. The best part was that nobody got offended by any others beliefs, and actually listened when people spoke, as oposed to treating what others said as blasphemous lies.

It's the most comfortable I have felt in church since I was 4 years old.

But that's just my own feeling.

And that is exactly the point.

[clavus]

Originally posted by Lebell


So, in the end, I don't believe that it is necessary to argue that one day is the "Sabbath", but in reality, it IS important to actually TAKE a day and MAKE it your "Sabbath" and as God commanded, keep it holy

Thanks for a great question!

A follow up:

WHY did some groups pick Saturday as the Sabbath and others pick Sunday. Did Charlemane (sp?) declare "from here on out - Sabbath is Sunday"? Was there a big meeting of Cardinals who decided it. Did some faction of the newly emerging Christian church want to set itself apart from the Jews?

How was this decision made, and who made it?

[BentNotTwisted]

Lebell, thank you for all your hard work in answering these questions. I have learned a lot, and been given a lot to think about, just from your responses.

20 some years ago, when I was in college, I remember a disucssion with someone regarding the Christian religion. I was told that Christ had originally preached about many believes, including reincarnation, but that a great deal of his original teachings were struck from the bible at the First Council of Nicaea. Can you comment on this?

[Lebell]

Originally posted by clavus
A follow up:

WHY did some groups pick Saturday as the Sabbath and others pick Sunday. Did Charlemane (sp?) declare "from here on out - Sabbath is Sunday"? Was there a big meeting of Cardinals who decided it. Did some faction of the newly emerging Christian church want to set itself apart from the Jews?

How was this decision made, and who made it?

Dear clavus,

If you are looking for the core disagreement, you should look at the make up of the early church in the first couple hundred years after Christ's crucifixion.

All scholars know and agree that the Jewish "Shabbat" is on Saturday, from sun down Friday to sun down Saturday. During the first couple of centuries when the church was mostly composed of Jews, this is when it was celebrated.

After Constantine made Christianity the official church of the Empire, the gentile Bishops of the early church called a council in Nicea (325 CE) to make decisions regarding the core beliefs of the "Christian" church. Among these were which books to include in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity, and which day was to be officially the "Sabbath" of the Christian church.

Sunday was chosen for two reasons that I can see. First, it was the day of the Resurrection, so in a way this was a no brainer. Add to it that there was growing animosity between the Christians and the Jews (Christ killers to them) who worshipped on Saturday. Second, it would make it easier for the pagan citizens of the Empire to accept this new religion if the main worship day was the same day that they were accustomed to worshiping on.

Anyway, that is how Sunday was actually picked.

Over the years, various denominations (usually with strong anti-Catholic feelings) have decided that they should return to the orginal "Shabbat". Others are content to worship on Sunday, that being the day of the Resurrection (rather than the ancient SUN day.)

And I have already enumerated my own feelings that it probably doesn't matter.

Hope that helped

[Lebell]

Originally posted by BentNotTwisted
Lebell, thank you for all your hard work in answering these questions. I have learned a lot, and been given a lot to think about, just from your responses.

20 some years ago, when I was in college, I remember a disucssion with someone regarding the Christian religion. I was told that Christ had originally preached about many believes, including reincarnation, but that a great deal of his original teachings were struck from the bible at the First Council of Nicaea. Can you comment on this?

Dear BentNotTwisted,

Yes, I can make a few comments on this topic (and being the verbose fellow, I will )

As I mentioned in my previous post, the early gentile bishops convened a council in 325 CE in the town of Nicea where they decided the official creeds and beliefs of the Church.

And as you mentioned, they decided just what books to include in the 'official' Bible. And yes, there are other early works (such as the "Gospel according to Thomas") that were not included. Occasionally these other works are "discovered" by someone and the debate starts again about their meaning, what Christ actually taught (e.g. reincarnation) etc.

Truthfully, I think these are interesting discussions, and work to keep us on our toes, but unless you are a Biblical literalist, one can look at these other books as more or less further revelation of God to His/Her people.

In other words, there may or may not be worth in them, but it is ultimately up to the reader to decide. Of course, like all things, the smart reader will study, consult and sometimes argue before deciding.

I'll go further to add that like particle physics, there are somethings we can say with more certainty than others. Was Jesus gay? We have no real reason to believe so. Did he eat "shrooms" at the last supper? Again we have no reason to believe so. Did he preach "reincarnation"? I have not seen credible evidence to believe he did.

That isn't to say that he didn't, but after looking at the "other" books and comparing them to what WAS included I have no reason to believe it.

[madsenj37]

Originally posted by Lebell
To answer the first question:

It depends. The same way Christianity is broken up into different factions, with some more alike than others, so are there different Buddhist groups, including Theravadin, Mahayana, True Path and Zen Buddhists.

There are also those Buddhists who use Buddhism as a pure philosphy and not a religion. Buddhism was never set up to be a relgion, but had become one anyways.

[BentNotTwisted]

Lebell,
one of the big no nos in Moses' day was the worship of false gods or idol worship. The first of the ten Commandments deals specifically with this. When I hear of Christians praying to Jesus or Catholics praying to the Virgin Mary, it seems to me they are praying to false gods. Ok, Jesus was supposed to be the son and the embodiment of God, but that doesn't explain the Virgin Mary. Aren't these people going against the Ten Commandments when they to this?
Thanks,
Bent

[Lebell]

Originally posted by BentNotTwisted
Lebell,
one of the big no nos in Moses' day was the worship of false gods or idol worship. The first of the ten Commandments deals specifically with this. When I hear of Christians praying to Jesus or Catholics praying to the Virgin Mary, it seems to me they are praying to false gods. Ok, Jesus was supposed to be the son and the embodiment of God, but that doesn't explain the Virgin Mary. Aren't these people going against the Ten Commandments when they to this?
Thanks,
Bent

Dear BentNotTwisted,

This is a big topic of discussion among those who disagree with the Roman Catholic church in general.

From the RC perspective, they are not praying TO the Virgin Mary, any more than they pray TO St. Jude, St. Walburga or any other saint, but rather they are praying for that person to intercede with God for them, on the assumption that God will "listen" to the saint and would be more likely to help the petitioner.

From the Protestant perspective, no intercession is necessary, so such intercessory prayer is superfluous. More fundamentalist Christian denominations go so far as to call this type of prayer "idolatry" which is condemned in the 10 commandments.

My personal view as a former RC is that no one is substituting an 'idol' for God, but if God is who I think She is, then it is probably unnecessary.

[Rafajafar]

Considering your dubious references, and my skeptic nature, I only feel compelled to ask you about your own choices in life.

Why, pray tell, do you believe? Why aren't you agnostic? What makes you want to be Christian and not Muslim? Why do you feel you posses so many answers when the world is full of so many unanswerable questions?

Sorry to be rude. I'm not trying to be; trust my good will. However, this thread appears to be a combination of a personal soapbox, a self esteem booster, and a living monument to your own personal faith (in which case, no one else can really learn from you, as faith is a journey, not a destination).

I mean, and this is my ONLY problem here... you claim to be a worldly man, someone who has witnessed many, and aided the world with your vast knowledge of biblical facts; however how can you say that you can give decent insight and answers on Life, the Universe, and well, just about anything, when not even the wisest of men have made such a brash and blanketed claim? And from your references, you're not at all worldly. You've surrounded yourself with very much like-minded individuals, it seems. You can travel to foreign lands, but if your goal is conversion and not understanding, you've learned nothing.

Sorry, please pardon my blunt nature. I just have a terrible phobia of false prophets.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Rafajafar
Considering your dubious references, and my skeptic nature, I only feel compelled to ask you about your own choices in life.

Why, pray tell, do you believe? Why aren't you agnostic? What makes you want to be Christian and not Muslim? Why do you feel you posses so many answers when the world is full of so many unanswerable questions?

Sorry to be rude. I'm not trying to be; trust my good will. However, this thread appears to be a combination of a personal soapbox, a self esteem booster, and a living monument to your own personal faith (in which case, no one else can really learn from you, as faith is a journey, not a destination).

I mean, and this is my ONLY problem here... you claim to be a worldly man, someone who has witnessed many, and aided the world with your vast knowledge of biblical facts; however how can you say that you can give decent insight and answers on Life, the Universe, and well, just about anything, when not even the wisest of men have made such a brash and blanketed claim? And from your references, you're not at all worldly. You've surrounded yourself with very much like-minded individuals, it seems. You can travel to foreign lands, but if your goal is conversion and not understanding, you've learned nothing.

Sorry, please pardon my blunt nature. I just have a terrible phobia of false prophets.

Dear Rafajafar,

I strive only to be an empty vessel, a clear glass with no color.

I make no other claim. I have no other goal.

If you believe that you have nothing to learn from my experience, then you are probably right.

[Rafajafar]

If you believe that you have nothing to learn from my experience, then you are probably right.

If I believed that, I wouldn't have posted.

[chavos]

Not to speak for Messuir Lebell, but i personally find it quite important to hear other people's faith journeys, even if they are quite divergant from my own. Hearing how other minds have wrestled with issues and made choices is a key factor in how i percieve and seek in my own faith life. Journey vs. destination is indeed a wise distinction to make, but that does not lead one to conclude that another's journey cannot be instructive to one's own.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Rafajafar
If I believed that, I wouldn't have posted.

Dear Rafajafar,

I will confess, I have struggled with an appropriate response to your original post and your follow up post is the only reason I've continued this struggle.

Let me explain.

Intentional or not, I found your original post very angry and accusitory, which, given the nature of the thread I did not understand at all.

After all, these phrases you had chosen:

"dubious references"
"personal soapbox"
"a self esteem booster"
"you claim to be a worldly man"
"a brash and blanketed claim"
"you're not at all worldly"
"false prophets"

all speak of anger and distrust at something in your life, which you've chosen to transfer to me.

So forgive me if I initially found it difficult to answer in the face of what I consider to be unfair and undeserved anger.

With that being said, I will attempt to answer the question that I think you've asked.

Why, pray tell, do you believe? Why aren't you agnostic?

I believe because I think there is more out there than just atoms, dust clouds, and stars. I believe because those that are far along this path I have chosen have shown me what such belief can lead to.

What makes you want to be Christian and not Muslim?

I take the path of Christianity because that is the path that works for me.

Why do you feel you posses so many answers when the world is full of so many unanswerable questions?

What is 'unanswerable'?

How will we know a question is 'unanswerable' unless we try?

That being said, I possess no answers.

I do possess ideas, which it would be selfish to keep to myself when another asks.


Some closing thoughts:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The young man knows everything, the old man knows nothing.

The struggle with Anger lies in allowing it no more, but no less than what it is.

Journey your own path, but consult the maps left by others.

We cannot take off the glasses of our own experience when looking at others. The best we can hope for is to realize simply that we wear them.

A man can read all the wisdom, learn all the words, but until he is in the right place, it is but noise on the wind.

There is value in the struggle.

[Nowlookit]

Dear Lebell- Allow me to venture into esoterica. Jung embraces the theory of Collective Unconsious. He would say that there is a pool of concepts, memes and ideas that can be tapped into and understood by most humans, if they are receptive, or if the need is there for said info.

I am curious, early on in Genesis, it is said that the sons of God came unto the daughters of man and produced monstrous offspring, giants, the like. Did this actually happen, thus spawning the legends of Greek mythology, Egyptian Jackal-headed dieties, and a whole spectrum quasi-human beasts that exist in many world faiths? Or, is this just a meme in the Collective unconscious of unknown origin? Hmm...

[CheapBastid]

Originally posted by madsenj37
There are also those Buddhists who use Buddhism as a pure philosophy and not a religion. Buddhism was never set up to be a religion, but had become one anyways.

Thank you for bringing up the fact that the 'religious' aspects of Buddhism were focused on in the earlier post.

To go a bit deeper, the 'rational' aspects of Buddhism can be clear and useful, and do not necessarily put one against the material world or distance one from the things around one every day.

In short the term Buddha means 'Awakened One'. The idea was not that The Buddha was an otherworldly being, but simply a man who woke up to what is going on right now.

The basics of Buddhism are simple and easily described, but also can be very open to interpretation.

Four Noble Truths:
There is suffering in the world (as distinct from pain)
Suffering comes from our sense of dissatisfaction (attachment and distain, praise and blame, etc.)
There is Freedom from Suffering (the internal state of Nirvana)
The way to Freedom from Suffering consists of the Eightfold Path:

1. Right View/Understanding
2. Right Intentions/Resolve/Motivation
3. Right Speech/Communication
4. Right Action/Conduct
5. Right Livelihood/Vocation
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness/Attentiveness
8. Right Concentration/Meditation/Presence

The idea behind the Eightfold Path is not a set of commandments one must follow, but rather a list of things that contribute to one's happiness and reduce the detractions therefrom. As Jack Kornfield said "...they're suggestions, give 'em a try"

[KellyC]

Hmm..this is the perfect thread for me to ask my question...I'm gonna take the assumption that everybody believes in reincarnation or all ore Buddhist or Hinduist and believes in reincarnation.

Dear Mr. Lebell

As of late, I've been having this idea about reincarnation. From my understanding, reincarnation is pretty much like recycle and reuse souls. A person die, his soul goes to hell (or where ever), waits a while, then when the time comes the soul enters the body of a newborn. That got me wondering, if every soul go through this process, there shouldn't be an increase, how can there be so much souls? 100 years ago, there are 4 billion souls (I'm just guessing), now there are over 6 billion souls, how do you explain the increase?
I'm not sure if I make a lot of sense but I hope you can answer it.

Thanks

[Lebell]

Dear KellyC,

I am certainly no expert on eastern philosophy, but I will give you my understanding of the process (with the understanding that others may step in and correct me).

My understanding is that animals are a part of this process, so if you are a particularly bad person (bad karma), you might come back as a cockroach, and conversely, if you are a particularly good cockroach (good karma), you might come back as the Prince of Wales (well, maybe that is a bad example).

Anyway, it still doesn't address the problem of generating new souls for cockroaches, so it seems to me that souls must grow as they move from lesser creatures to higher creatures which means that they must originate from some cosmic energy (perhaps the same energy/state that the Buddah sought).

Ultimately of course, no one will know until they make that great journey, and perhaps, not even then, so it becomes conjecture and guess work on our part.

[toxic515]

I apologize, I asked a question that was covered. I'll try to remember to READ the whole thread before I open my pie-hole. <grin>

[tecoyah]

Originally posted by KellyC
Hmm..this is the perfect thread for me to ask my question...I'm gonna take the assumption that everybody believes in reincarnation or all ore Buddhist or Hinduist and believes in reincarnation.

Dear Mr. Lebell

As of late, I've been having this idea about reincarnation. From my understanding, reincarnation is pretty much like recycle and reuse souls. A person die, his soul goes to hell (or where ever), waits a while, then when the time comes the soul enters the body of a newborn. That got me wondering, if every soul go through this process, there shouldn't be an increase, how can there be so much souls? 100 years ago, there are 4 billion souls (I'm just guessing), now there are over 6 billion souls, how do you explain the increase?
I'm not sure if I make a lot of sense but I hope you can answer it.

Thanks

If you consider the likely abundance of life in the Entire universe, and accept that all is intertwined. The issue of soul replenishment becomes easily explained.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by tecoyah
If you consider the likely abundance of life in the Entire universe, and accept that all is intertwined. The issue of soul replenishment becomes easily explained.

I would disagree simply because even if you increase the soul "pool" to include possible life elsewhere, there still would be a "first" planet of life after the creation of the universe and you've simply changed venue.

[Moobie]

After answering so many philosophical questions I've got one for you that may seem rather childish.

What about the dinosaurs? They're not mentioned in the bible and for that matter how does one resolve the scientific age of the universe with the biblical accounts of creation?

[Lebell]

Dear Moobie,

Your question has been asked many times, so no, it's not childish.

Basically, there are two literalist answers and one liberal answer.

Literalist answer #1:

The evidence of dinosaurs is a red herring put in the ground by God to test your faith. Since God is all powerful and all knowing, this is a simple task to do. Ditto with all the evidence that says the Earth is really really old.

Literalist Answer #2:

The Bible specifically mentions "leviathans" which obviously mean the dinosaurs, and these creatures died out a very long time ago. Also, there is evidence that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs, so nothing is against what the Bible says.

Liberal Answer #1:

The Bible is not meant to be a literal history, but a story about how humans relate to and understand God. This is done through stories that hold truth, not in the literal sense, but in the metaphorical sense.

For example, the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal story, but is about how we are the dearest creations of God, created from the basic elements.

-----------------------------------------

LitA#1 has fallen out of favor among most literalists, but it still has it's fierce supporters, while most literalists have gravitated to LitA#2.

Of course, there are significant problems with LitA#2, especially since it calls for "interpretations" of the Bible that I would argue get away from the whole idea of a "literalist" interpretation.

For example, LitA#2 supporters usually say that while the Bible does say the world was created in 6 days, this does not go against scientific evidence for an older earth because God's "day" may not have 24 hours and may indeed be much longer.

As for myself, I am an adherent of LibA#1, so your question becomes a moot one as far as my theology is concerned.

[Moobie]

Cool, that's pretty much the angle I was going with that too. But there one thing that bugs me. If you go with the Liberal view of the bible, where does that end? I mean, I can understand Genesis being an interpretation of the creation of the universe, but then don't you kind of have to use that same mode of thinking with the Gospels? I think, if anything we're supposed to see the sections on Jesus as literal, historical teachings, but how does that all fit together?

I'm kinda new to the idea of faith so these are all things that I'm struggling to put into perspective. Thanks for the insight.

[Lebell]

Dear Moobie,

You are looking into some interesting questions.

I must tell you that not all theologens look at the sections on Jesus (the Gospels, Acts, Letters) as 100% literal.

Two authors who explore liberal Christianity in depth are Marcus Borg and John Spong.

Given your questions, you might enjoy reading their personal opinions on Jesus, who He was and what the Bible/Gospels mean.

[TawG]

what is an agnostic, and what do they belivie in?

does individualism fit into absolutetism?

Do you think there is a universal consciousness, such as the ones that have been layed out in the worlds religious and by mystics like Plotinus; or do you think it is possible that the earth(or any boundry you would choose) is a contained system, and we can't comprehend anything past it.

You can see a sort of "universal" consciousness on earth the way all life develops. But if life on earth all evolved from one thing it would make sense that the consciousness would be the same.


Also do you think mysticism is objective, or if you agree with the latter do you think mysticism is objective in the contained system of earth..

[Lebell]

Originally posted by TawG
what is an agnostic, and what do they belivie in?

does individualism fit into absolutetism?

Dear TawG,

An agnostic is simply someone who doesn't know if there is a higher being or not.

Since it is not an organized belief structure, that is all I can really say.

As to your second question, I don't know

[Lebell]

Originally posted by mepitans
Do you think there is a universal consciousness, such as the ones that have been layed out in the worlds religious and by mystics like Plotinus; or do you think it is possible that the earth(or any boundry you would choose) is a contained system, and we can't comprehend anything past it.

You can see a sort of "universal" consciousness on earth the way all life develops. But if life on earth all evolved from one thing it would make sense that the consciousness would be the same.


Also do you think mysticism is objective, or if you agree with the latter do you think mysticism is objective in the contained system of earth..

Dear mepitans,

I personally think there is a higher being (God) who we are seeking through successive spiritual evolution.

I personally do not believe in a "universal conscience" as the term is usually used.

As to mysticism and the nature of reality, I would take a Taoist approach in answering your question.

I would say that everything is realitive, but that everything also mirrors an absolute TRUTH.

So I think it is both.

Originally posted by Lebell
Dear mepitans,


I personally do not believe in a "universal conscience" as the term is usually used.

To clarify, I mean Godhead, Brahman, One, etc as universal consciousness.

I would say that everything is realitive, but that everything also mirrors an absolute TRUTH.

So you believe that the absolute truth is a universal?

My question was if you thought the concepts of mysticism could be a contained system.

I personally think there is a higher being (God) who we are seeking through successive spiritual evolution.

Yeah, I have done alot of reading about our cognitive evolution, and how it relates to other types of evolution. It is really interesting stuff but I can't get past the arguement that it could all be a contained system, and if so whats past that or are things non-hierarchical once you get past this system

so much confusion

[Lebell]

Originally posted by mepitans
To clarify, I mean Godhead, Brahman, One, etc as universal consciousness.

Ah, I see.

Yes, when put that way, I believe there is a universal consciousness.

So you believe that the absolute truth is a universal?

Yes, I personally believe that. It flows from the concept of "cosmos".

My question was if you thought the concepts of mysticism could be a contained system.

An interesting question, but I think we are missing some definitions.

Specifically, where are you drawing your boundries? Because I can see making them large enough so that any "system" is closed, but that some players (mystics) may be working with a subset of data.

Yeah, I have done alot of reading about our cognitive evolution, and how it relates to other types of evolution. It is really interesting stuff but I can't get past the arguement that it could all be a contained system, and if so whats past that or are things non-hierarchical once you get past this system

so much confusion

I would have to read some of what you've read, but I wouldn't get too worked up on all the details, because we've probably got 99% of them wrong anyway

[Bill O'Rights]

*raises hand*

I have a question.

Shouldn't you be tending to last minute...details?
And if so...does sexymama know that you're screwing around on the internet?

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
*raises hand*

I have a question.

Shouldn't you be tending to last minute...details?
And if so...does sexymama know that you're screwing around on the internet?

Dear BOR,

Yes,

I need to get the heck off the internet and back to finishing my final paper in CS440.

And no, she doesn't know I'm at the coffee house writing here instead of my paper.

Please don't tell.

Ta-ta

Originally posted by Lebell



An interesting question, but I think we are missing some definitions.

Specifically, where are you drawing your boundries? Because I can see making them large enough so that any "system" is closed, but that some players (mystics) may be working with a subset of data.

The boundary is if everything we know is because it is from a common line of evolution.

Vauge example: all life started on earth from one thing. All things evolved with same consciousness.

I also think that the arguements for matter having consciousness hold up so it could go even farther back than "life".

Without typing a long essay it is hard to make specific points since they all reference something else that would need explaining.

But something else neat to think about. What if the reason there is matter is because we are on a constant cycle of evolution and involution. Our consciousness is a perfect example of the evolution, but once we reach 'non-dual' states where everything and nothing are One, is there room for matter? If we reach a point where there isn't, could it be possible that there is an involution back down - spirit to mind to matter.

An example would be how we can explain all matter with physics(maybe not yet, but with advancements in science it will get to this point). Physics is purely from the 'mind/logic/rationality' stages and doesn't really "exist" Yet it can explain everything that happens in the material world around us.


I am not suggesting that through meditation or whatever people can reach a state of consciousness where their matter disapears. But what if this All was a system, and at higher stages of the system it didn't require matter(require is probably the wrong word but I hope the idea is understandable)?

[mystmarimatt]

Lebell,

Hopefully you haven't covered this already, I did a cursory check and saw nothing, but I might be wrong.

As a Christian, what are your personal feelings on homosexuality with regards to biblical interpretation, and to the relative beliefs of both liberal and conservative churches? In essence, I suppose I'm wondering which side you believe supplies more viable biblical "proof," and which side you choose to take, as I've heard support from both sides from various parts of the good book. I've already developed my own opinion, I just enjoy learning the opinions of others.

sidenote: I greatly respect you and your posts, and I highly doubt your opinion either way will jeopardize my respect for you.

[sexymama]

Originally posted by Lebell
Dear BOR,

Yes,

I need to get the heck off the internet and back to finishing my final paper in CS440.

And no, she doesn't know I'm at the coffee house writing here instead of my paper.

Please don't tell.

Ta-ta

And, as Lebell knows, even if I did know then, I wouldn't be upset, because we all need a break once in awhile. I love my philosophical man and am proud of his insights and wisdom.

Besides, he finished his paper, showed up for the wedding, and signed the license -- so no complaints.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by mystmarimatt
Lebell,

Hopefully you haven't covered this already, I did a cursory check and saw nothing, but I might be wrong.

As a Christian, what are your personal feelings on homosexuality with regards to biblical interpretation, and to the relative beliefs of both liberal and conservative churches? In essence, I suppose I'm wondering which side you believe supplies more viable biblical "proof," and which side you choose to take, as I've heard support from both sides from various parts of the good book. I've already developed my own opinion, I just enjoy learning the opinions of others.

sidenote: I greatly respect you and your posts, and I highly doubt your opinion either way will jeopardize my respect for you.

Dear mystmarimatt,

Thank you for you kind words. I’ve also come to respect you in my readings/musings on TFP and I enjoy reading your posts.

Now to your question:

Yesterday (Sunday, July 11, 2004), I heard a very interesting sermon that sums up what I feel very nicely.

The Gospel reading was on the “Good Samaritan” and specifically, about how there are always things to look at even when we think we know the story.

This time, the preacher talked about how this parable spoke to the “compassion” nature of God’s laws and how Jesus went against any other interpretation.

If you recall, in the parable a Rabbi and a Levite both ignore the man who lay beaten and robbed, because to them, they were following their religious laws which said that to help him would make them “unclean”.

Yet it was the Samaritan (who also was committing an “unclean” act) who showed the nature of God’s mercy and how we should treat one another and interpret the “law”.

In other words, any interpretation of the "law" that goes against compassion and love is not in accordance with God's will.

So I see it with homosexuality.

First, I think there is much evidence that homosexuality is actually not “a choice”, but a function of biology, which can also be seen in other species. (So this is how God created us).

Secondly, I don’t see that our greatest purpose on this earth is to “recreate”, but to seek God through each other, and when two people truly love one another to the point of giving themselves physically and spiritually to one another, then I see God in that relationship. (We are to seek God through our relationships with each other).

Third, to answer you question about the Bible, I see Leviticus as being more to the addressing of how we are to treat our honored guests, not about the evils of homosexuality, but that still leaves Paul.

Point blank, I think Paul is wrong.

Paul was a human being and I don’t think that as such he was above making mistakes and yes, I think this was one of them.

I’ve seen far too many loving, spiritual, homosexual relationships as well as far too many joyless, dead heterosexual marriages to think that the former is evil while the latter is holy.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by sexymama
And, as Lebell knows, even if I did know then, I wouldn't be upset, because we all need a break once in awhile. I love my philosophical man and am proud of his insights and wisdom.

Besides, he finished his paper, showed up for the wedding, and signed the license -- so no complaints.

And let me say, I was pleased when my stress week was over and Sexymama and I were made honest