Upward and Onward

i dont know ...tonight i am feeling so dissapointed about my life....i am not satisfied with my life....just wn reach something but couldnot...i havent reach it. i dont even sure what i am really wn reaching to..i need more time to think about it...need more strength to filled my needs inside. just wn run...run away. n let my feelings n energy out....n satisfied.

I apologize for the multiple posts. It appears the whole On Faith is slow today.

SHEEN,

The mythical nature of most of the OT is held by 1.5 million Conservative Jews and actually by many Christians. And your reference to the "absurdity" conclusion is???

It all starts with the mythical A&E/"creation" of the OT some 6000 years ago in OT time. The reality however of A&E is : (to reiterate: as per many large Catholic university theology professors)

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin."

With respect to the true Adam, I recommend you join the National Geographic's Genographic project to see what branch of the real Adam you came from. A swab of your salvia and $99.50 are the only requirements.

(as noted previously):

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ Miracles

" "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Based on the lack of archeological and textural attestions of most of the OT, the Jewish scribes did not stop the mythicizing/embellishments with the magical garden and talking snakes.

SHEEN,

The mythical nature of most of the OT is held by 1.5 million Conservative Jews and actually by many Christians. And your reference to the "absurdity" conclusion is???

It all starts with the mythical A&E/"creation" of the OT some 6000 years ago in OT time. The reality however of A&E is : (to reiterate: as per many large Catholic university theology professors)

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin."

With respect to the true Adam, I recommend you join the National Geographic's Genographic project to see what branch of the real Adam you came from. A swab of your salvia and $99.50 are the only requirements.

(as noted previously):

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ Miracles

" "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Based on the lack of archeological and textural attestions of most of the OT, the Jewish scribes did not stop the mythicizing/embellishments with the magical garden and talking snakes.

SHEEN,

The mythical nature of most of the OT is held by 1.5 million Conservative Jews and actually by many Christians. And your reference to the "absurdity" conclusion is???

It all starts with the mythical A&E/"creation" of the OT some 6000 years ago in OT time. The reality however of A&E is : (to reiterate: as per many large Catholic university theology professors)

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon])is therefore only symbolic of man's tendencies to sin."

With respect to the true Adam, I recommend you join the National Geographic's Genographic project to see what branch of the real Adam you came from. A swab of your salvia and $99.50 are the only requirements.

(as noted previously):

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ Miracles

" "Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Based on the lack of archeological and textural attestions of most of the OT, the Jewish scribes did not stop the mythicizing/embellishments with the magical garden and talking snakes.

CCNL:

That article you constantly link to from the simpletoremember website is hardly a majority belief to be quoting. That website doesn't even promote it, they just had the article posted once upon a time. The vast majority of Jews do not hold to those beliefs. The article was written in 2002, and the entire idea was dismissed as "absurd".

Paganplace,

The web address did not paste correctly. Try this one:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/conservativebible.htm

An excerpt:

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation."

Jihadist,

Thanks for your very kind words.

Actually, I was 68 when I stopped "looking forward" (Professor Prothero's thread).

Four years have passed since then.

As always, best wishes to you.

PAGANPLACE,

See http://www.simpletoremember.com/ ...vativeTorah.htm for the lastest on Genesis, Exodus etc.

Jihadist, (in case you missed the comments on Mr. Patel's commentary pages)

For the "30% Solution", see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

And a similar analysis of the Koran would be about the same "30% Solution"??? i.e. no communications from "pretty wingie talky thingies", no prophecies, no militancy, no chariot rides, no plagiarized passages from the OT, NT etc?????

Come to think about it a "30% solution of all the standard religious operating manuals would basically result in one book. Hmmm, lets make it simple and call it The 30% Solution!!! Something to do on your terrorist-free plane rides as you hone your writing and history skills?? Ahhh, the satisfaction of life's travels and staying on topic.

Which reminds me, we are running a poll here in the good old USA as to the proper and satisfactory title for Mohammend (as previously listed). Maybe you could circulate it amongst your Islamic friends during your jungle travels and tabulate the results for us?

1. Mohammed the Great Hallucinator Of Mythical Wingie Thingies?

2. Mohammed the Great Prophet?

3. Mohammed the Great Profiteer?

4. Mohammed the Lover of Many Women Young and Not So Young?

5. Mohammed the Man of Many Myths?

6. Too much Time in the Sun, Mohammed?

7. Mohammed, Man Made by Many Militant Scribes?

Hello, Rob Adams - thanks for the reply on inner peace - I haven't been back here for a few days.

"and the obvious plagiarism of older religion passages and prophecies by the authors of the Koran)"

I wouldn't talk, 'Concerned Christian,' ...you're just lucky Anu isn't in a twist about the Book of Genesis. :)

Concerned :)

"We" to determine my true nature? Who is "we"?
The WaPo/Newsweek On Faith blog police?

I would not answer your posts here but for the fact you've dragged Norrie Hoyt into this. He is, at 68 years old, older than my father. I respect and admire him for his coolness, his sanity, his grace, charm and wit in these On Faith threads.

You tried too, too hard to be a latter day Inquisitor and this is not the first time you demanded to know who I am. Want to burn at the stakes still?

How I think, what I think should be of no concern to you. What I say and think should not be the end of the world to you. Unless it bothered you so much for reasons you know best.

At we in a war I don't know about, but which you fired the first shots to me personally months ago?
It it is a war, then, you seem to be desperately breathless when it comes to Muslims in On Faith. Even with Victoria. Wrong "enemies".

And thanks for your compliments to my writings. It is all due to reading the great Anglo-American writers such as MFK Fisher, F Scott Fitzerald, Jane Austen et al to improve my English. Which is still wanting.

I am also flattered you think I work for some Muslim funded think tank or to equate me with Esposito. You have not even read the writings of my friends who are Muslim scholars, thinker-writers and bona fide ulemas. I am just writing as a practicing Muslim sharing her thoughts and beliefs here.

Perhaps you have never come across a Muslim who actually went to college, read more than three books per year in any language, and don't get upset re rants on Islam, the Prophet and Muslims as much as you wanted or assumed. There is more of us than you think or know of.

And you are........?????????????

A good Christian, a good Catholic I hope.

But keep obsessing about me if you must. Life is too short by the way.

All the best and good luck in all your advocacies.

Norrie,

When Jihadist answers the fundamental questions about Mohammed (recieving the word of God via an angel, the militant and anti-female passages in the Koran as they were the word of God, the flying chariot, the cave hallucinations, prophecies (for profits) and the obvious plagiarism of older religion passages and prophecies by the authors of the Koran), then we will be able to determine true nature of Jihadist.

Concerned,

As I know Jihadist in these posts, she seems to me to be wonderful. She's smart and funny and her writing sparkles.

You are right, of course, that my knowledge of Jihadist is very limited. For all I know she boils Christian children in an iron pot for Thursday dinner.

But we do develop a sense of people, though our actual knowledge of them be limited. I think I have a pretty good idea of what sorts of people our On Faith Panelists are.

The Rev. Mr. Ted Haggard was quite other than he appeared; (his secret life was quite possibly better than his "open", public one).

You never really know. But my non-Christian moral learning urges me to give people, including you and Jihadist, the benefit of the doubt until I know otherwise.

All the best to you.

Norrie,

Are you sure the Jihadist is a nice person? Other than her commentary on the On Faith pages, do you have any other information about her? To me, she comes across as another "wishy-wash" Muslim who refuses to come to grips with the historical Mohammed.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated -

Concerned,

You're not being very nice to Jihadist, who is a wonderful person and a great contributor to these threads. A little Christian or Liberated Christian charity perhaps?

After all, we're all propagandists for our points of view.

Yours in Christ.

Jihadist,

Despite your being outvoted, it sounds as if you and your family had a great weekend.

Sorry about the angry mother hen, but you're in good company. Do you remember when our President, Jimmy Carter, felt himself threatened by a "killer rabbbit"?

I guess you were too relaxed by your holiday. You seem not to have carefully read the earlier posts in this thread.

They would have told you that

THERE IS NO FREE WILL!

Best to you.

Jihadist,

Please take the Baghdad Sunnis and Shiites with you on your next jungle excursion. And it is good that HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal gives his Islamic propaganists a day off. We enjoyed it too.

Don't anyone here go off somewhere for the weekend?

My life is simple. Good weekend for me hiking with spouse and kids in the jungle. Except I got chased a bit by an irate jungle fowl. They can be nasty when strangers inspect their brood. Shame on me as a mother for not understanding another mother just being protective of her brood in my checking them without her consent.

Free will is free choice and one is personally responsible for the choices one makes - whether to clean one's room, to select a burgundy over a bordeux for dinner, to gorge on junk food or be a vegetarian, to be republican or democrat, or to be an irrational believer or non-believer.

My free will and personal choice was to go to the orchid garden and aquarium for the weekend, but was outvoted by the tyranically majority who wants to go jungle hiking. I have no choice but to go along for collective amity and peace of the family unit. They are in control, not me, because I ceded to them, the power over me on what to do.

In the jungle, I did seek out that mysterious species of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Alas, while there are many species of apes, including orang-utans in our forest, they cannot be found. I was subsequently told these species are only to be found in a country across England, and near Germany.

It also turns out this particular specie of monkeys were actually in reference to "frogs". I cannot understand this confusion over amphibians and mammals. Must be some form of determinism by language.

Pre-determination and determinism has a whole new meaning when taken in the context of all too human emotions and feelings and the consequent stereotyping based on casual observations or deliberate characterizations devoid of serious studies.

As for research on monkeys and brains, e.g. the gorillas in the mist of Africa has nothing to do with the Bataks of Indonesia (whom by norms and culture) made them cannibals before, but not the Ainus of Japan.

And no, we did not have no freedom fries over the weekend. Nor Danish pastries and French fries. But we have had plenty of Coke as there was no Pepsi sold in the shops we went to.

Culture, traditions and norms; monopolies of and access to products and ideas matters in what we think and how we think.

"If we deny free will, we must deny any attempt at justice, any attempt to judge anything in our or everybody else's lives."

I don't think that's necessarily true, actually. I think 'sin and punishment with external-judge' based ideas of religious authority may require a certain idea about free will in order to make an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-creating judge seem 'Just,' but I just don't think this necessarily makes us animals-that-can't-be-conditioned.

We're just animals with the capacity to *choose our own* conditioning. I wouldn't say 'Free Will doesn't exist,' or that it's necessarily any more of an illusion than the rest of life, but I do observe that whether or not it exists is mostly a 'problem' for a) precogs and b) those for whom something depends on someone *judging,* especially when they'd like to judge people for following their own natures.

The question's seeming conundrum also depends on certain assumptions about *time and events.* (not to mention how many timelines there are, going a little further afield: )

Simple cause and effect works, too. :)

"We wouldn't have to post here. Even the pervasive superstitions of this world would be nothing but necessity, which I simply am unable to accept. I do retain some optimism in an ongoing human evolution."

I think quite often we get perplexed over things precisely because it becomes a matter of 'what we can accept,' as opposed to 'what may be and how.'

I would certainly say that most superstitions ( and 'superstitions') have certainly performed functions in social evolution: whether they were or continue to be *functional* (never mind 'optimal') ones is really up to our awareness of the effects.

We're exploring and storytelling creatures: we like to have a mental map of our world, however big that may become: and it's perhaps understandable for us to feel a bit lost when the view threatens to change.

I think how we deal with new information has always been one of the foremost challenges of being human, ...these sophisticated brains certainly need some collective maintenance to stay in some sort of function. And for survival as a species, ways to regulate fear and anxiety and other things in an incompletely-experienced world.

Where things get *really* problematic is where the coping mechanisms become *substitutes* for reality, maybe taking on the role of 'ends in themselves' ...then it's just a recipe for someone deciding reality's the thing that's got to give.

Definitely could get inconvenient if the conditioning we choose is, say, to be suspicious of science and knowledge, while conditioning ourselves to bow to authority on the matter of how to use it.

I personally think that we needn't be so afraid we're going to discover we 'can't accept' every time we look. One thing I've learned is that we, and the world, have an innate capacity for spiritual connection and the good stuff that comes with it. This is our *birthright.* It's the stuff we *make* that can become hazardous if we don't keep an eye on it.

"We might even play with the thought that the past had to be as it has developed historically, but the present and the future is not tethered to the same necessities."

Very true.

In some ways, I think we have just been through a couple thousand years, or so, at a conservative assessment, of becoming really city-and-civilization-oriented, and perhaps sort of worshiping at that form of altar for a while, and just starting to discover there's a whole wide world out here, and we're part of it:

The dream of dominating it so that we don't have to fear and be uncomfortable so much, well, that's led us into a difficult situation where we have found out this is not really so healthy or
sustainable. But it's also given us great tools for what comes next. ...an idea which meets with some resistance, to say the least.

Cause it's come about, ironically, that some folks think the idea of free will is simply a necessity in order for the world to be 'in control.'

I think a friend of mine in high school had a better and simpler idea of the question of free will: "Great idea! Let's try it!" :)

Sorry for the length. I got going, there. :)

Norrie.

Thanks for the Buddhist perspective. I liked Gerry’s take on our “competing” ideas. I will continue to try and exert my free will for now. I am hoping it is not futile! As you said this is where I am today, tomorrow who knows. For anyone who is continually seeking that is probably quite true.

I am in that camp myself.

Peace to all.

Gerry,

I agree that everything you suggest in relation to free will and determinism is possible. I don't think anybody has the true and definite answer. I'm agnostic on these questions. What I wrote is where I am today - tomorrow - who knows?

At this point, though, I doubt that Dr. Singer did all his good things out of his free will intention. I think they were determined by causes and conditions of which he was unaware. This is not to denigrate his good works. It's just how I think things are.

We can still strive for justice (though as a lawyer I have doubts that such a thing exists). We can still make judgments about anything we want, but should try to see how it was determined that what happened came about.

Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players."

I'd add: "...acting out scripts of which they are unaware." The universe is a great show even if it's all determined and there's no free will. Might as well enjoy it.

Best to you.

Rob,
Here's my redo of my response to your latest post:

"So how do you reconcile the idea that we always have a choice? Or maybe you don’t, do you think that really we do not have a choice and what we decide to do is always predetermined by causes and conditions."

I think that at the conscious level we don't have a choice. I guess I really am a determinist, though I didn't realize it until we started this conversation.

Keep in mind, though that I'm truly agnostic about all such propositions and have an open mind which is subject to change.

******************
"Am I affected by causes and conditions that were not of my creation? Or am I only affected by my own self created causes and conditions?

Q1: YES; Q2: NO

*****************

"It seems to me then that we are saying one is not in control. So then how does one evolve their spirituality?"

BUDDHISM AND OTHER BELIEF SYSTEMS HAVE METHODS OF PRACTICE, E.G. MEDITATION, THAT ARE CONDUCIVE TO THIS.

*****************

"How do I decide that I am satisfied with my life. How do I decide that I am happy. Why do some people awaken spiritually and others not? This is all pre-determined?"

I'D SAY YES, IT IS DETERMINED, THOUGH IF YOU ARE ABLE TO BEGIN MEDITATION OR ANOTHER PRACTICE YOU MAY OBTAIN THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS. I'D ADD THAT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN START AND CONTINUE MEDITATION IS DETERMINED.

SILLY EXAMPLE: I BELIEVE IT’S DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL DRIVE TO CAPE COD, BUT IF YOU DO, YOU'LL SEE SOME GREAT BEACHES. DITTO FOR MEDITATION AND SPIRITUAL ADVANCEMENT.

*****************

"So people were affected by this without their knowledge, but some of the people willingly decided to meditate in a large group. To me this scenario also seems to indicate a proactive affect on the conditions based on choice."

I'D SAY IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PEOPLE "WILLINGLY" MEDITATED. SEE THE CAPE COD EXAMPLE ABOVE.

*******************

"I actually believe that both points are in affect. We always have a choice. The more you truly understand your spirituality the more you are insulated from causes."

THERE'S A CHOICE IN THE SAME SENSE THAT A SUB- ATOMIC PARTICLE HAS A CHOICE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO DECAY AT ANY MOMENT. BUT IT'S NOT OUR CHOICE TO MAKE. CAUSES AND CONDITIONS DETERMINE THE CHOICE.

********************

"Life should be a demonstration of who we are. If we are demonstrating who we really are how can we fail?"

I BELIEVE THAT AT EVERY MOMENT WE ARE INESCAPABLY AND INVOLUNTARILY DEMONSTRATING WHO WE ARE, AND ARE RADIATING THAT DEMONSTRATION TO THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

******************

"I am not Christian, but pull beliefs I find useful from there. If you take the Christian stance of sin then one might say but you fail when you sin. I would disagree with that. I still think we can not fail if we are sincerely demonstrating our spirituality. Christ has ‘given us an out’ with his sacrifice. I don’t mean an out by we can sin all day long and not need to worry about it. I mean in terms of if we do sin and we wish to overcome or be forgiven our sin, we can if we are sincerely demonstrating our spirituality. I know this is a very abstracted overview but I hope people get my point. Christians chime in."

BUDDHISM CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES THE EXISTENCE OF BAD ACTIONS AND THE HARM THEY DO TO OTHERS. THEY ARE CONSIDERED IMPEDIMENTS TO THE ATTAINING OF ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE CONSEQUENT LIBERATION FROM THE ENDLESS CYCLE OF BIRTH AND DEATH.

BAD ACTIONS ARE SAID TO RESULT FROM MENTAL "OBSCURATIONS," I.E. BLOCKAGES TO A TRUE PERCEPTION OF THE NATURE OF THINGS.

MOST BUDDHISTS BELIEVE THAT ALL SENTIENT BEINGS WILL ULTIMATELY ATTAIN ENLIGHTMENT, EVEN MOSQUITOS AND MICE, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE MILLIONS OF LIFETIMES.

"SIN" DOES NOT PREVENT THE ULTIMATE ATTAINMENT OF ENLIGHTENMENT. THERE'S A BUDDHIST TALE OF A MASS MURDERER OR SERIAL KILLER WHO UNDERTOOK BUDDHIST INSTRUCTION, BECAME THE EQUIVALENT OF A CHRISTIAN SAINT, AND ATTAINED ENLIGHTENMENT IN THAT VERY LIFETIME (A VERY RARE HAPPENING).

*******************

Hope I don't lose this post. I've taken Ghostbuster's advice and have been copying it to Word.

Best wishes.

I would like to put my 2 cents into the conversation:

Physics regards light as both corpuscles and waves. Logically, both concepts are mutually exclusive, but still they have enormous practical reality benefits.

Could it be, that the necessity of consequences, or evolution down to your coffee example, is one concept, and the free will is standing on this concept at a right angle, figuratively speaking, thus making two seemingly contradictory concepts possible to exist together, as in light physics??

Heisenberg stated that the object observed changes its quality through the observer. If we add the fact, that particles can be described only statistically, that is on the ground of probability, we do have a certain amount of uncertainty in the strict law of consequence. This could be the point where a free will might enter. Even Einstein believed, if I am correct, that if we could know all conditions, we would be able to predict everything. Quantum mechanics obviously destroyed this concept, bringing a grain of freedom, of random into the picture. Einstein's often-quoted "god doesn't throw dice" is not valid anymore.

In Germany, there is a huge public discussion on free will these days. One of the protagonists against free will, the famous neuroscientist Wolf Singer (arguing scientifically, along the line of your coffee example!) is a warm-hearted, high cultured person, who loves music, fights for school reforms in favor of children's development, for civic accountability. So, obviously he does all this out of his free will and with a strong desire to improve things not only for himself but also for others.

If we deny free will, we must deny any attempt at justice, any attempt to judge anything in our or everybody else's lives. We wouldn't have to post here. Even the pervasive superstitions of this world would be nothing but necessity, which I simply am unable to accept. I do retain some optimism in an ongoing human evolution.

We might even play with the thought that the past had to be as it has developed historically, but the present and the future is not tethered to the same necessities.

Professor Crossan and the other Jesus Seminarians and their books have made my life quite satisfactory since now I have a much better idea of who Jesus actually was. The NT embellishments have been deleted leaving only the reality of it all.

Now if someone could do the same cleansing of the Koran!!!!

Ghostbuster,

A great idea. Thanks. I'm mostly computer-illiterate so I didn't have the sense to think of it.

Best to you.

Norrie,
Do you save your longer writings in Word as you are typing them? That is what I do. I've been the victim of one too many crashes/glitches myself.

Rob,

Again! I'd just finished a long response to your latest post when the computer crashed again. This has never happened before.

Oh well, Newton was kind to his dog who kicked his life's work into the fire, so I guess I can cope with this. I'll try again tomorrow.

Best.

Norrie.

A lengthy post. I can see why you were mad at Mr. Gates.

Thanks for the Buddhist update as I said I am a novice sympathizer. I will probably peruse that book at some point.

I think we have similar thoughts, but differ on what/who is in control.

So how do you reconcile the idea that we always have a choice? Or maybe you don’t, do you think that really we do not have a choice and what we decide to do is always predetermined by causes and conditions.

Am I affected by causes and conditions that were not of my creation? Or am I only affected by my own self created causes and conditions?

It seems to me then that we are saying one is not in control. So then how does one evolve their spirituality? How do I decide that I am satisfied with my life. How do I decide that I am happy. Why do some people awaken spiritually and others not? This is all pre-determined?

I think I can resolve the cause and condition in terms of we affect everything by our actions and thus there is an influence on everything by everything else. This is similar to research on large groups meditating and the crime rate going down. This has been scientifically studied and for the most part we could say ‘proven’. So people were affected by this without their knowledge, but some of the people willingly decided to meditate in a large group. To me this scenario also seems to indicate a proactive affect on the conditions based on choice.

I actually believe that both points are in affect. We always have a choice. The more you truly understand your spirituality the more you are… insulated from causes. This is what allows people to overcome horrible conditions or become burdened when situations are actually not that bad.

I say understand spirituality versus religion because you can tell which people ‘get it’ regardless of their religion. We are more than our body, we are more than ourselves we are part of the whole and thus responsible for the whole. Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and the list goes on.

As for ‘life is lived through us’ I do like that approach. I think we approach life backwards as it is things we need to do, it’s a measure of success, I am my profession or I need to accomplish something, things I need to acquire.

Life should be a demonstration of who we are. If we are demonstrating who we really are how can we fail?

I am not Christian, but pull beliefs I find useful from there. If you take the Christian stance of sin then one might say but you fail when you sin. I would disagree with that. I still think we can not fail if we are sincerely demonstrating our spirituality. Christ has ‘given us an out’ with his sacrifice. I don’t mean an out by we can sin all day long and not need to worry about it. I mean in terms of if we do sin and we wish to overcome or be forgiven our sin, we can if we are sincerely demonstrating our spirituality. I know this is a very abstracted overview but I hope people get my point. Christians chime in.

I think if we are seeking and learning and hopefully evolving spiritually then satisfaction will come. At least it will come easier than living life as some kind of accomplishment. Life is a work in progress, enjoy the journey.

Andrea,

Probably.

Regards.

Rob Adams,

Here I go again - wish me luck!

Yes, I'm the Buddhist sympathizer. But not of the totality of orthodox Buddhism. I've constructed "My Buddhism", which is a Westernized, simple, appreciative B, shorn of B's oriental, historical, and cultural baggage.

A very good book's title is "Buddhism Without Beliefs", and that's where I'm at. I love Buddhist ethics. I'm agnostic as to B's cosmology: reincarnation, the Bardo, the six planes of existence, karma, the infinite number of eternally existing universes, the possibility of attaining enlightenment, etc. I do try to act as if some of these things are true, because that helps me deal with life.

I'm astonished at the accuracy of Buddhist psychology and am amazed that it was formulated when it was.

I've never read of a Buddhist's believing in a personal god. I have read that as part of Buddhist folklore there are tales of gods and demons, but my impression is that Buddhists regard them as energy forms with no real substance.

Buddhists also, as far as I know, don't believe that "God is the created or is 'everything'".
That sounds to me like more of a Taoist idea.
Orthodox Buddhism does believe that at the center of every sentient being there is an eternal, uncreated mindstream, which generates all of the successive incarnations and reincarnations of the being. The mindstream sounds almost like a god, but Buddhists don't regard it as such.

"One question; by saying that everything is the product of preexisting causes and conditions are implying some sort of destiny, at least on a small scale of taking a certain action versus destiny for your whole life?"

Decades ago I upset my Christian secretary by telling her, "We don't live our lives - life is lived through us." I still pretty much believe that, as in the getting-a-cup-of-coffee example.

Was it Freud who said, "Anatomy is destiny"? I'd rephrase it to say "Biology is destiny". As with quantum events there must be a certain randomness in biological events. But basically I'd say that as everything is the product of causes and conditions, every event in a person's life was destined to happen by preexisting events.

As to whether a person's entire life was destined to happen as it did: Some who believe in reincarnation think the discarnate "soul" chooses its next parents and life to accomplish some personal and/or cosmic purpose. Buddhists believe the next incarnation is determined by the person's karma.

"But at a conscious level don’t my “beings of condition” override the other levels? I would suggest that this is so. We would be much better served if we acted from the other levels by getting more in touch with them. These levels are more connected with everything, the conscious level typically is not without practice of moving between levels via meditation, prayer etc, whatever gets you there."

I tend to see the conscious "being of condition"
as the puppet of the other levels which you mention. I agree that it's desirable to attempt to integrate all the levels. Jung called this "individuation" or "self-realization."

"When I say proactive I say that I act as I desire regardless of my circumstance. For example hate shouldn’t beget hate, violence shouldn’t beget violence. Not only do I act according but also feel accordingly. I can bit hit by some one and choose to hit back. I can also restrain my self, but still be mad as heck. I can also restrain and be at peace and forgive that person (for those moments when you are in a higher state of consciousness). If I act as I desire (restrain, peace, forgive) I eventually affect my surroundings. Perhaps others see the example. Perhaps the attacked thinks differently. That is what I am talking about."

However you react will, of course, affect others and the environment, and, quantum physics suggests, will affect the entire universe to the farthest star.

I would say, though, that however you react is a product of causes and conditions. Whether you strike back or turn away and recite a Buddhist mantra is determined by causes and conditions.

"If I act as I desire (restrain, peace, forgive) I eventually affect my surroundings."

I'd have to say that your desire to act nonviolently and ethically is also the product of causes and conditions, just as was the desire to get a cup of coffee. The conscious feeling that "you" desired to act in a certain way was, I believe, an illusion.

Let's hope this post doesn't vanish like the earlier one!

Best wishes.

Jihadist,

Re: Jerry Falwall

I'll suggest it to him! He's always coming up with off-the-wall ideas.

Norrie,

Time to switch to Apple?

Rob Adams,

I'd venture to guess that most of us can kick off the dust and move on after taking a spill. Others slip into the "condition" as we've been calling it, and either can't or won't pick themselves up out of it. I guess we can chat about the "why's" of this another day.

Now on to more important matters... Jihadist, please pass the popcorn!

"However, since no one can conclusively proof that God exist or otherwise in the tangible way that atheists demand, it is all a matter of faith and belief."

I think that possibly, we've forgotten how to draw the distinction between 'faith' and 'I would like to do something manifestly-irrational for no good reason.'

Someone defined 'Faith' as 'contrary to reason' and someone sold the 'Faithful' on living down to it.

Mr. Cal Thomas

You stated : "Aren't you ever satisfied?" I answered, "I am content, but never satisfied."

Could not agree more with that. Contentment is different from satisfaction.

One can be generally content with one's life but satisfaction is fleeting.

Tday

You want to get into a discourse with non-believers? Remember, the onus of proof on the existence of God is on believers. They don't have to proof anything.

However, since no one can conclusively proof that God exist or otherwise in the tangible way that atheists demand, it is all a matter of faith and belief.

And what is called faith and belief in believers is called theories and hypotheses by scientists and atheists on their suppositions and speculations.

Pssssst....don't use analogies or circular logic with them, but do it anyway to drive them up the wall.

I like the freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists in On Faith threads, and can never resist pulling their legs sometimes. For self-designated secular humanists, some certainly can come up with stunning inventive invectives, as shown in some of the posts re Jerry Falwell's death.

Their latest thing in the threads is re monkeys. Want to monkey around with them? They have a good sense of humour.

And oh, there are moronic, idiotic, irrational and illogical atheists too. They are, after all, human like you and me. Stupidity and insensitivity is not the monopoly of believers apparently.

Andrea and Russell D

Some of your recent exchanges in some threads is making me blush. Want to get a room?

And better for your husband to make a movie on Jerry Falwell than Jesus Andrea.

Norrie.

I feel your pain.

I look forward to the reply.

This is where, I think, 'morality' comes down to common sense.

Of *course* it's not moral, for instance, to torment queer kids with threats of endless torment, never mind all the things done in the name of the 'higher good' of 'Morality' (which has become synonymous with *sexual* morality, no matter if you blow two packs of unfiltered Camels a day through the eye of any given needle they hand you.)

Even in our fear, or in the screwed-up consequences of our fearful actions...

Well, the point of 'Free will' is *not* to sanctify sadism and foist the responsibility for what you do to 'sinners' off on the people you hurt in order to make the universe comfy for abusive ideas.

Certainly, I'd think, it shouldn't be to *mandate* certain kinds of cruelty in the name of a God who blames the suffering on the victims.

That's just *madness.*

Sometimes, just maybe, the 'ticking bomb' that the Religious Right likes to try and scare us out of our ideals over doesn't mandate *legalizing* terrible things to be done to 80,000 people in Guantanamo, just in case that fictional scenario ever occurs...

Maybe it just means, 'Torturing people is a horrible thing to do, and in the rare event it's possible that torture magically would yield more useful intel than the Inquisition ever got...'

Well, it's still a crime.

Don't do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time.

Don't try to pretend it's not a crime cause it's Holy (tm) brand religion's side in a total CF in the first place.

Rob Adams,

Thanks for your very interesting post.

A few minutes ago I finished a twelve paragraph reply to you when my computer crashed and it was lost.

[Damn Bill Gates, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard to the deepest, darkest, hell-realm!!!!!!!!!!!]

I'm too weary now to try to reconstruct it. I'll try again in the morning and hope we catch up with each other.

I enjoyed your posts. We certainly have similar interests.

And, yes, I'm the Buddhist sympathizer. More on that later.

Sorry for the disruption and lack of a reply now.

Frankly, looking at all these 'Godly' Republican candidates, the only one who had a halfway *sane* response to 'Should we torture people' was a man who'd actually *been tortured.*

And even then apologetically.

Even in the debate, there, references were made to the fictional character Jack Bauer.

Look at the damn *character.* He wasn't saying, "I think we should legalize and sanctify *torture.* "

He was saying, "OK, I will commit what I know is a crime in order to try to save people from this fictional nuke. Do not stop calling this a *crime,* because it is, but I will evaluate my actions, make my choices, and take my lumps for it, cause I'm in this fictional situation."

To wit, that show doesn't say, 'Torture should be legal and sanctioned.'

It says, "When you do these things, it *costs.*"

That's almost like reality or something.

*grinding wheel turning*

"when free will is misused"

Who told you what is misuse of free will?

Someone turned around and said that 'free will' is ...*not* free will, but simply "Freedom to disobey and suffer eternal punishment for such disobedience to the theocratic whims of our day: we will convince you that you will be punished with unimaginable and forever torments..."

That's not *freedom,* folks. That's *coercing people through fear* and then *telling* them it's about 'Free will.'

Is that... *healthy?* Even, has it proven *productive?*

No, I'd say, it's just a *lie* so many of us tell ourselves in order to justify the horrors 'we' have already done because of it.

Ghostbuster.

I think the ‘fun’ , ok the challenge, of the game is the constant ying and yang of currently existing as a being of both conditions. We fall down, dust ourselves off and try again. Or to put in another recreating ourselves anew in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever we held about Who We Are.

I was pulled into the being of condition when I heard two Phoenix Sun’s starters were suspended that other night . The bigger issues I am better at, the small ones still get me, go figure. We all have our weakness! Weakness is simply an opportunity to do better.

Putting silly songs into ones head is not officially list in the 10 commandments… but I should be!

I would submit that most rational people know it is not the universe that was designed to punish free will, but rather humans inflict punishment upon themselves when free will is misused...despite a belief or non-belief in God.

Norrie Hoyt.

Nice post.

Quick question before I start. Are you the one that labels himself a Buddhist sympathizer? I love that. Being an independent I actually consider myself a novice Buddhist sympathizer as part of my make up.

I have read that Buddhists aren’t necessarily against the idea of a personal God, but that their focus is on the fact that God is the created or as you said EVERYTHING. Or am I misunderstanding? Personally I believe he is both but that is a discussion for another time.

One question; by saying that everything is the product of preexisting causes and conditions are implying some sort of destiny, at least on a small scale of taking a certain action versus destiny for your whole life?

You said “and everybody is your "being of condition". I can see that as part of the subconscious or the super conscious level. You also said “it's been found that long before you THOUGHT of getting up from your computer for a cup of coffee, unconscious physical processes were underway that would allow you to perform this physical action”. The problem with your theory there is I don’t drink coffee! 
Seriously though I do know what you are getting at.

But at a conscious level don’t my “beings of condition” override the other levels? I would suggest that this is so. We would be much better served if we acted from the other levels by getting more in touch with them. These levels are more connected with everything, the conscious level typically is not without practice of moving between levels via meditation, prayer etc, whatever gets you there.

When I say proactive I say that I act as I desire regardless of my circumstance. For example hate shouldn’t beget hate, violence shouldn’t beget violence. Not only do I act according but also feel accordingly. I can bit hit by some one and choose to hit back. I can also restrain my self, but still be mad as heck. I can also restrain and be at peace and forgive that person (for those moments when you are in a higher state of consciousness). If I act as I desire (restrain, peace, forgive) I eventually affect my surroundings. Perhaps others see the example. Perhaps the attacked thinks differently. That is what I am talking about.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

I think, Norrie, that the idea that human beings have free will in a universe designed to punish free will is very much an artifact of certain ideologies: invariably, most hardcore Christian theology is based upon the idea that "Free Will Exists And Is A Bad Thing," if you really boil it all down.

It's not amoebas they're afraid of, but as so amply-demonstrated, *monkeys.* Cause if we looked too hard at *monkeys* we might learn too much about how we react to *churches.*

Cause that, loosely-defined, is what we are. If religious institutions didn't do their best to scare us away from being conscious of those instincts, while exploiting them, in order to try to stay relevant, then we'd be focused on being *better and happier and maybe even more spiritual monkeys* rather than throwing poo and rocks at each other to try and deny it, then wonder why it never works to make scarier Gods and more-oppressive rules.

Here's one of my short-duration fave hymns to the Human Universe.

Most jubilant.

Hey, it's even got a devil in it, you might like:

""This is the greatest and best song in the world. . . tribute.

"Long time ago me and my brother Kyle here,...
we was hitchhikin' down a long and lonesome road.
All of a sudden,
there shined a shiny demon...
in the middle...
of the road.

And he said:
"Play the best song in the world,
or I'll eat your souls."

Well me and Kyle,... we looked at each other,
and we each said...
"Okay."

And we played the first thing that came to our heads,
Just so happened to be,
The Best Song in the World,
it was The Best Song in the World.

Look into my eyes and it's easy to see
One and one make two,
two and one make three,
It was destiny.

Once every hundred-thousand years or so,
When the sun doth shine and the moon doth glow
and the grass doth grow oooh

Needless to say,
the beast was stunned.
Whip-crack went his whippy tail,
And the beast was done.
He asked us:
Be you angels?"
And we said,
"Nay.
We are but men!

rock on!!!!"

This is not The Greatest Song in the World, No
This is just a tribute.

Couldn't remember The Greatest Song in the World,
This is a tribute...

To The Greatest Song in the World,
All right!
It was The Greatest Song in the World,
All right!
And it was the best mother f'n' song,
The Greatest Song in the world!

Allllllright!
(scat)
(guitar solo)
And the peculiar thing is this my friends:
the song we sang on that fateful night it didn't actually sound
anything like this song!

This is just a tribute!
You gotta believe me!
And I wish you were there!
Just a matter of opinion..."

--Tenacious D: Tribute.

Rob Adams,

You wrote:

"Ghostbuster and I have talked on a number of posts about people as beings of condition versus living as spiritual beings. A being of condition act based on the events that happen to them or their surroundings. A spiritual being is proactive and help create/influence events and surroundings."

Buddhists are atheists and many of them are among the most contented beings on earth.

Buddhists also believe that everything, yes EVERYTHING, is the product of "causes and conditions". That is to say, that everything and everybody is your "being of condition".

Recent research in psychobiology has turned up interesting findings that support the Buddhist view rather than yours.

An example: it's been found that long before you THOUGHT of getting up from your computer for a cup of coffee, unconscious physical processes were underway that would allow you to perform this physical action.

So, first came unconscious actions preparatory to moving, no doubt the product of internal causes and conditions of which you were unaware. Then you thought of moving. Then you did move.

This supports the Buddhist belief that everything is the product of preexisting causes and conditions, and throws into doubt your idea that a "person" (the conscious being associated with a human body) can be proactive of his own volition.

Regards.

and no I can't spell.

Sorry Tday,

I have to disagree with you on failing civilizations.

A vast majority of past civilizations or empires faded from power or disappeared because of financial troubles or defeat in war.

The Romans, British, French, Soviets, etc...their empires became to vast and unmanagable and they ran out of money and resourses to keep it going.

Follow the money...

Follow the money.

Sorry Tday,

I have to disagree with you on failing civilizations.

A vast majority of past civilizations or empires faded from power or disappeared because of financial troubles or defeat in war.

The Romans, British, French, Soviets...their empires became to vast and unmanagable and they ran out of money and resourses to keep it going.

Follow the money...

Follow the money.

Gotcha, TDay. Gonna give you the floor a bit, though, have to AFK. :)

Ok, whoever posted as me, likely accidentally, please identify? :)

I'd say if you can't find a purpose that won't fall apart cause of an amoeba, though, you might want to keep working on the purpose, rather than try to expunge biology from consciousness.

My apologies, Paganplace...I inadvertantly put your salutation in the name box..the last post was mine.

>>All we *can* agree on, all of us humans, is, *we were given humanity.*

Let's use it.

Agreed...lets use our humanity to always excel in and promote that which is right, good, just, moral, ethical, truthful and will help us reach our full potential.

My personal opinion...there is no way we, as humans, could even think to be the ways I stated if we propose we came from father amoeba. We are here for a purpose. Just as our minds can perform comprehensive thought...so too was the same done for our being.

Rob,
This atheist achieves inner peace the same way religious people do, just with a different metaphor to describe it. Where a Christian might 'give their troubles to the Lord,' I can just 'let it go.' The handling of emotional struggles does not require a hand-off of emotional load to someone else.

The need to 'reconcile unpleasant events' presupposes a 'greater good' with which to reconcile. Without that supposition, the need to reconcile is gone. Bad things happen, its the way of the world, try and make things better if you can and then: let it go. No spiritual picture (larger or smaller) required.

"We are, and were made, free moral agents for a purpose."

And yet the idea of someone actually *doing* that without external religious control seems to be one of the most frightening things in the world to the 'pious.'

Interesting.

Is that about freedom? Or shame and blame?

Nate stated:

>>"Original sin" is the cop-out used to explain God's failure to prevent evil. Who put the tree there in the first place? Couldn't he have just made it a bit taller?

Consider this:...'Well, it was there and someone told me I could smoke it. But, I know you said I shouldnt, dad.'

Why didn't the child do what his father asked him to do?

That was a child's failure to do what his father asked...not the father's failure.

We are, and were made, free moral agents for a purpose.

Well, Tday, when I said that some people are fighting pain-causing ideas *of* "God," and you ask *me:*

"How can He cause pain...(for both those who believe and those who do not beleive)"

...I'd say that you should look more closely at the question you called a 'cop-out.'

Let's *cop in,* shall we?

People conflate their *idea* of "God" with "God" itself *all the time.*

Say, "These ideas can't cause pain cause why would "God" cause pain (unless of course I have the idea he righteously causes pain to some.)"

Who taught you to conflate the pain religion causes with God or Gods themselves?

They taught those loud atheists the same *thing.*

Only difference is the reaction. Profiles just like child abuse, and all the reactions *that* can cause in people.

Is that "God?" Or is that *religion?*

Especially religions that make "God" a person or flag or concept we can *possess.* Or affiliate with. I don't think that really *creates* human morality, it just *dissociates* people from it.

And people who are hurt by it are most inclined to fight it. Not always well. Some join in. "If these bad things happen, then abusive-parent must be *right* and anyone who says 'This is abuse' could bring more pain by agitating him. Embracing his unreason by which we suffer is the only way to placate this wrathful, arbitrary, punishing being... "

Whosever image who was made in when people emulate this idea of 'God' or when they make this god to emulate that image of the abuse, ...well, it does no good to put "God" out of reach of discussion. when it's our *images* that really cause the problems.

You can break all the statues you want, that doesn't mean images go away.

"when He was told by mankind 'hands off..dont want to do it your way'...ie when the first humans took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and were sent out to do it, as they desired, 'their way'"

Again an abusive dynamic, really. And a passive-aggressive one, to boot. Don't question the image of The Father, take the blame yourself.

"He's allowing us to learn our lesson. Mankind has failed miserably in determining right and wrong."

Well, I think where we create misery, we've failed to determine right and wrong.

Maybe, often, created, then accepted or rejected an image, instead of being human about it.

If you don't understand *how these images can create misery,* then perhaps you shouldn't think you or your religion is going to be the one to wield them "properly," ...this time.

It never works that way.

All we *can* agree on, all of us humans, is, *we were given humanity.*

Let's use it.

Any God-image that don't like it is only going to get more unreasonable the more you placate it.

TDAY:

Yea, too bad all that isn't going to happen. Sorry to ruin the party. Truth hurts.

Dan M.

Agreed...there are many good things, and people, thankfully, in this world. That was not the intent of my comment. The context was toward the historical trends, not the individual.

The intent was to show, for example, how immoral even our nation has and is becoming overall and how that parallels to the ancient civilizations before us. Mankind, without the true knowledge of God, and practicing the true intents that Jesus Christ taught, has continually found itself, as socieities, slipping into oblivion over millenia past...primarily because we (mankind) just dont want to do it God's way. Some say that it is impossible to keep all of the 10 commandments. I submit, though we are human and make mistakes, to not take them seriously and to not try real hard to keep them is the reason we find ourselves in the unpleasant aspects of our lives...whatever they may be to each individual circumstance. There are reasons why civilizations, in many respects, start small, grow in strength and then, sadly, weaken due to 'enlightened' secular reason.

No need to feel that I am pessimistic. On the contrary, scripture tells us a new world is coming...no more sorrow, no more tears and no more death. Additionally, it speaks of several ressurrections..some of which where all who have not had the chance to really know God will have the opportunity to live in abundance in the Kingdom of God. Now thats something to look forward to!

Paganplace.

I liked your comment “Sometimes even our *beliefs* are things that weigh us down”.

Our beliefs for the most part define our actions and feelings. Whether that belief is in God(or not), in life, in people, in justice, the in our status in the community or in morality, it shapes our perception of reality. From that standpoint we create our own reality. This is how people attain inner peace regardless of their situation. It can also bet turned around to weigh us down regardless of the situation.

Tday. I believe an atheist can achieve inner peace. I am interested in how does an atheist achieve that. Since I am a spiritual ‘mutt’ (pulling concepts from different religions/beliefs) I reconcile unpleasant events/situations by looking at a larger spiritual picture. With a possible deluge of ‘bad’ news/events etc how would one reconcile bad events and still have inner peace without out this larger picture to compare to.

Paganplace,
That was a thoughtful post. My mind drifted to thoughts and bad memories about the overbearing burden of religious legalism and "spiritual abuse" if you will, and the pain it causes. I know too many people today who will only speak negatively about anything related to church for instance because of bad experiences.

Rob,
I'll be honest with you, I really thought I was above my "self" as a being of condition especially after our conversations last week. I prided myself in the fact that I don't engage in the back and forth for anyone's "team". I've been a Christian (a real one for whatever that is worth to everyone these days) hanging out on boards similar to this one with people constantly bashing anything and everything to do with what they think is my belief system week after week, day after day for the past few years. Anyways, last night someone *not our friend "someone" :) posted something on a board which wasn't anything more demeaning than anything else you see. Something to do with Falwell's grave I think. Anyway, it struck a nerve. I wrote up a just deserved comeback on the level no hater on this board has ever had to contend with, one that I thought would right all the past wrongs, the poor kid would be reduced to mumbling back ill formulated profanities. But I couldn't post it. I wanted to, more than anything, but I couldn't. I couldn't even post it under a phony name or as "anonymous". I had it typed in to this box but I couldn't hit the "post" button. Eventually I deleted it.

Speaking for myself, in my natural state, I am a being of condition. I guess the way I personally rise above myself is was best described in these words, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

It is annoying for me think of myself as weak because I associate weekness with losing and failure. But, I’ve come to realize over time and trial that when I am at my weakness, I am strong.

That’s enough philosophizing for one day. Now to jam to my theme music. Oops, sorry buddy I hope you don’t get that song stuck in your head again :)

Tday:

For a Christian you sure seem to have a pessimistic outlook on your fellow man.

I do not think that "mankind has failed miserably in determining right from wrong". A vast majority of the humans (mankind) on the planet today do a fine job of doing right over wrong. In fact I think in many respects mankind has been ascending in this regard.

"The good old days" were not very good at all for most of mankind.

Women, black, brown and yellow skinned people certainly are living with more freedom, options and dignity than ever before.

Sure one can always find circumstances where mankind is being horrible to one another (Iraq, Darfur, human smuggling, just to name a few).

But no I cannot agree with you at all that mankind has failed miserably.

What a sad un-Christlike attitude you convey with such statements.

We live in a beautiful world with an wide variety of humanity engaged in countless positive activities and enterprises.

Who are you to say we have failed miserably? What a sad, petty view of God's creation.

If that is the attitude that your religion has taught you then what good is it?

Sorry Tday, Jesus was an optimist who loves everyone equally...even the athiests that get you so bent out of shape.

"Original sin" is the cop-out used to explain God's failure to prevent evil. Who put the tree there in the first place? Couldn't he have just made it a bit taller?

Paganplace..

In response to your comment:

>>I think there are a lot of atheists, (the louder ones, often) who are *fighting* the idea of a certain God because of the pain it's caused and causes.

With all due respect, I beg to differ. Fighting the idea of a certain God, by atheists, because of 'the pain it has caused' is a mere cop-out. God or the idea of Him isnt what causes pain. How can He cause pain...(for both those who believe and those who do not beleive) when He was told by mankind 'hands off..dont want to do it your way'...ie when the first humans took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and were sent out to do it, as they desired, 'their way'. And thats the way it has been ever since...even in the mainstream of Christianity. So many different religions for one God. Not the way it was intended. So, as a loving father has to do at times for a hard-headed son...He's allowing us to learn our lesson. Mankind has failed miserably in determining right and wrong. It has brough nothing but bickering, infighting, coarse debate...yea, confusion (Rev 12:9...the adversary has deceived the WHOLE world...not just China, Fiji or Timbuktu). To put the creator God of the universe into the judgment seat as the 'painmaker' is sheer folly.

BTW..thanks for your candid remarks and for being civil. We may disagree on matters, but I do appreciate civility in dialogue. I, too, can find myself coarse at times..but come around to realize it just doesnt do any good.

TDay, I think there are a lot of atheists, (the louder ones, often) who are *fighting* the idea of a certain God because of the pain it's caused and causes. Probably a lot more just don't *need* the idea of one to be at peace with themselves in the world.

I think Mr. Thomas is onto something, here, though.

Too often the idea is turned to stuff like that bumpersticker that says, "Know God, Know Peace, No God, No peace."

Seems like that same idea turned right around into some sort of *threat.*

I think I had probably some of my moments when I felt closest to the Goddess when I literally had nothing but the clothes on my back and a totally-worn-out-by now shoulder bag that I still keep as a reminder. Having nothing but-everything-to give, at least till the food runs out.

Sometimes even our *beliefs* are things that weigh us down, and actually impede this thing we call 'Faith.' People often seem to confuse 'Faith' with 'Believing really stridently.' I say no. Who was with me all my life made no such demands.

We do.

And that's OK, until it becomes not-OK.

It's OK to *have things.* But our beliefs are, really, *things, too.*

Sometimes your prize possessions can weigh you down.

Doesn't contentment mean you are satisfied with what you have? I try my hardest not to be content, so I don't stop trying, but I'm not opposed to being satisfied "for now." It's always good to slow down for a while.

TDay:

Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back, my overall spiritual health rides on it.

Smug atheists have the usual atheist lack of real serenity and peace already in this thread. Such a predictable remark to make to someone who is sure of his direction by someone who is not.

(BTW...Cal is human, Cal makes mistakes just like atheists...but I like his approach better...he doenst call atheists SOB's...only those with lack of character and unable to control their emotions sink to a teenage level)

Smug s.o.b. Thomas has the usual Christian lack of real seriousness.

Good question E Favorite.

I assume you are talking about an atheist, versus a religion other than Christianity.

Ghostbuster and I have talked on a number of posts about people as beings of condition versus living as spiritual beings. A being of condition act based on the events that happen to them or their surroundings. A spiritual being is proactive and help create/influence events and surroundings

Can an atheist feel inner peace? Certainly. But could that be more easily disrupted based on external events? I would guess that an atheist tends to be more a being of condition but I guess an atheist would need to answer that. Can an atheist ACT as spiritual being. I suppose they could. For an atheist to do this they would need to have the mental mindset that echo’s a thought like; we are all one, any experience only has the meaning I give it, the universe is unfolding as it should, the universe is perfect in it’s creation.

I believe an atheist could hold these types of concepts. But do these concepts represent some form of spiritual thinking? Is this God or the universe talking to the atheist but they just are not aware of it? After all whether you believe in God (any God) and whether that God actually exists are two different things. You may not believe and God could be influencing you with out you knowing it. It could also be there is no God and you just happen to have the genetic make up that makes you have inner peace.

Everyone has there opinions as to the true cause. But I don’t see why someone who does not believe in God could not have inner peace. I just think it is easy to have inner peace if you have some form of active spirituality. My 2 cents.

Cal says, "Contentment is about an inner peace that comes with knowing you are rightly related to God and feeling His pleasure."

I don't see how you could be sure of that. What about all the people who feel inner peace who don't believe in God.

Posted by Cal Thomas on May 18, 2007 8:12 AM

So time travel is how you do it ehh?

I knew it!!

You sexy, sexy man.....

Cal,

Right back at ya.