"I Believe!!!"

[StillChristian]

3 hours ago, TABA said:

I think a plausible definition of “mind” would be the various thoughts and feelings that exist thanks to the brain. After death, the brain still exists but the mind presumably “evaporates”, for want of a better word.  
 

I suspect I’m dumbing this down a bit for the liking of the deeper thinkers among us.  

 

this sounds even simpler but, what i thought of:

 

to know (the mind/or awareness) it is to experience it.  to experience it (the mind/or awareness) is to know.

 

well, it was simpler, but i expanded it a bit.   but still simpler i think, now that i think about it.

 

 

not all experience the same or have the same quality of experiences perhaps or always.  depression comes to mind as just one example.  the conditions for this could be endless, or at least numerous.

 

and so the quality of the experience would need to be considered - if thinking about it this way at all.  all minds are not created equal?  although they can become more equal. 

[alreadyGone]

16 minutes ago, StillChristian said:

...i guess it's too much about faith, and beliefs for them maybe?  and i'm not sure.   many are not even aware that their scriptures could have errors and are not the originals. 

 

Others have their own reason(s) for what they choose to believe, this I do realize.

To my perception though, the reason for an intentional restriction of one's awareness seems to be a sort of variation on "normalcy bias", as their closely-held beliefs become what is mentally normal for them.

Also as well, social acceptance of their fellow congregants and friends.

In other words, it simply becomes familiar and comfortable for them.

 

It's totally natural for human beings to need that in their life, I do understand.

But the Christian faith is always touted as a diligent, honest search for truth.

 

I am as weak and flawed as anyone, but truth matters to me far more than how I feel about it or what I may wish it to be.

 

[StillChristian]

12 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you could tell us in what way you are still a Christian, StillChristian?

 

I ask because, if you liked the first two, the first one is totally at odds with Biblical Christianity.

 

1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.

No mention here of the universe being created by a god.

No mention here of god imposing order upon the universe.

No mention here of god creating the universe for a purpose.

No mention here of the heavens declaring the glory of god.

No mention of god at all.

 

So, could you please explain?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

23Now as I was going along and carefully looking at your objects of worship, I came to an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN [d]UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you already worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who created the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He [e]served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things. 26And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands and territories. 27This was so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grasp for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [f]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29So then, being God’s children, we should not think that the Divine Nature (deity) is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination or skill of man. ........................... Acts 17

[StillChristian]

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

 

One aspect of the Christian faith that became evident to me as I fell away into apostasy was realization that not all human beings WANT to be possessed of the greatest level of awareness possible to them.

That is something that had puzzled me from the edge of my consciousness all my adult life.

 

When I began to question Christianity, I noticed that so many of the Christian believers I knew were actually afraid of conscious awareness beyond that already familiar and comfortable to them.

 

Not that this is unique to Christians, not at all so, but I would have assumed that being "filled with the Holy Spirit" would induce a greater appreciation for awareness and mindfulness as compared to non-believers.

I found that, among those I knew, it was very much lacking.

 

If the understanding of the importance of greatest-possible awareness is not something given by the "Holy Spirit", then clearly I never had any actual understanding of what is meant by believers when referencing the "Holy Spirit".

 

Since then, on the pages of this forum, I have posited the question "what precisely, is a spirit"?

What objective reason is there to believe in the actuality of any spirit of any kind...  human, divine, angel, devil, etc.?

No Christian believer has yet offered an answer... none.

 

 

 

 

 

rereading what you said.  there is someone on a Christian forum i am on who has recently realized things differently.  one of the very few.  he tries to tell others what he has realized - how he didn't used to know things but preached things to others, but then came to realize he didn't really know.  he believes the whole Bible is about one thing now, if i understand them correctly.  something like it is about a change of heart (wording this differently) but not in those words.  i guess it is about a whole new way of being really could be what they mean.  

 

they say that they don't think many people are Christians really.  a very few percentage.   i am not sure totally, but that could be true if what Christians are called to be is - changed people, like really changed.  but of course there are percentages of change maybe and change over time... but, however, it could be very important to have no beliefs that might hamper a person's progress too much.  the wrong  beliefs this way or that and you could get stuck.  and not very changed into like a Christ-like person.

[StillChristian]

10 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

.... but truth matters to me far more than how I feel about it or what I may wish it to be.

 

 

i like this statement.  maybe this is a key to a problem of ... humankind?  if you already believe (in anything too much), how will find out the truth?

 

in the Bible - which i do not believe just everything that it says btw really, it says that we must become as a child, to be able to enter the Kingdom.  something to that effect.  i think many Christians miss this statement, or do not understand this statement, that i think what it means is - that they need to learn - new things.

 

children learn - with open minds (more open than adults) and over time and are more innocent and probably closer to spirit (if there really is such a thing).  i think what the spirit is is - like our 'true' self - better self.  the mental, and personalities of a person - are not the spirit.  but in children, being innocent and not yet indoctrinated into much too much in life or the world...

 

better people, though immature.  i think this is what the statement means - to become as a child in order to enter the kingdom.  how can you enter a spiritual kingdom if you are personalites and a thinking mind - but without what makes children so cool and different and awesome and great - compared in ways to adults - who can seem quite different and boring in their personalities and the way they talk and act and go through life. 

 

not full of joy or wonder or learning new things while feeling - very alive, and so different than one can become later on in life.  though i do have depression myself i think.  so....  but maybe the difference between experiencing things with the 'spirit' or not as much 'spirit' is like an aliveness and joy that can be missing if you are not experiencing life (with the spirit more) and not all with the mind and lack of whatever - the spirit is or might be.

[alreadyGone]

32 minutes ago, StillChristian said:

 

...they say that they don't think many people are Christians really.  a very few percentage.   i am not sure totally, but that could be true if what Christians are called to be is - changed people, like really changed.  but of course there are percentages of change maybe and change over time... but, however, it could be very important to have no beliefs that might hamper a person's progress too much.  the wrong  beliefs this way or that and you could get stuck.  and not very changed into like a Christ-like person.

 

The Bible is of course filled with references to "the few" who are chosen. Relating especially to the declarations in the New Testament attributed to Jesus.

 

Many here on this forum however, including myself have experienced the personal subjective judgement of other believers, especially ministers or relatives that "you were never really a Christian then... ! "

 

In the same way, as I was first separating from Christianity, a minister all but yelled at me "what I don't hear from you is a relationship with Jesus Christ!!!", leveled at me as an accusation.

 

Then at some point you'll find the "then you must have some deep dark secret sin in your life which separates you from God..." or some such silliness. At that moment they are presenting their personal value judgment, contrary to the scripture which declares all sin to be of equal import and consequence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, StillChristian said:

 

23Now as I was going along and carefully looking at your objects of worship, I came to an altar with this inscription: ‘TO AN [d]UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you already worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who created the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He [e]served by human hands, as though He needed anything, because it is He who gives to all [people] life and breath and all things. 26And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands and territories. 27This was so that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grasp for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28For in Him we live and move and exist [that is, in Him we actually have our being], as even some of [f]your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29So then, being God’s children, we should not think that the Divine Nature (deity) is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination or skill of man. ........................... Acts 17

 

With all due respect StillChristian, this quote in no way answers my question to you and also my polite request that you explain yourself.

 

That's because scripture can be interpreted in many different ways by different types of Christian.

 

From what you've posted how can I know how you interpret this passage?

 

Furthermore, quoting this passage in no way explains why you like the first of Josh Pantera's points.

 

It also doesn't explain how you reconcile your, presumably monotheistic Christian beliefs (whatever they are) with the Pantheistic content of Josh's point.

 

So, would you please tell us in what way you are still a Christian, StillChristian?

 

And would you also please explain why you like the first point, in your own words, preferably?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[freshstart]

6 hours ago, TABA said:

This evening I’ll have a fire in the backyard and will treat my nervous system to some of this… 

 

 

 

That. . . .sounds. . .amazing!

[freshstart]

5 hours ago, StillChristian said:

i like this statement.  maybe this is a key to a problem of ... humankind?  if you already believe (in anything too much), how will find out the truth?

@StillChristianI'm always curious about what brings a Christian to an ex-Christian website. It seems from this statement you are open to finding out "the truth." Does this mean you are willing to scrutinize the tenets of Christianity or have you already decided upon a certain set of beliefs as set in stone, so to speak?

[StillChristian]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

With all due respect StillChristian, this quote in no way answers my question to you and also my polite request that you explain yourself.

 

That's because scripture can be interpreted in many different ways by different types of Christian.

 

From what you've posted how can I know how you interpret this passage?

 

Furthermore, quoting this passage in no way explains why you like the first of Josh Pantera's points.

 

It also doesn't explain how you reconcile your, presumably monotheistic Christian beliefs (whatever they are) with the Pantheistic content of Josh's point.

 

So, would you please tell us in what way you are still a Christian, StillChristian?

 

And would you also please explain why you like the first point, in your own words, preferably?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

the Spirit explains all things, and not in so many words.  

 

it sounded nice, the first two did.  but then as i read through them i began to see how they don't make complete sense.

 

but that did not seem like a nice thing to say exactly because i guess these are maybe their beliefs really.  but if you read through them, understanding about how different people are not aware of things, many things, of themselves to start with - they are not equal, having never really considered things that they believe much or much about themselves.

 

probably not a good idea to become unified with any other 'awarenesses' out there - unless - and until - they are enough like you so that you would want to be around them much.  

 

God is maybe like that.  perfection, but we are not.  but we can become aware of ourselves, of what we believe - where it comes from and why, to wonder what is true really.

 

if there was nothing in the beginning then where did it all come from?  but of course one doesn't have to start where others say or believe anything that they say or think like them at all much.  i like what @Extant said recently, about thinking for yourself.  when we start to think for ourselves maybe we will arrive at various destinations... but maybe eventually we will all arrive at perfection - even if it took many lifetimes and alot of time.

 

i think that is probably what God is like.  He is all of us - perfected.  only not us - but our true selves - Spirit.  at the end of 'time' - consciousness.  eventually come all together.  reincarnation was removed /censored from Christianity.  it is like the missing key to it all... one might say.  and this is purgatory... where we forget, and get another chance - to make it out, or to get much closer to finding the way out of it.  so we do not have to keep suffering, in another life... in another... in another... in another...

 

[TABA]

8 hours ago, freshstart said:

That. . . .sounds. . .amazing!

I ended up instead tasting a pair of 12-year single malt Scotches: Glenfiddich and Macallan.  

[walterpthefirst]

 

the Spirit explains all things, and not in so many words.  

 

 

 

That sounds nice.

 

But I was not asking the Spirit to explain why you are still a Christian, StillChristian.

 

I was asking you.

 

So, would you please be so kind as to explain in your own words, why you are still a Christian.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

On 3/6/2022 at 11:49 AM, StillChristian said:

 

 

if there was nothing in the beginning then where did it all come from? 

 

 

There is currently no evidence that the universe came from nothing, SC.

 

The currently accepted model of the evolution of the universe is the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

 

Historical development

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1964 confirmed a key prediction of the Big Bang cosmology. From that point on, it was generally accepted that the universe started in a hot, dense state and has been expanding over time.

 

The LCDM model begins with this hot, dense state.

 

It does not postulate that 'nothing' preceded this.

 

So, where did you get the idea that the universe came from nothing?

 

Walter.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/5/2022 at 6:59 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

Well, hello! 

 

I see that this is your first post here, StillChristian. I think I understand your objection. Clearly not all humans are equal centers of awareness in terms of knowledge, comprehension, intellect, IQ, and similar. On that point I have no choice but to agree. It's impossible to argue the claim from that angle. 

 

But being that it's the world pantheism movement and this is a more philosophical oriented claim, it can be maintained that all humans are equal centers of awareness in terms of awareness itself - the very act of being aware. And this is an important distinction. Because they're calling attention to mutual dignity and respect for everyone on the basis of equality as centers of awareness and experience in and of itself. Regardless of intellect, IQ, knowledge, and so on. 

 

@StillChristian Maybe there was a problem here. I answered your question about belief #4. But I don't see where you received the answer and acknowledged the above. Because you posted a second time without acknowledging the answer to your question. 

 

"but that did not seem like a nice thing to say exactly because i guess these are maybe their beliefs really.  but if you read through them, understanding about how different people are not aware of things, many things, of themselves to start with - they are not equal, having never really considered things that they believe much or much about themselves."

 

It's a philosophical claim. Equality of awareness comes from the perspective of awareness itself. The very act of being aware from the perspective of a central location outward. We experience from the perspective of looking outward from a point centered within our heads.

 

The scale of knowledge to not-knowledge, high to low IQ, isn't what is meant by this. And that's what you seem to be hung up on. It's not about equal intelligence. It's a belief in all people receiving dignity and respect for being equally instruments of perception through which experience and awareness of any type, regardless of the scale involved, takes place. 

 

Hopefully this second post will be received and understood. We can look at the other beliefs as well if you see something that stands out. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, StillChristian said:

probably not a good idea to become unified with any other 'awarenesses' out there - unless - and until - they are enough like you so that you would want to be around them much.  

 

This is coming from left field because it doesn't follow in any way what the WPM believes. There's nothing about everyone's individual consciousness and awareness melting and merging into one single consciousness like a pot of single consciousness stew. In fact, there's nothing about everyone becoming just like you and then merging together. That concept is absent altogether from the WPM. 

 

10 hours ago, StillChristian said:

if there was nothing in the beginning then where did it all come from? 

 

This doesn't follow from anything that I can see either. In fact, we have entire threads devoted to the point that 'nothing = something' is a fallacious foundation to try and build up from. The only real arguments are as to what exactly that something that equals everything is - ontological arguments to do with the very nature of reality. 

 

10 hours ago, StillChristian said:

i think that is probably what God is like.  He is all of us - perfected.  only not us - but our true selves - Spirit.  at the end of 'time' - consciousness.  eventually come all together.  reincarnation was removed /censored from Christianity.  it is like the missing key to it all... one might say.  and this is purgatory... where we forget, and get another chance - to make it out, or to get much closer to finding the way out of it.  so we do not have to keep suffering, in another life... in another... in another... in another...

 

Ok, now I see where this is coming from. You had projected some of your personal ideas towards the WPM earlier. Now we're getting down to what they are and why you asserted them previously. 

 

I'll entertain these ideas for sake of discussion.

 

What you're talking about here is roughly, in a sort of way, something that I've recently considered from Tom Campbell. He is a scientist and idealist philosopher. His ideas basically state that he thinks consciousness is fundamental and that it's working towards something. That evolution has been moving towards evolving ways of consciousness to experience itself. In this conceptualization, Tom puts forward the idea that over time empathy increases which decreases entropy. There's a clear lack of today's empathy in the old religions and politics of the bronze age when there religions got moving. Tom comes right out and makes a point of that. I haven't completely wrapped my mind around the theory in full. But this is what he says. 

 

And he goes much further. He basically said something that I recently thought of recently too. He wonders if nature has been moving towards a global civilization, then galactic civilization, and on to universal civilization. I've wondered about this too because I'm already familiar with the concept of level 1, 2, 3, and so civilizations. Where level 1 is to harness the power of an entire planet. Level 2 is to harness the power of a local star. Level 3 could jump ahead to harnessing the power of an entire galaxy. And further levels could go to galactic clusters and essentially an entire universe. 

 

What's missing from the usual consideration is how consciousness and awareness fits in to the concept of level 1,2,3.... civilizations. And Tom basically makes some projections based on his big TOE. His ideas basically amount to consciousness learning to work as a whole to get to a level one type civilization through this process of increasing empathy and decreasing entropy. That nature has been flowing in this general direction through the medium of human beings and human interaction and experience. 

 

It seems as though unification of consciousness would factor in to that projection. And then greater levels as the levels of technology increase. And that the road to getting there, what all of the suffering and survival of the fittest has been about all along, is increasing empathy and lowering entropy. 

 

As to reincarnation being removed or censored from christianity, is entirely speculative of course. 

 

It's not a thing in Judaism, so I think we can pretty much rule out the idea of it being censored from the existing ideas that come from that direction. But it's possible that the gnostics and anyone familiar with eastern philosophy and Buddhism could have known about it in the near east at that time. There have been different types of Buddhist influence arguments. And if those were censored by the rise of orthodox thinking then it's entirely possible that those ideas could have been censored. We just don't have solid evidence that this was ever the case. We'd have to have some sort of texts or allusion to texts that had to do with the concept of reincarnation. 

 

Have you come across anything like that? 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/5/2022 at 11:22 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Has anyone ever adequately defined "mind", though?  Seems specious to say body and "mind" are indivisible until we know what mind is exactly. 

 

Just loosely speaking, body and mind will be interpreted through physicalist lens to mean the body and the brain. One unified entity. It just gets increasingly deeper when idealist philosophy looks at the same thing. The brain and body are still unified. But then there's this idea of the entire universe and beyond as mentation.

 

Which ever ways it's taken, the main concept of a unified whole seems to be the consensus. And indivisible each in their own ways from the two main perspectives. Pantheists have a split between materialist views and idealist views, so that's a thing. They both tend to exist within pantheist groups. But there's enough of a consensus on interconnection and indivisible and unified concepts to somehow hold everyone together. 

[StillChristian]

17 hours ago, freshstart said:

@StillChristianI'm always curious about what brings a Christian to an ex-Christian website. It seems from this statement you are open to finding out "the truth." Does this mean you are willing to scrutinize the tenets of Christianity or have you already decided upon a certain set of beliefs as set in stone, so to speak?

 

not set in stone i guess.  there is alot to learn and that i have learned over the years since first wanting to know 'truth'.  the Bible talks about knowledge this way in one place:

 

quoted from: https://www.bible-bridge.com/we-know-in-part/

 

 

"Some passages of Scripture contain ideas that are so great they blow me away. Consider the text below:

 

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. ¹¹ When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. ¹² For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

¹³ And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13 NIV)

Knowledge

Paul makes three key points about knowledge in this fascinating section:

 

1. “We know”—we don’t have to be agnostic or clueless about everything. We do have accurate knowledge about certain things and for that we should be grateful.
2. We don’t know everything—”we know in part.” Paul makes this idea personal when he says, “Now I know in part.” This is the same guy who enjoyed “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2 Cor. 12:1). He was even “caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell” (v. 4). If he only knows in part, how much do the rest of us know? The history of human knowledge demonstrates its incompleteness. Scientists used to think the atom was the smallest and most fundamental element in the universe. Then they discovered the electron. Then they discovered the quark. Then they said all particles come from fields, which are fluid-like substances spread out throughout the universe. And today the exploration continues. We still don’t have the full picture of the physical world. This same process applies to every area of human knowledge. Our current knowledge is like an incomplete puzzle. We are missing pieces, big pieces.
3. At some point in the future, partial knowledge will pass away. Paul says, “where there is knowledge, it will pass away” (v. 8). And “we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears” (v. 10). Why will partial knowledge pass away or disappear? Because completeness or “the perfect” (ESV) is coming. When we have the complete puzzle directly in front of us, we will no longer need the partial puzzle we have been working on for millennia. The incomplete puzzle will be swept off the table and the pieces will fall to the ground. Partial knowledge is good, but it’s destined to be swallowed up by full knowledge. Here’s another analogy: We now hold the key of knowledge which we should cherish. But after settling in to the house of knowledge, we’ll throw away the key."

[StillChristian]

8 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

@StillChristian Maybe there was a problem here. I answered your question about belief #4. But I don't see where you received the answer and acknowledged the above. Because posted a second time without acknowledging the answer to your question. 

 

It's a philosophical claim. Equality of awareness comes from the perspective of awareness itself. The very act of being aware from the perspective of a central location outward. We experience from the perspective of looking outward from a point centered within our heads. The scale of knowledge to not-knowledge, high to low IQ, isn't what is meant by this. And that's what you seem to be hung up on. It's not about equal intelligence. 

 

Hopefully this second post will be received and understood. We can look at the other beliefs as well if you see something that stands out. 

 

hi, i was thinking of answering earlier but was not sure what to answer at the time i guess.  but i was trying not to miss anyone... so i went back and was reading that post.

 

but, in response to what you say above, and previous (and thinking about it from my perspective): because a person wouldn't want others to think of them as less because they were depressed, or so seemed.. not very socially acceptable?  so if we are to apply this to others as well because we should want for others the same as for ourselves in ways (probably a complicated subject), then we should try to treat all people generally with concern or kindness?

 

in order to do this it is important to maybe either develop like some kind of perfect empathy for others that encompasses everyone and everything (rocks are alive too don't you know? ) ... such as could be said to be shown - depending on your religion or background by this person or that or maybe something or some concept even. 

 

for Christians - this would be Yeshua/Christ.. who we are supposed to strive to become like.  to develop the Mind of Christ.  one could explain this in an elementary manner as: follow the Ten Commandments, or as another elementary way: love your neighbor as yourself.  of course someone with the mind of God (Christ and God are said often to both be God, though explained many ways by various Christian ways of thought) would be very advanced in their thinking on such matters - even aware of how to act and talk to different kinds of people and aware of why they are the way they each are, and if they can be helped to become more advanced in their awareness / ideas / heart attitudes / habits good and bad / spiritual knowledge / ect.

 

so to become like a perfect person (like whichever person you think of as perfect - Buddha, Jesus, ect.) would be a viable/ practical way and possibly even the best way  both to respect all life forms to the highest degree - holistically and correctly in every situation, and to be able to help any of them if possible to become a greater awareness / person / lifeform / sentient being (speaking of people) that cares about others and not just tries to - but always does - no matter what -  and could show/lead others to become as they are also.

[Joshpantera]

18 hours ago, StillChristian said:

in order to do this it is important to maybe either develop like some kind of perfect empathy for others that encompasses everyone and everything (rocks are alive too don't you know? ) ... such as could be said to be shown - depending on your religion or background by this person or that or maybe something or some concept even.

 

From what I understand, Tom Campbell's ideas go in that general direction. Certainly out towards life. But assumably the whole planet. 

 

18 hours ago, StillChristian said:

so to become like a perfect person (like whichever person you think of as perfect - Buddha, Jesus, ect.) would be a viable/ practical way and possibly even the best way  both to respect all life forms to the highest degree - holistically and correctly in every situation, and to be able to help any of them if possible to become a greater awareness / person / lifeform / sentient being (speaking of people) that cares about others and not just tries to - but always does - no matter what -  and could show/lead others to become as they are also.

 

This looks like a very open minded attitude. Where you're looking at the myths as myths. The perfect human idea is a mythological concept common to many different cultures. What Joseph Campbell called, "The Hero With A Thousand Faces."

 

I have no problem with any of that. The problems generally arise when christians insist that only their myth is the one and only true one. That's an untenable position to try and hold for many reasons. When a teaching is symbolic the historical angle of the myth or places and times are clearly not the teaching in and of itself. Whether some person really existed, whether Buddha, jesus, or whoever, would be beside the point. They are meant to represent something, some philosophical or religious school of thought. The avatar of a perfect human is more or less an idealized presentation of the broader philosophical teaching. 

 

Take for instance Tom Campbell. I can see how someone could easily mythologize it.

 

Create a so-called perfect example of what encapsulates Tom's ideas about evolution by natural selection, and raising empathy to lower entropy. That could represent a philosophical school of thought. And the whole thing could be presented in a surface story line tale that has the appearance of an historical account. There may be cities and place names added. But it would be foolish and nonsensical to go looking for historical examples of any of the places mentioned.  Because that's just the vehicle of presenting a story that contains some philosophical message. The places in of themselves are just there to decorate the story. 

 

Tom was out west experimenting with OBE and trying to document it for scientific reasons, so New Mexico could be mentioned in the tale. Wouldn't make New Mexico sacred ground, though!

 

The Hero could be someone who is a conflation of several different peoples ideas about philosophical idealism. A little Tom Campbell, a little sprinkle of Donald Hoffman, a touch of Bernardo Kastrup. Maybe some longer reaches back to Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts too, from the previous century. The perfect human would be a conflation of various perspective of idealist philosophy. Sort of rolling different things into one presentation that makes allusions to them all. 

 

Do you see where this analogy is headed? 

 

From what I've learned over the decades about the christ myth, this is basically what it consists of when you analyze the crap out of things and strip it down to bare bones. You can reverse engineer something like what I've mentioned so far. Maybe one or more aspects concerned a real guy. But the evidence tends to show that it was a big conflation of many different people. All rolled into one.

 

Yeshua Ben Pantera's story is part of, but not all of the jesus myth. He lived around 100 years prior to the early first century gospel setting. Some guy named Yeshua who went off to Egypt, came back, was accused of sorcery, and killed. If you read through Josephus, you'll find something like 20 different people he wrote about named Yeshua. And if you look closer, you'll see that some of them have one or two, but not all, of things in common with what we find in the gospel myths. 

 

The bits and pieces are woven together to form the gospel accounts. It has the makings of a conflation of many things. 

 

In the end, I suppose the only point to any of it is the strength and / or validity of the philosophical school or schools of thought that the writers rolled into it. It has very little to do with whether or not any such person ever lived. Nothing to do with the place names of cities mentioned.  And that's an important distinction that christians may or may not learn to understand over time. As times keep changing. And people understand more and more that these mythic stories are non-literal. 

 

Doesn't mean that they're devoid of meaning, it just means that they clearly aren't what most people have assumed. 

 

 

[freshstart]

4 hours ago, StillChristian said:

there is alot to learn and that i have learned over the years since first wanting to know 'truth'.  the Bible talks about knowledge this way in one place:

 

quoted from: https://www.bible-bridge.com/we-know-in-part/

 

 

"Some passages of Scripture contain ideas that are so great they blow me away.

Ok, sure there are some poetic and profound concepts (being generous here) in the bible. But why not broaden your horizons? For example, Eastern philosophies and religions (often pre-dating Christianity) also involve some mind-blowing ideas. If you are seeking truth it rarely comes from examining, studying, or reading from (or about) only one source of information.

[sdelsolray]

Good.  An intelligent Christian appears.  @StillChristian, I hope you stay for awhile.  We are rarely visited by thoughtful, curious and fair minded theists.

[walterpthefirst]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

the Spirit explains all things, and not in so many words.  

 

 

 

That sounds nice.

 

But I was not asking the Spirit to explain why you are still a Christian, StillChristian.

 

I was asking you.

 

So, would you please be so kind as to explain in your own words, why you are still a Christian.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Bumped for StillChristian's attention.

 

Would you please do me the courtesy of explaining in your own words why you are still a Christian?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

There is currently no evidence that the universe came from nothing, SC.

 

The currently accepted model of the evolution of the universe is the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

 

Historical development

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1964 confirmed a key prediction of the Big Bang cosmology. From that point on, it was generally accepted that the universe started in a hot, dense state and has been expanding over time.

 

The LCDM model begins with this hot, dense state.

 

It does not postulate that 'nothing' preceded this.

 

So, where did you get the idea that the universe came from nothing?

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Bumped for StillChristian's attention.

 

Would you please do me the courtesy of answering my question?

 

Where did you get the idea that the universe came from nothing?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 3/5/2022 at 2:55 PM, StillChristian said:

 

i guess it's too much about faith, and beliefs for them maybe?  and i'm not sure.   many are not even aware that their scriptures could have errors and are not the originals.  

 

So you are saying the Bible contains some truth, but is not inerrant?  Who is it that determines which parts are truth??  HUMANS.  Who decided what writings should go into the bible, and gave us the bible??  HUMANS.   How and who decided it was god's "holy" word??

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 3/6/2022 at 4:49 PM, StillChristian said:

 

or as another elementary way: love your neighbor as yourself.  

 

Some elementary concepts are also very profound concepts.