Robert

Stephen Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" that you have described is not widely accepted by the science community. It was his theory (actually, Niles Eldridge....if I spelled that right) and his answer for the gaps in the fossil record. The point is don't put too much weight on PE, as it's called, since PE is not an established theory.

RT

I suspect that our core issue here is that I do not see anything at all "useful" about religion. (I have managed to live a happy and productive life without it) Religion seems to be holding us back on every front; from scientific to ethical to spiritual it even drains our resources on a social level.

I do not believe for one second that the human race reached the epitome of spiritual enlightenment 2,000 years ago while we lagged behind on all other fronts of achievement.

I believe that there may yet be some higher spiritual research to be done but "modern" religion has anchored us firmly in the ancient past and thus destroyed our ability to advance in this area of study.

What makes one person happier than another?

Why is love more conducive to happiness then hate?

Why do we generally prefer beauty to ugliness?

Why do we generally prefer order to chaos?

Why does it feel so good to smile and laugh and why do these shared experiences bring us closer together?

These are questions for a mature science of the mind, and to my knowledge are not answered acceptably in any religious text.

Religious modernization as an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics and community building on a global scale.

Put simply, holding on to the old ways is holding us back.

Later

Chris OConnor wrote:Robert

Stephen Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" that you have described is not widely accepted by the science community. It was his theory (actually, Niles Eldridge....if I spelled that right) and his answer for the gaps in the fossil record. The point is don't put too much weight on PE, as it's called, since PE is not an established theory.

Hi Chris, I have heard of the controversy between Gould and Dawkins over punctuated equilibrium, but that is not quite what I am talking about. Whatever the details, the fact is that the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event was one big punctuation mark, as were the other spikes between the epochs.

What worries me is that religionists blithely conduct imaginary conversations about heaven and hell, when this real data from the history of our planet demonstrates the material risks to our species.

btw, Dawkins said punctuated equilibrium "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis."

Frank 013 wrote:RT I suspect that our core issue here is that I do not see anything at all "useful" about religion. (I have managed to live a happy and productive life without it) Religion seems to be holding us back on every front; from scientific to ethical to spiritual it even drains our resources on a social level. I do not believe for one second that the human race reached the epitome of spiritual enlightenment 2,000 years ago while we lagged behind on all other fronts of achievement. I believe that there may yet be some higher spiritual research to be done but "modern" religion has anchored us firmly in the ancient past and thus destroyed our ability to advance in this area of study. What makes one person happier than another? Why is love more conducive to happiness than hate? Why do we generally prefer beauty to ugliness? Why do we generally prefer order to chaos? Why does it feel so good to smile and laugh and why do these shared experiences bring us closer together? These are questions for a mature science of the mind, and to my knowledge are not answered acceptably in any religious text. Religious modernization, as an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics and community building on a global scale. Put simply, holding on to the old ways is holding us back. Later

Frank, your comments are thoughtful, deep, succinct, coherent and insightful. And yet, I argue that you are missing the essential story. Today at my church the sermon was a critique of what I call "the evangelical heresy" the idea that the purpose of faith is to get to heaven. Both believers and unbelievers assume this 'heresy' is at the centre of orthodox Christianity, but our preacher pointed out that this idea is entirely absent from the teachings of Jesus, who taught the point of salvation is to have abundant life and transform the world, and nowhere prayed 'may I go to heaven'. There is an amazing disconnect here between the actual message of the Gospels and what tradition has claimed in it. I see this disconnect as grounded in the mutation of the Christian meme from an original message of genius into something that could be understood by selfish ignorant people. So it is hardly surprising that your 'mature questions' find no answer in the church.

I am now reading (another!) a wonderful book, Plan Be by Dave Andrews. The linked site says

"Plan Be rescues the 'beatitudes' from their obscurity as a poetic introduction to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and reframes them as a set of radical 'Be-Attitudes' that can enable us to 'be the change we want to see in the world'. According to Dave Andrews, the 'Be-Attitudes' are an original, imaginative and brilliantly do-able set of realistic ideals that introduce us to Jesus' ingenious way of engaging our world of poverty and violence."

The problem you have identified is that orthodox Christianity has been corrupted by false ideas at its core, which are so entrenched that no one can say the emperor has no clothes. This call to account is what Plan Be, and other books like it, provide, with a good answer to your challenge regarding religious modernisation.

In considering your comments, I have been thinking about how Christianity can provide a central message for an evolutionary worldview. This requires a first recognition that creationism is an evil and heretical doctrine which needs to be exposed as a fraudulent danger. Moving forward, with a materialist interpretation of the Gospels, we can see that spirituality needs to be built upon a material base, and that failure to anchor spirit in scientific reality makes the church a hypocritical laughing stock. How might this anchoring of spirit in matter be achieved? To my mind a central answer is provided by Jesus' quote from David:

"The stone the builder refused will be head of the corner."

This refers to the fact that in building an arch, square stones are used first and crooked ones are set aside, but when the keystone is put in place, holding the whole together by gravity, the builder returns to the discard pile as the source. This is, I suggest, a model for the evolutionary ethical tasks facing our world. We need to look for and find the ideas and people and things that are marginalised by the dominant culture, and celebrate them as the centre of a new world. The refused have the strength and dignity that is needed for reform, and putting them at the centre creates the dynamic for a transformative vision. But it is not about revolution, as one thing that evolutionary science has taught is that successful change builds on precedent.

The problem is that Jesus predicted that the world would get it wrong, so we should expect that major institutions share in this failure. The churches cannot see a path forward because the humility required for honest dialogue is too great for their entrenched power. You say there are more sophisticated approaches than religion to community building on a global scale, but I say the story of Jesus speaks truth to power, and rekindling that story is the best strategy for global transformation.

Robert Tulip wrote: To my mind a central answer is provided by Jesus' quote from David:

"The stone the builder refused will be head of the corner."

This refers to the fact that in building an arch, square stones are used first and crooked ones are set aside, but when the keystone is put in place, holding the whole together by gravity, the builder returns to the discard pile as the source.

Didn't the Romans invent the arch?

Tom

RT
Today at my church the sermon was a critique of what I call "the evangelical heresy" the idea that the purpose of faith is to get to heaven. Both believers and unbelievers assume this 'heresy' is at the centre of orthodox Christianity, but our preacher pointed out that this idea is entirely absent from the teachings of Jesus, who taught the point of salvation is to have abundant life and transform the world, and nowhere prayed 'may I go to heaven'.

You're talking about the Jesus that said these things right?

Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
-Mark 3:29

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
-Matthew 12:31

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Matthew 12:36

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
-Matthew 12:37

Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father. . .
-Matthew 10:33

Wouldn't these remarks seem to indicate that heathens/heretics will not be allowed into haven?

Doesn't that mean that Jesus is teaching what to do and not to do to get into heaven?

This Idea is clearly not "entirely absent" from the teachings of Jesus... and I am just scratching the surface...

Later

RT
You say there are more sophisticated approaches than religion to community building on a global scale, but I say the story of Jesus speaks truth to power, and rekindling that story is the best strategy for global transformation.

You seem to have forgotten that the majority of the planet's population doesn't want anything to do with Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

Any modification of said material will still run the same problems as any other religion... the fact that most of the other religious people will not even listen to what another religion is preaching.

Christianity has been manipulated time and time again but the answers to those tough questions still remain elusive. I submit that those answers are not contained within the message of Christianity and to seek those answers we must discard the fraudulent and look to fresh ideas for explanations.

Later

Thomas Hood wrote:Didn't the Romans invent the arch?Tom

Hi Tom, I had a look on wikipedia and found that the Romans perfected earlier designs. I think Jesus was actually more sympathetic to Rome than he is sometimes depicted, in that rendering to Caesar, while less important than rendering to God, is an essential part of life.

Frank 013 wrote:

RT Today at my church the sermon was a critique of what I call "the evangelical heresy" the idea that the purpose of faith is to get to heaven. Both believers and unbelievers assume this 'heresy' is at the centre of orthodox Christianity, but our preacher pointed out that this idea is entirely absent from the teachings of Jesus, who taught the point of salvation is to have abundant life and transform the world, and nowhere prayed 'may I go to heaven'.

You're talking about the Jesus that said these things right?

Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness. -Mark 3:29 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. -Matthew 12:31 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. -Matthew 12:36 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. -Matthew 12:37 Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father. . . -Matthew 10:33

Wouldn't these remarks seem to indicate that heathens/heretics will not be allowed into heaven? Doesn't that mean that Jesus is teaching what to do and not to do to get into heaven? This Idea is clearly not "entirely absent" from the teachings of Jesus... and I am just scratching the surface... Later

Frank, you seem to suggest that interpretation of these texts in terms of a supernatural heaven is the only possibility, even though that is not explicitly stated by Jesus. An evolutionary materialist reading is equally possible, and I suggest more elegant. For example, we can interpret forgiveness at the day of judgement as an accounting of whether people have lived well, in a way conducive to human flourishing, ie whether they have lived in a way that does not actively diminish the ideal of how we should transform our planet into a place of love. This approach is compatible with science and supersedes magical theories of the soul.

On the blasphemy question, these texts say to me that if a person sincerely argues the holy spirit is evil then Jesus believes that claim is completely wrong and beyond redemption, not in a supernatural sense but as a matter of karmic causality. I can't understand the motive for any sincere and intelligent person to blaspheme the holy spirit, understood as a hypothetical cosmic principle, although criticising church interpretations is another matter entirely. It is likely that when people are bullied into accepting dogmas which are a front for secular power, as in the crusades and the missionary cultural genocides, that they adopt a view hostile to the Christian aggressors. I would ask in this context if their hostility is towards the holy spirit itself or towards the perverted and manipulative interpretation of the church.

You could similarly take the parable of Dives and Lazarus at Luke 16:19 as a claim that heaven is a real place, but this is a parable, an illustration of a message, presenting an image in a way that is accessible to popular views. Given that heaven does not exist, the question is whether such stories remain meaningful against a materialist interpretation. I think so.

Proof-text analysis is not the final word here, given that the gospels are not completely reliable as historical texts and so need to be assessed against a conceptual view of the core message, and against their scientific possibility. For example the statement at Matt 16:28 "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" may well have been an addition, as it is flatly contradicted at Matt 24:14 "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." This is an example where misinterpretation by hearers could have well found its way into the Bible, given the fervence with which people desired a new heaven and new earth in their lifetimes. Considering that "pie in the sky when you die" has been the mainstay of the church, the surprising thing is that the Biblical basis for it is so utterly absent.

RT
Frank, you seem to suggest that interpretation of these texts in terms of a supernatural heaven is the only possibility, even though that is not explicitly stated by Jesus. An evolutionary materialist reading is equally possible

That may be so, but that is not what was believed at the time the biblical scripture was written. At the time of those writings the vast majority of people believed that heaven was a physical place that one could go to.

Also the idea of an actual heaven is the most literal reading, you are free to divert from that idea as much as you wish, I just do not think that many people are going to follow suite.

RT
For example, we can interpret forgiveness at the Day of Judgment as an accounting of whether people have lived well, in a way conducive to human flourishing, ie whether they have lived in a way that does not actively diminish the ideal of how we should transform our planet into a place of love. This approach is compatible with science and supersedes magical theories of the soul.

OK, so that approach is more sensible but when has sensibility been a prerequisite for religious text? As I mentioned before other religions such as Islam which is not much more that war cult would never fall in line with such a translation. Furthermore Christian fundamentalists would not accept it either.

RT
On the blasphemy question, these texts say to me that if a person sincerely argues the Holy Spirit is evil then Jesus believes that claim is completely wrong and beyond redemption, not in a supernatural sense but as a matter of karmic causality. I can't understand the motive for any sincere and intelligent person to blaspheme the Holy Spirit,

Well if a person does not believe in such a thing as the ridiculous, wife raping, Holy Spirit than blaspheming it is just a matter of taking an honest look at it.

RT
Considering that "pie in the sky when you die" has been the mainstay of the church, the surprising thing is that the Biblical basis for it is so utterly absent.

Utterly absent? Maybe, unless you read the whole bible and take all the stories as face value, instead of cherry picking specific passages and claiming that the others that do not agree with your interpretation are false additions or meant to be interpreted in a different way. You say it yourself earlier in your response.

RT
You could similarly take the parable of Dives and Lazarus at Luke 16:19 as a claim that heaven is a real place

This passage and others like it abound throughout the bible it is clear (at least to me) that the writers of the biblical text were ignorant to the extreme about earthly and heavenly reality. I see no reason to turn to such ignorance and try to add enlightenment to it, or gleam enlightenment from it.

In matters of enlightenment, spirituality and society I prefer to look forward not back.

Later