Chris OConnor wrote:Robert, I may have been reading too much into your writing style. Some of us are just too damn literal. When I heard "child of the cosmos" I thought of supernatural...metaphysical... magical...mumbo-jumbo, and from your follow-up post this wasn't what you were saying at all. So I apologize for not asking for clarification before I gave my premature assessment of your post. I was starting to get frustrated by a few other discussions happening concurrently in this forum and I jumped on your words as an emotional response. Your clarification was helpful.

Hi Chris, I am finding this a fascinating discussion, and appreciate robust comment when statements are unclear. Too often people read something and jump to conclusions without opening a dialogue, especially with loaded words like cosmic. It reminds me of a talk I went to last year where a leading theologian (NT Wright) was getting stuck into new-age Gnosticism, and used as his example Joni Mitchell's song Woodstock, which he claimed had the line 'we are starlight'. He saw this as an example of an airy new age falsity. I pointed out to him that Mitchell's statement was 'we are stardust' which is empirically correct, a point he didn't really appreciate.

I got my copy of Harrison's book yesterday and have read about eighty pages. He is an engaging and entertaining writer, but I think a basic flaw in his approach is that he defines God out of existence. By saying that only scientific evidence can be used to assess God claims, he ignores the issue of how evidence needs to be integrated into a coherent world view. My opinion is that coherence requires a religious outlook, in the original meaning of "re-binding" (legare is Latin for connect), in that the cosmos has a deep complexity and unity that science barely scratches.

Where Harrison points out contradictions between faiths, he gives a valuable guide to critical thinking in religion. However, a purely literal interpretation is inadequate to address belief, as many religious ideas are essentially mythic

Robert said:

For example, a story such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ may be lacking in historical evidence, but it continues to resonate because it speaks volumes about the tragic nature of our world and the potential for redemption. A question such as whether the nails went through Jesus' hands or the wrists is barely relevant to the symbolic power of this iconic event

Redemption means - buying back - like when my Grandma used to pawn her wedding ring in the middle of the week - But would go and redeem it at the weekend when Grandad got paid.

I am not comfortable with the word used in this sense.

Atonement - I like much better - because that can be broken down into AT-ONE-MENT. Which is what I see as my purpose in existing....to become at one with what Robert has just brilliantly described...as the Mirror Image. I often wondered what I was trying to become 'at one' with Robert. It is a definite, and sometimes inexplicable, urge. I found your metaphore very, very helpful and so.......I hope that is what you meant. Could you tell me?

Thank you Robert Tulip......again.

A question such as whether the nails went through Jesus' hands or the wrists is barely relevant to the symbolic power of this iconic event.

Being a literalist I struggle to get past these little inaccuracies. If the Bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God why are there so many contradictions, logical impossibilities and blatant errors? Granted, there is much beauty in some of the stories and lessons of the Bible, but I don't think it is reasonable to believe that the Bible has a divine origin when there are so many obvious problems.

And I do care about the true origins of the Christian Bible. A beautiful message is just not enough for me. I want truth and honesty and I don't feel I get this from the Bible. Maybe I should take the good and discard the bad, but I already adhere to all of the good principles in the Bible and I didn't need the Bible to tell me to do so. I just don++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++'

My cat seriously just sat on my keyboard so I'll leave the above or else risk hurting his feelings.

Anyway, I lost my train of thought.

Well, Chris the Bible obviously isn't the infallible Word of God.

The Bible is a whole bunch of books bound together - some are history, some are poetry, some laws and etc....

And bound together somewhat arbitrarily from what I can gather.

Yes, some of it is beautiful and thought provoking......but when anyone says I can't just choose bits of the Bible to believe and others reject, I reply - who says?

Some of it is excruciatingly boring........

And some of it in the early part of the OT - about the sacrifice of animals is positively sickening and barbaric.

PS - And if I want to use it to stop the table leg from wobbling - I don't think God will be terribly upset.

And if you want to throw it at your cat......he won't like you to do that!!!!

For the cat's sake.....not the book's.

But we don't throw any books about do we?

Now I know what I wanted to say.

A question such as whether the nails went through Jesus' hands or the wrists is barely relevant to the symbolic power of this iconic event.

So there is symbolic power. Ok, I will grant you this. But is this enough for you? What if the actual event never took place? Just knowing that certain aspects of the story are clearly false leads me to suspect the whole story. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you say: "Well, this part of the story probably happened while the rest of this might be embellishment." How do you what is fact and what is fiction?

You call this an iconic event. Was it really even an event? Aren't events things that actually happened? How do we really know that Jesus was crucified? How do we know he even really existed? I'm NOT arguing that he didn't exist and wasn't crucified, but am pointing out that believers sure do accept a lot of information at face value. There are literally no historical records of Jesus existing, yet believers believe. I assume he existed, personally, but I strongly doubt he walked on water and rose from the dead. If he existed he was just a man with a mission. He probably never said everything that is attributed to him.

What if I made up a story with an abundance of symbolic power? As long as the story elicits the desired effect in the target audience the truth isn't important. This seems to be what you're saying when you say, "A question such as whether the nails went through Jesus' hands or the wrists is barely relevant to the symbolic power of this iconic event." If we can identify holes in the story and find absolutely no empirical evidence for the balance of the tale why should we believe?

I know...I'm a bit of a party pooper. I think too much. I question too much. I'm a skeptic and a cynic. Maybe I should just join the flocks of followers and stop analyzing every last detail. But I can't. It isn't in my nature.

Penelope wrote:Robert said:

For example, a story such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ may be lacking in historical evidence, but it continues to resonate because it speaks volumes about the tragic nature of our world and the potential for redemption. A question such as whether the nails went through Jesus' hands or the wrists is barely relevant to the symbolic power of this iconic event

Redemption means - buying back - like when my Grandma used to pawn her wedding ring in the middle of the week - But would go and redeem it at the weekend when Grandad got paid. I am not comfortable with the word used in this sense. Atonement - I like much better - because that can be broken down into AT-ONE-MENT. Which is what I see as my purpose in existing....to become at one with what Robert has just brilliantly described...as the Mirror Image. I often wondered what I was trying to become 'at one' with Robert. It is a definite, and sometimes inexplicable, urge. I found your metaphor very, very helpful and so.......I hope that is what you meant. Could you tell me? Thank you Robert Tulip......again.

Hi Penelope. Redemption is indeed a loaded word, implying that humanity has sold its soul to the devil and can only be saved by Jesus paying the blood ransom. Like you, I prefer atonement as a concept, as it is more attuned to the Buddhist idea of being at peace with the universe. The problem is that humanity actually is on a path to destruction, and does quite drastically need to change the world in order to have a future. The sense of redemption is that a voice comes from outside our normal experience to demand change. Traditionally, this has been interpreted in the magical idea of being washed in the blood of the lamb. I would rather see it in terms of Jesus presenting a redeeming message about reform priorities and human nature. Your grandmother's ring is passive, and reliant on her to redeem it for cash. The religious concept of redemption means we need a sense of reliance on divinity in order to fix our planet.

The cosmic mirror idea is about atonement, in that Christianity says humanity is made in the image of God, but does not faithfully live up to this image. You are 'at one' with your reflection in a mirror, unless the glass is dark. I have been thinking about this 'image of God' idea in terms of the anthroposphere, the part of our planet influenced by humanity. I think of God as the good of the anthroposphere, the collection of things that are conducive to human flourishing. This has to be totally ecological, in that planetary atonement requires a partnership between humanity and nature.

The hands/wrists point is highly ironic, in that doubting Thomas said show me your hands rather than show me your wrists. In 70 AD the Romans crucified many thousands of Jews in Jerusalem by hammering nails through their wrists and calf bones until they ran out of wood. Jesus in some way became a symbol displacing this traumatic memory. Perhaps it is the deep shock of this event which led to it being transformed into memory of a symbolic individual who had stigmata at the points of radiant energy in the hands, rather than prosaic holes between the radius and ulna. This is an interesting study in the evolution and formation of mythic belief.

Harrison observes that poor people rely on prayer more than rich people do, given the inverse statistical correlation between faith and wealth. This seems to indicate that rich people feel able to control their lives sufficiently not to need to rely on petitions to the almighty, while poor people are more likely to be living lives of quiet desperation where they have no solutions, for example with health problems, so fall back on faith as their only option other than sheer despair. In praying to 'a God', people are not necessarily restricting the nature of that God in the way Harrison argues. People should not claim to know the nature of the god to whom they pray, and indeed the claim of such knowledge is specifically criticised by Jesus and the prophets. The point, having exhausted known remedies, is to seek remedies from an unknown source. Prayer orients us to sensitive caring connections with others by articulating what we want to happen in the world.

Robert wrote:The religious concept of redemption means we need a sense of reliance on divinity in order to fix our planet.

To me this is a serious flaw or weakness in the concept of faith. Relying on anything that really isn't there seems like such a waste of precious time, energy and emotion. Reliance on divinity necessitates a lack of reliance on oneself. Unless you would argue that people can rely on God as much as they rely on themselves. I'd find this hard to believe. How can a person that thinks they have a friend in Jesus be as motivated to achieve as someone who knows they are completely responsible for their own destiny?

Divinity only exists in the minds and imaginations of those that believe, but this belief can be equated to a placebo. Yes, placebos work quite often, but no where near as much as well-researched prescription drugs. This has been proven in studies. Prayer works about the same as a placebo. And placebos and prayer don't work at all if there isn't some faith that they'll work.

Some of us don't want a placebo. I'd be extremely upset if my doctor gave me a placebo as opposed to proven drugs. In my opinion, God is a placebo for minds that don't recognize the difference between truth and fantasy, or between genuine drug and sugar pill. Some of us demand the real deal. We want to face reality no matter how ugly, seemingly cruel or indifferent reality can be. Placebos only work when the recipient believes they'll work. And I can't force myself to believe in a God in hopes of receiving the benefits that such a belief might bring. I want truth and honesty even if there is some pain involved with facing the truth.

Am I off base here? Aren't you arguing that the ends justify the means, Robert? Faith works so faith is good. Well, there are other things that work just as well as faith, but they aren't as easy to acquire as faith appears to be. An education is far more powerful than faith, but also far more difficult to obtain.

The religious concept of redemption means we need a sense of reliance on divinity in order to fix our planet.

Let's start with the assumption that the planet needs fixing. If the planet needs fixing how can relying on divinity help us achieve our objectives? Divinity doesn't appear to be real. Shouldn't we focus on real solutions? Aren't we better served by learning to rely on ourselves and each other?

Harrison observes that poor people rely on prayer more than rich people do, given the inverse statistical correlation between faith and wealth. This seems to indicate that rich people feel able to control their lives sufficiently not to need to rely on petitions to the almighty, while poor people are more likely to be living lives of quiet desperation where they have no solutions, for example with health problems, so fall back on faith as their only option other than sheer despair.

Actually, there is a quite different way of interpreting the data. Maybe you have it backwards. Maybe belief in and reliance on a loving and providing God is a contributing factor in their poverty. When a person feels that praying to God will benefit them why should they go out and break their back trying to achieve what God will just give them for asking. When you are reliant on a handout or a subsidy or a blessing or gift or a helping hand from your God where is the incentive to do for yourself?

This seems to indicate that rich people feel able to control their lives sufficiently

Or it indicates that people that feel able to control their lives have a higher probability of becoming rich. The wealth didn't necessarily come first. Maybe the self-confidence and self-reliance these people already possessed laid the foundation for creating wealth. I know that having a pocket full of money can add some pep to your step, but perhaps some hard work and self-reliance is what led to the wealth in the first place. And what better way to motivate oneself than to come to the realization that we're all in charge of our own lives, decisions and destinies.

Penelope wrote:Well, Chris the Bible obviously isn't the infallible Word of God.

The Bible is a whole bunch of books bound together - some are history, some are poetry, some laws and etc....

And bound together somewhat arbitrarily from what I can gather.

I appreciate that you are pretty honest about these things. You'd be amazed at how many times I have heard Christians argue that every word is divinely inspired and that there are no errors, cultural biases or contradictions. Maybe you wouldn't be amazed. But I've read that there aren't as many Christian literalists in the UK as over here on this side of the pond. We seem to have an epidemic of fundamentalism and intolerance brewing.

Yes, some of it is beautiful and thought provoking......but when anyone says I can't just choose bits of the Bible to believe and others reject, I reply - who says?

Clearly you have the right to choose bits of the Bible in which to believe. You also have the right to choose to stick a key in a light socket. Neither decision seems in your best interest. What I'm interested in knowing is what criteria you employ when assigning each Bible bit to either the "believe" or "reject" basket. Do you believe in certain things because of evidence and reasoning or because of emotion, desire or fear? What leads you to reject some bits?

Some of it is excruciatingly boring........

This is true, but quite a bit of science is excruciatingly boring too. But claims are either true or false, whether they are scientific or religious claims. The boringness (if that is even a word) of a subject, text, or field of study doesn't influence the validity of that subject, text or field of study.

Do you reject the parts that are boring? ...or do you simply skip past them exercising your prerogative to read and think about whatever you like?

And some of it in the early part of the OT - about the sacrifice of animals is positively sickening and barbaric.

Leviticus is sure a pretty horrific book. But does the horror found in Leviticus make it any less valid than the other more pleasant books of the Bible? What criteria should we use when trying to weed through the Bible and differentiate between fact and fantasy?

I don't really think any of the Bible is absolute indisputable fact. Even the history part is modified or written to agree with the philosophy of whomever wrote it. Furthermore - some parts of the Bible have been altered in places, as is evidenced by the reference to the trinity in one part of the New Testament. Research shows that the early christians didn't believe in the trinity. There is plenty of evidence, in the Bible and elsewhere to show that they believed in reincarnation. I am not arguing here, you know, with you or Robert, because in my experience, it doesn't matter what you believe or opine - it is how you behave towards other people and - when I don't quite know how to react to some one, or what to say - I pray - and I don't think it is necessary to analyse what happens when I do. There is enough evidence for me to believe it is an outside influence, but of course, I will never convince anyone else of that.

But, I do believe there is plenty of philosophical truth in the Bible though. Just as if you read 'Hamlet' and said - 'there never was a King of Denmark like this' - and yet, there is an awful lot of truth about human nature in Hamlet and other Shakespeare plays. Do you know what I mean when I say, they are not literal truth - but they are telling the truth about our thoughts and behaviour, and reasoning powers.

I am not going back to upholding and quoting the Bible to back up my opinions. I am not going back to believing the Christian doctrine of salvation - although Salvation doesn't mean - Save - in means - Heal -
Salve - just means to heal (Doesn't it Robert?). But I still find it crass of Mr. P to have that piece of toast....for his avatar. Because some people would be offended. Expecially since Mr. P knows that it is so easy to mock this sort of faith. He knows they are not going to declare Jihad on him.....

Anyway, it is not helpful IMO.