tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post3023633637199409470..comments2023-09-08T00:47:50.511-07:00Comments on Naked Reflections: A Skull Full of Mush?Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-43013388519045542782007-01-18T15:35:00.000-08:002007-01-18T15:35:00.000-08:00>bb, our conversation has the form of a debate tha...>bb, our conversation has the form of a debate that isn't really progressing or satisfying to me.< <br /><br />What have I said that you believe is non-progressive? You mean when I observed that a "perfect" God would not be "lacking" therefore not require, need or want anything at all including "playing" with "His" toy humans?<br /><br />>I can witness that faith in God can have an internal coherence and a consistent internal logic. I am confident I can demonstrate that.<<br /><br />Which "God" are you speaking of? Could you define first then "demonstrate" its "consistent internal logic?"<br /><br />BBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-70419823468137377962007-01-18T14:56:00.000-08:002007-01-18T14:56:00.000-08:00Certainly what you say is true. Organizations and ...Certainly what you say is true. Organizations and institutions have rhythms of decay and reform. And decay is when institutions are perpetuated for their own sake rather than for the sake of their original purpose.<br /><br />I am guided by the fact that Buddha did set up a teaching, a body of work, an eight fold path, a Vinaya and so on. He thought about not giving his teachings any form which might be more consistent with his inner freedom. And then he decided to give his teachings a form and a structure and an institution. We follow in this path because it is helpful to us.<br /><br />With friends, as with beliefs, the true meaning lies in our relationship, rather than in their external qualities. <br /><br />bb, our conversation has the form of a debate that isn't really progressing or satisfying to me. I can acknowledge with you that God is not a hypothesis for which we can amass evidence. Any such evidence that you find theists presenting to you is meaningless and you should have at disproving it. I am not trying to present evidence to you and if you don't want to believe in the Bible or God, more power to you. <br /><br />I can witness that faith in God can have an internal coherence and a consistent internal logic. I am confident I can demonstrate that.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-69565382867542486322007-01-18T14:32:00.000-08:002007-01-18T14:32:00.000-08:00>
Do we want false friends or beliefs?<< Bible believers believe the bible. People who believe in other things believe in other things. I have my friends. You have yours. It would be strange if I needed proofs that my friends were superior to yours in order for me to have any friends. >><br /><br />Do we want false friends or beliefs?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-14552134513818693932007-01-18T13:16:00.000-08:002007-01-18T13:16:00.000-08:00>bb: God and people don't "need" play. We just do ...>bb: God and people don't "need" play. We just do it for its own sake.<<br /><br />I believe people do need "play" because they are "lacking" non-perfect entities, however, a perfect God would not be lacking anything, would It? Since not, then why would it need humans or anything else?<br /><br />>Almost certainly, we all suffer from the distorted perspective of self absorbtion. Religious and non-religious alike.<<br /><br />We could only thank our creator, be it intelligent or not for forcing us to be just that way?<br /><br />>Bible stories are words and language. But words and language are just words and language. They are not ultimate reality or even the things that they describe.<<br /><br />So does that mean we should believe a biblical God exists with the same percentage of chance that a Purple People Eater God might be the Ultimate Reality?<br /><br />>Bible believers believe the bible. People who believe in other things believe in other things. I have my friends. You have yours. It would be strange if I needed proofs that my friends were superior to yours in order for me to have any friends.<<br /><br />Can you analogize tangible friends to intangible religious beliefs? <br /><br />>Xeno's paradox conclusively disproves that you and I can ever make it to the refrigerator. And yet, we don't starve.<<br /><br />Zeno's paradoxes are no doubt correct providing we were strictly confined to his rules, however, we obviously are not. <br /><br />One cannot compare them to an Omnipotent Being being challenged to definitely follow whatever specific rules are presented and the results come back that he cannot cure them. <br /><br />In other words, there becomes a major problem when a thing or entity is declared "Omnipotent" as it must then prove itself as such *within* ANYONE'S CUSTOM RULES! <br /><br />BBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-52309782995062639852007-01-18T12:57:00.000-08:002007-01-18T12:57:00.000-08:00>
Some language helps me "enter the stream," but ...<< We do it all the same because we see it serves some function to create a structure and a community. Everything is empty. Still, we take a stand because it helps people orient themselves to enter the stream. >><br /><br />Some language helps me "enter the stream," but it's more likely to be the language of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Tao Te Ching than that of monotheistic scripture (although there certainly are biblical exceptions) and theology. <br /><br />Furthermore, it seems to me that institutional "structure" and "community" stemming from language tend to become trapped in the limitations of that language. To use an overused but nevertheless evocative Zen metaphor, the faithful members of these institutions come to fix their gaze on the finger of the language rather than on the divine moon to which the finger points, and they remain forever blind to the true heavenly glory.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-85697436343285346552007-01-18T10:51:00.000-08:002007-01-18T10:51:00.000-08:00Nagarjuna,
It is actually common to Buddhism as w...Nagarjuna,<br /><br />It is actually common to Buddhism as well that people will say that teaching the Dharma is "making a mistake on purpose." Both Gautama and Nagarjuna wrestled with this dilemma.<br /><br />Teaching ultimate truth through relative language is an ironic undertaking in every religion. <br /><br />We do it all the same because we see it serves some function to create a structure and a community. Everything is empty. Still, we take a stand because it helps people orient themselves to enter the stream.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-13129432849332550362007-01-18T10:33:00.000-08:002007-01-18T10:33:00.000-08:00bb:
God and people don't "need" play. We just do ...bb:<br /><br />God and people don't "need" play. We just do it for its own sake. <br /><br />Almost certainly, we all suffer from the distorted perspective of self absorbtion. Religious and non-religious alike. <br /><br />Bible stories are words and language. But words and language are just words and language. They are not ultimate reality or even the things that they describe. <br /><br />Bible believers believe the bible. People who believe in other things believe in other things. I have my friends. You have yours. It would be strange if I needed proofs that my friends were superior to yours in order for me to have any friends.<br /><br />Xeno's paradox conclusively disproves that you and I can ever make it to the refrigerator. And yet, we don't starve.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-80404225283759348302007-01-18T07:31:00.000-08:002007-01-18T07:31:00.000-08:00>
Copithorne, it seems to me that what you're rea...<< Any sense of God having a personality or interacting with humankind is either a figurative description of our relationship with God or it takes place behind a wall of irony, paradox and mystery that is not intended carry philosophical weight. >><br /><br />Copithorne, it seems to me that what you're really saying, even if you don't consciously mean to, is that the Ultimate Reality so transcends our capacity to understand It that the theological pretensions of such religious institutions as the Catholic Church are virtually reduced to pointless absurdity. I couldn't agree more.<br /><br />Beyond that, I am quite mystified by your beautiful words, perhaps for the same reason that I'm mystified by most poetry. It could well be that if there really is a God who wants to have a "relationship" with me, "He" wil have to speak to me with something more or other than the poetic verse of scripture or the poetic prose of Copithorne to circumvent my constitutional deafness.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-87743493073264873352007-01-17T19:33:00.000-08:002007-01-17T19:33:00.000-08:00>bb, creation is God's play. It is completely, glo...>bb, creation is God's play. It is completely, gloriously unnecessary.<<br /><br />Why would a perfect God need "play" unless "He" was lacking therefore not perfect?<br /><br />>Human self absorbtion is is a preoccupation with oneself as the center of the universe -- the most important thing. This is a common distorted perspective.<<br /><br />Don't believers use this same "self-absorption" in believing only one of many never proven creation stories? <br /><br /><br />>Words and language is how humans communicate with each other. But they are not all we have to go by. They are a tiny fraction of what we have to go by. The vast majority of things function without any language at all. Then, humans may try to describe it.<<br /><br />But without "words and language," how would Bible believers be convinced of only one of countless creation stories?<br /><br /><br />>The paradox about God doesn't disprove God anymore than Xeno's paradox* proves that you and I can't make it to the refrigerator.<<br /><br />It would seem to disprove an "Almighty God" as it appears to prove it could not manage many equations or situations.<br /><br />>Faith is not a matter of proof or disproof. Anything that can be proven or disproven is not faith.<<br /><br />But Bible believers don't simply own faith, they must use reason to deduct every other belief and God they do *not* subscribe. If they simply had "faith" without reason, they'd believe in every god, belief, and sell job there that ever came upon them.<br /><br /><br />>*If you go half the distance and half the distance and half the distance how do you ever arrive?<<br /><br />Why would we need to "arrive" anywhere we are not sure exists?<br /><br />BBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-39131804081125566782007-01-17T19:08:00.000-08:002007-01-17T19:08:00.000-08:00bb, creation is God's play. It is completely, glor...bb, creation is God's play. It is completely, gloriously unnecessary.<br /><br />Human self absorbtion is is a preoccupation with oneself as the center of the universe -- the most important thing. This is a common distorted perspective. <br /><br />Words and language is how humans communicate with each other. But they are not all we have to go by. They are a tiny fraction of what we have to go by. The vast majority of things function without any language at all. Then, humans may try to describe it.<br /><br />The paradox about God doesn't disprove God anymore than Xeno's paradox* proves that you and I can't make it to the refrigerator.<br /><br />Faith is not a matter of proof or disproof. Anything that can be proven or disproven is not faith. <br /><br /><br />*If you go half the distance and half the distance and half the distance how do you ever arrive?copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-19148342996945608942007-01-17T09:31:00.000-08:002007-01-17T09:31:00.000-08:00>Yes, bb, we can say that God created everything. ...>Yes, bb, we can say that God created everything. He created this dynamic of fall and redemption that I described. And it is beautiful and right.<<br /><br />Cop, Why would a perfect "God" need or want anything at all including humans? Isn't "perfect" the opposite of "lacking" thus if "He" wanted or needed things that would be "lacking" them?<br /><br />>Christians could say that God did create evil and this play of good and evil provides the theater in which human dignity is at its richest. I think it is more common to say that evil is human self absorbtion that it is a recoiling from God and is not God's responsibility.<<br /><br />Cop, what is "human self?" Did we create or buy our spirits and bodily parts at some store before we existed and place ourselves in our specific social and data intake lifelines?<br /><br />>It is always possible to engage in sophistry against religious language which is a kind of playing with words. "If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone he cannot lift...?" And certainly Christianity has injured a lot of people and such people may wish to see it disproven.<<br /><br />Aren't "words" and "religious language" all we have to go by? Aren't they all believers have to go by as well? <br /><br />Doesn't your above paradox disprove an Almighty God? <br /><br />Does it make a difference who wishes to "prove" or "disprove" the Bible?<br /><br />BBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-84458500365940312622007-01-16T21:17:00.000-08:002007-01-16T21:17:00.000-08:00Yes, Nagarjuna, I do believe it is consistent with...Yes, Nagarjuna, I do believe it is consistent with Catholic teachings to understand God as a dimension of depth to existence. Any sense of God having a personality or interacting with humankind is either a figurative description of our relationship with God or it takes place behind a wall of irony, paradox and mystery that is not intended carry philosophical weight. <br /><br />As to your inquiries into the Christian story of the Fall and Redemption, animals and infants do not possess moral reasoning and do not sin. They also do not suffer from guilt and many types of self doubt and anxiety.<br /><br />It seems to be a natural developmental process to develop a conscience to create a Law and live in anxious relationship to that Law. We take on the faculty of God and pass judgment on ourselves and others. This is both a huge leap forward and a terrible burden. It is the source of all our goodness and all our evil. <br /><br />Then Jesus Christ comes and, as Paul says, frees us from the Law. "The Law is dead. Are we free to sin? God forbid." (More irony, more paradox.) We have the faculty of knowledge of good and evil, but we are no longer subject to the judgment of good and evil because we are saved by Jesus Christ and not by the Law. <br /><br />Yes, bb, we can say that God created everything. He created this dynamic of fall and redemption that I described. And it is beautiful and right. <br /><br />Christians could say that God did create evil and this play of good and evil provides the theater in which human dignity is at its richest. I think it is more common to say that evil is human self absorbtion that it is a recoiling from God and is not God's responsibility. <br /><br />It is always possible to engage in sophistry against religious language which is a kind of playing with words. "If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone he cannot lift...?" And certainly Christianity has injured a lot of people and such people may wish to see it disproven.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-56284527520495508552007-01-16T13:01:00.000-08:002007-01-16T13:01:00.000-08:00"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heav..."Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."<br /><br />Cop, doesn't this mean that God created everything at first? And wouldn't everything include Evil, AKA, the Spirit of the Serpent? <br /><br />BBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-71475760970461075682007-01-16T13:00:00.000-08:002007-01-16T13:00:00.000-08:00>
What does this mean? That as humans grow up an...<< Adam and Eve ate that fruit -- moving from innocence to experience. They didn't know right from wrong and then they knew right from wrong. >><br /><br />What does this mean? That as humans grow up and gain experience they naturally come to distinguish between good and evil and to intentionally do what they consider to be evil? If so, how does Jesus redeem "mankind liberating human beings from the bondage to the knowledge of good and evil" such that "Humanity can move freely from experience back to innocence."? After Jesus, do we no longer distinguish good from evil and intentionally choose evil? How are we any more "innocent" of evil after Jesus than we were before him? That is, to use your language, how do "We move from unselfconscious expression to self awareness and back to unselfconscious expression" through Jesus or Christian faith?<br /><br />I find your words eloquent and even beautiful but utterly bewildering.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-9489362924777271142007-01-16T12:45:00.000-08:002007-01-16T12:45:00.000-08:00I'm not sure that Jesus wasn't as good a teacher a...I'm not sure that Jesus wasn't as good a teacher as Wayne Dyer or Dr. Phil. For it seems to me that his 'Sermon on the Mount' is far more profound and compelling than anything I've heard from those other guys. :-) <br /><br />But I get your point that Jesus' reported teachings and life seen as no more than accounts of a great teacher hardly seems like a sufficient foundation for a great world religion. Again, this is why I don't subscribe to that religion.<br /><br />I'm afraid you lost me when you said, "But with God, there are no transitive verbs because God is not, cannot be, a subject standing above other subjects," because while this may be true of the kind of God I'm most inclined to believe might exist, it doesn't seem to be true of the conventional Christian concept of God as a being or "subject" who does, indeed, stand "above" us in terms of being ontologically different from and superior to us and who created us and harbors wishes for us. If you deny that this concept of God is valid, aren't you denying the Christianity of the Catholic Church, and, if so, what kind of Christianity remains?<br /><br />I am also perplexed when you say that the "problem" we have with the world lies with ourselves rather than with God. For it seems to me that either God is not a "subject" standing "above" us, in which case, we are all God and our problems with the world are, therefore, God's problems, or God does stand above us as the creator of the world's imperfections and the difficulties and suffering we imperfect creatures encounter in dealing with those imperfections and, thus, the "problem" or "blame" does, indeed, lie ultimately with God.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-21292017930849445392007-01-16T11:49:00.000-08:002007-01-16T11:49:00.000-08:00Evil first makes its appearance at the fruit of th...Evil first makes its appearance at the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. <br /><br />Adam and Eve ate that fruit -- moving from innocence to experience. They didn't know right from wrong and then they knew right from wrong.<br /><br />Jesus Christ redeems mankind liberating human beings from the bondage to the knowledge of good and evil. Humanity can move freely from experience back to innocence.<br /><br />In life and spiritual life there is a rhythm of moving from innocence to experience and back to innocence. We move from unselfconscious expression to self awareness and back to unselfconscious expression. This is the process of growth. <br /><br />The biblical or theological story Adam and Eve being completed in Jesus Christ is, to my mind, a profound, subtle, breathtaking representation of this universal human dilemma. <br /><br />I'm sure many Christians convert this representation into a set of philosophical and historical propositions and you are responding to their mistake. To my mind both you and your Christian interlocutors would be missing the treasure in those stories.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-87213347062606351852007-01-15T22:52:00.000-08:002007-01-15T22:52:00.000-08:00Cop said, "bb, we would answer with the perspectiv...Cop said, "bb, we would answer with the perspective that God does not create evil. God creates free people and people create evil. The sacrifice of the Son of God is the gift of salvation from evil. If that gift isn't for you don't think twice, it's all right."<br /><br />Cop, according to the Bible, where was "Evil" first witnessed?<br /><br />BBBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-76379550445787138372007-01-15T17:05:00.000-08:002007-01-15T17:05:00.000-08:00Yes, again, being a Christian means you believe Je...Yes, again, being a Christian means you believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe it. If you are looking for teachers, Jesus has a lot of authority and says a lot of nice things but he is not even as effective a teacher as Wayne Dyer or Dr. Phil.<br /><br />Theological language has a different function than philosophy. Theology is internally coherent, but not necessarily coherent with philosophy. <br /><br />When we speak of other people, "knowing" and "creating" and "allowing" and "consigning" they are all transitive verbs. They involve a subject relating to an object. But with God, there are no transitive verbs because God is not, cannot be, a subject standing above other subjects. You are correct that a God engaging in transitive verbs is philosophically incoherent. Sometimes theologians might speak in terms of God engaging in transitive verbs. But if they are understanding what they are saying, they will disavow that that is an accurate way of speaking about God. <br /><br />(You use the fifth verb, "playing" as a transitive verb. But it does not need to be one. God does play. And that will be the only coherent theological answer to the questions "why...?")<br /><br />So it comes down to this. The world is on fire with beauty. It is an unfathomable miracle. Yet everywhere human beings such as you (and me), experience the world as ugly, boring, cruel, unfair. Is the problem with the world (and its creator?) Or is the problem with ourselves? <br /><br />The religious answer will be that the world is blameless and the problem is with ourselves.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-71701192960112016132007-01-15T15:06:00.000-08:002007-01-15T15:06:00.000-08:00St Paul wrote: "And if Christ has not been raised,...St Paul wrote: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." <br /><br />You write of accepting Jesus' resurrection on both literal and figurative levels, and, according to St. Paul and most other leading lights of Christianity, one must at least do the former in order to qualify as Christian. You say, "Christianity loses its existential character," strength, and philosophical coherence if it sees Jesus as simply a wise but entirely human teacher. But to me it loses its credibility when Jesus is seen as anything more than that, except in the sense that we are all divine, and without credibility, what does it have left?<br /><br />As for God not creating evil, I would say, on a literal level, that if he created the universe, Satan, and people knowing how they would all turn out, allows humans to be tricked by supernatural malevolence into disobeying him, allows humans to be stained with an "original" proclivity to disobey him, plays hide and seek with humans who have so little cause to believe in him that they don't seek him much less obey him, and then consigns those who don't seek and obey him into the torment of eternal separation from him if not agonizing pain, this does not constitute freedom in any meaningful sense that I can think of, and it does seem to suggest that God is indeed the source of all evil and ultimately responsible for all of it. <br /><br />And I don't know how to speak of this in meaningful terms on a figurative level.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-51482555743659912852007-01-15T14:18:00.000-08:002007-01-15T14:18:00.000-08:00Absolutely, it is very easy to get off track in a ...Absolutely, it is very easy to get off track in a Church as well. The path is narrow. <br /><br />For most people, Jesus makes more sense as a teacher. And on balance, if we were to reset everything so that Jesus is just a teacher, it just might reduce the sum total of confusion in the world. <br /><br />But to me, Christianity loses its existential character with this approach. To my perception it is much stronger and more philosophically coherent to have Jesus Christ as a source of grace, a messiah, a guru. And yes, that is a difference between your approach and what Christianity is trying to work with.<br /><br />I don't have doubts that Jesus was resurrected. Which is to say, there is a level of spiritual development in which time and space are just appearances. Believe it. <br /><br />I can say, with you, that just because Jesus was God doesn't make him special. Christians say that by saying that we share in Christ's resurrection through grace. <br /><br />bb, we would answer with the perspective that God does not create evil. God creates free people and people create evil. The sacrifice of the Son of God is the gift of salvation from evil. If that gift isn't for you don't think twice, it's all right.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-60993778263968665562007-01-14T12:03:00.000-08:002007-01-14T12:03:00.000-08:00Why would he, indeed? And if he didn't literally ...Why would he, indeed? And if he didn't literally do this, what did he actually do?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-56775275625612940452007-01-14T11:32:00.000-08:002007-01-14T11:32:00.000-08:00Why would a God create evil in the first place, th...Why would a God create evil in the first place, then unbelievably become upset at "His" creation for "His" infecting them with it, and then needlessly having "His" "Son" Jesus crucified? <br /><br />These sound like stories from total crackpots, not from intelligent human beings.BBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821913482127300213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-55167713355054413462007-01-14T06:43:00.000-08:002007-01-14T06:43:00.000-08:00I believe that Alan Watts' life lent credence to K...I believe that Alan Watts' life lent credence to Ken Wilber's idea that our consciousness is comprised of numerous lines of development, and that one can be highly developed along some lines--in Watts' case, aesthetic, cognitive, linguistic and spiritual--and rather poorly developed along others. <br /><br />You might be right that the "lone wolf approach" is more likely to produce such uneven development; however, I'm inclined to suspect that such development is very prevalent within religious institutions as well.<br /><br />I share your view that Watts was a genius of a, to use his own description of himself, "philosophical entertainer," and he is the one who first showed me that there could be far more to religion and spirituality than the Christian fundamentalism I had forsaken. <br /><br />Of course, one of the things he showed me is an alternative interpretation of the Jesus stories that made a great deal more sense to me than the conventional Christian understanding that Jesus was the unique human incarnation of God who sacrificed his sinless life and was literally resurrected in order to atone for our so-called sins and make it possible for us to posthumously reside in paradise everlastingly. <br /><br />However, in embracing this alternative explanation, I seem to have distanced myself beyond any understanding that could properly be called Christian. For in my understanding, Jesus was no more divine than the rest of us, even if he was more aware of his divinity than most of us are.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02549770321948541384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-23928365870272812742007-01-13T21:45:00.000-08:002007-01-13T21:45:00.000-08:00I love Mary, can be devoted to her. The doctrine o...I love Mary, can be devoted to her. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth actually doesn't carry a lot of weight. It's the kind of thing you could leave on your plate.<br /><br />When I read closely the accounts of the death of Neem Karoli Baba, it gave me a closer mirror as to the literal meaning of the resurrection. The stories of disciples seeing Neem Karoli after his death have a similar quality to the accounts of seeing Jesus Christ after the crucifixion. If you are unfamiliar with Neem Karoli Baba -- Ram Das' guru -- it would be hard to explain. <br /><br />Alan Watts is a humanist genius, he had his experience of satori, he provided incalculable service in bringing wisdom traditions to America. But his early death from alcoholism is the kind of thing I have in mind in suggesting the perils of the lone wolf approach to the spiritual path.copithornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949020666425985657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10032287.post-61635896322540556062007-01-12T18:37:00.000-08:002007-01-12T18:37:00.000-08:00The "Pied Pipers of Nonsense" I call it. :-)
CC
...The "Pied Pipers of Nonsense" I call it. :-)<br /><br />CC<br /><br />http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christianity_Debate/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com