and I have to ask. Believer in what?

This is the religion group.

The universe is "sprinkled" with gods and demi-gods. Since I also believe in the multi-verse, I am sure that there are gods and demi-gods in all of them as well. However, I don't believe in one Supreme God to rule them all.

I have been studying Buddhist precepts for a number of years and have come to the conclusion that all phenomena arise from their causes and conditions and not that the universe is not random.

If I am intruding, I will be respectful and not post here again.

Please continue to post here.

Perhaps all of what we call gods are manifestations of the Creator.

they are manifestations of ourselves.

No Mind, No Buddha
No Buddha, No Mind

we are indeed a part of creation and the Creator.

You and the "Creator" are One.

Emptiness is Form
Form is Emptiness
Emptiness is not other than Form
Form is not other than Emptiness

that refers to higher level sentience and awareness.

And if one believes in the Creator, the creation is a reflection of the Creator.

To paraphrase a Zen Buddhist riddle, called a koan, "What did you believe before you were born?"

each part contains the whole of the hologram...there are no parts small enough not to contain the whole.

where the Creator is contained in every part by virtue of the initial act of creation.

Essential in my life. Old Testament less relevant

RedletterChristians.org.

For example you still believe that a “man-god” you refer to as “Jesus” existed, right?

of the Creator. And the fact that Jesus actually existed is generally accepted as correct.

It allows for identification.

You said "we are all in the image and likeness of the Creator". Not that you imagine god to look like us. I guess you misspoke again.

And you still refuse to admit that you believe that this Jesus guy was a god. Why is that?

Created in the image and likeness is generally accepted to mean created as sentient beings.

that it has been re-interpreted to be some other bullshit about the soul or spirit or sentience.

Of course you were unable to define sentience in any meaningful way previously, so who knows what you mean by that.

And still: do you believe that this jesus guy was a god?

I believe that the Creator is in all of us, in all of creation. And that our sentience is a small reflection of the Creator's sentience. And I believe that is why humans seem to be hard-wired for theism.

If they were there would be no atheists, no animists, no "spiritual but not religious" people. Of course you have your own definitions, I am sure, for "hard wired" and for "theism".

Have you picked out your planet yet?

Namely, those people (and you yourself) are holding certain parts of the bible to be LITERALLY true, because the bible is the only place you can find any evidence for your belief.

The more I learned, the less I needed to rely on faith. At about 20 years of age, I had learned enough to stop relying on it at all, and set off on a lifetime of learning even more.

So, yes.

At 20, people generally believe that they know far more than they actually know.

I knew enough at age 20, though. I know much, much more now.

What exactly?

Not cool.

Like most people, I started off believing a version of what I was taught when I was kid. Then I had questions and I looked for answers and found some. Then I had more questions and looked for more answers and found more. When those proved inadequate, I found yet more answers. When even those weren't good enough, I became knowledgeable to create my own interpretations.

Then I realized the whole thing was a mirage. By the time you get to the point where the text is nothing and interpretation is everything, you no longer have the religion you started with, except in name only. And all the answers all along the way were locked gates to keep you on the reservation, to maintain unity with the tribe, even if you think something completely different from the other members. If you unlock one gate, there is another, more complicated lock beyond that one, and so on, until you either stay behind one of the gates, thinking you have found the "real" religion or correct interpretation, or think whatever you have to think so you don't have to open all the gates and escape into the real world, where there be monsters, or so the people inside the gates tell you.

Religion is, in my view, the search for the Creator. Some require a group format, and open validation. Thus we have ritual and public affirmation.

but I did not find it in religion. I found all sorts of nice things, but none of them were true. Rituals, stories, beliefs, philosophies, art, music, community - that's all fine, but people tended to confuse those things with the truth. Basically, if it made them feel nice, it must be true. But I found that feeling nice is not the truth, and the truth does not feel nice.

and truth in a philosophical sense.

2+2=4 is one type of truth.

So what are/were you looking for?

You can't have one standard here and another standard there, unless you want to lie to yourself, so when the truth gives a result you don't like, you change the yardstick.

2+2=4 is fact.

Define truth.

"the quality or state of being true". Do we assume provability as an aspect of truth?

When Jefferson said "we hold these truths to be self-evident", what did he mean?

Jefferson thought the truths he held to be self-evident were rationally derived.

In the case of Jefferson, truth means what he believed, or claimed to believe, to be true. So by that measure, there are billions of personal truths. And when he wrote that all men are created equal, he did not mean it literally. So is this a case of political or civic faith in believing what the writer of the words did not truly believe?

Last edited Mon Jan 15, 2018, 09:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Truth is about ontology, ontology is about what is. Epistemology is about how we know things. In Jefferson's case, he had a rationalist epistomology that led him to certain conclusions that he really believed. Ethics is about how he applied his knowledge, which, in his case, was inconsistently, and also limited by the blind spots of his times and social class.

2+2 = 11 in base 3. Things are not true without assumptions. If you assume things, you may arrive at the wrong answer and believe it's true. In base 3, the numeral 4 does not exist.

as they grow older faith doesn't "evolve" as much as that faith becomes more personally "substantial" over time and experience.

The faithful are often rewarded in their lives with the proof and evidence the unbeliever can't share in, can't understand, can't experience.

of our beliefs. But for me, it was also reading various faith traditions that showed me the common elements.

Reason, no matter how inconvenient or unsatisfying, is rational. Doesn't mean you can't get something wrong in your reasoning process, but insisting on fact-based evidence is the core of rationality.

And reason depends on the ability of the person doing the reasoning to process the relevant information, and to have the proper information to process.

And pretend it's true.

And what is often called history.

The attack on history is odd.,

Official history is often more myth than history.

But I am not a Biblical literalist, nor am I well read on most religions.

Why is the Bible always non-literal, while you yourself must always be taken literally, except maybe when you are accusing someone else of taking something too literally?

At one point, I wrote that I can only define Christianity for myself, and was immediately accused of defining Christianity for everyone. So by that standard of logic, yes anything can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.

By insisting that it be taken non-literally and only non-literally, it thereby takes on whatever meaning you wish to give it, no matter how far removed from the text. The problem with this approach is that ALL texts can be redefined non-literally, including your own posts, therefore, I can make you say whatever I want you to say. Alas, you can do the same to me, such that we may talk forever, but never actually communicate.

I repeatedly have stated that I interpret the Bible for myself. And I have stated that I take many of the Bible stories as metaphoric, including the creation story.

Interpreting for yourself has nothing to do with it. It is HOW you interpret that is at issue, and often , how you interpret the remarks of others is at issue as well.

who have worked diligently to build a verified record of human history with the reductionist platitude "history is written by the winners".

No, that is not how historians work. There is no "official history".

It is not called such, but it does exist.

Sounds more like propaganda, really.

And written to appeal to the Texas textbook market.

or is that actually your understanding of what historians do?

Many textbooks are written to conform with what the Texas State Board of Education wants. And history is written from the vantage point of the winners.

Last edited Wed Jan 17, 2018, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Or are you seriously making an argument composed entirely from folksy anecdotes you may as well have found on a box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

I guess you actually think that school textbooks are what constitute the output of "historians", and you have no clue how foolish that makes you look.

As to your reductionist nonsense of "winner winner chicken dinner":

"History is written by the winners" is a platitude, not an actual fact about history as an academic discipline or, more importantly, about the actual state of competing historical narratives in society.

Perhaps the most obvious example of "the losers" re-writing history is the "lost cause" narrative of our Civil War, in which a war over the future of slavery became, 50 years later, a war over states rights and the preservation of "southern" culture. See Cecil Demilles blatantly awful Birth of a Nation, and the equally vile, but less obviously so, Gone With the Wind. That narrative survives to this day, as we are all well aware.

But fact-based evidence is the most likely to work for most people most of the time. You could try some other method, but human knowledge exploded exponentially once we figured out the rules of fact-based evidence. No other knowledge gathering process has even come close, so if you want to find knowledge, it seems that there is a clear winner for how to do it. If you want to find something else, well then there are lots of other options to find those other things.

My particular spiritual journey is probably not unique or remarkable. There have been dynamic periods and some that were less so. It's all very personal.
Growing up, I was never taught that the bible was literal. Instead we were to focus on the main point of that particular story or passage. My understanding of scripture has grown because I seek more understanding. I just finished looking at the book of Esther and my 36 year old eyes were able to see things that my teen eyes did not.
It's a life long journey that I believe will continue to push me to grow as a human being. My faith makes me love those who are hard to love. It makes me forgive those who are hard to forgive. I shows me the weaknesses in my character and inspires me to transform beyond them.
I would like you to know that I enjoy your posts. I hope that you continue to do so.

And thank you for the comments.

Your comments about faith were really well written.

The rationale behind my posts is to counter what I see as a one-sided view of faith, and what I see as an under-appreciation of the large role that faith plays for some progressives. As progressives, we should understand that we have far more in common no matter our views on faith. Ours should be a Party of inclusion.

Last edited Tue Jan 16, 2018, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

And you're correct. We need to keep our tent as large as possible.
Today, our nation celebrates the life and legacy of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. If his name isn't telling enough, then maybe the "Reverend " part is more direct. Faith and progressive ideals can walk together hand in hand.
You're not alone in your task. The Moral Monday Movement, led by Dr. William Barber, is a great example of this work being done. We are always stronger together.
Keep up the fight, guillaumeb.

of faith series.

You're just sticking up for the little guy. The little guy whose face is all over our money and our history books, who controls virtually every position of national prestige the Democratic party has to offer, and who outnumbers atheists and agnostics by orders of magnitude.

If you don't remember people of faith, who will?

It's unfortunate you are pathologically incapable of following a simple line of thought.

I my later teens I started listening a bit more to the people that attended the church. I was amazed at how little the teachings of Jesus meant to them. They still did what they wanted but condemned everybody else that did those same things. As I grew older and was out in the world more, I saw that people everywhere else were just like those Baptists in grew up around. My biggest issue was how the poor were regarded. They were considered trash. Not because of their actions, but simply because they were poor. My opinions on those matters have not changed as I aged. In fact, they have been reinforced. Now we are at a time in this country where these so-called Christians are supporting a person like trump. This is what we have come to. THIS is what Christians have evolved to. It wasn't me evolving, it was them all along. I just had less tolerance.