I believe the Gideon's (who put the Bible in the rooms) wouldn't care if people who don't have a Bible, took one and actually read them.
That maybe so but I doubt I'm the one to deliver it. Its one thing to talk about religion on Clutchfans D & D and its quite another to be speaking about it before a religious body. If you are interested you wouldn't have to come to the Minnesota Zen Center as I'm sure there are a few in Houston. As a pastor you're probably involved in some ecumenical orginizations and you could probably go through those to find local Zen organizations. If you're looking to do an exchange, have a Zen teacher come and speak or sit in at your church and have you visit a Zen center, that would probably be the best way to go through.
I'm involved in very little organization at all... Yep, Minn. is a little out of my reach. I'm big on relationships and even though I haven't met you, I have alot of respect for you, so I problably wouldn't look to sit in unless you were doing the speaking. Nothing against Zen groups, if I went to a Zen group I would share the Christian message and try not to come across as 'intolerant' and 'narrow'. I share the message often (almost daily) with non-Christians. It is a passion I have. I don't share it as much here because I prefer face to face and I don't often feel I think through what I post. For such an important subject (Christian Gospel) face to face is most advantageous- IMHO.
I like the perspective you've taken. I'm also interested in approaching the question from an ethical angle: do Jesus's moral teachings fit in with the Darwinian principles of natural and sexual selection? From an evolutionary standpoint, it seems a species will succeed if it: -- has the best adaptations to survive in its environment -- can pass on its own DNA by reproducing, thereby perpetuating the qualities that enabled it to survive. Thus, the end products of evolution (in theory) are species that are increasingly well suited to thrive and take advantage of their environments. Now, Jesus says that we must love one another -- even our enemies. If we practice this philosophy, we'll stop killing each other off, to be sure. But then what? Will this new care for one's fellow man be an evolutionary advantage? As much as I believe in Jesus's morality, I still think it's at odds with evolution because: -- if each individual member of the human species wants to reproduce its own, *individual* genome, it's going to act according to that self-interest rather than on behalf of the human race as a whole (hence, "taking care of number one"), and -- I suspect that much of what we call "evil" is really just evolution at work. Murderers kill because, somewhere in that reptilian brain, they feel it increases their own chances to thrive, survive, etc. by wiping out competitors. Rapists are combining the urge to overpower with the sexual instinct. Etc. When a wolfpack wipes out another wolfpack, we don't attach any moral terms to it -- that's simply what they do, and it's in their interest. When humans wipe out other humans, we call it evil. Any thoughts?
Why doesn't Jesus come back and say something? Why doesn't God clear all of this up once and for all? I mean couldn't he just send out an email? If he would at least send out a memo, he would spare us a lot of arguing and fighting etc. It would make things a bit easier.
Because it is meaningless unless people come to the conclusion on its own. There own journey has to take them there. Surely you can appreciate that.
Interesting. I have a couple of thoughts. One, is that there is enough disease to help out with population control. Two would be that with a large scale breakout of compassion, forgiveness and loving your enemy the ability to share, live in peace, and show compassion would grow, and the earth could support a larger population more easily. This is all theoretical of course. Either way it is a problem I would welcome tackling if it ever could come to fruition.
Not really. Why is it meaningless? Was it meaningless to the chosen Apostles?I think it would just save a lot of bloodshed. God said something 2000 years ago to one group of people then bails. I don't buy it.
the apostles experienced it. They weren't just told and fell into line. Many of them didn't agree with it until they experienced for themselves. So Buddha, spent a period of time as indulging in everything, and a period of time denying himself everything in order to gain wisdom from the experience, but you can't understand that coming to an understanding by experience rather than being told is more meaningful, lasting, and profound?
But you are relying on God. It's God way or the highway, and man can only know what God "tells" him. We are too screwed up and stupid to do anything on our own. That's the difference. You can't have it both ways.
I never said man can only know what God tells him. I think all things come from God but man must experience them on his own, or at least through his own initiative. I think that it also depends on how people see God. I don't really see him as this one person-like entity that is a supernatural being running around pulling strings, making plans, sending tsunamis and hurricanes about. As the bible says God is love. Those that know love, know God. Thus I don't see anything wrong with believing that is the way. That is the key to life, that is the most important thing, nothing should be worshipped above that, etc.
But from what I understand if that was possilble there would be no need for Jesus. You can only come to God through him. So I think it would be nice if he just cleared some of those fuzzy things up.
Thanks Rhester I appreciate that but I'm no more qualified to deliver a dharma talk at a Zen center than I am a sermon at a church. I'm just another guy sitting crosslegged on a cushion.
^^Yep pretty much like that. Especially considering I'm not very good at meditation I'm about as comfortable practicing ZaZen as I am dealing with hemmorhoids.
We haven't evolved along with other animals in nature ever since the advent of civilization, which changes nature around its borders. With technology, we're probably ending up physically weaker, but mentally stronger. Nutrition is doing both now, but eventually unneccessary physical strength will decline. Hive mentality exists in nature. There are also collectives of similar organisms with the implicit drive to increase welfare of the whole for the sake of the individual. You could make a claim that humans are selfish because it was a favorable trait in theory, but it's not because evolution demands it. Evolution occurs all the time and stops for no one (except mad scientists and their clone armies...) Civilization weeded out some evil elements and created other forms of evil. The internal conflict between civilization (imposed morality and social norms) and nature (primal urges) could be considered a part of our evolving process as a technological advance or catastrophic catyclism could sway one trait in favor over the other.
