Richard Dawkins Books for Children an Teens

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I'll take that as a confirmation that I hit the mark with that comment. Tragic !

No you haven't, and if you want to discuss it start a thread and I'll happily discuss it with you. This thread is about a Richard Dawkins book. 

Do you have any comments regarding the publication of said book?

[danydandan]

23 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You concur that defaulting to the mundane "logical" explanation isn't a knee-jerk reaction for many here ?

Can you show me where this question was asked prior to my comment? How can anyone concur with something that wasn't said.

Now stop derailing this thread and start your own about what ever you want to try and get across to people. 

There is a thread called derailers anonymous in the off topic forums perhaps you can post there?

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you have any comments regarding the publication of said book?

My comments really were quite apposite in relation to Dawkins, he too defaults to rational explanations even when there aren't any, or anyone can even imagine one, but carry on !

[danydandan]

@psyche101 are you aware Dawkins has released a book for children. It's call the magic of reality I just heard about it yesterday. Was at my wife's church and the pastor recommended it to children in the congregation. 

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Habitat said:

I take that as meaning he was driven by the impulse I speak of, that of seeking a place for "contemplation", safely away from the distractions of the world.

Jesus was already in the desert (1:4), where he'd met with John the Baptist (1:9), who was surrounded by crowds of people (1:5).  Jesus' pivotal spiritual experience (1:9-11) occurred when he wasn't alone (which isn't even slightly unusual for initiation stories).

Jesus' initial "spiritual journey" included his entire sojourn into the wilderness, during which sometimes he probably was alone, although Mark doesn't treat any such time as important enough to mention. Other times Jesus was in crowds, and still other times he was accompanied by denizens of the wilderness. Those are both animals, from interacting with whom many less-famous-than-Jesus thinkers have learned spiritual lessons, and also beings who are ontologically real in this storybook universe (Satan and the angels).

The story isn't isolated in Mark, either. Jesus orchestrates an initiation for his top three merry men which is strikingly similar to his own initiation by Dunker John (9: 2-8). Jesus performs in a small group setting, where his initiates are most definitely NOT alone, nor even alone individually with him.

There is nothing in the story about one of your McEastern Philosophy Nuggets Happy Meals driving Jesus anywhere. You are imposing your own background on a mythical character from another time, place and culture.

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

My comments really were quite apposite in relation to Dawkins, he too defaults to rational explanations even when there aren't any, or anyone can even imagine one, but carry on !

We are discussing the possible content of his book. Not the Author himself stop with the strawman arguments please. Have you ever read some of his academic papers or even his work?

Are you going to start a thread so we can discuss the " mundane explanations" for phenomenon?

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Jesus was already in the desert (1:4), where he'd met with John the Baptist (1:9), who was surrounded by crowds of people (1:5).  Jesus' pivotal spiritual experience (1:9-11) occurred when he wasn't alone (which isn't even slightly unusual for initiation stories).

Jesus' initial "spiritual journey" included his entire sojourn into the wilderness, during which sometimes he probably was alone, although Mark doesn't treat any such time as important enough to mention. Other times Jesus was in crowds, and still other times he was accompanied by denizens of the wilderness. Those are both animals, from interacting with whom many less-famous-than-Jesus thinkers have learned spiritual lessons, and also beings who are ontologically real in this storybook universe (Satan and the angels).

The story isn't isolated in Mark, either. Jesus orchestrates an initiation for his top three merry men which is strikingly similar to his own initiation by Dunker John (9: 2-8). Jesus performs in a small group setting, where his initiates are most definitely NOT alone, nor even alone individually with him.

There is nothing in the story about one of your McEastern Philosophy Nuggets Happy Meals driving Jesus anywhere. You are imposing your own background on a mythical character from another time, place and culture.

I think your discussing content of a book the other poster probably hasn't read.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

 

There is nothing in the story about one of your McEastern Philosophy Nuggets Happy Meals driving Jesus anywhere. You are imposing your own background on a mythical character from another time, place and culture.

I don't think so, the whole JC story is one of advocating retreat from "the world", not engagement in it.  "Be passerby". "The world is a bridge, therefore, do not lodge there". There is no sense in advocating "becoming like babies", other than in the context of being reduced to basic simplicity, to achieve mystical union. Whether he was wise to preach such stuff, I can't say, he was probably so overflowing with his own experiences, to be unable to contain himself.

[eight bits]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't think so, the whole JC story is one of advocating retreat from "the world", not engagement in it. 

I think @danydandan nailed it. You really need to read the books before you discuss them.

Quote

"Be passerby" "The world is a bridge, therefore, do not lodge there".

Those are from Thomas. You might want to check out its climactic verse (113; 114 is as obvious an interpolation as Mark 16:15-20): "...The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and people do not see it." Not exactly a rousing call for retreat from the earth, nor to go anywhere other than where you are now. (Luke records a similar saying at 17:20-21, but has Jesus contradict himself in the next verse).

Quote

There is no sense in advocating "becoming like babies", other than in the context of being reduced to basic simplicity, to achieve mystical union.

What children do you know who have achieved "mystical union?"

[Habitat]

I found this comment on the net, a bit clunky, but covers it pretty well, I think...……..

"If Jesus was a Mystic, then why are not all Christians,
Mystics?"... Most Christians answer that He was not a Mystic.. This is why
Christians do not behave as Christians.. They have not understood the Teachings
of Jesus concerning the Path of Liberation and Unity with God.. Therefore, they
are content with reading stories from a book and singing once a week in a
building.. The wall of ego has blinded them from the fact that Jesus was a man
that conquered the illusion of the ego and became One with God..As He said;" I
and the Father are One".. This wall of ego prevents Christians from Realizing
that Jesus was teaching us that we must also walk the path that He did.. He gave
us a clue when He said;" They who come after Me will do greater works than I"..
you are the ones that He was speaking of.. How far will you travel into the Mind
of Jesus and Understand Him and His Teachings?."

[Habitat]

21 minutes ago, eight bits said:

What children do you know who have achieved "mystical union?"

Seriously  ? I think the advice was directed at adults, to return(temporarily) to a child like state, as they were before the impress of "the world", as a pre-condition of mystical union. 

[eight bits]

40 minutes ago, Habitat said:

but covers it pretty well, I think...……..

Actually, it completely avoids the direct question I asked (What children do you know who have achieved "mystical union?") and fails to address how Thomas 113 can be interpreted as a call to ignore the world, or to go somewhere in particular.

If anything, it brings us back to my earlier direct question, which you've also managed to avoid. Having observed that Mark's Jesus talks about himself a lot, where is the oblivion? Dude doesn't flinch when his bestie calls him the Messiah, the one whose arrival the entire nation has been awaiting for centuries. No ego there, eh?

Edited September 24, 2018 by eight bits

[danydandan]

Aversion to answering questions. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

Actually, it completely avoids the direct question I asked (What children do you know who have achieved "mystical union?") and fails to address how Thomas 113 can be interpreted as a call to ignore the world, or to go somewhere in particular.

If anything, it brings us back to my earlier direct question, which you've also managed to avoid. Having observed that Mark's Jesus talks about himself a lot, where is the oblivion? Dude doesn't flinch when his bestie calls him the Messiah, the one whose arrival the entire nation has been awaiting for ceturies. No ego there, eh?

The oblivion is the pre-condition for mystical union, obviously you cannot remain in that state !  As for what "dude" did or not do, on a particular day, when someone called him the messiah, who would know. I am not hear to speak adoringly of JC, as I said earlier lionizing people does not help clarify the facts. And in any event, the only value in what JC might have been and done, lies in him being a human being, and it being open to anyone, in principle, to follow a similar path. But perhaps avoid the grisly end ! Do I think resurrection stories or miracles out of the question ? Not at all.

[eight bits]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

As for what "dude" did or not do, on a particular day, when someone called him the messiah, who would know.

According to Mark, Peter's remark was in answer to Jesus' question about what people thought about him, who they thought he was.

Quote

The oblivion is the pre-condition for mystical union, obviously you cannot remain in that state ! 

What's obvious about it? "Mystical union" with God doesn't make any lasting change in your outlook? There's no change in your perspective so that, for example, what other people think about you isn't the focal concern of your life?

Quote

But perhaps avoid the grisly end !

Mark's Jesus seems to think the grisly end is part of a package deal. That's not to say he mightn't pray for a reprieve (as he does in Mark, and I cannot blame him for doing so - he may be a self-absorbed blowhard with a messianic complex, and a petty criminal in a time when petty crimes were met with gruesome penalties, but nobody deserves to die that way).

[Habitat]

15 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Aversion to answering questions. 

I've knocked up answering your questions !

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

What's obvious about it? "Mystical union" with God doesn't make any lasting change in your outlook? There's no change in your perspective so that, for example, what other people think about you isn't the focal concern of your life?

Allowing this scenario occurred, it may well have been met with indifference, for all I know. He may have been immune to praise or abuse, at least on the inside, in fact you'd expect he should be.

[danydandan]

26 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I've knocked up answering your questions !

No you haven't, you still haven't told me in your own words what a sage is or what a Mystic is. You still haven't anything about the book only the author. Haven't responded to eight bits really either.

How can you not on one hand state Jesus was a Mystic, and then dismiss the points eight bits is making ?

Edited September 24, 2018 by danydandan

[eight bits]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Allowing this scenario occurred, it may well have been met with indifference, for all I know.

I compressed the scenario for brevity's sake. Mark's Jesus asks twice on that occasion, first about what people in general think of him, and then about what the students themselves think. Apparently "Messiah" was the answer Jesus was looking for, and just being any old prophet or the second John the Baptist or the second Elijah wasn't hefty enough (8:27-30).

Quote

He may have been immune to praise or abuse, at least on the inside, in fact you'd expect he should be.

I don't know what I expect he should be. Many of the other gurus I read about seem to do all right in the world (famously, Osho collected Rolls Royces, I suppose that, too, was an especially subtle metaphor for renouncing earthly pre-occupations). In any case, there's nothing on the page that even suggests that Mark's Jesus is, in any sense I can think of, "immune" to praise or abuse.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

No you haven't, you still haven't told me in your own words what a sage is or what a Mystic is. You still haven't anything about the book only the author.

huh ?

[danydandan]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

huh ?

I asked you to define a sage and a mystic, it's still unaddressed. 

I asked you for some comments on the book in question, instead you made a comment about Dawkins.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

I compressed the scenario for brevity's sake. Mark's Jesus asks twice on that occasion, first about what people in general think of him, and then about what the students themselves think. Apparently "Messiah" was the answer Jesus was looking for, and just being any old prophet or the second John the Baptist or the second Elijah wasn't hefty enough (8:27-30).

I don't know what I expect he should be. Many of the other gurus I read about seem to do all right in the world (famously, Osho collected Rolls Royces, I suppose that, too, was an especially subtle metaphor for renouncing earthly pre-occupations). In any case, there's nothing on the page that even suggests that Mark's Jesus is, in any sense I can think of, "immune" to praise or abuse.

You may have noticed I never advocate mysticism, merely report that it is what underlies all the religions. I have never isolated JC as a "special example", I don't know  he claimed to be that special example that the religion created after him, holds him up to be. He is one of many who have gone down that road. Many may never have even survived the experience. But it remains a potentiality within everyone. Osho, I know nothing about.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

You may have noticed I never advocate mysticism, merely report that it is what underlies all the religions.

I don't see the relevance of whether or not you advocate it. What grates is that you make fact claims about it (e.g. that it is what underlies all the religions), and yet when @danydandan asks for your definition of this marvelous thing of such monumental importance - crickets chirp.

Quote

He is one of many who have gone down that road.

Well observed. And on any road which many have gone down, the many are not all the same, else there would be only one who has gone down that road, but many times. (I think I made a deepity.)

Regardless of definition, most people would count Emmanuel Swedenborg as an example of a mystic. He was also an active scientist, politically engaged Swedish nobleman (and so a parliamentarian in their system), a diplomat and some say, a spy. In other words, few people in history were more engaged with the world than Swedenborg, and few people more prolific a mystical writer. Like Jesus, he was tried by the officials of his cradle religion for his teachings (Swedenborg was de facto acquitted, however) and like Jesus, his surviving admirers founded a church devoted to those teachings (unlike Jesus,  Swedenborg wrote his down, at stupefying length).

At some point in these discussions, you quipped "horses for courses." What does that mean, except that there are typically many ways to do "the same thing," and that some circumstances are more conducive than others for any given way to succeed?

Why would mysticism be the one-size-fits-all, my-way-or-the-highway human endeavor? Careful - in order to answer, you may have to define your terms.

[danydandan]

It's simple @eight bits we could get 500 people define they're idea of Mysticism and we would get 500 different definitions. 

I might add, how are people meant to have amicable conversations about topics when people can't describe what they mean, or refuse to. It's equivalent to an English speaker talking to a Russian speaker and neither having any clue what each other means.

Edited September 24, 2018 by danydandan

[Habitat]

12 minutes ago, eight bits said:

At some point in these discussions, you quipped "horses for courses." What does that mean

It was an allusion to the mental faculty of reason, being useless, in fact a barrier, in these "inner" travels

 

13 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Why would mysticism be the one-size-fits-all,

Probably because in coalescing with the "one", and becoming as one, there is no diversity

 

19 minutes ago, eight bits said:

(e.g. that it is what underlies all the religions),

I am amazed you would think differently, it is notable there are no religions that have two human figureheads, it is always one. It is because it is the result of a solitary journey, often involving great travail, most would consider it unnatural, and inexplicable, but the only way the "god-light" can enter into the mortal man. And they then radiate it out into the world, with such charisma, that has seen enduring traditions arise from it.