Normally I leave theologians alone when they squabble among themselves, but I can't let this go through to the keeper: "This runs counter to the contemporary understanding of the mind, courtesy of John Locke, that the mind is a clean slate."

John Locke died in 1704, Peter. You really need to catch up on your reading. Unlike theology, psychology doesn't acquire added authority with age. Original Sin -- no, thanks. But 'clean slate'? No, not that either.

And you're the one who says: "The book is strangely out of time."

Jon J, citing Locke is perfectly reasonable when discussing the "tabula rasa" model of the human psyche, just as it is perfectly reasonable to cite Newton (one of Locke's contemporaries) when discussing the mechanics of large bodies.

Just like physics, moral psychology and the theory of mind that allows us to consider morality as a "thing" is operating on the same raw materials as it did in the days of Locke and Newton. Some of the tools available have most definitely changed, which was the main point of Peter's piece, it seems to me, and as a result we can peer more closely, but what we're peering at is exactly the same.

Locke was trying to understand what made us into moral beings and how we might define the moral. This is precisely the same thing that motivated the great religious thinkers, and it somehow separates them from the prophets, who in their experience of something "ultrahuman" felt themselves able to "know" without always understanding or being able to explain. As a result, a lot of morality has always been handed down through authoritarian enforcement rather than authoritative explanation. Locke and his contemporaries were the ones who really started the work to change that.

The "blank slate" was a necessary assumption to start the work of approaching a proper theory of mind and that work continues today, with enormous vigour.

The problem I have with most of this is that some of the most moral people I know are also atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus or spiritualists.

Nor is it helpful when prisoners of belief try to impose their all too often entirely mistaken or erroneous belief systems on all others!?

Or use their considerable mental facilities to claim when a very plain speaking individual said this, he actually meant that; and at 180 with what he allegedly enunciated?

And what are we really talking about here, what Jesus taught or what he is purported to have taught!?

And what of an entirely Godless Constantine's involvement/control of the first council of Nicosia and its outcomes/stated objectives?

Or that of his allegedly, very influential wife?

And then, all that subsequently flows from that!

Including warrior popes at the head of conquering armies that spread their belief system via the sword and fear!

Surely both the very instruments Satan would prefer?

And if some of us chose to disbelieve that patently satanic spread by the sword message? What then?

And should the prisoners of this warrior code/belief, be entitled to declare all non believers as infidels?

When Jesus walked on this earth, there were no huge and costly castles/palaces that were built as edifices to glorify God, Idolatry?

And such wealth as he was able to acquire was redistributed to those who needed it most, not stored in vast underground vaults or bank accounts/investment portfolios!

When Peter and his ilk decide to follow that plain and unambiguous example, maybe their voluminous utterances will have more influence on those of us, who think most of today's religious teachings and consequent control outcomes, is mostly bunkum/odious obfuscation/mere politics!?

I mean and seriously, I just don't care what you think he or anyone thought; or did or didn't mean!

Speaking just for myself, I'd prefer to be taken at face value, than be verbalized entirely out of context, by clever Clergy? And if the shoe fits!?
Rhrosty.

I listened to the Spirit Of Things interview with David. It was all so twinkie, and as such had nothing to do with Real Spiritual Life.
Most, if not all that David said fits entirely within the realms described in this essay:
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism

Further more Real Spiritual Life only begins when one is stably established in the 4th stage of life, as described here:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html

These two references provide an esoteric Spiritual Understanding of the life & Teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden.html
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden2.html

This essay provides a profound critique of the Scapegoat "game" at the root of conventional cultic religiosity.
http://www.dharmacafe.com/spiritual-heroes/The-Worlds-Greatest-Unpublished-Spiritual-Book

.

Dear Peter,

.

You write :

« Belief cannot be equated with faith. »

There does not appear to be any significant distinction among belief, confidence or faith. However, there is quite a significant distinction between faith and blind faith :

"Faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

It seems that belief or faith in God, the extra-natural, the supernatural, the ultra-natural or the hyper-natural falls under the latter category.
.

« Indeed, relying on evidence for belief does not put us in the way of the Spirit. »

What spirit ? Is there such an entity as “the spirit” ? If so, how do we know that it exists ?
.

You concur :

« Tacey is also correct, in my opinion, in his refusal to countenance the existence of the supernatural. His statement: "The spiritual is ultra-natural, not supernatural." rings true. Thus he concludes that descriptions of biblical miracles are means of conveying the ultra-natural. »

Would you be so kind as to explain why you consider that Tacey’s statement “rings true” ? What distinction does he make between the “ultra-natural” and the “supernatural” ?

Neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor the Online Etymology Dictionary make any significant difference among the expressions extra-natural, supernatural, ultra-natural and hyper-natural.
All these expressions appear to have the same meaning.

“Extra” is from Latin extra: outside, beyond, changed from extera, from exterus outward

“Super” is from Latin super: ‘above, beyond’

“Ultra” is from Latin ultra: ‘beyond’

“Hyper” is from Greek huper: ‘over, beyond’.
.

Tacey :

« Once the imagination is functioning, we don't need the miracles to be literally true, because as soon as we perceive their meaning they have performed their function. »

True. Imagination can work miracles. We are capable of imagining that absolutely anything is true. Nothing is impossible – even if it is pure and utter nonsense !

Is imagination the basis of “faith” ?

.

Rhosty.
One day you may wish to enlighten me through these pages, the reasons for your obsessive hatred of all things spiritual. That would be preferable to your anti Christian rants!

Daffy Duck .
True. For there seems to me very little actual proof in an historical sense, that there was actually an identy in history called Jesus of Nazareth .
But the thread of Christianity runs very deeply through history...that is a fact!