Important Notice: WonderCafe has Closed

The United Church has sadly come to the decision that WonderCafe needed to close and all new discussion ended June 2014. Read More...

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Now Almost One Year--Trying to have a DIALOGUE with Atheists/Agnostics

Hi Linds:   It is now Aug. 3,

Hi Linds:

 

It is now Aug. 3, 2010, and this thread has been running for a full year and should berenamed.

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/one-month-atheists

=============================================================

Arm, thanks for the suggestion. Now that I finally figured out how to make this change, here it is.

Share this

Comments

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

THE MEDIA, THEOLOGY AND RELIGION

 

In its editorial section, the editors of the National Post--obviously aware of the important role religion plays, for better and for worse, in the lives of most people, including those who are media savy--frequently choose to publish large articles, including letters in response to them, on matters having to do with how our religious beliefs and practices, or lack of them, affect our daily lives.

 

 

With the above in mind, I do my best to promote dialogue, with anyone, about religion and theology by keeping in touch with one of the editorial-page editors of the National Post with whom I have chatted, by phone, now and then. The following is an example of my current attempt to promote dialogue.

 

 

Editor:

Re: The recent letters by Cyril Collier, Rolf Pedersen, and Benjamin K. Kranc, Sept. 29.

 

Yes, I am greatly interested in, and, as they recommend, I can see the real value of continuing to explore and debate about--I prefer dialogue--spiritual matters, including the god-hypothesis, by the best non-sectarian and philosophical minds we have among us.  As for the sectarian minds, It seems that they are already ahead of the game.

 

Meanwhile, we encourage our best scientists to explore the nature and function of the things, which I feel emanate out of the NO-thing, which people, believers and doubters, call 'god' and which I write as GOD. [Note: I use the acronym GOD--meaning the ALL that is good, orderly and desirable--because I feel that the god-hypothesis is too large a concept to be expressed even in a proper noun. Atheists, if, as good and humane people, you prefer to use words like 'nature' or 'being', go ahead.]

 

If we can agree to disagree, lovingly, I am not the least bit worried about what the National post describes as "God's place in the universe". Nor am I worried that some, like Philip Mathias, say that Stephen Hawking has written a "book about nothing". In my opinion, GOD is not a thing anyway, or a who which exists. GOD is not even a thing created in the human imagination.  If there is GOD--and this I believe--the cosmos, or the universe of things exist in GOD; it is not the other way around.

 

As I understand it, questions like who made GOD? what is GOD? where and how big is GOD? and the like, simply do not apply. GOD is not a thing with dimensions. It is like asking: Who made faith, hope, love or our consciousness of them? Such "things" are, by nature, made self-evident only by our being willing, as human beings, to practice of being faithful, hopeful and loving.

 

Editor, because no moral, ethical, democratic and just society can possibly exist without honest, fair, courageous and prophet-like writers, please pay attention to the following:

 

 

Non-sectarian, non-dogmatic, totally-inclusive panentheism (I prefer to use a doublet, unitheism) god-hypothesis--seeing that good is in all that IS, I feel  that this approach could be a real, valuable, wisdom-filled and powerful philosophy there to help all of us deal with, and resolve, the many social issues--especially the problematic ones filled with stories of pain and suffering--which fill the media every day.

 

 

Thanks National Post, for being honestly objective as you do your best to cover matters of the human spirit of interest to all of us--theists, atheists and others--who seek, daily, to be spiritually-good and truly-humane human beings.

 

Elanorgold's picture

Elanorgold

image

I have never felt closer to christians than after reading that. Thank you for recognizing my spirituality.

 

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Elanorgold, about recognizing your spirituality:

 

 

THE PRIMARY GOAL OF HUMANITY IS TO BECOME SPIRITUALLLY CONSCIOUS

Jesus' family name was, Ben (son of) Joseph. Jesus Ben Joseph Christ, means that he chose to be conscious of the Spirit of the totality of Being within all of us, which I we call 'god'. I repeat: In writing I use the acronym, GOD--that which is in, through and around all that is. In other words, Jesus chose to be born again of the water--the metaphor for the unconscious mind, which contains the record of all we have evolved to be--and the Spirit. The Spirit is that which we are now. It also point to that which we consciously choose to evolve to become.

 

THE GOSPEL, OR GOOD NEWS, IS

In my opinion, Jesus simply preached, publically, what he discovered personally: He preached the good news that, as we get to know who, as free spiritual beings, we really are, we will become who we really are: human beings with a direct link to Divine Being--GOD, in the non-sectarian sense of the word.

 

In the Gospels Jesus never demands that we become Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Christian. IMO, the main purpose of his message was to awaken us to become non-sectarian, self-aware and free conscious beings, willing to say yes to life in all its forms. As he put it to Nicodemus ( See John 3:3-8), he called us to be BORN AGAIN--OF THE SPIRIT. To the Samaritan woman, in John 4, he even defined GOD as Spirit. How does this concept help us to face overcome the problem of pain and suffering, which seems to be so much a part of life, as we live it, and which our media brings us daily, and in abundance?

 

THE ROOT CAUSE OF EVIL WITH ITS PAIN AND SUFFERING

What is the root cause of so much pain and suffering? And I dare to even include what we call "acts of God"--the natural disasters, famines, poverty and the like. In my opinion, it is our stubborn resistance to accepting that we are truly human and spiritual beings. It is our stubborn refusal to appreciate this and to say yes to life, which is the root cause of all evil. For more details about dealing with evil check out:

http://www.abraham-hicks.com/lawofattractionsource/about_abraham.php

 

SOCIAL LEADERS, EDUCATORS AND THOSE WHO OWN THE MEDIA, PAY ATTENTION

Disclaimer: In no way is the following intended to imply that we need to legislate morality as determined by one particular brand of religion. Quite the opposite. Getting across the simple idea that GOD is free Spirit--in the non-sectarian sense of the word--around, within and through all that is, would mean that parents be encouraged to raise children to be truly free, human and spiritual beings. There is ample evidence that what we believe, or don't believe, about life, about who we are and our purpose for living, plays a great role in the way we live our lives, for better or for worse.

 

In addition to encouraging wise parenting--respecting children as free spiriits--think what this idea could do for the way our social leaders, especially those involved in education, public relations and the media, lead. Social leaders are not here just to produce brain-washed puppets to serve the state, spoon-fed carbon copies of our education system or media-manipulated consumers of so much that is nothing more than junk.

================================================================

BTW,  I am reminded of the mind-boggling mystery and spiritual nature which seems to be at the root of what we call the physical universe when I read information such as follows.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

=========================================================

The following thread, in  www,scienceagogo.com  is the one which now has over 1,700,000 hits.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=1617&...

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

In the thread on Hawking's new book, Undefeatedatheist wrote:

"I would agree with Hawking, however. There is no need to add a creator into the equation when the natural laws of physics will do fine as a perfectly satisfying explanation. The creator is simply not needed."

 

I responded: Of course! UDA, IMO, a god to which anything can be added, or needs to be added, is an idol.

GOD, on the other hand, is Totality of Being.

GOD is that which needs nothing, and to which nothing can be added.

 

In effect, this is what Hawking's latest book is saying. It is not a new idea. As a unitheist, or panentheist, I wrote it about it long ago.

 

The Grand Old Design--is, IMO, the better name for Stephen Hawking's new book, not THE GRAND DESIGN The 'O' also stands for that which is omnipotent, omniscience and omni-present.

 

GOD, like the cosmos, is self-evident Being. Self evidence is all the evidence necessary.

 

The 'God' of theism is nothing more than an idol in mental form--a creation of the imagination.

 

Unfortunately mosts theists--especially those who live immoral and hypocritical lives and who love power and money--believe in and serve an idol-like god, which they have created in their own image to serve their selfish needs.

 

No wonder humane and spiritually-minded atheists reject it. So should we all.

======================================

For the record, this is just one of the responses  I have posted to the following:

 

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/01/11/prove-god-exists-win-usd-1-million...

 

Interestingly, Austine Cline has refused to publish my latest several responses and replys to other posts. It seems that A/As find it very difficult admit ... shall we call it "defeat", or what?

 

Question: Who has the right to define what 'god' is?

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hi Linds:

 

I profoundly agree with what you posted in the above two posts. It affirms what I have experienced in my mystical experiences and confirmed in my contemplations..

 

Prior to my mystical peak experience I asked Jesus Christ for a revelation of God, and this was how I experienced, received, and perceived God. You took the words right out of my mouth and mind. I couldn't have phrased it any better.

 

You speak straight to and from my spiritual being and from what I perceive to be the ultimate spiritual being.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Hello again, Linds:

 

Question:  Who has the right to define what 'god' is?

 

Answer:  Everyone.

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Arminius wrote:

...  Who has the right to define what 'god' is?

 

Answer:  Everyone.

Right on, Arm! This is especially true of those who experience that which is GOD in and through totality, and those who practice, daily, that which is GOD-like, the Golden Rule--and this includes humane and spiritual "atheists"--in their relationship with the themselves, others, and the cosmos.

 

What about Inhumane and ruthless atheists and hypocritical theists, those of us who are focussed on ourselves and our needs, only? IMO, the principle is simple: We will all reap the results of the seed we sow. If we sow faith in nothing, what we will reap nothing. Sounds like a hellish harvest to me. What a sad thought! And what a waste of the gift of life! Just a thought away is the joyful gift of life   abundant.  

 

Ichthys's picture

Ichthys

image

Arminius wrote:

Hello again, Linds:

 

Question:  Who has the right to define what 'god' is?

 

Answer:  Everyone.

While I tend to agree with you, I make a distinction between begotten and created.

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Ichthys wrote:

... While I tend to agree with you, I make a distinction between begotten and created.

Ichthys, tell us about the distinction you make.

========================================

 

Speaking of creation, I find the following video by Richard Dawkins very interesting. It is by the

MILITANT ATHEIST RICHARD DAWKINS, WHO CALLS ON ALL ATHEISTS TO STOP RESPECTING ALL RELIGION

=========

The 29-minute video below was filmed in 2002 and posted in April, 2007. Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

 

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

 

Note: Interestingly,  In this video he suggests that atheists call themselves non-theists.

 

I like the suggestion. It would not bother me at all if someone called me a non-theist. I am also a non-Supermanist, Batmanist, Santa Clausist, Toot Fairyist, whatever.

 

I wonder if RD would feel the same way about panentheism, or unitheism as he does about theist. Or if he has every read about Process Philosophy and Process Theology--based on the writings of the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead--author of Principles of Mathematics, which he wrote in cooperation with his friend, and an atheist, Bertrand Russell.

Ichthys's picture

Ichthys

image

RevLGKing wrote:

Ichthys wrote:

... While I tend to agree with you, I make a distinction between begotten and created.

Ichthys, tell us about the distinction you make.

Begotten is a being that is God in terms of its features omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, eternal, necessary existence.

Created is a being that does not have and can never gain those features, therefore makes mistakes, dies some day, will never know everything, etc.

 

I believe just because every matter comes from God, does not make it divine. in my mind, this would explain the presence of evil, pain, death, etc.

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Ichthys, I asked you to tell us the difference between 'begotten' and 'created'. You responded

Ichthys wrote:
Begotten is a being that is God in terms of its features omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, eternal, necessary existence.
Would it offend you for me to say that, IMO, GOD is being, not "a being".

 

You add that, "Created is a being that does not have and can never gain those features, therefore makes mistakes, dies some day, will never know everything, etc." 

Before I understand what you mean, I will need of know more of your thoughts.

 

You go on, "I believe just because every matter comes from God, does not make it divine. in my mind, this would explain the presence of evil, pain, death, etc."

 

An interesting comment. Now tell us what you have in mind when you speak of "God".

 

Neo's picture

Neo

image

If God is, in terms of being, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, then wouldn't, by defination, everything be divine? Or at least potentially divine?

 

That is, all matter, creation, would either already be divine, i.e. a risen Master of Compassion like the Christ, or would be in a process of  becoming divine.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

I think and feel that everything is innately divine, albeit unaware of it, but engaged in the process becoming aware. Rather than a process of becoming divine, the process is a process of becoming aware of our innate divinity.

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

Arminius wrote:

I think and feel that everything is innately divine, albeit unaware of it, but engaged in the process becoming aware. Rather than a process of becoming divine, the process is a process of becoming aware of our innate divinity.

 

Which I believe to be a main teaching of Jesus; the Kingdom of God within you.

(What a great thread! What a great example of civility dispayed by Rev. King! I have neen skipping this one, having nothing to contribute...A wrong thought: I have much to learn and have with the 45,876 posts here I have just read... (as with my own 'degree of awareness' I do tend to exaggerate)

 

, .

Neo's picture

Neo

image

Arminius wrote:

I think and feel that everything is innately divine, albeit unaware of it, but engaged in the process becoming aware. Rather than a process of becoming divine, the process is a process of becoming aware of our innate divinity.

 

I would think that becoming aware of our divinity would be the same as becoming at-one, a-toned and atoned with our divinity.

 

Elanorgold's picture

Elanorgold

image

The divinity in everything rings nicely with me.

 

RevKing, at first I was put off by your two threads to me above, the use of language like "the Gospel, the Good News" and talking about Jesus Christ (who I feel was never a real living person), being born again, and the root cause of evil being a lack of faith, is very off putting to an atheist. However, upon reading it a third, fourth time, looking for the good in it, trying to find that you are not actually trying to assimilate me and disregarding my own views, I see that there is some agreement there. However, I will NEVER use the word God, nor would I ever pray to Jesus, or think that his character has anything at all to do with my own spirituality.

 

I do not agree that the root cause of evil is a denial of our spiritual human nature. I think pain and suffering are an innevitable part of life, and evil is the result of specific root causes including mental disorders, faults in brain development, greed, and especially, bad parenting. In that case, I may not believe in evil at all, per se.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Neo wrote:

Arminius wrote:

I think and feel that everything is innately divine, albeit unaware of it, but engaged in the process becoming aware. Rather than a process of becoming divine, the process is a process of becoming aware of our innate divinity.

 

I would think that becoming aware of our divinity would be the same as becoming at-one, a-toned and atoned with our divinity.

 

 

Yes, Neo, I agree—wholeheartedly.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Elanorgold wrote:

The divinity in everything rings nicely with me.

 

RevKing, at first I was put off by your two threads to me above, the use of language like "the Gospel, the Good News" and talking about Jesus Christ (who I feel was never a real living person), being born again, and the root cause of evil being a lack of faith, is very off putting to an atheist. However, upon reading it a third, fourth time, looking for the good in it, trying to find that you are not actually trying to assimilate me and disregarding my own views, I see that there is some agreement there. However, I will NEVER use the word God, nor would I ever pray to Jesus, or think that his character has anything at all to do with my own spirituality.

 

I do not agree that the root cause of evil is a denial of our spiritual human nature. I think pain and suffering are an innevitable part of life, and evil is the result of specific root causes including mental disorders, faults in brain development, greed, and especially, bad parenting. In that case, I may not believe in evil at all, per se.

 

Hi Elanorgold:

 

To me, "Christ" is the spirit of unitive or divine awareness, and a "Christ" is someone who has attained that awareness. Thus, Buddhahood or Christhood is the state of having become fully aware of the unitive and divine state of being. Neo calls those who have attained Christ awareness the "Ascended Masters."

 

"Jesus the Christ," to me, attained a high degree of awareness and thus became a "Christ" avatar. His "kingdom," as Happy Genius just pointed out, is the experience and awareness of divinty and unity as the basic state of being.

 

The experience of spirituality is beyond definitions and doctrines, and can be expressed in the terms of any religion as well as in the terms of secular philosophy. I am comfortable with all of these, and not particularly attached to any, but use Christian terminology when adressing a largely Christian audience.

 

Another reason for me using interreligious definitions for traditional Christian terms is to point out to Christians that spirtuality transcends Christian dogma.

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Elanorgold wrote:

The divinity in everything rings nicely with me. ...

 

However, I will NEVER use the word God, nor would I ever pray to Jesus, or think that his character has anything at all to do with my own spirituality.

Nor would I require that you should.

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

Arminius wrote:
... The experience of spirituality is beyond definitions and doctrines, and can be expressed in the terms of any religion as well as in the terms of secular philosophy. I am comfortable with all of these, and not particularly attached to any, but use Christian terminology when adressing a largely Christian audience.

 

Another reason for me using interreligious definitions for traditional Christian terms is to point out to Christians that spirtuality transcends Christian dogma. 

  Arm, you say that "spirtuality transcends Christian dogma."  I like the metaphor that spirit is like air and/or water; religion and religious dogma is the container, which too often will constrain the free flow of air and water and cause them to go stale.

Check out the work of Brian Luke Seward, who wrote the book, Managing Stress--Principles and strategies for health and well being:

http://www.brianlukeseaward.net/index.html

 

Brian Luke Seaward, PhD-Paramount Wellness Institute

 

Dr. Seaward is a renowned and respected international expert in the fields of stress management, mind-body-spirit healing and health promotion. Currently he serves on the faculty of the University of Northern Colorado-Greeley and is the Executive Director of the Paramount Wellness Institute in Boulder, CO.

 

The wisdom of Brian Luke Seaward can be found quoted in PBS specials, college graduation speeches, medical seminars, boardroom meetings, church sermons, and keynote addresses all over the world.  Dr. Seaward is the author of over 14 bestselling books many translated in several languages.

 

He is respected nationally for his achievements in wellness program development for several Fortune 500 companies and is considered a popular speaker at many national and international conferences.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

RevLGKing wrote:

Arm, you say that "spirtuality transcends Christian dogma."  I like the metaphor that spirit is like air and/or water; religion and religious dogma is the container, which too often will constrain the free flow of air and water and cause them to go stale.

 

A fitting metaphor!

 

However, the container not only restricts the free flow of the contents and makes them go stale. The main disadvantage in containing spirit is that one limits the quantity and quality of what is essentially limitless.

 

But sometimes something as esoteric as spirit needs to be quantified and contained in order to be talked about at all. But if such quantification and containment is an open-ended, creative process, then it is very much in the spirit of the infinite spirit. 

 

I forgot to say that I am somewhat emotionally attached to Christian spiritual terminology because it is the beloved terminology of my childhood, youth, and culture. But I consider the spiritual terms of other religions, and even secular spiritual terms, as valid as the Christian ones, and use them as readily.

Ichthys's picture

Ichthys

image

RevLGKing wrote:
Would it offend you for me to say that, IMO, GOD is being, not "a being".

Not at all. Believe it or not, but I was thinking for some time over the "a" and I'm still not sure.

RevLGKing wrote:
You add that, "Created is a being that does not have and can never gain those features, therefore makes mistakes, dies some day, will never know everything, etc." 

Before I understand what you mean, I will need of know more of your thoughts.

I believe the lack of divinity comes hand-in-hand with sin. If you knew everything , you wouldn't sin. If you would live forever, you would have enough time to realize that sin brings you nowhere. If you were everywhere everytime, you would see what sin is doing and never love it.  But we don't know enough ,we don't live long enough, and we can't be everywhere at any time. That's why we sin.

 

RevLGKing wrote:
You go on, "I believe just because every matter comes from God, does not make it divine. in my mind, this would explain the presence of evil, pain, death, etc."

 

An interesting comment. Now tell us what you have in mind when you speak of "God".

 

Maybe. I wish my mind could have an idea of God, I will try anyway. I believe God is. The invisible mesh that holds everything together, the only one, more than logos, and personal.

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

RevLGKing wrote:

 

...  Who has the right to define what 'god' is?

 

 

Answer:  Everyone. 

 

RevLGKing wrote:

 

Right on, Arm!

 

 Just a thought away is the joyful gift of life   abundant.  

 

 

If there was nought but you here in the cafe, WonderCafe's existence would be more than justified.

 

I join with Arm in his salute!

 

A truly wonderful last line of your post!

 

Thanks, youngster (I gotcha by three years)

 

 

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

TO UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK OUT:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/01/11/prove-god-exists-win-usd-1-million...

==============================

v. Srinivasan(24), thanks for using the acronym GOD. BTW, it is also OK to write G0D. Note the zero '0'.

 

By the way, the 'O' points to god in the macrocosm--in, through and beyond the cosmos. The '0' points to god in the microcosm--in us and every atom of our being.

 

When you say: "Your question [I assume you mean the one asked by Austin Cline about Spirit.] contains the answer.

 

"GOD is itself a symbol for the trinity- or the three aspects of life-
 

G=Genesis or birth,
 

O=Order or the interval between life and death of any living organism, and
 

D= destruction or death. OK. May God bless you."

 

Am I right in assuming that you are writing in response to my dialogue with Austin Cline?

 

May I also assume that you will not object if I suggest that the acronym 'GOD' can even be

 

used to mean Good, Old Daddy?--the God of theism.
 

Or it could be used to mean Grand Omniscient Design--one which I, as a unitheist/panentheist, prefer. This is not unlike the point Stephen Hawking makes in his book THE GRAND DESIGN. Helping himself, and us, Connect with the Grand Omnipotent Design of things is what life seems to be all about. 

=================================
I base the following verse on
ON BEETHOVEN'S ODE TO JOY
========================

Joyfully let's choose to be

 

At one with earth, its skies and seas.

 

One with sun, moon, planets, stars

 

And e'er expanding galaxies.

 

One with knowledge, one with wisdom,

 

Faith , hope, love and power to be,

 

One with all creative Being,

 

Now and for eternity.
===============

 

There are those who say that God is the failed hypothesis. I agree. But we need to ask: What is the evidence that GOD, or G0D--and all that this means--is a failed hypothesis?

 

Anybody, take time to digest what I write about. Get back to me with you questions and comments.
 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

RevLGKing wrote:

TO UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK OUT:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/01/11/prove-god-exists-win-usd-1-million...

 

There is no possible explanation that would make sense of what follows.  You are grasping at so many metaphorical straws, you're just incomprehensible.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

A little philosophy inclines a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy brings men's minds to religion.

 

-Francis Bacon

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

chansen wrote:

RevLGKing wrote:

TO UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK OUT:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/01/11/prove-god-exists-win-usd-1-million...

There is no possible explanation that would make sense of what follows.  You are grasping at so many metaphorical straws, you're just incomprehensible.
To Justine Kline at Agnosticism/Atheism I must also be dangerous. Since Februrary  I have sent several responses to the questions he posed earlier. He has refused to publish them. I wonder why!

 

BTW, Chansen, thanks for your interest. The last thing I want to be is obscure. Please help me dialogue in an open and clear way. If you are really interested in what I have to say, what are your questions? I am sure Arm will help me help you comprehend my answers. Right Arm?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Rev, you pose no danger to anyone but yourself.  I've read some of Mr. Kline's work on the about.com site, and his writing is well done and easily understood - two things your writing is not.  I personally think you write in circles to obscure the fact that you haven't the foggiest what you're writing about.  You constantly distance yourself from the common Christian perceptions about "God", but then return to the word as a butchered acronym and even quote scripture.  In short, you make no bloody sense, and there is no foundation of logic on which to build anything resembling a cogent point to your posts.

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

chansen wrote:

RevLGKing wrote:

TO UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK OUT:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/01/11/prove-god-exists-win-usd-1-million...

 

There is no possible explanation that would make sense of what follows.  You are grasping at so many metaphorical straws, you're just incomprehensible.

 

God as Comprehension. Neat-o!

Some have God as Truth, also neat-o.

I prefer Consciousness, but hey....

Quantum Physisists are at the point of saying Buddah is right: it's all illusion. Collapse that waveform!

Ah, sweet mystery of life...

 

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

chansen wrote:

 I personally think you write in circles to obscure the fact that you haven't the foggiest what you're writing about.

 

I personally think that is the most stupid remark from an intelligent person I have read.

Your realitly tunnel differs.

 

chansen wrote:

 

  You constantly distance yourself from the common Christian perceptions about "God"

 

 

As do I. As do you, oh knower of Common Christion perceptions...

 

chansen wrote:

, but then return to the word as a butchered acronym and even quote scripture.

 

 

Oh, my! How heretical! 'A butchered acronym!' Offesive! And even quote scripture!

You are a crazy person! That is an insane criticism.

 

chansen wrote:

 

 

  In short, you make no bloody sense, and there is no foundation of logic on which to build anything resembling a cogent point to your posts.

 

 

 

Logic? You base yout opinions on logic? syllogistic, sentental, predicate, modal, philosophic?

In short, nuts to you.

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

That's fine, if you think I'm so wrong, take one of Rev King's posts, and make it readable for someone with a high school education.

 

Rev King thinks his answers are not being posted at About.com because of censorship.  I think they aren't being posted because they are indecipherable and useless.

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

 

Reference:  MikePaterson's  thread:  I don't believe in Atheism

=========================================

Recently, I added this:

 

Posted on: 10/17/2010 08:43

 

In his defense of atheism, Atheisto asked for evidence for the existence of God. Here is what he wrote:
[...difference is...wind exists aand can be proven to exist.]

=============================================

Interesting point, Atheisto. Thanks for making it. The evidence, or proof, you need is available. As a unitheist, in my opinion, GOD, or G0D, as I like to write the concept, does exist in and through things, but without being confined to, or trapped in, them. Panentheists (a doublet for unitheists) make the same point. Modern astrophysicists, like Stephen Hawking, are becoming more and more aware that what most of us think of as solid "matter" is not just the hard stuff it used to be. Maybe many of the ancients, like Jesus, were there centuries ago. Modern science is just now getting around to giving us the evidence we need to demonstrate what they, using their imaginations, said by faith.

 

Keep in mind that the common language in the Roman occupied Judea of Jesus' day was Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek, which was probably familiar to Jesus. In several places in John's Gospel Jesus speaks of God as air, wind, breath. For example see John 3:5 and 4: 24. To the Samaritan woman Jesus did not say, "God is like Spirit" (air, wind, breath); he said, "God is Spirit (air, wind, breath).

The Aramaic word is  RuOKH (rookah).

http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=shlama&B1=Search&Sear...

 

The Hebrew for spirit is ruah (ruach); the Arabic is ruh. All refer to air, wind, breath. The Greek is pneuma. From it we get pneumatic, pneumonia, pneumatology (study of the spirit--a topic I introduced to Wikepedia). The Latin translation is spiritus. We get our word spirit from the Latin.

 

It is obvious why the ancients, before the age of science, chose this word to be the basic name for what we call God (which, as a unitheist, I prefer to write as GOD, and/or G0D--that which is in and through the unit of all that is. Without air no life would be possible. Would anyone like to try living without taking the next breath? Only a fool would dare to try it. Life without God is impossible. Of course God is air ... plus an infinite number of other things, which air (GOD) makes possible.

 

BTW, the New Testament (I John 4:7) also tells us: God is love (agape, in Greek). The Aramaic is OaRKHiYM. It simply means to give good will to all people, all conditions and all circumstances.

 

Modern psychology (which was once called pneumatology, as the article in Wikipedia points out) is now discovering that if we are to solve any of the numerous personal and social problems we all face, now and then, love--agape, though it may include them, is not to be confused with eros, and philia--in the best sense of the word, is absolutely necessary.

 

ATHEISTS, EVIDENCE PLEASE?

In a debate on the nature and value of air and love, who would like to take the negative?

Air and love do exist. They are essential to life. Without them all life on this planet, in all its forms, would cease to exist.

Elanorgold's picture

Elanorgold

image

Arminius wrote:

Hi Elanorgold:

 

To me, "Christ" is the spirit of unitive or divine awareness, and a "Christ" is someone who has attained that awareness. Thus, Buddhahood or Christhood is the state of having become fully aware of the unitive and divine state of being. Neo calls those who have attained Christ awareness the "Ascended Masters."

 

"Jesus the Christ," to me, attained a high degree of awareness and thus became a "Christ" avatar. His "kingdom," as Happy Genius just pointed out, is the experience and awareness of divinty and unity as the basic state of being.

 

I like this definition of christ. Thanks Arminius. Though I still feel that there is adequate evidence that there never lived a Jesus of Nazareth.

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

If one defines "God" as "the totality of being," then it is difficult if not impossible to disprove God.

 

Ironically enough, the absolutists among the anti-theists have the same interest as the absolutists among the traditionalistic theists: They both insist that the separate, supernatural creator/dictator is the only possible definition of God.

 

As far as "God is Love" is concerned, atheists or anti-theists may argue that there could not possibly have been the human emotion or notion of love before there were humans.

 

I agree. But I define "godly love" or "Agape" as the feeling of unity, inseparableness, oneness or synthesis, the feeling that we experience when we suspend conceptualization and experience reality as it really is, not as we think it is.

 

When we expereince reality as it really is, then we are overcome with all these unitive feelings like unitive awareness, unitive love, unitive consciousness and conscience. Then we experience not only God but our own Godness.

 

I and the Father are one.

 

-Jesus

Elanorgold's picture

Elanorgold

image

RevLGKing wrote:

 

"GOD is itself a symbol for the trinity- or the three aspects of life-
 

G=Genesis or birth,
 

O=Order or the interval between life and death of any living organism, and
 

D= destruction or death. OK. May God bless you."

 

This reminds me strongly of the Wiccan tripple aspect: Maiden, Mother, Crone, and the Greek Three Fates: youth, maturity and death.

The maiden spins the yarn, the mother weaves the tapestry of our lives, the crone cuts the threads

Neo's picture

Neo

image

Elanorgold wrote:

Arminius wrote:

Hi Elanorgold:

 

To me, "Christ" is the spirit of unitive or divine awareness, and a "Christ" is someone who has attained that awareness. Thus, Buddhahood or Christhood is the state of having become fully aware of the unitive and divine state of being. Neo calls those who have attained Christ awareness the "Ascended Masters."

 

"Jesus the Christ," to me, attained a high degree of awareness and thus became a "Christ" avatar. His "kingdom," as Happy Genius just pointed out, is the experience and awareness of divinty and unity as the basic state of being.

 

I like this definition of christ. Thanks Arminius. Though I still feel that there is adequate evidence that there never lived a Jesus of Nazareth.

Elanorgold, I think the lack of evidence for the life of Jesus was simply because at the time his life was rather insignificant and not worth the Roman's time to officially document it. In time, however, the significance of his life became more and more apparent.

 

The Christhood or Christ-consciousness that Arminius refers to is the same awareness that St. Paul referred to as spirits of just men made perfect. It's a state of awareness that all of us can reach, whether it's through an official religion or not. The spirit of "PeopleKind" is far more powerful and outlasting than any people-made religion. The Buddha once said that just as there are many levels of being asleep so are there many levels of being awake. Today, in our life time, the spiritual Sun is on the horizon and a great awakening is about to happen. This event will be just as you awoke this morning from a dream, but on a much larger scale.

 

The official stance of the Church, however, doesn't want to admit that this spiritual awareness can be reached by any other means than through their own religion. It's a total control thing that the western Churches have perfected for almost 2 thousand years now. I'm not speaking for all religions here, however, I do understand and recognized that the UCC is one of the most liberal and open minded churches in the world, (in fact I wouldn't be posting on this forum if they were not - they probably would've burned my avatar on a virtual stake a long time ago!)

 

G-D doesn't exist in religion, rather religion is a tool to reach the awareness of G-D. All things must pass, and the idea that G-D can only be reached through religion is passing away before our very eyes. If the religions of the world are to survive in the future then they will do so only through humility, like everyone else.

 

 

 

 

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

EG - I dn't take the route that many do - iike this "lack of evidence for the life of Jesus was simply because at the time his life was rather insignificant and not worth the Roman's time to officially document it. In time, however, the significance of his life became more and more apparent."

 

What a historian does is mine whatever information there is, and the context of the information.  Given that the historical is Jesus the man existed.  No doubts even from non Christian historians there is no lack of evidence.Even when one takes the gospels as texts of a group there is significant evidence of the existence of the man Jesus.   One important fact is the role of crucifixion - no hero is crucified and thus to write a narrative where the hero is, suggest something happened historically.  You would never write this about a nonexistent person.

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

What if ... Omi ... just as simple as that ... God is everything ... integral sum total and it is up to the mortal to put this all together?

 

Is this dependant on procreation as pro-creation ... before creation there had to be a primal desire to create ... a blind sense that we could call senseless creation? This might be referred to as a crippled old man who asks his child: Meis UN, what did you learn out there? The translations of such dialogue is lost to those that focus on one language/tongue/linguistic form (hommoe-phobia). You have to get into the entire flow ... a difficult task for those used to mono paths.

 

Then consider that humans speak with vocabulary of less than 600 words out of a possibility of 600,000+ ... even a modern Thesaurus has 325,000 or so to deal with. When someone says they don't understand I immediately ask myself what is the limits of their  private Lexicon? There is a suggestion that God is word the love of spirit .. communion ... connection ... communication! As Eugene Peterson said as a theologian: "the lifeblood of humanity is speech" but who would understand such an abstract comment. You might as well go out and ramble in poetry of an unknown nature as speak to someone about something that is far bigger than they allow their mind to get around ... the same as the old adage that you will not understand until you begin to accept there is something far bigger that your self out there ... in your surrounding, environment, or myth of intellect in one perspective. How many ever attempt to understand what is beyond their primal desires ... a very limited interest to say the least? 

In this regard an old biblical expression about knowing the tongues of all m'n give a person a key or (quies) to the opportunity for a KISS, or BUSS with the infinite ... like as is suggested in NDE's. But then that far out stuff is metaphysical beyond hard stuff that needs immagination to get in contact withthe abbstract sense that we call nonsense ... near nothing?

 

In the beginning a dark formless void ... what better for the absorption of a vast spectrum of light of awareness? That's the Black Body Radiator in some mades of speaking ... then one would need to know a bit of science ... a field of garbage according to many institutionalized theologians of a monotrack  sort of existense. If a person of faith in love were to look across the gap to a person of faith in what can be seen and tested; would one declare the other crazy? That is suggested in the old script but others would say this is an error in the interpretation. People believe what they wish and prefer not to know anything other than what their background conditionned them to ... right or wrong in the larger spectrum of sects ... sect Arian dreams? That's evil concept to those that say that God is a containable entity, that they have in their hand at anygiven time to use to tell other mortals that they are going to hell even though Christian faith tells them not to judge ... before all the eggs are hatched. What do they continue to do?

 

Isn't that the grandest enigma you could ever hope to encounter? It is perhaps a forerunner of a greater judgement in which creation would employ all those that would ask about the nature of their awareness before they swore to what they believe upon when it is beyond them as far as a Lost Horizoan ... or a far edge of existence that hasn't even been encountered yet here below ... a subliminal state in which little is absolutely known! Now that is funny ... proving to me that God has a sense of humour amongst all the surrounding stoics ... just words in an upstanding environment when the real worker is Lucifer ... he'lll take all the stuff he can get to try and figure out the old man syndrome!

 

Consider that even Christ himself descended into hell before being recalled ... yah got to ask where just to test the system ... was it here or at some higher level that his presence was burry'd ... light Light stuck in a physical form ... a metaphysical transition?

 

hat if God is Love and Christ is just pure awareness of the consequences of an unbound passion? Wouldn't that just be the deux ... or Pan dore' out of the box? Sound's like a hellish story to me, everyone trying to get all there is in a mortal environment ... yet somehow it sounds familiar ... like dais Mon squeeling on a whine dark "c": "Omega'd ... look what they done now! Neither God, Light or the communing spirit would believe what the alien 4'sis have done with an aboriginal means of communication. That's corruption of the word ... and we don't think God can be converted by placing eM in the light? Then why is love always made secretly ... as a post script giving ... like PSalms ... most never see IT until their Goan ... but they don't understand goans, geists and all other sorts of ESS scents ... like Legacy a form of old phe-art ... a flighty creation ... of the mannar of deist ... two parts ... one-Tue, that's dead on this side of the line called normal ... or physicaly san' ...

 

In the inbetween realm of balance one might see the perspective differently from the Veil ... that's echo, Ego, or canan in other tongues ... sort of reflective upon who your self is as one of two divine choices ... to be a' dueced, or d' deux'd ... like athought after the lo-vein expressions.

 

Then thought and caring are illegal under Roman decree ... sort of a shadow personae that hangs on like a stone at the bottom of a dark poe-L of obscured Light ... obfuscation? Then who would even look up such a word to begin to understand a complex story? Then modern neuroscientists say the story is the mind and the corollary holds true ... and few understand eithere of these two alien entities in their lives ... and don't wish to according to Exodus 20:19 ... could this be a fallable source, or just something to follow as a guide,allowing for changes along the path ... like wandering light? It is an odd intuition that found it's way into stories some thousands of years old that tell us we would know if we would just understand ... yet we demand faith to save all the foot work, travail, or pudenda in archaic hebrew as the bottom tier of creation ... the sole traveller? That's a singularity eh ... integral self that we do not see nor understand ... as wished ...

 

Then they say metaphysical things are crazy. Just look at the physical world ... that's real chaos thesis ...

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

National Post

Editor, regarding: ALL WE NEED IS SCIENCE, by Sam Harris (Oct. 26, 2010)

In his new book, The Moral Landscape (2010), Harris writes about How Science Can Determine Human Values, Which immediately prompts the questions: Science of what? Of the material things like the body? Or of the mind and/or spirit?

What about psychology? Pneumatology

 

Here is a summary of what I know about Sam Harris:

 

Along with other prominent members of the New Atheism movement—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christoper Hitchens—he is considered one of the most ardent critics of religion in the 21st century. Born in 1967; an American; a neuroscientist; a non-fiction writer, who is also interested in neurotheology, and religion. He is a graduate in philosophy (Stanford); has studied Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years.

 

A proponent of scientific skepticism, Harris wrote the best selling book, The End of Faith (2004), and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006). The latter, written as a rejoinder to the critics of his first book, describes Christians as being,

 "murderously, intolerant of criticism. While we may want to ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible. How do I know this? The most disturbed of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.”

 

Harris makes an outspoken attack on religion of all styles and persuasions and freely admits that he is advocating a form of intolerance. But not, as he says, the kind of intolerance that gave us the Gulag. Rather he is arguing for a conversational intolerance, one in which our everyday discourse and our convictions really scale with the available evidence.

 

He says that we ought to be able to demand intellectual honesty across the board, and ignore the prevailing taboos and political correctness which seem to prevent us from openly criticizing religion.Of course! I am all for it.

 

In his new book, The Moral Landscape (2010), Harris writes about How Science Can Determine Human Values.

 

He makes the assumption that science is a source of moral values.   But does he mean, "the material sciences only?" Is there no room for pneumatology--study of the spirit?

 

As a scientist, he calls for a rational, open-ended and honest inquiry.Good idea!

 

If Sam Harris—an obviously worthy critic of religion—is willing to agree that, within the numerous religious communities—also sources of human values—it is highly probable that there are any number of lovingly-tolerant and humane protagonists who appreciate constructive criticisms, I say, let the “conversational intolerance, the rational, open-ended and honest inquiry” begin.

 

It could be a win/win experience for all involved.

Rev. Lindsay G. King,

Thornhill, ON, 905-764-1125

http://www.lindsayking.ca

 
 
WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

There is an old saying that one cannot criticize a God! Consider an attempt to criticize Caesar ... you might just lose your head.

 

Is this the kind of physical apparition a man would follow in fear? Just look around you at the world of terrorism especially those imposed by the Western objectives ...

 

Do the common people count in this consideration? Romeo Dallaire was on TV here in the East tonight in regard to the building of military forces with children and the implication involved. My immediate thought was in the Celtic myth of being cautious around the wee folk. How the hidden message tells so much more than is read on the surface of that simple explicit expression! But do the comfortable care? No they must do like Christ and face the Pæn, the devil of a sympathé if they are to become aware of life in the lower tiers of the Jacobean latter Eires ... an underworld of thinking ... understanding how everything relates ... in the creation that surrounds us as a sign for the fragility of the soul ...

 

Meus is to take off his san dahls, if heis to be aware of the fragility of the relationship ... you never see it until it's A'B'D ... separation makes the h'art grow fonder of the alien ...

 

Why write satyr? Because man doesn't wish to know the truth of how heis lives ... on the back of so many others ... without A'Donis ... a given thanks? Ain't IT a beauty of a satire?

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

Neo wrote:

Today, in our life time, the spiritual Sun is on the horizon and a great awakening is about to happen.

The Golden Dawn, with the aim of religion and the method of science.

You can't get more 'inclusivist' than the book "777" ...

 

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Sure, all we need is science—spiritual science!

 

To my mind, science already is quite spiritual. Science has done a great service for spirituality by determining that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy, in one form or another, is forvever.

 

And what transfoms energy from one form to another?

 

Well, energy!

 

Energy is energetic; that's why they named it "energy." Energy is self-energetic, self-transformative, self-transcendental, and self-creative: The energy in energy is the power that transforms energy.

 

That energy is a singularity is equally obvious; energy can't be puralized. And, if the Principle of Complementarity, whereby opposites necessitate each other, is the basic scientific principle, then the reality which we analyse is necessarily in a unitive state of synthesis, and the truthfulness of the cosmic analysis proves the cosmic synthesis truthful.

 

The totality of cosmic energy, as a self-creative and unitive whole in a state of synthesis, is the scientfic definition of and the scientific proof for God.

 

This definition does not negate any of a large number of non-scientfic, metaphorical definitions of God.

 

As you see, finding proof for the existence of God is easy. Rather than finding the proof for your God hypothesis, you taylor the hypothesis to match the proof.

 

(The above is not really a joke. Like any good co(s)mic joke, it is very serious :-)

 

Seriously!

 

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Arm,

Very ergonomic, but then isn't an erg well ... I'd just repeat you! Seriously odd or justly satirical about the sanity factor down here ...?

 

In the sante terms that healthy clause about learning about what the WORD means ... understanding the spectrum ... even the bits of alien stuff ... Nick O'Demus ... fire in the human tri ... das Light heh!

 

Alas literacy is not a high profile thing down here with all the authorities ... power corrupts such stray thoughts ...

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

THE LATEST DIALOGUE IN SCIENCE-AGOGO

 

"Bill S, in the science-agogo forum, after making some negative comments about pneumatology now agrees that it is a serious study. He writes: "Of course pneumatology is a serious study, so is the consideration of an infinite/eternal "something" (one of his personal interests)..."

 

"Thanks for the clarification"  I said.

===========================
 
When Ellis commented: "We are all born atheists."

Bill S responded that he did not agree and said:

 
 
"... I think we are born agnostics, and everyone hates an agnostic, even Dawkins, in spite of the fact that he seems to have given some of his readers the impression that he is one. I must go back and read what he said."

 

I said that since I had the Dawkins's book handy, and well-marked, I wrote: "In his book, The God Delusion here is what, in the form of a question, Richard Dawkins says on page two and line eight of the Preface: Perhaps you (readers) feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief?"

"He goes on to point out that, in chapter two, he hopes to persuade people otherwise; that the God Hypothesis is a scientific one about the universe, and, ergo, it should be analysed like any theory. This includes theories we have about matter, including the material body (the soma) we have, the animal-like mind (the psyche) and nervous system we (the psyche) and the human-like spirit (the pneuma), which I feel we are. Since I believe that no healthy religion need fear the scientific approach, I heartily approve that all the claims made by any religion be analysed by people with scientific minds.

 

PNEUMATOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY,  SOMATOLOGY

"On pages 46 to 54, in chapter two, there is a whole section in which he writes about THE POVERTY OF AGNOSTICISM. I assume he is referring to cynical and lazy agnostics (mugwumps)--namby-pamby, pallid fence sitters who make no attempt to explore anything requiring serious thought.

"CURIOUS AGNOSTICS LOVE TO EXPLORE THE UNKNOWN
BTW, I agree with him when he points out that agnosticism is a reasonable position,"in cases where we lack evidence one way or the other."

A DYED-IN-THE-WOOL MONIST

"Dawkins, avoids, like the plague using the word 'spirit'  when speaking about his own beliefs. I wonder, does he feel the same way about words like mind and heart? Philosophically speaking, on page 181, he describes himself as above--a monist. Unlike dualists, who acknowledge a fundamental distinction between matter and mind, monists believe--Yes, Dawkins admits that he does believe in things--that mind is a manifestation of matter. Therefore, mind cannot exist apart from matter. Interestingly, he agrees with the evolutionary psychologist, Paul Bloom, that though we are human animals we have evolved into being instinctive dualists--a tendency to dualism is built into our brains. We naturally want to believe that there is a 'me' (a spirit, a pneuma) perched somewhere behind the eyes. This is what provides us with a natural disposition to embrace religious ideas.

 

NATIVE TELEOLOGY (life is meaningful and purposeful)--the result of dualism

"Without agreeing it has any real value, Dawkins describes human beings as intuitive theists and, therefore, creationists. We want to believe that we were created by a creator-god and that everything has a meaning and a purpose. "Children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it... Native dualism and native teleology predispose us, given the right conditions, to religion."... just like moths are attracted to the light which ends their life. This is what easily predisposes us to believe in a 'soul' or 'spirit'. We easily imagine the existence of a deity as pure spirit. If teleologically speaking everything has a purpose, it is easy to take the next step and ask: Whose purpose it? And, of course, the answer is: God's purpose, of course. (p.181)

"Richard Dawkins tells us that, like all of us, in the early part of his life he was, as he had evolved, a dualist. It was later that he had to consciously learn, "to be an intellectual monist". Ask him questions like: Where did this idea of gods, or God, come from? Or, how is it that we think and imagine the way that we do? How come we really believe that we are spiritual beings who will survive death and will eventually meet God? His answer is likely to be: "All that we think we are is the result of, "an emergent property of complex matter." line 13, p.181 In other words, if you think there is a god who is a supernatural being independent of matter, you are deluded. Dawkins's main challenge to theists is: If there is a god separate from complex matter, just give us the evidence. Just telling people that all we need is to have faith is just not  good enough."

 

"My reading of Richard Dawkins is as follows: Philosophically speaking, he is a matter-of-fact kind of monist. That is, for him there is no such thing as body, mind and spirit, there is only body. What we call mind and/or spirit is dependent on matter. Nothing exists beyond the death of the body. I am tempted to ask: What is the evidence that this is so? Meanwhile, as a unitheist, I have no problem with a unitheistic kind of monism, which in effect says that what I call GOD/G0D--that which is good, orderly and desirable, in all directions--and "complex matter", his term--are ONE and the same.

 

"So we are left with the old philosophical question: Which comes first, body? Or mind? Meanwhile, spirit is not even an issue. Sad, isn't it?"


=======================================
GOD=Totality/of/all/that is Good/Orderly/&Desirable

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

God an integral sum/body?

Is a child born completely devoid of thought ... pure emotional being about being looked after? Is emotion a spiritual sense ... like having the spirit to eat, read consume ... thus turning a God into a daemon in Roman terms? After all the Roman dogma was that a thinking man was dangerous ... thus literate people were marked to die! We haven't come a long way have we ... and we've bred ourselves out of house and home to grow the marketplace ... instead of feeding the brae 'n som thought (Theo). But you couldn't tell someone this outright .... because saying such things would be destructive criticism of the children of God .... they don't learn .. just desire to control everything without a clue of what it takes to do so. It would take a lot of collective wisdom ... like a devilish encyclopaedia ... the Hebrew Torah to King James who felt Hebrew a devilish language ... thus developing into pure satyr.

 

What else could one say against such emotional institution (stone dogma)? One might as well vent emotions in non-sensical story and poetry ... get srid of the spirit and makes room for sole entity ... that intellect that surrounds us and in us too if one counts DNA as a hard record of past experiences ... like a hard spot in the head of a beauty of creation ... À Don's or just half-baked suite bred for consumption of a higher wisdom ... de athe portion .... ontological end to the story? Or is this just to make room for a sequel? I suppose one should leave something as a clue to what happened before (history?) ... then some aggressive Roman type would probably burn it ... so we wouldn't be appreciative of past errors and we could do them all over again.

 

Is God like a collective intuition, way down deep a sense of consciousness, like a devil to Roman desires? God here we go on the mere-go round again ... Hawkins Black Hole ... the "I", ich, or self of the mind ... standinng in the background aura of visible energy ... shadow par sona ... just a wis'per in Runes ... there in the human tri ... Meis, meis-elphe and "IC" ... or Isis in another tall tale of the roamer ... wondering sojourner? One has to get beyond the stone Jack son ... evolve ... learn? What an explicit oddity to an authority ... like a stone in the Shoe? That could be a pain to pudenda ... root word of learning in Hebrew ... where it all starts as a instant of divine out-of bodyness ... when you separate a portion of your story for anothers ignorant benefit? God is a funny concept eh ... then look what they created around us ... pure insanity for a learning base that most pass through like a river ... just Piscine ... Pison in Genesis! Is that denial ... like a lie?

 

Perhaps just ohm mission in the Kode ...

 

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

RevLGKing wrote:

 Arm, you say that "spirtuality transcends Christian dogma."  I like the metaphor that spirit is like air and/or water; religion and religious dogma is the container, which too often will constrain the free flow of air and water and cause them to go stale.

 

Hmm. Me wanna try:

Spirit is like wine, well protected, improves with age, is intoxicating, and very approved by one who should know...(the 'wine bibber') --- the container should be treated with respect, handled with care, used often (but is often discarded when considered empty)

OK, it's a stretch, and I'm biased...

I wonder what communion would be like if full glasses were given...pentacost? ("We are not drunk as ye suppose") -- Would attendence improve?

Silly thoughts, from a non church-goer on a beautiful Sunday Morning...

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Happy Genius wrote:

RevLGKing wrote:

 Arm, you say that "spirtuality transcends Christian dogma."  I like the metaphor that spirit is like air and/or water; religion and religious dogma is the container, which too often will constrain the free flow of air and water and cause them to go stale.

 

Hmm. Me wanna try:

Spirit is like wine, well protected, improves with age, is intoxicating, and very approved by one who should know...(the 'wine bibber') --- the container should be treated with respect, handled with care, used often (but is often discarded when considered empty)

OK, it's a stretch, and I'm biased...

I wonder what communion would be like if full glasses were given...pentacost? ("We are not drunk as ye suppose") -- Would attendence improve?

Silly thoughts, from a non church-goer on a beautiful Sunday Morning...

 

 

Hi Happy:

 

Great thoughts on a Reformation Sunday morning!

 

In the days of my youth in Germany, a good quality golden white was served at communion from a communal cup. Only a sip, mind you, but nevertheless something to look forward to.

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

chansen wrote:

That's fine, if you think I'm so wrong, take one of Rev King's posts, and make it readable for someone with a high school education.

 

 

No, you take one of his posts and tell me what it is that you do not understand.

Better still, ask him.

You say:

Rev King thinks his answers are not being posted at About.com because of censorship.  I think they aren't being posted because they are indecipherable and useless.

Fine. Do you think your opinion is in the majority?.

Oh, and it's not so much that I think you are 'so wrong', it's just that I thought you were stupidly insulting.

John Wilson's picture

John Wilson

image

Arminius wrote:

Sure, all we need is science—spiritual science!

 

To my mind, science already is quite spiritual. Science has done a great service for spirituality by determining that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy, in one form or another, is forvever.

 

 

Big deal. Everything, in one form or another is forever. Before time was invented/permitted/fashioned it took forever to get anyting done.

 

Arminius wrote:

And what transfoms energy from one form to another?

 

Wait for it, world ----

 

Arminius wrote:

 

Well, energy!

 

Whew. Energy is impressive. You know what is even MORE impressive? Water. My Cable bill.

Why anyone woul;d be so enamoured with energy when they could be focusing on consciousness and holographic existance, is beyond me. 'sides, you don't even mention dark energy, or the I.Q. of the universe. Or Mr. Higgs and his boson. Oh, no. It's just energy, energy, energy. I get tired just thinking about it. 

Goddess made us, because She was curious. The only theological question is: is She going to be nice enough to share ? I think it'll go like this: "Yes! You'll start in grade one, which lasts 20,000 years, and there's lots of homework...."

Talk me out of it   

 

Arminius wrote:

Energy is energetic; that's why they named it "energy."

 

So that's why. 

Arminius wrote:

Energy is ...self-creative: The energy in energy is the power that transforms energy.

Ah; a power-loop.

 

Arminius wrote:

That energy is a singularity is equally obvious; energy can't be puralized. And, if the Principle of Complementarity, whereby opposites necessitate each other, is the basic scientific principle, then the reality which we analyse is necessarily...

---The absolute opposite of what we think it is. I'm probably absolutely wrong about that.

 

Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, and is far more interesting, than (sniff!) mere

energy.  Might as well study time for all the good it'll do you. (It's a holographic illusion. Pass it on,)

 

 

 

 

RevLGKing's picture

RevLGKing

image

chansen wrote:
RevLGKing wrote:
TO UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING YOU WILL NEED TO CHECK OUT:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/01/11/prove-god-exists-win-usd-1-million...

There is no possible explanation that would make sense of what follows.  You are grasping at so many metaphorical straws, you're just incomprehensible.
Chansen, the following is an update regarding the on-going debate with Austin Cline:

Note that, a recent poster--October 11, 2010 at 10:56 am--posted the following. His name is.

v. Srinivasan(24)

Prove God Exists!

=============
He wrote, "Your question contains the answer. GOD is itself a symbol for the trinity- or the three aspects of life- G=Genesis or birth, O=Order or the interval between life and death of any living organism, and D= destruction or death. OK.
May God bless you."

 

Chansen, take note that Srinivasan uses the acronym, GOD. It seems that he got the idea I published that GOD is being, not a being, not a god, but all that IS.

=========================
 
Another poster, sagargorijala wrote:

When it comes to me…it’s the other way around. I actually proved that creation and destruction and existence of gods… simply impossible. Here is my proof.

http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk

He asks: "Can I receive huge amount of $s for my theory? After all I came up with truth and nothing but truth. According to my theory creation and destruction are impossible. Gods can’t exist. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the world."

October 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm
==================================
 
Meanwhile, Austin Cline--who did publish my first posts, which, BTW, are still there--simply now refuses to publish my responses to questions which he raised. I wonder, what is he afraid of? That atheism is .................................Fill in the blanks.
Maybe unitheism can be of help.
 
 
Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe