Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 255 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 39 of 120 < 1 2 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#26938 - 07/01/08 01:12 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Of course as they see it... but no one has the patent on worship or communion in spirituality.
Anyone can actually achieve a state of enlightened perspective using a committed practice. However not all roads lead to Heaven.
If they did choice wouldn't matter.

Most of the JW's that I have known insist there is no path other than theirs that is the righteous path.


Edited by Tutor Turtle (07/01/08 01:13 AM)
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
.
#26942 - 07/01/08 03:34 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
"Make me one, with everything." said the mystic, when he order a hot dog. laugh

Top
#26943 - 07/01/08 04:19 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
TT said- Most of the JW's that I have known insist there is no path other than theirs that is the righteous path.

That's the problem exactly. Nothing wrong with anyone assuming that they know the answer to the meaning of life and death and the nature of god's relationship with the universe, or whatever they believe, just so long as they do not expect me to believe it too. I do not think that coercion produces true belief, it is just a power play.


Top
#26944 - 07/01/08 01:09 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
AGAPE/LOVE USES NO COERCION
Quote:
I do not think that coercion produces true belief, it is just a power play.
Wise words Ellis.

This is precisely the temptation faced by all religions, including Christianity, especially when, in the fourth century, C.E. (our common era), like the cults of emperor worship already in vogue, it became Churchianity. Under Constantine the Great (lover of power and control) it became just another power-playing institution, another instrument of the state forcing people to bow to the rich and powerful regardless of their true merit.

THE MESSAGE OF JESUS WAS "LOVE (AGAPE) ONE ANOTHER"
The single message of New Testament Christianity--from the story of Christmas, the gospel (good news) actions of Jesus, to the story of Easter--was, and is, based on the idea that "God is love". God is not a celestial emperor, a king or lord, dispensing an arbitrary kind of justice and peace on his terms.

THE REASON WE NEED A NEW WORD--AGAPE
Similar to our term 'god', 'love' has lost any kind of precise meaning. Not only is it possible to love ones parents, spouse, family and God, whatever; it is possible to love killing one parents, spouse, family, God, even ones self. [BTW, This is why I like to use the acronym in my signature--or even just GOD--that which is good, orderly and desirably designed.]

For this reason, without coercing anyone else to do so, when I speak of, or write about, the highest good I prefer to use 'agape', or 'agapo', or even agape/love. By the way, the Greek NT uses this term 140 times. The 'o', or the omega, on the end of Greek words serves the same purpose as our 'I'.

'Philia'--the common term for brotherly love, or friendship, is used once; 'eros', the common term for sensual love is not used at all. It is my opinion that, under the wings of 'agape', 'eros' and 'philia' can also be beautiful and good for all using them.

Without agape/love--the kind Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 13, the kind which humane and loving fathers and mothers ought to give to each other, their families, their community and to God--eros and philia tend to deteriorate into the kind of game and power-playing, which is the very basis of dysfunctional families and communities. In my opinion the absence of agape/love is the very root cause of all crime and evil, crimes of honour, jealousy, hate, the desire for revenge, and suicide.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#26945 - 07/01/08 04:58 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
New words do not always inspire understanding. The great masters of this earth did not struggle to fit their Truth into the limited realm of the ego but to draw the spirit of man forth from the ego by the resonance of Truth. If the fruit on a tree isn't ripe, you don't pick it, you water and fertilize the tree until the fruit ripens.
As such the words of truth do no lose their value or meaning due to the masters inability to express the divine within.
The ego is always attempting to do a better job than God by reinventing God in its own image, and trying to hasten the ripening process only because of the need and attachment of words to meaning that the individual has, and to the urgency that is created to build the perfect house.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#26948 - 07/01/08 07:06 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
"In my opinion the absence of agape/love is the very root cause of all crime and evil, crimes of honour, jealousy, hate, the desire for revenge, and suicide."
Great words, I would agree with you, Rev. That today 'love' is plastered everywhere and has lost its true meaning. It is not an unconditional practice anymore, for the most part. And youre right, it said that God is Love; that is, God is everything good and above all cares for us.
That was the message of Jesus: it wasnt to force religion or a way of beliefs down somebody's throat...which it has unfortunately came to be today for the most part.

Top
#26953 - 07/01/08 08:46 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tim]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Tim, thanks! I have a feeling we are on the same beam and speak a similar language. smile

TT, you sound like the poster, Joesus, at Brainmeta. Have you ever read him? Forgive me for saying this: But like much of what he writes, I find many of your ideas obscure. Often, I really don't get the point as to what you are trying to say--and I do want to.

Why don't you italicize your main points or BOLD them? Then you expand on them if you wish. If--as it appears--you have some kind of "secret knowledge" or "hot" line to God, keep the message simple. Perhaps you could do what Jesus did: Tell us a parable. There was a guy who knew how to communicate. smile

BTW, you down play the value of new words. Where would the new sciences and new discoveries be without new words like: psychosomatic, X-ray, radar, astrophysics, ipod, radio, television and the like?


Edited by Revlgking (07/01/08 09:00 PM)

Top
#26959 - 07/02/08 12:08 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Actually TT, 'agape' is a very very old word. An example of an oldie and a goodie.

Top
#26964 - 07/02/08 03:57 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Ellis, old girl,thanks for that goodie comment! laugh

BTW, I forgot to mention 'pneuma-psychosomatic'. I coined the term to refer to self-inflicted stress, pain and suffering--for which the treatment is 'pneumatherapy'. It is a term I coined to replace the misnomer, 'self-hypnosis'. Hypnosis is about going to sleep. Pneuma (spirit) is about awakening ourselves to the power the human spirit and becoming aware its role as the guiding power of the mind/intellect and the body.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#26966 - 07/02/08 04:34 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
Often, I really don't get the point as to what you are trying to say--and I do want to.
Why don't you italicize your main points or BOLD them? Then you expand on them if you wish. If--as it appears--you have some kind of "secret knowledge" or "hot" line to God, keep the message simple. Perhaps you could do what Jesus did: Tell us a parable. There was a guy who knew how to communicate.

Jesus used to tell his stories or parables in such a fashion, that his disciples asked him why he didn't explain things in a more simple fashion to fit the intellect of the simple man.
He used to say let those who have the ears to hear and the eyes to see, hear and see. He also made the statement "cast ye no pearls before swine."
Now, he wasn't a judgmental person and he had no feelings of resentment toward anyone, so why call someone who could not take truth and make use of it swine, or to state that his words were only for those who could understand the word of God and not for those who could not see or hear the words as he gave them?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#26968 - 07/02/08 07:57 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Anonymous
Unregistered


LOL TT,
Very subtle, but I enjoy your composition and excellent mechanics and structure too.
===

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Anon, here is the citation you asked for: It is in Exodus 3:14. Moses asks God "What do I call you?" God replies with "Tell your people I am becoming".

The King James version is: "I am that I am." The 1952 Revised standard version is: "I am who I am."

The literal Hebrew--which, BTW, has no future tense, is: "I am becoming who I am becoming.".

Interestingly, the name Jesus--the Latin and Greek form--in Hebrew is Joshua, or more fully yehoshuah. It can be translated as "I amness is what saves us". Perhaps it needs be said that it is our use of consciousness--our I amness--which saves or destroys.
Originally Posted By: ~K
At this God said to Moses: "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." And he added: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, "I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU."
Ex, 3:14; New World Translation, 1984.(Jehovah's Witnesses)
I like the "becoming" version better; but just fyi... an odd rendering above, eh? One could ponder on "prove" for quite a while, I think; but still, ...a process! Thanks Rev.
~K

Funny story: A couple of weeks ago I was wanting a Bible, to look for stewardship quotes.
A week later I got a visit from the JW's (they seem to find me about once per decade), and eventually I did get a Bible out of the deal; but before that....
I was shocked to learn that they didn't know what the word "stewardship" meant; just had not seemed to have heard the word before. frown
They are a very "insulated" people.
===

Later, I've realized I could get a version of a Bible (for just 2.95), on one of those Kindle e-books.

King James Bible; Kindle Format, Mecum (2008).
Exodus, 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.

Hey! Wasn't that Popeye's line? ...Oh.... ...No, that was "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam...."
smile
==
I suspect I AM, or I WILL PROVE TO BE, are translated from a single word that conveys the concept.
...something like yehosh, ...or I'mness....
~K
smile


Top
#26969 - 07/02/08 04:21 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Anonymous]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
I seem to remember someone who signs their name "K" from another web board. You wouldn't happen to have posted under that name a couple years back would you? It would have been in the content of expanding consciousness/God etc.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#26970 - 07/02/08 07:42 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Nope; sorry....

The K is for Kindle, the amazon.com, e-book thingy.
No subscription, ...and it's always online.

But it's not a wonderful platform for browsing deeply into multiple webpages (most forums).

However it is a wonderful platform for browsing ScienceAGoGo
(as well as all the other neat things it does -books, newspapers, magazines, wikipedia, google, mail, blogs and more).

...then entering a reply is much easier on a real computer; but that happens only rarely during the day.

~K
...is for Kindler
smile


Top
#26972 - 07/02/08 08:06 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Anonymous]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Quote:
I was shocked to learn that they didn't know what the word "stewardship" meant; just had not seemed to have heard the word before.
That is odd. I happen to have a Greek/English, inter-linear--New Testament, which was published by the JW's in 1942. I can read Greek, slowly. The Greek for 'steward' is OIKONOMON--sounds like our English word, economics.

It literally means 'the manager of house and property. The JW NT does use 'steward' (Luke 16)--from English: keeper (warden) of the animal stys.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27001 - 07/06/08 10:16 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Anon, I am surprised you give give no response to my last post? How much do you know about the JW's?

Top
#27033 - 07/09/08 04:56 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere


Quote:
Anon, I am surprised you give give no response to my last post?

I'm not. You never responded to mine..
#26966 - 07/01/08 09:34 PM
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27035 - 07/09/08 06:07 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Jesus used to tell his stories or parables in such a fashion, that his disciples asked him why he didn't explain things in a more simple fashion to fit the intellect of the simple man.

TT, when he was asked why he spoke in parables, I take it that his response was pure sarcasm. In effect he was saying: You ask a dumb question, I give you a dumb answer. Yes, Jesus had a sense of humour, IMO.


He used to say let those who have the ears to hear and the eyes to see, hear and see. He also made the statement "cast ye no pearls before swine."

Now, he wasn't a judgmental person and he had no feelings of resentment toward anyone, so why call someone who could not take truth and make use of it swine, or to state that his words were only for those who could understand the word of God and not for those who could not see or hear the words as he gave them?
TT, keep in mind, I am making the effort to understand you. Does this make me a swine? smile BTW, I agree with you when you say that God and organized religion are not just one and the same.


Edited by Revlgking (07/09/08 06:11 AM)

Top
#27037 - 07/09/08 04:30 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
TT, when he was asked why he spoke in parables, I take it that his response was pure sarcasm. In effect he was saying: You ask a dumb question, I give you a dumb answer. Yes, Jesus had a sense of humour, IMO.
It (His answer) was anything but sarcastic.

Quote:
TT, keep in mind, I am making the effort to understand you. Does this make me a swine?
Making the effort does not. However serious application of ignorance to life is what Jesus was referring to when he used the term swine.
His reference was to the fact that a pig cannot be anything other than a pig. Humans on the other hand can evolve beyond the simplistic animal behaviors and reactions to sense oriented ideas and habits.

Your first reference to Jesus being sarcastic doesn't favor your intelligence only your misunderstanding.
As such Jesus would refer to you as not incapable but without sufficient awareness to decipher the obvious as he saw things.

Some are quick to catch on and others have become conditioned to their sense of time and habit, and do not move far from the pen...
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27043 - 07/10/08 12:14 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Revlgking]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
I was shocked to learn that they didn't know what the word "stewardship" meant; just had not seemed to have heard the word before.
That is odd. I happen to have a Greek/English, inter-linear--New Testament, which was published by the JW's in 1942. I can read Greek, slowly. The Greek for 'steward' is OIKONOMON--sounds like our English word, economics.

It literally means 'the manager of house and property. The JW NT does use 'steward' (Luke 16)--from English: keeper (warden) of the animal stys.
Originally Posted By: Rev.
Anon, I am surprised you give give no response to my last post? How much do you know about the JW's?

Haha, the sty warden.
===


Sorry Rev. ...vacation....
Yes, the origin of the word Stewardship is interesting, but don't know anything more about the JW's.
I recall this also....

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=24520#Post24520
Quote:
The more I think about whether Economics is a science or not, the more I think that what we need is a... Science of Civilization. ...Civinomics?

Economy: Latin, oeconomia = household management: => from the Greek, oikonomia => from oikonomos = a steward (oikos = house + nemein = to manage).

Economic: Latin, oeconimicus = orderly, methodical: => from the Greek, oikonomikos = economical (oikos = house + nomikos = ?).

Ecology: from the Greek (oikos = house + ology = science of).


Thanks for the citation in the JW bible. I'll have some "ammunition" for when they return.....

Later,
~K

Top
#27048 - 07/10/08 04:53 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, includ [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Quote:
TT, when he was asked why he spoke in parables, I take it that his response was pure sarcasm. In effect he was saying: You ask a dumb question, I give you a dumb answer. Yes, Jesus had a sense of humour, IMO.
It (Jesus' answer) was anything but sarcastic.

TT, are your sure you know what Jesus had in mind? If so, what is your evidence. I am more than willing to to take a look at it.

Me? Am I sure that I know what Jesus had in mind? Absolutely not.
My observation about his comment being a mild form of sarcasm was based on the fact that I find almost all of his parables filled with self-evident truth. For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son--more properly called, the parable of the two sons.

Quote:
TT, keep in mind, I am making the effort to understand you. Does this make me a swine?

You respond, "Making the effort does not."

Well! I appreciate your ... What do I call it? Diplomacy? Now, diplomatically tell me what on earth do you mean when you say:

You say, "However, serious application of ignorance to life is what Jesus was referring to when he used the term swine."

Does this mean that you feel I am ignorant of life? Or what?

You say, "His reference was to the fact that a pig cannot be anything other than a pig. Humans on the other hand can evolve beyond the simplistic animal behaviors and reactions to sense oriented ideas and habits."

I am intrigued that you seem to be so sure that you know what Jesus had in mind.

You go on, "Your first reference to Jesus being sarcastic doesn't favor your intelligence, only your misunderstanding."

If you are saying that I lack intelligence, all I can do is ask your indulgence. smile

When you say, "As such, Jesus would refer to you as not incapable but without sufficient awareness to decipher the obvious as he saw things."

Now, tell me: Where can I apply to have this "sufficient-kind" of "awareness"?

Then you conclude, "Some are quick to catch on and others have become conditioned to their sense of time and habit, and do not move far from the pen..."

Regarding your explanation of my deficiencies, that makes everything very clear. Thank you! (Mild sarcasm intended! smile


Edited by Revlgking (07/10/08 05:07 AM)

Top
Page 39 of 120 < 1 2 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.