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 (), 237 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 13 < 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 >
Topic Options
#27546 - 08/19/08 08:00 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Posters: IMO, ones religion includes anything which give meaning and purpose to ones life. Some religions are good; some are not so good, and some even sick--like those which advocate violence to those who refuse to bow and scrape.

Then there are those who find life is without meaning. It seems to me that they have a religion that is not so good. For example, like nihilistic existentialism. Sad.

BTW, is a huckleberry similar to a black berry?

IMO, Huck Finn was no outcast. When he refused to surrender a runaway slave to the slave-hunters, this, to me, made him a hero.

BTW 2, I am not into judging the motives of others. I leave it to them to reveal their motives when they feel free and comfortable, to do so. No one, except me, can really judge my motives--even when they know me, close up. There is always room for flexibility. However, how we act does count for a lot. But I do not speak or act to win the approval of everyone.

Dialogue is about the communication of ideas and to learn something new--my chief interest here.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
.
#27548 - 08/19/08 09:14 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

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

Quote:

Posters: IMO, ones religion includes anything which give meaning and purpose to ones life.

Comprehension is imperative to learning something new.
Generally speaking if ones glass is full there is nothing that can fit in it less one empties it first. Religion has a way of sealing the glass when one closes their mind to others and their dialogue in favor of one track thinking or the isolation of what one gives meaning from what others give meaning to.

Making comparisons in the guise of innocent dialogue often reveals itself thru the repetitive insertions of relating the personal to opinion and the interpretation of amicable disagreement.

_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27549 - 08/19/08 09:43 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
So? I have no idea what the point, above, is. Does anyone? If you do, HELP!!!!

Top
#27550 - 08/20/08 01:08 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Maybe TT is suggesting that always arguing from anecdotes of one's own experience can be limiting, and if religion is involved then perhaps this is even more true. But then, maybe he is meaning nothing of the kind and it's just me who suggests it.


Edited by Ellis (08/20/08 01:09 PM)
Edit Reason: grammar

Top
#27551 - 08/20/08 04:51 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Maybe TT is suggesting that always arguing ...
Ellis, As you are aware, I prefer the sharing of ideas and concepts in the dialogue format, not as a debate. Or perhaps you think that dialogue, argument and debate are all one and the same. Do you?

Quote:
...anecdotes of one's own experience can be limiting...
In what way?

BTW, maybe you prefer to have a friendly debate. I am quite willing to listen to your arguments regarding theology, religion, philosophy and the like. Unless you would like me to, I promise not to call you insulting names. smile


Edited by Revlgking (08/20/08 05:39 PM)

Top
#27553 - 08/20/08 09:07 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
I believe that all three are part of sharing ideas and concepts. Dialogue alone does not ensure exploration of new and interesting points of view, especially if examples used are primarily those from one's own experience.

Top
#27554 - 08/20/08 09:27 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Ellis]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Incorporating all three ensures the ability to release control and manipulation, only if one decides to leave their ego someplace other than in the conversation.
Otherwise conversation returns to an all about me, look what I have done, this is what I do, check out me and my thing, I have found this works for me so what do you think about that type of conversation.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27557 - 08/21/08 06:18 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Anyone, go ahead. Tell me all about you and what, in the philosophies, the arts and sciences, turns you on. What are your questions, your hopes, and dreams. How interested are you in becoming a highly evolved and fully conscious spiritual being? Without resistance or emotional negativity, all my senses are, to the best of my ability, open and alert to read what you have to say.

I may ask questions, or even disagree with you, but I promise to do so agreeably--and without be judgmental. If I ever offend, please tell me and I will gladly apologize. Especially so, if I bore you.

If what anyone writes educates, enlightens, challenges, enriches, helps, amuses, interests and helps me be present in the Now, wonderful!

If anyone offends me, without attachment to my own views, or to my egoic mind, and opinions, I consciously choose to have the Presence of Spirit, the insight and wisdom to "turn the other cheek"--i.e, yield, surrender, without resignation, to the flow of life in the Now. Eckart Tolle writes about the need to understand this in his wonderful book, The Power of NOW--a Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment.

If anyone bores, or tries to use and manipulate me--without resentment or resistance (I hope)--I will remove myself, walk away, move on and take a rest, which I soon will ZZZZZzzzzz..... smile


Edited by Revlgking (08/21/08 06:22 AM)

Top
#27558 - 08/21/08 07:50 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
In the Upanishads there is a story of a boy who asks his father how he may become enlightened. The Father says to him,"Read scripture (words of the enlightened), surround yourself with enlightened company (Those that have dedicated themselves to a life of expansion and spiritual growth) and study the Self/Spirit (Isvara Pranidhana) in the meditation on the voice of God (the Aum or the universal principal of creation, the absolute). The very thing Jesus did every time he withdrew into isolated prayer as was mentioned in the Bible.

One does not get enlightened by reading a book or stating affirmations to be enlightened. There is no feedback when one immerses themselves in self speculation regarding ideals of enlightenment that are based on projections of the ego. Good intentions are not always inspired by wisdom or enlightenment if you are in a state of consciousness that is seeking to know enlightenment but also filled with a myriad of beliefs about enlightenment and the world that is the projection of ego.

Just as the Bible has been influence to billions of people but has not given anyone experience of Selflessness, scripture can only point the way if one can decipher the meanings and truths that are not part of the domain of the ego.
Quote:
If anyone offends me, without attachment to my own views, or to my egoic mind, and opinions, I consciously choose to have the Presence of Spirit, the insight and wisdom to "turn the other cheek"--i.e, yield, surrender, without resignation, to the flow of life in the Now.
This will be an interesting experiment to see if one can change just by saying they will do something different than they are used to. To command wisdom to be a part of their experience and demeanor and to cast habit off just by saying it all will happen by making a conscious choice to make it so.

It takes something greater than habit or good intentions in the experience of ones self to erase the stresses of habit.
In my own experience of evolution I have been tempted time and time again and had to make a choice to surrender my stress and judgment to the greater experience of myself. Without it there is nothing to shift the awareness to other than a fabricated ideal. Juggling ideals and the opposite to ideals generally ages most people and leads them to build castles of definitions which shape the personality into ego. It is this ego that relegates the soul to be in the world and of the world, rather than in the world but not of it, where spirit or consciousness is the essence of ones Self/self. Where the face of God is the immortal spirit rather than the image the ego identifies with in the mirror on the wall with all of its degrees, personal achievements, beliefs and labels.

In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali there is a saying. It is impossible to surrender to the supreme being without first having an experience of the supreme being because ideas fabricated from the imaginings of the ego are inconsistent and illusive.

In order to realize the power of now one must have an experience of the now, the infinite potential or the absolute. When one meditates on that it grows into the awareness of all experiences. With the assistance or reflection of similar or like minded individuals one can bounce their experiences off of one another to refine and isolate the now from illusions and projections of the ego.

For me personally, this did not come overnight or even after reading a dozen books on enlightenment, I immersed myself in the reflection of those who had themselves dedicated their lives to the now above and beyond everything else.

It is said, "No one can solve a problem from the level in which it is created." All earthly problems are a result of the separation of man from his own spirit as he has isolated himself in his Egoic kingdom of personality and opinion, or as Jesus called it Hell.
In order to heal the world one has to "heal" themselves or "enter the kingdom of heaven" as it was also said.

This is the Science of Yoga or the "Power of Now", or another way it was put, "Surrendering to the Christ"


Edited by Tutor Turtle (08/21/08 08:37 AM)
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27559 - 08/21/08 05:20 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
READERS, GET INVOLVED
With over 1000 clicks--and in just a few days--on this topic surely there are others--besides the less than a handful who post here--who are willing to say: This is what I choose to believe (I presume it means to be + live).... Or not to believe. And here is how I choose to act.

Aye, there's the challenge: the putting into practice, on a daily basis, what we say we believe. Read the letter of James--the brother of Jesus. Its central theme is: "Faith without works is dead." It calls on us to have a rational faith which inspires us to do socially useful works. Faith and work must act as a team.

Of course to act in good faith is to act lovingly. IMO, "Love", which I like to capitalize, is more useful as a verb than as a noun. Agape, the Greek word, means to choose, to will and act in the now on the basis of finding the good in all circumstances and in all people. Not easy to do. But, in GOD, there are many people out there who are willing to be of loving help to those who need it.

ABOUT Eckhart Tolle's concept of GOD
============================
In his book already mentioned, Tolle--who, BTW, is not affiliated with any one religion--points out that he never talks about "finding God". When people ask him about how "to find God" he usually responds, I presume with a smile on his face: "...how can you find that which was never lost....? (P.224) He adds,"God is being itself, not a being."

I find myself in absolute agreement with ET when he writes about his idea of "God", especially when the word is used as a proper noun. The noun "God" is filled with so much baggage and so many misperceptions. It has been constantly misused over the centuries to this present day.

He writes, "There can be no subject-object relationship here, no duality, no you and God."

I can't remember the last time I thought of people as being here, separate and apart, and God as a being up there--and looking like the Sistine-Chapel version of God as painted by Michael Angelo. For decades I have thought of people as being as much a part of GOD as we are of the cosmos. While I have every respect for all forms of theism, including agnosticism and atheism, I prefer to speak of GOD--Goodness, Order and Design--as an acronym, rather than as a noun.


Edited by Revlgking (08/21/08 08:44 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27560 - 08/21/08 05:53 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
For decades I have thought of people as being as much a part of GOD as we are of the cosmos.
Then obviously there is no expectation or presumptions on the readers when you say
Quote:
READERS, GET INVOLVED
With over 1000 clicks--and in just a few days--on this topic surely there are others--besides the less than a handful who post here--who are willing to say: This I choose to believe (I presume it means to be + live), or not to believe.

Obviously there are those who are less than energetic about making their statements for the benefit of someone who has no need to be convinced that God exists. Making statements or expressing ones beliefs doesn't reinforce them unless they aren't convinced themselves, in which case why make a statement in the face of someone who is so adamant toward their own beliefs?

Perhaps you could make a statement as to why one should be involved in this conversation?

Obviously you like to talk about yourself, but perhaps others aren't as comfortable talking about themselves or feeling like they have to prove something, or agree or disagree.

By the way this is just a social invitation to a discussion, not a picture meant to be solidified into any particular meaning unless you should feel it necessary to do so.


Edited by Tutor Turtle (08/21/08 06:43 PM)
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27562 - 08/22/08 05:19 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
C'mon Rev.
Don't you want to share with the posters why you think they should post in response to your topics? You have urged the lurkers to come forward and respond to the topics you have started, but why?
Share with them why you come here and post time and time again expressing your beliefs and your associations with people and subject of notoriety. I'm sure that there is no lack for words in your experience, and it follows the energetics of your urging them to participate and fits within the topic of beliefs and philosophy.

We all know you like to dialogue and in the past you have been pretty narrow about how that dialogue works but now you are attempting to be open enough not to turn away what you might construe as an argument or debate in favor of including all ideals and expressions in the definition and dialogue and to include free expression as part of ones beliefs and philosophy, and even the possibility of ones religion.
Don't fade out now. Instead of backing up accounts of the past with links and books share why you believe others should be here expressing their beliefs, what you think they have to gain.
Don't you want to tell them why?

Quote:

Dialogue is about the communication of ideas and to learn something new--my chief interest here.


I pulled this quote from a previous post but I'm hoping to find out if it is strictly to fulfill your interest in getting others to express, or if you believe others have or should have the same interest. Is it part of your philosophy and religion, or are you still refining your philosophy and religion by listening to others.

I have experienced in my own observations how you change with currents of expression to include words you think have more meaning such as changing the word God to G'd or GØD. How you said you followed the expressions of Whitehead and now Tolle and many others, leaving a myriad of references to your beliefs and incorporating anything that feels good to you.

Are you still hungry for knowledge to add to your beliefs? Are you asking the many for more input to satiate your appetite for knowledge? Is the accumulation of knowledge in your experience the food of the Gods or GØD? You have urged others to join you in discussion so many times in the past. What is the hunger you have with dialogue?

I'm seriously interested.


Edited by Tutor Turtle (08/22/08 05:50 PM)
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27563 - 08/22/08 10:14 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
TT, your being willing to communicate with all posters has real value, thanks! The podium is yours!

Top
#27564 - 08/22/08 11:08 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
TT, your being willing to communicate with all posters has real value, thanks! The podium is yours!

It's you I want to communicate with. I want to hear from you rather than the bibliography of Rev. King. Especially in reference to the questions I asked.


Edited by Tutor Turtle (08/22/08 11:12 PM)
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27568 - 08/23/08 09:14 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
ABOUT MY HUNGER AND THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE
Thanks to a URL posted by a fellow poster in BrainMeta, I just watched a 39-minute video Here it it:
http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/mkaku.htm
Fascinating. It is an interview with Dr. Michiko Kaku, born in Los Angeles, who is a well known and respected Harvard physicist.

His views are a pretty good reflection of generally accepted theories amongst modern physicists. To me, what he says sound so theological and it inspired me to think about:

YHWY, GOD--beyond the atomic theory of things
===================================================
After listening to this interview I now know why Orthodox Jews think of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, as being too sacred to vocalize and is beyond mere physicalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
http://www.eliyah.com/tetragrm.html
As I have said before, When Orthordox Jews write the proper name for 'God' in English, they do not use and ordinary noun, God; they use 'G-d'. The concept is too large to be confined to a single proper noun.
http://www.tetragrammaton.org/

THE STRING THEORY AND GOD
Dr. Kaku is one of the originators of the string theory of which I was made aware, in 2002, when I read the book, Universe on a T-Shirt--the quest for the theory of everything (2002), by Dan Dalk. It was this theory, with so much in common with quantum physics, that inspired me to start using the acronym, GOD.

Or--as in my signature--instead of using 'O', I also like to use the null sign--'0' with a / through it--symbolizing micro and macro universes.
=======================================================
I also like using the following formula: E=MC2+F(aith) +H(ope)xL(ove)--a formula which enables us to think of human beings as co-creators, partners of the on-going process of creation, which A.N. Whitehead--scientist, process philosopher and theologian--wrote about in the 1930's and 40's.
--------------------
GØD--the symbol I use to refer to the entire physical COSMOS and beyond. GØD encompasses and interpenetrates all "things"--physical, mental and spiritual. This is panentheism--not just pantheism.Thanks to Whitehead! RevLGKing. http://www.flfcanada.com http://www.unitheist.org/
==================================================
Without having any kind of doctrinaire attitude, at this point, the above ideas form the basis of what I think of as my personal faith and religion.


Edited by Revlgking (08/23/08 09:17 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27569 - 08/23/08 11:22 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
So you are basing you faith on your resonance with other people and their theories, and you hunger for knowledge that will support the theory and faith.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27570 - 08/24/08 02:54 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Anonymous
Unregistered


TT,
I "hunger for knowledge that will support the theory and faith" and I enjoy the "resonance with other people and their theories" that comes with sharing 'faith-based' discussions, debates, etc.

Is that okay, or just stroking the ego?

~K

Top
#27573 - 08/24/08 07:51 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Anonymous]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

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


The following is a translation and commentary of an excerpt from the "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" [Pada 1 Sutra 7]
written some 5000 years ago


Upward thoughts result from clear perception,
logical deduction and direct cognition.


Clear perception includes direct and immediate experience. It implies that the windows of the senses have been cleansed, that previous experience and belief are not coloring the reality seen as it is Now. The typical experience of the Waking State is that the past is never quiescent -- every experience is shaped and colored by memories of previous experiences. These operate on such a subtle level inside that it is rare to be aware of their existence. Yet, if for even the briefest of moments, we can slip beyond the limitations of our past and see life as it is truly is right Now, we find that every moment is filled with glory, wonder, love, life and joy.
Clear perception and valid inference or logical deduction are impossible in the absence of the third characteristic of correct understanding: direct cognition. Direct cognition means those thoughts that rise without distortion from the Source of Thought. The Source of Thought is the unlimited reservoir of creativity, intelligence and bliss that lies within each of us. In the Waking State, this reservoir is far beyond normal experience, for only the most surface or manifest level of thought is perceived. So thoughts are appreciated only when they have moved through the nervous system and reached the conscious thinking level, the 10% thinking level, the surface of the mind.
Most thoughts making their way to the surface of the mind have been distorted by stress. They are no longer particularly filled with clarity, intelligence, happiness, love or energy. Previous life experiences and the beliefs based on those experiences twist and maim the original intention and purity of the thoughts arising from their Source in Universal Intelligence. The actions resulting from these diminished thoughts are necessarily flawed, mutually contradictory and weak; they inevitably lead to lack of progress and ever-increasing difficulty in life.
But those fortunate thoughts that arise purely and without distortion from the Source remain surcharged with energy, intelligence and bliss; they, being unflawed, never contradict each other (or the Universe) and therefore result in greater harmony, happiness and success in every area of life.
Direct cognition thus also includes those thoughts that have been expressed by the enlightened, for one quality of enlightenment is the ability to think and therefore speak without distortion from the Source. Every valid scriptural statement falls under this category. Of course, the trouble in recognizing which of the world's scriptures are direct expressions undistorted from the Source is that it takes a mind that is incapable of being distorted to verify the reality of the written words. Thus following any book blindly in the hopes of improving life is about as intelligent as trying to learn to fly by reading a novel about airplanes. But for those whose mental instruments do in fact translate thought without distortion from the Source, reading or hearing the expressions of other such minds is a constant thrill of delight. It is never a matter of competition. A truly enlightened follower of any faith will see only the Beauty in all other religions.

Compare this with Christ telling his disciples not to worry about what to say when they spoke his Teaching, for the Holy Spirit would give them all the words they needed: "Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." -- MATTHEW 10:19&20. Cf. MARK 13:11; LUKE 12:11&12, 21:15; EXODUS 4:10-12; ISAIAH 50:4; JEREMIAH 1:9.

In the sutra above what is being elaborated upon is the fact that faith when fueled by anything other than direct cognition is subject to egoic influence. In the waking state of consciousness which is of the three most recognized states of consciousness, the other two being sleeping and dreaming, recognition or understanding based on past influences has a tendency to be subject to personality. What drives our senses is most often judgment based on feelings and emotions. If one person has a particular set of beliefs and their faith is wrapped around the belief of personality it will divide information to separate that which is not appealing from what is appealing. Discernment may not be clear because of emotional investments in how things make us feel.
Intuitive processes are colored by likes and dislikes, or the attachment to emotional response and the projection of possible futures and outcomes of choice. Such is the state of religion today. Faith based on religious beliefs is supported by like minded beliefs and conversations that do not threaten the attachment to personal ideals and boundaries.

During the crusades the church dictated how spirituality should be understood, faith was given to the head of the church as the clear authority who was supposed to be in direct contact with God and God's plan. By following this authority and the faith in the power of the officials, man was easily manipulated into spiritual genocide or the cleansing of impure religious beliefs through a process of eliminating the people who lived with any opposing thought.
For the majority who reveled in their power of control over beliefs and faith, there was great enjoyment in the resonance of commonality and the elimination of all opposing beliefs.
Of course the common people only lived with theory because they were told by church officials that common folk didn't posses the ability to communicate directly with God or to have a direct experience of God. For those that believed a direct experience of God was not possible, theory was their vehicle carried them on their way to the authority in surrender and worship.

Throughout the past several hundred years the church has had to morph with the evolution of technology and science, and the intellectual understanding of human awareness that has made it less simple to hypnotize the intellect with stories of theory, no matter how good it sounds. Today industry bases its ability to sell and control consumption by their use of the media to influence man with relative truths and theory based on the most current scientific data. For the most part we are taught to believe in the authority of Government representation, Church, and the sciences of education because of their predetermined reputation. Very few actually get a chance to develop a sense of conscious awareness and intuitive reflex because it is not taught to us but discouraged, by predetermined social values, rules and scientific influences that tell us what we cannot see and touch is not real.

So Faith is not enough for we can have faith in anything, and faith without direct experience or the enlivenment of clear and direct cognition or intuition is at best a guessing game of how does this feel to me? What most of us already know is that feelings and beliefs are constantly changing, and if Faith is supported by these changing feelings and beliefs what is it that we really know about what it is we have faith in?

If you are lucky to get into a debate and come away with your beliefs intact then you have either come up with a decent argument to protect your personal interests or the opposing argument was not strong enough that day to change your feelings or your opinion.
But lets look at the most recent history of say the Rev. Lindsay who I made mention of having started with the word God who then changed that word to G'd because he agreed with the Jewish version of spelling God and then to GØD as an acronym for a personal revelation which was a representation of changed or refined thinking again.

If our faith is personal and not universal we have our own acronyms which have meaning to us but not necessarily to anyone else. It then becomes an issue of dealing out our beliefs to others to see if they produce the desired result of commonality so that we can enjoy a spirit of relative communion with belief and enjoy the resonance of like mindedness. As long as our group of commonality stays together grows and expands we feel great about our beliefs and our faith in our beliefs.

Without the direct cognition of the supreme being, there is only relative association to personal attachment. If the supreme being exists in all beliefs and all personal agendas the ego then has no protection from the opposing thoughts and conflict that comes from personal beliefs that are different. Ones faith becomes subject to personal opinion and can easily be attacked by someone who has just as strong a faith in their ideas that are completely different.

A conversation such as this one on a Topic of Faith, Religion and philosophy becomes a discussion based on theories and which ever theory burns the brightest is the one that attracts the most moths in a world filled with darkness.

In the link Lindsay posted for the interview with Dr. Kaku there is a reference in the interview of Dr. Kaku to extremists or to the Terrorists of the Muslim Faith as wanting to be a type minus 1 society. Based on the idea that we are still approaching a type 1 society and that the Christian and Jewish Faiths have come to a medium of faith integration he suggests that the Muslims have so far removed themselves in their faith that they would rather propel society back into a segregated society. He doesn't mention why but it's basically because the radical seed that is being sewn is the mistrust of the massive widespread authority that is given to ideas spread about by the media machine.
Anything can be sold.
It wasn't that long ago that the authority told us that the world was flat.
The policies of divided politics work to distract humanity while the promise of relief is sold via the media to the public pointing in any direction which satisfies the senses taste for immediate satisfaction or instant gratification.
In politics faith is in the system which is going to serve ones self interests the best.
With philosophy and religion that is not based on direct cognition whichever theory that suits ones best interests is going to be the one that sells easily and soothes the needs of personal realities.

So Knowledge then is going to be relative. How does one empathize with knowledge that is based on direct cognition such as scripture if your faith is not connected to direct experience and cognition, but relative ideals contrived of theories regarding scripture that are filtered through a closet full of intellectual programs and emotional attachments, which have you changing your mind, your acronyms and your faith like you change your clothes or the oil in your car?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27574 - 08/24/08 08:43 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Thus following any book blindly in the hopes of improving life is about as intelligent as trying to learn to fly by reading a novel about airplanes. But for those whose mental instruments do in fact translate thought without distortion from the Source, reading or hearing the expressions of other such minds is a constant thrill of delight. It is never a matter of competition. A truly enlightened follower of any faith will see only the Beauty in all other religions.
I haven't yet read past this part [sorry], but I couldn't resist:

"A truly enlightened follower of any faith will see only the Beauty in all other religions."

Gosh, what a wonderful sentiment. This should be in all the "bibles" of the world.

It reminds me of what I just posted, concurrently with your post above, at "Unified Field Theory. Maybe?":
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...=2735#Post27572
"I find it helpful to accept (conditionally) the validity of all theories (and new hypotheses), and then see how they can be interpreted in terms of my own "perspective" or GUT (Grand Unified Theory)."

Although I didn't say so, it is the most beautifully rewarding experience to feel as if I'm at least close to correctly interpreting something (in terms of a 'unified' perspective). Hopefully that was somewhat indicated be the succeeding statement:

"I think it's great that the Zeitgeist is changing so that, without mathematical proof, we can now see beyond the illusory separate nature of reality, and see intuitively into the unified nature of reality."
===

So TT, if I can interject....
Can we define "Beauty" as a reflection of Truth, or a refraction of Truth, ...or in some way related to Truth?

Thanks,
~ wink

...now I'll go finish reading ...[sorry].
smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#27575 - 08/24/08 09:43 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: samwik]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
...finished....

I think I agree with all you've said; but you apply this to "the acronym," and isn't the acronym just more of an evolution in one's capability to express something (more fully?), rather than an evolution or morphing of the fundamental philosophy behind the expression?

But I have a question about "evolution" of our 'God sense' that you speak to.

People born and raised in a particular faith have no basis for comparison.... Umm. Let me start over.

Doesn't there need to be some evolution of faith; from our childlike, 'magical' understanding, thru some crisis or challenge by other perspectives, and finally into a more capable, cohesive, integrated, inclusive and reality-based faith?

...like being re-born, or at least re-affirmed, perhaps....

Thanks,
~ smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
Page 2 of 13 < 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 >



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.