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 (), 278 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 8 of 13 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 >
Topic Options
#27859 - 09/25/08 08:12 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
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I have changed my description?
Of what? From what? And to what?
Of yourself.
From Minister, to writer, to Artist, to pneumatologist, empath,
intuitive economist, and most recently equal in knowledge and experience with Eckhart Tolle since you read his book.
I'll quote you
Quote:
...when it comes to a my philosophy of religion I am a strong advocate of the freedom of and from religion--in all its forms--including the freedom to be an atheist, agnostic and/or secular humanist.
MY RELIGION--The bottom line, at this point--subject to change.
I'm easy.



Hiya TT,
Shallohm wink
.
.
...and at the risk of....

I think Revl. was speaking objectively; that is....

...of his philosophy of 'religion for others' as being accommodating of different expressions of 'religion.'
...or words to that effect.
&
His phrase "MY RELIGION" is only juxtaposed to the "subject to change" comment; and I see it as more of a rhetorical device, as a way to say he's open to understanding things in terms of other religions (or non-religions).
...or perhaps that his idea of what 'religion is' is to be accepting of the varying views of others.
No, that's too strong; ...but maybe that (part of) his religion is to "change" or adapt to accommodate other's religion.

...or maybe I'm projecting too much.
===

...meanwhile.
I should probably find a particular quote, but....
You've talked about the difference between knowing and experiencing God. But what of religions? Are they all ways (for the right person at the right time) of "knowing," but still not necessarily of experiencing (that coming more from within, irrespective of religion?)?

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

Top
.
#27865 - 09/25/08 07:12 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: samwik]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: samwik

Hiya TT,
Shallohm wink
.
.
...and at the risk of....

I think Revl. was speaking objectively; that is....

...of his philosophy of 'religion for others' as being accommodating of different expressions of 'religion.'
...or words to that effect.
&
His phrase "MY RELIGION" is only juxtaposed to the "subject to change" comment; and I see it as more of a rhetorical device, as a way to say he's open to understanding things in terms of other religions (or non-religions).
...or perhaps that his idea of what 'religion is' is to be accepting of the varying views of others.
No, that's too strong; ...but maybe that (part of) his religion is to "change" or adapt to accommodate other's religion.

...or maybe I'm projecting too much.
===
~ smile


No there is nothing that has been said that you can nail to one specific idea. The Rev. is attempting to cement the Good he knows exists into definition, purpose and a clear path to follow. He is a good person with a great heart but his intellect and his emotional body are at odds because what he feels conflicts with what he wants to believe.
Merely having good intentions is too nebulous and often deluded by the ego to produce results that are congruent to the expansion of good in all.
If you take the good intentions of Hitler and Mother Meara and put them together they don't add up to the same thing.
Not all people are on the same path. Knowing this comes with knowing ones self.
The Rev. applies lots of labels and accomplishments to himself to better understand how he can apply those labels to others and to do so without creating any tension.
Being that he has suffered in his own mind the trials and tribulations of growing up in an economic hostile environment he seeks the ideals of both physical and spiritual worlds and would still like to control the process in such a way as to leave free will complete. Its a paradox to know God does exist but not to understand why so much appears so separate from it.
The clarity of Knowing God comes when all illusions are dropped, rather than to find God and good within the illusions.
His focus is still heavily absorbed in illusion. Traversing the path of accumulating everything from the outside and taking it in rather than coming from the inside or from spirit moving outward. The illusions are very painful to him, and he seeks not only to cure the pain in himself but by doing so in others to accomplish it.

Obviously this is the way I experience him, and it is possible others as well. This medium is not capable of establishing whether this is the truth only how people feel about what another sees and experiences. Truth has to be established within, or beyond relative values and it can be recognized by one who stands in the same place.
Obviously the world does not reflect such an ideal or we wouldn't be trying to kill each other nor would we be clinging so tightly to our bodies and our material possessions, arranging them continuously in hopes of finding favor with God.

But on a lighter note. There are those individuals who have traversed the path of illusion and can clearly recognize the difference between illusion and truth.
Originally Posted By: samwik
...meanwhile.
I should probably find a particular quote, but....
You've talked about the difference between knowing and experiencing God. But what of religions? Are they all ways (for the right person at the right time) of "knowing," but still not necessarily of experiencing (that coming more from within, irrespective of religion?)?

Thanks,
~ smile

Plato

Book VII of The Republic

The Allegory of the Cave

Here's a little story from Plato's most famous book, The Republic. Socrates is talking to a young follower of his named Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what it's like to be a philosopher -- a lover of wisdom: Most people, including ourselves, live in a world of relative ignorance. We are even comfortable with that ignorance, because it is all we know. When we first start facing truth, the process may be frightening, and many people run back to their old lives. But if you continue to seek truth, you will eventually be able to handle it better. In fact, you want more! It's true that many people around you now may think you are weird or even a danger to society, but you don't care. Once you've tasted the truth, you won't ever want to go back to being ignorant!

[Socrates is speaking with Glaucon]

[Socrates:] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

[Glaucon:] I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

As a comment to your question Sawmik.
Not all knowing comes from truth but from the shadows perceived through the layers of belief that are the ego.
Religion which comes from stories that are passed on from one to another when they are not of personal mastery by the story teller, become like a game of Chinese whispers.
Someone says something to one and it is passed in whisper to another, after it is passed on several times it is not the same story any more.
Many of today's religions are similar in their content. We can see by their examples how the many religions have used their beliefs to try and control the masses even by using what they justify as Holy war, to kill off those who would infect the purity of Gods word. The use of such ignorance has been the underlying current of every war, the abuse of personal belief and the twisting of Truth to manipulate power and subjugate those who are not of a majority in their beliefs, or to destroy them if they become a threat.
In the world of spiritual evolution everything serves one on their path to awakening. The realization of this does not come until one steps out of the cave of ignorance and immerses themselves in the light of Truth that is a constant within all things. Then can one understand where they have been after having been freed from the illusions of shadows. Then can one speak of illusion and truth as a master of experience.
Once one learns that the body and the beliefs are temporary, like steps of educational grades in school, right and wrong becomes more clear in understanding that right choices lead toward the light and wrong lead the other way. Because one does not slight another for their choice, which is God given, it is still possible to state the truth which is still the truth.

If someone wants to run full speed at a brick wall and someone says you will be stopped by the wall and the runner says I believe I won't, does the runners choice and knowledge come from truth or from illusion?
The inherent reality of the soul is that it is not made of molecules but it can manipulate molecules to make the body and as such could conceivably pass through walls which are also constructed of the same process as the body is constructed.
In the souls current state of mind which is anchored in knowledge of the shadows, to run at the wall carrying those beliefs will necessarily impede ones passage through solid objects.
If he knows absolutely there are no shadows then there is nothing that will prevent him. If there is the slightest bit of baggage or doubt the wall will stop him.
This is the reality of psychological barriers that are the beliefs of ego. We are only limited by those beliefs which limit us. Above and beyond the beliefs in the physical world exists an entirely different set of natural laws. Those which support our spiritual body and the experience of that. To that body no material rule has any effect.
There is a story in the Bible that illustrates this, a story of the "eye of the needle" which is based on a real place in time and space. The eye of the needle was a passageway in a rock wall between two villages in the Eastern world. One literally had to remove everything from the back of their camel and get the camel down on its knees to pass through.
The story relates to the soul and any beliefs the ego has that would allow them to pass through the very narrow opening that is only big enough for the soul to pass into the experience of itself or complete knowledge of everlasting spirit.
Religion has its purpose but its purpose is often linked to the clothing one wears to fit an occasion of ideals and belief.
If its sunny and you gear up for rain you are over dressed. If its raining and cold and you wear your swim suit you are under dressed.
The masters when they spoke of truth, it was not as a Religion or belief but as the underlying reality of the relative beliefs and the world that was contained within those beliefs.
It was those who listened and did not understand that pledged themselves to believe in the man and not the substance of his experience that led them to cling to his stories.
They would emulate the way he dressed, the way he spoke, the way he ate and slept, and that became the religion that followed in the footsteps of his knowledge.

A friend of mine once said in order to propel an arrow forward you must draw it backward to create the energy/experience needed to propel it forward.
In this way religion, no matter how far from the truth serves the evolving soul to propel it toward the truth.
The relative world is the world of opposites and it always will be and always has been. Man continues to evolve from it into spiritual awareness and in any age of scientific and intellectual development this is possible, for the development of the soul is not dependent on outside circumstance but intuitive development, free will and experience of Truth.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27867 - 09/25/08 08:29 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Wow TT,
What a wonder filled reply!
...and I haven't even read it all the way through properly.

I want to apologize for trying to speak for Revl. as I did (fairly poorly also, I think). Maybe what I was trying to say came across, but I don't know....
Well, just never mind....

I'll look over your answers some more, and maybe then I'll know what to say.

Thanks for the time on all that reply though. I have much to look forward to, I'm sure.

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

Top
#27869 - 09/26/08 04:11 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: samwik]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
You're welcome. I noticed I spelled your name Sawmik... confused
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27870 - 09/26/08 05:31 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, ...
Sam and TT: Unless the one who taught me philosophy deluded me, I recall that he told us students that the writings of Plato are not called debates, but dialogues, a method of which he expressed his fondness. He also pointed out that Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"--did not arrogantly claim to be the fount of all wisdom.

Sam and TT: Realizing the added value that face to face communication would be, I always appreciate all written comments offered with a positive attitude and in the spirit of dialogue.

BTW, anytime any of my written comments appear to have a negative in attitude, please feel free to let me know. If anyone feels offended by anything I write, I have no problem apologizing. I hope I am mature enough to have a difference of opinion while doing so with respect.

Top
#27877 - 09/26/08 07:18 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
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Sam and TT: Unless the one who taught me philosophy deluded me, I recall that he told us students that the writings of Plato are not called debates, but dialogues, a method of which he expressed his fondness. He also pointed out that Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"--did not arrogantly claim to be the fount of all wisdom.

I'm not aware of any debate or of anyone making such claims.
Where are you going with this?
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Sam and TT: Realizing the added value that face to face communication would be, I always appreciate all written comments offered with a positive attitude and in the spirit of dialogue.

Noble intentions are always accepted but not always are they given in understanding of ones reality. Nobility driven by lack of experience in reality actually is not nobility but illusion. Comprehensive objectivity is an even greater asset. By getting to know what is being said and the person who is saying it, one need not stand behind a rule and a wall of ideals always prepared for the attack or trying to prevent one.

A great teacher of mine always told me, "Everything that comes to you is a gift for your growth."
Never turn anything away in judgment, and don't assume everything is what you think it is.
Dialogue is much more than hollow pleasantries. Those things that come up and are painful to the ego are gifts to expand one beyond their limitations. Rather than turn them away or ignore them one should learn to look beyond the feelings of attack and the little self worth one has to believe they could be threatened by the words of another in their nature to express themselves.
There are no victims. We make the world what it is.
When it is attacking us we know not the absolute at-one-ment with our creation.
You could really know the now Rev. It will bring you much further than you are willing to let yourself go, which seems so full of the need to protect your identity as you wish to idealize it.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BTW, anytime any of my written comments appear to have a negative in attitude, please feel free to let me know.

OK. You have a negative attitude toward what I have said to you and about you.

Just letting you know.

No need to apologize, just move beyond it and open yourself to a greater possibility then you have in the past.

Or Not. I'm OK either way. I'm not one to let feelings get in the way of a constructive conversation.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27878 - 09/26/08 07:20 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev wrote:
Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"-

Hmph! What on earth does that mean?


TT I think that knowledge and truth are indivisible. There's lots more in that reply of yours and like Samwik I need time to work through it! I enjoyed reading the allegory and discussion posed by Socrates the proto-christian. Whatever our journey should we not aim for true knowledge? Or put another way - enlightenment as suggested by Socrates?

Top
#27879 - 09/26/08 07:34 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Ellis]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Ellis



TT I think that knowledge and truth are indivisible. There's lots more in that reply of yours and like Samwik I need time to work through it! I enjoyed reading the allegory and discussion posed by Socrates the proto-christian. Whatever our journey should we not aim for true knowledge? Or put another way - enlightenment as suggested by Socrates?

That is what all religions are derived from. The goal to achieve enlightenment. To be able discern the difference between the shadows of illusion that is false knowledge and the Truth which is the light within all things.
Knowledge without experience is then just a thought. Knowledge with experience gives one the presence of being the Truth.

The "I and My Father are One." Kind of experience of Truth.
No shadows between the eye and the reflection of ones Self.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27880 - 09/26/08 06:49 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
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev wrote:
Socrates--who has been called "a Christian before Christ"-

Hmph! What on earth does that mean?


To be "Christed" in terms of definition was also said to be "Anointed with the Staff of Knowledge." The Staff of knowledge being the absolute/God.
Jesus when acknowledged as being the "Son of God" was known as being Christed or The Christ. In harmony with universal mind, absolute truth, or enlightened.
Socrates was enlightened by every indication of his intelligence and knowledge, maybe not as evolved as Jesus was but still much more than the common man who is still living within the identification of the world of shadows.
He was Imbued with a direct connection to"The Fount of All Wisdom" to use the Reverends label. A "Son of God" which is "enlightenment" and what Christianity is based on, a state of mind and body immersed in the experience of the now/absolute/God. Christianity didn't become a religion until rules of dialogue were applied to it and then rules and ideals of action or lifestyle applied to mimicking what the ego thought it saw, in and of Jesus while he lived and spoke of his enlightenment.

Psychology of reality when it comes from the ego is belief in shadows and the science derived from illusion.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27883 - 09/27/08 12:59 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
But TT- what if enlightenment does not lead to the absolute/god but instead to the knowledge that there is no absolute/god, just a series, or even just one ,happy confluence of random chance/s and we, and our universe, are witnesses, or perhaps the products of that event. The destination of truth is often more surprising than we may have anticipated.

Plus-I think it's a cop-out for believers in one religion to endow the wise men of another with near beatitude within their own beliefs, galling though it may be to find that non-believers have previously and since come up with good ideas and arguments.!
(NB Rev. Arguments are parts of discussions and dialogue.)

Top
#27884 - 09/27/08 04:16 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Ellis]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Ellis
But TT- what if enlightenment does not lead to the absolute/god but instead to the knowledge that there is no absolute/god, just a series, or even just one ,happy confluence of random chance/s and we, and our universe, are witnesses, or perhaps the products of that event. The destination of truth is often more surprising than we may have anticipated.


The "what if" comes from standing outside and trying to look in.
No one who has experienced it stands separate from another, nor experiences the universe as being random.
The universe is a reflection of consciousness and we project the nature of the universe individually and it seems as if we also do it en masse. But there is only One.
That is the reality of enlightenment. It is not subject to democracy it is the nature of consciousness.

We accept the laws of democracy but we often ignore the laws of nature, or project upon nature to try and fit it into the personal agenda. But eventually we will surrender to something greater than the personal agenda and the idea of being victim to a haphazard and random universe.

There is too much order within the universe to seriously follow the thought that such order is random.
The order is easily understood and experienced as the absolute.
It has been part and parcel to the nature of man since man first was.


Originally Posted By: Ellis

Plus-I think it's a cop-out for believers in one religion to endow the wise men of another with near beatitude within their own beliefs, galling though it may be to find that non-believers have previously and since come up with good ideas and arguments.!

Belief does not make something so. It doesn't matter what anyone says. First hand experience is the only thing that substantiates reality.
For those who believe this world is all there is. The reality of birth and death and the experience of just that. IT is real.

For those who experience more than that. Then that becomes real.

Within every age of man there have been guides born to lead humanity from the reality of shadows toward the reality of the light. Such men stand out as leaders of spirituality and they lead by living example.

They are not the Jim Bakers, the David Koresh's or the Jim Jone's. But people like Buddha and Jesus, who expand the way of life for humanity and have such an effect as to change the direction of living and belief for all mankind.
Regardless of belief everyone knows of Jesus whether they understand him, believe in him or not. The name resonates in the thoughts of reality as an example of truth and justice even if one believes it is a pipe dream. It was not the man who created the diverse dogma and skewed ideas of his teaching. It was the beliefs created around the followers and their ego.

The texts that were written before the appearance of these people and also prophesied these same people, speak of the nature of enlightenment and of how it would be exemplified by such people as were predicted by the prophets.

What irritates most about spirituality is the threat that exists within to the ego.
The nature of the ego is to suppress truth and spirituality for if it manifests, it means death to the way of life that is to be the victim to randomness, and to fear as a way of life.

It doesn't matter whether one believes in something that is true or not. If it is real it is true for all regardless of relative ideals and beliefs. That absolute reality has become a part of human discovery and has been experienced and shared in the personal teachings passed down from generation to generation from one enlightened soul to another.
Mainstream humanity simply does not take the time to seek these people or this truth out until they become bored with their need for instant gratification and their protective walls that they have built around them to actually ask or demand a better way of life for themselves and all of humanity.
They may stumble around in the dark out of habit trying to rearrange the same old habits for a short time, but eventually they come around and open themselves to the possibility by actually putting down everything they think is real.
Only then does the reality that seemed so transparent and unbelievable become so obvious and eternal.

The fact that it has been spoken of and taught throughout the written and spoken history of mankind and has lasted through the changing systems of belief and religion that have born and died through the ages is a kind of testimony to its everlasting nature.

It doesn't matter whether anyone believes in it or not, or who is glorified. It still remains the same.
The enlightened always speak of the glory within all men. It is only the ego that glorifies one man over another. But the glory that is spoken of is not relative to the accomplishments of man and any measure of material consequence, it is to the glory of spirit that can be brought forward into the material world, and that can only be determined by one who has themselves become enlightened.

Otherwise anyone can become a god. All you need is a television and a tribe of people who have never seen one and your a god.
Superstition is not a clear determination of Gods and reality.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27885 - 09/27/08 04:41 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, ...
For those with the patience there is a lot on the Web about Socrates and the idea of Christ.
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1701336.html
http://www.lotsofessays.com/essay_search/Socrates_Christ.html
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#27886 - 09/27/08 06:12 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
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
For those with the patience there is a lot on the Web about Socrates and the idea of Christ.
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1701336.html
http://www.lotsofessays.com/essay_search/Socrates_Christ.html
From the first link:
The study of philosophy can lead to the confirmation of Christian beliefs. Although some Christians consider philosophy to be of Satanic origin, in reality it emanates from the search by humans for meaning and order in life. Unlike science or mathematics, philosophy has no laws. Instead, philosophy is characterized by argument, alternative reasoning, and debate........


The confirmation of a belief...
Would that be like the confirmation of a thought? To establish that Christians believe in something?
I actually don't have any issue with that Idea. I think it is widely accepted that Christians have a belief.

As for the other link and its content.
I have to reiterate, that anything philosophized while being asleep is still going to be subject to greater awareness and intellect upon awakening, as is also illustrated in the excerpt from Plato's Dialogues:
In all three of these dialogues, Socrates illustrates that the nature of true knowledge often remains elusive, that it can only be truly known once the soul is freed from the body, and that the pursuit of it (i.e. the good) through philosophy while alive is the only thing that approximates happiness or wisdom.
Obviously an approximation of something not experienced, is at best going to be limited by the ego and how deeply hypnotized it is in belief based on false interpretations of reality.

Again from the first link:
These issues are of importance to all Christians. Geisler and Feinberg contend that Christians have a responsibility to study philosophy because "philosophical thought can significantly contribute to theological understanding"
I would comment on this statement in saying that by going so far in the wrong direction one would be able to tell the difference when they are going in the right direction.
However being tantamount to experience I would say most Christians who discover the good/Truth will necessarily drop the futility of philosophical thought originally engaged in the state of mind and body that was immersed in the shadow world of illusion and as Jesus the Master or Teacher did, "speak from direct experience" of "the Good" rather than philosophize their way around it.
That is what leads others to direct experience when they are ready to engage themselves in direct experience. It is also what enlivens and strengthens it within the material or relative world.
I think it was said in scripture that the measure of a man is made by what he accomplishes, not in material status and title, but in his ability to bring the spirit of the absolute forward into the relative world of the body, or to quicken the flesh.

Unfortunately the links only seem give snippets of the content of the essay unless you decide to buy into their membership, which I wasn't interested in exploring. As a consequence I only comment on what I skimmed from what was available.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27887 - 09/27/08 03:03 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
"But TT- what if enlightenment does not lead to the absolute/god..."
Ellis, I presume by now you know that I do not teach, or preach doctrines, or dogma--revealed or otherwise--which I want to impose on myself, or others.

I say this because I agree with Socrates: We really know so very little about anything. If we--I say "we" because I am agnostic about so many things, including religion--could get all agnostics to be truly sincere, humble, loving and curious enough to come together and form THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE HOLY AGNOSTICS--Atheists welcome, it would be the largest religion in the history of humane-ity.

Of course I say, and write, what I sincerely believe to be true; but, at this point there are only a few things--physical, mental and spiritual "things"--which I hold to be, self evidently, The Truth. One of them is that I am in the mystery of NOW, now--not a minute ago; not a minute from now, but now.

USING THE SOCRATIC METHOD, DIALOGUE, LETS YOU AND I DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS FOR A FEW POSTS.
=======================================================
First, when we use important words and ideas we need to be clear that we understand one another. If we cannot be clear about what we mean, it is pointless to go any further until we do understand one another. Therefore, let us be willing to dialogue until we do. If we cannot do this, let us agree to halt the dialogue and continue to offer mutual respect.

Then, second, without the intention of failing, losing out--or copping out--we will be ready to see if we can find some kind of common ground and understanding about what we mean when we say: This is what I believe to be true. Surely death, debt and taxes are not the only certainties! smile
As you said:
(NB Rev. Arguments are parts of discussions and dialogue.)

Top
#27888 - 09/27/08 03:31 PM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
ELLIS, OF THIS I AM CERTAIN NOW
At this point there are only a few things--physical, mental and spiritual "things"--which I hold to be, self evidently, The Truth. One of them is as follows:

1. I am at one, now, within the space/time cosmos and so are all other physical, mental and spiritual beings, known and unknown, with me at the same time.

Ellis, your comments and/or questions, please.

Any time I find the above is not true I am free to change my belief.


Edited by Revlgking (09/27/08 03:40 PM)

Top
#27889 - 09/27/08 06:38 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
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
OF THIS I AM CERTAIN NOW
At this point there are only a few things--physical, mental and spiritual "things"--which I hold to be, self evidently, The Truth. One of them is as follows:

1. I am at one, now, within the space/time cosmos and so are all other physical, mental and spiritual beings, known and unknown, with me at the same time.

The Truth. One of them is that I am in the mystery of NOW, now--not a minute ago; not a minute from now, but now.


The now you are referring to carries much baggage.
It carries all of your beliefs, your desires, and your past impressions of the subject and all of the responses.
This is not the now that Tolle speaks of it is the now the ego understands. It is the best that one can do when not knowing the absolute now which Tolle speaks.
The nervous system carries with it all of the memories and all of its impressions of reality in any given moment and does not forget them, even if the mind does not draw them into conscious activity of thought.

There are times when two people get together and one starts drifting into thoughts while the other person is speaking and the other person might say, "where are you?" If the person says I'm right here then the response might be that your body is but your mind isn't.
Focus then tends to derive its identification and definition from having the mind here and now, but we all know that the mind carries with it the beliefs and the past impressions of life.
When we are in deep contemplation we draw from the past, we project into the future, we set parameters for the limits of thought and idea automatically based on our experiences so that if thoughts wander outside of the box we draw them in.
The older we get the less innocence we have when being present because we carry so many ideas and beliefs about our world and our experiences we have a difficult time accepting new ideas and tasks that are foreign to our habitual way of life.

A simple example is learning a new language.
Adults have a difficult time learning a new language because of their belief in the difficulty. Habit has by the collection of experience determined that some things are difficult and others not. We have found through the process of trial and error and in the way we have been told that life is difficult in some respects and that some things are always a certain way.
Typically the average adult strains to learn new languages from being habitually attached to one they have found commonality with.

(This also applies to spirituality by the way in knowing the presence of now)

The typical child however does not have these programs of difficulty or habit running in their nervous system. They have not been programed to believe life is a certain way. For a child it is easy to absorb complex languages and in a multilingual environment a child learns easily to speak many languages at the same time.
This is innocence of being in the now. It also is a reflection of the scripture describing the innocence of children and how an adult must be in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as was spoken of by Jesus.

Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom."

They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?"

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Jesus said, "Do not fret, from morning to evening and from evening to morning, [about your food--what you're going to eat, or about your clothing--] what you are going to wear. [You're much better than the lilies, which neither card nor spin.

As for you, when you have no garment, what will you put on? Who might add to your stature? That very one will give you your garment.]"

His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?"

Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."


When you strip the habit and the past from the mind and body, the central nervous system by immersing it into the absolute now, then the mind is fed and the body is clothed with the wisdom of what he termed as that very one, which he also called the Father, Universal mind and wisdom, the mind of omniscience and not the ideals and limiting beliefs of the ego.

When Socrates spoke of the limited knowing of reality he spoke to the heart underlying the ego to not be so quick to make any assumptions based on the philosophies derived from shadows. To take the mind into the stillness of God rather than the surface waves of the ocean of thought and memory, to know God.
He also spoke in such a way as to indicate that regardless of what he said one would not know of Truth even if he spoke of it because their minds would have to be set aside from doing the listening so that the heart could engage the Truth.

This was symbolized by the words of Jesus also when he said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
The clothes he spoke of are the ideas, beliefs and philosophies derived from the ignorance of the ego.

So Dear Reverend, You have more to learn and experience to understand the full meaning of the Now.
Simply saying you are in the now does not resonate with the innocence of a child that has no prejudice, no preconceived ideas and no understanding of being persecuted within the structure of your own beliefs of safety, spirituality and freedom of expression which are laced by your rules and expectations of dialogue in its form.

You expect too much and also feel too much of your past in the present moment, to be in the Now.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#27890 - 09/27/08 10:07 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, ...
BTW, TT, I love your signature. It goes well with your lecture.

I am reminded of a story of King James II of England; of when he first viewed the newly completed, St. Paul's cathedral. At the close of his visit it is reported that he said to Sir Christopher Wren, the architect, who was admired as a genius: "I find it awful, artificial and amusing!"

Wren's ego was well pleased.

The riddle is: How come he was pleased?

And the answer to the riddle is what? ...........



Edited by Revlgking (09/28/08 02:41 AM)

Top
#27891 - 09/28/08 12:43 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
The riddle's answer... If you change the spelling slightly to that which may be closer to the contemporary meaning "aweful" as in full of awe-- it is actually a rather clever opinion.

And I think it would have been James 11.

Top
#27892 - 09/28/08 02:51 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Yes, thanks Ellis, I made the correction. And, in those days, 'artificial' meant the work of true artisans; and 'amusing' meant the work of the muses.

I have used this riddle in sermons to point out why we need new translations to reflect modern usage. Another example is 'fear' as applied to God. Fear meant to express respect and awe, not to cringe in fear.

In addition to this, we need new theological words and phrases to express new ways of looking at things, especially in this time of quantum physics, the new physics, including string theory and multi-dimensional universes.

The nouns god, gods and the proper noun 'God' no longer serve those of us who have outgrown the limitations imposed on us by theism, especially of the folk kind, of the past. They have served their day. BTW, not just unitheists (panentheists) speak as I do. Even well-read monotheists will not tell you that God is masculine and mono being who lives somewhere out there in heaven--one who listens with ears and sees with eyes.


Edited by Revlgking (09/28/08 03:38 AM)

Top
#27893 - 09/28/08 04:16 AM Re: Philosophy of religion: Yours, MIne and Ours.. [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
IN DIALOGUE WITH ELLIS
=====================
Ellis, IMO, GOD is not a one to whom we need to be led--as mentioned by you; not a someone who hides, gets lost and needs to be found; not a one who wills, creates, gets angry, blesses or judges, whatever. As Tolle agrees, GOD, "is just Being, not a Being."

Now one can resent thinking of GOD as Being. Or--and I would say at great cost and sense of well being--one can even refuse to think about living in GOD, and in the Now, at all. But it is logically impossible to lose, or avoid, Being, the infinity of space and the eternity of time, the eternal NOW--anything less than this is not GOD, it is a soma product of the egoic mind (Tolle), the psyche, the ego. One is free to stay on the mind/body level, but, IMO, that would be like a caterpillar choosing not to become a butterfly.

Yes, it is true that there are whole classes of people, like the Amish, who refuse to live in the 21st Century, but they cannot logically say there is no 21st C for those of us who choose to live in it.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
Page 8 of 13 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 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.