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 (), 218 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#30545 - 04/30/09 04:20 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Paul was very important in the development of the early Christian church, and as a person who had to achieve a total intellectual change of mind, and possibly heart, he is impressive. However he was less than accepting of the role of women in the early church, preferring them to be helpers rather than leaders, and insisting that they dress in a certain way. I remember, for eg, when I was a child, a woman could not enter the Anglican church without a head covering thanks to Paul's edicts!

So---- a universalist --maybe---- if you were the right sort (ie male) --- but a few problems if you were a bit of an uppity female!

Top
.
#30547 - 04/30/09 12:09 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: socratus
The people created a God.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am " ...


Socratus, what is your concept of "God"?

Keep in mind, for me, GØD is uncreated Being and Presence--including the space/time continuum--not a being who can be created.


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

Keep in mind, for me, GØD is uncreated Being and Presence--

Socratus.
For me too.

including the space/time continuum-

Socratus.
For me too.

-not a being who can be created.

Socratus.
For me too.

So, what is God?
=========================




Top
#30548 - 04/30/09 12:47 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Keep in mind, Jesus was speaking as member of the Jewish tradition--one with a universal approach. What we call "Christianity" came later, under the leadership of Paul.

Jesus often spoke to the Jewish Tradition, and tried to break the ideology of God and Heaven being separate from the experience of life after the physical birth and or before the death of the physical body. He himself never labeled himself as a Jew but as "The Son of God." It was the priests and their subordinates who claimed he was an abomination to the Jewish Tradition because they saw him as a threat to their tradition of beliefs.

Chrestos (Gr.) The early gnostic term for Christ. This technical term was used in the fifth century B. C. by AEschylus, Herodotus and others. The Manteumata pythocresta, or the "Oracles delivered by a Pythian God" through a pythoness, are mentioned by the former (Cho. 901), and Pythocrestos is derived from chrao. Chresterion is not only "the test of an oracle," but an offering to, or for, the oracle. Chrestes is one who explains oracles, a "prophet and soothsayer," and Chresterios, one who serves an oracle or a God. The earliest Christian writer, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, calls his co-religionists Chrestians. "It is only through ignorance that men call themselves Christians, instead of Chrestians," says Lactantius (lib. IV., cap. VII.). The terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians, were borrowed from the Temple vocabulary of the Pagans. Chrestos meant, in that vocabulary, "a disciple on probation," a candidate for hierophantship; who, when he had attained it, through Initiation, long trials and suffering, and had been anointed (i. e., "rubbed with oil," as Initiates and even Idols of the Gods were, as the last touch of ritualistic observance), was changed into Christos -- the "purified" in esoteric or mystery language. In mystic symbology, indeed, Christes or Christos meant that the "way," the Path, was already trodden and the goal reached; when the fruits of the arduous labour, uniting the personality of evanescent clay with the indestructible INDIVIDUALITY, transformed it thereby into the immortal EGO. "At the end of the way stands the Christes," the Purifier; and the union once accomplished, the Chrestos, the "man of sorrow" became Christos himself. Paul, the Initiate, knew this, and meant this precisely, when he is made to say in bad translation, "I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19), the true rendering of which is, " . . . . until you form the Christos within yourselves." But the profane, who knew only that Chrestos was in some way connected with priest and prophet, and knew nothing about the hidden meaning of Christos, insisted, as did Lactantius and Justyn Martyr, on being called Chrestians instead of Christians. Every good individual, therefore, may find Christ in his "inner man," as Paul expresses it, (Ephes. iii., 16, 17) whether he be Jew, Mussulman, Hindu or Christian.

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





Top
#30549 - 04/30/09 01:23 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
... a woman could not enter the Anglican church without a head covering thanks to Paul's edicts!

So---- a universalist--maybe---- if you were the right sort (ie male) --- but a few problems if you were a bit of an uppity female!
I think that Paul was ambivalent about women. He was also ambivalent about circumcision, and the end of history, which he failed to predict. In other words, he was not infallible. Neither was Jesus. Is anyone? Well, perhaps you and I are, eh? laugh

BTW, I suspect--just my opinion--he had a dominant-kind of mother, or wife--his "thorn in the flesh". I also suspect that he had no idea his letters would become part of the Bible--and thus a basis for laws--of the future.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#30550 - 04/30/09 08:27 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
I did not anticipate that my mention of "epiphany" would result in a somewhat tangential discussion of Pauline Christianity. However since that is where we are "at" I would simply remark, in the spirit of Krishnamurti, that organized religion has historically shown itself to be pernicious at the social level even if it is deemed to be benign or therapeutic at the individual level. At the social level it has tended to reify the chauvinistic status quo, and it is clearly over concerned with the regulation of sexuality which we, a "conscious" species which manipulates its world, ironically find difficulty in handling. For me, "spirituality" starts with a departure from religion.





Edited by eccles (04/30/09 08:27 PM)

Top
#30551 - 04/30/09 08:40 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: eccles]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
If Jesus the answer,
what is the question ?
============================

Top
#30553 - 05/01/09 02:21 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: socratus]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: socratus
If Jesus the answer,
what is the question ?
============================

Fear of the unknown pushes the ego to seek a reality that is safe.
Spirituality of the species or the interconnectedness of all things bubbles thru the individual beliefs and opinions of personal idealism and creates a smell that attracts like minded individual opinion and belief together which gathers into something like a religion.
Where people find commonality in beliefs that can create a temporary relief from fear, it ends up as a house of morals and rules to help keep the mind from thinking too much about the unknown. Unfortunately this also tends to stifle creativity to a degree because whenever a thought emerges that is outside of the box, or foreign to common belief and scientific principle it is run through the gauntlet of opposing thoughts and beliefs that live in the houses of religion. Since religion/belief is a part of all philosophy regardless of any definition, be it scientific or otherwise, the opposing thought will either inspire the few who are not bound by rules, or contract the Many who can not live without them. It is only the higher state of conscious awareness that binds the morality of universal connectedness to the one who lives without rules so that he or she who lives beyond religion and its morals is never opposed to the designs of the universe. Unfortunately Krishnamurti who was born enlightened could not relate to the ignorance of the waking state mentality of religion and could not understand why man stayed in ignorance. Like those who traversed the path of enlightenment in a single lifetime to retain the process of change required to escape the confines of religion, Krishnamurti had done the work in a previous lifetime and was born without the karma of delusion and fear that binds religion to the ego.
Krishnamurti and his followers stood on two sides of a fence and neither really understood what was on the other side. Krishnamurti was familiar with the flow of the universe but not the delusion of the ego. His followers understood their beliefs, were ignorant of their delusions, and were also fascinated by the truth Krishnamurti resonated with at a spiritually vibrant level of being. It is that vibrational resonance that inspires lesser states of consciousness, but like a faint voice that is overpowered by the stronger voice of the ego, it is suppressed by the ignorance of belief and personality.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30555 - 05/01/09 03:36 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: eccles]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: eccles
... For me, "spirituality" starts with a departure from religion.
I presume you mean the dogmatic, hypocritic, organized and sick kinds of religion. Of course I avoid them. I also avoid sick forms of spirituality.
What is it about human nature that we find it difficult not to generalize?
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#30556 - 05/01/09 03:41 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Tutor Turtle]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
Tutor Turtle,

Having visted Krishnamurti establishments, I think your analysis is somewhat nebulous.

Krishnamurti did not claim "enlightenment",and famously rejected that status thrust upon him by others. He was no paragon of virtue and his private life included at least one affair with an associate's wife. Amongst his circle (not "followers") were many intellectuals such as Yehudi Menuhin and David Bohm the physicist
none of whom could be accused of failing to see the "delusions of self". BTW, he probably states somewhere that concepts like "karma" are vacuous.

However, I agree that his oratory (including his address to the UN)tended to fall on deaf ears, probably because of the conditioning of "the world" by religious and ideological opiates, but also because the level of intellect needed to appreciate his words is beyond the masses. In addition, unlike Krishnamurti whose comfortable lifestyle was secure, others tend to caught up with the details of making a living.

Top
#30557 - 05/01/09 04:01 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: eccles]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: eccles
Tutor Turtle,

Having visted Krishnamurti establishments, I think your analysis is somewhat nebulous.

Understandable

Originally Posted By: eccles

Krishnamurti did not claim "enlightenment",and famously rejected that status thrust upon him by others.

Because he saw himself as normal while others saw him as enlightened. Without the ego based self measuring system, his innocence of being saw no limitation in those who claimed to experience a superiority of presence when compared to their own. He simply could not understand why anyone would see life any differently than he did.

Originally Posted By: eccles

He was no paragon of virtue and his private life included at least one affair with an associate's wife. Amongst his circle (not "followers") were many intellectuals such as Yehudi Menuhin and David Bohm the physicist
none of whom could be accused of failing to see the "delusions of self". BTW, he probably states somewhere that concepts like "karma" are vacuous.

Circle, followers, believers, friends, disciples... It's all a matter of perspective from the external point of view.
Interestingly enough to have an affair with another mans wife and still be called a paragon of virtue would have to point to the expression of love having no ownership or boundaries.
In the society of today as well as that in which Krishnamurti lived it was not a virtuous act to sleep with another mans wife.
The idea that love could be owned or that one could attach themselves to just one person was something that was foreign to Krishnamurti. It was not something in his nature to see it as a non-virtuous act regardless of whether the woman was married to another man. IF she made the choice to do so it would have been of here own free will and not because Krishnamurti wasn't virtuous.

Probably he stated something more substantial regarding Karma than it being vacuous. Cause and effect is a relative mechanical aspect to the creation of what is called the physical experience. Knowing the Self does not free ones self from the awareness of duality in the manifest because it (duality) must exist in order to support experience. How much of this Krishnamurti knew would have to be determined from one who is conscious enough to Know of His experience.
Consciousness recognizes consciousness.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30559 - 05/01/09 05:50 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Tutor Turtle]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
Revlgking

By "religion" I mean anything involving worship of a deity, ritual behaviour, reverence for written texts or the words of a Guru.

Turtle Tutor

K advocated the cessation of individual thought, i.e the rejection of "self". This is a call for the experience of non-duality whether or not such is practically achieveable.

Top
#30560 - 05/01/09 06:47 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: eccles]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

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

Turtle Tutor

K advocated the cessation of individual thought, i.e the rejection of "self". This is a call for the experience of non-duality whether or not such is practically achieveable.
It is very much an achievable experience. The experience of Self witnessing the Self by standing aside the ego/self.
To one that does not understand the concept it would seem an impossibility. It however in no way deletes duality but it does keep it in perspective.


Jn 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.


Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#30570 - 05/01/09 10:24 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: eccles]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: eccles
Revlgking, By "religion" I mean anything involving worship of a deity, ritual behaviour, reverence for written texts or the words of a Guru....
Eccles, thanks for communicating. Your interesting comment demonstrates how important it is for sincere people to dialogue until they do communicate.

With this is mind, if that is what you understand "religion" to be and mean, then I am not "religious". Sure, I respect others who respect whatever. But, tradition for tradition's sake, and ritual bore me!

However, I do affirm that I am working on being a self-reflective and, therefore, spiritual and humane-kind of human being.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#30574 - 05/02/09 06:32 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev- I think that the aceptance of the acknowledgement of the divinity of whatever it is a person acknowledges as their god has to be an integral part of belief. It is the repudiation of this belief, that there is some form of supernatural 'realm' (for want of a better word), that identifies an atheist. It is possible to feel awe, wonder and joy without ascribing the source to god, in whatever state of mind or form you wish to recognise him/her/ it. The explanation for the altered state of perception may have more to do with personal expectation than divine intervention.

Top
#30581 - 05/02/09 11:02 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev- I think that the acceptance of the acknowledgment of the divinity of whatever it is a person acknowledges as their god has to be an integral part of belief.
Ellis, I have no idea what you just said.

BTW, how many times do I have say: I do not believe in A god separate and apart from what IS? GOD is not a god, or God.

Quote:
It is the repudiation of this belief, that there is some form of supernatural 'realm' (for want of a better word), that identifies an atheist.
Ellis.

Holo-unitheism, like the panentheism of Spinoza and Einstein, accepts that what is, is GOD.

Quote:
It is possible to feel awe, wonder and joy without ascribing the source to god, in whatever state of mind or form you wish to recognize him/her/ it.
Go ahead! You have my blessing to do so. smile

Quote:
The explanation for the altered state of perception may have more to do with personal expectation than divine intervention.
GOD is not a god who intervenes. GOD is!!!!!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#30584 - 05/03/09 12:58 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Rev- How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT believe that what is, is God.

The thing I said that you did not understand ((? !) Is, to put it simply..... There is no god. Of any sort.

I will alter my statement to allow for semantics...... "The explanation for the altered state of perception may have more to do with personal expectation than divine presence (or even divine osmosis.)

Rev. Do you believe in a soul?

Top
#30585 - 05/03/09 02:31 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rev- How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT believe that what is, is God.


You have a right to your belief. All beliefs and opinions are nothing more, or less, than beliefs and opinions.

But note: In my comment, I used the acronym, GOD, or GØD--a short way of writing "that which is total, universal and all encompassing--and interpenetrates everything". I do not have to "believe" in it; I know it, perceive it with all my senses and experience it as reality. Years ago, the great Carl Jung made a similar statement on the BBC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&NR=1

Quote:
The thing I said that you did not understand ((? !) Is, to put it simply..... There is no god. Of any sort.


While respecting those who do, I agree with you. There is no god, or God.

Quote:
Rev. Do you believe in a soul?

I prefer to say that I am a soul, or a spiritual being. I happen to have a mind and a body in this incarnation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxlZm2AU4o&NR=1
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#30587 - 05/03/09 08:58 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Revlgking]
eccles Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/09
Posts: 149
Revlgking

Thanks for that Jung link.

My local philosophy group is discussing Heideggar at present, and your "postition" could be described by his concept of dasein. That is, your perception of "being" is couched within a particular concept of holistic consciousness, such that everything that your "self" engages in is referenced to that framework. But Heidegger both applauds this and dilutes it ! He applauds it in the sense that all should live "authentically" i.e. "true to some framework", but he dilutes it in the sense that all "frameworks" tend to be equivalent in that they are natural products of particular cultures and conditioning. Even "rebellion" against a prevailing view is dependent on that view for its significance.

Top
#30596 - 05/03/09 11:57 PM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: eccles]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Nice comment eccles!

Top
#30597 - 05/04/09 02:38 AM Re: Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
THIS IS INTERESTING
In you r last post you mentioned the word Dasien.
================================================================
Dasein is a German word famously used by Martin Heidegger in his magnum opus Being and Time. The word Dasein was used by several philosophers before Heidegger, with the meaning of "existence" or "presence".

It is derived from da-sein, which literally means being-there/here, though Heidegger was adamant that this was an inappropriate translation of Dasein. In German, Dasein is the German vernacular term for existence, as in I am pleased with my existence (ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden).

For Heidegger, however, it must not be mistaken for a subject, that is something definable in terms of consciousness or a self. Heidegger was adamant about this distinction, which carried on Nietzsche's critique of the subject.

Dasein, as a being that is constituted by its temporality, illuminates and interprets the meaning of Being in Time. For more information, see other related Heideggerian concepts, such as being-in-the-world.

Heidegger used the concept of Dasein to uncover the primal nature of "Being" (Sein) which Descartes and Kant left unexplored. Like Nietzsche, Heidegger criticized the notion of substance, arguing that Dasein is always a being engaged in the world. The fundamental mode of Being is not that of a subject or of the objective but of the coherence of Being-in-the-world.

On Heidegger's account, traditional language, logical systems, and beliefs obscure Dasein's nature from itself.

Beings are Dasein even when they are ontologically wrapped up in a tradition which obscures the authentic choice to live within and transmit this tradition.

In this case Dasein still authentically chooses the tradition when it is confronted by a paradox within the tradition and must choose to dismiss the tradition or dismiss the experience of being confronted with choice.

Heidegger attempted to maintain the definition of Dasein as we all are, in our average everydayness. Dasein does not spring into existence upon philosophical exploration of itself. Heidegger intended Dasein as a concept, in order to provide a stepping stone in the questioning of what it means to be.

When Dasein contemplates this, what seems (absurdly) circular in ontic terms, is recursive in ontological sense, because it brings the necessary appearance of time to the center of attention.

In Being and Time, Heidegger opens by positing that the potentialities of Dasein's Being extend beyond the realms disclosed by positive science or in the history of metaphysics.

"Scientific research is not the only manner of Being which this entity can have, nor is it the one which lies closest.

Moreover, Dasein itself has a special distinctiveness as compared with other entities [...]" What distinguishes Dasein from other existent entities is that "[...] in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it."

Dasein's very nature poses a philosophical (or ontological) problem for it. Thus, we see Heidegger, being Dasein, attempt to tackle this innate dilemma in his philosophical works.

_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



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.