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 (), 387 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 87 of 120 < 1 2 ... 85 86 87 88 89 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#42110 - 01/11/12 11:27 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT, thanks for your effort. It is not an easy read, I always struggle to understand what you mean.
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
That has been an issue when someone is not familiar with something outside of their beliefs and ideals. When it comes to spirituality most live in a box.
How about your "box"? Tell us about it.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Were you raised as a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or what?
Tell us about the "original teachings" "the roots". You say:
Quote:
God is not democratic. God is not a person bound by human or democratic idealisms.
I certainly agree. And G0D does not play political games. IMO, G0D simply IS.

BTW, what is the "common point of origin"? you speak of
Your "experience of God?" "Spirituality?" and "morality?" What are they?
Tell us about your location, family, and children and your vocation and avocation.
Are you still writing to BrainMeta?
========
I have no idea what you mean when you say,
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
"Beliefs color all aspects of reality and without the understanding and experience of God, spirituality and morality are subjective."
Please, re-translate.



Edited by Revlgking (01/12/12 02:13 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
.
#42115 - 01/12/12 01:46 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
How about your "box"? Tell us about it.

Well, in your eyes it is everything you believe I stand for... or don't stand for.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Tell us about the "original teachings" "the roots". You say:
Quote:
God is not democratic. God is not a person bound by human or democratic idealisms.
I certainly agree. And G0D does not play political games. IMO, G0D simply [i][b[/i]]IS[/b].

God plays all kinds of games. Humanity is a game.
As for roots.. That which I have spoken of, you have not accepted. Something about not liking a lack of definition.

Tell you what. How about you define that which simply is.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BTW, what is the "common point of origin"? you speak of
Your "experience of God?" "Spirituality?" and "morality?" What are they?

That which creates and serves the creation of humanity. In that there is nothing that is exclusive. AND nothing of the relative impresses or impacts it.

Moral action then, is that which is joined with all that IS in the reflection of creation. EVERYTHING is love, or direction and functionality.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Tell us about your location

Midwestern United States.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
family, and children

Parents and brothers all alive and well, no children of my own.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
and your vocation

Co founder and officer of a non-profit corporation.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
and avocation.
Monk of a pre-christian order.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I have no idea what you mean when you say,
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
"Beliefs color all aspects of reality and without the understanding and experience of God, spirituality and morality are subjective."
Please, re-translate.

God and the experience of God is superior to any belief system. Regardless of belief God still exists as God and does not change because of ones changing beliefs.

God is not democratic.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42119 - 01/12/12 07:24 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
If I am to understand your philosophy of religion I would like to know about
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Well, in your eyes it [box?] is everything you believe I stand for... or don't stand for.
So, list a number of things you do, or do not, stand for. List some of the "original teachings" and "the roots".

You say you are the "Co founder and officer of a non-profit corporation." Interesting. What valuable things do you produce? Do you say and believe you were a "Monk in a pre-christian order"? Does this mean you believe in re-incarnation? I keep my options open on the idea.

Do you seriously believe that
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
God plays all kinds of games. Humanity is a game. As for roots.. That which I have spoken of, you have not accepted. Something about not liking a lack of definition....That which creates and serves the creation of humanity. In that there is nothing that is exclusive. AND nothing of the relative impresses or impacts it.
Moral action then, is that which is joined with all that IS in the reflection of creation. EVERYTHING is love, or direction and functionality.
I have no idea what you mean by the above and by this
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
"Beliefs color all aspects of reality and without the understanding and experience of God, spirituality and morality are subjective."
Please, how would you tell a 12 year old the above, and this
Quote:
God and the experience of God is superior to any belief system. Regardless of belief God still exists as God and does not change because of ones changing beliefs.

God is not democratic.
You asked me about my concept of G0D. The next post following is just a start to respond to this important question.
-----------------------


Edited by Revlgking (01/12/12 07:27 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42120 - 01/12/12 07:29 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
A CONTINUATION OF MY LAST POST

FROM THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT, STANFORD UNIVERSITY. Here, and elsewhere on the Web, there are lots of new and fun ideas to explore.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

History of the word 'panentheism' (which has the same meaning as unitheism) I concocted the term to avoid the confusion with pantheism. G0D IS spirituality and BEING, not a being, or entity. G0D, in totality, is that which interpenetrates matter, but is not confined to it.)

UNITHEISM--is now in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitheism

Although Panentheism (unitheism) lacked a clear label in philosophical and religious reflection about God until Karl Krause's (17811832) creation of the term in the Eighteenth century (Gregersen 2004, 28), various advocates and critics of panentheism find evidence of incipient or implicit forms of panentheism present in religious thought as early as 1300 BCE.

The Rev. Charles Hartshorne, an Episcopalian minister, was the first to discovers the first indication of panentheistic themes in Ikhnaton (13751358 BCE), the Egyptian pharaoh often considered the first monotheist. [Hartshorne was a student and friend of A.N. Whitehead. He simplified his mentor's rather complex ideas about process philosophy and theology--ideas all worth doing a search on, today.]

In his poetic description of the sun god, Ikhnaton avoids both the separation of God from the world that will characterize theism and the identification of God with the world that will characterize pantheism (Hartshorne 1953, 2930). Early Vedantic thought, as well as some modern Indian thought, implies panentheism in non-Advaita forms that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences.

Although there are texts referring to Brahman as contracted and identical to Brahman, other texts speak of Brahman as expanded. In these texts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. Although not the dominant interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present in the Upanishads (Whittemore 1988, 33, 4144).

The Rev. Hartshorne finds additional religious concepts of God that hold the unchanging and the changing together in a way that allows for the development and significance of the non-divine in Lao-Tse (fourth century BCE) and in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (1953, 32-38).
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42121 - 01/12/12 08:04 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
If I am to understand your philosophy of religion I would like to know about
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Well, in your eyes it [box?] is everything you believe I stand for... or don't stand for.
So, list a number of things you do, or do not, stand for.
Every thing is God and No Thing is God.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

List some of the "original teachings" and "the roots".

I already have.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

You say you are the "Co founder and officer of a non-profit corporation." Interesting. What valuable things do you produce?

Value would be relative. We introduce people to what is inside of them, with the use of educational materials and direct communication.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Do you say and believe you were a "Monk in a pre-christian order"?
I wrote: I am a Monk.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Does this mean you believe in re-incarnation? I keep my options open on the idea.

I have experience and knowledge of multidimensional incarnations.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Do you seriously believe that
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
God plays all kinds of games. Humanity is a game. As for roots.. That which I have spoken of, you have not accepted. Something about not liking a lack of definition....That which creates and serves the creation of humanity. In that there is nothing that is exclusive. AND nothing of the relative impresses or impacts it.
Moral action then, is that which is joined with all that IS in the reflection of creation. EVERYTHING is love, or direction and functionality.
I was serious.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I have no idea what you mean by the above

Apparently, yes.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
and by this
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

"Beliefs color all aspects of reality and without the understanding and experience of God, spirituality and morality are subjective."
I can tell that you struggle with what I've written, both here and in past postings.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Please, how would you tell a 12 year old the above, and this[quote]God and the experience of God is superior to any belief system. Regardless of belief God still exists as God and does not change because of ones changing beliefs.

God is not democratic.

I would use less words for a 12 year old. They are much more open to experience than the average adult. Especially those who are older and set in belief.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
You asked me about my concept of G0D.

No.. I asked you to define: "All that IS"
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42135 - 01/14/12 05:37 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

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

Although Panentheism (unitheism) lacked a clear label in philosophical and religious reflection about God until Karl Krause's (17811832) creation of the term in the Eighteenth century (Gregersen 2004, 28), various advocates and critics of panentheism find evidence of incipient or implicit forms of panentheism present in religious thought as early as 1300 BCE.

Early Vedantic thought, as well as some modern Indian thought, implies panentheism in non-Advaita forms that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences.

Although there are texts referring to Brahman as contracted and identical to Brahman, other texts speak of Brahman as expanded. In these texts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. Although not the dominant interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present in the Upanishads (Whittemore 1988, 33, 4144).

The word theism (belief in God) or more succinctly the belief always precedes and follows the experience of God.
Being that any ism (distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice) must follow the established thought of that which is studied.. (This is the age of isms).. belief precedes that which is beyond belief, where experience rises from belief, and which is no longer a changing or evolving idea, but instead a substantial reality which does not change or evolve. (Which by the way is the science of Non Duality or Vedic literature and studies.)

I also mentioned that belief follows that which is spoken of by those who have re-cognized the tangible quality of the ineffible, as human experience. For example Buddhas description of the Bhuddi or the unchanging living presence within the enlightened state of being, which was also called the Christ, later described by Jesus in his ministry.

The beliefs assumed by those who heard of or followed the teachings of what both Jesus and Siddhartha taught, created a movement which later became the Bhuddist and Christian religions.

Tho the teachings were in actuality of the approach to direct experience, the population was mixed in their abilities to comprehend the language of what was being described. For the most part in their state of consciousness, belief only allowed the people to grasp the idea of God incarnate speaking of his experience of being Godly.

The superstitious then established a worship for the being they felt was superior to the typical human, and the more evolved entered into the timeless tradition of study and approach. The Same approach and discipline that Jesus and Siddhartha used to gain enlightenment.

The Brahama Sutras' written by Badarayana describe the experience of the ineffable and point towards the vastness of the absolute as having qualities within the human experience but also being beyond all quality within the quality of expanding experience.

The Upanishads describe enlightenment, or the experience of the absolute and the approach, as well as the history of guidance, or the use of discipline in focus and structure by one who has themselves mastered the approach to the experience.

The yoga Sutras written by Govinda Yogindra predate Jesus' introduction to the experience of God by some 5000 years, and in his text he describes 4 states of consciousness above and beyond the known sleeping, dreaming and waking states.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42140 - 01/15/12 03:37 PM Re: Edit of last post [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
That should be Brahma Sutra's

And

The Yoga Sutra's were written some 500 years BCE
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42142 - 01/16/12 02:10 AM Re: Edit of last post [Re: Turner]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Since I posted the numbers on December 24th there have been an additional 145,787 visitors to this thread. 5 posters of which 1 has dropped out because of disinterest, and two of which posted 1 or two times to comment on the numbers, leaving the other two to comment on the subject of interest (or its lack of interest).

On an average that is 3.5 posts per day, out of the 6,627 daily visits. But in actuality there have been few posts in the last few days.

It would appear that most of the posting around religion and its philosophy becomes active when the posts drift from the actual topic into discussions of local weather, vacations, personal interests and humor.


Just a thought....

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





Top
#42143 - 01/17/12 10:30 AM Re: Edit of last post [Re: Tutor Turtle]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Since I posted the numbers on December 24th there have been an additional 145,787 visitors to this thread. 5 posters of which 1 has dropped out because of disinterest, and two of which posted 1 or two times to comment on the numbers, leaving the other two to comment on the subject of interest (or its lack of interest).

On an average that is 3.5 posts per day, out of the 6,627 daily visits. But in actuality there have been few posts in the last few days.

It would appear that most of the posting around religion and its philosophy becomes active when the posts drift from the actual topic into discussions of local weather, vacations, personal interests and humor.


Just a thought....

Well, TT, we are surely all fully aware that the oft used and tiresome numbers nonsense is, well, nonsense. What did you say about ego? Oh yes. I might disagree with you on many things, but you do hit some nails squarely on the head. That said, if the thread is being used as a sort of social club, then at least it's providing a positive service, albeit to a bare handful of individuals.

BTW, the weather here is pretty chilly even for the cold season, and my dog is staying indoors rather more than usual.

There you go, good people, another post to add to the count smile
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#42145 - 01/17/12 03:53 PM Re: Edit of last post [Re: redewenur]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

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

Well, TT, we are surely all fully aware that the oft used and tiresome numbers nonsense is, well, nonsense.

That was rather obvious when the announcements went out about the number of hits this thread had, yes.
Originally Posted By: redewenur

What did you say about ego? Oh yes. I might disagree with you on many things, but you do hit some nails squarely on the head. That said, if the thread is being used as a sort of social club, then at least it's providing a positive service, albeit to a bare handful of individuals.

Yes global weather reports do enliven a few individuals. Some here excel in their delight to use this venue as a chat room. That being said, the number of hits becomes rather elusive when applying it to the topic of philosophy of religion.
Originally Posted By: redewenur

BTW, the weather here is pretty chilly even for the cold season, and my dog is staying indoors rather more than usual.

There you go, good people, another post to add to the count smile


Yes..there you go
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42148 - 01/17/12 11:08 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
From: Lynne Posts: 4232
The following is part of a dialogue I am having with some atheists. It may be of interest to some:

Lynne--who is very open--and I get along, well. She is quite unlike some of the posters who love to use verbal darts, flame throwers, ad hominens whatever, whenever they choose to do so. I think Lynne and I have now encouraged a dialogue, not a debate, without the darts, etc.

If you can, feel free to tune in.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx...m&tid=45660

To: RevLGKing
Posted: Jan 16 12 11:20 AM

Hi, Rev!

I think you meant to address this post to me as well as reshuffle, but I'm not sure.
===========================
Lynne, et al:
"I just spent the last two hours reading about THE PIRAHA PEOPLE--their culture and religion, etc."
About this primitive group that has no formal religion.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xghwz2_daniel-everett-loses-religion-to-amazonian-piraha-tribe_news
HAPPINESS WITHOUT GOD:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/pirah-people-who-define-happiness-without-god

From Lynne: Proving, of course, that you are eager to aquire knowledge and ideas, and to integrate those new ideas into your worldview.

"For them the H&N contains all they need--that which generates all Good, organizes all Opportunities and delivers what Delights them. In a word, they already live in what I name G0D--not to be confused with gods or the 'God' of numerous religions."

From Lynne: It's a wonderful insight, Rev. It's such a shame that some atheists apparently can't get beyond the fact that you use a form of the word "God" in reference to your philosophy. It seems the "G0D" sends up immediate red flags, preventing them from giving due consideration to what you are really saying.

IMO, the "acrimonious reactions"--against me and against anyone who dares to defend me, and my right to have controversial opinions--seems to come from a certain few atheists.

From Lynne:I agree. They are a predictable cadre. I have an atheist friend who refers to such types as "fundamatheists"...apparently unwilling or unable to entertain any POV that can be construed as sympathetic to religion or religious ideas.

Many scientists--Quantum physicists & chemists, etc.--are also devout and progressive theological thinkers.

Lynne: I have emphasized this point many times myself, especially in response to atheists who seem to question the intelligence of anyone who acknowledges the existence of a deity.

However, this is my opinion of many theists whose ideas seem more consistent with atheism than with traditional theism: Many self-identify with theism because they wish to distance themselves from the negative stereotype of atheism and atheists.

Lynne, you see I CAN respond point by point. Feel free to try me on this.

Lynne: OK...
I am officially trying!
laugh

Currently, I am a non-theistic Unitheist.
================
Lynne: In my terminology, you're an atheist...but you know I mean this as a compliment, of course! I accept, if with the same attitude if I can call you an unitheist. smile
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42149 - 01/18/12 01:29 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
This one cracked me up...



Best Peasant (curtt)
Last Visit: 5:30 PM
Posts: 7131

Print
Email

To: RevLGKing
Posted: Jan 07 12 07:16 PM



Message:
45660.465 (465 of 561)
Reply to 45660.464

Sweet Jeebus, are you ever going to get tired of making up definitions out of thin air? If you want to know what a 'true atheist' is, just ask an atheist.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42234 - 01/23/12 08:01 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
G-0-D, MODERN DEMOCRACIES, elections and the far cats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOST GENERAL ELECTIONS--AMERICAN AND CANADIAN--FAVIOUR THE FAT CATS:

Political fat Cats get fat because they love to eat mice as well as use them as servants--so that they do not have to work all that hard.

Could a new way of praying help change things?

When I chat with my many American cousins, and friends, who I love and respect--I always ask them about the phrase "Thy Kingdom come" in the so-called Lord's prayer.

I usually ask: Did you not, fight a bloody rebellion to get rid of an oppressive, undemocratic political and economic autocracy? It was not the kind of democratic monarchy we have today, in Britain and Canada.

So: How come, millions of you keep on asking a dictator-like god to send a kingdom? No wonder every four years, or so, you either get a REPUBLI-CAT KING or A DEMO-CAT one? Have you never asked: What does it matter to the mice? smile

So let us consult a democratic god. I like to think of G-0-D as All that IS: Good, 0rderly and Desirable in the universe. G-0-D is like a meta and mega-like search engine powered by Agape-Love--WILLPOWER at its best. This will get all good people, including atheists--the password to the source--IN us AND ALL AROUND US--that gets love done. If it is to be, it is up to me, and thee! NB: E-mail me for links where I write about this in more detail. Agape! smile
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42246 - 01/23/12 11:15 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

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


Could a new way of praying help change things?

Ignorance/Changing Beliefs in God, does not create Absolute Truth in God thru the changing of rituals. Instead it only creates different illusions and changing rituals.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

So let us consult a democratic god.

One that alternately changes the universe and its laws depending on the majority vote?
Humanity does not have the capacity as yet on a whole to decide it's own fate, let alone decide the fate of the universe.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I like to think of G-0-D as All that IS: Good, 0rderly and Desirable in the universe.
Following your discourses and the inability to take the opposing thought as anything other than a debate, Orderly in your projections seems defensive and limited to your personal beliefs. In a democratic society, I am sure there are others with their own defining principles and beliefs in what orderly is. I'm sure your belief in an orderly God will make a nice addition to 7 billion individual definitions of orderly, and God, on this planet.

Perhaps if you wish to campaign for G-0-D, you will have to change the beliefs of everyone to accept yours as you see them. But first you would have to find one that does not change. You change yours a quick as you think up new thoughts and new acronyms.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

G-0-D is like a meta and mega-like search engine powered by Agape-Love--WILLPOWER at its best.

Meaning that everyone gets what they focus on. Being that evolution is the basis for human development and the reflection of current Earth conditions is a result of the current G-0-D search engine, Will is hell bent on bringing itself to the brink of destruction before it realizes what it is and what God is.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
This will get all good people, including atheists--the password to the source--IN us AND ALL AROUND US--that gets love done.
No it won't. Looking for love does not necessarily bring you love,... when you don't know love.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

If it is to be, it is up to me, and thee!
Then one would need to know what is, rather than democratically determine what is, thru a democratic vote.
What is truth absolute for one, is Truth for all.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42288 - 01/26/12 09:22 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Perhaps if you wish to campaign for G-0-D, you will have to change the beliefs of everyone to accept yours as you see them.

But first you would have to find one that does not change."
I assume that you were once introduced to The One who does NOT change, and that you still are in touch. If so, please feel free to arrange an introduction for me. You say to me
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You change yours as quick as you think up new thoughts and new acronyms.
You call it "change" meaning...?. Also, BTW, you imply that you have THE changeless Truth. Have you told Ellis and Bill S, etc., yet?

Meanwhile--until I hear, convincingly, what really is THE absolute Truth--I choose to evolve within and with G-0-D.
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
...What is truth absolute for one, is Truth for all.
Seriously, and in the spirit of agape-love-based dialogue, I say: Let us all take a look. smile
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42291 - 01/27/12 12:16 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I assume that you were once introduced to The One who does NOT change, and that you still are in touch. If so, please feel free to arrange an introduction for me.

It is within your every thought feeling and action. All you need is to introduce your self to your Self.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

You say to me
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You change yours as quick as you think up new thoughts and new acronyms.
You call it "change" meaning...?.
IT meaning your beliefs
You've used G'd G*D G_D G?D etc. etc. Been an advocate of Protheism, Panentheism, Unitheism, Holotheism etc. etc. over the past few years adding all of your newest ideas and definitions as you also read new books, or web articles, taking on others ideas as your own.
You really seem to exemplify chameleonism if there is such a thing...
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Also, BTW, you imply that you have THE changeless Truth. Have you told Ellis and Bill S, etc., yet?
I do not imply that I have, but rather I experience the absolute. One does not own that which is.
Everything I have written about it, is open to all who come here. However.. finding no interest in the subject matter of this thread, few post in reference to the absolute because they would rather talk about their own personal beliefs or not post at all.

Bill refers to it in his signature quote from the Bhagavad Gita.
The Bible refers to it in Jesus' reference to the Father.
Tolle refers to it as the "NOW" and you unconsciously mentioned it in your post #42120 when you made your claims to panentheism as being similar to the topics of discussion within the Upanishads where the reference to Brahman was mentioned.

Thing is, you were campaigning for an ism. The absolute is beyond all isms. It is what all isms try to capture within the changing belief systems of imagination that precede the actual experience of that, which in itself does not change.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Meanwhile--until I hear, convincingly, what really is THE absolute Truth--I choose to evolve within and with G-0-D.

Obviously. Evolving within personal beliefs and boundaries is what most will choose to do (if you want to call rearranging the box evolution). Why should you be different? Until one has their own experience of that which underlies the diversity of belief in life, one assumes whatever the majority vote decrees thru popular belief. Which is most likely why you advocate a democratic theism.

Ultimately one evolves beyond relative democratic authority to become aware of something much more real than changing beliefs.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
...What is truth absolute for one, is Truth for all.
Seriously, and in the spirit of agape-love-based dialogue, I say: Let us all take a look. smile

Many look, but because of belief, what is seen/experienced is filtered into subjective realities.

Love, or the spirit of love being subjective and all... whistle
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42315 - 01/27/12 09:46 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
... It is within your every thought feeling and action. All you need is to introduce your self to your Self.
Precisely! Having no separation is a basic principle of unitheism. At-0NE-ment, with the "Oneness which does NOT change", is its main focus.


Edited by Revlgking (01/27/12 09:48 PM)
Edit Reason: Always a good idea!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42316 - 01/27/12 11:08 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
... It is within your every thought feeling and action. All you need is to introduce your self to your Self.
Precisely! Having no separation is a basic principle of unitheism. At-0NE-ment, with the "Oneness which does NOT change", is its main focus.


Based on your push to advertise it as an ism rather than an experience/reality, I would say you got some work to do.

Obviously from your previous statement:
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
please feel free to arrange an introduction for me.

The Atonement still eludes you....

The absolute is not democratic and it doesn't take a position on what order looks like, nor does it divide itself into dualistic characterizations of good or bad.
People who create belief systems separate from the absolute do however... try to nudge the absolute into taking their position on definitive measures of personal idealism.

Superstition still abounds in the limited ideas of unity.
Some believe it means everyone agrees on the same personal reality.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42484 - 02/07/12 12:01 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
ARE WE REALLY LISTENING TO WHAT PANTHEISTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT GOD and NATURE?
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/pantheism.htm

Site Introduction (2011): Despite several thousand years of failure to correctly understand physical reality (hence the current postmodern view that this is impossible) there is an obvious solution.
Simply unite Science (Occam's Razor / Simplicity) with Metaphysics (Dynamic Unity of Reality) and describe reality from only one substance existing, as Leibniz wrote:
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another."
---------------------------------------------------
DAWKINS, The more I read and listen to his videos, the more he SOUNDS LIKE A PANTHEIST
-----------------------------------
Recently, doing some reading on the ideas of Richard Dawkins--a very bright and friendly kind of atheist, the kind with whom having a dialogue probably is a pleasure--I came across this quote: "God", says Dawkins, "either exists or he doesn't. It's a scientific question." I agree!

So let us ask a science-based question: Are we listening to what modern pantheists really have to say?
----------------------------
As a panENtheist (or, unitheist) my respect for pantheism grows. I think of it, not as a different theology, but as pantheism plus.
Dawkins probably is a pantheist. So were, Einstein, Spinoza, Nicola Tesla, and many others past and present.

AVOIDING GENDERIZING G-0-D
--------------------------
However, I find it unnecessary to write about G-0-D as a person having a gender, as Dawkins does. This is why I use the special symbol "-0-" (Note the zero). It symbolizes all the no things, like faith, hope, love and the like, which bring things together, and help things happen and work for us.

G-0-D, then, is the totality of all the reality we call existence, which like nature is there to be explored by our scientists and used by our artists. This leads me to conclude that atheists, like Dawkins, and panentheists like me, have a lot in common.

SACRED SECULARISM
-----------------
We both, Dawkins and I, speak of the need for what he calls, "Enlightened Secular Values" and for a the kind of sacred secularism that generates Goodness, brings about good Order and delightful Design.

We who ask "God" to speak up and demonstrate that "he" is here, or there, need to keep in mind:

Perhaps we choose to be deaf and blind.
---------------------------------------
For me, G-0-D--as in panENtheism--witnesses to his/her/its reality every time we use our senses to see, hear, smell, taste and touch anything--any kind of realty in keeping with the laws of nature.

I always ask myself: Are you listening? smile

GREAT NAMES MENTIONED IN THE SITES BELOW
----------------------------------------
http://www.pantheism.net/ - World Pantheist Movement
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/ - Pantheism: Nature, Universe, Science and Religion. Natural Pantheism, a spiritual approach to Nature and the Cosmos. The Universe is divine and Nature is sacred. The history, theory and practice of Pantheism. By Paul Harrison.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#42489 - 02/07/12 06:25 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
ARE WE REALLY LISTENING TO WHAT PANTHEISTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT GOD and NATURE?
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/pantheism.htm

Does anyone who claims to be a pantheist have a greater imagination or experience than any other religionist, or do they just claim to be special/different like every religionist does? How would one determine if there is a difference without knowing reality? Does God/G-0-D label itself or do theists apply a label to define God/G-0-D?
Can all that is, be defined and limited to an idea of what is?
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Site Introduction (2011): Despite several thousand years of failure to correctly understand physical reality (hence the current postmodern view that this is impossible) there is an obvious solution.
Simply unite Science (Occam's Razor / Simplicity) with Metaphysics (Dynamic Unity of Reality) and describe reality from only one substance existing, as Leibniz wrote:
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another."

Problem: Science does not identify a source of all, and the dynamic reality of Unity becomes relative to imagination which varies from the very unenlightened religious superstitions to the scientific theories of unstable and changing values and its diverse experiences with the physical instruments of measure, which often separate themselves from human emotionally inspired value systems.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

DAWKINS, The more I read and listen to his videos, the more he SOUNDS LIKE A PANTHEIST

Everyone has an opinion, and wishful thinking often recruits comparative measures where the occasional phrase or paragraph fits into the personal agenda and belief system. Without Dawkins' making claims himself to specifically labeling himself as a Pantheist, it leaves you to your convenience in making that assertion in your favor.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Recently, doing some reading on the ideas of Richard Dawkins--a very bright and friendly kind of atheist, the kind with whom having a dialogue probably is a pleasure--

Or not.. (One can never know if one would simply accept an interest in ones ideals or vehemently counter with their own direct experience).
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I came across this quote: "God", says Dawkins, "either exists or he doesn't. It's a scientific question." I agree!

An assumption made from disinterest. I also agree that this conclusion is made from someone who does not insist on pursuing the experience or knowledge without an interest.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

So let us ask a science-based question: Are we listening to what modern pantheists really have to say?

First lets ask another scientific question. Do Pantheists base their sermons on scientific fact which is verifiable as truth for all? Or are you presupposing your question to apply to the combination of metaphysics and simplicity in your personal design as being scientific.
-
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

As a panENtheist (or, unitheist) my respect for pantheism grows. I think of it, not as a different theology, but as pantheism plus.
Dawkins probably is a pantheist. So were, Einstein, Spinoza, Nicola Tesla, and many others past and present.

If we use what you call scientific determination.. "They were or they were not".. I'm sure it would be convenient to make the assumption to label them without having their direct feedback as to what you imply upon their own personal experiences and thoughts.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

AVOIDING GENDERIZING G-0-D
--------------------------
However, I find it unnecessary to write about G-0-D as a person having a gender, as Dawkins does.

Not really understanding how Dawkins as an Atheist would lean toward defining what God is sans gender, but I'm sure that slipped your mind.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
This is why I use the special symbol "-0-" (Note the zero). It symbolizes all the no things, like faith, hope, love and the like, which bring things together, and help things happen and work for us.
Faith, hope, love and the like are very real subjective things which are experienced by most people. Not sure how they have become no things. And to say they have brought order to the things that work for us is debatable. The love of God and the faith in the beliefs in God being a subjective deity has brought many conflicts which tried to bring a type of order thru the persecution of innocent people that had their own ideas which went against the grain of those who decided what Gods order should look like. Some could say love in all of its twisting by fear and jealousy has inspired the faith in a jealous God to order the death of innocent human beings.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

G-0-D, then, is the totality of all the reality we call existence, which like nature is there to be explored by our scientists and used by our artists.
This necessarily limits G-0-D the known. Outside of the known G-0-D has yet to be included. Because your G-0-D is limited to the totality of one dimensional reality which we identify with. But I'm sure you are soon to amend that thought since it has been brought to your attention. You have a way with revising your sermons to include new ideas.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

This leads me to conclude that atheists, like Dawkins, and panentheists like me, have a lot in common.

A matter of conveience, yes I got that.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

SACRED SECULARISM
-----------------
We both, Dawkins and I, speak of the need for what he calls, "Enlightened Secular Values" and for a the kind of sacred secularism that generates Goodness, brings about good Order and delightful Design.

Are we enlightened yet? That would seem to be a prerequisite to enlightened value systems.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

We who ask "God" to speak up and demonstrate that "he" is here, or there, need to keep in mind:

Perhaps we choose to be deaf and blind.

That can be the outcome of unconscious determinations rallying around convenience to personal realities that are in fact illusions of belief, rather than stable truths within changing personal realities.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

For me, G-0-D--as in panENtheism--witnesses to his/her/its reality every time we use our senses to see, hear, smell, taste and touch anything--any kind of realty in keeping with the laws of nature.

With 7 billion different experiences, and an individual perspective of sight, touch, taste, smell in the co-creation of reality, is the witness objective or subjective? Mostly we are familiar with three states of consciousness, which are sleeping dreaming and waking. Many dream and sleep while awake, and few ever step outside of the three states of consciousness to discover or stabilize their awareness beyond those first three.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I always ask myself: Are you listening? smile
Could you really hear if you did listen.. or better yet, what do you think you are listening for? Do you listen for what you already know, or what you do not yet know, or what you believe in?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
Page 87 of 120 < 1 2 ... 85 86 87 88 89 ... 119 120 >



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

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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