Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: TheFallibleFiend Reinventing the Sacred - 05/15/08 01:41 PM

I attended a talk by Stuart Kauffman two nights ago.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman06/kauffman06_index.html

He talked about some of his ideas from his new book "Reinventing the Sacred."
More information about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman

He was on the dissertation committee for a friend and colleague who introduced me to him.

Pretty interesting talk. Not sure I buy into the whole idea. He's an atheist, to be sure, but he has a conception of God, or something we can call God. God is not "the creator," but the "creativity" in the universe. I bought his book last night and will probably get around to reading it towards the end of this year.

The word 'God' comes with a lot of baggage - so much that it's almost impossible for most people to use it in this new sense without bringing in all those other ideas.
Posted By: samwik Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/15/08 05:56 PM
TFF!
..no time to talk today, but; from your link on SK:
"This emerging view finds a natural scientific place for value and ethics, and places us as co-creators of the enormous web of emerging complexity that is the evolving biosphere and human economics and culture."

...a quote worthy of Whitehead's Metaphysics certainly (if not plagerized -LOL).
Process philosophy, concresence, prehension....

Emphasis on Creativity (the process) ...and us as "co-creators."

I love his direction; to apply this to "the evolving biosphere and human economics and culture."

Cool stuff.... Thanks!
~Later

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/15/08 07:41 PM
TFF, thanks for telling us about Stuart Kauffman (Reinventing the Sacred) and about his, "conception of God, or something we can call God. God is not "the creator," but the "creativity" in the universe."

Based on my reading of Alfred North Whitehead's Process Theology in the 1970's--introduced to me by my assistant--I have been preaching and teaching about this creativity which I believe is going on, in through and around us, all the time. This is what led me to concoct the acronym, GØD and to call myself a unitheist http://www.unitheism.org It got me away from thinking about a God, out there--a creator separate and apart from the process going on all the time.

Here is what is important to me now: What is the practical value of being aware of this "Creativity"--GØD?


Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/15/08 07:45 PM
I suppose the message is that Pagans have hearts too. What's new?
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/16/08 12:06 AM
RedE: How did you guess? smile

Assuming that 'heart' means 'spirit', I also assume that Pagans also have minds and bodies.
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/16/08 02:39 AM
I should have known that I wouldn't get away with such a brief comment smile

Rev: "I also assume that Pagans also have minds and bodies."

That's not as flippant as it might appear, since our human minds and bodies define our 'emergent' qualities - an obvious but essential point in discussing 'heart' or 'spirit'. But the words 'heart' and 'spirit' may be ambiguous. In this case, I use the common understanding in which 'heart' means the ordinary capacity to experience the range of emotions permitted by our human physiology. I assert that ultimate meaning and purpose are experienced, and therefore known, via nothing more nor less than the light of emotion. I'm quite certain that there's nothing in the nature of this emergent quality called 'emotion' that distinguishes the reductionist from the emergentist, nor the atheist from the theist. It follows that ultimate meaning and purpose can be experienced by all of the aforementioned. The formulation and construction of a god, or deity substitute, is an optional embellishment that will vary according to one's culture and background. I have not read Stuart Kauffman's book but, from what I have read, I would say that his background has come to the fore in his personal formulation.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/16/08 04:11 PM
No flippancy, in the negative sense of the word, was intended.
I put more stock in what Pagans, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever, do and how they live their lives than I do in what they say they believe. Deeds, not creeds, are what is important to me.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/27/08 03:38 AM
Dr. Willis Lamb, physicist, died May 15. He was 94. He and Dr. Paul Kusch won a Nobel Prize in 1955, in physics. They discovered that empty space is not empty; it roils with "virtual particles" that pop into and out of existence too quickly to be detected.

Can any physicist, in lay terms, explain what all this means for physics, today. Maybe the physical world isn't just physical, anymore. It is beginning to sound like what some people call the realm of the spirit, IMO.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1955/
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/27/08 05:03 AM
Rev.

I don't have the physicists answer, of course, but further to your remarks about vitual particles, I recently heard Frank Wilczac talking about the nature of space. In a nutshell, he said that space is not simply emptiness, but has a substantial form. He expects that work at LHC may soon provide a definitive answer to the question of what the fabric of space really consists of. I'll try to find the Wilczac podcast.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/27/08 06:53 AM
Great article which I did not do justice to by reading it too quickly! Pressed for time but I'll have another go tomorrow. I too was struck by the quote mentioned by samwick, but also I was fascinated by the thought of "ceaseless creation in ways untold". What is it that is described here if not chaos, something which I have long thought is at the heart of the nature of space? Or will the fabric of space turn out to be predictable and subject to rules after all? I do hope not!
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/27/08 11:17 AM
Rev

From the podcast I mentioned earlier (available via link below):

"...our theory of the basic electric and weak forces - the so-called electroweak theory - two of the four fundamental forces of nature, has, as a fundamental component, the idea that what we perceive as empty space is not empty at all. That it has material properties and that, in fact, it's a kind of exotic superconductor. But, unlike ordinary superconductors, we don't know what makes empty space have the properties it does. And so, there are hypotheses about what it is - many different hypotheses - but the way we're going to find out for sure is to break off little chips of this material that we perceive ordinarily as empty space, and examine them and find out what their properties are. So, that goes under the name 'Higg's Boson', and it might be just one new kind of particle that does the job; but I suspect that it's a much richer story, and that we'll find that there's a whole world of phenomena connected with the superconducting property of empty space." - Frank Wilczec, NPR Science Friday

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89562587

So the situation is that we may be close to gaining some radically new knowledge regarding some of the greatest contemporary mysteries of the physical universe.
_ _ _

Ellis: "Or will the fabric of space turn out to be predictable and subject to rules after all? I do hope not!"

Whatever space turns out to be, I wouldn't concern yourself about it. On the macro scale (a virus will do) events are predictable in accordance with the established physical laws. But at the quantum level, the universe is quite different. It's a realm of probabilities, not certainties, and whilst consciousness itself appears to have a role to play, the phenomena of that realm lie beyond the intuitive grasp of the human mind.
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/27/08 05:49 PM
Hi, Ellis. (I meant to append this to the above, but it's too late to edit)

This is from Lawrence M. Krauss, in which he talks about quantum mechanics as demonstrated by the famous double slit experiment:

It's absolutely ridiculous what happens when particles go through two slits...When I throw a baseball...it takes a known trajectory, usually(and ends up in a catcher's hand!), and we can calculate that...But when you throw an electron, of course, it doesn't do that...it takes every possible way to get from one place to another, all at the same time...An electron, when you send it out, will go through both [slits] at the same time, and interfere with itself when it comes out at the end, and therefore produce a very strange pattern on the other side of the slits. Now you say well, this is ridiculous, the electron either went through one slit or the other, so I'll watch it. So you turn on...an electron detector, and indeed each electron goes through one slit or the other...and when you look behind the slits, you see that the pattern is different. Having watched it...you've changed the pattern, and so you know it was doing something very different when you weren't watching it. And that is...very objectionable!...Quantum mechanics is profoundly unnerving because of that, and it has many philosophical implications that many people are still disturbed about...In my own field - something I'm just working on - trying to understand, is...if the universe, as a whole, is a quantum mechanical system - which it surely is if quantum mechanics governs it - then what does it mean if your inside of it?

I've posted this because, as Prof. Krauss mentions, this has many philosophical implications.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/27/08 08:31 PM
RedE, et al: I assume you realize that this, to me, sounds a lot like philosophy and theology. smile
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/28/08 03:14 AM
Rede stop it, this is all making me think far too hard. I only have "the intuitive grasp of the human mind" to help me in this! Are you saying the pattern changed simply when you were not observing it, or was it changed because you were observing it and somehow that changes the result because you are literally part of this equation? I just read what I just wrote and probably that is quite silly? If it were so it would really have huge implications!

I still think space sounds very un-ordered (I am not using 'chaos' as that term has a definite meaning now, and I don't want to use it in that sense here.

I have reread the post from Kaufmann and find that some of it appeals to me a lot. Thanks. FF.
Posted By: odin1 Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/28/08 04:00 AM
Hello everyone,

I would ask the question in a simplified way. Could space be "time"? Suppose "space" is the vehicle that controls time or "stores" it.

Let me give an example.

We live in a solar system that exist in a galaxy that rotates. The planets rotate around our sun while the solar system moves around the center of the galaxy, now said to be a black hole.
Suppose you wanted to go back in time to 400 AD and you could determine approximately using the sun as a reference point to that point in space where the sun was in 400AD. If you had enough energy to produce a wormhole could you travel back in time? Kinof like a record. You put the stylus where you want it to listen to the music you want to hear.

odin1
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/28/08 04:53 AM
Ellis

"Are you saying the pattern changed simply when you were not observing it...?"

- No. When the action is not observed, the pattern appears.

"...or was it changed because you were observing it and somehow that changes the result because you are literally part of this equation?"

- Yes. Until the process is observed, the same pattern will result - it's a pattern that would result if the particle were taking every possible route from A to B - simultaneously - then interacting with itself (or other selves!) upon arrival. Yet when it is observed, it takes a single route to the exclusion of all others. The act of observing changes the behaviour.

Rev

"I assume you realize that this, to me, sounds a lot like philosophy and theology."

- Yes. smile (That's why I raised it in this thread)
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/29/08 01:03 AM
Rede..."...or was it changed because you were observing it and somehow that changes the result because you are literally part of this equation?"

and

Rev "I assume you realize that this, to me, sounds a lot like philosophy and theology."

Does this sound like the reasons for believing in god which rely on belief and not proof? If that is so then there is a similarity. Or is it that the change occurs because it is observed and it is the observation which ensures the result? In which case the observation would act as an enabler or as a catalyst, or even as the promoter if it was a calculated response.

However if the observer is determining the result, what happens to the possibility of the other copies of the pattern that would have appeared if it were not being observed? Do they still exist though unobserved? If the patterns need an observer to be seen, and the act of observing changes the behaviour would the observed pattern be the same in every case? You'd have to imagine not- as the observer will bring a different point of view (literally as well as figuratively) wouldn't they? Although by taking every possible route the pattern would perhaps differ any way! If they still exist that is.

I am really interested in this. Is there some very, very simple elementary stuff available to read about it? VERY simple! I've looked up Kaufmann and read some of it but I think he has an agenda whereas I would like to look at the ideas rather than the argument developed from them.




Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/29/08 02:48 AM
Ellis, you ask:
Does this sound like the reasons for believing in god, which rely on belief and not proof?

Ellis, I am not sure what you are asking here. But please keep in mind: Because of the concept of GØD, which I hold, I have evidence for that part of GØD which I experience with my senses. From experience, I know the part of GØD which I know.

For example, I don't have to experience all of the Atlantic ocean to know that there is such a thing as the Atlantic ocean.

I always ask atheists: If you know, and experience existence, and that you exist, how can you possibly deny existence?
Of course, you are free to reject existence, and choose not to exist, but are you free to deny that there is such a thing as existence for those who choose to go on existing?
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/29/08 05:45 AM
Ellis: "However if the observer is determining the result, what happens to the possibility of the other copies of the pattern that would have appeared if it were not being observed? Do they still exist though unobserved?"

- There's no current knowledge regarding this, although there are some interesting hypotheses, e.g. the 'many worlds' and 'decoherence'. Both of the latter suggest that all possible states still exist beyond the realm of measurement; in the former case, via parallel universes, and in the latter by superposition. David Deutsch, however, makes it clear that in his view, decoherence and superposition can only be explained by the 'many worlds' (a species of 'multiverse')

Incidently, we should consider that there's a subtle difference between these two statements:

(a) The observer determines the result
(b) The act of observation determines the result

Ellis: "would the observed pattern be the same in every case?"

- The pattern is an interference pattern similar (in principle) to what you see when you throw two pebbles into a pond and the ripples overlap. See:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ottisoft.com/images/InterferScreenShot.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ottisoft.com/interfer.htm&h=480&w=640&sz=88&tbnid=ceTQj-xlcZ8J:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dinterference%2Bpattern&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2

In the case of the double slit experiment, the change is simply the presence or absence of an interference pattern.

More to ponder...

"Now, you might say, what if I decide not to look at the detector set up next to one or the other of the slits? Well, one still does not get an interference pattern because the potential exists for one to be able to tell which path the photon, for example, travelled. Even this potential (i.e., "knowability") is enough to stop the formation of an interference pattern". Conversely, "...if one is ignorant of which path the photon took, then an interference pattern is not just possible, it must occur."

John Wheeler introduced a thought experiment, based upon the double slit experiment. In this experiment, the light source is a quasar 1 billion light years away. As a result of gravitational lensing, the light from the quasar reaches us from two different angles, thus giving the appearance of coming from two different sources (this happens, and is useful to astronomers). The effect, then, is like that of the double slit. Now, supposing that one could ensure that the two paths taken by the photons were of equal length (say, a billion lt yrs), then it would be possible for a single photon to arrive from the source at the same instant via each route - and thus interfere with itself, as evident from the pattern on a suitable screen. But then, when the appropriate observation is made, there will be no such pattern, and therefore the photon 'suddenly' did not follow both routes. So, what happened one billion years ago will have been determined by the act of observation here and now.

Details at http://www.seti.org/news/features/quantum-astronomy-knowability.php

To illustrate his point, John Wheeler used that extreme example of time and distance, but if you think about it, you will see that owing to the limiting speed of light, all such double slit experiments, whether real or 'Gedanken' demonstrate a direct association between consciousness/knowing and quantum events of the past.

As I've always claimed to know from personal experience (I guess I can get away with that in an NQS thread smile ), there's more to space, time and consciousness than meets the eye...or the understanding.
Posted By: samwik Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/30/08 07:50 AM
I've been wanting to contribute more to this thread, but frown
...and I still need to catch up.

This could go anywhere, but the final link makes me put it here:

Thanks Canuk, for....
http://brneurosci.org/
This is just an amazing site; well worth a quick look. I haven't looked far, but what I've seen so far is of superior quality, and relevant to many of the popular subjects here.
For instance:
http://brneurosci.org/political.html
...or, especially...
http://brneurosci.org/subjectivity.html
Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Information, and Subjectivity

Hope this will help, if not inspire something....
smile
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/30/08 01:32 PM
In a thread titled: God/Religion a creation of the powerful human mind ?/!

TL writes
Quote:
We are the Universe experiencing itself. That is God, we are God, all is God. Everything else is semantics and personal taste.

For what follows, check out:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19195&hl=
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/31/08 03:01 AM
Sam-- thank you for 15 mins of escapist laughter! With my usual talent for honing in on the unimportant I found Bruce de Nostradamus. Brilliant stuff, and the Franglais is wonderful.

I am saving up reading the Physics of Shakespearean Sonnets!
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/31/08 11:10 AM
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
In a thread titled: God/Religion a creation of the powerful human mind ?/!

TL writes
Quote:
We are the Universe experiencing itself. That is God, we are God, all is God. Everything else is semantics and personal taste.

For what follows, check out:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19195&hl=
Thanks, Rev. Checked that out.

"We are the Universe experiencing itself"

- Maybe we are an infinitely small part of an infinity of universes, experiencing an infinitely small part of one of themselves. Maybe we are a simulation existing only in a computer. Maybe..., or maybe..., or maybe...

"That is God..."

- Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.

"...we are God"

- Maybe we are part of the writer's God, or maybe his God doesn't exist, or is almost wholly misconceived.

"Everything else is semantics and personal taste"

- The basis of any dialogue on metaphysics is semantics and opinion about the unknowable, serving to propagate, consolidate or weaken opinion. According to 'personal taste'? - In many cases, perhaps; but in other cases according to one's idea of what is reasonable and probable, even if not provable.

So, although the dialogue inevitably becomes endlessly cyclic, and even though it cannot provide definitive answers to metaphysical questions, it can be useful. For many who have been indoctrinated into a religious dogma, however, questions of 'personal taste', 'reasonable' and 'probable' are much less likely to arise, and dialogue is more likely to be of little or no value. Statements like those quoted above, though probably well considered and not a product of indoctrination, are nonetheless dogmatic.

That's my opinion, subject, of course, to possible modification pending unanticipated data...etc, etc, etc grin
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 05/31/08 10:23 PM
Quote:
That's my opinion, subject, of course, to possible modification pending unanticipated data...etc, etc, etc
RedE, this is the kind of spirit of dialogue we need, which, I feel, can lead to understanding.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/01/08 06:45 AM
In my opinion the most important proof of the existence of an entity/state/whatever which is defined as 'god' is the belief that it 'is'. I think that god (however defined) is a human construct, with rules and dogma sustained by the faith of the believer in the divine.

Without belief there can be NO god.

Would god exist if believers did not profess their belief? I think not.

Does god exist in the minds of those who profess certainty of belief? I think so.

Why would people believe in god? I guess there are as many reasons as there are people, and almost as many manifestations of god, but from observation it seems to me that many profess belief in god for comfort, for advancement, for surety and for peace of mind- amongst many other things. It is true that many get reassurance from belief in god, however they imagine the divine, but their belief is not proof of the existence of god. It merely proves their own faith in the existence of such a possibility.

So-if you think there is a god--then for you there probably is. However if you do not think that there is a god --well, for you there definitely isn't.

It's a matter of choice.



Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/01/08 11:56 AM
Ellis: "Would god exist if believers did not profess their belief? I think not."

- You seem to be saying that God, the conceptualisation, is real in the way that a dream is a real dream; that it has abstract reality. I suppose that many theists would agree with that; but where you differ is in your belief that there is no counterpart as a creator and sustainer of the cosmos.

Ellis: "Without belief there can be NO god"

- I take that statement to be untrue, because (a) reality is independent of belief, and (b)metaphysical reality can be neither proved nor disproved. Right?

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/01/08 08:48 PM
Ellis, you say, "So-if you think there is a god--then, for you, there probably is...." I presume the same principle applies when we think of children who believe in Santa. But keep in mind: for the child, this is a subjective reality, not an objective one for all others, agreed?

The thought just came to me: I wonder how many adult theists--that is, people who speak of God as if he is a "He", one who blesses and judges people--...I wonder if they ever stop to think that it appears that they seem to speak of God in the same way as young children do of Santa?
======================================
BTW, RedE, if you grant me the right to define the kind of god concept which I accept as valid, I do not rely on faith alone. Even when I walk by faith, I walk in the light, the insight that I have, not blind faith.
Posted By: samwik Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/01/08 10:39 PM
Ellis,
Not to pile on, but....

In terms of external realities, don't you think there could be some facet of this weird universe, to which we are currently blind, that could qualify for being defined as godish?

I'm a lifelong atheistic science wonk, but it is science that leads me to admit for the possibility of some such facet of "true reality," that may be godish and provide some underlying connectivity, and perhaps even "purpose," to life in general. It's easy to translate to that view, from the many different views of those whose understanding might externalize, objectify, reify, concretize, or even anthropomorphize that potential intrinsic aspect of reality.

~ smile
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/02/08 12:35 AM
Godish-- lovely word. And the perception of the reality of god including-"the many different views of those whose understanding might externalize, objectify, reify, concretize, or even anthropomorphize that potential intrinsic aspect of reality." Did you mean deify by the way? I agree but I would add "deify" or "worship" the list. God-ness surely implies worship or some other acknowledgment of the divinity that, for the religious, accompanies the recognition of godish god-ness. It is necessary to take the leap into the unknown that leaves us so uneasy we ascribe it to god. Or not. Once again it is down to personal belief and perception.

Rev wrote" I presume the same principle applies when we think of children who believe in Santa. But keep in mind: for the child, this is a subjective reality, not an objective one for all others, agreed?"

That is exactly what I mean. One's personal faith is just that, personal. No one can know what you believe. Therefore if you believe that there is a god then there is, for you and other like minded people. If you don't believe no one can make you.

Belief creates god- and don't forget that Jesus suggests that we become more like little children in our trust.

Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/02/08 05:39 AM
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
BTW, RedE, if you grant me the right to define the kind of god concept which I accept as valid, I do not rely on faith alone. Even when I walk by faith, I walk in the light, the insight that I have, not blind faith.

You have that right, and it's not for me, or anyone else, to grant it.

I do, however, argue strongly against many beliefs, not on the basis that they differ from my own, but because they contradict and conflict with the verifiable, non-metaphysical aspects of the universe. Such beliefs, it seems to me, almost always result from indoctrination into a religion that advocates blind faith as a central virtue.

Conversely, I admire and congratulate people who have the courage to re-examine their beliefs in the light of the aforementioned aspects.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/02/08 12:08 PM
"In a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all times."

- Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World

For the mathematical roots of Whitehead's cosmological thought check out:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2365
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/02/08 05:17 PM
Browsing I just came across the following references to unitheism:

http://users.skynet.be/horizons/unitheisme/indexeng.html
UNITHEISM
English [Español] [français]

UNITHEISM : the true universal religion was born.

God addresses to all human beings a new message of joy, freedom, tolerance and

fraternity. God wants human beings to put an end to religious fights and wars.

He wants human beings - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists,

Pantheists and all followers of any sects - to join the universal peace.
===============
Aanother reference from a Muslim writer:
CHAPTER ONE
===============
What are the origins of religion and why does the theological science that deals with them is called the science of (Kalam)? [1]

* The origins of religion are; unitheism; belief in the prophet hood of Muhammad, belief in the Resurrection; belief in the twelve Apostolic Imama; and belief in the justice of Allah.

They are considered the fundamentals of the holy building of Islam, assuming that the structure of religion as a whole is relying on them; i-e without them any lawful regulation can not be authenticated.

Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/03/08 04:04 AM
Rev wrote:

"God wants human beings to put an end to religious fights and wars" - as part of a definition of unitheism.

Perhaps if there were no religions it would be a quicker way to stop religious wars than waiting for your particular sort of god to suggest stopping fighting.

Or to put it simply -- No religion = no religious war.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/03/08 01:15 PM
"Perhaps if there were no religions it would be ..." Ellis, I am sure you realize you are dreaming, in colour, eh?

"God wants human beings to put an end to religious fights and wars" - Keep in mind, this was a quote from an article I found.

Think semantically here: Do not assume that you know what I mean by 'GØD'. When I use the term 'GØD' I never use it to depict an objective super being, up or out there, who wants this that or the other thing, one who answers and/or denies prayers we make to "Him". 'GØD' is a concept which CAN operate without what you call "religion".
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/04/08 05:34 PM
Soma, in the PROCESS FORUM wrote me:
Quote:
God the Father is an undivided and indivisible Whole, a pure consciousness that fills all time and permeates all space. This makes our purpose not to find God, but to realize God's presence and to understand that this all pervading consciousness is always with us. Life flows up from the inside where the Divine Presence is springing up from within us. When we realize this, we recognize that this all-pervading consciousness is responding to us from every person, thing or event that transpires. The Divine Presence is everywhere so let us awaken to the realization of this Presence.


Thanks Soma, I responded. The I told the following story to illustrate the point he made:

One Friday evening, while serving as a minister, as I was getting ready to take my family out for dinner, the phone rang. When I answered I heard the voice of a teenager girl, who gave me her name, which I recognized:

"Rev. King, I am calling from a pay phone. I hate to bother you at home, but something terrible has happened to our family. When I got home from school my parents were out on the street and loading our few belongings into the old truck we own. We got evicted. I realize that you may not be able to help us, but I thought I would call, anyway."

Besides the teenager and her parents there was a two-year old boy.

"Jinny, I said, I know that you and your mother--by the way, she was a very shy person with very little to say--and your baby brother come to church regularly. I also know that you have come to my classes on pneumatology about how we can work with the power of God, which is in through and around us, to get things done and moving in our lives.

Before I say anything else, will you agree, in harmony with me and my family, to tune in, that is, to connect with, the Holy Spirit (Pneuma) of God and make the positive affirmation that we will be guided as to the best way to handle this problem."

Her immediate response was, "Yes!"

Now, put your mother on the line. I asked the mother to do the same thing that I asked her daughter to do. Like her daughter she, immediately, agreed.

Then I asked: "Is your husband near?"

"Yes" she said, "He's across the road loading the truck. But he is not interested in God, or the church. He is kind of bitter about such things."

When she told me that he was within shouting distance I said, "Tell him I would really like to speak to him, just for a minute or two and for the sake of his children. Tell him that I promise not to preach at him."

When he came to the phone I told him about what his wife, his daughter, and the Kings, agreed to do. Then I asked him if he would join in.

His immediate response was: "I would feel like a fool if I prayed to a God...not believing in his existence."

"I understand" I said. "But I am not asking you to belive in a god, out there, or up there, who hears and answers prayers as if he were a Santa Claus.

Instead, I want you to imagine, or even pretend, that I have access to a super computer which is programmed to answer any rational question you and I are prepared to ask, and with a rational answer. Would you be willing to make use of such a computer?"

"If it were true, I would be a fool to refuse. Okay, I will play your pretend game."

Then I said, "When you have finished loading your stuff. Drive over to the church and I will meet you, there, in about fifty minutes, or so. There, we have a good kitchen. Bring any food you have. There is also a room, there, which you can use for the week-end, at least.

This will give us time to figure out the next move. I will speak to the social services people on Monday. Meanwhile, with the rest of the family, and my family, visualize that we will get the help we need. I will leave from here in about thirty minutes.

Just as I was about to leave to drive over to the church the phone rang. It was the unemployed trucker.

"Mr. King. I am glad I caught you before you left. About fifteen minutes after we spoke, just as I was putting the last few items on my truck, I remembered the name and number of a friend I haven't seen since he moved out of the city. He lives on his small farm--he is also was into trucking. He lives about ninety minutes drive out of the city. Years ago, we were good buddies and I did him a favour, more than once. I phoned him and told him my problem.

"His immediate response was: Come on out. I have space for you and your family. As a matter of fact I was wondering where you were. I am now in the position where I need a good reliable person. Do you still have you truckers license."

Even I was amazed at how quickly things came together. And this is not an isolated incident.
"In all things, God works together for good..." as Paul put.
=========================0000000000000=======================
_________________
Unitheism--a doublet for panentheism--thinks of GØD as all pervasive, inter-penetrating all that IS--body, mind, spirit. GØD is Love=goodness, order, openness, and design, direction and dedication.
=============================
BTW, I wonder if humane atheists ever make use of this all pervasive consciousness, which I call, GØD?
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/04/08 08:23 PM
"Perhaps if there were no religions it would be ..." Ellis, as I said already, I am sure you realize you are dreaming, in colour, eh?

Just today, I heard Charlie Rose--He has a daily interview program on American public TV--interview George Will, the well-respected writer, Republican and commentator on the political economy.

THE PLACE OF RELIGION AND ETHNICITY
===================================
He said that, in any society, there are two persistent sacred qualities which most human beings hold to, openly and otherwise: their religion and their ethnicity.

He made the point: Most people, for better or for worse, want to, and do, stick with their religion (their way of life) and their ethos (their character).

In my opinion, it is possible to develop a more enlightened-and-accepting kind of open-approach to religion. It is possible to agree to disagree agreeably--and to cultivate a positive mental attitude towards all ethnic groups, including humane people who choose to avoid all formal religion--agnostics and atheists.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/05/08 05:31 AM
By ethnicity do you mean character? I had always thought that ethnicity was a person's culture or tradition-- and it is often used to denote a racial group. I have never heard the term applied to the characteristic of individual character before.

However I do not agree with Mr Rose (or was it Mr Will). The statement as quoted presupposes that everyone believes in god, or at the very least subscribes to a religion, and that's not so. As you can see I hope that one day religion will not be important enough to cause wars. That's any religion and any wars! With divisive statements like those of Mr Rose and/or Mr Will You can certainly see why.

I am cheered they left me with my ethos-- whatever may be meant by that term. I have explained before-- It is possible to be a nice person who is basically kind, gentle and loving, and an atheist. ( NO- not me-- but the really nice person I am married to!)
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/05/08 10:41 AM
Ellis: Here is what Dictionary.com says:
eth·nic·i·ty (th-ns-t)

n.
1. Ethnic character, background, or affiliation.
2. An ethnic group.
Noun 1. ethnicity - an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"
quality - an essential and distinguishing attribute of something or someone; "the quality of mercy is not strained"--Shakespeare
==========================================================

e·thos (ths)
n.
The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement: "They cultivated a subversive alternative ethos" Anthony Burgess.
=======================
I guess our character is formed by our ethos.

Ellis, how come you are NOT an atheist? I presume you NOT are active in any religion. Were you ever? And if not now, what caused you to quit?

Keep in mind that I respect humane atheists? If they live lives which are of service to humanity, I call that religion, just not the formalized kind.

BTW, keep in mind that the early Christians were persecuted as atheists. Jesus was accused of not accepting, without question, the concept of the Old Testament God--Jehovah, or YHWH. Check John 10, where he accused of thinking of himself as 'god'.
If there is no "God", are not atheists assuming the character of a god?

Me? I think of the whole collectivity, all that is, as GOD, in the process of becoming.
CENTER FOR PROCESS STUDIES
http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/viewtopic.php?t=119
==================
One poster writes about panentheism--what I call unitheism:
===================================
I thought I'd alert this group to a great new collection of essays edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke. The collection is titled, In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World (Eerdmans 2004). Process essayists include David Griffin, Joseph Bracken, and, of course, Philip Clayton.

One of my favorite essays is written by Michael Brierly titled, "Naming a Quiet Revolution: The Panentheistic Turn in Modern Theology." This essay basically lays out the issues of panentheism, and it draws upon a wealth of historical sources when doing so. Clayton's summary essay and Griffin's Panenetheism as Postmodern Revelation are also quite strong.

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/06/08 12:06 AM
Correcting some of the bad syntax, above:
Quote:
Ellis, you say that you are not an atheist, right? How come?

I presume that you are NOT, now, active in any formal religion. Were you ever active? If not, what caused you to quit being a formal church member?

Check John 10, where Jesus was accused of thinking of himself as 'god'.
Unless I miss my guess, Jesus taught that, if we choose, we can be god-like, like him.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/06/08 05:43 AM
Sorry Rev you misunderstood me. I do not believe that there is a god or that I could ever, therefore, be godlike. If I was spectacularly decent, loving, kind and just generally someone people sought out to confide in (or whatever would qualify me in your eyes to be godlike) I would just regard myself as an especially nice human being. Or more likely, since I would have to include humility as a desirable characteristic, I would keep plodding on to be the best human I could!

I was brought up within a lukewarm religious atmosphere and never found the whole thing convincing- though I do like the music, architecture and traditions of the Church of England, actually the music and etc of most religions is enjoyable. I just don't believe in the god part, I never did,-and it seems to me that it is essential to believe in the existence of the divine- however it is defined- in order to be religious. I also do not think that service to humanity is a religion. I think it is service to humanity.

Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/06/08 05:47 PM
Ellis: "I also do not think that service to humanity is a religion. I think it is service to humanity."

It's refreshing to hear things called what they most obviously are.

There seems to be a natural tendency for people who profess belief in a God of some sort, and who spend their lives thinking and doing accordingly, to view every aspect of life in a religious/theological/spiritual context, and to apply the related terminology to all things. To those who believe no God exists, and to those who aren't preoccupied in that way, the failure to call a spade a spade, and the apparent warping and stretching of meanings can be annoying and misleading. Unfortunately, however, distortions occur constantly in the evolution of language. Thus we have a definition of religion as:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion".

Really? Like an RSM's service in Her Majesty's Armed Forces?..."Watch ya 'P's and 'Q's laddie, he's an atheist, but he's a religious b------d!!" grin
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/06/08 07:59 PM
Quote:
I just don't believe in the god part, I never did,-and it seems to me that it is essential to believe in the existence of the divine- however it is defined- in order to be religious.
Ellis, are you aware that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion? I understand Buddhists say: Existence is divine.

So I take it: Ellis is an atheist, but one who likes the divine architecture and music of the C of E, of which a wag once said: The C&E stand Christmas and Easter. laugh BTW, many church members fit into the same category--Christmas and Easter Christians who go, when they do go, mostly for the atmosphere, the music and because they want to please the community, the family an friends.

Quote:
I also do not think that service to humanity is a religion. I think it is service to humanity.
Being of service to humanity is an essential component of Christianity.

Ellis, if you think religion is all about traditions, rites and rituals, what do you think John 3:16 is all about? "God so loved the world..." (You have probably heard and enjoyed the great anthem with those words. For example, the work of the great organist, John Stainer--chorus from, The Crucifixion, 1887) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stainer

Are you aware of Jesus' own words: "I am among you as one that serves..." Luke 22:27; and, "He that is greatest among you, let him be servant of all."

Jesus, a Reform Jew, called the members of his own Jewish religion--the ones who practised the rites and rituals of Judaism without being of service to one another, and the world--hypocrites.

Atheists, if Churchianity bores, does not impress you and even angers you, join the club and you will find me there. This is not a rhetorical question: In the spirit of dialogue, how much do you really know about the core message of Christianity?

BTW, I am not among those who say: Christianity is the ONE TRUE religion, which excludes all others. The kind of Christianity that I know, with it emphasis on being progressive, open-minded and inclusive, is very compatible with the core teachings of most of the world religions--Buddhism, Reformed Judaism, Hinduism and the moderate forms of Islam.

I say this without claiming that I really know all that they teach. For example, from my daughter-in-law I am learning a lot about Islam and the branch known as Sufism.
http://www.uga.edu/islam/Sufism.html
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/07/08 12:52 AM
Rede-Thank you.

Rev- I do not like the Buddhist/Hindu theory of reincarnation, which I find a hateful thought if taken to its logical conclusion (ie. I am fortunate because Fate loves me, therefore I can with impunity ill-treat the poor as they are fulfilling their Fate by being miserable) or even worse, building up good deeds to mitigate the result of continuing selfish behaviour.

I do not and never have argued that you should change your belief. Why do you seek to change my lack of belief? If you really believe --"The kind of Christianity that I know, with it emphasis on being progressive, open-minded and inclusive, is very compatible with the core teachings of most of the world religions--Buddhism, Reformed Judaism, Hinduism and the moderate forms of Islam"-- then you should be able to understand that having no belief I would reject all expressions of religions that would necessitate the acknowledgment of the divine or even the supernatural.

And, finally, I have many friends who are Anglicans (Aussie C of E) and they derive much comfort from their worship. I do not know why you single them out to be so snippy about them.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/07/08 04:39 PM
ABOUT REINCARNATION--good information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

Ellis, I am saddened when any humane atheist, who expects to be accepted and understood as a moral and kind human being, stoops to offering false and twisted information about the beliefs of others, including reincarnation.

No believer in reincarnation that I have ever talked to would ever say: "I am fortunate because Fate loves me, therefore I can with impunity ill-treat the poor as they are fulfilling their Fate by being miserable or even worse, building up good deeds to mitigate the result of continuing selfish behaviour."

Whoever told you that all reincarnationists believe were wrong. They are just as wrong as bigoted Christians who say: All atheists have no morality? It is wrong to repeat wrong facts.
======================================================================================
Ellis. you comment, and then question me: "I do not and never have argued that you should change your belief. Why do you seek to change my lack of belief?"

ABOUT THE DIALOGUE PROCESS
If I ever gave you the impression that my goal is to covert you, it was never my intention. Nor is it now. My intention is to listen to your facts and then ask you to listen to mine. BTW, I give anyone, including myself, the right to be wrong about certain facts. I am a great believer that all changing of the mind comes from within. It must never be imposed from outside.

But, if you choose to continue to dialogue with me--and you have every right to stop--be prepared for me to challenge any of your "facts" which, IMO, are wrong. Even then, you do not have to agree with my opinion. You have the right to challenge me.

You write, "... you should be able to understand" ---I do understand and I agree that you do have the right to, "... reject all expressions of religions that would necessitate the acknowledgement of the divine or even the supernatural."
================================================================
Your final comment: "... I have many friends who are Anglicans (Aussie C of E) and they derive much comfort from their worship. I do not know why you single them out to be so snippy about them."

Snippy? I have heard many Anglicans, with a sense of humour, tell the same joke on themselves. It was not a disdainful comment, Ellis, it was a joke. If you don't like jokes, what can I say?
Posted By: samwik Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 06/09/08 05:26 AM
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Why do you seek to change my lack of belief? If you really believe- ...then you should be able to understand that having no belief I would reject all expressions of religions that would necessitate the acknowledgment of the divine or even the supernatural.
Lack of Belief; or Belief of Lack? smile

I'd sure agree with rejecting the necessity of acknowledging (by myself or anyone) a particular belief.

But what about accepting the need for others to have their particular belief acknowledged?

I find it much easier, even rewarding, to acknowledge other's beliefs, after translating their understanding into my own version of understanding the wonder of humanity, civilization, and the universe.

I fear this is an old ploy, a cop-out that has many objections philosophically; but it sure makes it easier to find analogies, parallels, and congruencies between the many varied religions and the many individualistic, athiestic or "process" worldviews.

For instance, it is easy to translate that "the divine or even the supernatural," into that 'creativity process' described by Stuart Kauffman in his book Reinventing the Sacred. (Now on my Kindle smile )

"Translating" also seems to lessen the tendancy for atheism to sound like an advocacy for belief in a lacking.

smile
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/21/08 04:31 AM
Ellis, if it make you feel better, you are most welcome to your "lack of belief". But I hope you do not lack hope...and, perhaps, belief in yourself. smile
Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/22/08 01:56 AM
"Translating" also seems to lessen the tendancy for atheism to sound like an advocacy for belief in a lacking.


Nice comment Sam. I have difficulty explaining to others exactly what I mean by a lack of belief, because some, as Rev has done in the post above, assume that I am a sad person, racked with self-doubt and full of misery. I am not! I think that this misunderstanding in some believers is because they themselves have such certainty and joy in their belief that to imagine life it without it is impossible.

Sam wrote:
I find it much easier, even rewarding, to acknowledge other's beliefs, after translating their understanding into my own version of understanding the wonder of humanity, civilization, and the universe.

I fear this is an old ploy, a cop-out that has many objections philosophically; but it sure makes it easier to find analogies, parallels, and congruencies between the many varied religions and the many individualistic, athiestic or "process" worldviews.

This is so much how I feel I'll stop trying to write anything else!
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/22/08 04:08 AM
Quote:
... because some, as Rev has done in the post above, assume that I am a sad person, racked with self-doubt and full of misery.
Ellis, now it is my turn to correct you: Because you told me this before now, I already knew your position. My comment was meant jokingly. This is why I added a smile

Ironically, many fundamentalist believers, depending on their pneumatological type--especially those who are very imaginative and sensitive--are often the ones who have a lack of joy. Some even lose their sanity.

Some strong Christians--for example, St. Francis of Assisi--feel terrible angst because of their failure to convince others, especially other members of their family that, unless they accept Jesus at their saviour and Lord, they are headed straight for hell. They call it: having a burden for sin-sick souls.

To feel the holy pain and sorrow of Jesus, St. Francis took on what is called holy stigmata. He developed open wounds in his hands, feet and side. BTW, isn't the fact of stigmata good physical evidence of the power of the spirit, over the mind, over the body? Nocebo--the opposite of placebo--does work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata

BTW, I could also say, jokingly, of course: When dullness, ignorance and lack of imagination is bliss, it is folly to be wise.

Posted By: Ellis Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/23/08 12:44 AM
Here is a pertinent comment from an article by Catherine Deveny in today's Melbourne Age newspaper quoting Stephen F. Robert (about whom I know nothing)--he said-

"We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dislike all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours".

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/23/08 01:30 PM
Ellis, I am not sure what Point SFR is trying to make. Were I to speak with him here is what I would say:

Stephen, as a unitheist I do not think about gods, or a single god called God. I speak of GOD--all that is good, orderly and desireable, and in the process of becoming. This concept is too large to be thought of as noun, certainly not a masculine one. To dismiss GOD you will need to be able to dismiss all that IS--all your senses perceive, and more.

Is any atheist able to accomplish this and give me the evidence?
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/23/08 04:45 PM
Quote:
"We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dislike all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours".

This actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.
For a while I thought of myself as an "Atheist", only because I didn't think my experience or beliefs fit into the box that religions or labels create. When I heard someone tell me their definitions of religion or God I would think to myself, "That doesn't apply to my experience tho there might be some things that are common to the knowledge and lack of experience.

In any trade in industry if you have what is called an apprentice and a Journeyman or Master tradesman, you delineate the Master from the apprentice by the idea of knowledge and experience.
In spirituality there are masters and then there are aspiring disciples to a master. Then there are self appointed theists who have followed the ranks of other self taught interpreters of God, and the labels ego uses to delineate or differentiate themselves from the other groups or labels. (Gives a different meaning to self realization. One is the ego self, interpreting itself with what it appears to know and experience, and the other refers to knowledge of the Greater self being realized in experience of all things)
As an Atheist (when I insisted I was an Atheist) I insisted I didn't fit within the boundaries of personal interpretations and labels of religion or theism. I thought Atheism was more universal in nature and without denying God of form or formlessness I wasn't going to define God in earthly terms to limit myself or my beliefs.
Now I don't really call myself anything, (tho I have a name that I use) what I preach has definition and form but only for convenience of conveyance do we speak of what we are and who we are, and of what we are connected to. Ultimately we all find our own way as we attach ourselves to definitions of personality, until we actually experience ourselves beyond personality.

So, the phrase "We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dislike all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours". actually reminds me of trying to remove ones self from definition in order to expand it beyond the confines of labels.

I could see where you would want to say what you thought was appropriate Reverend because it is important to you to separate your interpretations of God and yourself from what you interpret as different from you. This is what the ego does, protect personal domains of definition, pride, direction and purpose. Without definitions we become nameless and the thought of becoming something that we cannot define ourselves with is both terrifying and meaningless, to the ego.
So we create nameplates, and in dialogue compare and discuss so that we make sure our nameplates do not fall off or remove themselves we reaffirm our intentions and our nature, so we can stamp it even further into the personality and the psyche.

You know the old saying, you can't take it with you? It doesn't apply in death to the ego. It sticks with you and draws you back into the manifest to continue to weigh you down until you expand beyond the confines of labels and good intentions.

God is all that is Good, but then its all God and its all good.

Quote:
Ellis, I am not sure what Point SFR is trying to make. Were I to speak with him here is what I would say:

I think if you were not sure what point he was trying to make, and not so self absorbed in what you think, that you might ask him what the point was that he had in mind.
You know the old saying about making assumptions.....
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/23/08 07:45 PM
Quote:
I think if you were not sure what point he was trying to make, and not so self absorbed in what you think, that you might ask him what the point was that he had in mind.
You know the old saying about making assumptions.....
TT, when you call me "self absorbed" (sic), is this what I think it is--a flaming put down? If so, without knowing me well enough, is it fair for you to ASSUME that you know the full nature of my way of thinking?

Or maybe you think that being self-absorbed is a good thing. Is it?

BTW, my comment was to Ellis, not to SFR. (Keep in mind: because SFR does not post here, I could not ask him). My post was meant to be a fair comment to Ellis, on the debate between theists and atheists. I happen to feel there is another option, unitheism.org

I REFUSE TO PLAY THE FLAME GAME
Even if I enjoyed the flame-game approach (which I do not), TT, I don't know anyone in this forum well enough to be
personal with them and call them "self-absorbed", or whatever.

BTW, in the attempt to try and understand what your intentions are I just struggled through and read what you just wrote here and in the other thread. It could be my fault, but I found reading what you wrote a waste of my time.

If you want to play the flame-game--a game I refuse to play--may I suggest that you send me a PM. Or, my e-mail is in my profile. Then, if I feel I need your help to improve my way of thinking I will ask for it.
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 12:49 AM
Quote:
TT, when you call me "self absorbed" (sic), is this what I think it is--a flaming put down?

When you say someone is "pneuma" challenged is it a put down?
I don't judge you if you are self absorbed but you make the judgment that it degrades yourself by attaching yourself to the label. You prefer labels that are more ingratiating or those that add value to your sense of self. This is because you find something wrong in the world with certain aspects of God.
Quote:
Or maybe you think that being self-absorbed is a good thing. Is it?
Is a child that hasn't learned to walk in its condition of not being able to walk a good or a bad thing?
It's all about perspective isn't it?
Quote:

BTW, my comment was to Ellis, not to SFR. (Keep in mind: because SFR does not post here, I could not ask him). My post was meant to be a fair comment to Ellis, on the debate between theists and atheists. I happen to feel there is another option, unitheism.org

I know what you said. You said without knowing what he is saying you'd comment on what was said anyway. That is, being self absorbed.
Quote:

I REFUSE TO PLAY THE FLAME GAME
Even if I enjoyed the flame-game approach (which I do not), TT, I don't know anyone in this forum well enough to be
personal with them and call them "self-absorbed", or whatever.

I guess you aren't open enough to accept comment that is direct and to the point without making it personal.
Me, I don't have a problem regardless of whether someone knows me well enough for them to say what they think. I don't find it necessary to react to what others believe or think.
Unfortunately everyone who does, lives their lives by walking on egg shells. That is an unfortunate way to live. In fact I'd call that pneuma challenged... wink
I might be able to help you with that but then I might not. Sometimes there is no changing what was intended to be by desire and intention...free will and all....
Quote:

BTW, in the attempt to try and understand what your intentions are I just struggled through and read what you just wrote here and in the other thread. It could be my fault, but I found reading what you wrote a waste of my time.

Yeah that is the way people are when they are too timid to ask someone what they mean. It is much easier to make assumptions and then make a judgment that it is a waste of time in order to save face, rather than just ask. The self absorbed thing again...

Quote:

If you want to play the flame-game--a game I refuse to play--may I suggest that you send me a PM. Or, my e-mail is in my profile. Then, if I feel I need your help to improve my way of thinking I will ask for it.

No flaming was intended. I can't be held responsible for your interpretations nor do I choose to. Obviously you are not open to change or you would be less judgmental, reactive and self absorbed.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 05:20 AM
TT, I repeat: "If you want to play the flame-game--a game I refuse to play--may I suggest that you send me a PM. Or use my e-mail, which is in my profile. Then, if I feel I need your help to improve my way of thinking, I will ask for it."
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 07:05 AM
Quote:
TT, I repeat: "If you want to play the flame-game--a game I refuse to play--may I suggest that you send me a PM. Or use my e-mail, which is in my profile

I think I heard you the first time regarding your assumption that I was flaming you. But repeating the delusion still doesn't make it real for me, even tho it may help you reinforce your belief in being a flamed. cry
Quote:
Then, if I feel I need your help to improve my way of thinking, I will ask for it."
Obviously, which is why I'm not offering it without your being cognizant of the need for help. I only said I could help, but then why would you believe me if you think I'm flaming you?

Kinda reminds me of the time of Jesus, when he made a comment to the pharisees that they were twisting scripture, and all they could think of was defending themselves by killing him. They never could see God in him or any possibility of growth beyond their own delusions. How could they, they were too self absorbed in their pride.

(Tho its all God, some have a very difficult time seeing God in all things, unless God happens to meet personal standards and expectations... its never too late to wake up tho...) sleep
Posted By: redewenur Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 07:33 AM
Hi, TT.

You make some very valid points. Points that probably indicate why so many people visit these 'God' threads, yet so few bother to post.

I certainly don't think that reading your posts is a waste of time, but I do think, paradoxically, that you have hinted at why you are mostly wasting your time posting them.
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 05:14 PM
Quote:
I certainly don't think that reading your posts is a waste of time, but I do think, paradoxically, that you have hinted at why you are mostly wasting your time posting them.


I knew the job was dangerous when I took it.. wink
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 05:31 PM
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
[quote]
... No flaming was intended....
I just noticed this. Thanks for the ... apology?

I return the same compliment to you that you gave me, right after you gave your ... apology?

If this is what you meant, no doubt you will be able to translate the following as a compliment to you when I say, using your words, that I can't be held responsible for your interpretations nor do I choose to. Obviously you are not open to change or you would be less judgmental, reactive and self-absorbed.

Now we are both expected to be happily self-absorbed, judgmental and reactive. Isn't language wonderful?
====================================
Reminds me of Newspeak--the language used by the totalitarians in George Well's 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Me? I prefer Oldspeak.

BTW, as an experiment, I told my wife: "You know dear, recently I have found you very self-absorbed, judgmental and reactive."
Needless to say, until I explained to her what I was doing, she was not amused. smile
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 05:57 PM
Quote:
just noticed this. Thanks for the ... apology?

It wasn't an apology, it was a reply to the reaction you had when you read what I said.
Quote:

I return the same compliment to you that you gave me, right after you gave your ... apology?

It wasn't a compliment, it was comment in reference to you being self absorbed, judgmental, reactive and unwilling to change your reaction to contemplation and expansion, Or as I put it originally, "not open to change".

Quote:

Now we am both expected to be happily self-absorbed, judgmental and reactive.
Well if you're happy being that way then that would explain the unwillingness to change. As for me, I don't subscribe to your delusion. I only make comment to it.
Quote:
Isn't language wonderful?

It can be very useful when it is understood objectively, without reacting to it personally.
Quote:

BTW, as an experiment, I told my wife: "You know dear, recently I have find you very self-absorbed, judgmental and reactive."
Needless to say, until I explained to here what I was doing, she was not amused.

When something is done or acted out not out of pure surrender to God's will, it usually contains the violence and ignorance of ego. I would imagine her intuition was telling her that what you said to her didn't come from the heart. But as an experiment she probably thought you were being childish and foolish. I also would imagine she was intelligent enough to move beyond the ignorance of the experiment, and to ignore the delusion since she wasn't as absorbed in it as you are.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/24/08 10:34 PM
TT admits:
Quote:
"It wasn't an apology, it was a reply to the reaction you had when you read what I said."


Interesting. Not being in the blame-and-judgment game, I will leave it there and go on to other things.

Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/25/08 12:14 AM
Quote:

Interesting. Not being in the blame-and-judgment game, I will leave it there and go on to other things.

"Life" is a game and it only gets as good as we are able to play it.
Blame and judgment would be your take on it not mine. I don't choose to make victims or reduce God to such a limitation.

By the way it is still all about perspectives. Some use constructive criticism to help elevate those who are stagnating in their own ignorance and too often it is mistaken as judgment and attack rather than love and compassion. But that is what happens when one is living in defense of life rather than really being a part of it. They are forever victims to their own worldly experience.

Some grow with challenges others back down and hide, or live in a narrow existence of boundaries that are created from fear and delusion of separateness from God and ones own creation.

You can always run, but you really can't hide, for wherever you go there you are.

Quote:
GØD is at one with all that is; at one with cosmos, earth, sky, sea. GØD is at one with time and space and all pervasive gravity.
But man is forever a victim to God when his ego is self absorbed in his identity of values and self worth. And when he values those around him according to his personal self created value system, the gravity of his fear and judgments prevent him from rising above the duality of the positive and negative or as Jesus called it, Hell.
For God there is only God. For the victim there is sometimes God, and always, that God is only a best guess.....
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/25/08 06:35 AM
Quote:
Not being in the blame-and-judgment game, I will leave it there and go on to other things.
Thought I'd throw this in just to refresh your memory of how you have attracted the reflections of your own ideas into manifestation.

You posted this back in February of 2007, in the Philosophy of religions thread.
Quote:
for those who are addicted to knocking Revs and Religions. And I am serious. We all love a good fight.

Gotta be careful what you ask for. God is always a perfect mirror for our thoughts and ideas about what we believe about ourselves.

I probably don't have a love for the fight that you do but I can be a good mirror for some peoples delusions of reality. I can be many things to many people without investing myself in the identity of those projections of self absorption and delusion.

Because you feel judged is not because I judge you. I can't be responsible for the choices you make in feeling something. Your not my puppet, or anyones for that matter. You feel what you do because of your relationship of pneuma and manifestation of pneuma.
In your case your spirit is foreign to your identification of God in everything. Because you don't find your spirit in everything, you make choices to see opposition in reality and choose to fight the very things that are closest to your character. They are called shadows of self and are often invisible to the ego, but recognizable to onlookers who are not invested in the delusions of that particular personality.

In your profile in Brainmeta you made an interesting comment. You said:
Quote:

wouldn't it be nice if we were all made aware of the best way to die?
This followed the comment about finding the best way to live.

I know for a fact that the ego does not believe in eternal life, because it believes in death. I think that if you were to live your life not in preparedness for a fight to the death, that you might open yourself up to greater perspectives than the individual limitations of being Lindsay King octogenarian, victim to bad health and evil doers in public discussions on the internet.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/25/08 05:51 PM
Posters: Can anyone explain to me what the above ambivalent, convoluted, personal and sermon-like comments have to do with the topic?

BTW, I have no objection to having a thread for personal and sermon-like comments, where anyone who chooses to do so can have a go.
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/25/08 06:29 PM
Quote:
Posters: Can anyone explain to me what the above ambivalent, convoluted, personal and sermon-like comments have to do with the topic?

BTW, I have no objection to having a thread for personal and sermon-like comments, where anyone who chooses to do so can have a go.

cry (Maybe)You'll excuse me for being one of the posters even if its not one that you were hoping for.
Quote:
I would like to begin a discussion about the first glimmerings of a new scientific world view — beyond reductionism to emergence and radical creativity in the biosphere and human world. This emerging view finds a natural scientific place for value and ethics, and places us as co-creators of the enormous web of emerging complexity that is the evolving biosphere and human economics and culture. In this scientific world view, we can ask: Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.

The above is from the link in the very first post by TheFallibleFiend regarding Stuart Kauffman and the lecture he attended.
Your reply was:
Quote:
TFF, thanks for telling us about Stuart Kauffman (Reinventing the Sacred) and about his, "conception of God, or something we can call God. God is not "the creator," but the "creativity" in the universe."

Based on my reading of Alfred North Whitehead's Process Theology in the 1970's--introduced to me by my assistant--I have been preaching and teaching about this creativity which I believe is going on, in through and around us, all the time. This is what led me to concoct the acronym, GØD and to call myself a unitheist http://www.unitheism.org It got me away from thinking about a God, out there--a creator separate and apart from the process going on all the time.

Here is what is important to me now: What is the practical value of being aware of this "Creativity"--GØD?


And so this discussion is following your interests in the practical value of being aware of this "Creativity"--GØD?

Based on practical values (Either those created by a God that is separate from self or the Self in Union with God) these values must either be conjured by the ego or stand as a rule amongst all of creation without being deviated from.
Since rules can be broken it stands to reason that one would have to make the choice to decide for himself what the rules are and how he would maintain them.

This thread is all about Self created Gods, God the creator and if either is scientific in nature.

It has led up to the validation of your own beliefs and how they apply to your own life based on differing points of view and your ability to remain calm, unmoved, loving and without fear of being wrong.

And it is on topic. God is the subject in question and we are discussing whether it exists scientifically or not. In order to understand the science of God we must understand our participation in God, and our own power of choice in the image of God.
Each person creates their world based on cumulative knowledge, experience and opinion, projecting forth what they see as real. That is what makes the individual. If you rise above the individual and experience the consciousness that every individual is connected to. Then the individuals become as thoughts in one universal mind, alive and taking direction as any thought that is followed in the mind.

You are following your own thoughts about being victimized. You label the games, you attach yourself to the ideas and the feelings you have, and as such are living the manifestation of your beliefs.
Now if God is the universal mind he is not leaving his seat in omniscience or omnipresence to become absorbed in the thought of being Lindsay King, if he did all others would cease to exist and there would only be Lindsay King. Only the ego of Lindsay King is self absorbed in being Lindsay King and all that is Lindsay King feels like it is being abused with the labels that are offensive to his being.
As such being that Lindsay King is not the God that He says exists and has not the power to leave the labels and thoughts alone, then scientifically he is hammering these thoughts into reality and becoming Lindsay King the victim to circumstance rather than Lindsay King the creator.

By the way were still on topic in case you are still self absorbed in your feeling of self injustice and in your plea for someone to take your side in the delusion. Rather than coming to grips with your own creation you are become more and more disoriented from the very seeds you have planted and nurtured.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/25/08 11:27 PM
Fellow posters and readers:

For your information, I enjoy being with myself, in the NOW--even when we (my ego and me) dialogue and express our fears and doubts. In this current incarnation, I have lived with myself since 1930.

Furthermore, with the Golden Rule in mind, I enjoy being with others--those who enjoy being, and dialogging, with themselves.

How about you? Do you enjoy being with yourself and others?

In my humble opinion, all experiences thus lived, can be of value in the now, and in the eternal now. Nameste!
Posted By: Amaranth Rose II Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/26/08 12:14 AM
Tutor Turtle:
Your posts are verging on insults and personal attacks. This is not permitted in this forum. IF it continues I will be forced to edit your postings and you may be banned from the forum. Please amend your ways. It is one thing to dialogue, quite another to attack another poster personally.

You have been warned.

Amaranth
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/26/08 03:22 AM
Sorry but I don't follow your accusation.
I think this discussion dives purely into the psychological aspects of personality and attachments to perspectives.
I would hope that a moderator would be more objective.

By the way has someone complained or did you just come up with this on your own? I'm genuinely curious and would like you to show me where I have been abusive so that I can see where I have to limit myself in expressing what I see and experience.
Posted By: Amaranth Rose II Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/26/08 04:17 AM
There was a complaint. On looking into your recent posts I detected an ongoing air of insolent superiority and disregard for others.

Amaranth
Posted By: Tutor Turtle Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/26/08 06:40 AM
Quote:
There was a complaint. On looking into your recent posts I detected an ongoing air of insolent superiority and disregard for others.
I have only the best interests of humanity in mind and I am no better than anyone else.

I would rather continue to pursue expansion of conscious awareness and potential than limit it by reinforcing fear and limitation.

But then not everyone thinks life could be any better than they themselves can imagine it.

So as a wise man once said: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

I won't engage the Reverend anymore, he doesn't really hear what is being said anyway.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/29/08 08:53 PM
ARTISTS. ARE THEY INVENTORS OF THE SACRED IN NATURE?
====================================================
Ah, yes! THE DOG METAPHOR.
Over the decades, I have had the good fortune to know dogs which were/are mostly friendly. This includes Dee (part pit bull). Until his peaceful death, caused by old age, he guarded my daughter(52),and my son-in-law--both artists.

They live on a floating house--actually it's a floating complex of buildings, including gardens. It covers nearly an acre of water. Near Tofino, BC, itt attracts many tourists who are interested in how some artists can invent new ways of living--and even thrive--in the wilderness.

When my daughter, Catherine, and her husband, Wayne, travel ashore, black bears and cougars can be dangerous. Not long before his death, Dee defended my daughter from a cougar attack. She was exploring for plants in the area. Thanks Dee!

Dogs close to home: My neighbours--a young couple with no children--have two dogs. One is a beautiful (lazy) Black Labrador Retriever; the other is a Golden (dynamically active) Labrador. When they need help, we dog sit for them. Fun!

BTW, it seems to me that dogs and pigs, in Jesus' day, did not have a good press.

This prompts me to talk about ambivalence. I wonder: Why, at another time, did he say that we ought to love our enemies? Hmmmmm!

THE PIG METAPHOR?
I have never met a pig I did not like, in more ways than one. smile
Born in a partially-barter economy, the King family survived by keeping pigs, goats and hens, cutting each others hair, boat building, gardening and mending things. For cash, we worked as miners. O yes! We also hunted and fished.

==================================
AS TO MY FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS
============================
I find that, providing we can agree to disagree, agreeably, I can get along with most of my fellow human beings. Most of the time we actually agree.

TT, as I said in my PM to you: Nameste!!! Another way of saying, "Let us agree, in agape, to disagree ..." And keep in mind: Without malice, I simply asked our good moderator to take a look. I hope you, and others are paying the same attention to my posts. If the moderator chides me, I always have the option to apologize, which, when necessary, I am always happy to do.

NAMESTE--I bow in respect to all of you.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Reinventing the Sacred - 07/29/08 09:15 PM
BTW, if anyone wants me to post a copy of the post which I sent to the moderator, I will. It was not a bitter complaint; it was mostly in the form of a question: Take a look, moderator, please. What do YOU think of ...? I left the judgment-call to the moderator.
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums