SOMA-PSYCHE-PNEUMA & The Greatest of These is...?

By now, most of you bright posters and readers of SAG0GO--note, I use 0 to O (from nothing to infinity)--know what I mean when I talk about SPP: The English words are BODY,MIND,SPIRIT (BMS). Interestingly, in French, the words (mots) are CORPS, ESPRIT, ESPRIT (for males) and AME (for females).

Of course I am an avid seeker of, and after, truth, wherever it is to be found--naturally, I seek it with the help of philosophy, the sciences and all the great and lively arts.

At this point, I readily admit: I do know nearly as much as I would like to know, need to know and ought to know about the interconnection between body, mind and spirit. Does such an interconnection exist? Because of the body component, I also ask:

IS THIS A QUESTION JUST FOR THE SCIENCES?

The sciences can now tell us a lot things about the physical body as a mechanism--about our brain and its extension, the nervous system.

But does science say anything to us about the way the body as a mechanism interacts with us as persons (minds and spirits)? About what it means to be, or not to be, a person?

BTW, I have discovered that, there is a lot of soul-searching and confusion going on in all modern languages about the kind of words we use when we talk about what is means to be a human being, a person.

Other than having animal-like physical bodies, in what ways do we share any of the following with members of what we call the animal kingdom?: The idea of person-hood, spirit, mind, soul, ego, the idea of ghosts, individuality, consciousness, conscience, intellect, character, memory, emotions, passions, the ability to be aware, to be consciously attentive, to have faith, hope, love, fear, hate and the power to will, and so on.

In my opinion, the more we integrate the categories we call body, mind and spirit into a oneness, the more we will discover what I like to call the TRI-unity of our being--le composant (component) extraordinaire, as the French put it.

As Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, put it in 1887, "The known is finite, the unknown infinite; we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to claim a little more land."
===================
A thread based on the book, THE UNIVERSE WITH WITHIN--From Quantum To Cosmos, by physicist, Neil Turok.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/book...article4623367/

I'm sure you have your idea about what a body and a mind is, yet I don't think you can define spirit nor do you know the extent of it as it is.

Corps referes to discipline and Esprit refers to the nature of mind or spirit of mind. Not the "spirit" within all things.

Appearance is a wonderful magician, an extraordinary deceiver, capable of convincing our hearts and minds of the strangest lies... if we attempt to apply the standards of sensual perception in an attempt to understand our position and role in the Universe, we will necessarily fall far short of learning anything of much importance. How to align our understanding with the Cosmic and Universal Forces instead of with the gross material world reported to us by our senses is the whole purpose of inner growth.

Got that. Pretty obvious actually.

If science is like you in that it only goes so far, then the answer it gives is not likely to be outside of the current box of belief and experience.

Spirits as in Esprit de corps? They have pills for that you know. Pills to elevate and suppress spirit. (If we are still going by your example using the French word for Spirit)

You've been great example of that confusion.

Ah the components of UNITY (sticking to the french versions of your defining principals)
The limit to what you have decided and accept as you can go no further.

And the unknown is that which lay beyond where you draw a line in the sand: 'nuff said..



How much land we claim is always a choice. And interpretation of what we have claimed is always based on perception of reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I do know nearly as much as I would like to know, need to know and ought to know.

Fallible that I am, I omitted The word NOT. Here is what I wanted to say:

Quote:

I do NOT know nearly as much as I would like to know, need to know and ought to know.

And Turok's book? Omit 'WITH'. The title is THE UNIVERSE WITHIN.

BTW, in his book, Neil Turok makes it clear that he is not an admirer of the shallow arguments made by anti-theistic writers like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, and others.

On page 246 of his book, Turok particularly mentions Lawrence Krauss's recent book, A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING, which Dawkins quotes to defend his point of view.

Turok quotes the review in the New York Times, by the philosopher David Albert--a deep thinker on quantum theory:"All that gets offered (by Krauss et al) is "the pale, small, silly accusation that religion is, I don't know, dumb."

Freudian slip?

And there is still the Esprit de Corps thing you reference as spirit, and the gender of either male or female that you also insinuate into spirit.

Senior moment maybe....

THE IMAGINATION, REALITY AND OUR QUANTUM PC-LIKE SOMATIC BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM

--As Turok puts it: "QUANTUM physics teaches us that, in a very real sense, We live in an image reality." (p.95)

BEGIN WITH A GNOMON--an indicator, like a sundial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomon
The gnomon is the part of a sundial that casts the shadow. Gnomon is an ancient Greek word meaning "indicator", "one who discerns," or "that which ...(imagines and points the way)

http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/

In his book, it seems to me that Turok implies that we human beings are quantum computers. Our bodies are the hardware; our brains and nervous system are the software and our minds, souls, or spirits, operate the system--for good, or ill.

WOW! Is it possible that this is so? Or is this just a crazy idea?

Three questions come to mind here:

1. Does he define a human being?

2. Does he define a quantum computer?

3. Is he simply saying that what he considers to be a quantum computer is, in his opinion, bringing computing more into line with what he believes is the intrinsic functioning of his concept of a human being?

Just thought I'd get that in before TT did.

Is there such a thing as a quantum computer and...
Does the Reverend know what a quantum computer is?

I'm sure he'll like to fit it in with his definitions of spirit, soul and psyche whatever it is.. or just get someone to have a discussion with him so he can talk about himself and his beliefs.
It is what he claimed as the reason to write anyting here, (wanting attention rather than expanding upon any of subject matter).

Bill S, thanks for the warning. I predict that TT will do his best to allow his "EGO"--any time he feels the need--to sock-it-to my BIG EGO so that it will feel ashamed and and then be or go and, of course get angry But, thanks to you I will suggest to my BIG ego, which loves attention, to remain cool Eh, Bill S, thanks for your comment and questions. And of course, whenever I read any of TT's interruptions, my EGO comes fully awake.

But seriously, Turok writes quite a bit on what are called imaginary units, or numbers.

See pages 72-75, 92, 93-95, 168, 206. On pages 94-95, he defines time as an imaginary dimension of space.

For example, he mentions the unit named, i, which he defines as the square root of -1. It is profoundly related to the notion of time. (Page 95)

In chapter III, WHAT BANGED, he describes how Einstein's theory of special relativity unified time with space into a whole called "space time".

"Mathematics is our "third eye,"" he writes, "allowing us to see and understand how things work in realms so remote from our experience that they cannot be visualized. Mathematicians are often viewed as unworldly, working in a dreamed up, artificial setting. But quantum physics teaches us, we all live in and imaginary world.(page 95)"





Equilibrium point NOW ABOUT THE TILDE, ~ ,In mathematics , the point \tilde\mathbf x\in \mathbb R^n is an equilibrium point for the differential equation :\ frac d\mathbf x dt \ ...
2 KB (241 words) - 14:16, 5 January 2013

Perfect testimony to all that you hold dear to yourself, and what you hoped to leave behind as a testimony to the personal accomplishment.
An Imagined biography in personal idealism.

Congrats Rev, you finally got to something relevant about yourself and the world around you.

Now if you could only discover something about yourself that is real, (so to speak).

Perhaps the face you wore before you were born, and the one you will wear after you leave this imagined world behind.
The Face of the Knower within the known, in the process of knowing.
The Face of THAT which is before the idol was created, and remains when the idol turns to dust.
The face without the need for a tilde.

Rev, I'm sure there there are those to whom the Wiki definition of "i" makes sense; possibly you are one of them. This is nearer my level of understanding.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html

THE FOLLOWING IS SIMPLY MY OPINION: I use the acronym in my signature to refer to that which I think of as a universal mainframe computer (UMC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_mainframe
operating at the heart of this imperfect universe in which we--not yet complete beings--live, move and have our being.

This IMPERFECT universe is evolving, unfolding, in the same way that we are. In the process, we have a choice: We can evolve and grow, or we can devolve and go extinct.

Recently, using the "imagination" function of my Quantum PC, I connected and you responded with the answer I needed, many thanks. GREAT STUFF!

Great thing about opinions is: EVERYONE HAS THEM. Not just one but a lifetime of them.

Testimony to an imperfect universe?
Perhaps the reason one believes they are incomplete is because of the diversity in thought that keeps one looking for the heart of the universe in an ideal opinion.

Knowing God and knowing of God appears to be different in both realisation and experience, huh.

Bill S, answering them: Back to you, soon, about your questions
1.
2.
3.
BTW, whenever I check a topic in WIKI, I always find it interesting, and helpful to check the TALK-section.

There I find what individuals, persons, pneuman beings, self-aware human beings, self-conscious persons--some experts or otherwise--are saying to one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainframe_computer

MOORE'S LAW http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html

On page 237 of his book, Neil Turok writes that since the 1960's the evolution of digital computers has been inexorable--there is no stopping it simply by shouting at our computers. Or by asking the theistic gods to look after us.

Because of Moore's laws, computers are becoming progressively closer and closer to our heads.

And I assume he is referring to what is going on in our heads.

"Our future evolution will depend less and less on our biological genes, and more and more on our abilities to interact with our computers. The future battle for survival will be to program or be programmed."

He describes human beings as analogue creatures based upon a digital code--not conducive to progressive evolution.

Next, I will outline what he says, "will represent a giant leap forward." (page 238)

And who is writing this code that gives the appearance of evolution in cognitive function, and the form that applies to interaction with the construct?
IF it depends less on genetic format and becomes a different code, then when does one have authority over the other and, who programmed the DNA codes?

Do you actually buy into this stuff, and where are you wanting to go with it?

"THE GIANT LEAP FORWARD"

This is a dramatic phrase which Turok uses on page 338.

WE NEED TO COMBINE BOTH ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
Then he writes enthusiastically of the "possibility of a coming "Quantum Age"--Or are we already on the verge?--in which, if we are truly wise enough, we will focus on THE HUMANITY OF SCIENCE, something which has been of great interest to me all my life.

Amazingly, after saying that we will converse with quantum computers--asking questions and getting answers--he says, (at the beginning of page 239): We "shall be the 'operating system' of quantum life. WOW! Sounds GÕD-like to me. What a dangerous, awful and tremendous opportunity to do evil, or good. As he says, "the future will be what we make it? (bottom of page 339)

IMHO, many great visionary souls have already been there and done that, but we have been too dim witted, too closed-minded, too blind and too deaf to see and to hear. Maybe Turok will help us WAKE UP!

Here is a great link to what he says:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/10/09/sci-massey-lectures-neil-turok.html

Oh My GÕD!!! How profound!!!

Who'da thunk...

Bill S, et al:
I predict our resident "genius"--what's her/his name?--will say something very "WISE" about Turok's book, eh?

Just call me master of the obvious....

BTW, I am surprised that no one has, as of yet anyway, called attention to the fact that this thread is actually in the form a question.

And let me assure you, it is not intended as a trick question.

Actually, as I META-tated on posting this thread, several QUESTIONS came to what I think of as my "Mind" and/or "Spirit". Here are a basic few:

1. Is life--warts and all--for us, and for all natural beings, strictly a one-time-only physical phenomenon, which ends at the moment of death?

2. Are we, then, just physical beings? Is what we call mind, just a function of the physical brain? Is spirituality and illusion, just another name for mind?

3. Or, are we--as I suspect we are--a subtle and mysterious integration of all three components--body, mind, and spirit--soma, psyche and pneuma?
==========================
ONE FINAL QUESTION

4. How come life, for so many people, is so painful, so fragile, so dangerous, so short and so downright unfair? How come for a few others, the opposite is true? Hmmmmm!

MY YOUNGER SISTER AND I, AS A CHILDREN? WE EXPERIENCED IT AS A TIME OF VERY PLEASANT CHILDHOOD ADVENTURES--BUT IT WAS ALSO, A TIME DANGER AND STRESS MIXED WITH POVERTY, MADE WORSE BY THE DEPRESSION, AND DARKENED BY THE LOSS OF CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS

Because of the depression, the iron-ore mines were closed down, three days a week, and sometimes more.

Yes, my father and two older brothers had jobs, but because of lack of time and low wages, there was only enough money for some basic foods and clothes, and not much else.

Housing? We paid rent to the Iron Ore Company for a grey-shingled semi shack of a building. By modern standards, it was an uninsulated shack with no basement and none of the modern comforts--no bathroom, no dining room, no indoor plumbing, no phone and the like.

Food? Fishing, hunting (lots of rabbits and sea birds, like ducks and young gulls) and gardening filled the gap.

Meanwhile, we had to cope with the deaths of our newly-married oldest brother, our oldest married-sister, who lost her husband and her two young children, and in 1935, the loss of our mother. She was 50.

In the 1930's, the mining town of Bell Island--there were 10,000 people, because of the mines--Newfoundland, was, and still is, a beautiful place to live, garden, hunt, fish and for children to have great adventures, as I did. But then TB, aggravated by poverty, was rampant. www.bellisland.net

As I recall, my mother was a good reader. When she was well enough she read to my sister and me, often. However, when she died, I knew I had to grow up and do things for myself. Though the nearest school was then a long way from where we lived, I wondered if I could start learning how to read. [I'll tell how that came about, next.]

Probably because you already led the way by asking if anyone wanted to discuss psyche, soma and pneuma within the contexts of your beliefs and whether they have any scientific value within the contexts of the scientific community.

A segue to another discussion about you and your beliefs.

I think that idea was already obvious.

ok, back to you, and all about you, your family, your sister, your grandmother and ......

Like all writers, I give all readers agape-love, period. What they think of me, privately, is their business. When they go public, I leave it to whoever to handle. I thank G.0.D, for the ignore button so I don't have to stare at posts that bore me.

BTW, do I enjoy have shid thrown at me, or getting kicked in the "asssss ... k'me no questions..."? Of course not; I am not a masochist, eh?

Of course you do. Like when you called me a psycopath and Maharishi Mahesh yogi a snake oil salesmen in such a loving way.

After you read them.. obviously.
You do seem to enjoy throwing the shid, regardless of whether you enjoy having it come back at you. So maybe you're into sadism.

What comes around is usually a result of ones karma.
So you can find G.0.D. in all things... or separate your personal G.0.D. from all that you call N.O.G. (Not of God).

Isn't that spatial

AMARANTH ROSE, KATE, or any Moderator: ABOUT EDITING:
We need a warning to know how long we have to edit and correct comments we post, not have the warning come as a surprise, OK?
==============================================================
Back to the main focus:
THINK OF A TRIPOD, A THREE-LEGGED STOOL OR EVEN A PERSONAL COMPUTER

1. THE SOMA COMPONENT: In order to be of practical use, the pod or the easel has to have a physical, or somatic, form. Any damage to any of the legs, or pods, renders the object useless. And regarding computers, without the physical hardware that is in good working order, no computing will get done.

2. THE PSYCHE COMPONENT: Someone has to know how to make the object and someone needs to have an idea as to the use intended. Computers need to have software and people with the skills to create it, install it, update it, and use it.

3. THE PNEUMA COMPONENT: At all times people involved with all processes surrounding the making and use of the objects use their power of choice, their WILLpower. And computers without operators who know the operating system, how to use the hardware and the software, who have plans, goals and a purposes in mind are of little or no value.

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS
Indeed, if there is to be good moral philosophy assisted by truth seeking science leading to creative and beautiful art there is always present a subtle and mysterious integration of all three components--body, mind, and spirit BMS--soma, psyche and pneuma.

SOMATOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY AND PNEUMATOLOGY, working in harmony, can, and will, lay down the solid foundations of reality.

If we upgrade to the human component, damaged legs do not make for a useless form. Are we speaking of the psyche of a three legged stool or a computer? Or a human being?
In what form does the human become useless or valueless?

Religion loves to make that judgment. What about you Rev.?
Again are we speaking of the Human, or is this really about computers without free will or choice, or a soul?

The soul. What is it? What can it accomplish, what are its limits and who decides what it can or can't do? Could it be quantified by the ego which attaches itself primarily to the physical reality and all that it knows as reality?

Is there any book that was ever written that captures the soul and defines it?

Could anyone reduce the soul into the pages of a book?

Better yet why would one try?

The Vedic library consists of over 2000 volumes, all written about the relationship of the intellect with spirit. None of them attempt to define spirit. The ideas conveyed within the library is that it is beyond definition and experience.



So why are we using three legged stools or computers to illustrate morality, science and creativity in relationship to the soul and philosophy?

The souls of past present and future are not defined by morality or philosophy. Yet philosophical ideas are pasted upon it in attempts to define what is good and what is bad.
Spirit goes beyond these precepts and reflects itself upon diversity, and all social mores. For as long as humanity has existed.

Only religion seeks to separate God from what it defines as God, to manipulate and control.
Which is fine, contrast is needed to see where walls are built and lines are drawn in the sand.
But such separation only creates a tension and a stress when the intellect fails to control the world around itself and to hold any shape or form it constructs into permanence.
If we can think beyond being a three legged stool or a computer reality might Possibly be understood.

You might have to stretch yourself a bit more.

The changing psychological profiles of the manifest human condition is but a reflection of the soul. IT can never be defined or boxed. It would be like trying to take apart a human cell by cell to try and figure out what makes it run.

Not gonna happen using your approach.

Too bad you haven't yet discovered God.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Understanding scripture is not for the three legged stool or the computer. You would have to be much more than that.

The direct experience of God is quite revealing.

It is neither here nor there, a he or a her, yet it is all that and much much more.

THE ABOVE IDEAS ARE NOW BEING TALKED ABOUT AT LINKED-IN.
LOTS OF GENUINE AND OPEN-MINDED INTEREST EXPRESSED THERE:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&...back=.gmp_48269

You seem to be implying that there is a lack of open minded individuals who would follow your lead, to talk about you and your beliefs here Rev.

Comparisons. The worlds way of creating a measuring stick in the personal reality.
Useful to a degree. Sinful when used to measure the worth of individuals, or to coerce and manipulate.

THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE
It is based on a question. It was asked to me, at Linked-IN, BY A CURIOUS POSTER.
===========================================================
For me, and in my opinion (IMO): I make no claim that I am a genius who implies he has THE dogmatically-applied Truth.

ALL I offer here is my personal experience:

G.Õ.D, for me, is a HOlISTIC idea, or concept. It includes ALL that which Generates, Organizes & Delivers ALL that is Good, Orderly and Desirable, as I need it, for me and others such as .........................

PNEUMATOLOGY--in the process of developing the idea and how it connects with somatology and psychology.
=====================
In brief, and IMO, pneumatology simply means, the study of the self--the Spirit (Pneuma) Soul, Mind.

This, IMO, includes how we relate to our personal psyches and somas--mind/body components. The same components, IMO, are also involved as we relate to our families, our community, our nation, global earth, our galaxy, even our galaxies--wherever it is possible that we do, and/or could, encounter others, pneumatologically. Wherever, IMO, the Golden Rule applies.

PNEUMATHERAPY. It is simply a word, which I coined in the early 1970's, to indicate the practice of the theory of pneumatology.

I readily admit that, being familiar with New Testament Greek, I "made up" what I thought was a new word, pneumatology.

That was in the early 1960s. I did not realized until later that it was already in the major dictionaries--like for example, the Oxford and the World Book ones. There I also found the words pneuma and pneumatology defined.

However, I did not find, 'pneumatherapy' in any dictionary. If anyone does, please let me know.

I now use this word to mean: "the pastoral (i.e.,Spiritual) use of hypnotic technique" to explore and deal with the kind of pain and suffering we often inflict on ourselves--what I now call pneuma-psychosomatic diseases.

I have found that it can be used to help anyone, including the self, who are "spiritually sick". And I have been there--that is, I know I have made myself ill by my own negative choices--consciously and otherwise.
=========================
However, G.Õ.D--that Spirit (Mind), within all open to it, which Generates, Organizes & Delivers .......................sure made a difference to me--somatically and psychologically, especially when I agreed to help others.

WHY I USE THIS WORD, PNEUMATHERAPY:

Pneumatherapy. I have found it to be a useful word.

I use when I talk to devout Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever--people who fear hypnosis and think of it as form of superstition, black magic, voodoo, a kind of mind control, or brain-washing.

[More to come, as needed ......]

Concepts/Beliefs constantly change. So any idea you are going to place in front of you is not going to be permanent. Niether are any conclusions or approaches. The mind is going to follow whims and fancies that may not have anything to do with anything, other than imagination.

Bandaids often make for a soothing effect, yet they do not cure. What does is the mind and body when it is not submerged by the 100,000 thoughts a person thinks a day in the relationship with belief, and identification with the personal reality which divides good and evil according to personal preferences.

The Soul is not broken nor is it ever sick. Only the relationship to the spirit needs attention. That relationship if not other than imagined, is not a relationship with spirit, but rather a relationship with ego self and the ideas of self prescribed worth. Then one contends with themselves and the world based on what a person feels like in the moment.

If you are driven by your feelings then your objectivity is subjective.

Anybody can claim to be spiritual. Few of those people know anything about spirit other than what they have been told or imagine.

All of the masters of the past indicate in scripture that the real relationship is in the direct experience. That is what they taught. They taught how to achieve a direct relationship with spirit/God. Religion doesn't grasp that concept or reality.
Like you they prescribe concepts and dogma is created from belief. Not direct experience.

The focus of this post is on:
SOMATOLOGY--THE STUDY OF THE SOMATIC COMPONENT
It is my understanding that, without our somas (physical bodies), we would not be who we are--physically, mentally and/or spiritually speaking. And this prompts any number of questions:

Which, if any, of the components is the greatest, or dominant one?

So I have a few questions that I would like to ask any scientists among us, particularly ones who read SAGoGo and who, ideally speaking, already know about at least some of the physical sciences named below.

Anyone here with the following science-based skills--the kind having to do with the biology of animals and human beings?

HERE ARE THE SKILLS THAT I HAVE IN MIND:
Biology, anatomy, biochemistry, biophysics, endocrinology, quantum physics, or any of the hard sciences (feel free to name any important ones that I may have missed).

Or you may know someone who does. For example, for years I have had a friend who is a busy medical doctor and a graduate biochemist--McGill university, Montreal. I have an autographed copy of one of his first books on THE JOY OF HEALTH. His practice is not far from where I live. I hope to have another chat with him, soon.

Also, a close friend of the family, interested in research in biology, with whom I chat a lot, just graduated with his masters (MSc.) and is now doing his Ph.D, in biology, at the University of Toronto. His father, not far from retirement age, is a professor of biology, and a researcher, at the U of T. I chatted with him, not long ago.

BTW, a day ago, while doing some research on words containing the Greek word PNEUMA, I stumbled on the following information in The Freedom Dictionary, at:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com
=================================

Pneu`mo`ther´a`py
n. 1. (Med.) The treatment of disease by inhalations of compressed or rarefied air.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.
========================
As some of our ancient ancestors suspected, pneuma (as Spirit), and pneumo (as of matter)--the latter which refers to air, wind, breath as physical and material--are not just separate and distinct physical parts of us.

Mysteriously, soma, psyche and pneuma seem to belong to the ONENESS we call life, which prompts us, in this great age of quantum mechanics, to ask: How come does this seem to be so? In What way? And to what purpose?

Such are the questions, which I for one--What about you?--intend to keep on asking until the answers are found.
===============

Bryan you saidTell us about your interest in the concept "emergent property".

Check out the writings of Stuart Kauffman where he says things like as follows:Because of this, it is for this reason that we, as I see it, need a unique way to write the symbol for what we now call 'god'.

Interestingly, Orthodox Jews use their own distinctive symbol, G-d. I feel I understand why they use this symbol.

However, the distinctive symbol which I use in my writing is the acronym, G.Õ.D. Note, it is not a common noun. It is an acronym. Meanwhile, Kauffman adds interesting details as to what this symbol means for him:
=================
Important link for reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_property

Symbolism is going to be subjective to the belief system. Any Symbol including the title GOD (which everyone is familiar with), has its own unique quality to the individual personality.

The waking state mind believes humanity should come together under one belief system, one thought and one ideal experience.

What those who came to speak of in their experience of God (Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, Melchizedec, Confucious, etc.) was of their individual experience of God.

Everyone who recognized the presence of divine spirit flowing thru the words of the sage was attracted to it like a moth is to a flame, yet without taking that attraction and turning it into the direct experience, those attracted to the subtle have instead turned the attraction into a religion (belief in interpretation and opinion).

Rather than the people learning from the master to gain their own experience of God as the masters taught. Humanity has instead created a symbol to the interpretation of the sage/master and his/her experience.

They (the people) set imagination (mental symbolism) to what they heard and translated it into a belief, and then created a physical symbol (the church) to stand for what God meant to them, as the authority outside of their own direct experience of God.

Churches are examples to the like minded opinion.

The fracturing of churches and their congregations is the example of changing beliefs and opinions, where beliefs and opinions shift into new symbols (new churches and dioces) all claiming to have a better idea of what God is or should be because of conflict with the old belief.

The Jehovahs witnesses have a name for God they believe symbolizes the true essence of God. They insist if you call out the name Jehovah, the essence of God will be imbued within you.

History is full of well intended believers who think they and their symbolism is actually greater than the direct experience of God.

Interesting how the ego can fall for such an illusion. Yet advertising uses the same psychology when they put a symbol on a product to sell it.
Perhaps if you called Beer B~~r it would sell more beer, especially if you wanted to believe beer was created by the divine to imbue all the divine attributes of the divine.

I'm pretty sure someone would believe in it.


Of course it is, you follow the religious mentality that symbolism creates reality. Rather than interpretation of reality and it's symbolism being a reflection of belief.

If one imagines the world to be flat, it becomes so in ones mind. It doesn't change our sphere into a pancake but it doesn't matter to the believer, because the thought is firmly established into the believers mind and held there with mental force, until the believer relaxes and the belief fades back to wherever it came from.

It (the word God) means whatever it means to those who do not have a direct experience of God but want to imagine what they will of God.

Assuming the Abrahamic God of your Israelite tribe that you believe in, isn't what your new interpretation of God is going to be, putting a new coat of paint and a new set of clothes upon any idealistic icon will renew a belief until that new god smell wears off and you wanna trade the old god in for a new god again.

Sure, but then that idea is subject to belief and or experience of God and the reflection of God in the expanding universe.

Oh ye of little faith..

The evolution of scripture is the expanding intellect in action. That might answer your question regarding a transformation of human sensibility. It is happening, and you and many others would like to imagine just where that is going, as well as put a word in for your belief in how you would like it to go. That's what the inherent nature of expansion does to the intellect. It pushes the intellect to see more than it sees, so that consciousness is not defined by the ego into ideal proportions and reduced to a single eye. If God were supposed to be put in a box the universe would not be what it is in all of its diversity.
The relative would be absolute rather than filled with opposites and contradictions to reflect the changing beliefs of infinite individual perspectives.
Everyone hopes for the best, and everyone believes they want to do the best they can. Yet interestingly enough, no one wants to believe that a conflicting belief or action is better than their best intentions or that there is God in the opposing thought or belief, when one clings to the idea that their belief has more God in it than anothers belief.


If you believe it will happen because of symbolism then by all means take yourself for a ride in a new God. Test drive it and advertize it and some might wanna buy it for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "you can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" Due to the inherent and unique quality of the diverse individual personality that is the reflection of the infinite.

People have a tendency to imagine a finality in the word and belief in perfection, or an end result. Few experience the perfection in every moment.

Ego wants to reduce the infinite to and end result, and those who know God find God in now, rather than an idealized future event, which will be abandoned for another future event within the ever expanding universal reflection of the infinite ONE.

Not so softly spoken but realized rather than idealized.
If one could put down the illusions of God, heaven and hell, there would be nothing but infinite reality, and perception of reality when we do not put finite illusions upon it.

Responsibility is subjective. Depending on your relationship to all that is, your free will (choice) is not reduced or enhanced. What you think you should do based on your relationship with the workd and how you see it, being that it is perfect or imperfect will drive you to accept what is, or drive you to change it. However the nature of the expanding universe dictates everything is constantly becoming (changing). Once one stops imagining a finality to the infinite one might actually become one with the river of life rather than standing outside of it pretending to be separate from it, and the judge to determine whether what is created is going in the right or wrong direction.
Spirit is immortal, omnipresent and omnipotent according to scripture. Maturity of spirit is an illusion that man places on himself as a spiritually damaged individual. Spirit (if it is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent) never needs healing, there is no therapy needed for spirit itself, only the re-connection of mind to spirit, by transferring awareness from symbolism create by belief, to the spirit which is far beyond the confines of any symbol created outside of direct experience of the infinite spirit.

The fact that God and post modern spirituality exists in the mind of man is testimony to what Consciousness has brought forth into existence.
If you want to believe everything in the universe is a random and chaotic occurrance, then by all means take full responsibility for God and step into the role you believe you accord to yourself in being more evolved than nature itself.

Or notice that humanity has been going forth and the emergent principal of expansion is and has always been a part of reality and a reflection of consciousness.
For those who believe in evolution:
As much as one wants to hurry up the ripening of the fruit on the tree because they can't find something useful to do other than making references to how deficient the tree is and its fruit. One can take responsibility of ones own experience of reality, or continue to project upon it and try to lead everyone else into distraction from their beliefs, in hopes of guiding the other onto your path to reinforce your own beliefs, so that you might reduce the infinite presence and potential into finality.
Always. As long as it fails to meet the expectations of even one person. That will be a fact and a need of individual proportions.

Stuart Kauffman says,"Civilization needs to be changed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_property

Check out the writings of Kauffman where he says things like as follows:

Of course it is! At least it was for me when I was a child and too young to question the meaning of things. Therefore, I agree that for child-like believers it can be a symbol packed with a hypnotic-kind of power.

Whenever unquestioning, devout and humble believers gather together--it matters not what religion we have in mind here--it is a fact that many fall into a hypnotic-kind of spell as soon as they hear music of worship, see the colours of stained glass windows, smell the incense, hear the ritual and the voice of God's representative intoning, "LET US WORSHIP GOD!"