Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Interview: Daniel Dennett's New Book, Dissecting God
Guest
post Jun 08, 2006, 09:20 AM
Post #31


Unregistered









Dear Rhymer,
We are what we think we are, what we feel we are.
What do You feel at the core of Your Being ?
Do You have a Heart inflamed and a Soul enchanted ?
Do You have a flaming Heart and a winged Soul ?
Because this is what really matters.
And all is found in the great silence of the heart.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jun 08, 2006, 05:19 PM
Post #32


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 08, 03:20 PM) *

Dear Rhymer,
We are what we think we are, what we feel we are.
What do You feel at the core of Your Being ?
Do You have a Heart inflamed and a Soul enchanted ?
Do You have a flaming Heart and a winged Soul ?
Because this is what really matters.
And all is found in the great silence of the heart.


<We are what we think we are, what we feel we are.>
This may be true for some people.
But, I know of those who think they are important - yet aren't.
I know of those who think they are useless - yet they are not.
Each of our brains can be used to create 'models' of The Truth of ourselves and the world in which we live.
Lucky ones gradually develop pretty close approximations to the Truth - others live in cloud cuckoo land!
It is our communications and the analysis we undertake (with the advantage of 'feeling') that allows us to continually change our models and fine-tune them. We never know when we have the exact Truth (except for repeatedly demonstrable events which are totally understood, at least by perhaps other very clever people).

<What do You feel at the core of Your Being ?>
Nothing stands out really.
I suppose I would have to say an overall happiness and thankfulness.

<Do You have a Heart inflamed and a Soul enchanted ?>
I don't recognise the presumed Heart, so can't comment on it.
I don't recognise the Soul so can't comment on it.
The nearest I can come to comprehending these items is to align them with some sub groups of the thoughts and feelings which I have from moment to moment.
I feel good tending plants in my garden.
I enjoy helping other people.
I am saddened when I see those people who are worse off than I am, particularly from disasters, famine and poor health and housing. (Isn't everybody?)

<Do You have a flaming Heart and a winged Soul ?>
Is this something to do with deep and strong desires and and a feeling of freedom?

<And all is found in the great silence of the heart.>
I would have to say that it is all within the nervous system.

<Because this is what really matters.>
No-one knows what really matters.
In the first instance do you mean for current people or for the future generations of the planet?
Do you mean for the Self or for others, or both?
What are the duties of an individual?
What are the responsibilities of an individual?
They are what is chosen by the people or society or religions or autocrats, or politicians, or parents, or peers, or Gods (peoples thoughts).
And, no-one knows what is best or 'right'.
I trust Nature, even though it has made us selfish first, loving those who love us or depend on us second, ditto family third, ditto friends fourth, ditto colleagues sixth, ditto society seventh, ditto country eighth, ditto other countries ninth ( I think you get my drift).
Different people will have different priorities eg., football team first!!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 09, 2006, 11:01 AM
Post #33


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



In another forum I responded as follows to a guest who raised some theological questions: http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?a...t=80#entry27523
================================
Guest: Keep in mind that I am not speaking of the god, or God, concept in which I was raised. I am talking about a GØD concept--which, at this point, I know only in part, through the use of my imperfect senses. Check out the way Paul expresses this thought in 1 Corinthians 13: 11-12.

Permit me to ask you: How man scientists, do you know of who are willing to boast that they know how to fully define the universe--that is, define the universe in brief enough form to fit on a T-shirt? I do not know of any. The ones that I do know are humble enough to admit: "The universe--in its microcosmic and/or the macrocosmic forms--is still pretty much a mystery to science.

In the same way, I readily admit that, at this point, it is impossible for me to fully define GØD, in toto. There is much more to GØD--imminently and transcendently--than can be put in the covers of all the sacred books, let alone on a T-Shirt. This is what make's GØD, GØD.

However, this does not mean that we cannot saying anything about GØD. The more I get to know of and experience the universe, often with the help of science, the more I get to know GØD. Not being a fixed and objective being up, or even out, there, GØD, for me, is the universe I know plus the rest of the universe in a mysterious space-time continuum. It is this GØD, which I am more than willing and happy to lovingly explore, forever and ever. This exciting new and joyful concept of GØD is the reason I need this new way of writing the GØD-concept.

Keep in mind: I have no desire to impose my theology on anyone. I am more than willing to listen to what anyone has to say.

Even though it may be a partial one, feel free to give me your definition of God.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 09, 2006, 11:18 AM
Post #34


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 09, 09:01 AM) *
... feel free to give me your definition of God.

God is the universe and nothing more. Therefore, the very word "God" (or however you want to spell it) is redundant and should not be used because of the confusion it generates. Deliberate generators of confusion (such as our present USA administration) are evil because of the harm they can do to people's understanding. A more important question is this:

Why are so many so-called Christians so warlike? The right wing "conservatives" in the USA mostly proclaim to be Christians and all seem to be pro-war. They denounce anyone who suggests we should leave Iraq or should not have invaded it in the first place.

Isn't Christ himself called the Prince of Peace? Didn't He say that the peace makers are blessed? Didn't he say that the evil ones (weeds and chaff) will be thrown on the fire while the grain will be taken up to the storehouse?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 09, 2006, 01:11 PM
Post #35


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 09, 08:18 AM) *

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 09, 09:01 AM) *
... feel free to give me your definition of God.

God is the universe and nothing more....
Rick, If you want to call what I call GØD, Uni or even Universe, it is okay by me, as long as it helps you be a truly kind and human being. But do you have to appear to be dogmatic? Are you insisting that I--and Orthodox Jews who use G-d--have to use your terms and follow suit with you? IMHO, new concepts need new words.

As to your rhetorical questions about war-like "Christians": They could start a war.smile.gif

BTW, I wonder: Do we have any posters who would call themselves born-again "conservative Christians"? Of so, where are you?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 09, 2006, 01:28 PM
Post #36


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 09, 11:11 AM) *
... But do you have to appear to be dogmatic? Are you insisting that I--and Orthodox Jews who use G-d--have to use your terms and follow suit with you? IMHO, new concepts need new words.

As I mentioned, the terms imply the existence of a monotheistic god, one that exists outside creation, and that is a false idea. It is not dogmatic to be against lies.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 09, 2006, 02:13 PM
Post #37


Unregistered









The ordinary "consciousness" , or the "Waking Sleep" consciousness, in which most of people live, is a state of partial or dim awareness. It is akin to the state of sleep-walkers or zombies. Carl Jung said that even those people to belong to the highest stratum of consciousness have a consciousness that reflects the life of the last few centuries; that every step towards fuller consciousness removes a person further from the herd, from submersion in a common unconsciousness; that the man we may call modern, the man who is aware of the immediate present,
is by no means the average man, that such a man is rarely met with. This is a man with a minimum of unconsciousness. Thus, such a man becomes "unhistorical" in the deepest sense and has estranged himself from the mass of men who live entirely within the bounds of tradition.
The ordinarily conscious human beings, who are only partially conscious, are living on the periphery of their selves or in the false center, the ego, which is a by-product of the societal conditioning. This ego, or the false center, is the source of all pain, conflict, intolerance, aggression, hatred, confusion, and so on. "Why are so many so-called Christians so war-like?" There is a huge difference between Christ and christians. Christ is an Awakened One, the One who realized His True Essence,
His Divinity, His True Potential. A christian is a believer, a follower, the one who is still asleep, who is not aware of his True Nature. And there is a huge difference between Knowing and believing.
There are 3 fundamental ways of knowing: scientific, artistic, and through direct revelation.
"No-one knows what really matters." ???
"No-one knows what is best or right." ???
"What are the duties of an individual? What are the responsibilities of an individual?"
Rhymer,
Are You here to fulfill somebody´s expectations, or fulfill Yourself ?
Are You the One who lives by His inward light and is guided by His Spirit ?



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 09, 2006, 04:15 PM
Post #38


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 09, 10:28 AM) *
As I mentioned, the terms imply the existence of a monotheistic god, one that exists outside creation, and that is a false idea. It is not dogmatic to be against lies.
GØD, IMHO, is not the God apparent in traditional monotheism; G, IMO--and Jesus is a good example of this--became flesh (John 1), that is, material--in the universe as we know it.

Born-aginers say that this incarnation of God was confined to Jesus. I think they are wrong, but I would not call them liars. Are you in the habit of calling all sincerely-held beliefs "lies"? Sounds like fighting words, to me. I assumed you to be a man of peace. Or am I wrong to think this?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jun 09, 2006, 04:33 PM
Post #39


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



hello guest,

Are You here to fulfill somebody´s expectations, or fulfill Yourself ?

No-one has any expectations of me, save that I continue to behave as I do.
I do not think to myself every day 'how can I fulfill myself today'?
I do jobs that need doing after prioritisation.
I do things I enjoy doing.
I visit sick people. etc......

Are You the One who lives by His inward light and is guided by His Spirit ?
I don't recognise an 'inward light'.
I can presume that you refer to something inside me.
Light....battery driven....candle....illumination...ah yes, discovering!! I do this frequently, spending hours thinking about incorrigibles. When I do a DIY job, I hit very problems because 'I go through the actions' in mind first. When the design is complete my wife expresses amazement, but I feel no surprise - I knew beforehand exactly what it would look like and how it would perform.

I believe most people are operating at a much higher state of conciousness than you declare.
They may be limited by other inadequacies but they are not zombie-like as you state.
I afford respect to those who show by their deeds and abilities that they have clear consciousness and agile brains.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 09, 2006, 05:38 PM
Post #40


Unregistered









Hello, Rhymer,
Good to be back in touch!

If most people in our world were operating at a higher state of consciousness, this world would be very different from what it is.
The world is what we are, it mirrors the state of our collective consciousness.
Can You imagine the world in which the critical mass of consciousness is Christ´s Consciousness !?
It would be The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth !
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jun 09, 2006, 07:36 PM
Post #41


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



hello guest,

You do seem to enjoy our community, and raise interesting views.
Will you not consider registering and choosing a name by which we can 'call' you?
You will still be anonymous and it won't necessarily cost you anything!

I have to agree that the world would be a different place if we all had the same consciousness as Christ (ie. the principles He laid down).
But first of all you have to believe that Christ was more than a normal person; that His dad was God for instance!
The interesting thing is that Gods need not exist. As long as people believe in them, it's as good as the eventuality that they do or did exist!

However, I don't think the world would necessarily be a better place.

Can you explain why you think it would so be?

Remember that perfection is ahuman concept and I suspect that it represents an unattainable objective.
No specification for any design can represent perfection.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 09, 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #42


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 09, 10:28 AM) *
As I mentioned, the terms imply the existence of a monotheistic god, one that exists outside creation, and that is a false idea. It is not dogmatic to be against lies.

I revise my response above, as follows: You are wrong Rick. Unitheism--a double for pan-en-theism--is not deism. Voltaire was a deist. So were most of the founding fathers of the USA. For example, Benjamin Franklin. Neither is unitheism exactly the same as monotheism.

IMO, GØD is wrapped up in what we call the body of creation. I think of GØD as being in an through matter, without being dependent on it. In the same way, I need my physical body, for now. But my physical body is not entirely me. If you misunderstand what I am saying, I do not need to say you are lying. Surely, we can disagree with being accusative.

I repeat, GØD, IMHO, is not the God apparent in traditional monotheism. And this is an obvious reason why the new symbol is necessary. IMO, before the Big Bang, there was only GØD, being in a raw and unconscious form--the idea behind what we call the material universe.

However, at the BB, the process of GØD becoming matter, mind and life, began. And 15 billion years later, here we are. As John 1 puts it: "In the beginning was the Word (the very idea of things, GØD)" and "The Word (GØD) became flesh..." That is, the universe, as we know it, including humaniity, began to to come into being. The theological term for this is, "incarnation".

Born-aginers, bless their hearts, who take the Bible as being literally true, say that this incarnation of God on earth was confined to Jesus; that he alone is the Son of God. Roman Catholicism and the several Orthodox churches have a similar doctrine of incarnation. I think they are wrong. Sincere, but wrong. I believe we can all be incarnations of GØD--sons and daughters of GØD--if we so choose. But, if there are those disagree with me, I would not call them liars . IMO, the GØD concept transcends all forms of denominational religion.

BTW, Are you in the habit of calling all sincerely-held beliefs "lies"? Sounds like fighting words, to me. I had assumed you to be a man of peace. Or am I wrong to assume this? I hope you are a man of peace! smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 10, 2006, 12:43 PM
Post #43


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Seems to me as though your god is a limited concept to accommodate "good" and for simpletons has to depend on an independent supernatural entity/force/deity or whatever. Rick's "universe" is a much better term, as it includes everything, and certainly more than good. Love is an evolutionary adaptive advantage probably related originally to pairing and protection of subsequent offspring. It is a rather enjoyable experience and has even evolved further to embrace (!) more than coupling for reproductive purposes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 11, 2006, 08:00 AM
Post #44


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 10, 09:43 AM) *

Seems to me as though your god is a limited concept to accommodate "good" and for simpletons has to depend on an independent supernatural entity/force/deity or whatever. Rick's "universe" is a much better term, as it includes everything, and certainly more than good. Love is an evolutionary adaptive advantage probably related originally to pairing and protection of subsequent offspring. It is a rather enjoyable experience and has even evolved further to embrace (!) more than coupling for reproductive purposes.
HH, if we are to communicate what we really mean, there is much in the above which indicates the need for dialogue. It makes me wonder: How much of my stuff have you read? Did you not take note that I expressed no objection to Rick's use of Universe--or Uni, for short--as his name for what I call GØD--which is definitely unlimited and includes everything, and certainly GØD is more than the obviously good.

I quote just a snippet of a dialogue I am having with Steppenwolf @ Jun 10, 09:47 AM. It is from the thread, Divine Attributes of God: Steppenwolf, a Muslim--one who believes that everything, including death and destruction, comes under the will of Allah (The over-all power) "I'm rather intruding here..." He wrote.
I respoonded: Rest assured: "Nothing here, that contributes to the common good, need be considered intrusive.

"You say that in Islam, "God is described as that which is," and, " 'not like anything else' as well as 'encompasses the heavens and earth'." I like it. This is what I mean to indicate when I write GØD.

"I like the point you seem to be making when you write: "God (as understood by Muslims) seems to be quite a generic term to many things, but definately not a a term for a person." I like it."

Then I asked: "Do you think that it could be possible for Jews, Chrstians, Muslims and, perhaps, certain other theological thinkers, to get together and write a NEW kind of theology for the 21st. Century? I hope that this could be so."

HH, are you aware that your comments about "love" have little or nothing to do with the Christian concept of "love"?

They have to do with what the Greeks meant when they wrote of EROS and perhaps PHILIA--BTW, they are useful and valid in the proper context, but they are limited by natural conditions.

AGAPE IS NOT THE SAME AS EROS OR PHILIA
The New Testament Greek word for "love"--the one used by Paul in I Corinthians 13--is a special word, AGAPE. The Latin translation is CHARITAS--from which we get 'charity'. Modern Greeks say AGAPO, meaning "I love you, unconditionally". Have you read I Cor. 13? If not, I suggest you do.

If I had my way, I would stop using 'love' to indicate true Christian Love, and I would use 'charity' or 'agape' instead. Hollywood love, romantic love, is linked too closely to erotic and sensual pleasure. IMO, erotic and filial pleasures guided by charity, or agape, can be lasting. But without this guidance life will become romantic tragedies, like most of our movies and plays.

BTW, this is a perfect example I need for new words to define new concepts. GØD is a new concept, for most people. I repeat, if you prefer Universe, or Uni, it is your call. However, may I ask: Is your Universe strictly a physical one? What do you do about mentality, and/or spirituality?





User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 11, 2006, 08:49 AM
Post #45


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 11, 02:00 PM) *

HH, if we are to communicate what we really mean, there is much in the above which indicates the need for dialogue. It makes me wonder: How much of my stuff have you read?

Lindsay, I simply attempted to summarise my views on certain aspects of this ongoing discussion (through several topics in this and other boards). That I make the comments here seems to worry you and you arrogantly ask if I have read your other material in an attempt to discedit or quash my critique. Do not assume that you always communicate with prols. Some of us here are academics of many years standing and some have considerable experience of religious matters.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 11, 02:00 PM) *

HH, are you aware that your comments about "love" have little or nothing to do with the Christian concept of "love"?

You might have missed a past of my small submissions were I say:
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 10, 09:43 AM) *

has even evolved further to embrace (!) more than coupling for reproductive purposes.

Regarding your:
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 11, 02:00 PM) *
If I had my way, I would stop using 'love' to indicate true Christian Love....

I think we have to take care when making the words we use the excuse for overcomplicated arguments used in an attempt to confuse the simple minded and gain their acceptance of otherwise incoherent philosophies. Many of us know that "red" can mean any of the many shades of red and that other colours can become red under different illumination conditions.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 11, 02:00 PM) *

BTW, this is a perfect example I need for new words to define new concepts. GØD is a new concept, for most people. I repeat, if you prefer Universe, or Uni, it is your call.

These new concepts are the evolution of old religious concepts, or a diversion to confuse, or further clutching at straws as the demise of religion in all its forms occurs before our eyes under the weight of logic and the power of mass education?
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 11, 02:00 PM) *

However, may I ask: Is your Universe strictly a physical one? What do you do about mentality, and/or spirituality?

Hint, I believe in the mind, hence my presence on the BrainMeta forum. Spirituality, well I realised that magicians don't really do magic at quite an early age.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 11, 2006, 09:11 AM
Post #46


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Lindsay, I forgot to ask, in your GØD world, do you worship?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 11, 2006, 09:30 AM
Post #47


Unregistered









Spiritual guidance is the art of making a person become what s/he IS.
It is making a person SEE what s/he IS, rather than telling a person what s/he should be.
It is freeing people from their limitations, not making them dependent on someboby´s opinion or will.
Human consciousness has a remarkable quality of elasticity which enables it to grasp wider and higher dimensions.
We can expand our consciousness by shifting its focus to a higher plane -- invoking a particular archetype and dwelling upon a particular quality we want to embody.
It is possible to become aware of the Cosmic dimensions of our being.
Yet, if one wishes to pass upwards, the ego must be surrendered. The personal ego center must be annihilated, disintegrated, or integrated into a higher dimension of reality.
The shattering of the ego is always a painful process.
And this is the true meaning of death and resurrection -- death of the personality, or the personal ego center, and the resurrection from earthly bondage and limitations.
This is the meaning of the mass and all sacred rituals in all religions.
One becomes impersonal, one becomes "That" -- the divine mystery of non-being ...
"How else can one find oneself than by losing that which one thought one was ?
How can one undergo transformation without being shattered ?
When Truth has overwhelmed a human heart, It empties it of all that is not truth.
When God loves a being, He kills everything that is not Him.
I saw my Lord with the eye of the heart, and I said, "Who are You?" And He said, "YourSelf".
I am the wine of the holy sacrament, my very being is intoxication."


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 11, 2006, 08:34 PM
Post #48


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 11, 03:30 PM) *

How else can one find oneself than by losing that which one thought one was ?

You state a lot of gobbledygook (look up the definition - seriously!), as the circular statement above proves. Once you've found yourself then you (re)think what you are. Of course, then you then have to again lose yourself to find yourself........
QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 11, 03:30 PM) *

I am the wine of the holy sacrament, my very being is intoxication.

OK, I have to admit that this statement is very poetic, but then so is The Jabberwocky.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 11, 2006, 09:37 PM
Post #49


Unregistered









Hey Hey,
You will go on shape-shifting until You have found YourSelf !
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 11, 2006, 09:56 PM
Post #50


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 11, 06:11 AM) *

Lindsay, I forgot to ask, in your GØD world, do you worship?
Not in the formal sense of the word. I find that all that is true, creative, beautiful, rational, moral, ethical, just and agape-filled worthy of worth-ship. Currently, I am part of a new fellowship group dedicated to valuing the above.
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/
Not given to a lot of ritual.

BTW, I enjoy honest critiques, pro and con, and I have no intent of quashing it, ever, as long as we stick to the topic and avoid argumentum ad hominems, direct or implied. If my question offened you, I apologise.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 12, 2006, 05:48 PM
Post #51


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 12, 03:56 AM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 11, 06:11 AM) *

Lindsay, I forgot to ask, in your GØD world, do you worship?
Not in the formal sense of the word. I find that all that is true, creative, beautiful, rational, moral, ethical, just and agape-filled worthy of worth-ship. Currently, I am part of a new fellowship group dedicated to valuing the above.
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/
Not given to a lot of ritual.

BTW, I enjoy honest critiques, pro and con, and I have no intent of quashing it, ever, as long as we stick to the topic and avoid argumentum ad hominems, direct or implied. If my question offened you, I apologise.

Uhmm, interesting sidetracking from the term "worship" to "worth-ship". Thanks for the links, I'll look them up later. I think that worship (..of a diety..) devalues humans. You seem to have had a starting point with God in your original priesthood. Please remind me why you chose to deviate from God to GØD, or are both in your portfolio? (I don't mean to explain what GØD is, you have already explained that somewhat).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jun 12, 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #52


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



I also suspect Lindsay is attempting to give a slightly different, but nonetheless similar Name to THAT WHICH WE DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND in the World we find ourselves.
No harm in that, but I fear it will fall into the same trap - just another definition.

I have felt for some while that God is female!
Her name would most aptly be Miss Understood.

I have concluded (my personal belief) that there are no Gods except in peoples minds; ie., it's a concept recognising the awe we have about Life that we do not understand and allows comforting 'answering' of questions about death, passed away loved ones, etc.
It does serve a purpose for many people!!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jun 12, 2006, 10:16 PM
Post #53


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2453
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 09, 08:18 AM) *

God is the universe and nothing more.

I thought God to you was just a concept. At least that's how you stated it a few days back. It is now the universe? Why the chage?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 13, 2006, 12:27 AM
Post #54


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE

Uhmm, interesting sidetracking from the term "worship" to "worth-ship"....
World Book Dictionary points ot that 'worthship' is actually a contraction of 'worth' and 'ship'. Makes sense to me. Don't most normal human beings find worth in some things. Rick sees it in the universe. I do too. However, I vision the universe as being: physical, mental and spiritual. The poet, Alexander Pope puts it in his, Essay On Man: "Whose body nature is, and God the soul."

QUOTE
Please remind me why you chose to deviate from God to GØD...
Perhaps I need to write a bio. I went off to university, at seventeen, with a curious mind and many questions, not to be brainwashed. My basic BA was in philosophy and psychology. I almost became a psychologist. I found that the kind of psychology advocated by William James, Adler, Jung, Rogers, Menninger, and the like, fits very well with a rational theology.

I looked on the church as a clinic for sick souls, including my own. Under the general heading, pneumatology (study of the spirit)--a term I coined (in 1964) but later found it was already in the dictionary--I set up the church program as kind of clinic for the treatment of illnesses which I believe are rooted in the spirit. As part of the clinic I involved physicians, and others in the healing arts, as consultants. There is a famous quote from Dr. Carl Jung in which he admits that most of his patients were really spiritually sick, which simply reflects itself in the mind and the body. Dr. Carl Menninger makes the same point in his writings. To single out this category of illness, I coined the words pneumasomatic, and pneumapsychic--the self afflicting the mind and/or the body.

BTW, IMO, most criminals, including terrorists--and this is not offered as an excuse to do evil--are spiritually and mentally sick. So are those who simply want revenge against them, which only makes matters worse. More and more therapists are beginning to think this way. All need therapy, not just revenge-filled punishment. Check out the work of Dr. Keith Ablow
http://www.keithablow.com/index.asp?page=w...nu=wp4620041420

Thank GØD, in my studies I met professors at http://mta.ca at Atlantic School of Theology http://astheology.ns.ca/ and at Boston University http://www.bu.edu/sth/ who taught students how to think, not what to think. You need to know that all my ministry in the United Church of Canada, 1953--1994, I preached critically and analytically about the Bible, other sacred literature, religion and theology.

IMO, fanatic religionists--all religions--no matter how well meaning, who seek to impose their dogmas on others, and who believe that they alone have the one true religion, are, I strongly feel, spiritually ill. They need our help to become more accepting of human differences. Differences can be enriching. Arrogant pride is a divisive and harmful emotion. It is the cause of much individual and social pain and suffering.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 13, 2006, 11:24 AM
Post #55


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jun 12, 08:16 PM) *

QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 09, 08:18 AM) *

God is the universe and nothing more.

I thought God to you was just a concept. At least that's how you stated it a few days back. It is now the universe? Why the chage?

The key here is the phrase "nothing more." If something has two names (such as "universe" and "God") then one of the names is redundant.

We know what the universe is, or at least we know what it is that scientists study (things that exist). We know the universe exists. Anything more than the universe does not exist. There is no change from my previous position.

Another way to say the same thing: there is nothing supernatural.

Lindsay will then ask, "what about mentalism (consciousness, mind, qualia, whatever you want to call it)?

Answer: the mental exists and is part of the universe. It's the subject of Susan Blackmore's new book, Conversations on Consciousness.

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

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/ConCon/CC.htm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 13, 2006, 12:50 PM
Post #56


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



['Rick' date='Jun 13, 08:24 AM']
Question: Rick, which came first, the universe, or mentality?
Rick says
QUOTE
If something has two names (such as "universe" and "God") then one of the names is redundant.
I agree, there is redundancy here. I hereby declare: GØD was here, first, as the beginning point "."--that without dimensions. Therefore, GØD came first. The point then physically grew to become the primordial ball, which became the big bang. There followed, the galaxies, stars, planets and then us, just a blip ago. Therefore, I suggest we get rid of God, the universe, Rick, etc., and replace all with GØD. smile.gif

BTW, the "." went on to become a circle without circumference in which we live and move, if we choose to do so.

BTW, I recently heard particle physicist, Lisa Randall, Harvard, say something similar to the above.
http://www.sciencewatch.com/july-aug2001/s...g2001_page3.htm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 13, 2006, 05:25 PM
Post #57


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 12, 03:37 AM) *

Hey Hey,
You will go on shape-shifting until You have found YourSelf !

I hope so !
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 13, 2006, 05:48 PM
Post #58


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 13, 05:24 PM) *

Answer: the mental exists and is part of the universe. It's the subject of Susan Blackmore's new book, Conversations on Consciousness.

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

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/ConCon/CC.htm


Susan Blackmore:

PhD in Parapsychology, University of Surrey, 1980
Thesis entitled "Extrasensory Perception as a Cognitive Process"

Parapsychology - Another science without a subject?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 13, 2006, 06:04 PM
Post #59


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Rick's entry above reminded me of Susan Blackmore who seems to have given the impression of herself as some "psychology Dawkinsesque character" but without the academic standing. However, there is given on her website an interesting paragraph summarising a Dawkins idea of memes and religions:

Some memes are almost entirely exploitative, or viral, in nature, including chain letters and e-mail viruses. These consist of a “copy-me” instruction backed up with threats and promises. Religions have a similar structure and this is why Dawkins refers to them as ‘viruses of the mind’. Many religions threaten hell and damnation, promise heaven or salvation, and insist that their followers pass on their beliefs to others. This ensures the survival of the memeplex. Other viral memes include alternative therapies that don’t work, and new age fads and cults. Relatively harmless memes include children’s games, urban legends and popular songs, all of which can spread like infections.

Lindsay, what do you think to this idea of religion as an insidious notion that has somehow enabled its own replication through generations - i.e. a viral meme?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jun 13, 2006, 08:35 PM
Post #60


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 13, 03:04 PM) *
....
Lindsay, what do you think to this idea of religion as an insidious notion that has somehow enabled its own replication through generations - i.e. a viral meme?
Before I respond I will need to know: What do you mean by "this idea of religion"?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2019 - 01:03 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by:

The Neurological Foundation & CerebralHealth.com

BrainMeta is enhanced by:

UVISI: Universal Virtual Intelligence Singularity Infinity
info@uvisi.com