Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Viewing Profile: Lindsay


Member Group: Basic Member
Joined: Feb 07, 2006

Active Stats
User's local time Sep 19, 2019, 05:27 AM
Total Cumulative Posts 1730
( 0.3 posts per day / 1.55% of total forum posts )
Most active in What is God?
( 205 posts / 12% of this member's active posts )
Last Active 18th December 2015 - 01:16 PM
Status User is offline (Offline)
AIM No Information
Yahoo revlgk@yahoo.ca
ICQ No Information
MSN RevLGKing@live.ca
Contact Send a Personal Message
Contact Send an Email
Home Page http://www.lindsayking.ca
Birthday 14 January 1930
Location Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Interests A HOLISTIC THEOLOGY--It is one that includes the three components of the whole person: SOMA, PSYCHE & PNEUMA--the Body, Mind & Spirit. We could also say we are who we are because of our nature (heredity), nurture (environment) & spiriture (how we utiluize our imagination and WILL-power)--Jan.30, 2013 (latest revision, today, April 2, 2014).

Ref: The Book: THE UNIVERSE WITHIN--From Quantum to Cosmos, By Neil Turok, 2012
Now take note of this special acronym, which I concocted, I am not sure when--not to long ago. Here it is, G~~D. I use it to replace the nouns gods (plural), and God (singular)--the term favoured by theists. I

Note that I use a tilde [~]. On my 'puter, it is the upper-case sign on first key before # 1. I understand that it can be used in literature to refer to titles. For example, over the centuries many artists have depicted Jesus on the cross. Above his head many artists put a sign with the following four letters, INRI--spelled out in Latin it is a title meaning "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (John 19:19).

think of a Great-Omni-Dazzlement (an ever-expanding flash of creative light). Forget about calling it the BIG-bang (a derisive and negative term concocted by the astronomer, Fred Hoyle, an atheist.

G~~D is an acronym--not a noun--which I concocted quite some time ago ...not sure when ... to mean that which Generates Organizes & Delivers. What does it deliver? The things we need, and the people who need us.

In my humble opinion, the god-hypothesis, idea or concept, which I have come to accept, in recent decades, is too flexible a one to be contained in a simple noun like 'god' or even 'God'. noun and capable of being defined, or contained in a three-dimensional universe. The god-concept is beyond our power to imagine--to make into an idol.

Therefore, I have chosen to use an acronym, GOD--which stands for all that is Good (Love), Orderly and Desirable.

Interestingly, for a similar reason, Orthodox Jewish writers, when writing in English, use this, G-d. The dash represents the mystery of it all--beyond reason and what we experience.

Sometimes, instead of the full O--the symbol of infinity and eternity--I use the mathematical symbol, 0, with a / through it, the null--the set without numbers. Mathematically speaking, it is said that all things are possible. Since this system-server will not copy the null symbol I will use 0, zero. Thus I write G0D.

In 2012, now that I have become aware of the nature and function of the Tilde [~], I will now change it to be as follows: G~0~D~~all that is GOOD, OPPORTUNE, DESIRABLE, DELIGHTFUL AND DESIRABLE.

I use the 0, the zero, and/or the null ... ... to refer to that which has no equal--the entire physical COSMOS plus all that is in it an beyond it, into which the cosmos is expanding.
The null encompasses and interpenetrates all "things"--physical, mental and spiritual. This is panENtheism, not to be confused with pantheism.

In the null, all that IS exists. In O , we all live, move and have our being.

The null is Spirit and Love in all of us. Check out what St. John writes in John 2 and 3, and I John 4:8--God is love.
GOD as the almost infallible computer
Unitheism sermon

Philosophically speaking, I like the approach long advocated by process philosophers who advocate the philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead, the Rev. Charles Hartshorne and others.

Psychologically speaking, I like the ideas of William James, Carl Jung, Victor Frankl, Abraham Maslow--all appear to be apart of the humanist school of psychology.

All this led me to explore what is commonly called hypnotism--a word which I think is a misnomer.


In 1965, mentored by the late Rev Canon Joseph Wittkofski, I know an extensive course on the PASTORAL USE OF HYPNOSIS, which I prefer to call pneumatherapy--the use of spiritual ideas to help with the integration of body, mind and spirit.

See the work of Dr. Milton Erickson--the psychiatrist who is known as the father of North American hypnosis.

My interests, also, include the study of the Holistic approach to life, including the sources of total health of body, mind and spirit, at all stages of life, including old age. Keep in mind: I was born in 1930.

I often ask myself: What do I need to do next, so as to have the best possible physical, mental and spiritual information, necessary for a full and abundant life until the day I die? This is one of my goals.

In my opinion, we all need to ask ourselves:

How best to prepare for death? That is, the best way to be prepared to leave this three-dimensional universe, and move on to the next ... if there is one.

Psychology, Religion and Healing (1950), is the title of a book which influenced me in my twenties. It is by the minister psychologist, the Rev. Leslie D. Weatherhead.

Complementary therapies, including pneumatherapy--that is, hypnosis without the hocus pocus--are, also, of interest to me. Check out the work of Hicks/Adams (Ask and It is Given), Wayne Dyer and other modern thinkers.

---About our spiritual, mental and physical diet.
In my opinion, philosophy and pneumatology are the parents of psychology which, when it married the animal-based materialism of Wilhelm Wundt and Sigmund Freud, rebelled against anything to do with the transcendental--the mystical and spiritual.

With the help of intellects like the late William James, Carl Jung and Victor Frankl (logotherapy) Abraham Maslow and the humanistic school of psychology we are, without denying somatological facts, seeing a return to the pneumatological roots of psychology. I am working for the integration of pneuma, psyche and soma. See I Thessalonians 5:23.

Beginning in 1947, I began my basic undergrad work as a student of psychology/philosophy and the like. In 1953, I was ordained a minister of the United Church of Canada.

Following my ordination in June 1953, the first assignment of Jean (a teacher) and me (1953) was: Go to the Goosebay Military airbase. You will be met by Fl.Lt, the Rev. Phil Ross and the UC padre at the base. After lunch (July 18) He drove me, six miles through the dark spindly spruce, to what was ironically called Happy Valley--a squatters' town of 115 families. There I helped found the first church--then a union church--in Happy Valley, Goose-bay, Labrador.

Later, in I954-1955, as the result of a scholarship to Boston University, I did post-grad studies in the HISTORY OF IDEAS. There, I completed the two-year program, with the help of excellent professors from BU, Harvard and Union Theological seminary, NY. From there, I went back to Canada--Tide Head, a bedroom community of about 80 families and five mile west of Campbellton, NB. There it was my privilege to design and supervise the building of a new church building adjacent to the school. To this day, it is the focal point of the community.
There, on April 1, 1956, Easter Sunday, Catherine Jean, our beautiful daughter was born.
BTW, I realize that "pneumatological", unlike "psychological", is not a commonly-used term.

"Psychological". As I understand it, it has to do with the instinctual-controlled animal mind, which, regardless of its behaviour, is sin and guilt free.

"Pneumatological". On the other hand, it has to do with the mind and body as being in conscious control of the human spirit. It is about the human mind as spirit--the human mind as being conscious and morally aware of itself. If you know that you are you; that you are not me and that you choose to treat yourself and me, lovingly, you are a moral and ethical human being. It is all about deeds, not creeds.

While 'pneuma', 'pneumatics' and 'pneumatology' are found in World Book Dictionary, 'pneumatological' is not. I did find it in one very old Webster's Dictionary.


Yes, we evolved from some form of animal being. But, in my opinion, primarily, we are also 'pneumatological' beings. That is, we are animal beings who have evolved and are now spiritual beings, as distinct from animal beings.



There are similar stories about alligators in the Amazon and ostriches in Africa. There are stories about salmon, whales, eels, and even monarch butterfly's.
All pose the question: What drives animal creatures to live, procreate and die the way that they?

The short answer is, instinct.

Scientists, who study animal and insect behaviour, tell us that such creatures have no conscious choice in the matter. It appears that they are, by powerful animal instincts, programmed to do what they have to do. They have no conscious choice in the matter. In the process, the fittest will survive to produce a better adapted model of the species for the next generation, or they will die in the effort.

However, we human beings seem to differ from our fellow animal beings. While we, too, have animal instincts, we seem to have the power to ask ourselves: Why am I doing this? If I were just an animal, would I ask myself this question?

By the way, over the decades I have done--and I still do--a lot of counseling. I always ask clients: Tell me, How do you feel, physically, mentally and spiritually?

In getting to know a client I always begin by asking myself--later I will include the client--:

1.What per cent of this person's pain and suffering is strictly physical--that is, somatic--in nature?

2. What per cent is mental and emotional--that is, psychosomatic--in nature? And,

3. What per cent is self-imposed--that is, pneumasomatic--in nature?


BTW, I usually got the most successful outcomes with clients who were willing to include themselves as part of the healing team. When somatic solutions were needed, I was, and am, always ready to accept the counsel of wise medical doctors, especially those who, like Dr. Zoltan Rona--who is also a bio-chemist-- believe in and practice complementary medicine.

Self-imposed guilt and regret regarding the past, fear of the present, and dread and anxiety of the future, for example, can drive people into being addicted in any number ways.

I am sure that, more often than not, the things which drive us to become addicted, whether it be to nicotine, alcohol, food, whatever--all leading to bad health, including obesity--are rooted in the psyche/pneuma--filled with the things which are eating us--rather than just in the soma (the stomach), filled with the things we are eating.

Following the principles of holism, at my personal site
http://www.flfcanada.com which is being revised,

we discuss the political economy, especially the local currency movement. I take what I call a feathers approach to economics--feathers cover the whole bird, not just the wings. I am interested in the art of providing:

Full, abundant and meaningful employment (FAME) through the use of complementary and community currencies (CCC) which we first advocated in 1961. Check out the work of Professor Bernard Lietaer

Currently--always keeping my options open--I call myself a unitheist. I like to spell the divine name, G..D

I retired as a pastoral minister Dec. 31,1993.

Now, I like to think of myself as re-directed--an artist and a writer, director of The Family Life Foundation--a federally registered charity.

We (Jean and I) have a daughter, Catherine (1956) who is an artist--master carver, writer and poet. She lives with her artist husband, Wayne Adams, near Tofino, BC, on a large floating house (one-quater acre), on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

My son, Turner (1958) lives in Toronto is a teacher, a musician (jazz-pro), the father of my only three grandchildren (Tyler,1995, Sahar,1990, and Neda, 1988). His wife, Farah, is a Sufi Muslim, from Tehran, Iran. I now have two step-great grandchildren, in Sweden.
About empathy: entering fully, through imagination, into another's feelings or motives. For example, into the meaning of a work of art, etc. It comes from the Greek empatheia--in + pathos, feeling.

Coberst et al: Have you read any of the things I have written about pneumatology. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma

IMHO, empathy falls under the category of pneumatology, the mother of psychology. One of my missions since the 1960's has been the integration of somatology, psychology and pneumatology.

World Book Dictionary, volume 2, defines somatology as the science of the human body, especially as a branch of anthropology. It is the science of material bodies, or substances; physics. It comes from New Latin, somatologia, from Greek soma, meaning body + logia-logos (Greek for word). The suffix, logy, meaning the study of, is found at the end of numerous English words.

BTW, I tend to be pushy about my interest in pneumatology and related topics--unitheism, panentheism, neo-theism.

I love going into the root meanings of words. For new ideas, I also love to coin new words, such as pneumatheism--hypnosis without the hocus pocus and the magic usually associated with it.

Having studied psychology I am all in favour of using psychotherapy. However, I believe we also need pneumatherapy--using the spirit--of all involved--as an instrument for healing the psyche and soma--mind and body.

I also use a special word to express my god-concept, G..D or G0D--goodness, order and design--in and through the ALL that is--G..D

Some posters are offended by my tendency to be pneumatologically who I am :) ....whatever. Is my total profile visible to you? Then, please feel free to keep me in my place. I'm easy.

Lindsay G. King (1930--)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxLOTS MORE EDITING TO BE DONE

QUOTE(Jellybean2 @ May 28, 2007, 07:16 AM) *

lol.. no i don't take offense.. and I appreciate what ya'll ask me to look at smile.gif.. i will definatly study it out and come back to you on it. smile.gif...
i rarely get offended...but do stand for my beliefs happy.gif
i enjoy the challenges and seeing everyones point of view here ( while majority agree with a non existent God).
and i am a girl.. not a young male christian smile.gif
The above are signs that JB2 is a healthy pneuma (spirit), highly capable of real empathy. IMHO, a healthy pneuma is an excellent and necessary foundation for a healthy mind and body--psyche and soma. Three important steps to holistic health are : integration, integration, integration of soma, psyche and pneuma.
To MAX242 Nov. 2006 Introduce Yourself
BTW, looking back over 70 years: I got the education I wanted, and needed, to get on with my career as a minister--and I am continuing to educate myself. I had a happy professional career, and I am now enjoying the challenge of retirement.

My goal is to die healthy--the only pills I take are probiotics (enzymes, herbs, vitamins, and the like, which I get from a company called rgarden)--and to leave whatever legacy I can create to those I leave behind--my two children, three grandchildren, and others.

I take a feathers--that is, a democratic-capitalism approach to political economics and all our resources. My approach is neither left wing nor right wing. I am neither a doctrinaire socialist, nor a dogmatic capitalist. I am an Aristotelian.

While I abhor dishonesty and greed, I have no problem with anyone, such as Bill Gates, who have achieved all kinds of wealth and power, as long as it was gained, honestly and is used wisely and lovingly. I expect people of wealth and power to be good stewards--that is, I expect them to manage their wealth and power for their own and for the public good.

It seems to me that we all started life as consumers. As a baby you were a beautiful consumer, I hope. I was and was number seven at the teat--one more followed me. That is, we started to consume resources in the form of goods and services belonging to others, our parents, who consumed goods and services which belonged to others, their employers, who consumed goods and services which belonged to others and on, an on. Together, we still consume the resources of Mother Earth and...I'll call him, Father Sky (for both Iuse the symbol,G�D). And together, we the people need to be moral and ethical stewards of providence--what ME and FS ( G�D) provide.

Steward (keeper of the animal stys). Interestingly, the NT Greek word is is 'oikonomos'. From it we get our word 'economics'. Ad stewards we are keepers, or managers, of the house (oiko). Honest and creative stewardship of all our resources gives all of us the opportunity to be creatively employed, and creative employers--by our consumption providing employment for others. And on it flows to others. Every time a dollar moves--whether from the hands of the poor or rich--it becomes part of the flow of things. Wealth, like a river, needs to flow to remain pure. Poverty, IMO, is not caused by lack of providence; it is the result of immoral stewardship--caused by ignorance, or by obscurant manipulators--somewhere along the line. Most importantly: follow the flow of money.

It is obvious that money is made to flow, like the current of a river. This is why we call it currency. Stagnant money is like stagnant water. It stinks. This is why I like encouraging people to use local, complementary and community currencies (CCC) in addition to the federal currency. CCC is is not for hoarding or saving; it is for using and is useless unless it is used.

BTW, anyone heard about the local currency movement? I first started to write about it in the 1960's.
QUOTE (lgking @ Sep 02, 10:27 AM)
What exactly do you mean by it?

One of the standard creationist "arguments" goes like this:

"There is about as much chance for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble a 747 out of the parts as there is for random chemical associations to create life."

How the natural establishment of life came about is described convincingly in Dawkins' book, and for a creationist to fall back on the junkyard argument is to argue from a failure of imagination. The creationist is failing to look for the scientific arguments. It's caused by either fear of the truth or mental laziness.

Posted by: lgking Sep 02, 2004, 10:00 PM

Rick, how familiar are you with the concept of emanation?

To the extent that I understand the concept, it makes sense, to me. It also fits in with the unitheistic concept of G-d, which I presently hold.


Table of Contents
* Definition and Distinctions
* Hindu, Zoroastrian, and Greek Phases
* Philo and Early Christian Doctrine
* Pseudo Dionysius, Scholastic, and Mystic Doctrine

Definition and Distinctions

The concept of emanation is that all derived or secondary things proceed or flow from the more primary. It is distinguished from the doctrine of creation by its elimination of a definite will in the first cause, from which all things are made to emanate according to natural laws and without conscious volition. It differs from the theory of formation at the hands of a supreme artisan who finds his matter ready to his hand, in teaching that all things, whether actually or only apparently material, flow from the primal principle. Unlike evolution, again, which includes the entire principle of the world, material and spiritual, in the process of development, emanation holds to the immutability of the first principle as to both quality and quantity, and also in the tendency of the development evolution implying one which goes from less to more perfect, while emanation involves a series of descending stages.

Posted by: Rick Sep 03, 2004, 08:26 AM

Emanation doesn't conflict with mystical gnosticism, but one can't rule out illusion (as the source of emanational ideas) as consciousness itself emanates from the brain. One problem with gnosticism is its resemblance to megalomania in its certainty of truth.

Emanation also doesn't seem to add any explanation, but implies more questions as to mechanism. The humanist view is that eventually people will know enough to be able to understand all the things about which we are curious. So any elements of theory that cloud the issues or don't add to understanding are to be avoided.

Your avatar image, by the way, appears to be unaccessible from this part of the world.
Posted by: Robert the Bruce Sep 03, 2004, 09:42 AM

I agree.
Posted by: Unknown Sept., 03, 2004, 09:43 AM

There are many variations of Gnosticism though.
Posted by: lgking Sep 03, 2004, 07:32 PM

The humanist view is that eventually people will know enough to be able to understand all the things about which we are curious.

Rick, I presume you speak as a sincere humanist. Perhaps you wish to avoid labels, but are you a materialist, or a spiritual humanist?

Your comment reminds me of a story I have used on several occasions:

A technologist developed a powerful, infallible and voice-activated computer. One of his friends was a theologian. He invited her, along with a few others, to be among the first to put the computer to the test. No matter how simple, or complex, the question, the computer responded, vocally, and with precision.

When it came the theologian's turn, she first asked a couple of questions about the Bible and the religions of the world. Again, the computer had no problem.

"I have one more question" she said, "and I am sure we all await your answer with deep interest: Is there a one and only true God?"

Suddenly, the computer became a beautiful pink cloud which filled the whole room. Out of the cloud came a powerful and resonant voice: THERE IS, NOW!

Posted by: Rick Sep 04, 2004, 11:20 AM

QUOTE (lgking @ Sep 03, 08:32 PM)
... are you a materialist, or a spiritual humanist?

I am a humanist in that my current operating hypothesis is that man has the best understanding that exists at this time. While it is possible that other intelligent beings exist somewhere, there is no (compelling) evidence that this is the case. So man, indeed, is the "measure of all things," as the Greeks used to say.

I am also a materialist in that I regard pure (unstructured) consciousness as a type of substance. Information exists only as structure in matter or consciousness. In my ontology I don't have a place for the terms "spirit" or "soul" which I think may be redundant with certain forms of consciousness or mind structure. I merely wish to be precise in my thinking, so I avoid terms that seem to me to cloud the issues.

Posted by: Hey Hey Sept., 04, 2004, 03:14 PM

There is no compelling evidence for free will. Everything is achieved as part of ultra complex reflex action. We are fooled into thinking that we have free will, just as we are fooled into thinking that food tastes good and red is a nice colour. There is no taste or colour. This is all a ruse to keep us going. Who knows why? Just to keep thinks ticking. Who says that we are so important that there has to be a reason that we have free will or that anything is real?

HISTORY of Unitheism. Check out
[quote name='FDk' post='85341' date='Nov 13, 2007, 04:26 PM']
Interesting thought... you not only successfully limited God within the realms of modern physics... [/quote]BTW, the process philosophy and theology of the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, which makes a lot of sense to me, wrote about process theism [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/[/url].
Process theologians write about panENntheism, not to be confused with pantheism. To avoid confusion, I prefer to us a doublet, unitheism. As a unitheist I say: There is no ONE god; GØD and Nature--physically, mentally and spiritually--are the One.

[quote]Process Theism
First published Thu 29 Jul, 2004

Process theism typically refers to a family of theological ideas originating in, inspired by, or in agreement with the metaphysical orientation of the English philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and the American philosopher-ornithologist Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes.[/quote]

In other words, I take this to mean that GOD is simply a name for what is happening in the eternal now and the infinity of space. We are always on the cutting edge of time. The past is only a fading memory and the future is only an illusive dream. The one true reality is now; this is why we call it a present.
added November 16, 2007
Contains much basic philosophy:

Regarding, Trip Like I do. TAKE NOTE
This just in:

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Dec 04, 2009, 08:42 PM) *

Anyone heard from Lindsay? It seems a long time since he posted here. Hope you're OK if you see this.
From Trip Like I do:

[quote]... I was actually thinking the same thing today and last night.... I figured the old bible thumper might have finally met his maker wink.gif .... and then I'd bet he'd have a few things to share with us here at bm.com laugh.gif [/quote]
"Bible thumper" (BT) ? Me?
TLID, assuming that atheists are great advocates of truth, where is your evidence that I am a BT? Got any?

We are all waiting. OK?

BTW, Trip Like I Do, I consider being called a "Bible Thumper" an insult, especially when it is so far from the truth. If you cannot produce the evidence--in context--I expect an apology?

Naturally, I expect that I will get it.

BTW 2. For the record, I will keep a copy of this post in my profile.

If there is concrete evidence that I am a "Bible Thumper", I will gladly apologize to one and all, and repent, profoundly!!!!

Additional Information
No Information

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2019 - 05:27 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