Did Jesus judge or not judge? [Archive] - Soulforce Community Forums

u-dog

06-18-2009, 06:56 AM

I've heard many Christians say that Jesus did not come to judge. But according to at least one verse in the New testament, he actually did. In fact, he said:

John 9:39(Contemporary English Version)
"I came to judge the people of this world. I am here to give sight to the blind and to make blind everyone who can see."

But then later in the book of John he says:

John 12:47(Contemporary English Version)
"I am not the one who will judge those who refuse to obey my teachings. I came to save the people of this world, not to be their judge."

Didn't Jesus just contradict himself? First he says that he came to judge and then he says he's not the one who will judge.

So does he judge or not?

Rick

Rick,

I once went to Sears and picked out what I thought (under the flourescent lights) were a perfectly attractive pair of khaki slacks. I paid for them and put them in a bag and carried them out to the car. Something made me take them out of the bag and look at them in the sunlight before I got into the car. They were the most GOD-AWFUL color of light, baby-puke green. They would have gone with NOTHING I owned. I went back into the store and the clerk gave me my money back. it was only in natural sunlight that these slacks were revealed to be the abomination that they truly were. The sunlight did not actively JUDGE the slacks but in the sunlight the judgement was inescapable.

In John's Gospel, Jesus is the "Light" and in the light of Christ all things judge themselves because they are fully revealed and fully known in that light. This is how it is possible for Jesus to say BOTH that he DOES and DOES NOT judge.

Jesus doesnt stand in the midst of us and point the finger and say "You Suck" and "You're cool" but when he stands in the midst of us we all know the degree to which we do and do not suck.

Does that help?

U-dog

Daniel

06-18-2009, 09:00 AM

I've heard many Christians say that Jesus did not come to judge. But according to at least one verse in the New testament, he actually did. In fact, he said:

John 9:39(Contemporary English Version)
"I came to judge the people of this world. I am here to give sight to the blind and to make blind everyone who can see."

This Jesus is coming across in an rather cryptic way, don't you think? Making people blind? Others so that they can see?

He's coming across as the Esoteric Christ...the Martial Arts Jesus. He might as well have said "I am here to confound you." Not bad, considering that this is what can be expected from Enlightened Beings, no?

But then later in the book of John he says:

John 12:47(Contemporary English Version)
"I am not the one who will judge those who refuse to obey my teachings. I came to save the people of this world, not to be their judge."

Didn't Jesus just contradict himself? First he says that he came to judge and then he says he's not the one who will judge.

So does he judge or not?

A different kind of expression than the first. This Jesus- as I see it- is yakking about his self-perception- what he is here to do- that is- 'save'- rather than having a teaching moment like is seen in the first statement.

The trouble comes when one pops out the word judge. Once that is done, all context is lost. As such, a yes or no answer is robbed of any full meaning and is as much reductive as the most 'blind' anti-gay statement.

I agree with U-dog: it's a about perception. Though I would not go as far to say that the matter is about judging ourselves. That seems to me to be a rather Calvinistic view. Another slap on the wrist. Jesus' first statement seems to me to be something more akin to a Zen Koan. As such, it makes no logical sense. And that is what Koans - as such- are meant to do- confound the left-brained way of looking at things.

Rick336

06-18-2009, 11:13 AM

Rick,

In John's Gospel, Jesus is the "Light" and in the light of Christ all things judge themselves because they are fully revealed and fully known in that light. This is how it is possible for Jesus to say BOTH that he DOES and DOES NOT judge.

Jesus doesnt stand in the midst of us and point the finger and say "You Suck" and "You're cool" but when he stands in the midst of us we all know the degree to which we do and do not suck.

Does that help?

U-dog

I'm still don't fully understand. When you talk about seeing the world through, "the light of Christ" what exactly is this "light" and how does it help people understand scripture that is otherwise confusing?

Rick

u-dog

06-18-2009, 01:35 PM

I'm still don't fully understand. When you talk about seeing the world through, "the light of Christ" what exactly is this "light" and how does it help people understand scripture that is otherwise confusing?

Rick

In John's understanding, Jesus is the manifestation -- the revelation -- of the heart, mind, and essence of the divine. His life, his teachings, his miracles, this self-sacrificial death and his death-destroying resurrection ... all of it. In that sense, Jesus life and death are therefore a bright "light" shining on the face of God. We know what the Divine is, wants, values, loves etc. It also is a bright light that shines on us and we are able to see who we really are and to what degree we are inline with or out of line with the nature of the Divine.

Alecto

06-18-2009, 04:41 PM

He says he came to judge, but will not. He's allowed to change his mind y'know. ;)

Emproph

06-19-2009, 06:30 AM

The sunlight did not actively JUDGE the slacks but in the sunlight the judgement was inescapable.

In John's Gospel, Jesus is the "Light" and in the light of Christ all things judge themselves because they are fully revealed and fully known in that light.

Jesus doesnt stand in the midst of us and point the finger and say "You Suck" and "You're cool" but when he stands in the midst of us we all know the degree to which we do and do not suck.

That's an excellent way of putting it.

The trouble comes when one pops out the word judge. Once that is done, all context is lost. As such, a yes or no answer is robbed of any full meaning and is as much reductive as the most 'blind' anti-gay statement.
Do not judge arbitrarily is what we should say, so the distinction between that and meaningful judgement, like decisions, is immediately understood.

I'm still don't fully understand. When you talk about seeing the world through, "the light of Christ" what exactly is this "light" and how does it help people understand scripture that is otherwise confusing?

Think of the Bible as simply a history book. The “light” is the intelligence in your mind that shows you deeper meaning in regard to anything. The Scriptures are no different.

Some of the Scriptures are meant to convey that understanding, that the Golden Rule is what is most important, because it's what's most fair for everyone. That is that light.

The Bible tells a story of not only a consciousness beyond your own mind, but ultimately, that this consciousness beyond my own mind, is literally of my own mind.

There is a God who is Love, and we are and integral part of it. You see that, and you see that Original Sin is the belief in sin itself. You see that, and you realize that Judgment Day is the day you realize that every day is "judgment day," and that the Second "Coming" of Christ is impossible, because God/Love/Heaven/Christ can’t be here anymore than it already is, and that it’s our inability to perceive it, not the lack of it’s existence.

And when enough people get that (critical mass), it will flashover so bright that everyone else will see it too---that everything is heaven/God/Love and that we never left the Garden.

And that we were never judged to begin with, the “judgment” manifests itself as seeing how well we’ve measured up to that truth---understood as the Golden Rule, which is infinite in it’s application---that’s the judgment of the light, understood through Scripture as Jesus and the meaning of crucifixion - there must be a resurrection. Physical-life is the crucifixion part.

Remember, light is made up of all the colors. However bright the light, so bright are the colors (beauty). Think cotton candy Liquid Diamonds.

So that’s how the “light” helps me to understand Scripture. And in understanding that, I see that that truth surrounds me. Scripture is just one place where the story of the light can be found.

U-dog get’s it, though he may not agree with the way I put things.

Daniel

06-19-2009, 08:09 AM

Christians have an affinity for Judgment while Asian beliefs (Buddhism included) veer towards the concept of Karma.

The latter term has been derided and misunderstood in our culture, but it might be useful in this discussion insofar as it throws a light on how one can perceive one's actions- or lack thereof. For this to happen, it is understood that one must have an ethical system. And for one to have an ethical system, one must start to observe the connection between actions that bring one's self and others peace/happiness and those that do not.

This is a matter of perception, self-perception in particular.

Is a belief in God necessary for this to happen?

Nope.

Rick336

06-19-2009, 11:40 AM

So that’s how the “light” helps me to understand Scripture.

If that "light" helps you to understand scripture, then what do these two verses mean? The first one says that God saves by faith alone. The second one says that it's not by faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9(King James Version)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

James 2:24 (King James Version)

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If you believe that God made all things, then you believe that God gave us the gift of reason and logic. To look at the two verses above through the "light" of logic, they don't make sense because they clearly contradict each other.

Rick

Pablo Rafael

06-19-2009, 03:12 PM

Ephesians 2:8-9(King James Version)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

James 2:24 (King James Version)

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If you believe that God made all things, then you believe that God gave us the gift of reason and logic. To look at the two verses above through the "light" of logic, they don't make sense because they clearly contradict each other.

Rick

These two verses illustrate an important point. If someone wants to take the Bible literally, they are up against a logical paradox here and in many places in the Bible. Coming from a literalistic background I know how difficult it is for conservatives to try to explain away the contradictions.

All Bible study is a matter of interpretation, and all human interpretation is fallible and incomplete. I like the Anglican concept of the three-legged stool upon which the church stands. The legs are tradition, reason and the Bible. Tradition is useful in helping us understand our faith, but it is fallible and changes with times and situations. Likewise reason is useful but also fallible. The Bible tells us of God, but it was written by people who did not understand God perfectly and who were part of a specific culture in a specific time. (BTW: Gene Robinson really explains this well in his book In the Eye of the Storm , an excellent read.)

These passages are both valuable to me for they are clear statements of two very important aspects of the Christian faith. I think a main theme of the Bible and Christianity is that we are saved by God's grace alone. It is God's love that comes to us. I did not somehow become worthy enough to gain God's favor. He loves me with all my faults. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus show me that great love.

But if I begin to think, like the Christians that James was addressing in his letter, that I have no active part in my faith and I can just sit back and do nothing, the idea of "cheap grace" where I don't have to show love to others, then I am reminded that a faith that does nothing and shows no love to others is no faith at all.

So are the verses contradictory? Yes, but they are two sides of a coin. Both are needed. So often our lives are contradictory. Nothing is black and white it seems.

Likewise with the idea of judging. Did Christ come to judge? Should I judge others? I should never be "judgemental" or judge others in a way to cut them down. But I should judge people and events with reason and love so as to take action and make the world around me a brighter place. Jesus did not judge the Samaritan woman at the well though the Jewish people around her certainly did judge her negatively. However Jesus is quite harsh with the conservative fundamentalists of his day, the Pharisees.

The Bible and our entire Christian faith is alive, and activly responding to new situations all the time. A "one size fits all" understanding of the Christian faith doesn't work in my opinion. It would be nice if faith were neat and well defined, but it is like the rest of human existence, sloppy and undefined and also wonderfully diverse.

u-dog

06-19-2009, 03:59 PM

Thats you Pablo. I am in awe of your insights and spiritual maturity. A spiritual "Redwood" if ever there was one. :)

Rick,

If you overheard me on Monday talking to my son and saying that human life is sacred and that its wrong to kill and then overheard me saying to my son on Thursday that if he dented the car one more time I was going to kill him, would you think that I was being inconsistent and hypocritical? Or would you think that I was using hyperbole in one case and not in the other?

Paul is writing to a group of people some of whom believed that it was possible to manipulate the Divine into loving them by being good little boys and girls and following the rules. Paul hates that idea and states: "We are saved by the Grace (unmerited love) of God alone and not by works!"

James is writing to another group of people, probably a hundred or more years later where some people think that since God has saved them without recourse to their works that they therefor don't have to do squat. To them James says "Faith without works is Dead"

It sounds like they are saying diametrically opposed things ... but they are not. They are using the same words but they are using them differently and addressing different concepts.

If you sat the two of them down together you would discover that Paul and James both believe that salvation is accomplished solely by the love of God. and they would both believe that when a person HAS faith, that you will know it because it will result in good works.

Emproph

06-20-2009, 01:51 AM

If you sat the two of them down together you would discover that Paul and James both believe that salvation is accomplished solely by the love of God. and they would both believe that when a person HAS faith, that you will know it because it will result in good works.

That’s the way I would interpret put it too.

Re “Judgment”:
it [karma] might be useful in this discussion insofar as it throws a light on how one can perceive one's actions- or lack thereof.

This is a matter of perception, self-perception in particular.And don’t we tend to project what we perceive?

As a friend of ours once said (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=54788#post54788):

There's a verse in the bible "...the word of God alive and powerful and...is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart and mind..."

Wouldn't it be funny if the intention of the bible is not to tell us how to do stuff (kind of like the Pharisees thought) so much as it is to reveal who and how we are? For instance one can choose: " Thou shalt Love..." "God is love." "Love keeps no record of wrongs." Or one can choose: Hell is created by "God" for those who have done wrong. Depending on the choice one makes, kind of reveals where a person is at, no?

Rick, the contradictions you’ve pointed out can be explained through the "light" of reason and logic, AKA interpretation, which, as I’m sure you can understand, is not unique to readers of the Bible. Isn’t that what book clubs are all about? :reading: (Which in a sense makes religions just glorified book clubs, some of whom use their books as clubs…but I digress. ;))

If you’re trying to show that the Bible is in error, you have my vote, there are plenty of fundamental things in it and of it that cannot be interpreted away (which I regularly use in arguments with selective-fundamentalists).

So, what exactly are you looking for here? :inspector:

Rick336

06-20-2009, 12:45 PM

It sounds like they are saying diametrically opposed things ... but they are not. They are using the same words but they are using them differently and addressing different concepts.

But if our eternal life is in the balance, shouldn't the Holy Spirit have made the Bible explicitly clear to anyone who reads it so that even someone with an IQ of 50 has a chance to enter the pearly gates?

I mean, if we are all faced with hell if we don't get this right, why would God's book be filled with confusing contradictions?

More examples:

Those that seek me early shall find me. - Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall
seek me early, but shall not find me. - Proverbs 1:28

______________________________________________

... God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. - James 1:13

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham. - Genesis 22:1

_____________________________________________

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.- Jeremiah 3:12

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.- Jeremiah 17:4

____________________________________________

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.-Matthew 5:22

[Jesus said] Ye fools and blind.- Matthew 23:17

____________________________________________

Honor thy father and mother.- Exodus 20:12

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own
life also, he cannot be my disciple.- Luke 14:26

And these are just a few examples. There are many more.

Think about it. What if somebody gave a great party and the directions to the party said: "Go left or right, go north or south, go 10 miles or 20 miles, get off at this exit or that exit, turn here but don't turn here."Don't you think there would be lots of people who would get lost trying to find the party?

If hell is our destination if we can't find the way to heaven, then why not make the directions to heaven very clear?

God said:

The gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it. - Luke 13.24

And this is the plan of a God who supposedly loves us?

Doesn't it make more sense that this stuff came from ancient myths a long time ago and a group of old men put it together in a book and never bothered to proof read it?

If you’re trying to show that the Bible is in error, you have my vote, there are plenty of fundamental things in it and of it that cannot be interpreted away (which I regularly use in arguments with selective-fundamentalists).

So, what exactly are you looking for here? :inspector:

I'm trying to figure out how you explain the many flaws in scripture if the Holy Spirit (God) inspired the words?

Rick

u-dog

06-20-2009, 02:05 PM

But if our eternal life is in the balance, shouldn't the Holy Spirit have made the Bible explicitly clear to anyone who reads it so that even someone with an IQ of 50 has a chance to enter the pearly gates?

I mean, if we are all faced with hell if we don't get this right, why would God's book be filled with confusing contradictions?

More examples:

Those that seek me early shall find me. - Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall
seek me early, but shall not find me. - Proverbs 1:28

______________________________________________

I'm trying to figure out how you explain the many flaws in scripture if the Holy Spirit (God) inspired the words?

Rick

Rick,

I have a lot on my plate this afternoon so consider this to be a down payment on the questions that you pose.

Let me start by saying that NO words - biblical or otherwise - have meaning apart from their context. Tone of voice, facial expression, preceding sentences, following sentences, shared but unexpressed experiences can all change the meaning of words. Everyone but the most severely autistic persons know this to be true. I know that you understand this as well. So when you lift a few words from one part of scripture and a couple from somewhere else (words that are sometimes as distant in time and place from each other as they are from us today) and demand that they walk in tight lock step with each other I suspect that you are either being naive or pugnacious. (I'm OK with that incidentally ... I've been having this same discussion with my best friend in all the world for the last 35 years and you are very like him)

For now, lets just deal with your examples from Proverbs. Take a step back and some preliminary questions: Who is speaking? Who will we find if we seek early in the morning? Who are the ones who will not find the one who is speaking?

Its not God who is speaking. It is "Sophia" or Holy Wisdom. "Wisdom" is a theological concept not unlike the New Testament concept of the "Logos" THe Hebrews believed that "Sophia" the Wisdom of God was present at the creation and that it was through Sophia that all things were made. Sophia is a feminine aspect of the Divine.

So, who will we find if we seek her early? We will find wisdom. Divine Wisdom. Who is it that WON'T find divine wisdom even if they look for her early? well... basically ... people who don't look for her. People who don't look for wisdom ... don't find it. People who DO look for wisdom find it. Not a contridiction really. As long as you read it in context.

Wisdom calls aloud in the street,
she raises her voice in the public squares;

21 at the head of the noisy streets [c] she cries out,
in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:

22 "How long will you simple ones [d] love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?

23 If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you
and made my thoughts known to you.

24 But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,

25 since you ignored all my advice
and would not accept my rebuke,

26 I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you-

27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.

28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.

29 Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD,

30 since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,

31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.

32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;

33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."

All this passage (proverbs 1:21-33) is saying is that stupidity is its own reward. The other passage (proverbs 8:1-36) is saying that wisdom is the foundation of everything and people who seek wisdom do better than those who don't. Where is the problem?

Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?

2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

3 beside the gates leading into the city,
at the entrances, she cries aloud:

4 "To you, O men, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.

5 You who are simple, gain prudence;
you who are foolish, gain understanding.

6 Listen, for I have worthy things to say;
I open my lips to speak what is right.

7 My mouth speaks what is true,
for my lips detest wickedness.

8 All the words of my mouth are just;
none of them is crooked or perverse.

9 To the discerning all of them are right;
they are faultless to those who have knowledge.

10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,

11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.

12 "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.

13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.

14 Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
I have understanding and power.

15 By me kings reign
and rulers make laws that are just;

16 by me princes govern,
and all nobles who rule on earth. [a]

17 I love those who love me,
and those who seek me find me.

18 With me are riches and honor,
enduring wealth and prosperity.

19 My fruit is better than fine gold;
what I yield surpasses choice silver.

20 I walk in the way of righteousness,
along the paths of justice,

21 bestowing wealth on those who love me
and making their treasuries full.

22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [b] , [c]
before his deeds of old;

23 I was appointed [d] from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.

24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;

25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,

26 before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.

27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,

31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.

32 "Now then, my sons, listen to me;
blessed are those who keep my ways.

33 Listen to my instruction and be wise;
do not ignore it.

34 Blessed is the man who listens to me,
watching daily at my doors,
waiting at my doorway.

35 For whoever finds me finds life
and receives favor from the LORD.

36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself;
all who hate me love death."

awediot

06-20-2009, 04:06 PM

1 Cor 4
1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His Glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I Corinthians 6:2
2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Romans 14:10-12
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

1 Samuel 16:7
7But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

John 7:24
Judge righteous judgment.

~Bit of a mixed bag...but it is clear that some sort of accountability awaits us in the future, and it will be at the hand of divine inspiration.

I've come to believe that by "judgment day" we will already have sorted ourselves as either goats or sheep. God won't have to cast those who walk away from Him, anywhere.

Rick336

06-21-2009, 10:43 PM

Rick,

Its not God who is speaking. It is "Sophia" or Holy Wisdom. "Wisdom" is a theological concept not unlike the New Testament concept of the "Logos" THe Hebrews believed that "Sophia" the Wisdom of God was present at the creation and that it was through Sophia that all things were made. Sophia is a feminine aspect of the Divine.

It is God speaking. Divine wisdom means wisdom from God. So God is speaking through Sophia. (at least, according to what the authors of ancient scripture want us to believe)

So, who will we find if we seek her early? We will find wisdom. Divine Wisdom. Who is it that WON'T find divine wisdom even if they look for her early? well... basically ... people who don't look for her.

It says those who reject "divine wisdom" (God) will suffer disaster.

But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,

since you ignored all my advice
and would not accept my rebuke,

I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you-

So basically God (divine wisdom) who is speaking through Sophia and "rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind," will laugh and mock when we suffer a disaster.

That's typical of the contradictions found in this ancient belief. For instance, scripture has God saying, "Thou shalt not kill," yet God drowns the entire population of the world, orders the death of those who work on the sabbath, orders the death of children who curse their parents, orders babies to be smashed and pregnant women to be ripped up.

Yet, "God so loves the world."

It makes me wonder if the authors of the Bible actually read the thing before they adjourned their meeting and went home.

Rick

awediot

06-22-2009, 12:50 AM

So basically God (divine wisdom) who is speaking through Sophia and "rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind," will laugh and mock when we suffer a disaster.

That's typical of the contradictions found in this ancient belief. For instance, scripture has God saying, "Thou shalt not kill," yet God drowns the entire population of the world, orders the death of those who work on the sabbath, orders the death of children who curse their parents, orders babies to be smashed and pregnant women to be ripped up.

Yet, "God so loves the world."

It makes me wonder if the authors of the Bible actually read the thing before they adjourned their meeting and went home.

Rick

God is no more held to the standard we are than a parent is to a ten year old.

While certain aspects of His treatment of us (particularly Old Testament) are undeniably brutal, that may mean we just do not understand either the real state of the world back then, or His perspective and the greater good that was achieved, not that He is in fact a brute.

u-dog

06-22-2009, 08:06 AM

It is God speaking. Divine wisdom means wisdom from God. So God is speaking through Sophia. (at least, according to what the authors of ancient scripture want us to believe)

No, Rick, it is NOT God speaking through Sophia. The book of Proverbs is Poetic speech. The poet writes in order to get people to think and understand truth in a certain way and in order to evoke a response. In this case, the poet is anthropomorphizing an aspect or a characteristic of the divine and putting words into "her" mouth in order that we might understand an important truth -- that seeking the wisdom of the Divine is a worthwhile endeavor and ignoring the search for that wisdom is dangerous.

It says those who reject "divine wisdom" (God) will suffer disaster.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that "divine wisdom" consists solely of the truth that it is a bad idea to step in front of a speeding bus. In that case, those who reject "divine wisdom" WILL, in fact, suffer disaster. Those people will be run over by a speeding bus and that is a disaster. "Don't be a fool who ignores me!" cries divine wisdom, "...or you'll be run over by a speeding bus!" This is not reward and punishment, Rick, it just good advice. Of course Divine wisdom is a much more complex and subtle thing than simply the reality that stepping in front of a bus is a bad idea, but no matter how complex and subtle it is ... it's still a bad idea to ignore it.

So basically God (divine wisdom) who is speaking through Sophia and "rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind," will laugh and mock when we suffer a disaster.

Not at all. Wisdom (or Proverbs anthropomorphisis of it) DOES rejoice in the whole world because the wisdom of God is the foundation for its existence and permeates every aspect of it -- again, poetic speech. And it "delights" in humankind because, of all the aspects of the creation, human kind is the only aspect that can see (sometimes) and appreciate (sometimes) the existence of divine wisdom and its place in the created order.

On the other hand, wisdom also MOCKS humanity in the sense that it is in the light of divine wisdom that the foolishness of humanity is revealed. A poet might also say that "the light mocks a bad painting" since in the dark, a bad painting and the Mona Lisa look exactly the same, but in the light, one is revealed as a masterpiece and the other as a piece of shit.

Rick, this conversation seems kind of pointless to me, but we can continue it if you want to, I guess.

Pablo Rafael

06-22-2009, 08:46 AM

Emproph

06-22-2009, 11:12 AM

I'm trying to figure out how you explain the many flaws in scripture if the Holy Spirit (God) inspired the words?

What evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit (God) inspired the words of the Bible in the first place?

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/Mortimer-1.jpg

Rick336

06-22-2009, 11:56 AM

What evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit (God) inspired the words of the Bible in the first place?

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/Mortimer-1.jpg

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Peter 1:21 (King James Version)
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Rick

Emproph

06-22-2009, 01:37 PM

2 Timothy 3:16 (King James Version)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Peter 1:21 (King James Version)
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Rick

That's not evidence, that's circular logic.

Joe is not a liar.
How do I know Joe is not a liar?
Joe told me he is not a liar.

The Bible is true.
How do I know the Bible is true?
The Bible says that it's true.

If "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," why would God warn not to cause error to what cannot contain error?

Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Wouldn't that be an error?

Rick336

06-22-2009, 04:00 PM

That's not evidence, that's circular logic.

Joe is not a liar.
How do I know Joe is not a liar?
Joe told me he is not a liar.

The Bible is true.
How do I know the Bible is true?
The Bible says that it's true.

Yes. That's my point exactly. The Bible is not the word of God. It is the word of men, ancient men who lived during a time when superstition was the rule, not the exception. The Bible was written during a time when it was common to believe that the earth was flat, sea monsters ruled the oceans, and witches flew through the sky at night.

So when the Bible says it is inspired by God, we have no evidence to back that up.

And when the Bible says that a donkey talked, logic tells us that animals can't talk.

And when the Bible says that a stick magically turned into a snake, common sense tells us that this is impossible.

And when the Bible tells us that a river turned into blood, or that Moses had a magic wand, a flood covered the entire earth, a burning bush gave advice, millions of animals rode on a boat, a sea parted down the middle, food rained from the sky for forty years, the sun stood still, a woman came from a man's rib, a star gave directions, a man lived inside a fish for three days, dead people walked the earth,.... common sense requires that we question the validity of these stories.

And when opponents of same sex marriage tell us that God hates homosexuality and that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so, we need to question the validity of their beliefs.

But what I hear Christians saying is, "You have no right to question the word of God. By questioning the word of God you are disrespecting my beliefs and are being insensitive and hostile. The problem is not with the word of God, the problem is you."

Almost without fail, when non-believers start asking questions about the word of God, the debate is turned to blame the one asking the questions.

Several months ago in this forum I asked the question, "Why did God send his son to earth as a blood sacrifice so that we could all be saved from hell, when God could have easily made us all sin-proof to begin with?"

The question was never answered. Instead I was called a simple-minded jerk and was told that I was only trying to stir up trouble.

Isn't that exactly what the opponents of same sex marriage are accusing us of doing? Of course it is. They accuse us of being anti-Christian by questioning the word of God. Why not ask our opponents to stop blaming us for being trouble-makers and to show us what evidence they have that God actually said that homosexuality is wrong?

If the Bible is full of contradictions, superstitions, and errors, then how can it be trustworthy about homosexuality? Where’s the evidence to support the validity of “the word of God?” about homosexuality or anything else if the Bible is wrong about so many other things?

In other words, instead of pointing blame at the ones asking the questions, why not just answer the questions?

Rick

awediot

06-22-2009, 04:04 PM

Are there any Christians on this site anymore?

Rick336

06-22-2009, 05:28 PM

Rick,

One of the saddest things for me as a Christian is that I see so many Christians who are absolutely unwilling to ever consider that the opinions and beliefs of others might be valid. They would not be willing to look at something in a new way no matter how convincing the evidence or how persuasive the story.

The oppression of gays by so many churches has stemmed from this. So many conservative Christians have held onto the idea that being gay is sinful. They are unwilling to even consider the possibility that being gay is part of God's plan for some of us. Despite knowing fine gay Christian people, despite the lack of Biblical evidence to support their position, despite the findings of science, they refuse even to consider any opinions that contradict thier own.

I see you on the opposite side of that coin. You seem resistant to even consider that their might be some worth in Christianity and that the Bible might have something of value.

I respect your right to think the way you do. You have a lot of valuable insight and experience. But I see you as totally unwiling even to enetertain the idea that those of us who value the Bible and the Christian faith might have some validity to the way that we believe.

You have to admit that the Christians you have met on these forums have been exceptionally understanding and non-argumentative. We have been wiling to look at your point of view and consider what you have to say. We have even agreed with a lot of your opinions. I ask that you give our ideas the same consideration we have given yours.

But on to the points you have made:

I don't believe that anyone is going to hell because they don't "get it right". In fact no one "gets it right". Some many people think they have to know and believe certain things to be saved. Belief is not in things; it is not in teachings and doctrines. We believe in the love of God that was shown to us through the work of Christ.

The Bible saves no one. The Bible is not God. It is only a partial and imperfect glimpse into the wonder that is God.

I believe that the Bible is unclear simply because God cannot be understood. I remember my high school chemistry teacher talking about electron shells. There are two electrons in orbit around the nucleus in the first shell. There are eight electrons in orbit in the second shell, etc. Then she said that there really are no shells and orbits at all, but in order to be more easily understood, the whole electron shell concept was devised to explain and illustrate the much more complex concept of quantam mechanics. I was totally unable to grasp the idea of quantam mechanics at the time (still am).

Likewise I think in the Bible God provides for us many different ways at looking at him. The Bible is an incomplete and simplified view of God. We are unable to grasp the majesty of God. We must be content in our human understanding to only get impartial understanding of God.

Why doesn't the Holy Spirit make things clear and plain? She can't make them clear and understood by human beings; we have not the experience or capability to understand.

Try explaining the idea of quantam mechanics or the ideas of string theory to elementry school students. Their minds are based in the physical here and now (The "concrete operational" stage in Paiget's stages of thinking). They are incapable of understanding it. But they can grasp that the universe operates in a wonderful way that is incomprehensible. The illustrations that a teacher uses to explain and illustrate these concepts are partial and imperfect, but they illustrate one aspect of the concept.

If the workings of God were totally clear and easily understood, God would be pretty small indeed.

Pablo,

Your coming out of the closet in 2008 took a lot of courage and is a wonderful example for others who are struggling with self-acceptance who visit this forum. For that you have my deep respect.

I also think that you are very intelligent and express yourself very eloquently on this forum. I enjoy reading your posts.

But I disagree with you on the subject of scripture.

I respect your right to think the way you do. You have a lot of valuable insight and experience. But I see you as totally unwiling even to enetertain the idea that those of us who value the Bible and the Christian faith might have some validity to the way that we believe.

That's not entirely true. I have stated on this forum that scripture does have some good points and that Christianity has contributed to a lot of positive things.

You have to admit that the Christians you have met on these forums have been exceptionally understanding and non-argumentative. We have been wiling to look at your point of view and consider what you have to say. We have even agreed with a lot of your opinions. I ask that you give our ideas the same consideration we have given yours.

I do give your views consideration. But I am stating what I believe to be true or not true. I'm saying, "Look at this. How can this be true?"

In any discussions about religion (or politics), our analyzing and explaining our positions is part of the debate. You state your position. I state mine. That goes on in public forums all over the internet.

I don't believe that anyone is going to hell because they don't "get it right"......We believe in the love of God that was shown to us through the work of Christ.

So you don't believe in hell? The Bible says that hell is waiting for those who don't believe in Jesus. According to scripture, the existence of hell is the whole reason Jesus came to earth to begin with; to save us from it.

God created hell and then sent his son down to earth to be sacrificed so that we can be saved from the hell that God himself created to begin with.

And then, if we are unfortunate to be born in Iran or Iraq and believe in Allah as the billions of others around us do, then we will spend eternity suffering the torment and tortures of hell as our punishment for being born in the wrong location.

That makes no sense.

I believe that the Bible is unclear simply because God cannot be understood.

And according to scripture, that's the way God wants it.

The gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it. - Luke 13.24

If God so loves the world, why make it so difficult to find heaven?

If the workings of God were totally clear and easily understood, God would be pretty small indeed.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Rick

tdogg

06-22-2009, 09:59 PM

I have a few questions for God:

If you really love us, and created people so you could have us around, why would you create this horrible thing called hell and throw these people, that you say you love, into it to burn and be tormented for eternity?

Why would you create two humans, place them into a garden of wonder, show them and tell them about the tree you don't want them to touch, and they admonish them to never ever eat the lovely fruit from that wonderful tree, even though it will give you greater knowledge. Makes no sense.

How is it that you were unable to create two perfect human beings, but was able to give your 'word' to men, have them rewrite it, translate and re-translate it, translate it into various languages, then translate it into various meanings, yet it's supposed to mean the same thing? The first sound much easier to accomplish.

Ok, I have a lot more questions for you (such as world hunger, war, death, poverty, disease and what the hell were you thinking having dogs live only 10-15 years????) but for now, the above will do. I believe in you, but I think much of what I read in the bible just makes no sense to me.

awediot

06-23-2009, 04:13 AM

I have a few questions for God:

DISCLAIMER>>> Uhm, er yeah, well, I'm not God...(I know you know that. And I want it know that I know it... i don't even want to be God. I have a tough time with what little power He's given me... But, I supposed to try to advocate for God, and unwillingly am called to try to answer what I can, what I understand of Him and his truths... So, here goes> what I've come to believe at this point in my life... God's answers will vary, as I'm no doubt at least somewhat wrong, and probably totally)

DISCLAIMER 2... I'd offer the predictable glib answer "well ask Him yourself." but we're both obviously past that... :)

If you really love us, and created people so you could have us around, why would you create this horrible thing called hell and throw these people, that you say you love, into it to burn and be tormented for eternity? The true nature and experience of Hell is debatable... I do not believe it is a "torture chamber of an agaony beyonf imagination", or a literal lake of teeth gnashing fire... That IMO makes God a sadist...

I believe simply that for those who see God and understand what "Heaven" demands of us, and do not want it, what God allows them to walk away into, to escape, and defeat Him, is what we've dubbed "Hell". It is Pride fulfilled and the preference of Self. It is the point of no return and preference for freedom failure grants... He doesn't cast anyone there. We will turn to it, hide in it, of our own will. It exists because we want it to, not God...

It is the logical conclusion of being able to choose to reject Him, and it breaks his heart... Many Christians think it is possible that annihilation into our preborn, non-being state will end even that... I don't know.

Why would you create two humans, place them into a garden of wonder, show them and tell them about the tree you don't want them to touch, and they admonish them to never ever eat the lovely fruit from that wonderful tree, even though it will give you greater knowledge. Makes no sense.When even two sentient, self-aware and independently motivated beings merely exist, it is inevitable that they will eventually clash and disagree about something... That is the unavoidable consequence of God creating a creature capable of rcognizing Him, and recognizing it Self as separate from Him... God created for a purpose and has enacted a stream of events to get himself there... We can agree to "go with the flow", or at any arbitrary point, diverge from it and defy His will... This is the scenario that the Garden and description of the fall illustrates...

Simply, God said "Don't..." and the Self was challenged. The ability to question, doubt, act on our pride and ambition, all good qualities that didn't come from the fall, but stem from carrying His "Image", were catalyzed by that unheard word...and exploited by the serpent. It was the introduction of real choice, the imbuing of power and responsibility and consequence, and i believe God not only knew we'd rebel, but designed us specifically to do so...

We didn't fall, we were pushed. And God knew it was the only thing that could give us an understanding and appreciation of Him and the Garden, but that our growth away from Him would naturally hurt us...

It was not a test, nor an act He could even logically forbid. It was Him handing us the scissors and letting us cut the umbilical ourselves.

How is it that you were unable to create two perfect human beings,"Perfect", like "omni-ness" and "timeless" and even beauty or love, is a transcendent, abstract concept that we can't even pretend to understand in the way a God would... We really can't say that the capacity of A&E to rebel, or that their choice to do so, were "imperfect"... Or maybe it was, and all this may be the very best way for God to create "Perfection"...

We are not the ends. We are tools He is using to achieve some goal we do not fully comprehend.

but was able to give your 'word' to men, have them rewrite it, translate and re-translate it, translate it into various languages, then translate it into various meanings, yet it's supposed to mean the same thing? The first sound much easier to accomplish.I'm no inerrantist. It is an impossible claim to make about a text which openly uses metaphor and analogy with the intent a reader must interpret at least some of it personally (or with the help of the Holy Spirit, as it describes)...I believe it to be inspired, that all sincere translations contain the immutable truth of our means to salvation, the bridge back to Him, and what it takes to forge an individual relationship with God directly. The "gist" of it has remained elemental, witnessed by and agreed upon in the Body of Christ as believers since it's conception. There are tremendous difference of interpretation which fragments the body into different parts as denominations, but they will all agree that Jesus Christ is God manifest, that His sacrificial death on the cross and resurrection actually happened and is the way to salvation as a payment and forgiving grace of our sins, or they simply will either stop calling themselves Christian, or blatantly pervert the long held, orthodox and core beliefs, and pursue a know heretical sect.

The Bible contains what we need to know...and them some. We tear one another apart over legalism and nonsalvational detail, not usually over Jesus Christ Himself (the Old testament is a whole different matter which shifts, not contradicts His dealings with us)

Ok, I have a lot more questions for you (such as world hunger, war, death, poverty, disease and what the hell were you thinking having dogs live only 10-15 years????) but for now, the above will do. I believe in you, but I think much of what I read in the bible just makes no sense to me.Understandable... I've got questions too (and some pretty f'd up answers that send the average Christian slinking from the room)... You're astute enough to know you can't know it all and perhaps do just need to be satisfied shrugging off some questions and trust that God is good and has His reasons... but I hate that answer and find the blindness of faith to not be a "virtue" we should pursue, but unwillingly acquiesce to at times... I hate even worse the "Who are you O man to question God..." bs that radiates from mind controlling cults... God invites and created us to honestly and humbly ask things about Him. Nothing is off limits as far as I'm concerned... He may say "none of your business" or "you won't understand", but it is to protect and nourish me in a higher way I couldn't grasp, not because He has anything to hide...

Also, when you ask God about poverty, war, harm...man's inhumanity to man, also ask of humanity why we do it to one another... God gave us the mind's and tools and resources to solve many of the ills we blame on Him, and we use food as a weapon and medicine as a status symbol... Why do we continue to make life so much harder and painful on ourselves than we need to? Why do we still claim ignorance and await some revelation of what to do?

Why do atheists often seem to argue for God as long as He's evil and to blame?

<<< and yeah yeah, funny how when God talks it's always some arrogant human's mouth moving...

Rick336

06-23-2009, 10:17 PM

Why do atheists often seem to argue for God as long as He's evil and to blame?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

Rick

awediot

06-23-2009, 11:05 PM

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

Rick

I noticed that atheists (at least those who like to debate about it) will often, for arguments sake, accept the hypothesis that God exists most readily when they can bring up the baby head bashing, the evils of Hell, the 180 turn between testaments when He claims to never change, the infighting of denominations, cruelty of predestination, meanness of damning an unbeliever who was never given any convincing evidence...etc. etc. But they just tend to say it's all stupid when speaking of His gifts or love, the responsibility and logical consequence of freewill, the sacrifice of Christ...

They will of course always clarify either way that they are arguing about a fictional character and human made up traits, but it is interesting that on one hand they will take it much further with biblical depictions that make Him look evil, rather than those which paint Him as good... But on the other hand they are very accepting of a more grandfatherly, generous, all forgiving and a tad senile type god... At least that they want to believe in... Who wouldn't?

Rick336

06-24-2009, 12:21 AM

I noticed that atheists (at least those who like to debate about it) will often, for arguments sake, accept the hypothesis that God exists most readily when they can bring up the baby head bashing, the evils of Hell, the 180 turn between testaments when He claims to never change, the infighting of denominations, cruelty of predestination, meanness of damning an unbeliever who was never given any convincing evidence...etc. etc. But they just tend to say it's all stupid when speaking of His gifts or love, the responsibility and logical consequence of freewill, the sacrifice of Christ...

They will of course always clarify either way that they are arguing about a fictional character and human made up traits, but it is interesting that on one hand they will take it much further with biblical depictions that make Him look evil, rather than those which paint Him as good... But on the other hand they are very accepting of a more grandfatherly, generous, all forgiving and a tad senile type god... At least that they want to believe in... Who wouldn't?

I don't know. I can't speak for all atheists but I think it's fair to say that, like all humans, we don't always get it right.

As for me, I consider myself to be more of a skeptic than just an atheist. I not only can't see any trustworthy evidence for God, but I also can't see any trustworthy evidence for UFOs, crystal healing, alien abductions, palm reading, parapsychology, ghosts, near death experiences, miracles, the Loch Ness Monster, levitation, Holocaust denial, fairies, exorcism, dualism, astrology, channeling, faith healing, star children, crop circles, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, aura therapy, the existence of Atlantis, magnet therapy, vampires, unicorns, spontaneous combustion, magic, or anything that can't be supported by trustworthy evidence.

But the reason I have such a strong opinion about religion in particular is because I believe it does more harm than good and in the future it could prove to be extremely dangerous.

Rick

Emproph

06-24-2009, 06:57 AM

_dC7wXTdvcA

If you listen to the ocean
And the rhythm of the rain
And the rhythm of a heartbeat
And it circles you again

And you do not see the color
And you do not see the reason
And you do not understand these things
You only know religion

And the wisdom of the ages
Meets the wisdom of the moment
And the future past and present
Is the feeling or the touch

And you’re walking like you feel it
In a forest like a wind
And the voices in your ear
Are telling you so much

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call it buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Come from above
Some call him jesus
I call it love

When you're guilty of compassion
It's the border of ever
On the international
Binding us together

When there’s song is all around you
Telling you be free
And the voice has finally found you
And it's everything you need

Some call him allah
Some call him god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call him power
Come from above
Some call Him Jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it jesus

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn99/psy_psychi/yinyang.gif

awediot

06-24-2009, 11:23 AM

I don't know. I can't speak for all atheists but I think it's fair to say that, like all humans, we don't always get it right.

And I don't mean to speak about all atheists... I've had more access to atheists and the way they think over the past couple years, than I have my whole life... They are probably my favorite conversationalists, as they have no qualms about bringing up the tough, irreverent questions that most Christians silently collude to ignore for the sake of God's "mysterious ways" and the crutch faith gives us... I like that.

A definite pattern (and actually pretty consistent "belief system" which includes denying it) has emerged from their repeated premises and predictable arguments that though boast of their "free thinking" origins, are just as dogmatic, preachy and faith based as any other "religious" explanations... I've learned a great deal about "them" (at least the sort that enjoys CARM), some things from them, and they've certainly challenged me to sort out why I believe what I do, to a must greater level than I did before...

I do think some of them actually suspect, if not believe a "God" exists, (making them fake atheists) and are in a complex rebellion against Him, but others I believe to be quite sincere seekers who truly long for a God to be real, and give them sufficient evidence to accept Him with an intellectual honesty, rather than wishful thinking and blind faith... Most of them I really like and respect (sadly more than many of the Christians I know there)

As for me, I consider myself to be more of a skeptic than just an atheist. I not only can't see any trustworthy evidence for God, but I also can't see any trustworthy evidence forI consider an atheist to be someone who simply doesn't believe there is "God" (typically a sentient, independent Creator Being), where as an agnostic will focus on the inherent ignorance. An atheist has formulated a belief and come to a probable conclusion (I think long term agnostics have too, actually)

The contention and room for argument comes with the qualifying, relative contingent that "evidence" must be 'trustworthy' or sufficiently convincing or reliable and in some fashion beyond a reasonable doubt, before an atheist (and arguably a critical thinker, or sharp skeptic) will be swayed... This "dependency" and fluid nature of such adjectives, make "evidence", and thus the truth we will believe from it, relative, and that undermines the argument that we cannot influence what the world has lead us to believe...

Not only do we "make believe", (usually subconsciously), as a matter of routine (and just call it "the benefit of the doubt", "love is blind", optimism...) but we've conspired to pretend we're not denying doing it (even though it can start misguided wars and pass absurd laws which make life needlessly more difficult).

We are quite capable of skewing "evidence" to appear to confirm what we prefer to be true...especially concerning a technically unknowable (God, abiogenesis, alien life, the motives and pure thoughts of others...) as well as just the currently unknown, or unprovable (basically anything we personally do not have empirical experience of). When the evidence is inconclusive, but the "Truth" it is trying to reveal is very important, we are forced to fill in gaps and reason our way to the most likely answer... That undermines our knowledge and challenges our confidence and wisdom to a degree we rarely like to discuss...

Faith, aside from all the religious baggage, is also defined as:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
(the Free dictionary)

firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(MerriamWebster)

It is a psychological, hopefully logical and unbiased "leap" to believing what we do not know for certain... Of course "confident" and "trustworthiness" and "firm" are a matter of opinion as well, but the simple fact that faith is a common, even needed tool we use regularly to move forward in life with when we do not have al the information, tends to drive atheists nuts. 'Faith" has such a religious connotation, a last resort and desperate, anti-science "feel" about it, they will argue to no end that it doesn't play any relevant role in their highly intelligent and fantasy free lives...

The worst thing about "make believe" is that it has made us believe it was a childhood game we've outgrown... It is cranking up right this instant to convince us that is true only about everyone else.

...I also can't see any trustworthy evidence for UFOs, crystal healing, alien abductions, palm reading, parapsychology, ghosts, near death experiences, miracles, the Loch Ness Monster, levitation, Holocaust denial, fairies, exorcism, dualism, astrology, channeling, faith healing, star children, crop circles, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, aura therapy, the existence of Atlantis, magnet therapy, vampires, unicorns, spontaneous combustion, magic, or anything that can't be supported by trustworthy evidence.All those things and countless other unknowns, including God, have the fact that they are unknow in common... One thing that begins to sort them out, and at least personally prioritize them, is if we even care about their existence...Usually it is the potential impact such a thing could plausibly have on us directly, which will act as a gauge as to how much we care about it. And in turn, that influences how much we are willing to think, study, swallow or brush-off, and even hope or deny things about where the evidence seems to be leading us.

Some on your interesting, lengthy list are more important and interesting to me than others, but if I had to, I could say I don't hugely care about the existence of any of them, one way or the other...

I'll often ask tthe atheist who resorts to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and "Thursdayism" (where HRG's cat recreates the Universe every Thursday) arguments, if they can say with equal conviction and comfort level that they care about Purple unicorns orbiting Jupiter as much as they care whether a God, a being which created them and isn't done, exists?

It is quite difficult, and almost terminal, to lose any concern, and not even care if God exists... Most atheists will not go that far. The implications are just too great to be apathetic about... (there are exceptions, and they are some of the most tragic, seared people I've ever met) -The concept of God, especially the monotheistic Christian one, singles itself out, and puts even our demand for evidence in it's place via our vulnerable ignorance and common sense, self preserving emotions (another thing most atheists hate)

But the reason I have such a strong opinion about religion in particular is because I believe it does more harm than good and in the future it could prove to be extremely dangerous.

RickStrong opinions are rooted in strong beliefs...about the unknown...based on faith.

One could argue your disdain for religion is quite passionate, probably philosophically well thought out, mixed with some evidence and man-handled history that's probably accurate enough... and with that, believing it to be truer than opposing views, you use it as motivation, justification, a source of hope and seed of comfort that more will see it your way one day, and the world will get better... One could say you value that belief and the tentacles of interrelated, systemic acts and calculated reactions, like a religion... ~but "religions" are ideologies revolving around or based on ones beliefs about GOD and the impact the concept has on us and the planet... Yours is more about the probably of there not being a GOD, and the impact conflicting beliefs are having on you...and...the.........planet. -oh, wait,

Daniel

06-24-2009, 12:04 PM

I consider an atheist to be someone who simply doesn't believe there is "God" (typically a sentient, independent Creator Being), where as an agnostic will focus on the inherent ignorance. An atheist has formulated a belief and come to a probable conclusion (I think long term agnostics have too, actually)

By this definition Buddhist's are atheists too, since they reject the concept of an independent deity.

Are their varying systems of belief? Certainly. But to put everything into two camps- those who believe in God and those who do not- strikes me as rather...well....dualistic and simplistic. Everything in black and white. As such, this speaks to the nature of perception, and the mind's incessant need to categorize and label everything it comes into contact with, as if everything can be put into two neat piles. However, nature (and life) seems to defy this reductionism.

awediot

06-24-2009, 12:12 PM

If you listen to the ocean
And the rhythm of the rain
And the rhythm of a heartbeat
And it circles you again

And you do not see the color
And you do not see the reason
And you do not understand these things
You only know religion

Not a big fan of what "religion" has done to us either...

-but I wonder what Johnette expects us to understand about these things which would signify we're not just indoctrinated sheep... It seems a false dichotomy set up to stab at religion (not a bad thing in and of itself, just, hollow)

And the wisdom of the ages
Meets the wisdom of the moment
And the future past and present
Is the feeling or the touch

And you’re walking like you feel it
In a forest like a wind
And the voices in your ear
Are telling you so muchA nod to the heightened awareness of the being in the hear and now, and plug for the supposed inner wisdom prodding us all on, which eludes being thought of or analyzed (oopsy)

-gotta always smile at mention of the Wisdom of the Ages number crunching the instantaneuosness of it all...

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call it buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Come from above
Some call him jesus
I call it love

When you're guilty of compassion
It's the border of ever
On the international
Binding us together

When there’s song is all around you
Telling you be free
And the voice has finally found you
And it's everything you need"We are the world...we are the children..."

Wonder who she thinks holds compassion as a crime? ...and free from what do ya think?

Some call him allah
Some call him god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call him power
Come from above
Some call Him Jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it god
Some call him buddha
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it power
Up from above
Some call it jesus
I call it love

Some call it allah
Some call it jesus

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn99/psy_psychi/yinyang.gif

Well, allah, "god" (a personal creator being type god anyway), and Jesus are all similarly based on the monotheistic premise that God is a living entity who's "personhood" is reflected in us. Christ and Allah come from the same tradition... But Buddha was an enlightened being. There is no entity of "God" in Buddhism. It is a philosophy, not a "religion" (though it addresses much of the same questions we have, serving as a sort of proxy religion)

-and "love" is far too relativistic as a stand alone concept to be used as a means to not just unify incompatible beliefs, but try to trump them...Of course love is a universal virtue any moral system promotes, and "treat others as you want treated", "cause no harm", and "live and let live" are still Golden rules, but they are skeletal, support structures that we can build some very different cultures on... I find we take the expectation to act on "love" far too much for granted... Unfortunately, defining it and relating our real world, rubber meet road deeds to it, leads us right back into religion and philosophy... Ah well- such is life.

I wrote this to Daniel in the "Are there any Christians here" (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=70138#poststop)thread... It seems apropos...

"My solution for awhile was to believe I had discovered the "Spirit" and collective Truth of "Godness" all religions were just expressing in their own, culturally lovely way... All roads lead to Rome like spokes on a wheel... I became not just a Christian, but a Buddhist, a Taoist, Hindu, and Jew who could embrace the inspiration for Odin, Thor, Schrodinger's Cat and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They were all veneers. Everything and nothing was GOD, and realizing that was HimHerIt actualizing, manifesting from amoeba to Me, and you, and them (well not really the fundi type hold outs who kept preaching about falling and depravity and ruin of self-deification)... I hadn't abandon my childhood, dogmatic belief Jesus alone was the only Godman to walk the earth, I had recognized the Christ consciousness in all things and understood He was mostly just a symbol and pointer to our future selves... I was beyond being merely religious and over the boxing in of labels... I was part of God Itself."

>I like Concrete Blonde btw, and don't mean my little nit-picky critique to be taken as picking a fight...just a topical response to add to the flow...

awediot

06-24-2009, 12:28 PM

By this definition Buddhist's are atheists too, since they reject the concept of an independent deity.

By the usual definition of God as an independent, 'living', sentient, self aware and Creator entity (simply, a Being) that most atheists are addressing, Buddhism is atheistic.

Are their varying systems of belief? Certainly. But to put everything into two camps- those who believe in God and those who do not- strikes me as rather...well....dualistic and simplistic. Everything in black and white. As such, this speaks to the nature of perception, and the mind's incessant need to categorize and label everything it comes into contact with, as if everything can be put into two neat piles. However, nature (and life) seems to defy this reductionism.No...far from everything. But some things become logically reducible to a yes/no, black/white answer...

Either you believe 'God' is an independent Being (as described above), or you don't... Either "IT" is (as we understand what a conscious entity is), or it isn't (despite our beliefs about it)... Every single person who allows them self to get the gist of the difference and understands the simple question, will be on one side or the other.

Zerbie

06-24-2009, 02:24 PM

...

Either you believe 'God' is an independent Being (as described above), or you don't... Either "IT" is (as we understand what a conscious entity is), or it isn't (despite our beliefs about it)... Every single person who allows them self to get the gist of the difference and understands the simple question, will be on one side or the other.

No, not really. One can answer sincerely 'yes' to both sides of the question.

awediot

06-24-2009, 02:47 PM

No, not really. One can answer sincerely 'yes' to both sides of the question.
How in any logically consistent and rational way?

Zerbie

06-24-2009, 06:15 PM

How in any logically consistent and rational way?

If it is God, then it is both an independent, conscious entity, and it is simultaneously beyond being merely 'an entity." God nature transcends one localized form. God nature can have form and shape, and it pre-dates form and shape, and it is not limited to one separate and discreet entity.

awediot

06-24-2009, 06:45 PM

Pablo Rafael

06-24-2009, 07:13 PM

If the workings of God were totally clear and easily understood, God would be pretty small indeed.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Rick, sorry about being unclear. What I mean is that God is so much beyond our comprehension and so much above us that we are uncapable of understanding him/her.

For illustration: A person living in a five dimensional universe could not be understood by those of us living in the 3+1 dimensions of our universe. We are incapable of visualizing that extra dimension. That person could give us illustrations and descriptions of her universe, but they would be very imperfectly understood by us. If we fully understood our 5 dimensional friend, she couldn't be 5 dimensional.

God is unable to be understood by the human mind.

And I am most willing to listen to your beliefs. If fact I generally get along much better with atheists than I do with fundamentalist Christians. (Atheists are so much more reasonable and understanding I find.)

As a gay Christian I have heard so many people pull out a few Bible verses to use them weapons against gay people. They use an isolated verse out of its context as, in their minds, solid proof that all gays are evil and sinful. Very much damage has been done by Christians who use the pick-and-choose method of understanding the Bible. The Bible is understood in its wholeness using the principles of the Bible as a basis for the faith not cherry-picked verses.

I think that I why I am bothered by how you have used selected Bible verses. Maybe as a gay Christian I am overly sensitive, but we have had this weapon used against us many times. I am probably not the only one who is touchy about it. When someone starts throwing out Bible verses to "prove" their opinons, I have a tendency to get defensive.

I hope you take no offense. I appreciate what you have to say and admire your dedication and enthusiasm in working for gay rights.

Pablo

Daniel

06-24-2009, 07:36 PM

By the usual definition of God as an independent, 'living', sentient, self aware and Creator entity (simply, a Being) that most atheists are addressing, Buddhism is atheistic.

No...far from everything. But some things become logically reducible to a yes/no, black/white answer...

Either you believe 'God' is an independent Being (as described above), or you don't... Either "IT" is (as we understand what a conscious entity is), or it isn't (despite our beliefs about it)... Every single person who allows them self to get the gist of the difference and understands the simple question, will be on one side or the other.

How well have you studied Buddhism? And by that I mean more than intellectual exercise. If you had, I don't think you would have made such the crude assertion that Buddhism is atheistic. That kind of statement serves only to hammer away at your point of view, which is, essentially, dualistic.

Yes. It is about asking questions. However, what you are forgetting is the frame of reference from which one asks questions. Buddhism has a very different frame of reference that the one you are using. While it posits that there is no ultimate deity, there are many higher realms in which gods and enlightened beings dwell.

And uncharitable person might assert that your god is among them. :D

Cosmology aside, Buddhism is more concerned with ethics, the generation of compassion, and the cessation of suffering. The emphasis is on doing rather than believing.

And of course, there is that - to Western ears- cryptic saying....

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

I simply mention this to note that- from a Buddhist point of view- our conceptions of things can get in the Way.

(pun intended)

tdogg

06-24-2009, 07:56 PM

The true nature and experience of Hell is debatable... I do not believe it is a "torture chamber of an agaony beyonf imagination", or a literal lake of teeth gnashing fire... That IMO makes God a sadist...

I believe simply that for those who see God and understand what "Heaven" demands of us, and do not want it, what God allows them to walk away into, to escape, and defeat Him, is what we've dubbed "Hell". It is Pride fulfilled and the preference of Self. It is the point of no return and preference for freedom failure grants... He doesn't cast anyone there. We will turn to it, hide in it, of our own will. It exists because we want it to, not God...

Just curious as to how you came around to this belief? Not questioning whether it's right, wrong or anything else. Pure curiosity.

In regards to 'what God is', I believe that God is much more than any human brain is able to fathom. So it would seem possible then, that Zerbie's explanation is logical. Illogically speaking, from the human brain perspective, but logical to those who could understand God. There are many explanations as to what God could be, from those believing God is a 'he' and looks just like us, to God merely being the energy that both binds the universe and constantly expands it at the same time.

Zerbie

06-24-2009, 08:19 PM

But it either knows itself to be God or it doesn't. It either is a conscious Being (and them some), or it is not.

God is a conscious entity/being, and also beyond simply an entity. God is both sides of the equation.

You make an interesting and to me, very surprising, leap. If God nature is also beyond the realm of one conscious entity, why would that mean it does not know itself to be God? I cannot imagine anything knowing itself to be God more thoroughly than in the state of being that lies beyond individual entities.

When we abstract It beyond any meaning, or disallow It to be as sentient and aware as we are, then WE take it's place by default.

This appears to me from so far out in left field I cannot even begin to fathom what train of thought led you there. All I intend to convey is that God is not limited.

Dean, what is this sharp division you see? Why are there these tight boundaries? I have failed to understand you, sorry.

Perhaps I should still be keeping my forum vacation; this conversation seems to be leading to more confusion than connection, and I feel like a big part of that end result.

tdogg

06-24-2009, 10:23 PM

I getcha Z! :love:

Rick336

06-25-2009, 01:15 AM

I have a few questions for God:

If you really love us, and created people so you could have us around, why would you create this horrible thing called hell and throw these people, that you say you love, into it to burn and be tormented for eternity?

Yes. Hell makes absolutely no sense. Think about it. God creates us, lets us live for 80 years, and then if we don't worship him during our short lives, he tortures us forever? Not ten years. Not fifty years. Not one hundred years. Not even one thousand years. But FOREVER!

And just to make it interesting, he creates Satan to tempt us. And he writes a book with riddles and contradictions, and magical stories of talking animals and flying zombies.

And if that wasn't hard enough to believe, he hides from us. He makes himself invisible.

"Believe in me! Bow down and worship me or you will suffer FOREVER!!"

Scary stuff.

If we believe that hell actually exists then we have to accept that God is a sadistic psycho-freak because only a psycho-freak would torture billions of people for eternity when he could easily have chosen not to.

If we don't believe that hell exists, then we have to accept that the Bible is wrong.

Why would you create two humans, place them into a garden of wonder, show them and tell them about the tree you don't want them to touch, and they admonish them to never ever eat the lovely fruit from that wonderful tree, even though it will give you greater knowledge. Makes no sense.

Yes. The story of Adam and Eve is silly. Think about it. God snaps his fingers and "poof" the sun and the moon and the stars and the earth and the animals and trees all instantly materialize. But for some reason God uses dirt to create man and a rib from that man to create a woman. Go figure.

And from there it gets even sillier. There's a talking snake and a tree that knows everything and God tells Adam and Eve that if they dare eat the fruit of the tree he will kill them....but then later he changes his mind. :rolleyes:

How is it that you were unable to create two perfect human beings, but was able to give your 'word' to men, have them rewrite it, translate and re-translate it, translate it into various languages, then translate it into various meanings, yet it's supposed to mean the same thing? The first sound much easier to accomplish.

I've heard people say that the meaning of the original text was lost in translation. But, if the Holy Spirit was around to help write the first text, where was he when the New Living Testament was written?

Ok, I have a lot more questions for you (such as world hunger, war, death, poverty, disease and what the hell were you thinking having dogs live only 10-15 years????) but for now, the above will do. I believe in you, but I think much of what I read in the bible just makes no sense to me.

As for me, I don't claim that there's not a God. I just haven't seen any credible evidence for his existence. But if God does exists, he can't be the God portrayed in the Bible because that God makes Satan look like Mr. Rogers.

But just in case God is real and wants to kill me.......a snake made me type all of this. Really!

Rick

awediot

06-25-2009, 01:32 AM

While it posits that there is no ultimate deity,

Like I said...

Rick336

06-25-2009, 02:12 AM

Like I said...

I don't see any evidence of God. It's as simple as that. You got evidence? Show it to me.

I think the reason people need to believe in God is because they want to know why we are here in this world. What's our purpose? A belief in a creator answers that.

That is, until it begins to create problems.

Like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/465405189_bef4c4f0ca_o.jpg

http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads/2008/06/swaggart_621.jpg

http://keeptonyblairforpm.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/suicidebomberkid.jpg

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/05/god_hates_fags.jpg

http://fresnobeehive.com/archives/assets_c/2008/12/prop8-thumb-430x274-14960.jpg

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/events/2007.09.24_Ajad_Rally/MushroomCloud2.jpg

http://www.crystalinks.com/attackwtc.jpg

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/iranaltered20blog.jpg

awediot

06-25-2009, 02:45 AM

What do crazy extremes have to do with Buddhism being atheistic?

awediot

06-25-2009, 02:53 AM

This appears to me from so far out in left field I cannot even begin to fathom what train of thought led you there. All I intend to convey is that God is not limited.

Dean, what is this sharp division you see? Why are there these tight boundaries? I have failed to understand you, sorry.

Perhaps I should still be keeping my forum vacation; this conversation seems to be leading to more confusion than connection, and I feel like a big part of that end result.

If God is self-aware, a Being with at least a similar consciousness that we recognize as sentient (as compared to a rock), then He gets to define Himself... If God is not, then we get to define what it is.

A living God is objective and we must accommodate our beliefs as relative to His absolute truth. An incomprehensible, abstraction conforms to us.

Do you feel differently when you think God cares about us, rather than think there is nothing there which can actually do what we call "care"?

awediot

06-25-2009, 03:04 AM

Just curious as to how you came around to this belief? Not questioning whether it's right, wrong or anything else. Pure curiosity.

Applied critical thinking, blasphemous questioning, Holy Spirit inspired discernment, mad speculation, resorting to faith and reading between the lines... (to make a long story short and simple)...

In regards to 'what God is', I believe that God is much more than any human brain is able to fathom.I can fathom that... how is that not also boxing Him in? In one fell swoop you've made the effort to understand Him a self-defeating folly...

So it would seem possible then, that Zerbie's explanation is logical. Illogically speaking, from the human brain perspective, but logical to those who could understand God. There are many explanations as to what God could be, from those believing God is a 'he' and looks just like us, to God merely being the energy that both binds the universe and constantly expands it at the same time.Is God capable of knowing you've posted this? ...can HeSheIt in your opinion, think about it?

drobs

06-25-2009, 06:06 AM

Daniel

06-25-2009, 06:55 AM

What do crazy extremes have to do with Buddhism being atheistic?

However, If you are referring to Rick's post with accompanying pictures, he was responding to Tdogg.

Rick336

06-25-2009, 12:29 PM

However, If you are referring to Rick's post with accompanying pictures, he was responding to Tdogg.

Actually I was responding to awediot because I thought he was responding to me. Sorry about that.

Rick

Rick336

06-25-2009, 12:55 PM

Rick336

06-25-2009, 01:32 PM

So the question is, why would the God who "So loved the world" create evil? And then he creates temptation. And then he creates eternal punishment if we are lead into temptation.

"And lead us not into temptation......"

We have to pray to God and ask him not to lead us into temptation? Why is he doing that anyway?

....but deliver us from evil."

We wouldn't have to be delivered from evil if God hadn't created evil to begin with.

According to the Bible, most people will end up in hell anyway because God himself admits that the path to heaven is very difficult and that only a few will make it there. Doesn't this sound like the authors of the Bible were very confused about what they were writing? Of course it does. Think about it. Why would a God who "so loves the world" send so many people to eternal damnation? This makes absolutely no sense.

No sense = nonsense.

Rick

awediot

06-25-2009, 02:05 PM

Actually I was responding to awediot because I thought he was responding to me. Sorry about that.

Rick

I was.

Go Go hybrid mode!

awediot

06-25-2009, 02:28 PM

Here's a question of mine. Is God Evil?

If god knows all, controls all, is the alpha and omega, the creator of everything, where did evil come from?

The Bible says, the fruits of the spirit are:

Love, joy, peace, paitence, kindness, goodness, gratefulness, gentleness, and self control.

Where did those evil things (hate, malice, greed, etc) come from if not god?

As I see it God created evil, god created the definition of evil, and is therefore Evil.

Sorry don't mean to hijack this thread.

Valid question that are about the topic IMO.

So the question is, why would the God who "So loved the world" create evil? And then he creates temptation. And then he creates eternal punishment if we are lead into temptation.

"And lead us not into temptation......"

We have to pray to God and ask him not to lead us into temptation? Why is he doing that anyway?

....but deliver us from evil."

We wouldn't have to be delivered from evil if God hadn't created evil to begin with.

According to the Bible, most people will end up in hell anyway because God himself admits that the path to heaven is very difficult and that only a few will make it there. Doesn't this sound like the authors of the Bible were very confused about what they were writing? Of course it does. Think about it. Why would a God who "so loves the world" send so many people to eternal damnation? This makes absolutely no sense.

No sense = nonsense.

Rick

Evil, the word "evil" is similar to "wrong", bad...negative. When seen as an adjective, it is just the extreme one... Anything that is not God is by default, "lesser", imperfect, flawed, residing on the "negative" side of the scale to some degree... This is not a "moral" state, nor does it require judgment. It just is.

The very act of creating was to make things that were no longer God, that were on varying levels independent and autonomous in their own right. That is all God could possibly create. They were specifically the NotGot, and this was a good, holy thing.

Taken to it's logical limit, God granted an element of His creation the very reflection and image of Himself and His defining qualities... He brought it to life. He gave some of it "consciousness" and sentience, a "Self" and a separate mind of it's own, pride, ambition, motivation, and Will. He made it self-aware, able to recognize Him as it's creator, and granted it the power to re-create the elements, the world, as it, not He, desired... They could do so in a beneficial, or destructive manner; in a way that was in harmony with His design, or that hindered it. Right/wrong...Good/evil...

God created the "alternative" to Himself, which made "evil" possible... We, make it evil... Our own influence raises the question of "morality" and ethics, and merits due consequences, results and "judgment".

God set us free from His totalitarian control, and this MUST allow for us to act in opposition to Him, to be "evil". To remove it is to unmake us... We are to learn to not create it and embrace the responsibility freedom demands of us, for ourselves.

Rick336

06-25-2009, 03:26 PM

Valid question that are about the topic IMO.

The very act of creating was to make things that were no longer God, that were on varying levels independent and autonomous in their own right. That is all God could possibly create. They were specifically the NotGod, and this was a good, holy thing.

Why did God do this when he's the all-knowing creator of the universe and knew the eventual outcome anyway? Was he bored?

Taken to it's logical limit, God granted an element of His creation the very reflection and image of Himself and His defining qualities... He brought it to life. He gave some of it "consciousness" and sentience, a "Self" and a separate mind of it's own, pride, ambition, motivation, and Will. He made it self-aware, able to recognize Him as it's creator, and granted it the power to re-create the elements, the world, as it, not He, desired... They could do so in a beneficial, or destructive manner; in a way that was in harmony with His design, or that hindered it. Right/wrong...Good/evil...

This is the "logical limit?" There's no logic to this. Why would he create us knowing that his creation would screw up and end up suffering for eternity? That seems like a cruel game.

God created the "alternative" to Himself, which made "evil" possible... We, make it evil... Our own influence raises the question of "morality" and ethics, and merits due consequences, results and "judgment".

But why? What could possibly be the purpose? All he's doing is creating needless suffering when he doesn't have to. If he's the all-powerful God, then he can do anything. Right? Why create pain, cruelty, suffering, and eternal damnation if he doesn't have to?

God set us free from His totalitarian control, and this MUST allow for us to act in opposition to Him, to be "evil". To remove it is to unmake us... We are to learn to not create it and embrace the responsibility freedom demands of us, for ourselves.

So it's a test? It's like a rat's maze we have to follow and he's watching all this from above? So basically we are his entertainment. And if billions of people mistakenly choose the wrong God and end up suffering in hell, that's all just part of the game?

Alrighty then.

Rick

awediot

06-25-2009, 03:57 PM

Basically...WHY? The consummate question.

"That is all God could possibly create." -I hinted at what I believe to be the answer...

A perfectly self-contained, all encompassing state of Being (ie "GOD") should have no reason to create. There is nothing lacking...nothing TO create.

Nothing... THE NOTHING. The other than God... The NotGod... All God could create was what was different than Him, perhaps to give Him the experience of what Not being God could entail...by reducing Himself, not expanding.

We are not the ends. We are not the goal...We are a means and tools for Him to achieve a greater Goal for Himself, not us.

I've come to believe that each of us presents Him a way to view Himself and His own creation in a "New" way, through billions of unique, life shaped and one of a kind mind formed sets of eyes... Yes, He USES us. He is not there to serve us (ouch! slam that pride)...He doesn't merely "love" us, He in a fashion needs us. We are not just His children, we are an extension of His senses.

Being made in His image means we too are now sensitive Beings with worth and purpose that He cares about. He wants us in the end to choose to return to Him as the creatures we were made to be...But we don't have to... It is a profound option that horrifies, empowers and makes us what we are...

The damned prefer to be left to their own devices, and it hurts, not angers God...and He gives them what they want.

tdogg

06-25-2009, 10:26 PM

I don't see how accepting a limitation on our brain and therefore not able to fully comprehend "God" is putting God in a box. I believe it is a proven scientific fact that humans only use a percentage of their brain ability. It makes natural sense that we have not yet evolved to the point where our brain can handle a true understanding of God.

That could be good, it could be bad. If God is really love, then much of what I read in the Bible makes no sense. If the Bible is fully true, then God is not love. I totally get what Rick is saying about that.

IMO the bible is a very useful tool taken with much prayer and meditation. There are also segments of lovely poetry and good advice. But it is certainly not giving us a crystal clear picture of God.

awediot

06-26-2009, 01:33 AM

tdogg

06-26-2009, 04:57 PM

Evolution doesn't create what is not used...

I'm not so sure I agree completely with this statement. It could be an interesting new thread. A lot of evolution was hit and miss, not in the complete sense, but in the sense that somehow, something could be made better, stronger, more efficient. That said, I also believe that everything and everyone that came before me, made me what I am today. So give that, one could argue that nothing that came before me was useless.

It would be interesting to do research on the research of human brain function. :rolleyes:

awediot

06-27-2009, 05:01 AM

I'm not so sure I agree completely with this statement. It could be an interesting new thread. A lot of evolution was hit and miss, not in the complete sense, but in the sense that somehow, something could be made better, stronger, more efficient. That said, I also believe that everything and everyone that came before me, made me what I am today. So give that, one could argue that nothing that came before me was useless.

It would be interesting to do research on the research of human brain function. :rolleyes:
it is an interesting topic > see ya there (cut and paste this post maybe...It'd be a good start... :))

Does Evolution create useless... (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=6439)

Emproph

06-28-2009, 05:02 AM

If it is God, then it is both an independent, conscious entity, and it is simultaneously beyond being merely 'an entity." God nature transcends one localized form. God nature can have form and shape, and it pre-dates form and shape, and it is not limited to one separate and discreet entity.But it either knows itself to be God or it doesn't. It either is a conscious Being (and them some), or it is not.

logic dictates -A- cannot be both -A- and not _a_ simultaneously (square circle, self refuting impossibility syndrome)...

(awediot, I realize you’ve already said much of this (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=70231#post70231), but these are my words, and hopefully something new.)

Our creator (God) is of course a conscious being, as per the logic that consciousness can only be begotten by consciousness. And you’re right, A cannot be both A and not _a_ at the same time. But A can be both A and the illusion of not _a_ at the same time.

God, of course, experiences the consciousness of Itself, and the consciousness of It’s creation (the “Son” of God) simultaneously. There is a difference, but they are not separate. The Holy Spirit is the dynamic consciousness (and/or communication) between the two. God being the totality of the “three.” Experiencing each separately, and as one, simultaneously.

Further, if God is infinite, then It cannot know of Its own magnitude, as the nature of infinity is perpetual increase. Any “god” that we can conceive of, or that even God can conceive of Itself, could and would, always and only, be in the “middle” of infinity. Essentially, God is a state of perpetually increasing awareness of Itself. Ultimately making all creation a discovery.

As you said, God has no need. The only thing “new” that God could want or need would be the understanding of “less.” Which is where we come in.

God is every combination of everything. We, the “creation” of us--our universe, et al, is one strand, one thread of that “everything-consciousness," perceived as separate from the whole, which brings new awareness and added identity to the being that would consider Itself God---which I don’t believe any aspect of, would consider itself to be... (fully aware of itself). As long as there is less, there will always be more.

God is a conundrum. The process is fixed, but the awareness of It's potential is not.

There’s nothing abstract about it, our thoughts about God are God’s thoughts thinking about Itself. In fact, all of our thoughts are God’s, we just control the direction they take.

Emproph

06-28-2009, 06:37 AM

I have a few questions for God:

Why would you create two humans, place them into a garden of wonder, show them and tell them about the tree you don't want them to touch, and they admonish them to never ever eat the lovely fruit from that wonderful tree, even though it will give you greater knowledge. Makes no sense.

Toni, this is one thing I wanted to get back to you on. I started writing a response and then got tired, lost my train of thought, and then went to bed. I’m sorry.

I think about the Genesis account a lot, it’s mostly metaphor, which I now understand (at least the important parts).

Remember the name of the tree? It was the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

Implying that we had no understanding of what good or evil meant.

If God is Love, and Love is Heaven, and God is Everything (all creation is made of the "material" of God), then Everything is Heaven. (understanding evolution as fact, I’m speaking about the Garden of Eden as being well before the physical universe was even created, and with the understanding that we are immortal being(s).)

If everything is Heaven, and always was, then before “eating the fruit,” we only knew paradise all the time. We didn’t understand it as paradise because there was nothing to compare it to. It just was.

We also didn’t know the meaning of bad (evil), since all that we knew was good/God. Our conception of God was good, even though we didn’t understand what that meant.

awediot says we were pushed. I would describe it as the natural evolution of God’s consciousness. He created us as “separate” beings, who realized that we were now co-creators with God, no matter how infinitesimally small---we got to make our own fun, on TOP of the perpetual fun that God made for us.

In the practical sense, the “greater knowledge” of the tree, is the pain we experience here on Earth. We may have experienced pain before our life here, but not without the awareness of God/good being in control. When we experience pain here, the message that nothing bad can ever happen, is lost on us. And we now understand the meaning of “good” and “evil.”

When I envision this scenario, I imagine that all of Heaven’s beings revolve around this “tree,” this burgeoning unknown potential, ever playing on our curiosity. The only thing we knew about it, was that if we touched it, we would get sucked into it, and never be the same again---and here we are.

It was the engine that feeds Heaven, and you don’t stick your hand into a moving engine without incurring permanent damage.

Not knowing the meaning of bad/evil, we also could not understand the meaning of “damage.” When we touched the “fruit,” we tasted it’s result, and jumped in (ate of the fruit). What we didn’t realize, was that the bad part, by nature, would be experienced separately from the good part---again, here we are.

Ignorance is bliss, but there’s no going back now. The only way out is to learn to maintain love (good), in the midst of evil. To overcome its effect on us. This is what is meant by “we will become as gods.” We, like God, will no longer be bound by the influence of fear--other than to understand and respond to it in others.

If you read some of the near-death experience accounts of the being of light, you can get an idea of what we are becoming. Angels in training, as I heard it once. And apparently it’s worth ANY amount of pain to get to that point. When I imagine angels these days, I imagine them like rock stars, the most glittery clothing, perfect bodies and looks, talented beyond measure, shrewd as a cougar yet humble as a mouse.

But most of all, what I imagine is that they are like a living funnel, able to expand and contract and direct God’s ocean of love to any situation. A perpetual supply of solution.

Like a musician, especially a singer, they generate the most beautiful music, the immediate pleasure of which they experience themselves, with the added pleasure of the awareness that their creation is moving mountains of emotion in others.

This is what I imagine the state of angels to be--those who have overcome the all-consuming effect of evil.

The living jewels of the universe (physical and non). Yet like the worth a diamond, it takes not only an inexorable amount of pressure, but the cut of a master’s hand.

Rick336

06-28-2009, 10:45 AM

Our creator (God) is of course a conscious being, as per the logic that consciousness can only be begotten by consciousness.

What evidence supports that consciousness can only be begotten by consciousness or that consciousness exists outside the human or animal brain?

Rick

Rick336

06-28-2009, 10:58 AM

Yes, we cannot fully understand God...

This always seems to be the answer to questions about God when there's no rational answer available.

Rick

Rick336

06-28-2009, 11:08 AM

We are not the ends. We are not the goal...We are a means and tools for Him to achieve a greater Goal for Himself, not us.

God has a goal? Is there scripture to support this or is this what you personally believe?

The damned prefer to be left to their own devices, and it hurts, not angers God...and He gives them what they want.

How do you know this?

Rick

Emproph

06-28-2009, 11:27 AM

What evidence supports that consciousness can only be begotten by consciousness

Logic. Nothingness cannot exist. Therefore, consciousness cannot come from nothingness. The only logical conclusion is that consciousness came from consciousness---either equal to our own, or more likely, “higher” than our own.

or that consciousness exists outside the human or animal brain?

The brain is physical, awareness/consciousness is not. You can’t touch your thoughts or feelings, yet they exist.

Function precedes form, not the other way around. That goes for all life forms. It is our spirit that designed the brain--through evolution--to house our awareness in physical reality.

I can’t prove spirit to you, you have to determine the veracity of that on your own. But I can tell you that doing so is simple logic.

Rick, I don’t want you to believe what I understand to be true, I want you to see it. But one of the requirements is the desire to see it.

I’ll give you this much, faith is not an ends, it’s a means to sight. There is no need for “faith” if one knows how to see. And sight is only logic away.

awediot

06-28-2009, 01:22 PM

God has a goal? Is there scripture to support this or is this what you personally believe?

that God left us "scripture" at all implies we are to do something with it, we are to progress in a certain direction it explains... That is concludes with events which have not happened yet, is the description of a goal being worked toward.

How do you know this?

Rick

I don't. I believe it for many reasons.

Rick336

06-28-2009, 01:36 PM

Logic. Nothingness cannot exist. Therefore, consciousness cannot come from nothingness. The only logical conclusion is that consciousness came from consciousness---either equal to our own, or more likely, “higher” than our own.

The brain is physical, awareness/consciousness is not. You can’t touch your thoughts or feelings, yet they exist.

Yes. The brain is physical. The brain is made of 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons. Neurons gather and transmit electrochemical signals like wires in a computer. This is what produces our thoughts and decisions and memories and emotions and our awareness that we are alive. This is our consciousness. However, there is no credible evidence that this process happens without the physical brain. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that only the physical brain can produce consciousness. So logically, consciousness cannot come from consciousness. A physical brain is required with neurons and brain cells for consciousness to happen. There's absolutely no evidence that consciousness exists on its own.

http://www.copingskills4kids.net/images/brain_neurons.jpg

Function precedes form, not the other way around. That goes for all life forms. It is our spirit that designed the brain--through evolution--to house our awareness in physical reality.

I can’t prove spirit to you, you have to determine the veracity of that on your own. But I can tell you that doing so is simple logic.

Rick, I don’t want you to believe what I understand to be true, I want you to see it. But one of the requirements is the desire to see it.

Okay. I have the desire to see this "spirit." But of you can't prove it to me, how can I see it?

I’ll give you this much, faith is not an ends, it’s a means to sight. There is no need for “faith” if one knows how to see. And sight is only logic away.

I agree. There's no need for faith if one can see reality. But reality is measured with evidence. Therefore, evidence is required to "see" reality.

However, some people rely on faith to "see". But faith is the act of "seeing" without evidence. Faith allows one to "see" anything that an ancient holy book or someone in authority tells them is real, including 72 virgins that awaits them in heaven if they kill millions of "infidels."

Imagine if I told you there were actually two moons in the night sky. You look at the sky but can only see one moon. Then I told you that the second moon was really there but you needed to know how to see it. You get a telescope and look at the sky but still only see one moon. Would you believe the second moon was there by faith simply because I told you it was there?

Rick

awediot

06-28-2009, 02:10 PM

Do you only believe in what you have proof of?

Emproph

06-28-2009, 02:21 PM

Would you believe the second moon was there by faith simply because I told you it was there?

You’re right. It’s all in your mind.

I went through every combination in my mind, and it always came back to the same thing--that we’re all one, and everything is God/Heaven.

(…the acid didn’t hurt, either btw.)

But that only gave me a template to work with. I had to integrate that truth by applying it---at least conceptually---to every situation, and in so doing, my brain became wired to understand and experience it at will.

But it’s not “outside,” any more than your own mind is outside. We bathe in the consciousness of all that is. But our bodies take up so much energy that it’s virtually impossible to focus long enough to see the impossible.

So if you want to see God, you have your work cut out for you.

Remember, it’s all in your mind…and everything is dirt, including the air.

Rick336

06-28-2009, 03:39 PM

I went through every combination in my mind, and it always came back to the same thing--that we’re all one, and everything is God/Heaven.

Okay. I have a similar thought process, except that instead of everything being "God/Heaven," I believe everything is the universe.

I have to go to work, but I'd like to carry this conversation further.

Later.

Rick

awediot

06-28-2009, 07:04 PM

You’re right. It’s all in your mind.

I went through every combination in my mind, and it always came back to the same thing--that we’re all one, and everything is God/Heaven.

(…the acid didn’t hurt, either btw.)

But that only gave me a template to work with. I had to integrate that truth by applying it---at least conceptually---to every situation, and in so doing, my brain became wired to understand and experience it at will.

But it’s not “outside,” any more than your own mind is outside. We bathe in the consciousness of all that is. But our bodies take up so much energy that it’s virtually impossible to focus long enough to see the impossible.

So if you want to see God, you have your work cut out for you.

Remember, it’s all in your mind…and everything is dirt, including the air.

Then why oppose anything?

tdogg

06-29-2009, 11:05 AM

Patrick, I really enjoyed reading your description of God. It made total sense in that I understood what you were saying, and it's an interesting concept. I will re-read it again later, and see what I can glean from it. Thanks for sharing that.

I sometimes feel God as the energy that both combines the universe in its entirety and continually expands it. My concept of God (my god) is more of an energy entity rather than something or someone that looks like a human.

awediot

06-29-2009, 01:31 PM

Rick336

06-30-2009, 01:38 AM

I went through every combination in my mind, and it always came back to the same thing--that we’re all one, and everything is God/Heaven.

Here's what I think is going on.

First off, scientific theory says that 14 billion years ago our entire universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. This was the moment when space and time did not exist.

Then a huge explosion from that atomic nucleus (big bang) created not only subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time and instantly spread all matter outward creating our universe.

Billions of years later a large collapsing cloud of gas from a supernova of several million years earlier, formed a rotating disk with a large central bulge.

Out of the disk would eventually form the planets of our solar system, and out of this central bulge where most of the mass wound up, formed the sun, one of trillions of similar suns (stars) in the universe.

The early earth was dominated by violent volcanoes and a turbulent atmosphere. The lifeless ocean received organic matter from the atmosphere and asteroids and comets.

Then substances such as H2O, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane formed molecules such as amino acids.These molecules triggered the formation of single-celled microorganisms.

About 2 billion years ago, cells with a nucleus developed which evolved into plants and animals. Millions of years later dinosaurs evolved. Dinosaurs dominated the earth for 150 million years until a huge asteroid slammed into the earth killing all of them.

With the dinosaurs out of the picture, smaller animals survived and thrived. Eventually some evolved into primates.

After millions of years, a branch of these primates eventually stood up and began to walk upright eventually becoming early humans. 1.99 million years later the humans developed telescopes and space vehicles to explore beyond the planet.

All of the matter that formed from the big bang (the gases, particles, galaxies, stars, sun, planets, volcanoes, water, rocks, single-celled microorganisms, plants, animals, dinosaurs, primates, and humans) have the very same atoms from that explosion 14 billion years ago.

That means that everything is made from the same atoms. Everything in the entire universe shares the same atoms that have been around from the very beginning. Over a period of 14 billion years, the atoms from the big bang evolved into everything that exists today.

In other words.... we humans are just an extension of the evolving universe. We are the universe.

So....if humans are just an extension of the universe, and humans send space probes into space and send orbiting telescopes to gaze at other planets and stars and galaxies, it is the universe looking at itself.

The universe is looking at itself and asking, "What is my purpose?"

And when we, the people of the Soulforce forum, ask questions of each other about God and our purpose on earth and the meaning of life, it's really an extension of the universe trying to figure itself out.

All of us are the universe. And we ask, "Why do I exists?"

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/quiz/2624_1211129268683_363_300.jpg
The universe examines itself asking, "What am I?"

http://www.jilc.org/_images//man_on_beach_praising_God_.jpg
The universe asks, "What is my purpose?"

http://www.southdowns.org.uk/images/blastoff.jpg
The universe ponders its own existence.

Rick

Emproph

06-30-2009, 06:16 AM

Then why oppose anything?
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x193/Valentina_sg1/indeed.png

Emproph

06-30-2009, 07:31 AM

In other words.... we humans are just an extension of the evolving universe. We are the universe.

So....if humans are just an extension of the universe, and humans send space probes into space and send orbiting telescopes to gaze at other planets and stars and galaxies, it is the universe looking at itself.

The universe is looking at itself and asking, "What is my purpose?"

And when we, the people of the Soulforce forum, ask questions of each other about God and our purpose on earth and the meaning of life, it's really an extension of the universe trying to figure itself out.

All of us are the universe. And we ask, "Why do I exists?"

That’s a beautiful way of putting it, Rick.

I once read that ‘when spirit touches matter lightly, places like Earth are formed. When spirit touches matter fully, stars are born.’ My perception is that matter is spirit solidified.

I was thinking that maybe you have a more analytical mind who’s “proof” might be better served with the understanding of its physical/mathematical applications (science). Like the quantum physicists, determined to answer the secrets of the universe.

A program I watched a few months ago said that if one could harness the energy that kept a glass of water to stay in the form of water, it could power London for a week. Like the detonation of a nuclear bomb---if one could harness and direct the energy in productive ways.

Point being that it takes an incomprehensible amount of energy to hold the physical universe together. Not that that proves God or a consciousness, but it does hint at an energy that seems to be “motivated” to hold things together.

I suspect that our quantum physicists will eventually discover that energy itself is not only aware, but is aware of itself.

Quite the tall order, I know, but I have 'faith' in mathematics.

Check out the articles on the God Particle (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22god+particle%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10). Supposedly the energy phenomenon that is responsible for turning raw energy into "solid" matter.

This technological netherworld is one very big scientific instrument, specifically, a particle accelerator-an atomic peashooter more powerful than any ever built. It's called the Large Hadron Collider, and its purpose is simple but ambitious: to crack the code of the physical world; to figure out what the universe is made of; in other words, to get to the very bottom of things (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text).
~~~~
By smashing pieces of matter together, creating energies and temperatures not seen since the universe's earliest moments, the LHC could reveal the particles and forces that wrote the rules for everything that followed. It could help answer one of the most basic questions for any sentient being in our universe: What is this place (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text/4)?

http://s.ngm.com/2008/03/god-particle/img/god-particle-lead.jpg
At the Heart of All Matter

The hunt for the God particle

http://s.ngm.com/2008/03/god-particle/img/god-particle-160.jpg
Go Inside the God Particle
See how physicists will use a giant atom smasher in hopes of finding the so-called God particle.
(http://www.soulforce.org/2008/03/god-particle/particle-interactive.html)

http://s.ngm.com/img/clear.gif
http://s.ngm.com/img/clear.gif
Photo Gallery
http://s.ngm.com/2008/03/god-particle/img/god-particle-gallery-160.jpg
The Large Hadron Collider
Take a photo tour of Europe's subterranean particle accelerator.
(http://www.soulforce.org/2008/03/god-particle/ginter-photography.html)

http://s.ngm.com/img/clear.gif
http://s.ngm.com/img/clear.gif
(http://www.soulforce.org/geopedia/Atom_Smashers)
http://s.ngm.com/img/clear.gif
http://s.ngm.com/img/clear.gif
~~~~
Space and Motion.com is another one you may want to check out. They seem to be the most comprehensive site that's dedicated to unifying science with the philosophic understanding of unity.

From the front page (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/), The Four Main Purposes of this Website, #3:

3. To Solve the Central Problems of Knowledge.

By understanding matter's (our) true spatially extended nature (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm) we can easily understand the necessary connection between things existing in space (imagine spherical waves in space flowing through one another). This explains how the Earth can orbit the Sun, how we can see the Stars in the night sky, i.e. these 'forces of light and gravity' that extend across the observable universe.

From this knowledge of necessary connection we can then solve the problems of science (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-Principles-Reality.htm), of physics (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics.htm), logic and mathematics (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical-physics/logic-truth-reality.htm), philosophy (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy.htm), metaphysics (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm), theology (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-World-Religions.htm) and our evolution and ecology (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/evolution-ecology-nature-culture-society.htm). (There are many problems to explain, caused by the current discrete particle conception of matter, as modern academia well realises).

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Images/philosophy-shop/poster-einstein-old.jpgWhen forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)
I realize that my convictions remain in my head, and as fascinating as they may be, sometimes it’s even more interesting to see them being proven, or at least theorized on, in scientific circles.

Rick336

06-30-2009, 10:38 AM

Do you only believe in what you have proof of?

No. Sometimes I believe that what is being communicated to me is trustworthy and therefore true. For instance, if I see a news report on TV that a plane has crashed in the mountains, I believe it to be true.

I suppose it could be a hoax, but then how could I explain the video images of scattered plane debris? Could the debris have been placed there intentionally to look like a plane had crashed? And what possible reason would a news anchor and a respective TV station have for perpetuating a huge hoax?

Common sense judgment tells me that it is highly unlikely that the news report is false.

Other times however, I automatically believe something to be true and find out later that it is false. For example, it is commonly believed that the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. But records from the Pilgrims diary show that the Mayflower first anchored at what's now Provincetown on Cape Cod on November 25, 1620. It wasn't until December 26th (a month later) that the Mayflower finally reached Plymouth. However, nowhere in the Pilgrims' diary does it ever mention Plymouth Rock.

Sometimes a common belief held by the vast majority turns out to be wrong after investigation. Other times we rely on our common sense to determine if something is true or false.

So, did Moses really have a conversation with a burning bush?

Rick

awediot

07-01-2009, 03:48 PM

No. Sometimes I believe that what is being communicated to me is trustworthy and therefore true. For instance, if I see a news report on TV that a plane has crashed in the mountains, I believe it to be true.

I suppose it could be a hoax, but then how could I explain the video images of scattered plane debris? Could the debris have been placed there intentionally to look like a plane had crashed? And what possible reason would a news anchor and a respective TV station have for perpetuating a huge hoax?

Common sense judgment tells me that it is highly unlikely that the news report is false.

Other times however, I automatically believe something to be true and find out later that it is false. For example, it is commonly believed that the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. But records from the Pilgrims diary show that the Mayflower first anchored at what's now Provincetown on Cape Cod on November 25, 1620. It wasn't until December 26th (a month later) that the Mayflower finally reached Plymouth. However, nowhere in the Pilgrims' diary does it ever mention Plymouth Rock.

Sometimes a common belief held by the vast majority turns out to be wrong after investigation. Other times we rely on our common sense to determine if something is true or false.

The " But (if) you can't prove it to me, how can I see it?" sort of threw me... you just answered your own question.

So, did Moses really have a conversation with a burning bush?

Rick

I don't know.

Daniel

07-01-2009, 08:49 PM

I don't know.

I think this is a very important point. Not knowing, and knowing that one doesn't know...well...that seems to me to be a very important matter, and not something we hear enough about.

Rick336

07-01-2009, 09:10 PM

Point being that it takes an incomprehensible amount of energy to hold the physical universe together. Not that that proves God or a consciousness, but it does hint at an energy that seems to be “motivated” to hold things together.

I suspect that our quantum physicists will eventually discover that energy itself is not only aware, but is aware of itself.

This "energy" that you talk about sounds like the "force" that a handful of scientists believe might hold everything in the universe together.

It kind of makes sense. Think about gravity. What is it? Gravity acts like a magnet that pulls things towards it. But how does it work? Why do large objects in the universe act like magnets? Where does this energy or force come from?

Rick

awediot

07-02-2009, 01:28 PM

I think this is a very important point. Not knowing, and knowing that one doesn't know...well...that seems to me to be a very important matter, and not something we hear enough about.

yeah...but it's not exactly a revelation.

Daniel

07-02-2009, 03:25 PM

yeah...but it's not exactly a revelation.

Let's put it this way: if people would really examine what they think they know as to what they actually know, the world would be a much better place.

I deal with this all the time as a teacher of singing: the student swears that they are making a certain sound, but they aren't. And to get them to observe what they are actually doing via observation in a mirror - the face tells all- is like asking them to put their hand into a fire: they avoid it at all costs. I point out to them that they are looking but not seeing: at the last second their eyes focus somewhere else than on their own faces. I believe this is true of all of us: sustained self-observation isn't easy. It strips us of our illusions.

Questioning one's assumptions isn't a past time that our age seems to engage in much. We are the age of specialization (this doctor for that illness etc) and - as such- the big picture can get lost. My sense is that this leads into matters of spirituality and belief.

Can this be a revelation? A resounding yes. The ability to sustain paradox, incongruity, and down-right confusion is hard in our tweeter age. We want one line answers and quick fixes to existential questions.

As regards this conversation, the accepted and unquestioned perceptions on both sides of the discussion can lead to greater division and frustration. It would be better if each side questioned itself first before attempting to question the other. But how often does that happen? Most people treat their internal world territorially, as though it is something to be defended and protected. Hence, one finds that one's self involved in a fight.

To quote the CIM: Truth need no defense.

That's a revelation if they ever was one.

tdogg

07-02-2009, 08:06 PM

bnmoore

07-02-2009, 11:29 PM

Let's put it this way: if people would really examine what they think they know as to what they actually know, the world would be a much better place.

I deal with this all the time as a teacher of singing: the student swears that they are making a certain sound, but they aren't. And to get them to observe what they are actually doing via observation in a mirror - the face tells all- is like asking them to put their hand into a fire: they avoid it at all costs. I point out to them that they are looking but not seeing: at the last second their eyes focus somewhere else than on their own faces. I believe this is true of all of us: sustained self-observation isn't easy. It strips us of our illusions.

Questioning one's assumptions isn't a past time that our age seems to engage in much. We are the age of specialization (this doctor for that illness etc) and - as such- the big picture can get lost. My sense is that this leads into matters of spirituality and belief.

Can this be a revelation? A resounding yes. The ability to sustain paradox, incongruity, and down-right confusion is hard in our tweeter age. We want one line answers and quick fixes to existential questions.

As regards this conversation, the accepted and unquestioned perceptions on both sides of the discussion can lead to greater division and frustration. It would be better if each side questioned itself first before attempting to question the other. But how often does that happen? Most people treat their internal world territorially, as though it is something to be defended and protected. Hence, one finds that one's self involved in a fight.

To quote the CIM: Truth need no defense.

That's a revelation if they ever was one.

We just finished up a class on "Socrates' Way" with a little "How to Think like Leonardo da Vinci" mixed in. Some of the exercises really challenged everyone involved.

Isn't knowing nothing a goal of Zen and Buddhism both? And also a place of non-judgment?

Ben N. Moore

Daniel

07-02-2009, 11:42 PM

We just finished up a class on "Socrates' Way" with a little "How to Think like Leonardo da Vinci" mixed in. Some of the exercises really challenged everyone involved.

Isn't knowing nothing a goal of Zen and Buddhism both? And also a place of non-judgment?

My understanding is that 'not knowing' is a by-product of watching one's mind during meditation, rather than a 'goal' per se. To meditate this way, one learns to be non-judgmental. It becomes clear that seeing a thought and reacting to it by judging it as 'bad' (self-punishment) is just another thought to be aware of and let go of. ;)

If you stop thrashing around in the pool, the muddy water will sink to the bottom and you will see things for what they are.

Good thoughts come and go. So do bad ones. Who are we without good thoughts and bad thoughts?

awediot

07-03-2009, 08:38 PM

My understanding is that 'not knowing' is a by-product of watching one's mind during meditation, rather than a 'goal' per se. To meditate this way, one learns to be non-judgmental. It becomes clear that seeing a thought and reacting to it by judging it as 'bad' (self-punishment) is just another thought to be aware of and let go of. ;)

If you stop thrashing around in the pool, the muddy water will sink to the bottom and you will see things for what they are.

Good thoughts come and go. So do bad ones. Who are we without good thoughts and bad thoughts?

My problem with doing this, was that pop-up thoughts of lusts tempted me to cheat, free range, greedy wants made justifying petty theft easier and me more materialistic and, entertaining anger and fits of unabated hate let my mind wander into some creatively ugly and self-absorbed streams of consciousness...

Like so much, the principle of restraining judgment over our own thoughts to let them just flow, is an enriching, potent means to see the world (and our self) in a new way, which always helps problem solving... It's not an easy thing to do and takes self practiced, heightened self-awareness... The danger is in making it your normal thought process. The effort to open ones mind this way excites, and we can force our "judgmentalism" to shut it's little voice in our head mouth...but judgment, it also discernment...is possible insight...is, self preservative at it's core...

Our religious upbringing or indoctrination might and can and will skew what we think of as "bad", so when we encounter it, that ingrained response to Judge it on sight, also blinds us to anything beyond the fear based stereotype... That is good. But, we do not notice that in this sudden push to be more tolerant and accepting, sweeps up everything...even those things we have simply learned are "Wrong" because they harm, and should "judge" as such -calling a spade a spade...

Without a thought, I assumed that what seemed an innocuous, pseudo-religious, mind game technique to break down my prejudice and biased views, would zero in on those "Truths" and my failing to see them fully, with an ethical precision and improvement in perception... It does, sorta. Then it starts to bloat into undermining known difficult and complex "so called" evil and harm and sin and "Badness" as a whole... The defensive retort "who are you to say my -drinking too much, sleeping around, cheating, stealing...smacking my rotten kid...is WRONG?" and if this half-lit pressure to shrug an embrace over all things you struggle no to condemn so readily has taken a hold as a fundamental virtue, you have no common sense answer... they're right. Who am I to say? Even Jesus taught not to judge...but THAT is EVIL...

I clung to my more loving efforts to just shut my mind up sometimes and accept people... It worked to a fault...

We are to judge actions and the truth of the beliefs which lead to them... Whipping a three year old with an extension cord IS WRONG. Always... Your partner sharing themself intimately with another behind your back, IS WRONG...but there may be extenuating reasons that may or not make the wrong more justifiable... A "Sin" (practically, from a utilitarian pov.) is an action that increases excessive pain needlessly. It is maturity born of trial and error and keen observation and experience, to just take a stand that -X- is WRONG, we should stop it, and sane people know it... Stealing for food, lying to flatter someone's fat esteem, killing in defense are still wrong, but they are truly consequences of having to choose a lesser of two evils... They are less wrong because of this crappy planet, but never just fine.

We judge deeds and the drive behind them, and the world view behind that because what IS right or wrong is more important than our want to smooth over fights...We are forbidden from judging the Soul, the heart and hidden motive, the destiny and relationship with God each other have...If I say you are doing bad things, I can probably give examples and a logical reason why the hyper-non-judgmentalism being used to rationalize the harm can be dangerous...I can't say (nor do I ever believe) you are bad. (in an absolute, objective sense)... I do not know much more than you show me about yourself, and like the rest of us, you've probably practiced your presentation... probably. Who am I to judge you?

I Corinthians 10:15
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

~despite the horror Matthew buried me in, believing the childish grasp that to lust was to just as bad as DOING IT, the lesson that we are to get a grip not just on our lives, but on our thoughts which shape them first, rings through loud and crystal clear true... Use the suspension of personal judgment and numbing the discernment of the thoughts which invade our heads sometimes, sparingly, as a powerful, but unwieldy tool for intended meditation, contemplation, prayer and introspection... Don't just stop judging, but examine why you judge so and so (even "good" things), and decide if you are right... I'd highly recommend such attempts to blur right and wrong in the effort for open-mindedness, be learned and undertaken with the same critical thinking skepticism it is trying to erase...Judge what the attempts to abandon judgment could do to you if it succeeds...

Daniel

07-03-2009, 09:48 PM

awediot

07-04-2009, 06:33 AM

There are two practices in meditation.

The first is to develop concentration, one pointedness of mind. One can do this by following one's breath- in and out. Over and over again.

You make the process sound dangerous. On the contrary, for most people, it is tedious and BORING.

Try watching your breath- not having a thought other than the one about your breath- for ten seconds. One people can't get past the first breath before thinking about the laundry or whatever.

The second step after developing concentration practice involves critical thinking- ie analysis. This is a far cry from some weird anything goes mentality.

The aim of meditation is the twin flames of wisdom (mind) and compassion (heart).

"Meditation", like contemplation, self-hypnosis, calming and intentionally refocusing ones own mind is inherent in any "spiritual" introspection, or even therapeutic, secular delving into the "psyche" of psychology... I've always seen relaxation techniques, and universal methods of quieting, and heightening the mind, to be at least similar in all schools which address and use such ancient head trips... You may recognize only two practices in meditation (and who can argue against wisdom (mind) or compassion (heart)? - noble, obvious goals we all agree on and work to improve,) but The term "meditation" would balk at being limited to only two "practices". It's a way of thinking, anticipating and tracking the path of least resistance. It's not the destination.

You stated "My understanding is that 'not knowing' is a by-product of watching one's mind during meditation, rather than a 'goal' per se. To meditate this way, one learns to be non-judgmental. It becomes clear that seeing a thought and reacting to it by judging it as 'bad' (self-punishment) is just another thought to be aware of and let go of."

Now, you said "to meditate -this way-..." (the only description given of any parameters or seeming goal is "watching one's mind"). I understand that, but it is pretty abstract (and not just to the novice)... yet in that rather fluid and necessarily loosely defined way, "one learns to be non-judgmental" as we theoretically see a thought, our own thought, and by judging or reacting to it as "Bad", we "self punish" (?)...but so we should just acknowledge it as a thought, judge nothing about it, and let it go...

If the softening of judgment and the condemning and hurting each other was just an inadvertent, natural outgrowth of meditation which one day surprised us to find we were more peaceful, kinder, more empathetic and caring about the world, beautiful... I think that is how it was meant to work...But in this day and age where FEAR and Shame and guilt are being marketed as primitive taboos a more transcendent people ought rise above, and we manage to blot out our discomforting reactions to the damage we ourselves do, many take this encouragement to quit judging (mostly themselves), and run amok with it, using it to skim over those red flag thoughts trying to tell us something is seriously wrong... We're eliminating our unwanted, but sometimes spot on negative response before the danger has passed, and that ruins people... The aspired to equilibrium, which as you now describe as having the side effect of dissolving our judgmental attitudes, easily gets overshadowed by the immediate perks of disallowing yourself from giving yourself a hard time about entertaining some truly gross, mean spirited and utterly self serving thoughts that we used to know were simply wrong. We got why we ought not waste time debasing ourselves with elaborately allowed, crass, skin and bone fantasy that should be seen as the poison it is...whether imagined, or taking on a life of it's own...But now we prefer to complicate everything because it gives us an excuse to keep sinning. > Call bad bad and wrong wrong and be rid of it... Learn to USE good judgment, not shun it.

It's strange how proud we can become of humbly getting over our crotchety, critical old pride... How do we watch ourselves watching our self thinking away? How many steps out of our "Self" until we're happy? We use "judgment" to decide that "judgment" is wrong, and should be quelled... We judge how well we are doing, and if successful, won't have a clue if what we did was good or bad...

~In principle, and again as a cherished tool, this thinking is edifying in small, concentrated doses... Abandoning judgmentalism, or letting go of our penchant to label things right or wrong, crosses and meld into one another more than we anticipate. The goal is virtuous (almost all are), but the means CAN be dangerous... Our carefully and intentionally repressed longing for moral relativism and the freedom it brings lies just below the surface. Teaching oneself to quit making ethical calls as to the good or badness about the environment, which has a very real impact on us, is a mind numbing, not sharpening endeavor.

Once we can think about thinking from some distance, we isolate the the hum drum, day to day white noise wash of our mind being on normal autopilot...like when a word suddenly just sounds weird and totally incorrect, or if you've ever done that with your own name- repeat it until it becomes gibberish- we pull back and away from the mediocracy and rut of the routine, and enter another dimension...One where we need even MORE discernment and good judgment, not less... I described what happened to me. I hold to a mystical view of Christianity that sadly most Christians fled from once "miracles" were repackaged into "magic", the numinous experience was reduced to just channeling or necromancy, rainbows, crystals and incense became exotic, neo-pagan symbols and power objects to be shunned, pretty, stirring music, melodramatic ambiance and the cloud of unknowing all prayers are lifted up on, were adopted by the "New Age" movement, and Christianity adjusted by getting even more legalistic, more judgmental and more the sort of loving that will hurt you, if it's for your own good...

I encourage everyone to explore some typically Eastern philosophy and metaphysical exercises which can and do change us in usually unforeseen ways... We are cautioned about the "mysteries" and whirlpool of the "occulted" half-truths which can suck us in... Even God doesn't forbid our search from getting para-normal...He just says be very careful...

And, I know one good reason why.

Daniel

07-04-2009, 08:49 AM

I really don't follow your reasoning that meditation leads to moral relativism, which is what I hear you saying. As such, you seem to be putting me in the position of having to defend a position I am credited with having- one which you find 'bad'.

I suppose if one sits on a cushion in fear that some bad 'thing' is going to attack one....well....my response is this: projection leads to perception.

My experience with meditation has not been negative at all. In fact, it has helped me immensely in dealing with physical and emotional pain. I am very thankful for it. The perspective (one you seem to share) that the mind is a bucket which can be filled with anything from outside - be it angelic or demonic- is one that I do not share.

I used to have an inordinate fear of the dark as a child. However, after I grew up, I learned to see that shadows can't hurt me.

tdogg

07-04-2009, 10:32 PM

awediot

07-05-2009, 12:09 PM

I really don't follow your reasoning that meditation leads to moral relativism, which is what I hear you saying. As such, you seem to be putting me in the position of having to defend a position I am credited with having- one which you find 'bad'.

It is when it convinces us we always have to put those qualifying "quote" marks around the word BAD, that was one tough lesson to grasp.

Again, you said earlier: "To meditate this way, one learns to be non-judgmental." To meditate in what way? The one that makes you feel guilty for having the arrogance to just call evil evil?

What do you mean by "judgment"?

I suppose if one sits on a cushion in fear that some bad 'thing' is going to attack one....well....my response is this: projection leads to perception. I you ever meet any disembodied entities in your heightened state, you'll know that their existing in the spiritual realm, doesn't make them an Angel... It isn't those who are out to attack me, but those who are dying to help me in a really terrible way they do not understand, that I dread the most... I denied the portion of ill will the Universe has set aside for us, for as long as I could... It ain't "all good", or all God anymore.

My experience with meditation has not been negative at all. In fact, it has helped me immensely in dealing with physical and emotional pain. I am very thankful for it. The perspective (one you seem to share) that the mind is a bucket which can be filled with anything from outside - be it angelic or demonic- is one that I do not share. It is the casualness in dismissing the difference between the angelic and demonic, the lack of judgment and brushing off the supposed negative for the sake of coping, that is precisely what I'm talking about...

I'm not disparaging meditation, just some of the impulsive, trend driven reasons we can get drawn into it, and what it can do to a person who thinks judging things as right or wrong, will be the last "wrong" they defeat. Then it's just mush after that...

I used to have an inordinate fear of the dark as a child. However, after I grew up, I learned to see that shadows can't hurt me.How much faith do place in your belief we're only talking of shadows here?

awediot

07-05-2009, 01:03 PM

How can meditation be a bad thing? Our minds get so full of crap from the environment - TV, radio, advertisement, foul language, negativity, etc. To sit quietly and silent contemplation, or non-contemplation, clean out our minds and perhaps do a bit of introspection would be nothing but good. Good for our mentality and good for our emotions. And for those inclined, good spiritually too.

To meditate this way, one learns to be non-judgmental. It becomes clear that seeing a thought and reacting to it by judging it as 'bad' (self-punishment) is just another thought to be aware of and let go of.

This is a thread on "judgment", not meditation...If we are promoting a means to a peace of mind based on the humbleness of knowing we are too ignorant to ever judge another's motives or sincerity or good/badness of their innermost being (or soul), WONDERFUL!.. But if we are trying to make ourselves and others merely feel better by glossing over our duty to call evil to the mat, and the accountability of knowing good from evil, then even something as innocuous as quieting the mind and attending to the hear and now we are immediately trying to grow more aware of, will be done to serve ignoble and self-serving ends...

Yes "judgmentalism" is a huge problem in this world (and as queers, boy how we know that to be a FACT). but we don't resolve it by prematurely giving up the good sense to recognize and peg somethings as BAD... If you have a mean or animalistic, or worse thought, especially if it is recurring, nothing will be gained by training yourself to just call it neutral until you can believe it yourself... The notion we need to strike a balance and embrace our natural dark yan side, is a wicked, pervasive, and often beautifully presented lie...The more I was able to stop thinking things were ever really "wrong", the less I was certain just what to resist; and the worse my blinded world got.

This dumbing down of discernmet because we are hyper-sensitive to "judgmentalsm", is taking a technique to broaden the mind too far...and of course no one who thinks they've found the answer within can see the possible down side in their own eyes. It's not meditation that is a bad thing...but it is quite good at erasing our ability or even want to tell the difference; particularly in the face of the sort of neo-pagan, "spiritual but not religious" ethic that is poised to explode in the collective conscious.. Tuning out our routine rut of bias and thoughtless "judgment" we tint the world with as we take it in, is a terrific thing that does help us to see ourselves more realistically, but it is a tool for breaking through or own brainwashing, not way of life.

Rick336

07-05-2009, 09:25 PM

Awediot,

Judging from you posts I gather that you are a very deep thinker.

Rick

awediot

07-06-2009, 02:07 AM

Awediot,

Judging from you posts I gather that you are a very deep thinker.

Rick
'tis a bottomless cup o' life that still manages to overflow in jaded brain washes... Just goes to show we can abuse any old thing.

awediot

07-06-2009, 02:45 AM

(awediot, I realize you’ve already said much of this (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=70231#post70231), but these are my words, and hopefully something new.)

Our creator (God) is of course a conscious being, as per the logic that consciousness can only be begotten by consciousness.

I know plenty of atheists who would adamently disagree, and draw their loaded, well worn , and decent logic to shoot you with obscure, but curious examples of things self-complicating into a higher form of existance... Despite entropy slowly stagnating the Universe, pockets flourish in concentrated bursts of contrary organization, possible self-replication and aberant senses which might grow to sense their own skin, ala sentience and self-awareness... Though I agree, and don't believe it.

And you’re right, A cannot be both A and not _a_ at the same time. But A can be both A and the illusion of not _a_ at the same time.

The paradoxes inherent when limited brains try to resolve abstract, archetype concepts they can corner themselves with is always fascinating... How some can rousingly preach the power of immutable omnipotence and in the same sentence list all those things God cannot do, and see no conflict worthy of discussion, floors me... I do not see how even God can defy logic, but that just means I can't grasp it, not that He can't...

I like the notion that God can make a square circle stone He can't lift that when picked up, shreds our reality so that we couldn't witness it anyway.

God, of course, experiences the consciousness of Itself, and the consciousness of It’s creation (the “Son” of God) simultaneously. There is a difference, but they are not separate. The Holy Spirit is the dynamic consciousness (and/or communication) between the two. God being the totality of the “three.” Experiencing each separately, and as one, simultaneously.

Rrrrii-p. ;)

Further, if God is infinite, then It cannot know of Its own magnitude, as the nature of infinity is perpetual increase. Any “god” that we can conceive of, or that even God can conceive of Itself, could and would, always and only, be in the “middle” of infinity. Essentially, God is a state of perpetually increasing awareness of Itself. Ultimately making all creation a discovery.

As you said, God has no need. The only thing “new” that God could want or need would be the understanding of “less.” Which is where we come in.

God is every combination of everything. We, the “creation” of us--our universe, et al, is one strand, one thread of that “everything-consciousness," perceived as separate from the whole, which brings new awareness and added identity to the being that would consider Itself God---which I don’t believe any aspect of, would consider itself to be... (fully aware of itself). As long as there is less, there will always be more.

God is a conundrum. The process is fixed, but the awareness of It's potential is not.

If you say so...

I'm coming to believe we are in part an extension of God's senses and a means to experience things in a manner He could not otherwise. We are in a very real sense TOOLS... then more. We are indeed impossibly needed.

There’s nothing abstract about it, our thoughts about God are God’s thoughts thinking about Itself. In fact, all of our thoughts are God’s, we just control the direction they take.

Here we will disagree... I'd say all things were once contained in God, but His act of Creation was to make a permanent distinction, and set elements free of Himself for good...then tell them about it... I'd never lay all that goes on in my mind upon God. He's not that twisted, and I'm not that smart... It's too divided against Itself for that to be very true...

awediot

07-06-2009, 02:48 AM

If you were God you could explain it better.

If I were, you wouldn't have to try.

Daniel

07-06-2009, 06:36 PM

It is when it convinces us we always have to put those qualifying "quote" marks around the word BAD, that was one tough lesson to grasp.

Again, you said earlier: "To meditate this way, one learns to be non-judgmental." To meditate in what way? The one that makes you feel guilty for having the arrogance to just call evil evil?

What do you mean by "judgment"?

Dean- As you've noted, this thread isn't about meditation. I've written enough about the matter. :)

To be non-judgmental is to practice the Golden Rule- to give to others what one wants for one's self.

If you ever meet any disembodied entities in your heightened state, you'll know that their existing in the spiritual realm, doesn't make them an Angel... It isn't those who are out to attack me, but those who are dying to help me in a really terrible way they do not understand, that I dread the most... I denied the portion of ill will the Universe has set aside for us, for as long as I could... It ain't "all good", or all God anymore.

It is the casualness in dismissing the difference between the angelic and demonic, the lack of judgment and brushing off the supposed negative for the sake of coping, that is precisely what I'm talking about...

You are ascribing motivations to me which I do not share. As such, you are making this discussion personal. I don't appreciate that.

I'm not disparaging meditation, just some of the impulsive, trend driven reasons we can get drawn into it, and what it can do to a person who thinks judging things as right or wrong, will be the last "wrong" they defeat. Then it's just mush after that...

How much faith do place in your belief we're only talking of shadows here?

I am not impulsive. Neither have I been driven to meditate because I am intent on convincing myself that of things that aren't true. If the insinuation here is that my meditating is part of a trend, then I can only respond that an important person in my life once thought the same thing about my not being gay.

Both are untrue.

Re belief: I endeavor to practice compassion insofar as I am able to do so despite my failings and limitations.

A shadow is what is seen when an object comes between a light source and the viewer. As such, it is an absence of light. However, a shadow does not have substance. It isn't anti-matter.

Cue the Star Trek music.

Rick336

07-06-2009, 09:17 PM

I'd never lay all that goes on in my mind upon God. He's not that twisted, and I'm not that smart... It's too divided against Itself for that to be very true...

I'm not trying to be provocative here but I have a question.

You say "God is not that twisted" but how is it that you know how God thinks?

I hear people say that they know what God wants or what God doesn't want. How do they know this?

Rick

awediot

07-07-2009, 02:53 PM

I'm not trying to be provocative here but I have a question.

You say "God is not that twisted" but how is it that you know how God thinks?

I hear people say that they know what God wants or what God doesn't want. How do they know this?

Rick

I believe the Bible to be inspired (not inerrant), and see it's descriptions reflected in real life... There are patterns of human behavior and ways of nature that are inherent and consistent enough to be indications of how our designer "thinks"... I don't "know" what God thinks or how His mind works (true of myself at times too), but I can get a hint of His nature and character and methods...

I often wonder how some people don't.

Rick336

07-07-2009, 11:40 PM

I believe the Bible to be inspired (not inerrant), and see it's descriptions reflected in real life... There are patterns of human behavior and ways of nature that are inherent and consistent enough to be indications of how our designer "thinks"... I don't "know" what God thinks or how His mind works (true of myself at times too), but I can get a hint of His nature and character and methods...

I often wonder how some people don't.

When you say, "I often wonder how some people don't," are you talking about people of other religions? Because they wonder the same thing about Christians. They see their own "inspired" guide book as reflected in real life too.

In fact, I think it's possible to see most any book reflected in real life. Take "The Wizard of Oz" for example.

Can't we see ourselves in Dorothy searching for happiness? Doesn't the tornado represent turmoil? The Yellow Brick Road can represent life's highway winding through good times and bad times. The scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion can represent our fellow travelers who are also searching for answers. The wizard can be knowledge. The witch can be our fear. The wicked forest can represent depression and the Emerald city happiness.

And when Dorothy says," If I ever go looking for my hearts desire again, I shouldn't look any further than my own back yard.... because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with," ....that could mean that happiness comes from within, not externally.

My point here is that our imagination can twist anything to mean whatever we want it to.

Rick

awediot

07-08-2009, 01:22 PM

When you say, "I often wonder how some people don't," are you talking about people of other religions? Because they wonder the same thing about Christians. They see their own "inspired" guide book as reflected in real life too.

I'm actually referring more to atheists.

In fact, I think it's possible to see most any book reflected in real life. Take "The Wizard of Oz" for example.

Can't we see ourselves in Dorothy searching for happiness? Doesn't the tornado represent turmoil? The Yellow Brick Road can represent life's highway winding through good times and bad times. The scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion can represent our fellow travelers who are also searching for answers. The wizard can be knowledge. The witch can be our fear. The wicked forest can represent depression and the Emerald city happiness.

And when Dorothy says," If I ever go looking for my hearts desire again, I shouldn't look any further than my own back yard.... because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with," ....that could mean that happiness comes from within, not externally.

My point here is that our imagination can twist anything to mean whatever we want it to.

Rick

Then imagine Dorthy as a budding prostitute, Glenda an older madam, the scarecrow, tin man and lion failed tricks she cannot satisfy, Emerald City, Vegas where her dreams are legal and the Wizard, Pimp extraordinaire...

Rick336

07-08-2009, 02:56 PM

I'm actually referring more to atheists.

I've read most of the Bible and I don't see how it can be considered a rational life guide for the 21st century. I think that's why most Christians in 2009 pick and chose only the parts that they can live with and ignore the rest.

Then imagine Dorthy as a budding prostitute, Glenda an older madam, the scarecrow, tin man and lion failed tricks she cannot satisfy, Emerald City, Vegas where her dreams are legal and the Wizard, Pimp extraordinaire...

:lol::lol::lol:

Rick

awediot

07-08-2009, 03:11 PM

I've read most of the Bible and I don't see how it can be considered a rational life guide for the 21st century. I think that's why most Christians in 2009 pick and chose only the parts that they can live with and ignore the rest.

True to an extent, but many do forcibly and with great difficulty conform their lives to it out of faith more than logical understanding...Both a good and bad thing.

:lol::lol::lol:

Rick

See, not everything is open to interpretation (at least without making our self appear as a total moron... We can't just make ourselves believe whatever we want to. (though we can more than we usually think, but that's more a subconscious twisting of so called "evidence"...)

Daniel

07-08-2009, 08:57 PM

In fact, I think it's possible to see most any book reflected in real life. Take "The Wizard of Oz" for example.

Can't we see ourselves in Dorothy searching for happiness? Doesn't the tornado represent turmoil? The Yellow Brick Road can represent life's highway winding through good times and bad times. The scarecrow, the tin man, and the lion can represent our fellow travelers who are also searching for answers. The wizard can be knowledge. The witch can be our fear. The wicked forest can represent depression and the Emerald city happiness.

And when Dorothy says," If I ever go looking for my hearts desire again, I shouldn't look any further than my own back yard.... because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with," ....that could mean that happiness comes from within, not externally.

My point here is that our imagination can twist anything to mean whatever we want it to.

Rick

And it's a great story, well-told too. I'd forgotten how spare and funny it is. The lion - especially- gets some scene stealing lines. And each scene moves to the next without any extra baggage.

The movie is a great example of a modern allegory and calls to mind Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth.

Can we see ourselves in the the story? Yes. But I don't think we have to twist things to make this happen. Why? Because every good story has a universal quality: that's what makes it a good story!

Jung wrote about dream images (and it's worth noting that the movie is set as a dream) as having personal and collective imagery. Do we have to belief this is so? Nope. But it does make for interesting dinner conversation. And more story telling. For me that is a key that should not be forgotten: it's less about the truth of the stories that we tell ourselves, but rather, our need to make sense of our lives through stories.

It's a bit like the Zen master who warns the student to not mistake the finger pointing towards the moon for the moon itself.

scott snedeker

07-17-2009, 05:55 PM

Then imagine Dorthy as a budding prostitute, Glenda an older madam, the scarecrow, tin man and lion failed tricks she cannot satisfy, Emerald City, Vegas where her dreams are legal and the Wizard, Pimp extraordinaire...
:lol::lol::lol:

Again I harp on Labels. Atheist is a label. Buddhist is a label. Radical faerie is a label.

The label of atheist could be defined as someone who is unconvinced that a sentience exists that is responsible for the existence of life.
or
That this sentience exists but is not concerned with individual desires
or
That someone else's idea of the nature of this sentience isn't the same as mine.

So for example, I personlly don't think the bible is anything but poorly translated stories written by men that by now have morphed to into tales that would be unrecognizeable to the original human authors who wrote them. That "God" is simply a word describing a human concept and has no existence beyond that.

Do I get labelled "atheist?"

But wait!

I do believe that all living things have awareness; from humans to horses to ants to trees to bacteria. I also believe that the awarenss that all living things possess connect in some way (the tree can sense and seek nutrients produced by bacteria in the soil etc)

As humans we possess an awareness on many levels. Buddhism I would characterize as a discipline of thought discipline and thought focus that cultivates the potential of awareness of lovingkindness and compassion within one's self toward all. This nature is taught as our innocent core of our awareness that grows as we grow from conception to infancy.

The metaphysics of this nature has as many varied models or labels as any discipline. For each of us reality is only our perception of sensory input. It is all we truly possess. Perception is merely perception then. So how do we rate the validity of our reality? I would say by how alive it makes you feel. By how free it makes you feel. By how it culivates life and beauty.

So is it still acurate to call me an atheist? I sure don't

Daniel

07-17-2009, 07:39 PM

:lol::lol::lol:

Again I harp on Labels. Atheist is a label. Buddhist is a label. Radical faerie is a label.

Just because you put a label on a jar doesn't mean that what is in the jar in on the label.

The label of atheist could be defined as someone who is unconvinced that a sentience exists that is responsible for the existence of life.
or
That this sentience exists but is not concerned with individual desires
or
That someone else's idea of the nature of this sentience isn't the same as mine.

So for example, I personlly don't think the bible is anything but poorly translated stories written by men that by now have morphed to into tales that would be unrecognizeable to the original human authors who wrote them. That "God" is simply a word describing a human concept and has no existence beyond that.

This reminds of the the Buddhist monk who stated that once something is written down, something is lost. As such, what we think is, and what is, is altogether different.

:eek::D:lol:

Do I get labelled "atheist?"

You...you...YOU....ATHIEST! ;)

But wait!

I do believe that all living things have awareness; from humans to horses to ants to trees to bacteria. I also believe that the awarenss that all living things possess connect in some way (the tree can sense and seek nutrients produced by bacteria in the soil etc)

As humans we possess an awareness on many levels. Buddhism I would characterize as a discipline of thought discipline and thought focus that cultivates the potential of awareness of lovingkindness and compassion within one's self toward all. This nature is taught as our innocent core of our awareness that grows as we grow from conception to infancy.

I like how you wrote about trees having awareness and then wedded growth in compassion into the thought stream. Awareness is the trunk and compassion are the limbs.

cool huh?

The metaphysics of this nature has as many varied models or labels as any discipline. For each of us reality is only our perception of sensory input. It is all we truly possess. Perception is merely perception then. So how do we rate the validity of our reality? I would say by how alive it makes you feel. By how free it makes you feel. By how it culivates life and beauty.

So is it still acurate to call me an atheist? I sure don't

Could you please expand on what you mean by "perception is merely perception then"? Do you mean perception is only perception?

I like very much your thesis that one's aliveness and feeling of freedom- the cultivation of life and beauty- is the standard by which one can measure one's connection to the all of the everything that is.

Rick336

07-18-2009, 12:04 AM

I like how you wrote about trees having awareness....

If trees have awareness, then somebody please tell that hickory tree next to my house to keep his nuts out of my gutters.

Rick

scott snedeker

07-18-2009, 07:55 AM

Could you please expand on what you mean by "perception is merely perception then"? Do you mean perception is only perception?

I think this reflects a Buddhist but particularly Zen concept. Reality is but a very convincing perception. The more ways in which a perception can be verified the more convincing it is to be a reality. the more people that have the same perception the more real and substantial it appears.

But if a "reality" that thousands or more hold feels wrong to me then I start to think that there is a flaw in this "reality" and now I start to label it a popular but flawed perception. I start to realize that every perception I have encountered is a flawed model. This means that every reality can be proven to be a flawed perception. So then no matter how many ways a perception can be verified, flaws can always be found in the reality as it is labelled.

Then I had to realign my criteria by which I gauge the value of a perception:

It must be believable
It must not feel wrong
It must make me feel alive
It must make me feel peaceful
It must make me cherish myself and others
It must make me feel amorous

It is because my perception (reality) must serve me, not someone else. What my study of Buddhism taught me is that I can have limitless influence over my perception by practicing focus of intellect consistently.

I can suspend disbelief in the above by noting the develpment of neural pathways as seen in structural differencres on CT or PET scans of brains of musicians compared to abused children of the same age. I find this extremely convincing, to the point that I don't doubt it

Focus of intellect changes the brain. MY reality. And it is a good one for me. It empowers me. there are 2,500 years of practice by millions of people (Buddhists) to further verify it. And the goal is the true heart's release to feel the joy or pain of the moment, staying in the moment aware of being alive and feeling the life around me.

I get affirmation from the teaching of following a path with heart. Buddhist tradition: If you follow a path with heart (The above) then it is worthwhile, if it doesn't have heart then it is of no use. So in translation if someone tells you that you should live a certain way and it feels wrong to you and it does not make you feel alive and free and amorous, then it is a useless perception

I like very much your thesis that one's aliveness and feeling of freedom- the cultivation of life and beauty- is the standard by which one can measure one's connection to the all of the everything that is.

Try reading A Path With Heart by Jack Kornfield

If trees have awareness, then somebody please tell that hickory tree next to my house to keep his nuts out of my gutters.

Rick

I have no Hickory trees but I communed with my Oaks. They say that Hickory trees have no sense of common decency and will flaunt their nuts sticking them in everyone's business in hope of a cheap thrill. Furthermore beyond a certain age they all become the equivalent of "Dirty Old Men"
Of course to be fair I think my oaks are bit biased and prudish. They fail to acknowledge that they themselves clog my gutters with their acorns every winter!

BTW only female Hickory trees have nuts maybe it's this transgender nature that Oaks won't speak of.

Daniel

07-18-2009, 08:58 AM

I think this reflects a Buddhist but particularly Zen concept. Reality is but a very convincing perception. The more ways in which a perception can be verified the more convincing it is to be a reality. the more people that have the same perception the more real and substantial it appears.

Gottcha. Calls to mind the instruction to view waking-life as a dream post-meditation.

I can suspend disbelief in the above by noting the development of neural pathways as seen in structural differences on CT or PET scans of brains of musicians compared to abused children of the same age. I find this extremely convincing, to the point that I don't doubt it.

The power of music. I have no doubt of that. Listening to Handel, Mozart or Bach gets me out of a funk- no doubt about that. And singing in the shower in the morning can change a life.

I wonder about the effect on the cutting back of music instruction in American schools in the 1980's has had on us as societally. The focus on science and math, and away from the arts in general seems very much like a kind of fundamentalism- a word which I use to imply a narrowness of intent and the limiting of access. We know now that our brains are highly influenced by what we hear. Does a Beethoven quartet bring about a qualitative difference in the brain that- say- rap? There are lower and higher forms of music. And there are lower and higher forms of thought and action.

It's not kosher these days to say that certain forms of music are bad. However, we do know that a steady diet of twinkies isn't good for you. Is music food? I think so. I would posit that what we are exposed to and what we listen to has an effect on us. Equally, we if are deprived of music, that has an effect too, stunting one's growth.

If we are what we eat, and music is food, then perhaps, we are what we listen to. And isn't it interesting that the deaf love to get up and dance to a beat: they can feel it through their feet on the dance floor.

Try reading A Path With Heart by Jack Kornfield

Good book! I read it some time ago. And everything you've said makes sense to me. Thank you. Fits in with my current practice of heart centered meditation.

Have you read Oliver Sacks latest book Musicophilia? Was made into a show on PBS.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wuyZiwgsBdoC&dq=musicophilia+sacks&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=D9RhSqmkOYKBtweM7Zj0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Rick336

07-18-2009, 01:11 PM

I have no Hickory trees but I communed with my Oaks. They say that Hickory trees have no sense of common decency and will flaunt their nuts sticking them in everyone's business in hope of a cheap thrill. Furthermore beyond a certain age they all become the equivalent of "Dirty Old Men"
Of course to be fair I think my oaks are bit biased and prudish. They fail to acknowledge that they themselves clog my gutters with their acorns every winter!

:lol::lol::lol:

The weeping willows really get on my nerves. They need to get a life.

And apple trees can be real assholes. Especially the ones beside the Yellow Brick Road.

Rick

Rick336

07-19-2009, 11:49 AM

I wonder about the effect on the cutting back of music instruction in American schools in the 1980's has had on us as societally. The focus on science and math, and away from the arts in general seems very much like a kind of fundamentalism- a word which I use to imply a narrowness of intent and the limiting of access. We know now that our brains are highly influenced by what we hear. Does a Beethoven quartet bring about a qualitative difference in the brain that- say- rap? There are lower and higher forms of music. And there are lower and higher forms of thought and action.

It's not kosher these days to say that certain forms of music are bad. However, we do know that a steady diet of twinkies isn't good for you. Is music food? I think so. I would posit that what we are exposed to and what we listen to has an effect on us. Equally, we if are deprived of music, that has an effect too, stunting one's growth.

If we are what we eat, and music is food, then perhaps, we are what we listen to. And isn't it interesting that the deaf love to get up and dance to a beat: they can feel it through their feet on the dance floor.

Some young adults I know listen to some noise they say is music. I told them it sounded more like their radio station was picking up several channels at once.

I remember when I was a teenager and adults complaining about the music by the Beatles hollering, "Turn down that racket!"

In the 70s rock-n-roll lovers hollered "Disco sucks!" But whenever I was on the dance floor, the beat of Donna Summer took me to a place that I can only describe as an out of body experience.

I don't get the attraction to rap or jazz or reggae or anything played on an accordion or a bagpipe. To me, it's just "racket." On the other hand, country music is the sweetest sound this side of heaven.

I think music may be whatever rhythm moves us to that special place.

Rick