PDA

View Full Version : Idealism, Physicalism and Dualism


Pages : [1] 2

Eddie Dean
19th Sep 2016, 00:49
Does thought exist without the physical or is Dualism more your bent.?
One would see religions, of all types, an expression of Idealism whilst Atheism an expression of Materialism.

vapilot2004
19th Sep 2016, 06:18
Some say our minds and thoughts are the result of the quantum brain.

Matter is theoretically composed of atoms with nuclei surrounded by clouds of electrons and these things are always moving and vibrating - mostly full of empty space. The solidity of matter is communicated thanks to electromagnetic force and further the charged sub-atomic particles are composed of mutable sub-particles that bond through the strong and weak nuclear forces.

ORAC
19th Sep 2016, 07:17
And quarks are made up of braided vibrating strings


https://quantumfrontiers.com/2016/05/22/quantum-braiding-its-all-in-and-on-your-head/

And religion is the belief someone is pulling the strings.........

Ali Qadoo
19th Sep 2016, 07:20
If a man speaks in a wood and there is no woman present to hear him, is he still wrong?

DirtyProp
19th Sep 2016, 07:24
Of course he's still wrong.
We're always wrong, they're always right. And don't you forget that.

ORAC
19th Sep 2016, 07:32
Of course he's still wrong. We're always wrong, they're always right. And don't you forget that. No need to remember, we'll remind you....... constantly.......

sitigeltfel
19th Sep 2016, 07:48
Careful when discussing Dualism, the Pope will send someone along to sort you out!

ORAC
19th Sep 2016, 07:53
Always thought there was something very quantum and entangled abou the Trinity.....

vapilot2004
19th Sep 2016, 08:21
And quarks are made up of braided vibrating strings


https://quantumfrontiers.com/2016/05/22/quantum-braiding-its-all-in-and-on-your-head/

And religion is the belief someone is pulling the strings.........

Excellent! :ok:
That makes us (and the world as we know it) one big fizzy lot.

Always thought there was something very quantum and entangled abou the Trinity.....

Strong, weak and EMF are a trinity of sorts.

Lonewolf_50
19th Sep 2016, 15:37
Always thought there was something very quantum and entangled abou the Trinity.....
Even the Pope and his Magisterium say "it's a mystery" so that's at least close to quantum strings.

Hempy
19th Sep 2016, 15:41
As far as I can understand, religion was mans way of attempting to answer the unknown.

We've had religions that make deities out of the stars, the sun, the moon, the earth, life in general. In my imagination I picture some old 'wiseman' sitting around a fire and enthralling his tribal audience with stories of the 'Gods' who made it all possible.

Sadly for religion, natural curiosity led us to science. Religion has never been happy with science, for obvious reasons e.g no, Adam and Eve weren't the first humans delivered onto the earth.

Religion is simply a crux people fall upon when they realise that they will surely die one day, run by people who prey on that terrible knowledge...'there are no atheists in a foxhole'.

Newsflash. You will die, and that's the end of your existence. If you are a truly extraordinary person your name and work may gain a certain immortality, but you'll never know about it. Otherwise, in 2 generations time you'll simply be an entry in the family tree.

Moral of the story? Get busy living.

sitigeltfel
19th Sep 2016, 15:48
Even the Pope and his Magisterium say "it's a mystery".

Nah, it was Toyah Wilcox! ;)

KenV
19th Sep 2016, 16:17
Sadly for religion, natural curiosity led us to science.Seems to me the other way around. Humans were naturally curious and needed a way to explain things they saw and experienced but could not understand. Religion provided that means. Science came much later as an effective methodology to add rigor to humanity's often contradictory conclusions.

Religion has never been happy with science....Really? My experience has been quite different with many eminent scientists being quite religious people, and most religious people accepting science. Indeed there are religious orders who are heavily involved in the sciences (for example, the Jesuits.)

FWIW, to me science is mostly about answering "how" and religion mostly about answering "why", which science does not and cannot answer.

Hempy
19th Sep 2016, 16:33
Really? My experience has been quite different with many eminent scientists being quite religious people, and most religious people accepting science. Indeed there are religious orders who are heavily involved in the sciences (for example, the Jesuits.)

Tell that to Copernicus..and just about every other eminent scientist up to and including Richard Dawkins.

KenV
19th Sep 2016, 16:43
Does thought exist without the physical or is Dualism more your bent.?
One would see religions, of all types, an expression of Idealism....Technically, most religions are Cartesian Dualist, not Idealist, as most religions describe the human physical body as being inhabited by a non corporeal "spirit" or "soul" which was the source of human "reason", and which continues to exist even after the death of the physical body.

....whilst Atheism an expression of Materialism. Interestingly, Materialism, upon which atheism is largely based, begat its own religion: communism/Marxism.

KenV
19th Sep 2016, 16:53
Tell that to Copernicus..and just about every other eminent scientist up to and including Richard Dawkins. Ummm, Copernicus was a third order Dominican, so quite religious. Galileo also was religious, as was Kepler, Brahe, Newton, Descartes, Richioli, etc etc, basically every emminent scientist of the 15th thru early 20th century. Even Einstein, while not religious, believed in deity and was certainly not an atheist. Religion and science being in opposition is a rather new phenomenon, and it is modern scientists (not modern science) that "is not happy" with religion, rather than the other way around.

As for Richard Dawkins, those who oppose him do so not because he is a scientist, but because he is an (outspoken) atheist who also happens to be a scientist. Religion has not rejected Dawkins so much as Dawkins has rejected religion, indeed calling faith "one of the world's great evils". And not only religious people criticize Dawkins, but also other emminent scientists, such as Peter Higgs, Martin Rees, Michael Ruse, and others.

Hempy
19th Sep 2016, 17:14
I'll leave our readers to examine the relationship between Copernicus and the church. I'd also suggest that Dawkins is a primarily a Scientist whom by his learning is also an atheist, and not the other way round.

KenV
19th Sep 2016, 17:59
I'll leave our readers to examine the relationship between Copernicus and the church"The church"? This was never a discussion of "the church". It was a discussion about "religion." There is a VAST difference between "the church" and "religion." Especially in Europe, where "the church" and "the government" are inseparable.

I'd also suggest that Dawkins is a primarily a Scientist whom by his learning is also an atheist, and not the other way round.I totally agree with your description. And yet lots of other scientists, equally or more learned than Dawkins, are NOT atheists. Learning does not necessarily lead to atheism any more than atheism leads to learning.

ORAC
19th Sep 2016, 18:15
Especially in Europe, where "the church" and "the government" are inseparable. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Geordie_Expat
19th Sep 2016, 18:24
ORAC


I would save your literary breath. This is a favourite hobby horse for KenV, he seems obsessed with this ridiculous hypothesis.

KenV
19th Sep 2016, 19:37
I would save your literary breath. This is a favourite hobby horse for KenV, he seems obsessed with this ridiculous hypothesis. Oh my. You guys are actually arguing that European governments had no state church over the past few hundred years, that the state church had no influence/affect on the government's actions, and the government had no influence/affect on the state church? Separation of church and state is a fairly new development, especially in Europe. And in Europe, it is not yet complete. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Windy Militant
19th Sep 2016, 23:23
Nope Mateys, we is all Pirates, we think therefore we Arrrhh! ;)

Eddie Dean
19th Sep 2016, 23:41
Nope Mateys, we is all Pirates, we think therefore we Arrrhh! ;)That would be Rene Descartes, I think therefore I am. Although I would subscribe to the Monty Python " I drink therefore I am".
Although Descartes did modify this philosophy somewhat.
The idea that our "spirit" is the sum total of the atoms in our head interests one somewhat; leading to the question - why are our personalities different from one another?

vapilot2004
20th Sep 2016, 01:41
The idea that our "spirit" is the sum total of the atoms in our head interests one somewhat; leading to the question - why are our personalities different from one another?

Different experiences and genetic brain makeup underlie much of it according to modern physiology, psychology and cognitive sciences. We also know experiences and predilections affect the physical makeup of the interconnected web of neurons. Add some chemistry and sub-atomic quantum theory into the machinery, and we're off to the races. Perhaps the spirit crosses into the multi-verse.

Arm out the window
20th Sep 2016, 21:50
Here's an interesting thought (I think!) - if there's nothing that can be described as a soul or similar, then self-awareness is the result of our brain structure and chemistry. Therefore, it seems inevitable that increasingly complex technology will lead to artificial intelligence at some point, which may well be soon seeing as how we're getting so good at making computers more powerful per buck all the time.

If, however, the soul exists as something more than just bits thrown together, real artificial intelligence won't happen, or at least not until we can comprehend and reproduce this mysterious other factor or factors.

So, we either get AI or gods but not both ... perhaps.

KenV
26th Sep 2016, 19:11
So, we either get AI or gods but not both ... perhaps. That depends on your theology. In some Christian theological systems, the spirit is not the source of intelligence. The brain is. The spirit sort of "rides along" but provides a "divine influence" to that brain, embuing it with a sense of right and wrong/morality. The spirit experiences everything the brain experiences and stores it. When the brain dies, those memories (and the resulting personality) remain. Upon resurrection, the "new" body is inhabited by the "old" spirit and all the memories and personality is "downloaded" to the new body, along with whatever memories were picked up between death and resurrection while in a purely spiritual state. In that theology artificial intelligence is quite possible, but it would be "soul less". This theology is the basis of the vampire mythology: a human brain that continues to function even after death, but without the "divine influence" of the spirit, resulting in a coldly calculating, amoral being. The Frankenstein story is based on this theological concept as well.

Eddie Dean
26th Sep 2016, 23:59
That depends on your theology. In some Christian theological systems, the spirit is not the source of intelligence. The brain is. The spirit sort of "rides along" but provides a "divine influence" to that brain, embuing it with a sense of right and wrong/morality. The spirit experiences everything the brain experiences and stores it. When the brain dies, those memories (and the resulting personality) remain. Upon resurrection, the "new" body is inhabited by the "old" spirit and all the memories and personality is "downloaded" to the new body, along with whatever memories were picked up between death and resurrection while in a purely spiritual state. In that theology artificial intelligence is quite possible, but it would be "soul less". This theology is the basis of the vampire mythology: a human brain that continues to function even after death, but without the "divine influence" of the spirit, resulting in a coldly calculating, amoral being. The Frankenstein story is based on this theological concept as well.The Spirit seems to be the source of free will that Theologins believe is what separates man from animals. That is the freedom to be good or bad whatever that equates to in your own ethical viewpoint.

Arm out the window
27th Sep 2016, 00:41
That's a very interesting point, Ken V. I must admit to not being up on theology, and hadn't heard that concept of intelligence and spirit being separate. Is that somehow aligned with the father, son, holy ghost situation, or is there some other basis?

I know spiritual issues can be looked at from many angles, so please be aware I'm asking for information only rather than to challenge what you've said.

Zaphod Beblebrox
27th Sep 2016, 19:36
http://17r1l63fshd52dy9yakdizhkog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/frankzappa.jpg

Live by the Tao of Zappa.....

You are what you is..
You is what you am..
You ain't what your not..
And cows don't make ham.

Zaphod Beblebrox
27th Sep 2016, 19:48
If you don't like Zappa, who is totally frood then try this one...

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdQlBpHH_QQFu2hR0TOmNptWv_9wLXt9oybDjNGYA 6kavLwdoT

To date, Zaphod Beeeblebrox (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zaphod+Beeeblebrox) (former President of the Galaxy, and "The best bang since the Big one") is the only man to have survived the vortex, solely because he is a hoopy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoopy) frood (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frood) and the Vortex told him as much. The total perspective vortex derives its picture of the whole Universe on the principle of extrapolated matter analyses.

To explain - since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.

The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically to annoy his wife.

Trin Tragula - for that was his name - was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.

And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.

"Have some sense of proportion!" she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.

And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex - just to show her.

And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a single piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.

To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain; but to his satisfaction he realized that he had proved conclusively that if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

KenV
27th Sep 2016, 21:00
That's a very interesting point, Ken V. I must admit to not being up on theology, and hadn't heard that concept of intelligence and spirit being separate. Is that somehow aligned with the father, son, holy ghost situation, or is there some other basis?Usually not. (I say usually, because there are many different theologies that fall under the rubric of "Christianity.") In most (traditional) Christian theology, father, son, and holy ghost are purely spirit: they have no corporeal body. And being spirit, they can directly influence the "spirit" part of mortal humans. And it is this divine influence on the spirit part ("soul") of humans that provides "conscience" or a sense of right and wrong to the calculating brain of humans. Under this theology a highly enough developed computer could have "intelligence", but it would lack a "soul" and (theoretically) would lack a conscience. It would have no sense of right and wrong. But I suppose an artificial conscience could be provided based on human notions of right and wrong, which would "simulate" a "soul."

KenV
27th Sep 2016, 21:22
The Spirit seems to be the source of free will that Theologins believe is what separates man from animals. That is the freedom to be good or bad whatever that equates to in your own ethical viewpoint. I'm not sure that most theologians view "free will" as what separates man from animal. Animals exhibit many (most?) of the aspects of human free will. They are not driven entirely by instinct and are capable of making many choices. Most theologians separate man from animal in that man (allegedly) has an innate sense of right and wrong, often called a conscience. He is capable of feeling guilt, while animals don't. I personally don't buy it because I've raised dogs my whole life and they certainly display signs of guilt, what I call "dog shame." They know when they've done "wrong" and often have very visible reaction to that guilt/shame.

Loose rivets
27th Sep 2016, 22:46
Interesting man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne




I was given this by a pal for my 50th birthday party. Well before the publication date suggested. Odd that. :confused:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Hypothesis

Criticism

Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities . . .

Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only the Standard Model of physics.

I still use it as an outline model of the visual neurological system. I think I referred to it in my post: 'And then I saw her'. What happened to me on that day changed my views on our perception of reality. Oddly, it didn't make my believe in the mysteries of other realities but towards our being hard-wired machines with a lot of the operating system hidden from us - apart from these extraordinary moments.

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/306026-then-i-saw-her.html#post3797978

Arm out the window
28th Sep 2016, 00:17
So many questions! Regarding what separates men from animals, I'd say nothing - we're just the brainiest species, and I don't think God, if there is one, has singled us out.

If God is there and provides the spiritual guidance that gives us our sense of right and wrong, then it's not because I agreed to it - it must be happening naturally, because I do have a strong sense of that. Why then should I have to embrace the idea of God in order to be saved? If God's there, he, she or it is in me already, surely.

And if a machine could think, why wouldn't God jump in and give it a sense of right or wrong too?

Honestly speaking, and I know this will sound bad, but I can't help but think organised religion is bunkum, except for the good charitable work it does. Can people seriously believe the bible, koran and all the rest of them are the actual words of God? And if they're not to be taken literally, then it's men who are making up the interpretations, and that's a recipe for disaster.

I guess I should stand by to be struck down shortly!

ORAC
28th Sep 2016, 07:06
Watch the video.

Consciousness is not real magic........


https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?language=en

Stan Woolley
28th Sep 2016, 09:35
Loose Rivets

'And then I saw her' - Really interesting story.

From memory I can recall reading two experiences that may be similar in that the people involved seem to 'see' much more than normal. One of them saw inside his arms/hands but couldn't remember what they were.

Have you written about the other two 'experiences' you've had? I'd be interested in reading about them too. :ok:

Stan Woolley
28th Sep 2016, 09:54
Orac

Dan Dennet is a died in the wool materialist. Materialism is slowly but surely being outgrown.
I'm quite convinced consciousness is not produced by the brain, this is still a view that is often ridiculed by the mainstream, we'll see.

Arm oot Window

I am largely in agreement with you with your views on organised religion. I think consciousness is primary and 'God' exists and is loving in nature. I know, I know, there is evil ! Once you come round to thinking maybe this life is not all there is, it makes a lot of difference to how questions like evil may be answered.

Arm out the window
28th Sep 2016, 10:23
ORAC, I just read the transcript rather than watching the video, but it seems all he says is that our perceptions play tricks on us and therefore even if we think we know about our own consciousness because we have it, we really don't, and that our mind fills in blanks in its own way.

That doesn't get anywhere near describing how self-awareness can arise or what it is, if such a thing can actually be put into words. Sure, lots of neuron-like things in close proximity can act like they know and feel things, but we know we know and feel things! There's something more than stimulus and response going on in there, surely.

Hi Stan, sorry, you must have been posting as I was writing. What you say about God is closer to where I sit on the matter, I guess - hard to pin it down, but the omniscient and omnipotent creator who keeps tabs on what we all do doesn't cut it for me, whereas a kind of shared and possibly immortal oneness seems like it could perhaps be real.

Ascend Charlie
28th Sep 2016, 10:37
Religion is like all stories or movies - it relies on Suspension of Disbelief. Yes, of course man can fly, or have X-ray vision, or be invisible, or walk on water, or cure illness, or turn a woman into a pillar of salt, or part the Red Sea, or be born to a virgin. For most people, though, reality returns when they leave the cinema or close the book, but for religious people the suspension is permanent.

57mm
28th Sep 2016, 10:45
To do is to be - Descartes
To be is to do - Sartre
Do be do be do - Sinatra

Stan Woolley
28th Sep 2016, 11:54
Here are a couple of videos by guys that some people may find interesting. I don't think they have all the answers, but maybe get us started.

youtu.be/fT8LaMrn_MM


youtu.be/p998pkuUZxY

KenV
28th Sep 2016, 17:37
If God is there and provides the spiritual guidance that gives us our sense of right and wrong, then it's not because I agreed to it - it must be happening naturally, because I do have a strong sense of that.Aaaah! But is that "strong sense of right and wrong" a matter of nature or nurture? Were you born with that sense or were you taught it? If you had been raised from birth in a headhunter/cannibal tribe, would your sense of right and wrong be different that it is now?

Why then should I have to embrace the idea of God in order to be saved? If God's there, he, she or it is in me already, surely.Why? Because a lot (most?) of your sense of right and wrong may have been taught, and what you were taught MAY be different than the right and wrong defined by god. Thus what you thought was right in mortality may actually be wrong from a divine perspective. And if your mind continues to exist after death, and the nature of your post death existence is dependent on your mortal actions, you might be in serious doo-doo post death. And it is the nature of your post death existence that is the basis of the vast majority of religions.

Arm out the window
28th Sep 2016, 22:44
Fair points, KenV.

Nature and nurture both, I suppose. Right and wrong are a slippery concept, it's true, but the fundamentals of helping people in need where you can and treating others as you'd like to be treated seem like a reasonably universal thing. If I was born into a cannibal tribe (still some of that going on in PNG, not far away from us here, until quite recently) I suppose I'd naturally conform with the norms, up to a point. Still, I remember being taught to shoot rabbits and foxes as a kid until at about age 14 I started to think about it a bit more. The shooting bit was exciting and fun, and it makes sense to cull feral animals, but I realised I was taking lives and started to feel differently about it.

Still, if what I think is right is actually wrong in God's eyes, I would ask how would I know what God wants? As I alluded to previously, inherited holy books are (in my opinion) not a good source of information, as I'm afraid con-men and women throughout history have been very good at using the so-called supernatural to influence others for profit / power, but if God's already telling me what to do through some kind of other divine influence, then I'm OK anyway!

My take on the afterlife idea is that it's a great way for religions to scare and influence people without having to give them anything - act in a certain way now because if you don't, you'll be burning in hell for ever, but if you do, then nice things will happen to you in heaven (or some variation of that concept).

Our 'selves' may well go on somehow after death, but I couldn't see heavens or hells existing based on a cosmic record book of our earthly deeds - maybe the Norse Valhalla where you get to party eternally might be the go? Seriously though, the Buddhist reincarnation concept seems the most likely to me, not that I'm in any way sure about any of this.

Loose rivets
29th Sep 2016, 01:03
POST A BIT CHAOTIC BECAUSE OF TOTAL ANARCHY HERE IN GENTEEL FRINTON. SEE HIGHLIGHTED BELOW.

There are three reasons I post this here. One is the bewildering moment when the term, gestalt, landed in my brain. Here the protagonist is being driven in a Mk10 Jag to a lonely Suffolk rectory. The radio message he'd received from my wondrous Maria Celeste vessel was made by an endearing little chap - one of several.

They were born into young and unoccupied Observer shells, quite without warning and by some process that wasn’t fully understood. There were currently six surviving and each was allotted a tutor. Daniel was under Treyis’ wing. The description of the youngster’s sudden sentience had surprised Will, especially on hearing a cluster of six or so often received the spark of life at the same time. Dr Paul and his team had studied the phenomenon over many centuries but had not formed any real idea why they would achieve this state of being.

As far as I could recall, something made that name or term appear on my screen. I had as far as I know, never heard the term and certainly no knowledge what it meant, but it sure as heck fitted the bill. When I looked it up I could hardly believe my eyes.

Unrelated to that, the bit about our minds permanently 'linking' - even beyond our universe - obviously needs a 5th force. Bit of a stretch but it had to be for the yarn. It opens two lines of existence-logic. One is the notion that our brains are just a mechanism to process and communicate with, inasmuch as they manipulate the masses of gathered information and then send it with zero time delay to a place where our complete life's record is stored. Total fiction? But wait. We are asked to believe that our minds are preserved and even given a new form to exist in. To do this, I'd argue that all our life's experiences would have to be streamed live. Sad for those that meet a sudden end if this were not the case, so somehow our lives have to be transmitted through, or even into the fabric of the Universe.


. . . the only reason Paul could come up with for both the Gestalt phenomenon, and being denied the answer to the ultimate secret of life. It was during this uncharacteristically open conversation that Paul told him he felt sure the mind was more than the sum of the parts - the mass of grey matter not being the complete system but something much more complex. 'I feel that without the brain linking permanently to something, something that’s probably outside the material universe, it was just a machine and sentience surely could not be the product of this isolated entity.’

Will recalled the uneasy feeling in the pit of his stomach when he realized just how big the gap in their knowledge was, and when Paul countered his own argument with the idea that just perhaps, the eternal beings didn’t know the answer themselves, it filled him with a deep unease that took days to dispel.

Could it be that designer(s) didn't intend our particular creation - our minds just a bizarre occurrence, forming by chance as our cell-count rises from a few hundred to multi-trillions? But what of this scenario? Earth then could be a green-field site, perfect for the development of unbiased minds. It would soon be obvious to a creator just how incredibly valuable these virgin minds were: living mechanisms that have enough pre-learning to survive on the breast, yet are free to form opinions and emotions that lead us into every action from nurture to war.

It was upon writing that last line that there was one hell of a bang - followed by another bang, that had me calling the cops on a 999 call. somewhat distracted now as the police have just called round. Now I just got a call back from them. Two cars have been set alight and the noise was the tyres exploding. In 11 years in Texas I never had anything like this. I'll come back to such discussions another time.


It seems to me that we are so far from being perfect while consisting of such wonderful mechanisms that there's a chance we are the by-product of a very advanced design but in our cases, nothing more than a serendipitous occurrence. So that's how the story was constructed. Everything I suggest I think is possible. But I do stress the word, possible I think sometimes such ideas are no more far-fetched than most theological teachings but as keef said, I never lose sight of the fact they're science fiction.

Now there was someone that made me want conventional teachings to be true.

Ascend Charlie
29th Sep 2016, 03:51
Religion is a way of avoiding the consequences of your actions. You might be in a quandary - do I do this? Or THAT? I will pray to the imaginary friend and ask for divine inspiration. OK< done that, so now whatever happens is the will of the almighty, and not my fault.

Well, if it makes you feel good to pray, do it. Pray. Did it get answered? Yes? That means god is wonderful. No? Well, god moves in strange ways, try again later when he is not too preoccupied with sports players praying on court that the ball will go in the hole/over the net.

Eddie Dean
29th Sep 2016, 04:11
Religion is a way of avoiding the consequences of your actions. You might be in a quandary - do I do this? Or THAT? I will pray to the imaginary friend and ask for divine inspiration. OK< done that, so now whatever happens is the will of the almighty, and not my fault.

Well, if it makes you feel good to pray, do it. Pray. Did it get answered? Yes? That means god is wonderful. No? Well, god moves in strange ways, try again later when he is not too preoccupied with sports players praying on court that the ball will go in the hole/over the net.Not all would have belief in a Personal God, that is a God who takes an interest in one's daily troubles.
At the very least, prayer allows one to focus one's mind on the issue.
I would have thought religion teaches that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Arm out the window
29th Sep 2016, 04:29
I would have thought religion teaches that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Hard to say, Eddie - as AC says, the 'will of the almighty, and not my fault' certainly seems to be a factor, particularly when we're talking about religiously-based attacks on other groups. If I kill someone because I thought it was God's will, that's got to be bad, surely, but it has been and continues to be a well-worn justification for many.

'Thou shalt not kill' *

*Unless it's to kill those bastards who don't agree with what we say, and in that case, kill as many as you want

sitigeltfel
29th Sep 2016, 07:43
I would have thought religion teaches that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

It does nothing of the sort. It allows the responsibility for evil to be sub-contracted to a sky fairy.
"God made me do it........... and I pray for his forgiveness"!

KenV
29th Sep 2016, 14:06
'Thou shalt not kill' *
*Unless it's to kill those bastards who don't agree with what we say, and in that case, kill as many as you wantHmmmm. A few quotes from the same book that says 'Thou shalt not kill:'
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Based on those quotes, I would judge the asterisked footnote to be false/invalid.

KenV
29th Sep 2016, 14:42
Still, if what I think is right is actually wrong in God's eyes, I would ask how would I know what God wants? As I alluded to previously, inherited holy books are (in my opinion) not a good source of information, as I'm afraid con-men and women throughout history have been very good at using the so-called supernatural to influence others for profit / power....Excellent point. Perhaps the answer is don't believe the stuff others tell you what the "holy books" say. Instead, read the "holy books" yourself and decide for yourself what the book says god thinks is "right/wrong".


My take on the afterlife idea is that it's a great way for religions to scare and influence people without having to give them anything...I agree. Many religious leaders are so by profession. They have a direct financial interest in your decisions and behavior. Perhaps the answer is to find a religious person you trust who has no financial interest in your decisions or behavior.

Our 'selves' may well go on somehow after death, but I couldn't see heavens or hells existing based on a cosmic record book of our earthly deeds...You may be right. However, most (almost all?) religions are based on the concept of pure justice. This world and all of human experience is filled with injustice. The point of most (all?) religions is that the afterlife will be very if not perfectly just. Justice implies a record is kept of past deeds and appropriately rewarded/punished. In other words, most (all?) religions see a cosmic scale that governs the universe. All "bad" must be balanced by an equal "good". Many (but by no means all) religions see that scale as applying to individuals. In other words, the "good" your friend does cannot balance out the "bad" you do. You have to balance the scale all yourself. Religions attempt to show folks how to balance their scale while they are alive.

Most Christian religions allow individuals to have a certain specific god/son-of-god to help balance their scale (Some denominations extend this to certain people cannonized as "saints.") But that god/person won't help on their own. Each individual must specifically invite the god/person to help them, otherwise that god/person will ignore them. The various Christian denominations then go in all sorts of directions (some of them making a lucrative business of it.) telling folks how to go about inviting that god/person to help them balance their scale and/or how to balance their personal scale right now while they are still alive.

Arm out the window
30th Sep 2016, 04:57
Instead, read the "holy books" yourself and decide for yourself what the book says god thinks is "right/wrong".

I see where you're coming from, and I won't say I've sat down and tried to read the bible with any real diligence, but it's hard to see it as something to base our lives on except in the most general sense of being good to others, perhaps. The bits about stoning someone to death if they've worshipped other gods, for example, are slightly over the top you might say! If it's not the actual direct instructions from God and not to be taken literally, then we come back to flawed human interpretations.

You have to balance the scale all yourself.

Then where's the need for God? Why does an all-powerful, all-seeing God wait for the afterlife to dispense justice rather than doing it right away? That'd certainly get rid of the problem of juries sentencing innocent people.

Surely those who identify strongly with the various religions can see that they can't all be right, and if only one group are right, which one? If the Christian god and the Muslim one are the same, and each group are his chosen people, why are they hell bent on killing one another? That's not to even mention the Hindus, Buddhists and all the rest. If my holy book contradicts yours, who's right? Do we have to fight it out? Why aren't the Scientologists in the same league as the others, just because their holy book is newer?

Not trying to poke fun here, but I feel I must be honest, and when I see the rich trappings of organised religion - the big cathedrals and the golden paraphernalia - I don't see pure belief, but entrenched systems of power.

As sources of comfort, charity and a sense of belonging, I see the value of religions, but when they become the basis for rivalry and even overt warfare, they have clearly departed from those righteous principles one would hope they were founded on.

KenV
30th Sep 2016, 17:32
Then where's the need for God? Why does an all-powerful, all-seeing God wait for the afterlife to dispense justice rather than doing it right away? That'd certainly get rid of the problem of juries sentencing innocent people.That's a complicated question and the answer varies tremendously from religion to religion and between denominations within Christianity. But in general, the point of mortality (earth life) is to learn right from wrong by personal experience. This requires a few things:
1. The ability to choose (often referred to as "free will" or "agency" in Christian scripture.)
2. The opportunity to choose (We need to be exposed to both good and evil. This explains the presence of satan/lucifer who temps humans with all sorts of evil.)
3. The chance to learn from the choices made (Experience the outcomes of good and bad choices either directly by personal choice or indirectly by observing the outcomes of other peoples' choices.)

Dispensing divine justice instantly while humans are alive deprives humans of points 1a thru 1c above and negates the whole point of mortality/earth life.
As for the "all-powerful, all-seeing God" I personally don't believe in any such being. My god while being very powerful and having a lot of knowledge has limits, is bound by natural law, and does not employ magic.

As for "which religion is right", that's a question people have been asking for millenia. I have an answer that works for me. You'll have to find one that works for you. But you are absolutely correct, they cannot all be right and in my opinion, the vast majority are altogether wrong having long ago been corrupted by the state.

Not trying to poke fun here, but I feel I must be honest, and when I see the rich trappings of organised religion - the big cathedrals and the golden paraphernalia - I don't see pure belief, but entrenched systems of power.Poke fun? You pointed out an obvious fact with which I totally agree. The vast majority of religions and religionists have used religion and scripture to amass power and/or wealth. Indeed in the modern Christian tradition being a religious leader/minister is a profession, not a service. The state is all about power and for several centuries, religion and the state were not only inseparable, but the dividing line between them was often indistinguishable. In Europe and the Middle East, state churches are still very prevalent even in the 21st century.

Stan Woolley
30th Sep 2016, 19:28
Then where's the need for God? Why does an all-powerful, all-seeing God wait for the afterlife to dispense justice rather than doing it right away? That'd certainly get rid of the problem of juries sentencing innocent people.


Arm ot Window
KenV

Nice to see a discussion like this where the two of you are talking about ideas that ,I think, are important. Here's my own in bullet points:

I am not that keen on religions.

If I was forced to choose one it would probably be of the 'eastern' variety.

I definitely believe in God.

That God is not the fire and brimstone variety. It's ultimately all about Love.

I believe in reincarnation, one life is nothing like long enough to teach us what we need to grow.

Evil is necessary. Without bad we can't know good. Night/day Yin/Yang etc

We have free will. Needed to make choices, thereby grow eventually. You must learn for yourself. (Teenagers!;)

I don't have the answers that some people require, iE Where will it end/how did it begin etc But I think I've enough to be getting on with.

The Bible is confusing, there are truths in it as there are in many books. It's all an amazing puzzle, it's truly a miracle that we are living!

Arm out the window
30th Sep 2016, 23:08
Thanks for those thoughtful points, Ken and Stan. They make perfect sense in their context and are certainly the kind of thing I could go for if (and it's a big if) I was of the opinion that there is some kind of divine purpose to our existence.

That's where it falls down for me though - I feel it's enough that we're simply here, and while I'm very curious about these big questions, it seems far more likely to me that there's no-one or nothing overseeing and influencing what we do, or somehow keeping score on us for future reward or punishment.

That's not to say we should all despair or run around doing anything we want without fear of retribution, but I feel like we are strong enough to stand up and have our own moral code without the need for organised belief systems.

Stan's idea that there's not enough time in one life to learn is intriguing, but the idea of evil (or anything) being necessary as a learning tool for us doesn't work for me - I figure it's just there like every other facet of our experience, and we deal with it as we see fit based on a mish-mash of our individual makeup, upbringing and societal influences.

MarcK
1st Oct 2016, 03:58
From Catch22:
“What the hell are you getting so upset about?” he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. “I thought you didn’t believe in God.”

“I don’t,” she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. “But the God I don’t believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He’s not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.”

antisthenes
1st Oct 2016, 05:40
What was God's reason for creating in the first place?

Stan Woolley
1st Oct 2016, 07:39
What was God's reason for creating in the first place?

Tom Campbell (one of the videos above) reckons that, as he calls it, the system (God) has to keep on developing, because to stay still or go backwards is not an option. Decreasing entropy is the name of the game, simply described as 'becoming love'.

As I said, only one man's opinion. Informed by over 40 years of out of body travelling, he's an intelligent guy, a physicist by profession. Sound feasible?

Stan Woolley
1st Oct 2016, 08:23
That's where it falls down for me though - I feel it's enough that we're simply here, and while I'm very curious about these big questions, it seems far more likely to me that there's no-one or nothing overseeing and influencing what we do, or somehow keeping score on us for future reward or punishment.


That's the thing - you're right!

When we are occupying our bodies here on earth, we are separate from God and left to make our own choices. It must be the only way or perhaps the most efficient way to 'grow'.

I think it's all about consciousness. The cosmic consciousness IS God. I think everything is God, including us! When David Icke was laughed out of the tv studio for saying that 'he was God' I think this may have been what he meant. Not that I'm a fan of Icke, but like everyone, he talks occasional sense. :)

It doesn't really matter what you believe or don't believe while you're living here on earth. It DOES matter what you do. And we all make mistakes, I don't believe there is punishment as such for mistakes we make, not the type of revenge punishment some would like to see others endure. But I feel that there's some kind of consequences, I don't really know how that works, maybe karma of sorts?

What I can't understand is what our 'status' is 'on the other side'.

It's all good! As they say. I'm just another seeker. I am not a 100% believer in many things, I try to be sceptical of things while keeping an open mind. I am a down to earth Scots pilot who had a life changing stroke five years ago which led me to ask some big questions and allowed me the time to study and think about this stuff in depth. Most people just haven't the time, never mind the inclination to do so. Maybe I'm just fooling myself? If so I've nothing to lose.

I'm just grateful to still be here! :ok:

Arm out the window
1st Oct 2016, 12:12
Good that you're still here and able to muse on these things, Stan!

I wouldn't be surprised if there's quite a lot of us aviators, maybe more so than some others, who think about this kind of stuff at least some of the time, given that (and I will generalise quite strongly here, but who cares!) we are reasonably smart, not afraid to imagine things and follow our dreams, but also have a fairly practical and questioning nature.

Stan Woolley
1st Oct 2016, 12:31
I wouldn't be surprised if there's quite a lot of us aviators, maybe more so than some others, who think about this kind of stuff at least some of the time, given that (and I will generalise quite strongly here, but who cares!) we are reasonably smart, not afraid to imagine things and follow our dreams, but also have a fairly practical and questioning nature.

You may be right, but none (well, very few) of my pilot pals are that keen, they're too busy flogging themselves to destruction! :eek:

antisthenes
1st Oct 2016, 12:32
Stan

What dictates that God has to do anything? If he is a perfect being, how can he have any desire to accomplish anything? Any being that desires a state that doesn't currently exist is surely by definition, not perfect?

Stan Woolley
1st Oct 2016, 13:38
What dictates that God has to do anything? If he is a perfect being, how can he have any desire to accomplish anything? Any being that desires a state that doesn't currently exist is surely by definition, not perfect?

I'm not saying that gods perfect, maybe not? Compared to us it may appear like God's perfect but who knows. If It is perfect then we should be too according to my 'theory'.

To try to give an answer to your first question.

The thing is most of us have a worldview. In the one I have I feel like god is important to me to make sense of everything. It's ok for others to not believe in anything. To me, it's both logical and (probably more importantly) intuitive for a god to exist. Believing in something is just as valid as believing in nothing, we could argue the toss but it doesn't make too much difference to our practical everyday lives.

I see secular humanists and I largely agree with what they think, life could be so much better if we didn't act on our beliefs. The only thing is I wouldn't force my thinking on others. It's all ego. My God trumps your God, There's No such thing as God etc. I'll chop your f'ing head off if you keep saying that! :rolleyes: We enforce our egos by taking on various baggage.

It's very interesting how the very word 'God' invokes different feelings in people. For me it's only important how I see things, not how others see things. I see my worldview as being one that can make me a better person, that is important to me, not because I think God wants me that way, but because I feel that given a choice, that's what I'd choose. Maybe I'm fooling myself because subconsciously I 'believe' ?

This life is complicated. It is the way it is and we must make the best of it. For me, I've looked at a lot of the evidence with an open mind and I've reached the conclusion that there is purpose in it for us beyond simply existing by chance. We are too emotionally invested in it for it to be otherwise.

Pace
1st Oct 2016, 14:31
Just jumping into this thread there are many things Stan says which are correct. You can argue that there is no right or wrong as that is man determined and judged.
I like to think of positives or negatives. Are you being positive to someone elses energy or another creature or negative to that life force?

Its strange how being around some people can drain you of energy while other boost that energy.
So rather than right or wrong I try to be positive towards others and try to be with them how I would like them to be with me. (doesn't always work)
Energy drives everything from our tides through the moon and women cycles to navigation of our fish using magnetic energy

the problem there is the old hand argument that in any disagreement both parties see a hand but one looks at the back the other the palm.
Having been brought up Roman Catholic and seeing all the troubles caused by religion in this world I turned against that upbringing and probably now accept spiritualism or life force/energy balance more.

We know through physics that energy cannot be destroyed only dissipated and IMO there lies the answer as we and all living creatures and plants are made of our unique fingerprint of energy. The universe was created by energy

Last thought? God made man in his own likeness. We see God as a person with eyes ears a mouth. But unless God needed to eat, Breath and see through mechanical eyes there is no meaning to that?
So we are left with Gods spiritual image. It is argued that God made man but in turn if God mad man and we are in his image then man can make man or life eventually.

Good and evil ? We have all seen that as we evolved we created nuclear energy in Gods likeness as a gift yet we have two choices to use that energy for the good of mankind or even ourselves or to destroy mankind or ourselves through its misuse ?
So for me its all about using power/energy for good or evil and as with any power it has the energy to create or destroy, mans choice

it is amazing how we can destroy not others but ourselves through negativity and we all know many cases of that or use that same energy in a positive way for our fulfilment and ability to grow
I am great in managing energy flying aeroplanes and very decisive I wish I was the same with matters of the heart

One would see religions, of all types, an expression of Idealism whilst Atheism an expression of Materialism.

Ideology is like a picture from the past set in stone unmoving. having vision or being visionary is seeing something else which is constantly changing and that vision changes with even the same scene

Ideology is the most negative of principals and causes so much damage in our world and lives

pulse1
1st Oct 2016, 16:31
I have often found it helpful to see God in terms of energy/power. I believe there are times in life, whether we believe or not, when our own energy is synchronised with that of God. At those times we can suddenly see things which were obscured, i.e. become visionary. It explains those precious moments in life where we suddenly see the answer to some problem very clearly. I believe that it is also possible that prayer can be a means of becoming synchronised with God's energy. It can also explain the great pleasure of looking at a wonderful sunset. A perfectly wholesome pleasure because, unlike the pleasure one gets from being good, you have done nothing to bring it about. i.e. there is nothing of self in it and that, I believe, is the key.

Stan Woolley
1st Oct 2016, 16:45
Pulse1

Very interesting ideas, I am sure that there is a lot to what you say. Scientists have often written about such moments of clarity, often when they're not thinking!

When ego disappears, even momentarily, is that when you are saying you may have such insights?

pulse1
1st Oct 2016, 18:20
When ego disappears, even momentarily, is that when you are saying you may have such insights?

Stan, it is a long time since anyone found my ideas interesting. With the emphasis on the word "may", yes that is what I am saying. But I am not saying that spiritual insights are totally dependent on the elimination of ego.

I believe that the ego is the biggest single obstacle to understanding the spiritual dimension to the universe, or God if you like. One of the purposes of monastic life is to discourage ego but it seems almost impossible to contrive its elimination because, as soon as you achieve some success, in gallops the sense of pride or self satisfaction. These are the enormous emotions which motivate the majority of us.

However, there seem to be those moments when ego is sometimes side tracked. For me these have been rare, but very real, when I have been thinking about nothing in particular. About 50 years ago, one of these moments completely changed my life and brought me great and lasting happiness. Although my ego has tried to corrupt the experience ever since, it was the fact that I had done absolutely nothing to achieve it, that has kept me on track.

By the way, I am not saying that, at the time, my energy was tuned into God's energy. Just that, like Pace, I find it helpful to see it that way.

Stan Woolley
1st Oct 2016, 18:45
However, there seem to be those moments when ego is sometimes side tracked. For me these have been rare, but very real, when I have been thinking about nothing in particular. About 50 years ago, one of these moments completely changed my life and brought me great and lasting happiness. Although my ego has tried to corrupt the experience ever since, it was the fact that I had done absolutely nothing to achieve it, that has kept me on track.


Are you willing to share that experience? If not publicly could you PM me? I'm very interested in this sort of thing. I'm sure others here are too, in spite of what they may say. ;)

pulse1
2nd Oct 2016, 09:20
Stan , see your PMs

Pace, Your PM box is full.

Mr Optimistic
2nd Oct 2016, 09:28
Have you noticed how human beings like to name things, then put them into some sort of hierarchy and from that assume understanding? Like a question years ago on Gardeners Question time. A lady asked the learned panel about her clematis which had withered and died back ( no jokes please...). Dr Stephan B asked a few questions and then said it was a classic case of Clematis Wilt. We don't know what causes it and there is no cure, so give up and replant a new specimen elsewhere. And the audience applauded, but for what? All he did was tell her what she told him and then stuck a name on it. No learning or erudtiion there. The same thing happens continuously elsewhere.

Anyway in the hierarchy we have a pyramid with the top layer being rational though and beneath that the subconscious. Presumably the subconscious works independently of language, maybe how animals 'think'. We have that extra layer which in our view is superior, that's why it is at the top of the pyramid. Does 'self awareness' arise in the rational or subconscious?

Capn Notarious
2nd Oct 2016, 09:34
Does 'self awareness' arise in the rational or subconscious?

I believe it inhabits both areas: but not necessarily to all people.
This might be demonstrated by the phrase:- "He/she did not stop to think".

Ascend Charlie
3rd Oct 2016, 06:36
There are sides that say the bible must be taken literally, and others who say that it is a series of nice stories that teach lessons.

I go with the "nice stories" side of things. Because if it is absolute truth, it tells some awful stuff.
For example:
What the heck did god EXPECT to happen in the garden of eden? He didn't give Adam and Eve any knowledge, and specifically told them not to eat the fruit. So, if they hadn't eaten the fruit they would have died of starvation in a few days or weeks as they didn't understand what eating was, and they never would have reproduced even if they found food.
And they DID reproduce, and their incestuous children and generations of incestuous offspring eventually populated the earth.

But Big G didn't like what he saw, so he destroyed all he had done in the big flood. But why kill all those animals? They hadn't done anything wrong.
Then he repopulated the world with Noah's incestuous family again.
Just a story.

But it goes on to say "and then he shall come again, to judge both the quick and the dead"

You mean the dead have just been hanging around for millennia waiting to be judged? It doesn't happen at the pearly gates? And why does this book say that he will destroy the world and the whole game is over? What was the point of creating it in the first place? Just a huge joke to be laughed at by one person?

Arm out the window
3rd Oct 2016, 10:26
Well, you want to watch out if you're an adulterous woman if the literal way is in vogue - the word of the lord is that you shall be stoned, despatched with a sword, your sons and daughters killed and your house burned. That'll teach you!

KenV
3rd Oct 2016, 14:34
What was God's reason for creating in the first place?

What dictates that God has to do anything? If he is a perfect being, how can he have any desire to accomplish anything? Any being that desires a state that doesn't currently exist is surely by definition, not perfect? In my mind the above two questions are closely related. I'll try to answer both questions using nonorthodox Christian ideas/concepts.

1. God is "perfect" in the sense that he does no "wrong" or "evil". Being perfect in this sense is not remotely the same as being perfectly complete.

2. God begat children. Those children were spirit only, while god was not spirit only and had a physical body. As his offspring, god's children inherited the capacity to become like their father. But to achieve that they needed to get physical bodies and gain knowledge only obtainable through personal experience.

3. Because he loved his children, he desired to assist his children in becoming like him. So God created the universe to provide his children with physical bodies and to provide them with a place where they could gain the knowledge through personal experience to become like him.

Pace
3rd Oct 2016, 14:58
Well, you want to watch out if you're an adulterous woman if the literal way is in vogue - the word of the lord is that you shall be stoned, despatched with a sword, your sons and daughters killed and your house burned. That'll teach you!


Excuse me wasn't Mary Magdalline now considered a Saint a prostitute and casting a stone as a defense used by Jesus when he saved her from being stoned to death ?

KenV
3rd Oct 2016, 15:48
What the heck did god EXPECT to happen in the garden of eden? He didn't give Adam and Eve any knowledge, and specifically told them not to eat the fruit. So, if they hadn't eaten the fruit they would have died of starvation in a few days or weeks as they didn't understand what eating was, and they never would have reproduced even if they found food.
And they DID reproduce, and their incestuous children and generations of incestuous offspring eventually populated the earth.A few comments (based on various Christian and Jewish writings, some non orthodox)
1. The garden had many different sources of food. Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating the fruit of ONE specific tree in the garden. So starvation was never an issue.
2. Eating the fruit of the forbidden tree had at least three outcomes: 1) they would become mortal and would surely die. 2) they would be cast out of god's presence (god walked with them in the garden), and 3) they would become as god "knowing good from evil"
3. The point of coming to earth was to gain a body and gain "godly" knowledge (know good from evil.) The only way to accomplish both was to eat of the forbidden fruit.
4. God foresaw (and desired) that Adam and Eve would eat of the forbidden fruit. That's why he provided a "savior" for them even before the earth was formed. That savior would undo the "negative" affects of the forbidden fruit and enable Adam and Eve (and their offspring) to: 1) return to god's presence, and 2) to be resurrected with immortal bodies and 3) preserve the "positive" effects of the forbidden fruit (they would gain "godly" knowledge, necessary to become like their father.)

As for "incest", some writers conjecture that Adam and Eve were neither the first nor the only human beings on the earth at the time. But they were the first to have divine "souls/spirits" that were the offspring of god. Their children may have hooked up with humans who did not have such souls, but their offspring would then have such souls. So there was a mixture of humans with souls and without souls up until Noah. Apparently Noah and his wife, and Noah's sons and their wives, were all of the "soul" variety of humans and that's the only kind that survived the flood.

KenV
3rd Oct 2016, 16:02
Excuse me wasn't Mary Magdalline now considered a Saint a prostitute....Depends. The New Testament is silent on the name of the woman Jesus saved from stoning. Some writers have conjectured that it was Mary Magdalene, but the New Testament does not state that.

As for harlots making good in the bible, David's great grandmother (David being the greatest king in Israelite history and from whom Jesus is directly descended) was Rahab, a harlot who lived in Jericho when Joshua laid seige to the city. So Jesus has a harlot in his direct lineage.

RR22
4th Oct 2016, 00:11
In an age where we can see * whole worlds vapourising out in a possibly infinite universe,

It seems to me it would take a strange mind to believe that the
"Truth" was discovered by Human -Earth dwelling bronze age dessert wanderers,who's "God" is unseen by human eye or touched by human hand -- ever.

That people who's achievements I admire believe such obvious silliness
has caused me a lot of thought but deism just has not a shred of evidence,that I can see.


That this irrational nonsense is given more than passing notice in public life is IMO
wrong, and a betrayal of what has dragged a lot-( not all)- Humanity from the pain, degredation ,
and suffering these "children of god" lived in while Yaweh walked among us.

IMO

*Absent moon hoax level rubbish.

Eddie Dean
4th Oct 2016, 01:15
Anthropological research shows that the longest held belief seems to be in the female form. The Venus of Dolni dated to 26000 years ago is the earliest so far. It seems self evident that only a female can create life. The change to a patriarchal God at the start of agriculture is interesting.

The Bible's casting of the snake and woman as the protagonists seems to be directed against the hunter gatherer society.

RR22
4th Oct 2016, 01:35
I find it fascinating,-
but not the real wonder,

Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon* for Gods sake!

How mad is that?

If he had custard pied Armstrong, in the memory of Laurel and Hardy & Universal humour it would have made more sense to me,
than that someone of his unparallelled achievements could believe such transparent baloney.

Ascend Charlie
4th Oct 2016, 02:06
Ken, your comments point more towards the "nice story" rather than the gospel truth.

If god already knew that they would eat the fruit, and that he would cast them out of the garden, why go through the horsefeathers, other than to make a nice story? Just create them with knowledge, forget the snake story and let them be. He knew Eve would eat the apple, and start the whole line of original sin, and pain in childbirth, so why bother?

and this bit:
That's why he provided a "savior" for them even before the earth was formed.
What day did he do that? And anyway, the chosen people were Jewish, JC was jewish, so when did the followers decide to break away from judaism, move the sabbath to Sunday and start eating pork?

G0ULI
4th Oct 2016, 02:44
If you reverse the usual phrase that "God made man in his own likeness", then all the flaws and contradictions inherent in religious belief become plain to see.

Clearly God (as a concept) is a human construct and as such is subject to all human frailties and failings.

If the study of nature and the universe has taught us anything, it is that perfection does not exist except as a notional idea, similar to absolute zero, or infinity. The human mind struggles to deal with the reality that everything is relative to everything else and the observers viewpoint. There are no fixed points of reference in the universe other than those we choose.

If God provides the reference point for your life, then be happy and comfortable with your belief. Do not impose that belief on others as some absolute, because it isn't, it is merely your adopted reference. That millions of others may share your viewpoint doesn't make it right, nor does it give religious believers the right to impose their views as being correct or the only way to interpret the world.

Everybody needs to believe in something to give their lives a sense of purpose, that is human nature. Science gives a physical basis to understanding our place in the universe, but ultimately that too is a matter of interpretation and could be considered a religion of sorts too.

Religious debate has existed since man first learned to think and talk. It might even be considered to have driven early scientific study. I suspect that no matter how enlightened we think we are, we all revert to primitive superstition and are inclined to appeal to some "higher power" when the chips are down. It's just human nature.

Eddie Dean
4th Oct 2016, 03:12
I find it fascinating,-
but not the real wonder,

Buzz Aldrin took mass on the moon* for Gods sake!

How mad is that?

If he had custard pied Armstrong, in the memory of Laurel and Hardy & Universal humour it would have made more sense to me,
than that someone of his unparallelled achievements could believe such transparent baloney.My understanding is that he took Communion on the moon, non the less I see that you have issues with his beliefs; where as I can see how his experience would reinforce his beliefs. Remember it is only baloney to an unbeliever.

GOULI, highlanders in PNG are deeply Christian yet retain belief in scorcery.

RR22
4th Oct 2016, 03:34
Ohh,

" Remember it is only baloney to an unbeliever."

So the fact I'm conversing on the internet on Pprune with a self aware Haggis
plugged into the Net through a faulty Edinburgh hotel thermostat is true because I * "Believe it"?

Really ?


I must appologize also for my confusing Mr A's blood guzzling in private for the public bit with the paid help.
an error I will now edit.

*Or pretend to.

Eddie Dean
4th Oct 2016, 04:10
Ohh,

" Remember it is only baloney to an unbeliever."

So the fact I'm conversing on the internet on Pprune with a self aware Haggis
plugged into the Net through a faulty Edinburgh hotel thermostat is true because I * "Believe it"?

Really ?


I must appologize also for my confusing Mr A's blood guzzling in private for the public bit with the paid help.
an error I will now edit.

*Or pretend to.RR22 you appear to be confusing belief with your stupidity.

Eddie Dean
4th Oct 2016, 04:50
Mark Twain's Letters from Earth make for an interesting take on Christianity. They were written during a time he was having a crisis of faith, yet point out what a vexatious and contradictory being God is.

KenV
4th Oct 2016, 17:29
Ken, your comments point more towards the "nice story" rather than the gospel truth.Nowhere have I remotely claimed or implied that what I'm writing is "the gospel truth."

If god already knew that they would eat the fruit, and that he would cast them out of the garden, why go through the horsefeathers, other than to make a nice story?Why? The partaking of the fruit is often referred to as "the fall." In some Christian tradition, it was necessary that the fall be a choice. In other words, they could choose to remain in the garden forever, but innocent, childless, and without the "godly knowledge" of "good and evil". Or they could choose to have children, gain the "godly knowledge" of "good and evil", but be cast out of the garden and experience death. But the latter choice came with the promise that a savior would come later and undo those effects of the fall. In other words, they needed to make a huge leap of faith.

Just create them with knowledge, forget the snake story and let them be. He knew Eve would eat the apple, and start the whole line of original sin, and pain in childbirth, so why bother?You are mocking a specific, narrow Christian tradition that is not shared by all Christians, and your attempt to mock them failed. May I offer a suggestion? If you're going to mock something, make sure you understand what it is you are attempting to mock. Otherwise, you just look silly. I will provide a few specifics:
1. An infinite god with infinite power (e.g. able to do "magic") us not a universal Christian doctrine. In some Christian faiths god has limits, is bound by natural law, and cannot do "magic." In those traditions god cannot create people with knowledge. Each individual must personally obtain knowledge through personal experience.
2. The "snake story" for many Christian traditions is purely figurative. The snake is a foil used to present/represent the concept of temptation. Adam and Eve were "tempted" by the snake/satan to "do evil" and partake of a forbidden fruit. But here is the conundrum: it was god's desire that they eat the fruit so that they could grow/progress. But god being "perfectly good" could not temp them to do something that would result in their death. Satan/Lucifer provided that temptation because his role in mortality is to provide "opposition" to god, and without which humans could not gain the knowledge they came to earth for in the first place. In other words, Satan/Lucifer does what (a limited) god simply cannot do.
3. "Original sin" is not a universal Christian doctrine. Many Christian faiths do not include "original sin."

And anyway, the chosen people were Jewish, JC was jewish, so when did the followers decide to break away from judaism, move the sabbath to Sunday and start eating pork? False. On a number of fronts:
1. Israel was supposed to be a nation of chosen people whose role it was to prepare for the coming savior/messiah. Israel consisted of 12 groups, ONE of whom were the descendants of Judah and were called Jews. There are 11 other groups that made up Israel.
2. There were many other "chosen" individuals and groups besides Israel. Abraham was one of them and the Bible is an account of the descendants of one of eight sons he fathered. The bible follows this specific line because among other things, the coming savior/messiah would come from this lineage. There were many other "chosen" individuals and groups, some of which we have an account of in the bible and many that we don't.
3. "His followers" did not "break away" from Judaism. Even a cursory reading of the new testament makes clear that the point was that Judaism broke away from him. Nevertheless, in many Christian traditions they remain a chosen people with an important role to play in god's plan for earth.

KenV
4th Oct 2016, 18:33
If the study of nature and the universe has taught us anything, it is that perfection does not exist except as a notional idea, similar to absolute zero, or infinity.I tend to agree with this notion. My god is very much limited and very much bound by natural law.

The human mind struggles to deal with the reality that everything is relative to everything else and the observers viewpoint. There are no fixed points of reference in the universe other than those we choose.Maybe. Maybe not. Einstein's theories of relativity seem to suggest that the speed of light is a "fixed point" that cannot be exceeded. Then there are Plank's Constant, Avogadro's Constant, electron charge constant, permeability constant, and a number of other physical values that are applicable everywhere in our universe and fixed in time.

G0ULI
4th Oct 2016, 20:59
KenV
All of the constants are only constant when measured against each other. The speed of light varies in anything other than a vacuum, but a perfect vacuum doesn't actually exist, even in the space between galaxies. There are always virtual particles popping into and out of existance. For all practical purposes, this departure from perfection doesn't matter except when attempting the most precise measurements.

Ascend Charlie
5th Oct 2016, 02:23
As for "incest", some writers conjecture that Adam and Eve were neither the first nor the only human beings on the earth at the time. But they were the first to have divine "souls/spirits" that were the offspring of god.

OK, so SOME writers CONJECTURE about this. All theory, but is it backed up by King James or whichever version you prefer? (And who was around at this time, capable of writing anything?)

The "snake story" for many Christian traditions is purely figurative.

Exactly the point I made before - it is all a "nice story" to teach a lesson in manners.

You also tend to refer to Christians rather than Abrahamic followers - christians weren't around until several millennia later.

Pace
5th Oct 2016, 14:29
Firstly the universe was created by a massive explosion of energy. Energy fills every form of life on this planet and probably statistically in many many other places in the Universe which can sustain life.

Adam and Eve without a soul/energy would have been lifeless forms. The Brain is like a complex computer with energy spiking throughout.

When my Father died I was present. He had been dead for maybe 10 minutes and I kissed him on the forehead! He was very much still him.
5 days later an Uncle who was abroad and not well enough to come to the funeral asked a favour that I would visit where he was being held and do the same.
Give him a kiss.
When I got there I was presented with this body which may as well been carved out of stone. Whatever was his soul, his life force had gone. I had no desire to give that kiss as I realised I might as well kiss the chair in front of me.

On visiting the cemetery to see his grave I also got the overwhelming feeling that what was the point he wasn't there and never went back.

The Soul is eternal but so is energy, it is the only thing which cannot be destroyed only dissipated. I believe the soul and energy are one of the same.
whether there can be pure energy and tainted energy or whether that energy can be imprinted with the characteristics of that person for me is the question.

God made man in his own likeness means that we share a tiny portion of the same energy. We know that people can drain us or add to our energy. We know that we have power to use energy in a positive way or destructive way through our thoughts.

Troubled minds equal troubled energy and can lead to self destruction through alcohol, overeating and self abuse DIS ease leads to DISEASE. We had the gift to harness nuclear energy and we all know the choices we have to use that for good or evil? Or rather than in energy terms positive or negative }}

KenV
5th Oct 2016, 14:45
OK, so SOME writers CONJECTURE about this. All theory, but is it backed up by King James or whichever version you prefer?Why would the traditional Christian bible be your only source of information on this subject? Ancient Judaic texts provide a lot of additional information. And there are non traditional Christian scriptures available. (For example, the scriptures used by various flavors of the Latter Day Saint movement. (Mormonism))

And who was around at this time, capable of writing anythingThis is an incredibly short sighted statement. Modern ("true") writing has been around since around 3200 BCE. Proto writing (using various symbolic glyph systems) has been around for millenia before that and the Adam and Eve account happened around 4000 BCE. So yeah, writing had been invented by that time. If you are referring to the creation story, including the "heavens and the earth" and not just Adam and Eve, then you totally fail to understand the basis of religious scripture. Religious scripture is based on the writing of people who had certain spiritual knowledge revealed to them from an outside source, usually god. And if that bothers you, let me ask you the same question you asked:
Who was around to write about dinosaurs, the earth's formation, the sun's formation, the Milky Way's formation, and the Big Bang? The answer is no one. And yet we read about them all the time. The point is LOTS of information has been written down using all sorts of sources that predate not only writing, but predate humanity, the earth, the sun, our galaxy, and even the current universe itself. So an incredibly short sighted statement.

Exactly the point I made before - it is all a "nice story" to teach a lesson in manners.A lesson in manners?! Ummmm, no. It is much much more than that. You completely fail to understand the meaning and the purpose of the texts you repeatedly attempt but fail to mock.

You also tend to refer to Christians rather than Abrahamic followers - christians weren't around until several millennia later. Again, very short sighted. Your statement depends entirely on your exceedingly narrow definition of "Christian" which is based on a gross misunderstanding of the term. Christ is a title, NOT a name. When you say "Christ" you are using an Anglicized form of the Greek word "Christos" which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word mashiach, which is correctly translated into English as "messiah." Abraham predates the Hebrew language. Abraham was a Jehovah worshipper. As was Noah about 10 generations before him. As was Adam about 10 generations before Noah. Jehovah and Jesus are the same guy, and they have the same title, so in fact all Jehovah worshippers are "Christians". All worship the same messiah, with some worshipping the promised future messiah, and others worshipping the promised return of that same messiah.

And then there are the various religious groups who were not only Jehovah worshippers, but whose scriptures included the name/title he would go by during his mortal life ("Jesus Christ" in modern English) and so were literally "Christians" even in your narrow sense hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

Stan Woolley
5th Oct 2016, 15:34
An idealist's video. Bernardo Kastrup

youtu.be/iDW2V-fH6SY

Lonewolf_50
5th Oct 2016, 16:29
@EddieDean

It seems self evident that only a female can create lifeBut that isn't self evident. It takes two, Eddie. The seed must be planted in the fertile soil. (Particularly in 26,000 BC when they had not yet come up with test tube babies ...) Those people held in awe and reverence what they saw, whether or not they understood how the planting pole figured into the miracle of life is, IIRC, unknown from the archeological record. (Neat story behind that, based on the few articles I read on what they figure the statue means).
Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon* for Gods sake!
How mad is that?
It's not mad at all, since he'd been practicing his faith all of his life.
You don't share his faith. Should I ask "how mad is that" or should I be more tolerant than you are? I'd say the problem is at your end, not Buzz Aldrin's.
If he had custard pied Armstrong, in the memory of Laurel and Hardy & Universal humour ...Oooh, I so wish he could have done that, it would have been hilarious. (Those two were pilots, well known as a class of people for having that kind of hijinx built into the personality type ...)

This scenario poses the question: in the low/no atmosphere of the moon, would a custard pie have been able to hold together or would it have more or less dispersed as he unwrapped it to slam it into Armstrong's face plate?

KenV
5th Oct 2016, 20:08
It's not mad at all, since he'd been practicing his faith all of his life.
You don't share his faith. Should I ask "how mad is that" or should I be more tolerant than you are? I'd say the problem is at your end, not Buzz Aldrin's.Thank you for pointing out the intolerance of the many oh-so-tolerant atheists.

Arm out the window
5th Oct 2016, 22:16
Religious scripture is based on the writing of people who had certain spiritual knowledge revealed to them from an outside source, usually god.

Or possibly made it up for their own reasons, and then it was perpetuated and embellished by others down the years because it worked very well and they were on a good thing! Why doesn't god reveal this stuff convincingly to everyone and have done with it, rather than passing it through certain prophets?

Who was around to write about dinosaurs, the earth's formation, the sun's formation, the Milky Way's formation, and the Big Bang?


No-one, but the writing that exists on those subjects today is based on theory and experiment that, like all good science, stands ready to be vigorously questioned and thrown out if proven wrong.

Your points are well made, Ken, but I don't think you can equate belief-based ideas with no means of proof except what's felt in the hearts of the believer with properly conducted scientific investigation.

Eddie Dean
6th Oct 2016, 03:42
@Lonewolf50, primitive societies take conception from the "quickening" and did not equate sexual intercourse with making babies.
Australian natives had a matriarchal lineage and the child belonged to the area that the quickening occurred.
I use the term area as the convoluted moiety system is beyond this discussion.

KenV
6th Oct 2016, 14:47
Why doesn't god reveal this stuff convincingly to everyone and have done with it, rather than passing it through certain prophets?Why? Two main reasons:

1. Because millenia of experience shows "miracles" and other "showy" stuff just does not work and cannot really "convince" anyone. This is most egregiously demonstrated by people such as the holocaust and moon landing deniers, birthers, truthers, immunization hysterics, chem trail hysterics, airplane cabin air hysterics, etc etc. Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize away essentially anything.

2. God likes to give everyone an "escape clause." God is perfectly just. Rejecting god after convincing "proof" was provided (ref point #1 above) has far far graver consequences than rejecting god due to a lack of faith.

...but the writing that exists on those subjects today is based on theory and experiment... Then you do not understand a great deal of science. It took decades to come up with experiments to confirm SOME of Einstein's theories of relativity. And just as many of Einstein's theories remain unconfirmed, huge swaths of modern science cannot be experimented upon. The most obvious example of that in terms of this forum is global warming/climate change.

Your points are well made, Ken, but I don't think you can equate belief-based ideas with no means of proof except what's felt in the hearts of the believer with properly conducted scientific investigation. I have never remotely tried to "equate belief-based ideas....with properly conducted scientific investigation." I agree there is quite a difference between the methods of science and the methods of faith. However, I don't believe the difference is as great as you indicate. I have used the scientific method of experimentation for several decades with great success. I have also used faith methods for those same decades with great success and satisfaction. In my experience, faith can (and should) involve experimentation. Indeed there are a number of scriptures that encourage people to "experiment on the word." Contrary to the opinion of atheists and militant agnostics, science and faith are neither contradictory nor exclusionary, as the Buzz Aldrin example above demonstrated. Indeed there are countless scientists, including many eminent scientists, who are also believers.

In short, science cannot replace faith and faith cannot replace science. They are complimentary in that science and faith relate to totally different parts of the human experience. Science is useless for an immense swath of the human experience (love, grief, justice, vengeance, compassion, empathy, kindness, forgiveness, sacrifice, atonement, etc etc etc). These experiences are the proper realm of faith. Another way of saying this is that science answers "how" while faith answers "why". I sincerely believe that religionists who attempt to reject science and use faith outside its proper realm (to, for example, state how the earth game into existence or to state the age of the earth, etc) are as confused and amiss (and sometimes dishonest) as scientists who reject faith and attempt to take science outside it proper realm.

Pace
6th Oct 2016, 19:02
When we think of infinity it is hard to contemplate? How big is the universe ? What is at the end of the inverse ? A brick wall ? What's behind the brick wall ?
Science is not complete or at least our knowledge is not complete!
Hence we don't have answers to life after death or what form that takes ? No one has come back and told us?

So we have beliefs until the science shows us otherwise
Remember at one time we believed the earth was flat! We believed a thunderstorm was the wrath of God

Faith is a lack of knowledge and becomes a hope a belief. A Family could have a child abducted but believe that one day that child will walk through the door. They don't know that as fact so the belief keeps them going, Their faith
Maybe the science will have the answers of the universe Parallel worlds until then its our beliefs or faith

G-CPTN
6th Oct 2016, 19:55
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (http://pauladaunt.com/books/restaurant%20end%20of%20universe.pdf).

Arm out the window
6th Oct 2016, 22:20
Another way of saying this is that science answers "how" while faith answers "why".

Ah, but does it? I think that faith, being based on feelings (very strongly experienced by some though they may be), doesn't answer they "why" except in very nebulous terms. This is evidenced by the wide range of religions with often contradictory teachings that can lead them to bloody conflict in the worst circumstances.

Science tries to tease out the "why" as well as the "how", and when challenged, will (sometimes after a bit of resistance) bow to its own principles and say, well, OK, I was wrong - what's next?

KenV
7th Oct 2016, 16:06
Ah, but does it? I think that faith, being based on feelings (very strongly experienced by some though they may be), doesn't answer they "why" except in very nebulous terms. I have found the "why" answers to be not only far from "nebulous," but quite satisfying and satisfyingly concrete. For example:
Q: Why does the earth exist?
A: God fashioned the earth specifically to give his spirit children the opportunity to gain a physical body and to gain knowledge only obtainable through personal experience.
Q: Why would god bother to do this?
A: God is a being of both body and spirit. He begat children who are spirit only. Being their father he loves them as any righteous father love his children. And being his literal offspring, his children inherit the ability to become as he is. But to become like their father, they must obtain a physical body and gain knowledge that can only be obtained through personal experience.

This is evidenced by the wide range of religions with often contradictory teachings that can lead them to bloody conflict in the worst circumstancesIn my experience, religions come into conflict largely because many (most?) religions are co-opted/corrupted by the state and become state religions. It is the state and its desire for greater power that results in conflict, with the state religion becoming co-conspirators with the state, with the church's role being to help motivate the populace to do the state's bidding and give the state's actions legitimacy.

You stated above that the existence of a "wide range of religions" is "evidence." Is there evidence available to test if my view is correct? There is. Since the late 19th century and throughout the 20th and 21st centuries a remarkable thing has happened. The vast majority of governments have shied away for sectarianism and become secular. In the mid and late 20th century a large number of governments become outright atheist. Has "bloody conflict" increased or decreased during this period of secularism and atheism? The indisputable fact is that conflict has increased massively (perhaps exponentially) during this period, resulting in two global conflicts never before seen in all of human history. And during this period of unprecedented internation conflict, the atheist nations ALSO experienced massive internal conflicts that resulted in more human deaths in one decade than in the conflicts of all previous human history combined. Clearly and obviously it is not religion that is the cause of human conflict. It is the state. If anything religion within the state, while usually cooperating with the state, also tended to ameliorate the state's natural blood lust. When religion was removed, the bloodshed did NOT decrease, but rather massively increased.

Science tries to tease out the "why" as well as the "how"...Really??!!! Please provide a single example, just one, of science even attempting to "tease out" the "why". The fact is, the god of science is random chance, with random chance driving everything from the Big Bang to man's existence AND man's intelligence/consciousness. Indeed science cannot even ask "why", never mind answer why, because the why question presupposes a purpose which purpose requires a "higher entity" that defines/gives purpose. In science, there is no "purpose". It just "is" because of random chance. On those occasions when science has purpose, the purpose was assigned by man. Purpose is not "discovered" nor "teased out" by science.

And man uses what to assign purpose? Many things. One of them is religion. Sadly, power and blood lust are others. Religion attempts, and often fails, to ameliorate, or at least rein in, man's lust for both power and blood.

Stan Woolley
7th Oct 2016, 17:02
KenV

Interesting post.

I especially agree with you about science. It's in a hell of a state. (Not intended haha)

Arm out the window
8th Oct 2016, 02:27
Ken,

Please provide a single example, just one, of science even attempting to "tease out" the "why".

Science can indeed ask why, not just how, as can philosophy.
To ask "Why does the Earth exist?" and say it's because God made it presupposes the existence of God. "Why are we here?" is another good question, but it's not just down to religion to give us the answer. However, the only possible answers are:

a) There's a reason we're here and someone or some thing is behind it; or
b) We got here by random chance.

Both are equally valid and there's no particular proof either way that I know of, but my problem with a) is that if there is some higher power, it's the height of arrogance to assume we know its nature when there is no proper evidence except some old myths and supposed holy texts.

If any shred of real evidence pointed to the existence of a higher being or beings, scientists wouldn't have a problem accepting that - it's all part of the great quest to find out how and why things work, and if God was at the heart of it all, that would indeed explain many things, but lead to a whole raft of other questions too.

Another way of looking at it is this:
Q. Why does the Earth exist?
A. Because it formed out of particles floating around in space that accreted together over a long time, and then all the other natural processes that led to its current state happened.

There doesn't need to be a god to make things happen; they just do, probably. If one god is possible, all gods are possible, even the flying spaghetti monster - why are Pastafarians any less credible than Christians, Hindus or Moslems? Sure, those religions have older roots, but older doesn't equal better. Many myths endure about many things, but just because a myth is very long-lived it doesn't make it true.

Of course, it's everyone's right to believe what they choose, so I don't ridicule the beliefs of others, but I question things that don't make sense to me.

In my experience, religions come into conflict largely because many (most?) religions are co-opted/corrupted by the state and become state religions
Secular states will fight about all kinds of things - territory, resources, control. If your point is that religions are pure at heart but fights erupt because states co-opt their 'own' religions to do their bidding, well, there's truth to that, but religions themselves have been and continue to be the basis of many a conflict.

Look at ISIS as an example - the whole global caliphate thing is founded on the desire of one religion to convert the world to its way of thinking by force. Of course there are many other factors, but at heart, ideology drives this madness. Religiously based conflict is alive and well, and probably an equal threat to our existence along with us polluting our planet to death.

Eddie Dean
9th Oct 2016, 04:53
Letters From The Earth
by Mark Twain (1909)

The Creator sat upon the throne, thinking. Behind him stretched the illimitable continent of heaven, steeped in a glory of light and color; before him rose the black night of Space, like a wall. His mighty bulk towered rugged and mountain-like into the zenith, and His divine head blazed there like a distant sun. At His feet stood three colossal figures, diminished to extinction, almost, by contrast -- archangels -- their heads level with His ankle-bone.
When the Creator had finished thinking, He said, "I have thought. Behold!"
He lifted His hand, and from it burst a fountain-spray of fire, a million stupendous suns, which clove the blackness and soared, away and away and away, diminishing in magnitude and intensity as they pierced the far frontiers of Space, until at last they were but as diamond nailheads sparkling under the domed vast roof of the universe.
At the end of an hour the Grand Council was dismissed.
They left the Presence impressed and thoughtful, and retired to a private place, where they might talk with freedom. None of the three seemed to want to begin, though all wanted somebody to do it. Each was burning to discuss the great event, but would prefer not to commit himself till he should know how the others regarded it. So there was some aimless and halting conversation about matters of no consequence, and this dragged tediously along, arriving nowhere, until at last the archangel Satan gathered his courage together -- of which he had a very good supply -- and broke ground. He said: "We know what we are here to talk about, my lords, and we may as well put pretense aside, and begin. If this is the opinion of the Council -- "
"It is, it is!" said Gabriel and Michael, gratefully interrupting.
"Very well, then, let us proceed. We have witnessed a wonderful thing; as to that, we are necessarily agreed. As to the value of it -- if it has any -- that is a matter which does not personally concern us. We can have as many opinions about it as we like, and that is our limit. We have no vote. I think Space was well enough, just as it was, and useful, too. Cold and dark -- a restful place, now and then, after a season of the overdelicate climate and trying splendors of heaven. But these are details of no considerable moment; the new feature, the immense feature, is -- what, gentlemen?"
"The invention and introduction of automatic, unsupervised, self-regulating law for the government of those myriads of whirling and racing suns and worlds!"
"That is it!" said Satan. "You perceive that it is a stupendous idea. Nothing approaching it has beenevolved from the Master Intellect before. Law -- Automatic Law -- exact and unvarying Law -- requiring no watching, no correcting, no readjusting while the eternities endure! He said those countless vast bodies would plunge through the wastes of Space ages and ages, at unimaginable speed, around stupendous orbits, yet never collide, and never lengthen nor shorten their orbital periods by so much as the hundredth part of a second in two thousand years! That is the new miracle, and the greatest of all -- Automatic Law! And He gave it a name -- the LAW OF NATURE -- and said Natural Law is the LAW OF GOD -- interchangeable names for one and the same thing."

Mr Optimistic
9th Oct 2016, 12:42
Think that's calling ducking the question. Have to agree however that science doesn't give any 'whys': that's not it's line of business. As someone said, pursue a question with 'why' and after about 5 goes you hit the wall.

Pace
9th Oct 2016, 13:14
Time slows with speed! There was an experiment where the Americans built a concrete building on an island with a spinning arm. They wound this thing up to an incredible speed with two pieces of the same radioactive material one in the centre one at the end of the spinning arm. After a period of time they measured the age of the two parts the one in the centre motionless was older than the one on the spinning arm. They did not reach the speed of light.

We know so little about space, black holes, time travel even the extreme likelihood that there are other planets which can equally support life much in advance of ourselves.
Even time to us varies see how long ten minutes lasts in the Dentists chair or ten minutes when you are trying to catch a train which requires 15 ))

Our brains are limited to what we know and perceive. There must have been a huge mass of matter to explode and form planets or particles of that mass over such a vast area of space.

What is God? Again an unknown? The books whether the Bible or Koran do not have those answers only statements of faith and beliefs. They were written in eras relevant to the writers and in times when far less was known and more faith and belief was required

evansb
9th Oct 2016, 15:28
In most of the educated nations of Europe, church and government have never been so far apart. Church/Temple attendance is so sparse as to be laughable, particularly in the Jewish and Christian faiths. Muslim attendance, however is booming. Stupidity is gaining a foothold.

Mr Optimistic
9th Oct 2016, 20:40
I wouldn't be that pessimistic. When I was young, if a form asked your religion you said Christianity irrespective of real belief. It was not the done thing to flaunt atheism too openly. No force or pressure, just a feeling that one should conform. A few years of consumerism have undermined spirituality. Providing the economy doesn't let us down, the same will happen to other faiths. They, unlike the Church of England, may not take it so easily however.

Arm out the window
10th Oct 2016, 03:57
Organised religion clearly does some great things, providing comfort, charity, a sense of belonging and purpose for many people.

It just seems to get tied up in knots when its own teachings (or the currently accepted versions of those) come into conflict with how people really are.

A close relative of mine had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons and was told she had to leave the Catholic church by her priest.

Another family friend whose daughter was killed in a car accident (she was living with her partner, pregnant and unmarried - how shocking! :rolleyes:) was told by the church that her daughter and the unborn child could not go to heaven, but would have to spend however long in purgatory atoning for sins! This is ridiculous, but it happened.

Secular life is crazy too, but that kind of stuff is too obviously silly for people to defend it, isn't it?

Eddie Dean
10th Oct 2016, 05:11
close relative of mine had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons and was told she had to leave the Catholic church by her priest.
I would have asked a second opinion as this wasn't for contraception.

Arm out the window
10th Oct 2016, 06:42
I think she was too shocked at being told once!

Eddie Dean
10th Oct 2016, 07:05
I think she was too shocked at being told once!
I was politely saying I don't believe you.

As an aside, what happened to Lilith, Adam's first wife?

Arm out the window
10th Oct 2016, 08:45
Errr... no idea.

Arm out the window
10th Oct 2016, 09:08
I was politely saying I don't believe you.

PS I've asked one of the rellies and apparently it was partially for contraception, although there were other medical reasons too, so I was wrong on that one.

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 15:47
Science can indeed ask why, not just how, as can philosophy.....Another way of looking at it is this:
Q. Why does the Earth exist?
A. Because it formed out of particles floating around in space that accreted together over a long time, and then all the other natural processes that led to its current state happened.It seems that what we have here is a failure to communicate. I apologize for my failure.
When I said "why" I was referring to this definition:
Merriam Webster: why, adverb; for what cause, reason, or purpose

And when I said "how" I was referring to this definition:
Merriam Webster: how, adverb; in what manner or way : by what means

In other words, what I meant was:
1. Religion attempts to answer "why" (for what cause, reason or purpose) the earth was brought into existence by an intelligence.
2. Science attempts to answer "how" (in what manner or way or by what means) the earth came into existence by random chance.

If one god is possible, all gods are possible, To me, that's metaphysical nonsense. That's like saying if random chance can produce spherical planets, then random chance can produce a square planet, or a toroidal planet, or .......you get the idea. Basic physics makes those other options impossible. In similar fashion, if there is a god that is responsible for the Big Bang, for the formation of this Earth, and for the existence of life generally and of humans specifically on earth, then I want to know the nature of that god and his purpose for setting off the Big Bang, fashioning the earth, and populating the earth with people. And much more specifically, what does that god desire/expect of me personally?

why are Pastafarians any less credible than Christians, Hindus or Moslems?I've neither stated nor implied that any faith is more "credible" than any other, including atheism. (And yes, atheism is a faith.) You can embrace whatever faith you choose. If you want to place your faith in either random chance or pasta and that faith gives your life lasting meaning, purpose, direction, and satisfaction, be my guest. However, having said that, in my experience people have placed their faith in all sorts of false gods, including the random chance of pure science/atheism, the alien visitors of Scientology, the pursuit of wealth and power, the pursuit of unbridled pleasure, "Mother Earth" and "nature", and a whole lot more. In my experience there is indeed a living breathing god with essentially all the physical features of a human being, that he begat children, that we are those children, that he loves us the way any righteous father loves his children, and that his entire purpose is to help us to return to him and become like him. That is my god. You are welcome to yours, including your pasta god.

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 16:08
Secular states will fight about all kinds of things - territory, resources, control. If your point is that religions are pure at heart but fights erupt because states co-opt their 'own' religions to do their bidding, well, there's truth to that, but religions themselves have been and continue to be the basis of many a conflict. I never stated nor implied that religion is always "pure at heart" and never the root cause of conflict. What I was rebutting was the implication that religion always results in conflict and is the root cause of most conflict. My point was that secularism and atheism have resulted in far greater, larger, more destructive, and more deadly conflict than any religion. If anything, religion has tended to tone down and at times even ameliorate conflict.

Look at ISIS as an example - the whole global caliphate thing is founded on the desire of one religion to convert the world to its way of thinking by force.Marxism/Leninism/communism is devoutly atheist and has the same "desire to convert the world to its way of thinking by force." The difference is that the latter has gripped entire states, some of which have nuclear weapons. ISIS makes wistful claims of being a state, but is far from it.

Hempy
10th Oct 2016, 16:14
In my experience there is indeed a living breathing god with essentially all the physical features of a human being, that he begat children, that we are those children, that he loves us the way any righteous father loves his children, and that his entire purpose is to help us to return to him and become like him. That is my god.

I am genuinely interested in hearing about this 'experience'.

Did you have a 'vision'?

Did you see 'Him' up close? Shake His hand? Speak to Him?

Please share your experience. I'm enthralled.

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 16:33
Time slows with speed! There was an experiment where the Americans built a concrete building on an island with a spinning arm. They wound this thing up to an incredible speed with two pieces of the same radioactive material one in the centre one at the end of the spinning arm. Not quite. Time dilation is an effect of relativity. The higher the velocity of a mass, the slower time passes for that object relative to an object at rest. The atomic clocks in GPS satellites depend on the radiation of Cesium electron states. The clocks are so precise that the time dilation resulting from the (relative) velocity of the satellites in orbit can be measured against the stationary clocks on the ground.

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 16:39
I am genuinely interested in hearing about this 'experience'......Please share your experience. I'm enthralled. I question just how "genuine" your interest is. Indeed my "experience" on this forum with you makes me seriously doubt your sincerity. And I've never had a "vision" of you, nor met you, nor seen you up close, nor shaken your hand. But I have at times "spoken" to you and you to me. See how this works?

Did you have a 'vision'? Of sorts. Please define what YOU mean by "vision".
Did you see 'Him' up close? No.
Shake His hand? No.
Speak to Him? Every day.

Hempy
10th Oct 2016, 16:50
So you are saying that your 'experience' existed soley in your head. Fair enough.

Sounds about right.

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 16:58
So you are saying that your 'experience' existed soley in your head. Fair enough.I neither stated nor implied that it was "all in my head". Indeed I implied the opposite. I've never met you, nor seen you up close, nor shaken your hand, and yet my experience with you is sufficient that I know you and your nature well enough to know, contrary to your direct claim, that you were neither genuine nor sincere. That, too, was not "all in my head."

Hempy
10th Oct 2016, 17:07
I'm struggling to find any relevance to what this has to do with me as an individual. Nor did I know that 'God' was an active participant on internet forums (as per relevance..)

You said;

In my experience there is indeed a living breathing god with essentially all the physical features of a human being, that he begat children, that we are those children, that he loves us the way any righteous father loves his children, and that his entire purpose is to help us to return to him and become like him. That is my god.

Surely, by 'experience', you mean that you've actually experienced what you claim, no?

Honestly, I'm keen to hear how. You might think I'm just being argumentative, but I have an open mind.

Inform me of your experience.

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 17:20
"My experience" is not a single event. It is an accumulation of personal events along with a lot of personal study and meditation over a number of decades. Some events relate to the term "there are no atheists in fox holes."

I'm struggling to find any relevance to what this has to do with me as an individual. Nor did I know that 'God' was an active participant on internet forums (as per relevance..)I was making an analogy. Without ever meeting you, seeing you, shaking your hand, etc my experience with you was sufficient to make an informed decision about your sincerity. The internet is but one means of interaction for humans. There are others. My interaction with god is sufficient for me to make an informed decision concerning his existence, his nature, his purpose, and a small portion of his will.

Hempy
10th Oct 2016, 17:55
Fair enough.

How do you feel about someone saying 'There are no Infidels in a bombed out shell of a building, with the rest of my family dead, for no reason other than their religion'?

Or are they just wrong, and you are right?

KenV
10th Oct 2016, 20:36
How do you feel about someone saying 'There are no Infidels in a bombed out shell of a building, with the rest of my family dead, for no reason other than their religion'?It is fascinating that you think the very well known and oft cited foxhole aphorism I used and the above are remotely equivalent. But to answer your question of how I "feel" about the above:
1. I feel that someone saying the above is extremely unlikely
2. If the very improbable happened and someone really said the above I feel they are neither "wrong" nor "right" and almost certainly motivated by sectarian bitterness.

Now a question for you: Are you really so ignorant as to not understand the meaning of the very well known aphorism I used?
Or are you just being true to form and trolling?

Arm out the window
10th Oct 2016, 21:34
To me, that's metaphysical nonsense. That's like saying if random chance can produce spherical planets, then random chance can produce a square planet, or a toroidal planet, or .......you get the idea. Basic physics makes those other options impossible.

If we're mixing logic, science and belief, how can we possibly get past the paradox of there being only one true god, a la Christianity, and many gods, e.g. Hinduism?
It's nothing like a physical question, and there's no reason bar belief to go one way or the other.

Religions can't directly contradict one another and all be right, so which one is right? Answer - the one the believer believes in. Fair enough, but logically unsound.

My point was that secularism and atheism have resulted in far greater, larger, more destructive, and more deadly conflict

The massive developments in technology and our associated ability to do far greater, larger, more destructive and more deadly things to one another might have had something to do with the burgeoning of greater, larger, more destructive and more deadly conflicts in the period you're discussing, mightn't it?

Mr Optimistic
10th Oct 2016, 21:37
Steady, Christianity has 3 Gods minimum, more if you believe saints can do miracles as per Greek and Roman specialist deities. The multiple Gods was a big issue for the rise of Islam.

pulse1
11th Oct 2016, 09:26
Mr O,

To my parents I am a son, to my wife I am a husband, to my children I am a father, but there is only one of me.

KenV says:
In my experience there is indeed a living breathing god with essentially all the physical features of a human being, that he begat children, that we are those children, that he loves us the way any righteous father loves his children, and that his entire purpose is to help us to return to him and become like him. That is my god.

If there is any truth in what he says, and I believe that there is, when we "return to him and become like him" (my bold) then you do not have to be God to perform miracles, you have to be like him. Perhaps that is what some religions call a saint.

KenV
11th Oct 2016, 16:07
The massive developments in technology and our associated ability to do far greater, larger, more destructive and more deadly things to one another might have had something to do with the burgeoning of greater, larger, more destructive and more deadly conflicts in the period you're discussing, mightn't it? You might think so, but you'd be dead wrong. The vast majority of the deaths were due to INTERNAL conflicts where military weaponry was not employed. The Hutu/Tutsi genocide used nothing more high tech than a machete. The Cambodian genocide was very low tech. The Indonesian civil war likewise was very low tech. China's Cultural Revolution alone likely resulted in more deaths in that one decade than essentially all of previous human history combined and involved essentially no military weapons. The Holocaust of the Nazi regime used mostly low tech gas chambers. The weapon of the Ukrainian Genocide (Holodomor) of the mid thirties was forced famine. Stalin also used forced famine to kill several more millions in the Urals and Kazakh. The Armenian Genocide was also low tech. I could go on and on (there was and continues to be for example lots and lots of low tech violent conflict and resulting famine in Africa) but the bottom line is that the military weaponry (including nukes) used in WW1 and 2 account for only a small fraction of the people killed in secular and atheist conflict from the late 19th and into the 21st century.

Lonewolf_50
11th Oct 2016, 22:48
I was politely saying I don't believe you.

As an aside, what happened to Lilith, Adam's first wife?
Spending eternity screwing, and being screwed by, a serpent. Hey, if that's your kick, roll with it.

G-CPTN
11th Oct 2016, 22:51
Spending eternity screwing, and being screwed by, a serpent.
I think I've seen that act.

Loose rivets
12th Oct 2016, 00:58
Watching a program just now about the Great Barrier Reef. One creature was off the scale grotesque. Poor old fish having a rest. He'd gone into a trance-like state with his eyes open. Along comes this snail thing about the same size. We were told it was going to be an unusual killing, but I had no idea what was coming.

A huge tube of translucent membrane opened up from the snail in front of the fish. It puffed out some toxic hormone that paralysed the fish which by then was awake. It then somehow drew the fish into this tube and on into its body. Just as you thought nothing could be worse, it stung the fish with a barb full of poison. For the first time, the fish fought like hell.

What's the point of all this? Those creatures are bewilderingly closely related to us, as is a cabbage or an Aardvark. Neil DeGrass Tyson is fond of the story of the difference between an ape and a human's DNA. 2%, I think he quotes.

We produce electronic devices that are almost intelligent, fly hundreds of people at 500 miles an hour and are learning about the miracle of our cells, and an ape bangs a stick and laughs. Two percent difference in that code that guides our immediate creation. He goes on to say, imagine just how different an alien with many times our DNA might be.

But what if that code was orders of magnitude greater than ours? After all, the numbers are quite small.* The being developed by that might well be god-like and designed to exist in this newly formed universe. I know, the idea is in my story but the more I think about it, the more feasible it seems. Our poor old bodies are surely not in an exact likeness but they are never the less pretty wondrous. So many incredible design features that tally with some of our most advanced inventiveness - before we knew about the original.

In a faultless form, we are a work of genius.


*Odd as it may seem, there are some quite simple life-forms that have a higher 'DNA count'. A type of grass, if memory serves. It now seems there's a chance other more complex functions could be turned back on. Just what is hiding in that code?

Arm out the window
12th Oct 2016, 10:37
KenV:

You might think so, but you'd be dead wrong. The vast majority of the deaths were due to INTERNAL conflicts where military weaponry was not employed.

Ok, even if this is the case, you're making the link that it's secularism that's causing this increase in deadly conflict, and the removal of influential religious presence from government means it's worse than it would have been, because of the supposed ameliorating effect of religion. This link is far from clear.
Other factors such as massive population increases in the time periods in question, the importance of control over various resource types in the world economy, displacement of people in huge conflicts leading to more conflict, are all strong factors. To look at your argument another way, would there have been fewer and less bloody conflicts if governments were still strongly religious? I think not.

Religious groups in conflict - Jews vs. Palestinians, ISIS vs. infidels, religiously-based genocide in the former Yugoslavia to name a few. Yes, there are other factors, but fundamentally it's about killing people who believe in different gods, or even the same god in different ways.

Anyway, neither of us will convert the other, I predict, but I would like to make the point that there is no basis to any religion but belief, which is fine except for the very harmful flow-on effects of believers in various groups using their doctrine and dogma to justify harmful and criminal activity.

Revered religious texts can be interpreted in many ways, and I would say in any ways the respective leaders of the day choose. Society is nothing like it was thousands of years ago, but we seem to be stuck in this crazy situation where the so-called words of god or gods are subjected to all kinds of interpretations to justify their stances, be they benign or downright evil.

This is at the heart of my failure to understand much of what organised religion gets up to - by all means, believe what you like, do good unto others, but don't use religion as a justification for hurting others either physically or otherwise (obviously not you personally, Ken ... just the mad buggers who are doing just that all around the world as we speak).

KenV
12th Oct 2016, 15:37
but I would like to make the point that there is no basis to any religion but belief, which is fine except for the very harmful flow-on effects of believers in various groups using their doctrine and dogma to justify harmful and criminal activity."Harmful flow-on effects" of religion? You completely missed my point. Humans don't need religion to justify/motivate them to engage in violent conflict. What is the evidence? Human history during the age of secularism/atheism is indisputable. And that history shows that when religion is absent, human conflict is just as prevalent, just as violent, and just as deadly. And seemingly more so. IF religion has had an effect (and that is not at all clear), it would appear that religion has had the opposite effect of that ascribed to it.

Arm out the window
12th Oct 2016, 22:16
No, certainly humans don't need religion to justify violence, but it happens on that basis a lot.

I feel you're missing my point too - personally felt religious beliefs are no doubt a good thing for many, but archaic religious texts, teachings and behaviours are to my mind the baseless paraphernalia of a confused mess.

Contradictory religious teachings regarding whose god is the real one and how his/her/their rules should be observed expose this mess in a stark light. If there was one true creator for all, and all believers had true revelatory experiences as the basis of their beliefs, all would be well, surely?

Instead, we have people bending over backwards to try and make the screwy principles of their holy books fit real life, which clearly doesn't work, and leads to much angst and trouble.

True belief, and the followings of a true god who led us to do good things, would be a wonderful thing for the world - if it existed. Instead, we have a bunch of people following different holy rules all saying their way is correct, and in some cases, actively working to rub out the others! To coin a phrase, the gods must be crazy.

KenV
13th Oct 2016, 16:07
Contradictory religious teachings regarding whose god is the real one and how his/her/their rules should be observed expose this mess in a stark light. If there was one true creator for all, and all believers had true revelatory experiences as the basis of their beliefs, all would be well, surely?Contradictory religious teachings are admittedly a problem. No doubt about it. But why are you completely ignoring contradictory secular/atheist teachings? Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism. Maoism, Sukarnoism, Castroism, etc etc (all devoutly atheist) were all touted as the "true" and "correct" way to implement socialism/communism and would surely result in paradise on earth. How did those work out? How many deaths and how much social and economic ruin resulted from them?

Instead, we have people bending over backwards to try and make the screwy principles of their holy books fit real life, which clearly doesn't work, and leads to much angst and trouble.You neglect to realize (never mind acknowledge) that for really serious "angst and trouble", modern humans totally unencumbered by ancient texts, traditions, rituals, and beliefs invented "the screwy principles" of Marxism and its many derivatives. How did that work out? How many deaths and how much social and economic ruin resulted from them?

...we have a bunch of people following different holy rules all saying their way is correct, and in some cases, actively working to rub out the others!Allow me to update your statement to fit the 20th and 21st centuries:
...we have a bunch of people following different Marxist rules all saying their way is correct, and in essentially all cases, actively working to rub out the others, and amazingly enough, THEMSELVES!! (Remember that the vast majority of deaths and ruin in these societies were due to INTERNAL conflict.)

Mr Optimistic
13th Oct 2016, 20:34
Pulse, ah yes, that would be consubstantial. You see lots of images of Christ and The Virgin in the churches. They are surely unnecessary but there they are. Nothing changed but the names over 5000 years.

Arm out the window
13th Oct 2016, 21:40
Ken, you will note I have never said "religion is bad, therefore secularism is good." You've set up this line of debate which, whilst interesting enough in its own right, just clouds the point I thought we were trying to clarify - is there really a creator or not?

I say no, and while I uphold the rights of people to believe what they want, I am dead against what I mentioned earlier - hurtful actions carried out in the name of religions which are themselves based on books and teachings that have no provenance.

As you have clearly expressed, enough bad stuff goes on in the name of the secular world which has a real basis - greed, power grabs, whatever. We don't need more because of old mumbo jumbo, which unless every religious person has a true personal revelatory experience direct from the big fella, has to be just that - we get told something is true, and without any proof, accept. Yes, you'll say this is true for scientific principles, but they stand to be challenged and confirmed or rejected on the basis of proof, unlike religions which somehow just 'are' and can neither be proved or disproved - fundamentally, they're like the emperor's new clothes, existing because someone says they do.

A tribal type shared religious belief makes sense if there's nothing there to contradict it, but I say again - they all can't be right, so who is? Clearly, the contradictory aspects of various religions that lead to fighting in their names are just human-generated rubbish because if they weren't, and were the teachings of one true god, they'd be consistent!

Arm out the window
13th Oct 2016, 22:03
Thinking further on the revelation part - does anyone who's 'really' religious have a full-on revelatory experience which includes which set of teachings they should follow?

I can understand things like being filled with an overwhelming sense of love and wonder, or maybe avoiding death in what seems like a miraculous escape, but I find it very hard to believe that, accompanying this is a set of terms and conditions - "OK, I am the one true god, but I choose that you should be part of the group that calls themselves (insert religion here), and therefore should follow the teachings set down in this book, wear those clothes, eat this and don't eat that ... etc."

Is it like this, or isn't it? And if it is, what a strange notion that a single true god assigns believers to groups that, funnily enough, are usually the accepted ones in their particular social group.

So, if that doesn't make any sense, there's either multiple gods with different teachings, or no god at all (or perhaps something like a god who doesn't even know we exist and wouldn't give a damn if it did, pardon the pun).

Pace
13th Oct 2016, 23:09
Loose Rivets

As a hobby Scuba Diver who has seen Marine life on reefs close up some reefs remind me of our Cities with fish of all types in their homes, out hunting for food, a busy little colourful world just like our own.
Intelligence? Many scientists refer to the Dolphin and its super intelligence and human like behaviour. Dolphins like man gain pleasure from sexual encounters and warmth from other Dolphins and express the same sadness, family instincts, caring and joy that we do.

The hammerhead Shark? yes I have seen those too! Magnificent creatures to see sail past in the deep ocean but so more navigationally advanced to us.
They have the most sensitive probes in the hammer part of their structure which can follow magnetic forces over the sea bed and accurately navigate for thousands of miles using those specialist techniques.

A world within a world never mind looking into space for another life supporting world we have one in our own.

For what purpose to God? So we can feed ourselves some will say. But I don't believe that. It is a self sufficient world separate to man but destroyed by man.

Energy is everywhere in the Universe. Energy is everywhere on our planet and in our seas!
Life, our life, fish life, animal life is driven by energy.

God said the soul lives for ever as does energy which can only be dissipated not destroyed.
There lies our clues not in books written by man but in the life force which drives us

G0ULI
14th Oct 2016, 01:57
Strange how all communications from God have been delivered by men (and it is almost invariably men) to be diseminated to the masses. What has God got against women? Religions around the world are remarkably consistent in their anti feminist stance. Seems unlikely that an all knowing God would discriminate so blatently between the genders, if such a being existed. Just another hint that all organised religions are just a humanist construct granting power to a privileged few.

Individual faith on the other hand is a perfectly logical survival mechanism that enables us to cope with the vagarities of life without constantly suffering psychological trauma.

Ascend Charlie
14th Oct 2016, 11:02
"If he came today, he could have reached the whole nation,
Israel in 4bc had no mass communication..." (don't you get me wrong...)

Why not interrupt all TV broadcasts, like the aliens do in the movies, and tell humankind where they are going wrong? No less believable than a burning bush or voices in the head or a pillar of salt or raining frogs or the Red Sea having a very low tide. Just suspend your disbelief and anything is possible. And if it doesn't happen, well, he does move in strange ways.

KenV
14th Oct 2016, 19:01
Thinking further on the revelation part - does anyone who's 'really' religious have a full-on revelatory experience which includes which set of teachings they should follow?I have not, at least not in the sense you appear to be asking about. But a few folks claim to have had such. Saul (who become Paul), Cleopus, several other contemporaries and Joe Smith in the early 19th century are the ones that come most immediately to mind.

KenV
14th Oct 2016, 19:11
Strange how all communications from God have been delivered by men (and it is almost invariably men) to be diseminated to the masses. What has God got against women? Religions around the world are remarkably consistent in their anti feminist stance. Seems unlikely that an all knowing God would discriminate so blatently between the genders....... Totally agree. But aren't you making a rather huge assumption? You're assuming that because the revelations received by men were recorded and the revelations received by women were not, that women received no revelations. I'm very confident that women have received and do receive revelation as commonly as men. The problem is (once again) with human society. Human societies have decided to (largely) ignore the revelations received by women. Jesus himself was clearly quite close to many women and the first person to interact with Jesus following his resurrection was a woman. Predictably, when she told the apostles about it they did not believe her.

KenV
14th Oct 2016, 19:13
Why not interrupt all TV broadcasts, like the aliens do in the movies, and tell humankind where they are going wrong? Why? Already answered. Millemnia of experience prove that miracles and other showy stuff just does not work. Humans are remarkably good at rationalizing anything.

Arm out the window
14th Oct 2016, 21:37
So if god chooses not to do miracles because it doesn't work;

few people have revelatory experiences, so everyone else has to rely on hearsay and highly questionable old texts;

the same god apparently requires people to worship in contradictory ways that are worth killing over, or alternatively there are actually multiple gods at odds with one another (which is totally against the teachings of some of the major religions anyway);

then the whole house of cards starts looking pretty shaky, doesn't it.

The life energy thing, as new age and crystal vibey as it sounds, might have something in it, but not this 'thou shalt not do this and that' business.

megan
15th Oct 2016, 08:08
God not a woman? Remember God created man in his own image. To create woman he performed chest surgery and removed a rib. The reason therefore that God can not be female. Angels on the other hand......

Stan Woolley
15th Oct 2016, 08:36
The life energy thing, as new age and crystal vibey as it sounds, might have something in it, but not this 'thou shalt not do this and that' business.

As you already know I am inclined to agree with this, sort of. However I still put a loving God who acknowledges each of us as individual (for now - don't know about later?) at the forefront of everything. The argument KenV puts forward as a response to the Jesus Christ Superstar 'quote' doesn't make much sense to me.(Although granted 'making sense' doesn't always point to truth)

Rather it's about free will and learning lessons 'for ourselves'. What would be the point in coming here to earth if Jesus/God were to 'force teach' us? Because it 'doesn't work?' It doesn't, but not in the way that Ken suggests. We all know that lessons have to be learned by experience. Try forcing your own knowledge down any teenagers throat to know that it doesn't work.Any lessons have to be learned the hard way. I think this is why I often am reminded that these lessons we all eventually learn are often difficult, and Gods 'parenthood' is of the 'cruel to be kind' variety. Can it be done a different way? It maybe can, but I feel that God would surely be employing the most efficient method available.

Also I am quite sure that as ArmOWindow hints at, God would surely include all people, and animals, in fact everything that exists, conscious or otherwise. Christians only as the 'chosen ones'? I don't think so. It sounds like too much of a man-made idea for me. A Christian man. :rolleyes:

Stan Woolley
15th Oct 2016, 09:01
This view is so typical of 'Sultan' regions, where no pilot has ever made a mistake, honest. So every failure or fault ALWAYS has to be the fault of the western aircraft, or the western radar, or something. But the pilot is never wrong. Remember the Egyptair crash, where the Egyptian invesigators said it could not be suicide, because no-one in that culture had ever committed suicide, because it was forbidden. (Totally disregarding the fact that there have been several thousand suicide bombers).

After posting above I thought I'd have a quick scan of he rest of Pprune, this was one of the first things I read.

This is why some people don't like religion, blind dogma.

People make Gods job a hell of a lot harder than it ought to be, he must have the patience of a Saint. :)

Arm out the window
15th Oct 2016, 09:29
What would be the point in coming here to earth if Jesus/God were to 'force teach' us?

This notion of a point, a chosen purpose for us, is one I can't accept, although as I've said and would like to stress again, this is not to belittle the ideas of those who do accept and indeed embrace it. I can certainly understand the attraction of such an idea.

There's too much of a credibility gap for me when we have to make excuses for the creator's apparent lack of presence or compassion, and 'God works in mysterious ways' seems to be just another way of saying 'There is no reason for anything other than what we might ascribe ourselves'.

a loving God who acknowledges each of us as individual (for now - don't know about later?)

This is an intriguing notion, that what we feel as our separate selves, or souls if you prefer, are part of a whole that may come together when we die, or indeed, even be together already without us knowing.

See, science doesn't preclude this stuff - it may well be true, or something even stranger, and wouldn't that be amazing. Hymns, prayer books, altars and all that, though - they're different; to me, all a big con job.

God should ditch religion, it gives him (or her) a bad name.

PineappleFrenzy
15th Oct 2016, 09:48
"God" isn't the same across cultures. In fact, such differences have fed a millennia of religious wars. What remains common across all of humanity however are basic morals---the innate sense of right and wrong that all humans seem to know instinctively. These include ideas like "you should treat others how you want to be treated," "stealing something that isn't yours is wrong," and "cheating and lying do more harm than good."

Where it seems that morals differ between cultures, what we see isn't really a difference of morals, as much as a difference of interests. While moral principles are essentially fixed across humanity. Interests are forged by the particular environment in which a culture exists. Some interests may seem vital, yet we all seem to know when we do something wrong in pursuit of them. We may choose to admit such blunders, or to suppress them. The result then is how these choices weigh on the conscience. In one culture perhaps there is no incentive to steal. While in another, one must steal to survive. In each culture, the thief knows stealing is morally wrong. But the difference between each lies in how heavy a burden the act places on the thief's conscience. The weight of the collective moral burdens that people carry with them determines their incentive to seek means by which they may resolve such burdens. Thus, one culture's theology might place a heavy emphasis on repentance, where another's does not.

Until the emergence of psychology and neuroscience in the twentieth century, the only means by which humanity could contemplate these problems, and relieve the burden of moral failures, was through philosophy and religion respectively, and to a lesser extent, law and politics.

I'm not certain it is at all wise to leave all forms of religion behind us just yet. No other human endeavour seems to satisfactorily fill the role religion has occupied thus far. Law, politics, psychology, and medicine have nearly closed the gap on understanding and managing human morality, but not quite in my view. (Don't even get me started on the nature of human consciousness)

An aside: God never promised smooth sailing, only a safe harbour.

Stan Woolley
15th Oct 2016, 10:30
Quote:
What would be the point in coming here to earth if Jesus/God were to 'force teach' us?
This notion of a point, a chosen purpose for us, is one I can't accept, although as I've said and would like to stress again, this is not to belittle the ideas of those who do accept and indeed embrace it. I can certainly understand the attraction of such an idea.

There's too much of a credibility gap for me when we have to make excuses for the creator's apparent lack of presence or compassion, and 'God works in mysterious ways' seems to be just another way of saying 'There is no reason for anything other than what we might ascribe ourselves'.

The purpose isn't for our benefit, it's for Gods. The way I (not my idea, but one that I intuitively warm to) see it is that we are temporarily separated from him to allow him to keep lowering entropy. God can't stand still, He has to grow, or at least He wants/needs to? We are essentially part of God, or cosmic consciousness if that makes more sense?

There is no doubt in my mind that God is compassionate, but there is an apparent (from a human POV) need to be cruel. Being cruel is a human trait, but as humans are part of God....As I have said before good/evil light/dark yin/yang.



Quote:
a loving God who acknowledges each of us as individual (for now - don't know about later?)
This is an intriguing notion, that what we feel as our separate selves, or souls if you prefer, are part of a whole that may come together when we die, or indeed, even be together already without us knowing.

See, science doesn't preclude this stuff - it may well be true, or something even stranger, and wouldn't that be amazing. Hymns, prayer books, altars and all that, though - they're different; to me, all a big con job.

God should ditch religion, it gives him (or her) a bad name.

I think that we ARE all one. This is all a 'trick'. 'A very clever one' as somebody said, might have been an writer to his wife, on his death bed.

Science definitely doesn't preclude 'this stuff'. It's already amazing!!!! ;)

In a way I agree with your final line, but it's tricky when people automatically attach baggage to words. I think we can know God, but not attach him to our ego's and get on with learning our lessons. It would be so much easier, but maybe I'm wrong. Who can say? Oh yeah, God can. :ok:

Stan Woolley
15th Oct 2016, 10:38
This was what my memory let me down about trying to remember quotes in my post above:

Roger Ebert's Wife on His Final Moments (http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/news/a26606/roger-ebert-final-moments/)

Pace
15th Oct 2016, 11:31
Stan

Out of body experiences are well documented especially in periods of extreme stress or pain.
It was even acknowledged in RAF fighter pilots by the medical division where some pilots experienced being outside the aircraft watching themselves.
The advice given was not to worry about it as any interruption in the cockpit would bring the pilot back

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-499401/Pilots-body-experiences-responsible-quarter-fatal-air-crashes.html

http://psychics.co.uk/blog/out-of-body-experiences/

If you google there is a lot on the phenomena with pilots usually associated with high stress
Scientists will give one explanation psychics another
It is usually associated with extreme stress or pain although some claim through meditation that they can self induce the condition. The answer to it is more complex. Scientists and Psychics arguing the cause

it brings up the question can the personality survive away from the psychical body? My guess yes

Stan Woolley
15th Oct 2016, 12:12
Thanks for that, in fact I'm aware of OOB being an experience familiar to some pilots. Usually such articles try to paint them with a material brush, dismissing the more esoteric explanations. Fortunately I never ever experienced loss of SA, so was not ever in a situation where I might have seen OOB for myself. I'm joking of course!

I never flew in the Air Force,or did much aerobatics, where such experiences are more likely to lurk. Interesting stuff though. I never asked colleagues if they had experienced anything like this, chances are, they'd have denied it even if they had. Protecting their Class one's!

I once read about a top bike rider in a documentary (Moto GP, Superbike level) saying that he'd watched himself riding to a win from above the bike, looking down on himself in a typical OOB experience! He reckoned it was caused when his concentration was total, living in the now, which often comes up as being 'the way we should live' in spiritual circles.

Have you watched either of the two videos I posted in this thread some time back, separately featuring two men who have successfully managed to achieve Out of Body states for many decades. Worth a watch imo. It's all fascinating stuff, no matter what your view. Unless you're view is that it's not! :8

You added to your post while I was writing. I'm quite convinced that consciousness continues. I see you are inclined that way too. In that case do watch either of those two videos I mentioned. If anything is interesting, build upon it, it if doesn't, bin it.

Pace
15th Oct 2016, 14:18
I know it's true that's all I will say ;)

But people have watched and described an operation before with detail they could not know

Without doubt we are full of energy! Energy cannot be destroyed only dissipated! It is eternal!
The question is whether that energy carries the personality of the person ?
What is the soul that lives eternally ? If it's the energy can it hold the personality like a magnetic tape recording and for how long ?

I don't believe we sit on clouds meeting our loved ones or with multiple divorces And marriages there would be a lot of punch ups )))

I also wonder on these psychics who claim to talk to departed loved ones ? We already know Telepathy sensing someone else's thoughts through energy exists
The hammerhead shark carries such sensitive sensory it can navigate using earths magnetic lines

So whether these psychics pick up thought telepathically from the living rather than the dead ?
Dolphins have similar emotions as we do and will have their own energy / soul

All we do know is no one has come back and said " hey guys it's like this over here "

Stan Woolley
16th Oct 2016, 15:19
There are a few reports from 'over there' in this interview. One surgeon that was killed by lightning describes himself turning into a "blue ball of energy".
The podcast starts at around 16:00mins.

youtu.be/78XlOtUdhg0

Ascend Charlie
17th Oct 2016, 01:48
So far, the contributors have only referred to the Spirit surviving death. But what of the Apostles' Creed, which in part says "I believe in the resurrection of the body".

Is your body supposed to travel into eternity with you, or is that line only referring to JC?

If the body goes on, how do they re-assemble a victim of an explosion?
Does a paralysed person become mobile?
Does a baby who died at birth grow into an adult?

The whole idea of the bearded folk looking forward to 72 virgins after turning themselves into wallpaper doesn't quite gel with the "no bodies up here, only spirits" idea. And anyway, where did the virgins come from? Were they already dead as virgins? Obviously not a lot from Essex.

Pace
17th Oct 2016, 09:06
The body is a mechanical device designed to live on this planet with lungs to take oxygen from the air, arms,legs , hands to perform multiple functions
Organs to digest food and take the nutrients from that food and sexual organs to reproduce ! Infact identical in format to other forms of life from animals to fish who have adapted to their own invirinment
Sadly the body ages and wears out and the organs designed for the many functions required to sustain life Also fail with resultant death!

Only the energy survives that death as the body decomposes ! In nature that decomposing body would itself add nutrients to the ground or act as food to bacteria and other forms of life

I think it's the Crystaldelphians who believe in a time when all your particles somehow reform again taking parts of the bible for their own interpretation! All these religions with diffrent vision ? So many will be so dissapointed that they got it wrong

There is a belief held by tribal people's that indeed on death the energy containing positive and negativity contains itself still with the imprint of the person!

That energy pocket then goes through various levels of purification and seperation before eventually dispersing back to the universe

But hey that's another religion, interpretation of what if anything happens after death

KenV
17th Oct 2016, 15:30
few people have revelatory experiences....Is that because god is not talking or because people are not listening? I tend to believe the latter.

KenV
17th Oct 2016, 15:34
God not a woman? Remember God created man in his own image....

Hmmmm. Cut and paste from a certain good book:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

KenV
17th Oct 2016, 15:47
I'm not certain it is at all wise to leave all forms of religion behind us just yet. No other human endeavour seems to satisfactorily fill the role religion has occupied thus far. Law, politics, psychology, and medicine have nearly closed the gap on understanding and managing human morality, but not quite in my view. Not to be argumentative or repetitive, but two centuries of secularism and atheism coupled with the greatest advances in human "science, law, politics, psychology, and medicine" have resulted in more human conflict, death, and destruction than all of previous human history combined. The common meme here is that religion is responsible for human conflict and if we could just eliminate religion, we would eliminate human conflict. However, the past two centuries where religion has been removed from society clearly indicate that human conflict happens not so much because of religion, but despite religion. The record shows that as religion is removed from a society, human conflict escalates both in terms of quantity/frequency, and in terms of brutality.

KenV
17th Oct 2016, 16:13
So far, the contributors have only referred to the Spirit surviving death. But what of the Apostles' Creed, which in part says "I believe in the resurrection of the body". FWIW, I've referred to resurrection multiple times in this thread.

Is your body supposed to travel into eternity with you, or is that line only referring to JC?I believe the resurrection to be real and permanent. Our spirits will be reunited with a perfect version of the body we had during our mortal life.

If the body goes on, how do they re-assemble a victim of an explosion? Science has shown that all it takes is a single complete DNA strand to "regrow/reassemble" a body. I believe that DNA strand may be literal (i.e. an actual chemical strand.) or "spiritual" (your personal DNA sequence is stored somewhere/somehow and then the chemical strand is assembled). It would not take much storage overhead. Human beings share 99.9+% of their DNA. Only the small portion that makes you unique would need to be stored. Perhaps that unique bit of DNA sequence is coded into your spirit/consciousness in some way similar to how your memories and personality are stored.

Does a paralysed person become mobile? Injuries sustained in life would not be in the DNA sequence and so I believe those injuries would not be included when the new body is recreated. I believe that DNA errors that result in birth defects would be corrected before the new body is recreated. And I believe those DNA replication processes that result in aging will also be corrected so the new body will not only be perfect, but ageless and immortal.

Does a baby who died at birth grow into an adult?I believe babies and children who die before reaching adulthood will get a perfect version of their pre-adult body and grow to reach full physical maturity pretty much as usual and then stop aging.

Pace
17th Oct 2016, 18:14
KenV
I have my own spiritual beliefs but cannot take the body thing! Many people with imperfect genes suffer in their lives because of those imperfections while others with better gene make ups get away with murder!

Nature itself improves the genetic makeup by weeding out imperfections!
We as humans who are caring fight nature by keeping going people who nature would eliminate!
We protect the rights of people with faulty genes to procreate and then care for the result of procreation again fighting nature which as in the animal world would weed out the weak so improving the gene bank!

Which is God? Nature or our own commendable intervention ?

The other problem I have is God talks of eternal life ? Only energy has eternal life not a body which is designed to live on this planet !
Even a perfect body with perfect genes needs food, remove that and the perfect person will die
You could also argue that it's our imperfections which make us so individual as people ?

KenV
17th Oct 2016, 21:17
I have my own spiritual beliefs but cannot take the body thing! Many people with imperfect genes suffer in their lives because of those imperfections while others with better gene make ups get away with murder! For me, such injustice is an integral part of the whole mortal experience and why we're here. But in the next life justice will prevail over every individual except where mercy is extended.

We as humans who are caring fight nature by keeping going people who nature would eliminate!
While I agree that humanity is degrading our gene pool by enabling those who otherwise would not survive to procreate, I find the alternative disagreeable. Indeed current human ethics holds eugenics to be sufficiently disagreeable that we accept the possibility of dysgenics.

The other problem I have is God talks of eternal life ? Only energy has eternal life not a body which is designed to live on this planet !
Even a perfect body with perfect genes needs food, remove that and the perfect person will die. Maybe. Maybe not. Food is just an energy source for the body. Perhaps in the post resurrection afterlife sources of energy other than food will be readily available. Or an unlimited supply of food will be available not only to keep us going, but also to provide the enjoyment humans derive from eating. As for the eternal nature of matter vs energy, Einstein rather convincingly proved that energy and matter are interchangeable and may perhaps be viewed as different manifestations of the same thing.

You could also argue that it's our imperfections which make us so individual as people ? I'm confident our imperfections help define our individuality. But I'm convinced in the post resurrection afterlife we will overcome/rid ourselves of our imperfections while maintaining our individuality.

Loose rivets
18th Oct 2016, 00:02
It's funny, but when I was writing about such things for my novel I didn't have to make them up, they were just kind of . . . there.

However, rather than rely on a replica of our DNA I had their mortal forms emitting a continuous stream of data - only then could anyone who'd been instantly destroyed be replicated. In any case, relying on DNA would cause problems since it's not perfectly interpreted every time and it would be vital for there to be no mistakes in the 'final copy'.

Not for one moment would I imagine an eternal existence being in the material Universe. Even the the strange 'fabric of spacetime' will expand until it's a frigid wasteland and nothing could live in it, even if it wanted to.

RR22
18th Oct 2016, 04:13
That'll be your Akashic Records mate, its all there apparently.

Ascend Charlie
18th Oct 2016, 11:09
Ken, you still haven't addressed a question from before:

If the Judgement is still to come, (he will come to judge both the quick and the dead) has everybody who has died in the last squillion years just been hanging around, waiting to find out if the elevator is taking them UP or DOWN?

Pace
18th Oct 2016, 11:19
And then what is that judgement based on ? Whether you go to church 3 times a day or kneel on your prayer mat on calling to prayer ?

Right and wrong is man made and judged! What is wrong dependents on the teachings of individual religions and their own interpretations

What is right or wrong is also determined by individual societies and their government and influenced by upbringing and social values!

I often wonder how the guy who pushed the button which dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima killing millions of innocent families and children could sleep at night!
Yet the argument was for the bigger picture of right as determined by government!
I am sure even in Hitlers mind he was right in the atrocities carried out against the Jews!

The biggest failing in all human relationships is the Hand theory! One looks at the Palm the other the back of the hand yet they both see a hand but a diffrent picture of that hand

That holds true from the breakdown of personal relationships right up to government, political views and morality

KenV
18th Oct 2016, 14:03
Ken, you still haven't addressed a question from before:
If the Judgement is still to come, (he will come to judge both the quick and the dead) has everybody who has died in the last squillion years just been hanging around, waiting to find out if the elevator is taking them UP or DOWN? Sorry, I missed that question. This is a very complicated question and I will try to provide a simple and straight forward answer.

I believe that earth life consists of two parts or phases. One part/phase is the one we are familiar with where we have mortal bodies and live in a pretty rough, unjust world filled with corruption. Upon death we enter a second phase I'll call the spirit world (this roughly equates with "purgatory" in the Catholic faith.) In this phase we are spirit only. We have all our memories of earth life and the same personality. But there is a fundamental difference. In the spirit world absolute justice prevails. All the injustice of mortal earth life is gone. An existence of absolute justice is for most people miserable because most people are guilty of all sorts of "bad" things. I don't believe in a literal "burning hell", but a place where our conscience and our guilt racks us with self generated misery and torment. There are two ways out of this misery. 1) Suffer until "the uttermost farthing" of our guilt has been paid. 2) repent and turn to a savior who extends mercy and removes the guilt and associated suffering. Since mercy cannot rob justice, that savior "buys" our guilt by personally paying the consequences of our guilt as demanded by justice.

This spirit world existence lasts until the "final judgment". Clearly there was a form of judgment when we entered the spirit world, but it was our own personal judgment. We convicted and condemned ourselves. The savior will perform the final judgment. He will plumb our hearts and determine our eternal fate, with that fate being dependent on the purity of heart and our faith in him. I don't believe in a binary afterlife of heaven or hell. Indeed, I don't believe in a literal burning hell and absolutely NOT an eternal hell. To me to suffer torment forever for mistakes made during a short stint on earth is unjust in the extreme. I believe that not even a Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin deserves eternal torment and even they will eventually pay the "uttermost farthing" of their guilt and will be released from the suffering associated with it. I also believe that a "reward" that is identical for every person who "goes to heaven" is unjust. To me, Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa rubbing elbows in the same place in the next life is unthinkable. I believe there are degrees of glory/joy in the next life. Folks like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al will ultimately be "redeemed" and receive joy and glory, but a far lesser one than folks like Mother Teresa or Ghandi. At the final judgment we will not only receive our eternal reward, but we will be resurrected and receive new perfect bodies and stop being spirit only. I suspect that there will be some fundamental differences in the nature of the resurrected bodies that Hitler types receive vs those bodies Mother Teresa types receive, but I don't know exactly the nature of that difference.

So to answer your question, I believe that every human who has lived from Adam and Eve on down to now and has died, has been and is waiting in the spirit world for the final judgement. Some apparently have already been resurrected, having "risen" at the time the savior was resurrected.

And as an aside, I don't believe our existence began at conception or birth. I believe our spirits existed for eons before our earth existence and likely even before the "Big Bang" that marked the birth of our universe. So we all have literally already waited eons to be born and receive a physical body and thus the wait in the earth spirit world is relatively speaking very short, even if it lasts for thousands of years (Adam is estimated to have lived roughly 6 to 7 thousand years ago.) Thus I believe our existence has three major phases:
1. Pre-earth life as pure spirit which phase asted eons.
2. Earth life in two sub phases as described above.
3. Post-earth life with a perfect immortal body and a spirit and this phase lasts forever.

And my belief regarding that third phase gets a little dicey for many, and is indeed downright blasphemous for traditional Christianity. I believe that those who inherit the highest degree of glory in the afterlife have the opportunity to literally become gods themselves, creating worlds and populating them with humans whose spirits are our eternal offspring. In fact, I believe that the being we call "god" (or jehovah or elohim or etc) BECAME a god in this manner. He has always existed (just as we have always existed) but has not always been a god. He found the path to godhood and is assisting us to find and walk that same path that leads to godhood.

Hope this clarified and did not muddy things up.

KenV
18th Oct 2016, 14:23
And then what is that judgement based on ? Whether you go to church 3 times a day or kneel on your prayer mat on calling to prayer? Right and wrong is man made and judged! What is right or wrong is also determined by individual societies and their government and influenced by upbringing and social values!I agree that earth justice is man made and man defined, but I believe that there exists eternal principles of "right and wrong" based on pure justice and that god works on pure justice. I believe it has NOTHING to do with going to church, or prayer mats, etc.

I often wonder how the guy who pushed the button which dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima killing millions of innocent families and children could sleep at night! Paul Tibbets and Thomas Ferebee (pilot and bombardier respectively of Enola Gay that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima) and Charles Sweeney and Kermit Beahan (pilot and bombardier respectively of Bockscar that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki) all stated to their dying day that they had no regrets concerning their actions.

And "killing millions"? Not quite. Between 130,000 and 200,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. By comparison, roughly double that number were killed in Tokyo alone.

Yet the argument was for the bigger picture of right as determined by government!
I am sure even in Hitlers mind he was right in the atrocities carried out against the Jews! As I stated, I believe that there are eternal principles of right and wrong totally independent of man and his rationalizations. I believe that while on earth Adolf was able to rationalize his actions, but that upon death, he could no longer make those kinds of human rationalizations and that his own guilty conscience convicted and condemned him to unbelievable and unfathomable torment. I believe that torment will continue not for eternity, but until he has paid the "uttermost farthing" demanded by pure justice. Once that has happened, mercy will be extended and he will be rescued from his self-imposed torment.

Pace
18th Oct 2016, 14:52
The problem I have with that is its usually the kinder more feeling people that suffer regret while the Psychopaths are devoid of feeling and remorse.

Many Eastern medicines talk about an imbalance in a persons energy.
We all know how being positive in life and about one problems has one effect while being negative leads to alcohol dependency drug abuse, self harm and depression and that leads to DIS EASE AND disease

I go more with the energy theory and maybe that negativity is carried in your energy / soul beyond if there is a beyond

KenV
18th Oct 2016, 15:16
The problem I have with that is its usually the kinder more feeling people that suffer regret while the Psychopaths are devoid of feeling and remorse.That is indeed a very real problem. But also likely a mortal/physical problem. I believe that the spirit cannot rationalize away uncomfortable truths that the human mind routinely does and that injustice does not/cannot exist in the spiritual realm. Absolute justice prevails there and no one can escape that justice. No one. That is both a blessing and a severe curse because every person, without exception, is guilty. And that is why a savior is provided to extend mercy, which mercy prevents justice from claiming them.

Loose rivets
18th Oct 2016, 23:52
And my belief regarding that third phase gets a little dicey for many, and is indeed downright blasphemous for traditional Christianity.

Takes me back to one of several communications I had with keef who put in a huge amount of work proofreading my book. I asked him how he felt, as a devout Christian, about having the Universe at least partly designed by a small group of brothers. (Only once in the 700 pages did I mention 'the ultimate mind'). As I touched on in an earlier post, keef, in his pleasant manner said, 'nothing that made me fall off my stool' and 'I never lost sight of the fact it's science fiction'. I was so glad it didn't bring offence.

He went on to help with another thing I agonized about. I've always failed to understand the Doctrine of the Atonement. It seems I'm not alone. keef sent me three interpretations, one of which was written by a friend of his. If I'm quite honest, I still don't understand the logic, yet my few lines seemed to make more sense of the suffering - a suffering that was obviously anticipated in those dark days leading up the the crucifixion. I'm told it's the cornerstone of the Christian faith but I'm totally confused as to its mechanism. I wanted clarity but in every reading I became more confused. The sacrifice was so great, yet the reason our debts were forgiven was, for me at least, so unclear. If I do have a creator, I certainly hope I don't anger him by suggesting a totally different reason for the breathtaking bravery.

By the way, I'm looking forward to reading Jeffery Archer's book, The Gospel According to Judas, as it has always been my opinion that there was more to that story than betrayal. So much mystery in those pivotal few days.

Hitler, Stalin et al.

In my story I have a place just as you describe. Or more correctly, a place where minds can agonise over their life's actions in the manner you describe. It sound an easy option, but I for one know that being immersed in one's failures as a human can be a very painful period. That aside, what of the grotesquely cruel sinners throughout history?

After this life, if it were at all possible, new souls would want to talk to Einstein, Jack Kennedy, Hitler, etc., etc. It might just be that some of them are not there. Not because they've been banished, but because some of the evil ones have never existed as beings with souls. If this world is any kind of Trial and testing ground', then it is possible these monsters are just players introduced to cause the chaos and suffering it's necessary for us to endure. 700,000 hours, give or take. Not long compared to eternity. It's what my protagonist has drummed into him, and what he rails against as one of the themes of the book.

Not surprisingly, these ideas are not just a story but my own thoughts from a surprisingly early age. The book was just a vehicle, in part to put forward my views about creators allowing suffering - especially in children. I'm stalled on the sequel as I can not ramble on with some fiction while, for example, I witness the atrocities in Syria. In other words, I can't believe my own theory of justification, despite it building wiser and presumably more robust souls.

Stan Woolley
19th Oct 2016, 10:46
If this world is any kind of Trial and testing ground', then it is possible these monsters are just players introduced to cause the chaos and suffering it's necessary for us to endure.

I think that idea fits quite well as a possibility with my own thinking. I'm assuming from the lack of much response from either KenV or yourself that neither of you are that keen on reincarnation or the idea of consciousness, whatever it is exactly, being closely tied to God?

I think Pace is onto something when he says that it's something to do with 'energy'. I find my own ideas about God/reality sitting much more comfortably along these type of lines than when I read Ken's detailed explanations of how things work according to some religious views.

While logic can't really be thought of as things 'have to be' logical or they won't make sense', illogical things exist as a reality, quantum physics isn't explainable by logic as far as I know, but QM is real. What I'm trying to say is that maybe God isn't logical and any ideas about It don't have to be logical either. But my own ideas fit logically and comfortably while Ken's don't. Jesus, yes. :ok: The Bible? Not so much.:confused:

People of all sorts experience NDEs - Christians, atheists, agnostic, whatever. Surely, if we're serious about finding out about our reality, we must come to our own conclusion about whether they are worth researching. What I've found, is that the vast majority of people have their minds made up before even looking at any evidence. Some of those that have sufficiently open minds (like me :rolleyes:) come to certain - not conclusions- but directions of thought might be a better way of describing it.

NDEs point me to there being a loving God.
Love really is the way!
There is a purpose in our lives.
There is no judgement by God about our lives on earth, there may be by ourselves.

You are probably thinking that I'm relying too much on one line of evidence? I don't think so, NDEs just help point in the same direction as other lines of evidence that I have looked at. These lines alone don't paint a picture, but together, a picture starts to emerge. One that isn't dependent on belief, belief is to be avoided I think,as it leads to dogmatic thinking, and from there we might get extremism.

If I am to be placed in purgatory for refusing to be a follower of a certain religion, so be it. I wouldn't want to be in that club anyway. :eek:

Arm out the window
19th Oct 2016, 11:28
I wouldn't want to be in that club anyway

I'm with you, Stan. With all these conflicting ideas about the nature of god, they can't all be right, and it seems what each person believes is their own take on it anyhow.

To be truthful, you'd either have to take the whole box and dice of one particular religion, with all its trappings, or none of it. If you do 'sign up' for one particular brand, you can't pick and choose which bits you like, otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

If you reckon, for example, Jesus died on the cross for our sins because that's what the Bible says, then all the other things it says should have equal weight, but they don't - religions decide how they want to play it, and change their tunes with the times, social pressure; whatever they say God's word is, that's what it is, and if man can say what God's word is, then God's word isn't worth the paper it's written on.

True belief must be different, more pure I suppose; but like I said earlier on, believers don't get revelations that include detailed instructions on exactly how they should conduct themselves (or if they do, I'd love to hear about it). Instead, I think it goes a bit like this - someone feels the touch of God, for want of a better phrase, and goes to church because that's what you do. The particular church has a whole lot of traditions and rules, and that's what you get involved in. But do you actually buy it, deep down?

Ken V, you have written a detailed list of how you think things go in the afterlife, and good luck to you, but it sounds like a particularly personal take. If it's the direct teachings of a church, OK, that's one thing, but you've come out with some specifics there that don't sound like any church teaching I've ever come across.

In a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying, how can you say you believe in organised religion of some kind, but also believe in a modified or personal version?

Stan Woolley
19th Oct 2016, 12:01
In a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying, how can you say you believe in organised religion of some kind, but also believe in a modified or personal version?

I think that's sort of how I feel about political parties, they can be likened to a religion. One can feel attracted to a particular party, but does that mean I have to swallow the party line in every aspect? Not in my opinion. Maybe the ego finds it even easier to get attached to a religion than to a political party. After all, God trumps Man.

(I'm sure that Trump trumps everything in his mind!) Not to change the subject, please don't ! :eek:

Pace
19th Oct 2016, 12:03
I knew a Crystaldelphian who believe your body reforms at some point! That makes notational sense to me.

They won't vote or intervene as that is influencing Gods wishes ?

There are some crazy beliefs by extracting a phrase from the bible which should be taken forwhat it is! But if they get a comfort a crutch in dealing with life's difficulties through those beliefs ? Who am I to judge!

The only rational answer for me connects with the energy of the soul

KenV
19th Oct 2016, 14:26
I've always failed to understand the Doctrine of the Atonement. It seems I'm not alone.I have my view, which coincides in many ways with traditional Christian views on the atonement, but digresses significantly in other ways. For me, there are a few main points one must consider to understand the need for the atonement. Point 1 below is the greatest divergence from traditional Christian doctrine.

1. God is limited and finite. He became a god by discovering and living eternal principles. If he violates those principles he stops being a god. One of those eternal principles is justice. For every violation ("sin"), a penalty MUST be paid. Justice demands an accounting, which accounting not even god can violate. So god is absolutely just. No exceptions.

2. God is merciful. We are literally his offspring and just as any righteous parent loves his offspring he loves us and he wants to forgive us. But mercy cannot rob justice. A penalty MUST be paid for every violation ("sin"). There can be no exceptions. The opposing nature of mercy and justice presents a very real (and seemingly insurmountable) conundrum.

3. Justice and mercy can BOTH be satisfied if there is an independent third party. An intermediary is required to pay the demands of justice so that mercy can be extended to the guilty. That intermediary must have both the ability and the willingness to pay the debt of justice for others, which then enables god to extend mercy to those guilty others.

4. The (Christian) atonement is the means by which the intermediary pays the debt of others. That atonement required that a perfect (sinless) individual (a god if you will) volunteer to take upon himself the full burden of debt of billions of guilty individuals and pay their debt to justice. That debt required that he take upon himself the suffering of all those guilty people. That is an immense burden requiring unfathomable suffering to pay off. Only a perfect ("sinless") individual (a god) had the ability to do that. That individual would also need to have an unfathomable love for his siblings in order to have the willingness to do that. The basis of Christianity is that Jesus had both the ability and the willingness to do this. This atonement is the basis of the Christian concept of Jesus having "purchased/ransomed" us "with his blood" and "at a great price." The idea is that he "purchased" us from the unbending and relentless debt of justice that MUST be paid. If he does not pay the debt of justice for us, we must pay that debt ourselves with our own suffering. The imagery of "hell" in Christianity is that suffering.

The concept of atonement threads through many many different cultures/religions, both western and eastern and both ancient and modern. Anciently, it was the basis of sacrifice on a sacrificial altar. There was a debt to justice, and the sacrifice paid (at least partially or temporarily) that debt. The high holiest day in modern Judaism is Yom Kippur, the "Day of Atonement." In ancient Judaism the Law of Moses provided two scape goats. The sins of the people were ritually placed on the goats and one was offered on the altar as a burnt offering and the other was released into the wilderness. The intent of the ritual was to impress on the people's minds and hearts the coming of a future savior/messiah who would literally take upon him their debt of sin and atone for them. The current modern Christian ritual of the sacrament/eucharist is to impress on the person's mind and heart who paid the debt and how it was paid.

I hope this provided some clarification.

KenV
19th Oct 2016, 15:10
I'm assuming from the lack of much response from either KenV or yourself that neither of you are that keen on reincarnation or the idea of consciousness, whatever it is exactly, being closely tied to God?Please keep in mind the time zone differences when considering my "delay" in responding. And to answer your query, no I am not "keen on reincarnation", but I am very keen on the notion of our "consciousness" (I'll call it our "spirit") being "closely tied to god."

While logic can't really be thought of as things 'have to be' logical or they won't make sense', illogical things exist as a reality, quantum physics isn't explainable by logic as far as I know, but QM is real. What I'm trying to say is that maybe God isn't logical and any ideas about It don't have to be logical either......But my own ideas fit logically and comfortably while Ken's don't. Excuse me if a point out that the above seems to be self contradictory. On the one hand logic is not required. On the other hand, one person's ideas are "logical" (and even "comfortable") while Ken's are not. Which is it?

As for quantum mechanics, I'm sorry, but QM is very much "logical" and can be very rigorously expressed using mathematics. What QM is not is concrete or absolute and often not even precise. In quantum mechanics, all quantum systems are expressed in probabilities. Thus all quantum systems contain uncertainty and (almost) nothing in quantum systems are absolute. The uncertainty principle is an inherent property of the matter-wave nature of all quantum objects. So although quantum objects contain uncertainty, they are most certainly logical. They just just use the logic of statistical mathematics rather then the logic of absolute values of classical mathematics we learned in grade school.

If you reckon, for example, Jesus died on the cross for our sins because that's what the Bible says, then all the other things it says should have equal weightWhy??!!! The above statement is only true if it is assumed that the bible is "perfect" and "divine" and it most certainly is NOT!!! The bible is an assembly of writings that span millenia and multiple vastly different cultures. And all that writing was done by very imperfect and very fallible human beings. For example, one writer in this thread assumed that god must be a misogynist who only talks to men because the bible only mentions men receiving revelation. But what the bible says is a reflection of the HUMAN cultures that wrote and assembled it and in those cultures men did all the writing. So whatever revelations women received were simply never recorded and thus lost to us. The fact is, the bible contains only a tiny sliver of what god has revealed over the ages to a very narrow group of people. And LOTS of what was once in the bible has been lost. And lots of what remains contains all sorts of cultural/societal biases.

KenV
19th Oct 2016, 15:46
To be truthful, you'd either have to take the whole box and dice of one particular religion, with all its trappings, or none of it. If you do 'sign up' for one particular brand, you can't pick and choose which bits you like, otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole thing. Instead, I think it goes a bit like this - someone feels the touch of God, for want of a better phrase, and goes to church because that's what you do. The particular church has a whole lot of traditions and rules, and that's what you get involved in. But do you actually buy it, deep down?

Ken V, you have written a detailed list of how you think things go in the afterlife, and good luck to you, but it sounds like a particularly personal take. If it's the direct teachings of a church, OK, that's one thing, but you've come out with some specifics there that don't sound like any church teaching I've ever come across. Interesting. On the one hand the above argues for the hopelessness of joining a church after a person "feels the touch of God" and on the other hand KenV appears to be chastised for going his own "personal" way and not following "any church teaching I've ever come across."

But for the record, the views I have expressed are not mine alone and are shared by tens of millions of others across many nations, cultures, and societies.

Stan Woolley
19th Oct 2016, 16:51
Please keep in mind the time zone differences when considering my "delay" in responding. And to answer your query, no I am not "keen on reincarnation", but I am very keen on the notion of our "consciousness" (I'll call it our "spirit") being "closely tied to god."

Your point about time difference is noted.

I think we probably have different ideas about consciousness, but maybe not very different. :ok: Have you read any of Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation? Probably not, as many people haven't even heard of him, and why should they?

Excuse me if a point out that the above seems to be self contradictory. On the one hand logic is not required. On the other hand, one person's ideas are "logical" (and even "comfortable") while Ken's are not. Which is it?

I apologise, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't trying to say my ideas were logical and yours weren't. I got confuddled over QM, and was trying to say that illogical things exist in this reality, and though we may prefer to think that any 'theories' or ideas that we like should be logical, it's possible that the truth (whatever that is?) might not be.

As for quantum mechanics, I'm sorry, but QM is very much "logical" and can be very rigorously expressed using mathematics. What QM is not is concrete or absolute and often not even precise. In quantum mechanics, all quantum systems are expressed in probabilities. Thus all quantum systems contain uncertainty and (almost) nothing in quantum systems are absolute. The uncertainty principle is an inherent property of the matter-wave nature of all quantum objects. So although quantum objects contain uncertainty, they are most certainly logical. They just just use the logic of statistical mathematics rather then the logic of absolute values of classical mathematics we learned in grade school.

I am a University drop-out of Aero Engineering, so I'm sure that you have me at a disadvantage when it comes to Maths. However, I will stand my ground here and defend my position about QM being illogical.

Why, if it's logical, can no one explain it after 100years since it's discovery. It's sort of like the hard problem of consciousness, we can learn much about the brain, but consciousness remains a mystery. Why is Richard Feynman, one of the 20th Centuries most brilliant physicists, noted for coining the phrase(wiki says he didn't in fact) 'shut up and calculate' when it came to QM, he also said that 'nobody really understands QM' The fact that we can use QM for all sorts of things and that mathematically we can make sense of it, doesn't seem to me that it follows that it is logical.

Take for example the double slit experiment, explain that logically!

The uncertainty principle, is that 'spooky action at a distance?'. There's nothing logical about that?

I may be on thin ice here, but because we can use maths as a very effective tool to make things work, doesn't equate to the inner workings of the system being logical. If it were logical, even a dummy like me could be taught how it works eventually, I don't think anyone knows exactly how it works - precisely because it is so illogical.

If that's too much blah, just explain how the double slit is logical, without using maths. ;)

Stan Woolley
19th Oct 2016, 16:58
For those of you not familiar with the Double Slit Experiment, enjoy :ooh::


youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc

KenV
19th Oct 2016, 20:05
Have you read any of Ian Stevenson's research into reincarnation? Probably not, as many people haven't even heard of him, and why should they?I read Stevenson's Twenty Cases book many years ago, and later Schoder's Old Souls book which was based on Stevenson's work.

I was trying to say that illogical things exist in this reality, and though we may prefer to think that any 'theories' or ideas that we like should be logical, it's possible that the truth (whatever that is?) might not be.In my experience, if "the truth" is not "logical" it is because we are not looking at it correctly and not understanding the underlying principles. This goes way back. For millenia it was "illogical" to consider a spherical earth because anyone could look around and easily see a flat earth and anyone knows that people on the "wrong" side of a sphere would obviously fall off. It was "illogical" to consider the earth moving about the sun because it was obvious to even a casual observer that the sun moved in the sky above the earth.

Why, if it's logical, can no one explain (quantum mechanics) after 100years since it's discovery. Actually, quantum mechanics has been rigorously explained for quite some time. Yes, certain affects of QM are non intuitive and difficult to explain without the listener understanding the underlying principles, just as it would be difficult for you to explain to an ancient Greek or Babylonian scholar that the earth moved about the sun. Consider that Newton, who literally invented the concept of gravity, and who literally invented the branch of mathematics that explains the physics of motion was baffled by gravity and found gravity's "action at a distance" to be "illogical."

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. -Sir Isaac Newton, 1692.

But the "illogic" of "action at a distance" (which BTW originate with observations of gravity and electro magnetism and NOT with quantum mechanics) was easily understood once Maxwell developed the field equations that governed electromagnetism. And by the way, "action at a distance" in quantum mechanics is NOT related to the uncertainty principle, but to quantum entanglement.

I believe you are confusing "non intuitive" with "non logical." There are countless "illogical" effects that result from Einstein's theories of relativity which have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. For example, it's "not logical" that objects which approach the speed of light increase in mass, decrease in length, and time literally slows down relative to objects at rest. And it's "not logical" that time slows for objects in a gravity well relative to objects outside the gravity well. And it's "not logical" that gravity is not a force at all but is actually a (mis)perception of force resulting from the local curvature of space-time. And it's "not logical" that gravity can bend light even though gravity depends on mass and light has no mass. Everyone knows that if they are travelling at 30MPH and a ball is traveling at 30MPH that the relative speed is 60MPH if the directions is opposite and is 0MPH if the direction is the same. So it is "not logical" that the speed of light is the same for moving objects no matter which direction they travel relative to the light. And so on and so on. But all these effects are all completely logical (although they remain non intuitive) once the underlying principles as explained by Einstein are understood. So too with quantum mechanics. There is nothing "illogical" about it. Only non-intuitive.

Arm out the window
19th Oct 2016, 21:59
Why??!!! The above statement is only true if it is assumed that the bible is "perfect" and "divine" and it most certainly is NOT!!!

OK, so who decides which bits are the word of God and which aren't?

The fact is, the bible contains only a tiny sliver of what god has revealed over the ages to a very narrow group of people.

How do you know this is fact, and how do you identify the lucky chosen ones?

on the other hand KenV appears to be chastised for going his own "personal" way and not following "any church teaching I've ever come across."


I'm certainly not attempting to chastise you or anyone, Ken. I'm simply pointing out what to me is a massive contradiction in the whole organised religion mess - either God's word is known to be true and followed explicitly, or you might as well forget the whole thing (holy buildings, ceremonies, clothes, thou shalts and shalt nots, crusades and jihads etc etc) and let everyone worship how they want.

But for the record, the views I have expressed are not mine alone and are shared by tens of millions of others across many nations, cultures, and societies.

Are they? From what you've written, it appears there's a strong element of your own personal take on things like how God came to be, phases of the afterlife and so on.
It's your right to cherry-pick ideas from various religions and synthesise them into your own view, of course, but that contradicts the concept of a particular truth and casts doubt on any of the so-called 'certainties' of religion, doesn't it?

Stan Woolley
19th Oct 2016, 22:15
Actually, quantum mechanics has been rigorously explained for quite some time.

Mmm, not according to Prof Jim Al-Khalili, who said this about the double slit experiment.

"If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, as there's a Nobel prize for you."

youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ

Loose rivets
20th Oct 2016, 00:22
Thanks KenV and everyone. Have read in. Too zonked out to input much tonight. BTW, I take 'action at a distance' to be, Ghostly action at a distance?

I so want there to be a 5th force.

Incidentally, New Braunfels is the only place in Texas I've been presented with a roundabout. Only a small one, but I almost went around it the wrong way.


QM. "God doesn't play dice". Einstein didn't like the idea that such dice-like randomness was a deep part of the universe. Niels Bohr is reputed to have answered, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."


There are some good interpretations of the double slit experiment now but it's almost as if there's one version of reality up to the barrier and another after the wave function breaks down.

Stan Woolley
20th Oct 2016, 07:41
And by the way, "action at a distance" in quantum mechanics is NOT related to the uncertainty principle, but to quantum entanglement.

I believe you are confusing "non intuitive" with "non logical." There are countless "illogical" effects that result from Einstein's theories of relativity which have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. For example, it's "not logical" that objects which approach the speed of light increase in mass, decrease in length, and time literally slows down relative to objects at rest. So it is "not logical" that the speed of light is the same for moving objects no matter which direction they travel relative to the light. And so on and so on. But all these effects are all completely logical (although they remain non intuitive) once the underlying principles as explained by Einstein are understood. So too with quantum mechanics. There is nothing "illogical" about it. Only non-intuitive.

Sorry about mixing up the uncertainty principle with quantum entanglement, I should have googled before posting so sloppily.

I will confess that maybe my definition of logic is the everyday one that I think of as applying when say 2+ 2 = 4. There may be other definitions that I neither know about or would easily understand.

So what you appear to be saying is that certain elements of QM or Relativity are illogical until the underlying principles are understood. I can semi-agree to this, but surely something that is illogical in someone's mind will remain that way for at least some unknown time even after they are taught/understand the underlying principles? Or so it seems to me. Another way of saying that would be that there would not be an instantaneous transformation from illogical to suddenly logical. My mind certainly doesn't work that way as far as I know!

BUT my assertion is that the underlying principles of at least some aspects of QM are far from understood, therefore they must still be illogical even by your own standards. I notice that you totally ignored the double slit in your otherwise meaty reply? What are the underlying principles of 'spooky action at a distance?'

I think your falling into the trap of thinking we know more than we really do. Yes/No ?

Pace
20th Oct 2016, 09:01
We have not really touched on why we need religion which goes way beyond Christianity and back to tribal religions
Voodoism is actually a misunderstood religion

What is Voodoo? Understanding a Misunderstood Religion | Huffington Post (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/827947)

What all religions have in common is that they give a support mechanism to life's problems and the loss of loved ones!
It must be a huge relief to face the rest of your life alone when your partner dies with the strong belief that you will be reunited after death or can still feel that persons presence or still talk to them!
We are so in need of answers we surely have to create a bigger meaning to our existence than just living and dying but as yet there is little evidence of that only a desperate universal search to make us different to the animals we eat

Stan Woolley
20th Oct 2016, 09:45
We are so in need of answers we surely have to create a bigger meaning to our existence than just living and dying but as yet there is little evidence of that only a desperate universal search to make us different to the animals we eat

I think that even knowing that is a big part of showing that you're 'awake', to risk the use of a spiritual term! :ok:

I think things are changing, and not slowly either. Brexit, the mad presidential election etc all point to a shakeup of some sort.

KenV
20th Oct 2016, 16:18
OK, so who decides which bits are the word of God and which aren't?First of all, ALL of the bible was written by people, not god. Most of those people were inspired to write what they wrote, so yes, god's influence is in the writing. But cultural and societal influences are also in the writing. Since the point of the scriptures are to guide one's personal life to bring one's life into conformance with god's desires for us, we get to decide how to apply what is in those scriptures.

That being said, the scriptures also provide a value system that societies/cultures and their government can use as a basis for law. For example laws against murder, manslaughter, theft, enslavement, assault, etc and laws protecting private property. Religious groups can also use those scriptures to decide how THEIR group will pray, worship, conduct rituals, etc.

Ken:The fact is, the bible contains only a tiny sliver of what god has revealed over the ages to a very narrow group of people.
Q: How do you know this is fact, and how do you identify the lucky chosen ones?How? It is self evident. Abraham was the great patriarch of the bible. He had EIGHT sons and ALL of his descendants would inherit ALL the blessings promised to Abraham. But the bible follows the descendants of only ONE of them. Every once in a while the biblical account mentions these other lines in passing (For example after Moses was cast out of Egypt, he fled to Midian. While there, he married Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, who is descended from Abraham through one of his other sons.)

As for the "lucky chosen", there was no luck involved. "The chosen" were not chosen to be saved. "The chosen" were chosen to accomplish a great task, prepare the world for the coming messiah. They failed much more than they succeeded and were chastized, cursed, and driven much more than they were blessed.

I'm simply pointing out what to me is a massive contradiction in the whole organised religion mess - either God's word is known to be true and followed explicitly, or you might as well forget the whole thing (holy buildings, ceremonies, clothes, thou shalts and shalt nots, crusades and jihads etc etc) and let everyone worship how they want.It is exceedingly rare that an "all or nothing" approach is workable, much less correct. And all or nothing with regards to the bible is literally impossible because some of what is in the bible is totally dependent on the local culture which no longer exists.

From what you've written, it appears there's a strong element of your own personal take on things like how God came to be, phases of the afterlife and so on.
It's your right to cherry-pick ideas from various religions and synthesise them into your own view, of course, but that contradicts the concept of a particular truth and casts doubt on any of the so-called 'certainties' of religion, doesn't it? You are ill informed. There are literally well over ten million people worldwide who share my religious views and have formally accepted membership in an "organized religion" that teaches these religious views/doctrines.

KenV
20th Oct 2016, 16:27
BUT my assertion is that the underlying principles of at least some aspects of QM are far from understood, therefore they must still be illogical even by your own standards.I totally agree and concede your point. But that's true of just about every branch of theoretical physics. As for humanity knowing less than we think we know, the record is very clear. Every time humanity answers one question that answer begets at least 10 and often 10s of thousands more questions. In other words, as the sum total of man's knowledge grows, his ignorance grows far more. And that is EXACTLY why we have religion: 1) to give meaning/perspective to all that growing ignorance and 2) to answer questions science not only cannot answer, but cannot even ask.

Pace
20th Oct 2016, 16:28
Ken

Through interest what religion is that ?

Pace
20th Oct 2016, 17:51
Ken I take your point that science cannot give answers and mans knowledge is very limited but religion cannot give factual answers only guesswork or bestow faith in something which brings comfort!
There are many religions which hold diffrent views what makes yours the true answer above another religion ?
It may give the answers you accept but that does not mean that answer is correct any more than the terrorists who crashed into the twin towers will be enjoying rewards in heaven and dozens of virgins! Sadly for them

Hempy
20th Oct 2016, 18:40
The fact that mankind doesn't know shit is the whole reason religion exists at all. It's there to give answers to the unknown.

Arm out the window
20th Oct 2016, 22:10
Ken, the way you put your arguments highlights the difference between religion and science, and also why I find it impossible to agree with faiths that say "this is how it is, and this is how we worship".

You say Abraham did this and that, god is perfectly just, the chosen were chosen and so on as if these things are, as you put it, self-evident. That's just not true - just because something is written, or said, or perpetuated through the centuries as a belief, doesn't give it any particular credence if there's no proof.

Scientific principles stand to be questioned, always, whereas religion, like crystal healing and fortune telling, proclaims itself to be true and can rebut any attempt at debunking by falling back on the 'Well, you can't say it's NOT true, can you?' principle.

Pace
21st Oct 2016, 08:30
As I said the twin tower terrorists really believe that swiping at the corrupt west will give them riches in heaven and scores of Virgins! Maybe they are having a different virgin every night of the week ))

Their belief is just as valid as any other religious belief but they will be very dissapointed ! Or maybe not as they won't know? Or maybe they will ? No one knows we just have faith like they did
But most won't have it right maybe a few will have it right or maybe none of us have it right

The other problem is that all this history revolves around a very limited area of the world ? What happened with the rest of the world ?

Stan Woolley
21st Oct 2016, 10:45
KenV

As for humanity knowing less than we think we know, the record is very clear. Every time humanity answers one question that answer begets at least 10 and often 10s of thousands more questions. In other words, as the sum total of man's knowledge grows, his ignorance grows far more. And that is EXACTLY why we have religion: 1) to give meaning/perspective to all that growing ignorance and 2) to answer questions science not only cannot answer, but cannot even ask.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I find the first part of your paragraph refreshingly humble, something I often find lacking in Science nowadays.

I can find answers to the same Big Questions you have highlighted in the second part without having to be involved with any one religion. I feel the same Awe that you do about (insert your preferred name) you prefer to call whatever put me on earth and however the universe came to be. I have only quite recently come to see how incredibly lucky I am to be here, I am thankful for that precious gift.

Thank you.

Hempy
21st Oct 2016, 11:11
I've been told that there had to be something before the 'big bang'. 'Where did that energy come from? There had to be a beginning!'

'Why?' is my reply

I've heard tell that before the big bang there was nothing. 'God' (of whichever flavour) set the wheels in motion apparently.

My favourite theory is that the current Universe will continue to expand untill the force of its own gravity overwhelms the explosive force of the original bang. At that stage the universe will begin to contract, and time will run backwards.

All the way back to the start, and then at the event horizon it will all happen all over again.

Déjà vu and reincarnation explained in a nutshell :ok:

Loose rivets
21st Oct 2016, 12:40
Sorry, on a morning re-read, I spotted my mistake.

But the "illogic" of "action at a distance" (which BTW originate with observations of gravity and electro magnetism and NOT with quantum mechanics)

Pace
21st Oct 2016, 17:06
If Space was an empty void going for eternity then there must have been an immense lump of matter to explode into all the fragments which create the Universe?
When you think of the billions of stars, planets some vastly bigger than the earth and put all those together whatever exploded to create the inverse must have been an incredible unbelievable size!
Another theory is that we look at things in our own dimension and understanding ?
The universe could be no bigger than a drop of water? Of something much larger!

The principal of that being that microscopic bacteria would only know the drop of water they live in and could not imagine the vastness of the world outside that drop

It's strange as a pilot I am always amazed on taking off how you see houses and realise that in each of those houses are people living with all their worries and life problems
As you climb those individual houses shrink and dissappear into now an estate the previous size of the house
The individual people become less significant, the estate more
Then you climb more and the estates disappear to be cities!
The estates less significant the City now significant

And so on into Space ( not Me )) where the cities blend away to be replaced by continents
In some ways it makes you realise how insignicant we are in the great scheme of things

That experience got me thinking that while at our own level and scale we are so important to each other yet we as individuals have no meaning to the scale of the universe we might as well be that bacteria in a drop of water

Stan Woolley
21st Oct 2016, 17:31
If Space was an empty void going for eternity then there must have been an immense lump of matter to explode into all the fragments which create the Universe?
When you think of the billions of stars, planets some vastly bigger than the earth and put all those together whatever exploded to create the inverse must have been an incredible unbelievable size!
Another theory is that we look at things in our own dimension and understanding ?
The universe could be no bigger than a drop of water? Of something much larger!

The principal of that being that microscopic bacteria would only know the drop of water they live in and could not imagine the vastness of the world outside that drop

That's why I think the Universe is much more likely to be something along holographic lines, or even more likely, it's all mental a la Idealism. I've never experienced a dream that felt like reality, but I tend to believe some people who have. Reality is along those lines imo.

Pace
21st Oct 2016, 18:29
Stan but that also beggars the question that within all that Space some we cannot look at how many planets have an atmosphere made of nitrogen and oxygen or even another gas and oxygen as well as temperatures which can sustain life forms ?
I cannot remember the scientific calculations but the chances are very high
They maybe creatures designed to withstand much colder or hotter climates and beings which are far more advanced than man?

There are religions where it is believed that man made man in his own likeness and placed him on earth as some sort of experiment!
We talked before of how natured improved the genetic make up by allowing the weak to die
Some argue that it's our genetic makeup which lives on passed from us to our children and then theirs
I am not saying that that is my belief as I do believe in a spiritual element maybe a dual element of ourselves or what some would call our higher selves which connect to us through parrallel lives one in the spiritual world one other material

But there is so much we don't know and may never know
All we do know is that a vast number need a God a religion to give meaning to this life and help as comfort for all the pain it throws at us

Loose rivets
22nd Oct 2016, 00:17
I've found it! I've found the answer to the big question. Roger had it all along.


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TLzbC_le4FEC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=einstein+stopped+in+the+middle+of+the+road+with+his+arms+ out&source=bl&ots=-hsIy0ErLo&sig=CaF6QmFEW7uhqSL6jv6d6895mMs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikrLGmg-3PAhXBhRoKHRtQAOAQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=einstein%20stopped%20in%20the%20middle%20of%20the%20road%2 0with%20his%20arms%20out&f=false


I say! Do read on. It seems terribly funny.

Pace
22nd Oct 2016, 11:43
It is fact that time slows with speed
Pilots are younger )) after flying at 500 kts all their lives they are a fraction of a second younger than their ground based counterparts
That follows an American test where they built a spinning arm in a circular concrete building and spun it not to the speed of light but to an incredible speed
They had a piece of radioactive material which was split one piece travelling at high speed the other stationary.
The high speed part was measured as younger than the stationary part

And of course with the speed of light we get to black holes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

How does this fit with the theory of an after life and the mystery of the universe ?

Stan Woolley
22nd Oct 2016, 12:10
Stan but that also beggars the question that within all that Space some we cannot look at how many planets have an atmosphere made of nitrogen and oxygen or even another gas and oxygen as well as temperatures which can sustain life forms ?
I cannot remember the scientific calculations but the chances are very high

I still think you're limiting your thinking in a materialistic way, I think reality is mental rather than physical. Although these things you are talking about still exist, are real, they are all part of something like layers of onion, different dimensions.

It's something intuitive with me, I am the type of person that would drive Prof Brian Cox batty!!! Haha

Loose rivets
23rd Oct 2016, 00:59
He's quoted as saying that 150 people a month write to him explaining why GR is wrong.

It is I think, the most tested theory in the history of science. When I dream of my inflow model I know it has to comply with GR or it won't erm, fly. :8

Back to time:

The first really definitive test was I believe, Caesium clocks aboard jet transport aircraft. The results were as Einstein predicted.

KenV
23rd Oct 2016, 04:04
You say Abraham did this and that, god is perfectly just, the chosen were chosen and so on as if these things are, as you put it, self-evident.You misunderstood me. Someone asked how do we know the bible only contains a tiny sliver of what god has revealed. We know this because it is self evident from the bible itself. That is the extent of what is self evident. The rest is NOT self evident and requires a lot of study, meditation, prayer, and more. As for the bible itself, it makes no claims to be complete or to be a record of everything god has revealed. Just the fact that the bible follows only one line out of Abraham's eight lines, it cannot be complete. We also don't know about any other individuals god made special covenants with. Abraham may not have been the only one and in my opinion was likely not the only one. We just happen to have his record. This is pure speculation, but I think we will eventually get additional records from the other Abrahamic lines and perhaps even from lines other than Abraham.

KenV
23rd Oct 2016, 04:12
Ken, the way you put your arguments highlights the difference between religion and science, and also why I find it impossible to agree with faiths that say "this is how it is, and this is how we worship". Ummmm, I was VERY careful to always state that I was expressing my beliefs and was not "stating fact." In short, I have NEVER said "this is how it is" as claimed above. I have always said "This is what I believe." There is a vast difference.

Stan Woolley
23rd Oct 2016, 08:54
Ummmm, I was VERY careful to always state that I was expressing my beliefs and was not "stating fact." In short, I have NEVER said "this is how it is" as claimed above. I have always said "This is what I believe." There is a vast difference.

I find this very interesting. I'm not trying to judge anyone, I'm just trying to gain insight. If anyone is offended, I apologise in advance, it isn't my intention.

I am not a fan of the 'believe' word where such subjects are concerned. To me it nails things down in a permanent way, leaving no way in or out. If your belief in anything is 100% surely you are in effect saying 'This is how I believe it is' No? Leaving no space for other people's possibly strongly held beliefs to go. It automatically builds a wall. Where religion is concerned, for some reason people get easily offended, I think it is the ego at work. The ego is a useful tool, it can also become a suicide bomber. We haven't yet reached the stage where we are all Buddha like, where we can listen to any opinion, any idea, even the most 'offensive' ones possible, and still not get offended in any way.

Let's say that we eventually meet aliens, aliens from the future, far in advance of us. Their leader is talking to the 'leader of the free world' Obama, or maybe even President Trump! :eek: The leader of the aliens asks "What are your peoples thoughts on religion?" What would the answer be on behalf of the 7 billion human inhabitants? What would your answer be? (Anyone, not just Ken)

Pace
23rd Oct 2016, 11:32
Stan

That's presuming as superior intelligent beings that they would converse with us on the same level and not regard us as some inferior creature like a sheep ?

Talking of animals Dogs are a mans best friend and offer huge comfort and love to people who have lost loved ones!
When you think of the loyalty devotion and selfless love as well as the understanding and instincts these creatures have are they not worthy of a soul?
You only have to see the devotion of guide dogs
My energy beliefs would say Yes
In someways their love is unquestioning and in many ways they are far better than us and loved as much as a child

Just another thought to put in the mix
In a way their love is more pure than our own and less conditional

Stan Woolley
23rd Oct 2016, 12:08
Stan

That's presuming as superior intelligent beings that they would converse with us on the same level and not regard us as some inferior creature like a sheep ?

Talking of animals Dogs are a mans best friend and offer huge comfort and love to people who have lost loved ones!
When you think of the loyalty devotion and selfless love as well as the understanding and instincts these creatures have are they not worthy of a soul?
You only have to see the devotion of guide dogs
My energy beliefs would say Yes
In someways their love is unquestioning and in many ways they are far better than us and loved as much as a child

Just another thought to put in the mix
In a way their love is more pure than our own an less conditional

That may be why there hasn't been contact. Assuming the materialist Universe, which of course I don't favour, any beings advanced enough to travel such great distances would surely have long since outgrown our own selfish consciousness.

I think dogs, and many other animals besides, perhaps all things that have consciousness, have qualities that we should learn from instead of assuming superiority over. Things could be so different.

Arm out the window
23rd Oct 2016, 22:51
Someone asked how do we know the bible only contains a tiny sliver of what god has revealed. We know this because it is self evident from the bible itself. That is the extent of what is self evident.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how any of it can be self-evident, Ken.
Study, prayer and so on can perhaps give you a deep knowledge of the available texts and interpretations of them, and allow you to form beliefs and opinions, but the veracity of the original information, including the parts I gather you have accepted as truth (which is of course your business and not for me to question), isn't affected by that.

Once you've accepted any part of it as true, then of course you can build all sorts of lines of reasoning from that foundation, but if the original start point (e.g. Abraham receives the direct word of god, or anything of that nature) isn't real, the rest of it collapses.

The fact is, the bible contains only a tiny sliver of what god has revealed over the ages to a very narrow group of people.

This is a belief, not a fact.

Ascend Charlie
24th Oct 2016, 01:32
If you hear a voice in your head telling you to sacrifice your son to prove your faith, or saying you need to cut the end off your d1ck, and all your sons' as well, would you do it? Ignore the story about Abe doing it, I am asking you right now - would you do it? Or your wife tells you she is pregnant, that you are not the father, and that an imaginary being did it? How long could you suspend disbelief in the real world, not inside the world of the bible?

And Ken has already opened the door on the possibility of numbers of other gods running numbers of other universes.He has already said that he held heretic beliefs. His posts here, then, would just seem to be musings of personal beliefs and not particularly true to The Gospel Truth, as such.

The bible in common use is the King James version, and although he did a good job with it, he purposefully omitted many books written by many persons, which had appeared in earlier versions of bibles, and tailored his version to sit with the customs of the time. So sadly it is not TGT, it is King Jimmy's politically correct version of TGT.

KenV
24th Oct 2016, 15:30
I am not a fan of the 'believe' word where such subjects are concerned. To me it nails things down in a permanent way, leaving no way in or out. If your belief in anything is 100% surely you are in effect saying 'This is how I believe it is' No?.....Actually, NO. I am very close friends with many good catholic and traditional Christian people. I don't believe in "original sin" or infant baptism. I also don't believe in the trinity. Those are very basic, fundamental beliefs of catholicism and many traditional Christian faiths.

...Leaving no space for other people's possibly strongly held beliefs to go. It automatically builds a wall.Although our beliefs are fundamentally different, we are not only close friends, but can have cordial discussions about the differences in our faith as well as the differences in our faith traditions. So there is LOTS of room for our "strongly held beliefs to go," and there is no "wall" at all, never mind an "automatic wall." Keep in mind that I live in Texas, which is in the heart of the US's "bible belt." There are lots of evangelical christians and southern baptists here with strongly held beliefs. There are also lots of Hispanics here who are predominantly catholic, most quite devout. We all get along just fine and there is no "wall" between us.

Let's say that we eventually meet aliens, aliens from the future, far in advance of us. Their leader is talking to the 'leader of the free world' Obama, or maybe even President Trump! http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif The leader of the aliens asks "What are your peoples thoughts on religion?" What would the answer be on behalf of the 7 billion human inhabitants? What would your answer be? (Anyone, not just Ken) My answer would be that the peoples and cultures of earth have a very wide variety of belief systems and as wide a variety of religious traditions. The majority have a faith tradition stemming from an ancient patriarch named Abraham who lived roughly 4000 years ago. That tradition includes three major religions: Judaism and Christianity (which follows the same descendant's line, Isaac) and Islam (which follows another descendant's line, Ishmael.) However, each of those three religions has numerous sub branches.

While we are conjecturing, suppose this alien were to say that their predominant religion includes a savior/messiah, with some awaiting the coming of this savior/messiah and others believing he had already come and were anxiously awaiting his return.

KenV
24th Oct 2016, 15:33
Talking of animals Dogs are a mans best friend and offer huge comfort and love to people who have lost loved ones!
When you think of the loyalty devotion and selfless love as well as the understanding and instincts these creatures have are they not worthy of a soul?
You only have to see the devotion of guide dogs
My energy beliefs would say Yes
In someways their love is unquestioning and in many ways they are far better than us and loved as much as a child I'm reasonably confident in my belief that animals have "souls" or "spirits" similar to humans. The difference for me is that human souls are the literal offspring of god and animal souls have a different origin, which I am ignorant of.

Pace
24th Oct 2016, 16:07
Ken V
I took the girlfriend to a drive through zoo and took the most amazing video of a Monkey his wife and young child who decided to sit on the bonnet of our car!
It was hilarious to watch the wife picking and cleaning her husband and the husband doing the same for his beloved!
While this was going on the young kid was running riot like our own climbing up the windscreen onto the roof and being called back by the father who told the kid off

Yes there was a comparison with us and the family unit but it got me thinking ?
Their lives were so much simpler and stress free !

No getting up in the morning, having a shower, selecting clean clothes of the latest designer style all colour CO ordinated. Our expectations way high!

No checking of E mails, running for trains to get to work! No worries about making money, paying bills or satisfying demands for the best house, schools or holidays!

No text messages to the piece of fluff in the office with the short skirt who will end up wrecking the marriage! Etc etc etc

That was what struck me more than the animal family unit ?
Maybe we have it wrong and they have it right ?

A much purer life! Yet they displayed more commitment more caring than we do and as with dogs devotion a purer more genuine love than our conditional one ! And our we want we want we expect!

How does all this fit into religion I don't know ? But something doesn't add up ?

KenV
24th Oct 2016, 16:26
Ken: The fact is, the bible contains only a tiny sliver of what god has revealed over the ages to a very narrow group of people.
Reply: This is a belief, not a fact. I concede the point. Allow me to rephrase. The contents of the bible itself, along with the contents of many other ancient texts clearly build a picture to me that the bible contains only a tiny sliver of what god has revealed over the ages. I base this statement on the fact that Abraham is introduced in the 11th chapter of genesis and the entire old and new testaments are then built upon the Abrahamic Covenant. And although Abraham lived to be 175 year old, the bible only provides a very short account of Abraham's life and only a tiny account of what god revealed to Abraham in those 175 years. He lived many years in Egypt (the superpower of that age) and the bible only provides a tiny sliver of his experiences there and little to nothing of what he learned and what was revealed to him there. By chapter 25 Abraham is dead. There are several texts (not included in the bible) that provide much greater insights into his life, including his time in Egypt. Abraham's birthright son Isaac lived to be 180 years old and the account of his life is even shorter than his father's and the accounts of what god revealed to him even shorter than that

Abraham had seven other sons besides Isaac. The bible contains almost nothing about those other sons even though all of them were co-inheritors of the Abrahamic covenant. That's a pretty big gap.

Isaac's second son was Jacob who was later renamed Israel. We have a short account of Jacob's life and a sliver of what god revealed to him. Jacob had twelve sons and the bible only really discusses his eleventh son, Joseph, who ended up rising to become the #2 guy in all of Egypt, still that world's superpower. We don't know what god revealed to Joseph other than the two dreams involving his brothers. After Joseph moves his father's entire household to Egypt the bible is silent on what happened and what was revealed to them for several generations and until Moses is born 400 years later. If find these large gaps in the biblical record to be "self evident" that the bible only contains a portion of what god revealed to a few of his servants. And I find that the bible being totally silent on what god revealed to other servants (both within and outside Abraham's line) to be "self evident" that the biblical narrative is incomplete.

I understand that some believe the bible to be complete, inerrant, and to be taken 100% literally. My belief is clearly quite different. I apologize for characterizing my belief as "fact" and others' belief as erroneous or otherwise flawed. That was not my intent and admittedly an arrogance on my part.

KenV
24th Oct 2016, 16:32
And Ken has already opened the door on the possibility of numbers of other gods running numbers of other universes.He has already said that he held heretic beliefs. His posts here, then, would just seem to be musings of personal beliefs and not particularly true to The Gospel Truth, as such.I generally agree with the above synopsis. My only question is, why are some of my views considered those of a "heretic" and why are they inconsistent with "The Gospel Truth". For that matter, what is "The Gospel Truth"?

KenV
24th Oct 2016, 16:51
Ken V
I took the girlfriend to a drive through zoo and took the most amazing video of a Monkey his wife and young child who decided to sit on the bonnet of our car!
It was hilarious to watch the wife picking and cleaning her husband and the husband doing the same for his beloved!I do not mean to be offensive, but the idea that monkeys are "married" and have a "wife/husband" type relationship seems to run counter to the vast majority of simians. In other words, monogamy is rather rare among our simian cousins and almost absent among the great apes, our nearest cousins.

As for their lives being more "stress free" I have to wonder. Yes, their lives appear to be rather idyllic in captivity for some years, but "stress free"? There is often lots of violence within and among simian populations and lots of predation on them from a wide variety of predators. That is hardly stress free. Further, while some would describe their lives to be "stress free" in many respects (as are dogs' lives who live with human families), I would call that life immensely boring and stunting.

And on the subject of stunting, that seems to fit right into this thread on human philosophy. Are humans "intended" to live a stress free idyllic life? Or is this life specifically intended to stretch us and encourage growth? And to put this in traditional christian religious terms, were humans intended to "live in the garden of eden" their whole lives, or was "the fall" what was really intended all along so humans could gain the experience necessary to "become as the gods, knowing good from evil."

Ascend Charlie
24th Oct 2016, 22:28
Ken:
My only question is, why are some of my views considered those of a "heretic"

Ummm.... could it be because you yourself said so?

Stan Woolley
24th Oct 2016, 22:35
Although our beliefs are fundamentally different, we are not only close friends, but can have cordial discussions about the differences in our faith as well as the differences in our faith traditions. So there is LOTS of room for our "strongly held beliefs to go," and there is no "wall" at all, never mind an "automatic wall." Keep in mind that I live in Texas, which is in the heart of the US's "bible belt." There are lots of evangelical christians and southern baptists here with strongly held beliefs. There are also lots of Hispanics here who are predominantly catholic, most quite devout. We all get along just fine and there is no "wall" between u

You might see enough of a difference between the people you're talking about, but from my point of view I would say the people you've described are all much of a muchness. I really meant including the worlds many people, not just different shades of Christian. What about atheists, Buddhists etc?

While we are conjecturing, suppose this alien were to say that their predominant religion includes a savior/messiah, with some awaiting the coming of this savior/messiah and others believing he had already come and were anxiously awaiting his return.

I'd say to him. "Well you're 100000 years more advanced that us. How long are you prepared to wait?" :)

Arm out the window
25th Oct 2016, 10:29
I apologize for characterizing my belief as "fact" and others' belief as erroneous or otherwise flawed. That was not my intent and admittedly an arrogance on my part.

No worries from my point of view, Ken.

Beliefs are precious and far be it from me to criticise anyone on that basis, it's more me trying to get a sense how of why believers believe from the other side of the fence, so to speak.

If you guys are correct, I'll probably end up in a pretty bad way in the afterlife, so perhaps I should try and hedge my bets! Like I say, organised religion doesn't make any sense to me and I couldn't go to church or sing a hymn without feeling like a hypocrite.

However, I'm very willing to admit there could be anything out there, I just don't reckon any of the stuff that currently passes for proof cuts it.

Ascend Charlie
25th Oct 2016, 11:16
So far, nobody has offered any comment on sacrificing their son after hearing voices in their head. (Charles Manson is not eligible to answer this one)

Is "god speaking to a man" something that only happened a squillion years ago? Why did he stop speaking? It all seemed to happen back in the Sand Ages, with no witnesses, so we rely on the word of one person. If he is still speaking, where is the Youtube footage?

KenV
25th Oct 2016, 13:29
Ummm.... could it be because you yourself said so? Sorry, I framed my question poorly. I understand (and stated) that in some quarters of traditional christianity my views would be considered blasphemous/heretical. What I don't quite understand is why. Why do some traditional christian faiths view the notion of humans being co-heirs with Jesus to inherit all that god has to be blasphemous/heretical?

KenV
25th Oct 2016, 13:44
You might see enough of a difference between the people you're talking about, but from my point of view I would say the people you've described are all much of a muchness. I really meant including the worlds many people, not just different shades of Christian. What about atheists, Buddhists etc?There are plenty of Muslims here in Texas and many more arriving daily. No "wall". When I lived in California there were lots of Buddhists (there were three different buddhist temples within 30 minutes drive from my home.), Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, etc etc in our community. There was no sign of the "automatic wall" you claimed exists. However, there was one group that painstakingly erected a wall around themselves. That was around the agnostics/atheists in the community. They were insistent that the constitutional right to freedom of religion was actually a right to freedom from religion. They were insistent that any publicly visible sign or expression of religion was an infringement of their rights and needed to be removed/obscured.

Blacksheep
25th Oct 2016, 13:47
Just pondering...
The whole universe is only an illusion consequent upon the emergence of time, for space must have a time in which to exist. When time ceases to exist again (the true meaning of eternity?) we'll be back to the beginning. Will all that we have imagined then be something that never really happened?

I know what will be said: that time will run forever. But what does 'forever' mean?

KenV
25th Oct 2016, 13:55
If you guys are correct, I'll probably end up in a pretty bad way in the afterlife, so perhaps I should try and hedge my bets! I don't know who "you guys" are, but FWIW, in my belief system your afterlife state depends totally on the state of your heart and not on the religion you belong to. If you are sincerely kind, generous, forgiving, etc you'll be just fine, regardless if you were christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu, etc or atheist. If you've engaged in some "bad" behavior in your past and have given that up and changed your behavior and your heart, you'll be fine. And even the worst of the worst among us (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc) will be in a "bad way" only for a finite period. Even they will eventually be rescued/redeemed from their state of torment.

KenV
25th Oct 2016, 14:15
So far, nobody has offered any comment on sacrificing their son after hearing voices in their head.I don't believe that Abraham "heard voices in his head." I also believe that Abraham was given that directive to teach him by very personal example the nature of the sacrifice that would be performed by the coming messiah.


Is "god speaking to a man" something that only happened a squillion years ago?Nope.

Why did he stop speaking? What makes you believe he has? FWIW, I don't believe at all that he has stopped.

KenV
25th Oct 2016, 14:22
I know what will be said: that time will run forever. But what does 'forever' mean? We live in a four dimensional space-time continuum. Space and time are bound together in much the same way as the three dimensions of space are bound together. Space cannot exist without time and time cannot exist without space. There are multiple answers to the question of what will be the final state of our universe. Will it expand forever and slowly become so diffuse and cold that it effectively ceases to exist, or will expansion stop and reverse and the universe end in a "big crunch?" As it turns out, the most recent data suggests neither.

Stan Woolley
25th Oct 2016, 14:38
I don't know who "you guys" are, but FWIW, in my belief system your afterlife state depends totally on the state of your heart and not on the religion you belong to. If you are sincerely kind, generous, forgiving, etc you'll be just fine. If you've engaged in some "bad" behavior in your past and have given that up and changed your behavior and your heart, you'll be fine. And even the worst of the worst among us (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc) will be in a "bad way" only for a finite period. Even they will eventually be rescued/redeemed from their state of torment.

My own thoughts are along these lines. I was quite surprised to read that we are somewhat in agreement, it was a pleasant surprise. :ok:

Arm out the window
25th Oct 2016, 22:10
If you are sincerely kind, generous, forgiving, etc you'll be just fine, regardless if you were christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu, etc or atheist.


Well, this seems to go against what I'm sure I've seen and heard expressed in religious discourse many times - you have to accept their particular god into your heart and then you're good; if not, down you go! That's not going to see an atheist treated particularly well I would have thought!

If he is still speaking, where is the Youtube footage?
Here's something I put up in a writer's group a while back which has some relevance - tongue in cheek, so not meant to antagonise ...

SKYLIGHT

As amazingly advanced as it was, the sum of the world’s scientific brilliance was totally stumped trying to explain the huge flaming ball of light that appeared in the December night sky, growing brighter over time until it was easily seen in the day and threatened to outshine the sun.
Asteroid? No. Solar flares? Not even close. What then? No idea, but then the light made such questions redundant by touching down as a giant glowing tube, resting seamlessly on the Earth and stretching far, far up with no apparent end. Just enough time elapsed for the military, media and masses of ordinary gawkers to assemble when, over fifteen mesmerising minutes in a morphing spectacle of colour and mist, as if by magic, a man emerged. Everyone gasped – they’d seen him somewhere before! Then, realisation dawned.
It made sense that Jesus would be a master of public relations, and after the chaotic month of mass hysteria, conversions, murders and suicides following the Second Coming, things settled down enough that notions like talk show spots for the son of God became thinkable, then reality.
Ellen nervously fiddled with her lapel mike, on the verge of wetting herself. The sudden hush of the crowd told her it was time, and she raised her eyes to see the man himself emerge from the wings. No music, no cheering, just the quiet pad of his sandals, but then he smiled. The unbearable tension broke and the audience went berserk, screaming and applauding for all they were worth until he quieted them with a tiny hand gesture, took a seat and turned to her expectantly.
All professionalism deserted her, but Ellen managed to stammer out something resembling a welcome, and after a while found she could even produce actual questions. He was so gracious and lovely, so easy to talk to. He knew about Facebook and Twitter, and his comic timing was, well, divine. She was surfing his wave and they could have filled ten ratings-busting shows with banter, but she knew it was time to get a bit serious.
“So …” - she hesitated, blushed - “so, Mr Christ,”
“Please, call me Jesus – all my friends do!”
“Okay, Jesus – we’ve heard so many conflicting things about the meaning of your – revisit, shall we say? – that it all gets so confusing. Having had this time with you, I can feel that you only want the best for us, so – all that stuff about judgement day and burning in fire and brimstone, you know, that’s got to be metaphorical, lost in translation over the centuries, right?”
He laughed, such a beautiful sound, and she felt her heart lift, but then his expression sobered.
“Oh Ellen, the take-home message has never changed. Those without sin will be fine, better than fine, but the others – well, it’s destiny, and none of us, not even me, can change it. I mean, you yourself have lain with another woman, haven’t you? And regarding your follow-up question …” – he turned to wink knowingly at the camera – “… the answer is next Tuesday.”

Ascend Charlie
26th Oct 2016, 08:49
I don't believe that Abraham "heard voices in his head." I also believe that Abraham was given that directive to teach him by very personal example the nature of the sacrifice that would be performed by the coming messiah.

OK, Ken doesn't believe that Abraham heard voices, but does that fit with what the bible says, or is it Ken's beliefs?

I ask again, is there anybody alive in 2016, who considers him/herself sane, who would hear a voice telling him/her that it was the voice of god, and they had to kill their son, and would actually do it?

If there isn't, then it fits nicely with the Suspension of Disbelief when reading the bible, a charming piece of fiction mixed with some facts and some whopping fairy tales. A story from 3 thousand years ago, embellished along the way, and makes entertaining reading.

Arm out the window
26th Oct 2016, 10:17
Ken doesn't believe that Abraham heard voices

Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house,

God must have used sign language, perhaps.

Pace
26th Oct 2016, 12:15
There are mad people around today who do atrocious things believing voices in their head giuide them
But they are mad, insane

KenV
26th Oct 2016, 14:51
Well, this seems to go against what I'm sure I've seen and heard expressed in religious discourse many times - you have to accept their particular god into your heart and then you're good; if not, down you go! That's not going to see an atheist treated particularly well I would have thought!You're welcome to think whatever you want. I'm just saying that in my faith, how you behave and why (i.e. what is the state of your heart) is far far more important than the building you worship in. For me, the purpose of the latter (the building, etc) is to help you get your heart in the right place, and it is your heart that matters, not the building. Thus in my view, a compassionate, kind, generous non theist (like many buddhists) is far far better than a harsh, mean, greedy self declared christian who attends church every day.

KenV
26th Oct 2016, 15:41
OK, Ken doesn't believe that Abraham heard voices, but does that fit with what the bible says, or is it Ken's beliefs?Does my view "fit with what the bible says"? Why do you need to ask or speculate? There are countless translations of the bible readily available online. A 2 second Google search provided the following:

NIV Genesis 22: Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”“Here I am,” he replied. Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

KJV: Gensis 22: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

There is zero there about Abraham hearing "voices in his head". In other accounts where Abraham was given specific instruction from god, physical messengers were sent by god to deliver the instructions. Who were these messengers? Where did they come from? The bible is silent on that (but one "self evidence" that the bible is not complete), but the bible does make clear that Abraham recognized immediately that they were messengers from god. Some think they were angels. I doubt it because Abraham fed them and washed their feet. But who/what they were is peripheral to the account. The bottom line is that god sent actual physical messengers to Abraham and he received both direction and prophecy from them. There were no "voices in his head."

I ask again, is there anybody alive in 2016, who considers him/herself sane, who would hear a voice telling him/her that it was the voice of god, and they had to kill their son, and would actually do it?A few comments:
1. Abraham did not hear "voices in his head." He was given very specific instruction.
2. Child sacrifice was a common practice in the culture he lived in. Comparing that culture to the one "in 2016" is absurd.
3. Parents in the modern world have done and continue to do exactly what you describe by the millions. Indeed my parents did that. Millions of parents worldwide have sent and are sending their sons (and more recently, daughters) to die in wars in behalf of the state. There is very little difference.

KenV
27th Oct 2016, 12:49
I'd say to him. "Well you're 100000 years more advanced that us. How long are you prepared to wait?" http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gifHey! I like that! Here are visiting folks who likely have the knowledge and power to wipe out all of humanity and we welcome them not only by dismissing them, but arrogantly mocking them! What a wonderful idea!! http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Pace
27th Oct 2016, 15:06
There is zero there about Abraham hearing "voices in his head".

This was not Jesus a man for Abraham to converse with but God.

Did Abraham meet God walking along the road and have a chat or how did God converse with him?
Why would an all caring God want Abraham to murder his son? thats unGodlike

I remember maybe 10 years ago the controversy over a Roman Catholic black Priest in Africa telling a young woman She could not use contraception.

her Husband had contracted HIV/ Aids and the health workers had told her not to have unprotected sex with the Husband.
She went to her Priest as contraception was against the teaching of the Church.
His response to her was that if She contracted Aids that would be the will of God

Of course she did and both She and the Husband died leaving a young child on its own
This stupidity is what makes me mad over religion and why from being brought up RC I keep looking for something acceptable to me which makes any sense

Stan Woolley
27th Oct 2016, 15:37
I'd say to him. "Well you're 100000 years more advanced that us. How long are you prepared to wait?"

Hey! I like that! Here are visiting folks who likely have the knowledge and power to wipe out all of humanity and we welcome them not only by dismissing them, but arrogantly mocking them! What a wonderful idea!!


Hell yeah. See if they've a sense of humour? :\

KenV
27th Oct 2016, 15:39
Why would an all caring God want Abraham to murder his son? thats unGodlike Why? The answer to your query is in the fifth word of the account "Some time later God tested Abraham."

I remember maybe 10 years ago the controversy over a Roman Catholic black Priest in Africa telling a young woman She could not use contraception.
her Husband had contracted HIV/ Aids and the health workers had told her not to have unprotected sex with the Husband.
She went to her Priest as contraception was against the teaching of the Church.
His response to her was that if She contracted Aids that would be the will of God
Of course she did and both She and the Husband died leaving a young child on its own
This stupidity is what makes me mad over religion No doubt about it. A single anecdotal account that may or may not be true is grounds to pass judgment on and condemn all religion. Is that logical? Rational? Reasonable? Not so much

KenV
27th Oct 2016, 15:44
Hell yeah. See if they've a sense of humour? http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/wibble.gifAnd if they don't? That's like poking a 12 foot crocodile while standing in 6 ft of water to see "if it has a sense of humor." http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/wibble.gif Probably not the best idea.

Stan Woolley
27th Oct 2016, 18:44
And if they don't? That's like poking a 12 foot crocodile while standing in 6 ft of water to see "if it has a sense of humor." Probably not the best idea.

Do you think God has a sense of humour Ken?

Arm out the window
28th Oct 2016, 11:40
Why would an all caring God want Abraham to murder his son? thats unGodlike


Why? The answer to your query is in the fifth word of the account "Some time later God tested Abraham."


Well, if that was the case, I would be choosing my son over anything and taking the consequences, no matter what the stupid bloody test scenario. Further to AC's questions, would any of you guys do any different, seriously?

pulse1
28th Oct 2016, 12:24
Further to AC's questions, would any of you guys do any different, seriously?

In reality, no I wouldn't. But there are countless people who have demonstrated the courage and faith to do things I wouldn't be able to do. I suspect (hope?) that those of whom God demands much are also given much. I am afraid that the little faith that most of us have falters at a much lower level than that. Usually at the level of being genuinely nice to someone you can't stand.

Arm out the window
28th Oct 2016, 13:18
But there are countless people who have demonstrated the courage and faith to do things I wouldn't be able to do.

Are you trying to say that it would be a virtue to kill your son if God told you to?

Blacksheep
28th Oct 2016, 13:28
I guess if 'God' told me to kill my son I'd do it.
Paranoia is a strange mental disorder.

It's a bit like burning bushes talking to you when you're doing a bit of gardening and you end up wandering in the wilderness for forty years...

pulse1
28th Oct 2016, 14:24
Are you trying to say that it would be a virtue to kill your son if God told you to?

It would seem to be a virtue to trust God. The problem for us is that we can only see things from our own very limited perspective. As it turned out, Abraham did not have to kill his son but his willingness to trust God that far gave him a unique and vital credibility before the people he led.

GearDown&Locked
28th Oct 2016, 14:35
Do you think God has a sense of humour Ken?

When it comes to testing, humour doesn't really come into play.

Stan Woolley
28th Oct 2016, 14:40
When it comes to testing, humour doesn't really come into play.

What do you mean by 'testing'?