|
Post by placid-void on Sept 18, 2014 8:33:59 GMT -5
when plumping the pillows, smelling the autumn air or passing a vehicle, i relieze how perfect in fit form and function Gods world is. and how even though we'll never grasp all that is God he has blessed us with ALOT of time to figure SOME things out. What, exactly, to you see as perfect? I would like to take a crack at this question rational. But first I make an assumption that may not be valid; I assume that you intended your post to ask the question "What, exactly, do you see as perfect?" not "What, exactly, to you see as perfect?" If my assumption is not correct I will withdraw my response. One could begin to answer this question in any number of ways, I will begin with "the fine structure constant". As you know, it is a rather fundamental physical constant that must needs be "perfect" or little else really matters, does it? But perhaps that choice is a little too esoteric so next I think about "the carbon cycle", a pretty amazing and significant process. Ah, but you could challenge, the carbon cycle won't be perfect if we keep dumping all these greenhouse gasses and perhaps you will be correct, time will tell. But for the time being, I will leave my money on the resiliency of the process (brt that grates the sensibilities of the "man, master of all they behold" group.) Anticipating your challenge of formal definition (perfect, after all is defined as meaning "having no mistakes or flaws"), I yield. Carbon cycles and the various biomes that sustain themselves in dynamic equilibrium do accommodate a variety of flaws, errors, mistakes and withstand a variety of insults to their survival. But if one were to include the self-contained error correction mechanisms observed within these systems it would become increasingly difficult for me to argue against a claim of perfection. Perhaps you will demand retrenchment to "near-perfection". Continuing, homeostasis would find itself high on my list of things that "approximate" perfection. Can anyone truly fathom the precision with which the physiological processes of our body work "near flawlessly" second to second, minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, month to month, year to year, decade to decade? Indeed, they fail. Death ensues. Might perfection not be found within that reality of death as well? I have always been mindful of a comment that Lewis Thomas makes in his book "The Lives of a Cell" when he challenges the reader to consider making the thousands of "hepatic decisions" our liver must make every moment of our lives. I try to imagine the state of my being were I required to consciously make each of those decisions for my liver daily (couldn't even sleep). Yup, my vanity will allow me to consider that process pretty close to perfection. No matter what scale one chooses to search, I am one you will find standing in awe of the perfection my consciousness experiences (near-perfection if one chooses to be a stickler for definitional precision).
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 18, 2014 8:37:26 GMT -5
I draw my comments from experience I have had wrestling with a deep sense of despair and finding my way out of it with the help of friends and community members. I don't know how my experience compares to the experiences and traditions you wonder about. I think it would be accurate to say that my experience of despair represents a kind of "existential crisis." OK, understood.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 18, 2014 8:49:51 GMT -5
Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about. Isn't this one of the fundamental principles of science? Atoms are all made of the same 3 particles - electrons, protons, and neutrons. And those particles are all made from other particles - quarks, spinons, orbitons, and holons. Perhaps at the very bottom of the pile there is a little god!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 18, 2014 9:00:21 GMT -5
Perhaps at the very bottom of the pile there is a little god! Actually, Maxwell's demon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 9:08:12 GMT -5
when plumping the pillows, smelling the autumn air or passing a vehicle, i relieze how perfect in fit form and function Gods world is. and how even though we'll never grasp all that is God he has blessed us with ALOT of time to figure SOME things out. What, exactly, to you see as perfect? i know your going to find fault with whatever i say but how about human breath out carbon dioxide plants take it in and produce oxygen which we then breath in...perfect
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 18, 2014 9:21:04 GMT -5
What, exactly, to you see as perfect? I would like to take a crack at this question rational. But first I make an assumption that may not be valid; I assume that you intended your post to ask the question "What, exactly, do you see as perfect?" not "What, exactly, to you see as perfect?" If my assumption is not correct I will withdraw my response. Your assumption is correct. The 'to' was the relic of an earlier version that was phrased "To you, what is perfect." that was poorly edited. The post to which I was responding strongly implied that the perfect fit and form was the result of a creator god. First, it is not all that perfect. As those in the medical field can point out there are some serious flaws. Certainly thing work well in the great majority of the cases but is this the result of a plan or the accident that has the highest probability of success? From time to time I have been known to amuse small children with soap bubbles (well, I claim it is for the children) and it is always a marvel the way the films of the bubbles interact with each other. The patterns and the refracted light. Do I give myself credit for the perfect fit and form of the matrix I have created it is it the simple interaction of the matter that the bubbles are formed from that makes the design? Drops of water are carving rock as I write this. The eventual result could be spectacular. Or not. Niagara falls, once an unbelievable display is working its way back to nothing but rapids. The vast majority of species that have developed, and perhaps flourished, are extinct. They do not really fall into the 'perfect fit and form" definition. A lot of what we see here on earth seems to fall into the "perfect fit and form" definition but think how that all could change if an asteroid hits the the earth. The example of the carbon cycle is good but it is only good because of the environment where it is found. Chromatiaceae (purple sulfur bacteria) would not see the value of it at all.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 18, 2014 9:29:12 GMT -5
What, exactly, to you see as perfect? i know your going to find fault with whatever i say but how about human breath out carbon dioxide plants take it in and produce oxygen which we then breath in...perfect I don't see the perfection. Animals developed as they did because of the environment in which they were developing. Millions of species did not make it because they could not develop in the environment. It all works wekk now because of where we are right now. Over time the CO 2 concentration could become so high that respiration would no longer be possible. Perfection goes out the window. Ebola is presenting a situation that does not seem to demonstrate a "perfect fit and form". I think you have distorted your vision of "perfect fit and form" with selection bias.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 18, 2014 10:01:53 GMT -5
I draw my comments from experience I have had wrestling with a deep sense of despair and finding my way out of it with the help of friends and community members. I don't know how my experience compares to the experiences and traditions you wonder about. I think it would be accurate to say that my experience of despair represents a kind of "existential crisis." OK, understood. Ok, I'm not sure what you understood! I kept my response simple, expecting you would ask more leading questions! So I hope you will not mind if I elaborate a little more about this existential crisis I referred to. It came on the heels of the implosion of my faith in the god I was raised to believe in, and toward whom, right up to that final moment of believing, I had had very positive feelings. In a moment, I lost all of the comforting beliefs associated with this god who I had truly believed knew all about me, loved me, and had a perfect plan for my life if I was willing to follow him. I lost what had served as the foundation of my sense of who I was and a sense of my place in the universe, I lost the heroes of my childhood, I lost hope of seeing dead loved ones again, I lost my sense of connection to the extended tribe of my childhood… In that moment, that "god" didn't just disappear, I understood that that god had never existed, except as I had imagined "Him". During the long journey back to a sense of wholeness, I found (not that surprisingly once I thought about it a little) that some of the resources I had been brought up to believe were only available through a supernatural “God” or "Divine intervention" were still very much available to me as a "plain old human being." These have to do with things like love, forgiveness, compassion, family, extended community, a desire to participate and to have a positive impact, an ability to cope with disappointment and loss. This experience changed the way I look at religious and “spiritual” traditions. I have come to assume that behind of every one of them one will find, not extra-ordinary, supernatural or divine forces, but “plain old human beings” not that unlike me.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 18, 2014 10:37:55 GMT -5
I've tried your exercise and found it funny. Can I talk about my relationship with my husband and leave him out? I think that the more we are united with God in love, will, purpose, the less we perceive Him as outside of us - or us outside of Him - there is less separation, and not just between us and God, but also between us and others. (As we get to know God, we don't just enter into His love for us, but also into His love for others.) I am a Christian, so I wonder what it means that "in Him we live and move and have our being" or that God will be "all in all" or that the church is "the body of Christ" or that Jesus prayed that we "may all be one" as he and the Father are. There is so much we don't understand, and I can see how we could all be really 'one,' but most of us don't see it now. Our soul is fractured and our oneness with God is fractured. So I have two adopted kids. One of them has attachment issues. She is in the family, we love her, but she has a hard time believing or accepting our love. She feels a separation and insecurity. Is the separation there because she is not part of the family or because we don't love her? Or is it because there is something in her that causes her to feel separated? When she has fully entered into the love we have for her and starts to draw satisfaction from it, she will stop perceiving this separation and will finally be able to feel what it's like be part of family and feel one with us. Is it the same with God and us? At this point, I doubt that I will ever say "I" instead of "He and I," but maybe the day (in eternity) will come when we will say "we" instead of "He and I." Or, are you asking if God is actually my "higher self"? The reason why I don't think that's true is because when He speaks to me, He uses pronouns (I, me, you). Again, when we are united with Him completely, is it possible that pronouns will be obsolete, because there will be no barriers and we will see Him as He is and ourselves as we are? Maybe Maja, I am captivated by this idea of considering the pronouns we use. It seems to make some of the BIG questions so much more manageable. You mention having a conversation that would reference your husband and point out how cumbersome that conversation would be without the use of appropriate pronouns. I absolutely agree. It may be so cumbersome, in fact, that the conversation would be rendered meaningless. I understand and accept your point. Here is where I struggle, however. I am unable to fashion a relationship with omniscience, in my mind, that would resemble (or that I would want to resemble) any relationship I have with any other being that is like myself. I describe my relationship with my wife much as you have described your relationship with your husband. But my wife is not “omniscient” (I can’t even imagine how I would handle it, if she were). I submit to you that the model of my relationship with my wife or with any other being for whom I feel deep and abiding love is not an appropriate model for my relationship with an omniscient entity if such an entity exists. I must confront the fact that much of my reticence to personify “God” is the consequence my misgivings about human characteristics and emotions that we are obliged to use if we choose to give “God” human attributes. A couple of times you have mentioned “love”, I think this is a great example. A fact that must be acknowledged is the uniqueness of each individual and hence the unique needs and expectations of each individual. But unique needs and expectations almost ensures that there will be situations that demand conditions be placed on the expression of love. That is our human condition. That is the “milk of human kindness” that bathes everyday of our lives. Why then would we want to limit the transcendent love that you reference by “He loves me” in this way? A while back, here on TMB, I think it was Hberry who posted the comment “God is love”. That simple statement really hit me. Here is why . . . . “God is love” is fundamental. It is like the fundamental constants that populate our mathematical and physical description of reality. The statement has and requires no antecedent. It does not describe an action. It does not require an observer. It is not directly observable, in and of itself. And yet without direct observation, love is an experience that most folks will acknowledge in their lives. I don’t understand it, I can’t use any of my human senses or faculties to apprehend it, and yet I have the perception that it permeates all. What is the consequence of considering “God” in this type of context without the personification? Do we really lose something significant? Personification makes “God” a topic available for debate, does it not? If there is an omniscient presence beyond human understanding, is it rational to consider that entity available for debates. Is our grasp of personal meaning and purpose aided by endless and irresolvable debates about whether or not god is expressed through the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 18, 2014 11:11:18 GMT -5
The post to which I was responding strongly implied that the perfect fit and form was the result of a creator god. First, it is not all that perfect. As those in the medical field can point out there are some serious flaws. Certainly thing work well in the great majority of the cases but is this the result of a plan or the accident that has the highest probability of success? From time to time I have been known to amuse small children with soap bubbles (well, I claim it is for the children) and it is always a marvel the way the films of the bubbles interact with each other. The patterns and the refracted light. Do I give myself credit for the perfect fit and form of the matrix I have created it is it the simple interaction of the matter that the bubbles are formed from that makes the design? Drops of water are carving rock as I write this. The eventual result could be spectacular. Or not. Niagara falls, once an unbelievable display is working its way back to nothing but rapids. The vast majority of species that have developed, and perhaps flourished, are extinct. They do not really fall into the 'perfect fit and form" definition. A lot of what we see here on earth seems to fall into the "perfect fit and form" definition but think how that all could change if an asteroid hits the the earth. The example of the carbon cycle is good but it is only good because of the environment where it is found. Chromatiaceae (purple sulfur bacteria) would not see the value of it at all. Rational, if the concept of a "creator god" is the consideration that dissuades you from a full appreciation of the reality we perceive, by all means set the concept aside. In the brief window of consciousness we are afforded, I find it more rewarding to experience "what is" rather than to debate "what should be". As I acknowledged in my earlier post I yield to strict definitional constructionist on the use of the word "perfect". You are correct. There are flaws. As Leonard Cohen says "There is a crack in everything, that is how the light gets in." Your interests seems to be captivated by "First, it is not all that perfect" and considerations of "what if" purple sulfur bacteria were exposed to oxygen. My interests are captivated by the "actual" existence of a niche where purple sulfur bacteria survive and perhaps serve a purpose. Similarly, my interests tend more toward "Certainly thing work well in the great majority of the cases" without the follow-on "but . . . ." Thus is the difference in individual preferences to which I once again raise a toast to "near" perfection.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 18, 2014 11:31:51 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not sure what you understood! I kept my response simple, expecting you would ask more leading questions! So I hope you will not mind if I elaborate a little more about this existential crisis I referred to. It came on the heels of the implosion of my faith in the god I was raised to believe in, and toward whom, right up to that final moment of believing, I had had very positive feelings. In a moment, I lost all of the comforting beliefs associated with this god who I had truly believed knew all about me, loved me, and had a perfect plan for my life if I was willing to follow him. I lost what had served as the foundation of my sense of who I was and a sense of my place in the universe, I lost the heroes of my childhood, I lost hope of seeing dead loved ones again, I lost my sense of connection to the extended tribe of my childhood… In that moment, that "god" didn't just disappear, I understood that that god had never existed, except as I had imagined "Him". During the long journey back to a sense of wholeness, I found (not that surprisingly once I thought about it a little) that some of the resources I had been brought up to believe were only available through a supernatural “God” or "Divine intervention" were still very much available to me as a "plain old human being." These have to do with things like love, forgiveness, compassion, family, extended community, a desire to participate and to have a positive impact, an ability to cope with disappointment and loss. This experience changed the way I look at religious and “spiritual” traditions. I have come to assume that behind of every one of them one will find, not extra-ordinary, supernatural or divine forces, but “plain old human beings” not that unlike me. Matisse, I do not consider experiences in an individual's life that "represent a kind of existential crisis" as appropriate subject matter for "more leading questions". I do appreciate, however, your sharing some of that experience. Based on your response, it does not appear that your experience would be relevant in the context of a monk or Buddhist meditation. I apologize for my earlier misunderstanding of your meaning when referencing the "richness of experience to be found in sparseness"
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 18, 2014 12:14:00 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not sure what you understood! I kept my response simple, expecting you would ask more leading questions! So I hope you will not mind if I elaborate a little more about this existential crisis I referred to. It came on the heels of the implosion of my faith in the god I was raised to believe in, and toward whom, right up to that final moment of believing, I had had very positive feelings. In a moment, I lost all of the comforting beliefs associated with this god who I had truly believed knew all about me, loved me, and had a perfect plan for my life if I was willing to follow him. I lost what had served as the foundation of my sense of who I was and a sense of my place in the universe, I lost the heroes of my childhood, I lost hope of seeing dead loved ones again, I lost my sense of connection to the extended tribe of my childhood… In that moment, that "god" didn't just disappear, I understood that that god had never existed, except as I had imagined "Him". During the long journey back to a sense of wholeness, I found (not that surprisingly once I thought about it a little) that some of the resources I had been brought up to believe were only available through a supernatural “God” or "Divine intervention" were still very much available to me as a "plain old human being." These have to do with things like love, forgiveness, compassion, family, extended community, a desire to participate and to have a positive impact, an ability to cope with disappointment and loss. This experience changed the way I look at religious and “spiritual” traditions. I have come to assume that behind of every one of them one will find, not extra-ordinary, supernatural or divine forces, but “plain old human beings” not that unlike me. Matisse, I do not consider experiences in an individual's life that "represent a kind of existential crisis" as appropriate subject matter for "more leading questions". I do appreciate, however, your sharing some of that experience. Based on your response, it does not appear that your experience would be relevant in the context of a monk or Buddhist meditation. I apologize for my earlier misunderstanding of your meaning when referencing the "richness of experience to be found in sparseness" Part of the richness of experience is the sense of connection and commonality with other human beings, regardless of culture or belief system. There may be some overlap with Buddhism in this respect.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 18, 2014 12:29:28 GMT -5
...and a toast to the unsung "outliers and oddballs" along the way....the diverse elements within a population that under some circumstances represent the best shot at adaptation and survival.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 18, 2014 12:53:13 GMT -5
[qpurposece="/post/605532/thread" timestamp="1410960238" author=" placid-void"]Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? I have such a desire. Yknot The presence of god/supreme being/spirit does trans end the power and consciousness mankind. We reduce it to human dimensions because we live in the 3rd dimension. Yes with human characteristics and emotions because that is who we are. Meditation or prayer utilizing/learning how our spiritual senses developer and work can reveal other dimensions. Many. Which opens a window of understanding of the all encompassing presence of a higher power. Something more powerful and awesome than we can imagine. My vocab doesn't adequately convey what I'm trying to say. My questions include: Is the reduction of an ineffable presence (if such exists) to a human scale absolutely necessary for meaningful discourse? Should it be possible to think about human ‘meaning’ and human ‘purpose’ within a context that extends beyond human images and human understanding? I was B&R in the F&W community so I am familiar with the images of Father, Son, Shepherd, Master, Jealous God, etc. But with age, I have grown very uncomfortable with these images. I have grown uncomfortable with the images because they seem limiting and artificial. I have also grown uncomfortable with what they imply and what they produce (witness the mass of confusion among the competing dogmas within and between organized religions) Yknot I'm trying to expand what I know as a christian or have experienced as a christian trying to learn more of him following the passion of loving a being/personality/power/spirit/ who I always referred to as God. This became very real in essence, comfort, and leading my wretched life out of the darkest hour of my soul. Helping me to stand again and move forward with my life. . My questions are for the deeply religious (spiritual); do you discuss “God” using human terms but experience reverence toward a presence that transcends human comprehension? How do you make the transition between these two states of mind? Yknot Ive always tried to communicate in English. Training helps actually time spent in prayer meditation. Time. Reverence yes but in reverence it doesn't mean untouchable nor unapproachable. Bible refers to "entering his throne room boldly with thanks giving and his courts with praise." That has always worked for me. Hope my questions don’t stir up a bee's nest . . . . . . Yknot No your questions wont. Answers might.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 18, 2014 16:31:39 GMT -5
I don't think that's what my grandson was thinking about. that may as well be true but just responing to your post [Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about.] Care to comment on my thoughts on how a very devout Christian would respond?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 18, 2014 16:41:58 GMT -5
Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about. Isn't this one of the fundamental principles of science? Atoms are all made of the same 3 particles - electrons, protons, and neutrons. And those particles are all made from other particles - quarks, spinons, orbitons, and holons. Perhaps at the very bottom of the pile there is a little god! Yes, I thought it was. In fact I was very sure that was the case. But I believe people believe God can think, that is, ne is intelligent. I'm wondering how a fundamentalist feels about the idea of billions of conscious decisions being made within their very bodies. I have no problem with the fact that I have no clue whatsoever about what the components of atoms do among themselves. But I have full confidence in scientists who know so much about the principles of the behavior of atoms. I don't expect some high school drop-out in some pulpit to have a visit from God in which God explains refutes what they have observed.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 18, 2014 21:42:50 GMT -5
Maja, I am captivated by this idea of considering the pronouns we use. It seems to make some of the BIG questions so much more manageable. You mention having a conversation that would reference your husband and point out how cumbersome that conversation would be without the use of appropriate pronouns. I absolutely agree. It may be so cumbersome, in fact, that the conversation would be rendered meaningless. I understand and accept your point. Here is where I struggle, however. I am unable to fashion a relationship with omniscience, in my mind, that would resemble (or that I would want to resemble) any relationship I have with any other being that is like myself. I describe my relationship with my wife much as you have described your relationship with your husband. But my wife is not “omniscient” (I can’t even imagine how I would handle it, if she were). I submit to you that the model of my relationship with my wife or with any other being for whom I feel deep and abiding love is not an appropriate model for my relationship with an omniscient entity if such an entity exists. I must confront the fact that much of my reticence to personify “God” is the consequence my misgivings about human characteristics and emotions that we are obliged to use if we choose to give “God” human attributes. A couple of times you have mentioned “love”, I think this is a great example. A fact that must be acknowledged is the uniqueness of each individual and hence the unique needs and expectations of each individual. But unique needs and expectations almost ensures that there will be situations that demand conditions be placed on the expression of love. That is our human condition. That is the “milk of human kindness” that bathes everyday of our lives. Why then would we want to limit the transcendent love that you reference by “He loves me” in this way? A while back, here on TMB, I think it was Hberry who posted the comment “God is love”. That simple statement really hit me. Here is why . . . . “God is love” is fundamental. It is like the fundamental constants that populate our mathematical and physical description of reality. The statement has and requires no antecedent. It does not describe an action. It does not require an observer. It is not directly observable, in and of itself. And yet without direct observation, love is an experience that most folks will acknowledge in their lives. I don’t understand it, I can’t use any of my human senses or faculties to apprehend it, and yet I have the perception that it permeates all. What is the consequence of considering “God” in this type of context without the personification? Do we really lose something significant? Personification makes “God” a topic available for debate, does it not? If there is an omniscient presence beyond human understanding, is it rational to consider that entity available for debates. Is our grasp of personal meaning and purpose aided by endless and irresolvable debates about whether or not god is expressed through the trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? When you ask Wally and Nathan about their 'relationship' with God it seems you are after hearing about something that's experiential and relational. Yet, when I tell you about my relational and experiential perception of God, you want me to put aside the relationship and experiences and talk about... theory? You mention “fashioning” a relationship with God. If it’s imagined, it’s not a relationship at all, it’s just ideas. Can we have a relationship without knowing the one we are supposed to be having a relationship with or at least experiencing them in some way? If we are truly experiencing, then we are not trying to imagine - we know. I can’t talk in theoretical terms about something that is a reality to me, just like I can’t do that about any other relationship. Do you believe that God wants to or can reveal anything about Himself to you inwardly (not just through physical creation)? God is so incomprehensible to us that we cannot talk about what He is, but only about what He is like - through His attributes in some measure. Not all the attributes are human, but some are. I don’t have a problem with that because that’s what we can relate to and understand. If I believe that I know some aspect of what God is like, does it mean that I thin I know what He is? No. I don’t feel that my perception of these attributes puts God in box, only that I know in some measure how He sees me and the world around me. Even though ‘love’ is a misused word, we know that human love doesn’t equal God’s love. The Greeks have several words for ‘love’ – perhaps that would be helpful. We just don’t have anything better in our vocabulary, so we have to use what is available. .. If we experience something that feels like love, but have not better word for it, what else can we do but label it as 'love'? If the thought that ‘God is love’ appeals to you, and if you perceive love around you, do you think that love is directional and relational? Can there be love without two entities giving and receiving it? Can you talk about how you see this presence/entity without personifying it and using human attributes?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 19, 2014 0:59:33 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? I have such a desire. I would like to have a calm reasonable discussion of the importance (or unimportance) of using descriptions of “God” that are based on human characteristics. It seems reasonable to claim that persons who think about a presence in the universe of a power or consciousness that transcends the power and consciousness of mankind are ultimately led to words such as ineffable or omniscient. And yet, when persons talk one to another about such a presence, they invariably seem to reduce that ineffable and omniscient presence to human dimensions, with human characteristics and human emotions. My questions include: Is the reduction of an ineffable presence (if such exists) to a human scale absolutely necessary for meaningful discourse? Should it be possible to think about human ‘meaning’ and human ‘purpose’ within a context that extends beyond human images and human understanding? Yknot I had to scoot and hadnt finished what I am trying to say. Rereading my post I realise it sounds religious and a bit cliche. The last 3 yrs maybe longer I longed to dialogue with a physicist or someone who understood physics. Because of things that had happened in my closet or during worship in church or while laying hands on people and praying the prayer of faith. I had 2 bf who both knew physics but the questions i asked they couldnt answer me satisfactorily. It wasnt until I saw a programme/ doco. Im visual so understand better when I can see rather than reading volumes of info. They were scientists describing energy feilds talking about how the universe is full of energy in its completeness. There were diagrams of man and woman with what looked like grid systems showing energy linked. Even said a coke can has energy. Then I learned that others who meditate/non christian had results similar to mine. They too experienced a wave of flooding with joy, tranquility,peace, hope but where I called it entering into his presence, the glory of God they called it experiencing bliss. Id always felt/sensed it was a place of healing to be healed. They talked about the conscious mind where I called it intimacy with the Godhead. I dont pretend to know everything. Im intrigued with this subject. Whenever I have tried to open up on this topic I am accused and labeled. We only know in part and each person in their uniqueness can share and offer something about their reality. I feel that religion has bound our minds to limit us to knowing what rightfully we should have known a long time ago. What happened for me is this. When I was told that the bible was written to control the masses. That jesus never was born resurrected in the dates we know. I began to look at my life the experiences as a christian. Ministering in the power of God. I thought ok. What if this is correct? What about the power? The leading? The healings? The deliverance ive witnessed? If what they say is correct? Who has been communing with me showing me things I couldnt dream up nor imagine. Ive been very open. I try to keep my mind open. I live a very peaceful life. It doesnt stop me being intrigued. I was B&R in the F&W community so I am familiar with the images of Father, Son, Shepherd, Master, Jealous God, etc. But with age, I have grown very uncomfortable with these images. I have grown uncomfortable with the images because they seem limiting and artificial. I have also grown uncomfortable with what they imply and what they produce (witness the mass of confusion among the competing dogmas within and between organized religions). My questions are for the deeply religious (spiritual); do you discuss “God” using human terms but experience reverence toward a presence that transcends human comprehension? How do you make the transition between these two states of mind? My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality? Hope my questions don’t stir up a bee's nest . . . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 1:55:07 GMT -5
that may as well be true but just responing to your post [Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about.] Care to comment on my thoughts on how a very devout Christian would respond? i can only speak for myself, i know that science has wrought some very wonderful discoveries just to think of how medical science has proffited man even from the splitting of the atom right here in my city being a devout Christian has nothing to do with opposing science it is about devoting one's live to Christ and letting His Spirit fill one the only thing i could see Jesus opposed to in science is when it is used for the distruction of human life these who are so radically opposed to science still will use the things that science has discovered, take for example electricity as for what your grandson said i have no trouble with in fact i loved it, it maybe closer to the truth than one can imagine maybe someone else might like to post their thoughts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 2:07:45 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? I have such a desire. I would like to have a calm reasonable discussion of the importance (or unimportance) of using descriptions of “God” that are based on human characteristics. It seems reasonable to claim that persons who think about a presence in the universe of a power or consciousness that transcends the power and consciousness of mankind are ultimately led to words such as ineffable or omniscient. And yet, when persons talk one to another about such a presence, they invariably seem to reduce that ineffable and omniscient presence to human dimensions, with human characteristics and human emotions. My questions include: Is the reduction of an ineffable presence (if such exists) to a human scale absolutely necessary for meaningful discourse? Should it be possible to think about human ‘meaning’ and human ‘purpose’ within a context that extends beyond human images and human understanding? Yknot I had to scoot and hadnt finished what I am trying to say. Rereading my post I realise it sounds religious and a bit cliche. The last 3 yrs maybe longer I longed to dialogue with a physicist or someone who understood physics. Because of things that had happened in my closet or during worship in church or while laying hands on people and praying the prayer of faith. I had 2 bf who both knew physics but the questions i asked they couldnt answer me satisfactorily. It wasnt until I saw a programme/ doco. Im visual so understand better when I can see rather than reading volumes of info. They were scientists describing energy feilds talking about how the universe is full of energy in its completeness. There were diagrams of man and woman with what looked like grid systems showing energy linked. Even said a coke can has energy. Then I learned that others who meditate/non christian had results similar to mine. They too experienced a wave of flooding with joy, tranquility,peace, hope but where I called it entering into his presence, the glory of God they called it experiencing bliss. Id always felt/sensed it was a place of healing to be healed. They talked about the conscious mind where I called it intimacy with the Godhead. I dont pretend to know everything. Im intrigued with this subject. Whenever I have tried to open up on this topic I am accused and labeled. We only know in part and each person in their uniqueness can share and offer something about their reality. I feel that religion has bound our minds to limit us to knowing what rightfully we should have known a long time ago. What happened for me is this. When I was told that the bible was written to control the masses. That jesus never was born resurrected in the dates we know. I began to look at my life the experiences as a christian. Ministering in the power of God. I thought ok. What if this is correct? What about the power? The leading? The healings? The deliverance ive witnessed? If what they say is correct? Who has been communing with me showing me things I couldnt dream up nor imagine. Ive been very open. I try to keep my mind open. I live a very peaceful life. It doesnt stop me being intrigued. I was B&R in the F&W community so I am familiar with the images of Father, Son, Shepherd, Master, Jealous God, etc. But with age, I have grown very uncomfortable with these images. I have grown uncomfortable with the images because they seem limiting and artificial. I have also grown uncomfortable with what they imply and what they produce (witness the mass of confusion among the competing dogmas within and between organized religions). My questions are for the deeply religious (spiritual); do you discuss “God” using human terms but experience reverence toward a presence that transcends human comprehension? How do you make the transition between these two states of mind? My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality? Hope my questions don’t stir up a bee's nest . . . . . . the trouble with man is that he tries to understand God with his own interlect and then when he doesn't or can't understand God God is rejected instead of just letting God teach him human terms mean nothing to God but He does comunicate with us in ways we can understand i don't believe it is states of mind but more states of heart if one truely wants to know God he must repent and freely admit he is a sinner and truely want Gods spirit within and be willing to sacrifice all to have God in firstplace then God will come and abide
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 19, 2014 4:42:39 GMT -5
There is a mystery surrounding faith and the spiritual connecti9n that takes place when someone is bornagain. It just doesnt end there. When I was taught about the holy spirit and baptised in the holy spirit my life changed radically in that I became empassioned to find him wherever he could be found. I entered a rollercoaster of a high trying to hear his voice that lasted a number of yrs. I thought the workers were the only ones he spoke too. My pastor would say things like the lord has just shown me someone has a bad back. I later learned that it was a word of knowledge. The back problem left. I wanted that that kind of relationship. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 19, 2014 11:15:53 GMT -5
Rational, if the concept of a "creator god" is the consideration that dissuades you from a full appreciation of the reality we perceive, by all means set the concept aside. In the brief window of consciousness we are afforded, I find it more rewarding to experience "what is" rather than to debate "what should be". As I acknowledged in my earlier post I yield to strict definitional constructionist on the use of the word "perfect". You are correct. There are flaws. As Leonard Cohen says "There is a crack in everything, that is how the light gets in." Your interests seems to be captivated by "First, it is not all that perfect" and considerations of "what if" purple sulfur bacteria were exposed to oxygen. My interests are captivated by the "actual" existence of a niche where purple sulfur bacteria survive and perhaps serve a purpose. Similarly, my interests tend more toward "Certainly thing work well in the great majority of the cases" without the follow-on "but . . . ." Thus is the difference in individual preferences to which I once again raise a toast to "near" perfection. Again, I was responding to a post that implied that there was a "creator god" behind the scene and that is why things had the perfect fit and form. The point I was trying to make that if all that is considered is the perceived perfection then the creation would indeed be a miracle. But all is not perfection. I too stand in awe of many things. Being perfect is not one of my requirements but simply continuing to function is really amazing. I sat on a plane and idly looked out the window at the engine and tried to imagine how the fan revolving at 2,000+ RPM stays together and continues to function even though the blade tips are, at times, exceeding the speed of sound. Given that the diameter of the engine is about the same size as the interior of a 737 and weights over 9 tons I am in awe of the fact that the plane is still in the air. In this case being perfect is, at least to me at that moment, very important! I compared the photosynthesis with sulfur vs. carbon because it does not take a creator to produce a system that uses the available components in but the make-up of the environment. This is not to take anything away from the complexity and perfection or either system - just pointing out how development can be accomplished. Pointing out how imperfect things became time and time again because of natural disasters highlights the thinness of the veneer of perfection.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 19, 2014 14:50:59 GMT -5
Again, I was responding to a post that implied that there was a "creator god" behind the scene and that is why things had the perfect fit and form. The point I was trying to make that if all that is considered is the perceived perfection then the creation would indeed be a miracle. But all is not perfection. I too stand in awe of many things. Being perfect is not one of my requirements but simply continuing to function is really amazing. I sat on a plane and idly looked out the window at the engine and tried to imagine how the fan revolving at 2,000+ RPM stays together and continues to function even though the blade tips are, at times, exceeding the speed of sound. Given that the diameter of the engine is about the same size as the interior of a 737 and weights over 9 tons I am in awe of the fact that the plane is still in the air. In this case being perfect is, at least to me at that moment, very important! I compared the photosynthesis with sulfur vs. carbon because it does not take a creator to produce a system that uses the available components in but the make-up of the environment. This is not to take anything away from the complexity and perfection or either system - just pointing out how development can be accomplished. Pointing out how imperfect things became time and time again because of natural disasters highlights the thinness of the veneer of perfection. Again, after a quick review of the thread, I can find no one disagreeing with you. You are correct. You are completely and unequivocally correct. All that you are saying is valid and correct, otherwise I don't think you would say it. Further, the use, suggestion, and/or implication of the word "perfect" by any of my posts on this thread are acknowledged not to be in absolute compliance with the precise definition of the word as presented in The Oxford English Dictionary. Now, I am just a poor, old country biochemist who occasionally has the temerity to use descriptive words that transgress the bounds of strict compliance with established rules and definitions. I do not apologize for these transgressions since I attempt to maintain a ready posture of responsiveness to amend, adjust, modify, correct and/or withdraw my remarks if and when I am informed that my choice of words has offended and/or mislead someone. I select my words in a manner that I hope will maximize the effectiveness of my communications and will convey my meaning and intent with the appropriate degree of passion. Rational, have I offended or mislead you with my choice of the word "perfect". If so, please inform me. If not, may I suggest that we move on to new and possibly more constructive discussion? Finally, despite your valid assertions as to the "thinness of the veneer of perfection" I will personally continue to appreciate and value my experiences of certain phenomena that I categorize as "perfect" from my perspective. I am comfortable with the realization that those phenomena may not meet your criteria for use of the word "perfect". I hope that over time you will become comfortable with the realization that my criteria threshold is different from yours and that our conversations can then proceed constructively. I look forward to you learned and unambiguously precise response, yknot.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2014 13:49:21 GMT -5
The most impressive explanation I have heard on this matter came from my autistic grandson when he was about 10 or 11 - certainly not 12. "If god exists, he has to be something that is in all the atoms in the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't work." One person remarkably came close to this explanation -- in a Sunday morning meeting. I forget how he worded it, but I was certainly had never heard anything like it in meeting. I like reading the book of Ecclesiastes. An ex-worker told me to read it "for what it does not say". BobWilliston, in many ways, my sense of things as I started this thread is captured by your grandson's observation. The idea that there could be meetings where folks could explore these feelings and experiences seems so genuine to me. The point would not be to set aside or abandon all of the rich traditions that have informed the development of our experiences and beliefs (Maja's post addresses the importance of these touchstones). Rather the point would be to open up to new expressions of the wonder and awe that many of us experience in our lives. Would like to hear more about your readings in Ecclesiastes as they relate to these topics. ... the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, ... [Eccl. 9,5]
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 20, 2014 14:21:43 GMT -5
... the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, ... [Eccl. 9,5] One side of Pascal's Wager . . .
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 20, 2014 14:38:17 GMT -5
... the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, ... [Eccl. 9,5] One side of Pascal's Wager . . . Another "facet"...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2014 14:45:32 GMT -5
... the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, ... [Eccl. 9,5] One side of Pascal's Wager . . . Of course, the Eccl. verse doesn't deny the existence of God. I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil -- this is the gift of God. [Eccl. 3,12]
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 20, 2014 15:14:39 GMT -5
Yknot I had to scoot and hadnt finished what I am trying to say. Rereading my post I realise it sounds religious and a bit cliche. The last 3 yrs maybe longer I longed to dialogue with a physicist or someone who understood physics. Because of things that had happened in my closet or during worship in church or while laying hands on people and praying the prayer of faith. I had 2 bf who both knew physics but the questions i asked they couldnt answer me satisfactorily. It wasnt until I saw a programme/ doco. Im visual so understand better when I can see rather than reading volumes of info. They were scientists describing energy feilds talking about how the universe is full of energy in its completeness. There were diagrams of man and woman with what looked like grid systems showing energy linked. Even said a coke can has energy. Then I learned that others who meditate/non christian had results similar to mine. They too experienced a wave of flooding with joy, tranquility,peace, hope but where I called it entering into his presence, the glory of God they called it experiencing bliss. Id always felt/sensed it was a place of healing to be healed. They talked about the conscious mind where I called it intimacy with the Godhead. I dont pretend to know everything. Im intrigued with this subject. Whenever I have tried to open up on this topic I am accused and labeled. We only know in part and each person in their uniqueness can share and offer something about their reality. I feel that religion has bound our minds to limit us to knowing what rightfully we should have known a long time ago. What happened for me is this. When I was told that the bible was written to control the masses. That jesus never was born resurrected in the dates we know. I began to look at my life the experiences as a christian. Ministering in the power of God. I thought ok. What if this is correct? What about the power? The leading? The healings? The deliverance ive witnessed? If what they say is correct? Who has been communing with me showing me things I couldnt dream up nor imagine. Ive been very open. I try to keep my mind open. I live a very peaceful life. It doesnt stop me being intrigued. Three challenging posts, one each from bubbles, virgo and maja. I will start with bubbles’ post. Your experiences and your perspective are so different from my own, bubbles, that it is difficult for me to imagine experiencing what you describe. The sincerity and earnestness of your descriptions, however, gives me pause. It is often easy (or convenient) to dismiss some experiences as no more than fortuitous coincidences. Often, they may be no more than fortuitous coincidences. But an inability to measure, reproduce or predict does not in and of itself deny existence, to my way of thinking. I have long been intrigued by the interests of Rupert Sheldrake. He started his career as a respectable and respected plant physiologist at Cambridge. He continued his work in India and it was there that he “left the fold”. He developed an interest in transcendental philosophy. Quickly his work was ‘labeled’ by the scientific community as pseudo-science. Now his work is shunned. An editor at “Nature” once suggested one of his book is “a book for burning”. It is difficult to pursue any line of inquiry that does not follow the Strictures of scientific dogma. Sheldrake has suggested and tried traditional experiments but they have all failed. Most in the scientific community accept this as evidence that “there’s no there there”. I do not share this view. My view is that the human mind lacks the ability to ask a meaningful question at this stage of development. Will we someday? I don’t know. What I do believe, is that to deny experiences such as some of those you attempt to describe is to do so at the peril of rational integrity.
|
|