|
Post by placid-void on Sept 20, 2014 15:16:44 GMT -5
Another "facet"... I'm with Homer Simpson on this one, nice illustration of "The Perils of Personification".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 20, 2014 16:27:47 GMT -5
Wally, if honesty is next to godliness your are certainly "Godly". Would you be willing to push your response just a little further. I understand using human imagery to communicate with others but what about when you are plumping the pillows, smelling the Autumn air of passing another vehicle on the roadway. How do you relate to your "God" at those times? As a parent, or a boss, or a disciplinarian teacher? Or do you feel and experience something else, something that is real to you but inexplicable to others? your stretching my brain and vocabulary! 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. Wally, I know what you mean by "smelling the autumn air." I like hearing the soft plop of fruit falling on a mild September day, the tangy cool air of October. I love them also.They may seem perfect, but what about the horrid heat of summer that came before those times and the frigid winter snow & sleet that may come after?
So isn't it just because of the contrast that it may seem as if they are prefect?Plumping a pillow is only because it is feathers that make the pillow light & fluffy. WE have learned to use the feathers for pillows. Not sure what you meant by "passing a vehicle."
But again, isn't that ability to pass s vehicle due to the ability the car manufactured?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 20, 2014 16:55:35 GMT -5
I just wanted to take a piece of your post to comment on.
I'm a non-Christian and I don't meditate either- yet I also have experienced a "wave of flooding with joy, tranquility,peace, hope."
It really had nothing to do with the "glory of god." I didn't feel the I needed "healing" of any kind. Neither did I feel that my conscious mind had any "intimacy with any godhead."
A was just a time when it just felt so good to be alive!
Do we just entrepret those feelings according to our preconceived ideas about the world?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 20, 2014 17:10:46 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.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 20, 2014 17:23:56 GMT -5
Yknot
Firstly I want to thank you for your answer. It has been one of the kindest responses I have ever received on this site about this topic.
Heres the thing. If I had not had leaders who understood i would never have pursued/encountered/known. Neither would i have been blessed nor been a blessing to others in the way that my life unfolded. That last comment might come across as prideful. It isn't about me its about discovering how everything works. The universe the Galaxy's the beyond beyond. Time versus timeless. To reduce it simplistically it is me abiding in whom all things have our being. Oneness, unity, harmonious love.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 20, 2014 19:06:35 GMT -5
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 Hi virgo, it is difficult for me to find a way to constructively respond to your post. Having been B&R in the F&W community, many of your comments are very familiar to me but I have lost my faith and the views you express now seem foreign to me. Please understand I am not challenging the validity of these beliefs nor do I think they are inappropriate. Rather I am saying they no longer work for me. That is why I am “lost”, that is why I am “searching”. I shan’t detail my loss of faith in each of the points you raise but I would like to mention a few because they are so central to the understanding I have at this moment. My faith would differ from yours in that you believe God will come and abide, my belief is simply that “God” does abide. For me, it is not discretionary, it just is. My experiences suggest that any alienation or sense of separation from “that which is greater than self” is a consequence of not trying to connect. My belief is that connection requires humility and true humility in mankind is often a late developing trait. You point out that “human terms mean nothing to God”, I agree and I carry my agreement to the point that “willingness to sacrifice” and “who is in first place” have no meaning in the context of “God”, they are human terms designed and developed for human purposes. Perhaps my greatest challenge in attempting to have a meaningful and constructive conversation about “God” is the fact that “sin” has no meaning to me in a “spiritual” context. I have never been able to grasp the concept of “original sin” but beyond that I did carry with me the idea that there was some arbiter of right and wrong and that spiritual rewards and punishments were based on that tally. This idea no longer makes any sense to me. I understand that “sin” is fundamental to almost every religious practice. But it seems to me that “sin” is used by leaders as a tether to keep individuals on a particular path. My sense of things is that we have “free will”, we have a “conscience”, and we have the ability to reason rationally. With these faculties we are able to discern right and wrong. My experiences have always been when I make choices contrary to the welfare of my fellow, I have been aware (whether or not I chose to admit my error at the time). I guess you could say my accounting system is completely upside down. I have little concern with wrongs I have done (they are done and cannot be reversed) except for making amends where appropriate. I put all of my emphasis on the positive and constructive things I can do toward achieving my aspiration for fulfillment. Basically I guess, I exchange guilt for angst. I am more concerned about what I am failing to do than I am about the myriad of things I should not have done or should have done differently or better.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 20, 2014 20:47:35 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? The greatest thing I have difficulty comprehending is the scale of things. My grandfather was born a died within a 50 mile radius, so he understood the size of a county. My father never traveled more than a few states from the one he was born in, so he grasp the size of a state. I have circled the earth a few times, so I have a feel for the size of a planet. In college I did a lab experiment to measure the size of Avogadro number 10^23. I learned that each elements atomic number in grams had 10^23 atoms, but I never really grasp that. NASA just published a photo of the Milky Way showing 200 million stars. I can't grasp the size of our galaxy. www.newscientist.com/article/dn26239-milky-way-map-swirls-with-219-million-stars.html#.VB4r6X73arVFrom there consider how many stars there are. youtu.be/iujHbTvljdQNow go for a ride at the power of 10. youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0Grasping the scale of just one universe, is far beyond my reach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 21:02:36 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? The greatest thing I have difficulty comprehending is the scale of things. My grandfather was born a died within a 50 mile radius, so he understood the size of a county. My father never traveled more than a few states from the one he was born in, so he grasp the size of a state. I have circled the earth a few times, so I have a feel for the size of a planet. In college I did a lab experiment to measure the size of Avogadro number 10^23. I learned that each elements atomic number in grams had 10^23 atoms, but I never really grasp that. NASA just published a photo of the Milky Way showing 200 million stars. I can't grasp the size of our galaxy. www.newscientist.com/article/dn26239-milky-way-map-swirls-with-219-million-stars.html#.VB4r6X73arVFrom there consider how many stars there are. youtu.be/iujHbTvljdQNow go for a ride at the power of 10. youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0Grasping the scale of just one universe, is far beyond my reach. it will make you crazy if you think about it for too long...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 21:03:39 GMT -5
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 Hi virgo, it is difficult for me to find a way to constructively respond to your post. Having been B&R in the F&W community, many of your comments are very familiar to me but I have lost my faith and the views you express now seem foreign to me. Please understand I am not challenging the validity of these beliefs nor do I think they are inappropriate. Rather I am saying they no longer work for me. That is why I am “lost”, that is why I am “searching”. I shan’t detail my loss of faith in each of the points you raise but I would like to mention a few because they are so central to the understanding I have at this moment. My faith would differ from yours in that you believe God will come and abide, my belief is simply that “God” does abide. For me, it is not discretionary, it just is. My experiences suggest that any alienation or sense of separation from “that which is greater than self” is a consequence of not trying to connect. My belief is that connection requires humility and true humility in mankind is often a late developing trait. You point out that “human terms mean nothing to God”, I agree and I carry my agreement to the point that “willingness to sacrifice” and “who is in first place” have no meaning in the context of “God”, they are human terms designed and developed for human purposes. Perhaps my greatest challenge in attempting to have a meaningful and constructive conversation about “God” is the fact that “sin” has no meaning to me in a “spiritual” context. I have never been able to grasp the concept of “original sin” but beyond that I did carry with me the idea that there was some arbiter of right and wrong and that spiritual rewards and punishments were based on that tally. This idea no longer makes any sense to me. I understand that “sin” is fundamental to almost every religious practice. But it seems to me that “sin” is used by leaders as a tether to keep individuals on a particular path. My sense of things is that we have “free will”, we have a “conscience”, and we have the ability to reason rationally. With these faculties we are able to discern right and wrong. My experiences have always been when I make choices contrary to the welfare of my fellow, I have been aware (whether or not I chose to admit my error at the time). I guess you could say my accounting system is completely upside down. I have little concern with wrongs I have done (they are done and cannot be reversed) except for making amends where appropriate. I put all of my emphasis on the positive and constructive things I can do toward achieving my aspiration for fulfillment. Basically I guess, I exchange guilt for angst. I am more concerned about what I am failing to do than I am about the myriad of things I should not have done or should have done differently or better. if you truely want to know God then everything of human nature has to be put aside, it is not about us it is about God giving us and whether we accept or not anything that is not of God is sin and God has used Jesus to show us the path away from sin to forgiveness we either choose to give our lives to God or keep them for ourselves, we have the freewill to go either way
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 20, 2014 21:06:29 GMT -5
Xna
Wow..that was cleverly done. I felt myself diminishing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 21:06:57 GMT -5
The greatest thing I have difficulty comprehending is the scale of things. My grandfather was born a died within a 50 mile radius, so he understood the size of a county. My father never traveled more than a few states from the one he was born in, so he grasp the size of a state. I have circled the earth a few times, so I have a feel for the size of a planet. In college I did a lab experiment to measure the size of Avogadro number 10^23. I learned that each elements atomic number in grams had 10^23 atoms, but I never really grasp that. NASA just published a photo of the Milky Way showing 200 million stars. I can't grasp the size of our galaxy. www.newscientist.com/article/dn26239-milky-way-map-swirls-with-219-million-stars.html#.VB4r6X73arVFrom there consider how many stars there are. youtu.be/iujHbTvljdQNow go for a ride at the power of 10. youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0Grasping the scale of just one universe, is far beyond my reach. it will make you crazy if you think about it for too long... but if God has caused one to understand His greatness you then understand the greatness of His creation and the greater of course being recreation
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 20, 2014 21:09:38 GMT -5
Xna Wow..that was cleverly done. I felt myself diminishing. The power of ten film is an old one but I like it.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 20, 2014 21:12:14 GMT -5
I like it too
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 20, 2014 21:13:36 GMT -5
it will make you crazy if you think about it for too long... but if God has caused one to understand His greatness you then understand the greatness of His creation and the greater of course being recreation It is greater than I can imagine, with or without a god.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 21, 2014 7:55:31 GMT -5
if you truely want to know God then everything of human nature has to be put aside, it is not about us it is about God giving us and whether we accept or not anything that is not of God is sin and God has used Jesus to show us the path away from sin to forgiveness we either choose to give our lives to God or keep them for ourselves, we have the freewill to go either way
Good morning virgo. Thank you for your summary judgement on what needs to be set aside and what needs to be accepted. Indeed, I "truly want to" understand more about the purpose and meaning of my life in a transcendent context but I fear that ready answers and solutions do not provide me with either the wisdom nor comfort that I crave. I wish you god-speed on your chosen path of righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 21, 2014 11:01:40 GMT -5
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? Maja, I fear that I am frustrating you with my disjointed and often contradictory comments and questions. I apologize for treading such a random and circuitous path. MY intent is not to confuse or frustrate. Rather, my comments reflect the fact that I have no clear path forward in my own quest toward understanding, meaning and purpose. My questions are intended to learn how others understand some of the vexing questions about meaning that face us all. My vocabulary probably does suggest an interest in theory. My interests are not theoretical. I find it difficult to have a conversation on some of these topics without at least an attempt at clarity of meaning and the consequence is often strident. You ask the very reasonable question if we can have a relationship "without knowing the one" or "at least experiencing" the (one?) with whom we seek that relationship. In my own case, I don't feel as if I do/can "know" that which transcends knowledge but I do feel that I "experience" a consciousness that transcends understanding. I am unable to say what "God wants" but yes, I do believe that there is a process of revelation that individuals can perceive by quieting their mind and opening themselves to insight. I agree with your observation about the incomprehensibility of that which we call "God". And at core, I understand and accept that if we are to have fellowship one with another about our experiences we have no choice but to use the language we have. My anxiety about the personification of "God" is not about language, it is about how we project human characteristics, human feelings and human emotions onto something about which we really have no knowledge except for our own personal experiences. I fear this projection of humanness. I stumble when I learn from someone that "God" wants my hair a certain length. In my mind, projections of that nature are projections of "man" seeking dominion. I am unable to accept that such dominion relates to the meaning or purpose of my life. Your comments about "love" are excellent and I have no ready answer. One response that has occupied my mind since you asked is the thought that my conception of "God" in not only omniscience but also omnipresent in which case it seems fair to consider "love" as a permeating entity rather than a directional entity. Toughest of all is your question about how I see "this presence/entity without personifying it". It is remarkable how comparatively easy it is to say what isn't or what is wrong and what we don't believe. It is a whole different story for me to say what I do believe. Honesty compels me to say . . . . "I do not know". I seem to be stuck in a permanent state of seeking but that state disables commitment. This concerns me. I will start with a metaphor that is so hackneyed, so trite and so superficial that I am red-face embarrassed to use it. . . . . . I think of a transcendent presence much as a "fish would relate to water". It is a metaphor that implies the presence of "one in all" (i.e. the water permeates all) and "all in one" (i.e. the fish and all that gives it and it's experiences meaning are contained within one entity). It is weak, but it is the best I can offer at the moment. BobWilliston's grandchild seemed to share a similar view if I am not mistaken. One aspect of the metaphor that I like is the implied duality. I subscribe to a particular duality. When I think of my own existence, I try to hold two very distinct images in my mind simultaneously. I try to embrace the thought that I am both "the center of the universe" and "of no greater import than a single grain of sand". The one image demands unassailable humility. The other image demands inescapable responsibility for the welfare of the reality I perceive. To the extent that I am able to sincerely and genuinely connect (love, care, nurture, comfort) with the reality of which I am now a part, I feel that I have started along the path of understanding my purpose. Insights that I may gather along the way freshen both my desire and commitment. Should those insights be part of a grander plan, I am gratified. If not, I remain fulfilled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:34:24 GMT -5
if you truely want to know God then everything of human nature has to be put aside, it is not about us it is about God giving us and whether we accept or not anything that is not of God is sin and God has used Jesus to show us the path away from sin to forgiveness we either choose to give our lives to God or keep them for ourselves, we have the freewill to go either way
Good morning virgo. Thank you for your summary judgement on what needs to be set aside and what needs to be accepted. Indeed, I "truly want to" understand more about the purpose and meaning of my life in a transcendent context but I fear that ready answers and solutions do not provide me with either the wisdom nor comfort that I crave. I wish you god-speed on your chosen path of righteousness. beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience i presume? the only way for that to happen is to ask God and to be genuinely honest in your request and be absolutely willing for any request God will make of you otherwise God will not even look at you bare in mind the answers you seek will not come all at once but will come when God see's fit and in a time when one is ready to recieve, only God knows
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 22, 2014 0:06:28 GMT -5
Toughest of all is your question about how I see "this presence/entity without personifying it". It is remarkable how comparatively easy it is to say what isn't or what is wrong and what we don't believe. It is a whole different story for me to say what I do believe. Honesty compels me to say . . . . "I do not know". I seem to be stuck in a permanent state of seeking but that state disables commitment. This concerns me. Seems very much like the substitution of one paranormal being for another.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 22, 2014 7:20:43 GMT -5
Seems very much like the substitution of one paranormal being for another. Indeed, you may well be correct, rational. You often reference the paranormal in your posts. It is a "safe" word . . . "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding" that is frequently associated with "questionable" phenomena . . . . "telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc." Regretfully, repetitive use of single word references without new insight diminishes the probative value of that line of skeptical analysis. I fail to grasp the constructive value of your opinion in the present context, perhaps you would like to elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 22, 2014 9:57:18 GMT -5
Seems very much like the substitution of one paranormal being for another. Indeed, you may well be correct, rational. You often reference the paranormal in your posts. It is a "safe" word . . . "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding" that is frequently associated with "questionable" phenomena . . . . "telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc." Regretfully, repetitive use of single word references without new insight diminishes the probative value of that line of skeptical analysis. I fail to grasp the constructive value of your opinion in the present context, perhaps you would like to elaborate. It is not so much a safe word but an umbrella word. It eliminates the need for stating the complete list of things things of which I am extremely skeptical and which need some demonstrable proof of existence. And you are right, paranormal is associated with questionable claims - telekinesis, clairvoyance, omnipotent beings, spirits, souls, ghosts, multidimensional beings, invisible energy forces, chi, vibrational healing crystals, magnetic cures, hollow earth, cryptids, etc. I think what makes them paranormal is the fact that there is only questionable evidence that they exist. Of course, there are studies that show that the belief in the paranormal is an aspect of a schizotypical personality! Looking into the studies involving the various Sheep-Goat Scales will perhaps shed more light on the subject. There is even one for Australians! As I see it, what you are saying is like stating that you have looked into ESP and do not believe it is a real phenomenon but you are wondering about precognition or the ability for humans to communicate over a distance without the need for physical or measurable energy transfers. You have in effect applied a different definition to 'god' and are exploring how the newly defined god fits. Or perhaps defining a whole new god.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 22, 2014 14:07:26 GMT -5
Tough diagnosis there Doc!
I have to run out and demonstrate to myself that my schizotypal personality symptoms are temporarily in remission by playing a round of league golf with my "partner" and then going to the alley to start the season bowling league with my "team". Perhaps my caregiver will allow me to skip a week of medication as long as I work and play well with others. What do you think Doc?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 22, 2014 14:20:39 GMT -5
Tough diagnosis there Doc! I have to run out and demonstrate to myself that my schizotypal personality symptoms are temporarily in remission by playing a round of league golf with my "partner" and then going to the alley to start the season bowling league with my "team". Perhaps my caregiver will allow me to skip a week of medication as long as I work and play well with others. What do you think Doc? I am beginning to see why your avatar in is a tree tied in a KNOT!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 22, 2014 16:07:26 GMT -5
Tough diagnosis there Doc! I have to run out and demonstrate to myself that my schizotypal personality symptoms are temporarily in remission by playing a round of league golf with my "partner" and then going to the alley to start the season bowling league with my "team". Perhaps my caregiver will allow me to skip a week of medication as long as I work and play well with others. What do you think Doc? It was an interesting observation that I thought would spark interest! But the Sheep/Goats surveys pointed out some areas that I need to look at in more depth.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 22, 2014 17:21:51 GMT -5
rational
Yes and particularly the bit about the Ozzies. Oops Australians. Ive had a right giggle at some of the posts this morning.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 22, 2014 19:16:48 GMT -5
I have been quietly listening in on the conversation a bit this morning (well, it is still morning here on Guam!), and I first find it imperative to first comment that I do appreciate the respectful tone of the conversation, even in expressing at least somewhat opposing views!
The topic is highly meaningful to me, and I believe some of the questions asked have in some measure "been there" in my consciousness for much of my life, while it is in the past couple of years that I have begun to find, not "answers," but responses and promises that correspond to - or confront - those hardly utterable questions.
I do not join the conversation with the assertion that I have any answers, but would like to present things that I have been reading that seem to resonate with the topics being discussed.
Paul Tillich speak of "God" as "the ground of our being," and as a transcendent "other," leading into the future, through promise, response, and fulfillment. I find this to be the most satisfactory way for me to comprehend God. I understand why "New Age" people speak of God being "within," as we do become aware of something deep within being touched, or perhaps "awakened" would be a more appropriate term. At the same time, the Judeo-Christian God is narrated as the ultimate "other," with whom we can not only enter into relationship, but who promises and fulfills as we respond. This has been my experience.
When Rational speaks of a "paranormal being," I am entirely in sympathy with this concept, in regard to the frequent representation of God as the mighty, judging, "Man" up there, handing out rather arbitrary laws and rulings. But, I believe it is Tillich who also speaks of God as not a being to be compared to others - even as "incomparably" higher and mightier than other beings. He is not a "being," but the ground of ALL being. So for me, "paranormal" does not fit in this context, as the "ground" is very "normal."
Of course, "paranormal" is spoken in reference to what we cannot see and quantify, and that is also valid, particularly when I am asked to believe something contrary to sense and experience - i.e. the world was created in six literal days. I began to question some of this as a worker, an "entry point" for me being the Tower of Babel. I love language, and when some fellow workers grew nervous at my talk of languages evolving (I have seen it happen in my lifetime!), I knew something was amiss. But I love the story of Babel! I see it, not as an historic event, but as a myth (not a "fairy tale), speaking of humanity's continual striving for something that is not his (or hers!) to grasp for. But then I don't require you to believe it or find meaning in it, and won't consign you to a "lost eternity" for not understanding it in the same way as I do!
I am likely rambling here, but will leave my post at this for now, if you don't mind me respectfully edging into the conversation . . .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 22, 2014 21:09:05 GMT -5
When Rational speaks of a "paranormal being," I am entirely in sympathy with this concept, in regard to the frequent representation of God as the mighty, judging, "Man" up there, handing out rather arbitrary laws and rulings. But, I believe it is Tillich who also speaks of God as not a being to be compared to others - even as "incomparably" higher and mightier than other beings. He is not a "being," but the ground of ALL being. So for me, "paranormal" does not fit in this context, as the "ground" is very "normal." The comment I would have that the word 'ground' is not the issue but the entity that is being defined as the 'ground' of all beings. The definition of ground comes into question. The foundation or basis. The reason for a belief. Restated as the foundation of all being. Or the reason for all being. It once again places us in a non-normal place. Not unlike a creator being. The reason for all being. Seems like a good idea!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 23, 2014 9:55:45 GMT -5
It is not so much a safe word but an umbrella word. It eliminates the need for stating the complete list of things things of which I am extremely skeptical and which need some demonstrable proof of existence. And you are right, paranormal is associated with questionable claims - telekinesis, clairvoyance, omnipotent beings, spirits, souls, ghosts, multidimensional beings, invisible energy forces, chi, vibrational healing crystals, magnetic cures, hollow earth, cryptids, etc. I think what makes them paranormal is the fact that there is only questionable evidence that they exist. Of course, there are studies that show that the belief in the paranormal is an aspect of a schizotypical personality! Looking into the studies involving the various Sheep-Goat Scales will perhaps shed more light on the subject. There is even one for Australians! Good morning. For the second time, rational, I readily acknowledge that the essential topic of this thread is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding". It is unclear to me whether or not you have a problem with this fact, if you have a fundamental issue with folks discussing this topic on TMB please refer your objections to one of the monitors. It is also unclear why you felt compelled to extend my remarks as to the types of phenomena that have been and/or are considered paranormal but thank you for your effort. After review of your extended list of such phenomena, I can clarify that my interests (for discussion on this thread) are relate only to aspects of topics that might be considered related to omnipotent beings, spirits and souls. I am uninterested (on this thread) in the other topics that you have so generously provided for our review. I hope that clarification is useful. On a personal level, I find the misdirecting interjection of mental health considerations into a conversation about reflections on transcendental phenomena to be boorish. My preference and intention is not to pursue that avenue of inquiry in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 23, 2014 10:08:40 GMT -5
As I see it, what you are saying is like stating that you have looked into ESP and do not believe it is a real phenomenon but you are wondering about precognition or the ability for humans to communicate over a distance without the need for physical or measurable energy transfers. You have in effect applied a different definition to 'god' and are exploring how the newly defined god fits. Or perhaps defining a whole new god. I regret my lack of clarity in expressing myself on this thread. My comments have clearly led you to misunderstand my intentions. Assuming that your comments are intended to clarify rather than obfuscate, I will attempt a clearer expression of my interests. Postulate: there exists a consciousness, differing from human consciousness in kind, capacity and extent, that is transcendent (beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience). The negation of this postulate is uninteresting in the context of the intent of this thread and requires no further consideration as a part of this thread’s discussion. My interests on this thread are concerned with the assumption that a transcendent consciousness exists. Expressing the assumption as a conditional: if a transcendent consciousness exists, what interesting questions arise for (human) individuals to reflect upon? One question that arises in my mind is the nature of the transcendent consciousness. The OP of this thread expresses my personal misgivings about the personification of the assumed transcendent consciousness. One immediate challenge is how to name this entity for a diverse collection of individuals holding a diverse set of beliefs. God is a word used in the English language to provide a generalized reference to a transcendent being. However, there has always been some trepidation among peoples as to appropriate 'signifiers' of a transcendent being. Since the Enlightenment Period, Western Culture has become increasingly sensitized to this problem. In modern Western Culture, particularly within the atheist community, use of the word God in general conversation is challenged. Accordingly, out of respect for skeptics and those who embrace atheist beliefs, I have used a variety of different 'signifiers', including God, god, “God”, “god”, “presence that transcends human comprehension”, “ ineffable and omniscient presence”, and other variations on these themes. I have no personal stake in any particular designation, only that the designation(s) used enable meaningful and civil discourse. A significant portion of the discussion has centered on what vocabulary to use to sustain a meaningful conversation. The alternatives are few. Out of fear of usurpation and manipulation of powerful imagery by humans with good or bad intentions, I remain exceedingly apprehensive of the use of human attributes to describe the nature of “God”. Further, I am concerned about discussing the nature of a transcendent consciousness because by definition that consciousness is beyond human comprehension. But legitimate questions of profound significance remain. Accordingly, I am currently in the process of setting aside questions of the nature of a transcendent consciousness in my own mind and focusing instead on reflections about the possible connections that might link human and transcendent consciousness. Once again, there are alternative postulates that might be considered. One postulate is that no connection exists between transcendent and human consciousness. Again, this postulate is uninteresting in the context of the intent of this thread and requires no further consideration as a part of this thread’s discussion. Alternatively, one can consider the implications of a direct and personal connection (closely associated with a theists worldview) or one might consider a generalized connection/association that does not involve personal individual connections (more closely associated with a deists worldview). Either of these two postulates (assumptions) can reasonably be considered using personal and individual experiences. The experiences can be described using a common and easily understood vocabulary. The interpretation of these experiences between individuals is the essential core of interesting and perhaps revelatory conversation. I hope these remarks will clarify that I have not “in effect applied a different definition to 'god' and are exploring how the newly defined god fits. Or perhaps defining a whole new god.”
|
|