Voltaire was right: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for us to invent him.", So let's do it. Here is my attempt. What is Yours? Options

[Lindsay]

In another chat room http://pathwayschurch.ca I am having a rather interesting dialogue with a computer scientist who says that, though he is an atheist, he enjoys coming to the PATHWAYS CHURCH. By the way, I believe he is a loving and moral person.

The following is a response I gave to some recent comments he made:

Your comment about your atheism and about your work with computers reminds me of a story I have used on several occasions:

A computer scientist and technologist, who happened to be a sincere and reluctant theological skeptic, developed a powerful, voice-activated computer, which he claimed was infallible. He told his friends, "It is capable of answering any question any human being is capable of asking." One of his friends was a theologian. He invited her, along with a few other friends and experts, to be among the first to put the computer to the test.

No matter how simple, or complex, the questions asked by the experts were, the computer responded to all of them, vocally, and with precision. Everyone present was impressed.

When the theologian's turn came, she first asked some tricky questions about the Bible, church history and the religions of the world. Again, the computer had no problem giving the correct answers.

Then she said, "Well, here is what I really want to know: If you are infallible, you are perhaps already aware that like my friend, even though I am a theologian, I, too, have always had some doubts as to the existence of God. Therefore, I have one more question" she said, "and I am sure we all, here, await your answer with deep interest. Boldly, she asked: Is it really true that there is a one and only true God?"

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

Perhaps Voltaire was right when he said: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for us to invent him." Or her? Would it be too bold of us to suggest that this is what computer scientists, especially the moral ethical and skeptical ones, are actually trying to do, invent God?

INVENTING GOD--BTW, it is not to be confused with creating GOD.

G�D, for me, symbolizes the ALL that IS; that which interpenetrates the ALL. G stands for moral goodness we all want to achieve. �=stands the order in all nature, all science/maths, and D stands for the design, direction and destiny--the beauty in all things, which true and imaginative artists are capable of bringing out of the chaos of things. G�D=the moral, ethical and living spirit of love deep in the heart of all of us striving to be born.

[Joesus]

GØD, for me, symbolizes the ALL that IS; that which interpenetrates the ALL. G stands for moral goodness we all want to achieve. Ø=stands the order in all nature, all science/maths, and D stands for the design, direction and destiny--the beauty in all things, which true and imaginative artists are capable of bringing out of the chaos of things. GØD=the moral, ethical and living spirit of love deep in the heart of all of us striving to be born.

Was this something that evolved in you or is it something that always was a part of you?
You made a comment in another thread that at 17 you asked a question "Why do we keep praying to God as a "Him"? Why do we address God as if He were a super-kind of person, one with a will, able to hear (with ears?) and answer (with a voice?) our prayers?"
Did that question lead to another question in relationship to that one? Has the succession of God related questions ended with the final formulation of what God is?
If you were to continue to live for an extended amount of time equal to the time that you have lived would you still be making claims to spelling God and symbolizing God in the same way that you do now?

If not, ask yourself how long you will wait until you give up your present labels and identities?
Will you wait until you invent/experience something greater, perhaps a simpler acronym or name with a more spiritual or deeper meaning?

G stands for moral goodness we all want to achieve.

Morality is subjective to standards created from the judgments of external conditions, often judgments created from evolving perspectives of reality.

Ø=stands the order in all nature, all science/maths

Nature is often misunderstood, and the sciences that attempt to explain the nature of things are continually evolving to fit something that is larger than definition into the box that defines and limits nature.

D stands for the design, direction and destiny--the beauty in all things, which true and imaginative artists are capable of bringing out of the chaos of things.

The chaos is the true order of things, it is the nature of the mind to limit the unlimited to beauty defined in the individual eye, for not all eyes appreciate one mans identity with labels of beauty or chaos.

[Lindsay]

PROCESS THEISM. Joesus, I relate to what follows

Process theism typically refers to a family of theological ideas originating in, inspired by, or in agreement with the metaphysical orientation of the English philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and the American philosopher-ornithologist Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).

For both Whitehead and Hartshorne, it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes. This idea contrasts neatly with traditional forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable,) and unaffected by the world (impassible).

Process theism does not deny that God is in some respects eternal, immutable, and impassible, but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible.

The views of Whitehead and Hartshorne should also be distinguished from those that affirm that the divine being, by an act of self-limitation, opens itself to influence from the world. Some neo-Thomists hold this view and a group of Evangelical Christian philosophers, calling themselves “open theists,� promote similar ideas. These forms of theism were influenced by process theism, but they deny its claim that God is essentially in a give-and-take relationship with the world.

Moreover, process theism is a genuinely philosophical theology in the sense that it is not grounded in claims of special insight or revealed truth but in philosophical reflection....

For more like this, check out:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

[Culture]

Lindsay...I had the giffft of spending almost two years silent. This lead me to question all religions-belief systems. When I disrobed I took the following away with me.

In a sense, the theist is morally disabled. They function, but less efficiently, and are prone to relatively immoral actions based on their chosen medieval scripture. They lack the clarity of understanding an atheist has over the dynamic of the social contract.

The atheist is the truly moral individual of the two. If you require the threat of eternal damnation to prevent you from commiting murder, rape and paedophilia, then how can you be considered an ethical human being?

The atheist rejects murder, rape and paedohpilia because he/she chooses no to inflict harm on other human beings. This represents an enlightened state of thinking, in which an individual conciously decides to conduct themselves according to the logical conclusions of certain behaviours on society.

As soon as secular orgnisation can break down organised religion's monopoly of certain celebrational and cultural functions that human beings naturally desire, the rotten, ignorant, oppressive heart of theism will be revealed and I suspect numbers of "believers" will plummet.

It's a shame our next Enlightenment/Reneissance is taking so long to come along though. Religion is so useful as a tool for militism it's really causing a lot of problems we could do without right now.\

Moral systems built out of ideas such as intuitive moral imperatives (do unto others, maximize happiness, etc) which are logically consistent could be considered reasonable. Those systems which have as basic premises that a magical man was born and he wrote a holy book of which every word is the divine truth of God, even those words which are clearly false or self contradictory, is clearly an unreasonable system.

Moral systems that are based on premises about the divinity of some holy book, or the infallibility of some man in a robe, or about the likes and dislikes of a magical invisible man, are NOT to be accepted outright, just in virtue of it being a religious tradition. HOWEVER, the moral systems offered by various religious traditions MIGHT be acceptable moral positions, but the fact that they are offered by a religious group does NOT give them a free pass -the morality of their system must be determined in the arena of logical thought.

I wonder if the premise "it says so in my holy book" should be an acceptable starting grounds for an ethical theory. I believe (and I think you may agree with me) that if the moral system offered by a given religion is actually a good moral system, then we should be able to analyze it on its own. We should evaluate these moral systems as specific moral philosophies, and not give them a free pass just because some people happen to think that they are divinely inspired.

[Joesus]

PROCESS THEISM. Joesus, I relate to what follows

Lindsay, I can relate to anything but I don't identify myself as being the things I relate to.

[Lindsay]

Joesus, Aug 25, 07:26 PM Lindsay, I can relate to anything but I don't identify myself as being the things I relate to.

When I say "I relate" to certain ideas, I mean that I find them intellectually satisfying without requiring that others feel the same and have the same ideas.

In the same way I find it satisfying, physically, mentally and spiritually, to live with others. Others, for me, can include members of the same family, the enlarged family--as a teenager I was one of an enlarged-family of 14--or even a community of families living in the same geographic area.

I now live on Kings Inn Trail, in the village of Thornhill, in the growing city of Markham, part of the greater Toronto area--now over 6,000,000--in the province of Ontario, the nation of Canada, the continent of North America, part of the western hemisphere, the globe, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxie, the universe, and the mind of GØD. [With apolgies to Thornton Wilder (1897-1975). Rebecca, in the play, Our Town, use words like these.]

People living in harmony, and in community--the fellowship of kindreds minds--can be a wonderful thing. But this does not mean that I object to people who, maybe because they fear the tyranny of the collective, choose to live alone.
===================================================
http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm

This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God's body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God's body, but God's awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God--as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God's purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

[Lindsay]

Culture. two things. First I do not quite understand what you mean by

...In a sense, the theist is morally disabled.

Second, what it the meaning of your avatar, the chemical formula?

BTW, in my opinion, theists create God in their own image. Otherwise, why would there be so many different kinds of theisms?

[Joesus]

People living in harmony, and in community--the fellowship of kindreds minds--can be a wonderful thing. But this does not mean that I object to people who, maybe because they fear the tyranny of the collective, choose to live alone.

There was once a Teacher named Brahmananda who said, "let the thieves create an institution, and the teachers walk amongst the world."

I've both lived in community and alone, and I find it serves one in the reflection of belief to observe themselves in their attachments and beliefs as long as one can be objective about themselves rather than looking to label themselves as being something or nothing.

There are the thieves who become codependent and gain strength in numbers spouting their truths and greatness because they have someone to back them up and then there are those who are truly strong in their spirit and do not require the presence of community to be stable in their experience of living faith and commitment to the pursuit of Union with all things and the immersion in Self Realization.

People create what they think they need, not necessarily what is necessary to know themselves because they cling to certain limited identification of what God is and what it means to be living in Union.
Communities are often created to bring like minded people together but the judgment that lives in the minds of those who have not yet realized Union in both mind and heart still cling to ideas of identity and project what God is in both good and evil, and in behavior and desire. Sin is still seen as living outside of the religious box rather than disconnection from spirit and the inability to see and experience God in all things.

There was a book I once read which referred to the loss of community (Atlantis) that was immersed in spiritual communion by majority and by the grace of higher spirit gifting presence of the divine to the community for thousands of years.
Those that had been passing down the truth from one to the other simply took the truth verbatim labeling their experiences as divine without ever having known anything other than what was created within the community.
In retrospect after the destruction of Atlantis, the Gods happened to gaze down at a lone individual sitting by a fire in a cave chanting a mantra he himself had cognized in praise and gratitude to a force he had intuited as being greater than what he could imagine. Seeking to know that force, he had on his own, decided to focus his attention on that as his lifelong purpose, giving up the majority and their collective belief system and comfort of the group. They saw a light burning in the heart of this man that excelled beyond any other.

Mt 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Lk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

Those that speak of God do not necessarily Know God and so they cannot preach the kingdom of God but they can preach what they relate to in external idolatry and collective comfort of belief.
Often self-accomplishment is spoken of and worn as a badge to try and convince ones self that they have not wasted their lives in false pursuit because they Fear God or Fear the unknown.
So it is safer to bring God into common terms of identity so that one may soothe the fear that is the annihilation of the ego as the dominant separate force in the universe.


I haven't experienced a community yet that isn't codependent and filled with a mix of strong and weak minded individuals, with the weak easily influenced by the strong.
I don't know if there is a community that is not still evolving with its membership free of need and filled with spirit.
God is not democratic iin my experience but humanity tries to create God in the spirit of democracy which degrades the experience of union into limited concepts and projections of good intentions still filled with prejudice and judgment.

People are at where they are at by choice and so living in community or alone isn't a precurser to enlightenment, they are only circumstances that are often labeled as an influencing factor.

[Lindsay]

There was once a Teacher named Brahmananda who said, "let the thieves create an institution, and the teachers walk amongst the world."...

A thoughtful post, J.

Isn't there an old saw to the effect that the best way to destroy a beautiful, good and true idea is to organize and institutionalize it?

There is another story about God's decision to visit earth, in disguise. "I want to observe human behaviour, close up, without anyone being aware of me. The angel Gabriel suggested to him: "If you really want to hide, why don't you hide in a human heart? They will never think of looking for you there".

[Lindsay]

Earlier, by an unknown poster, I was asked what I thought of the theological ideas of Benedict Spinoza.

What are your thoughts on Spinoza's god, lgking?

He was not a 'simple' pantheist, but rather defined God--the one substance whose essence necessarily involves existence--and our relation to God, in seemingly more abstruse terms, open to misinterpretion.

I responded that I think highly of what Spinoza wrote. I suspect that were he alive today he would like process theology. The following is an outline article of the philosophy of Spinoza:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spinoza.htm
Unknown went on to ask:

Are we derivatives/descendents/children of God, are we a part of God?
What is the relation of part to whole?
Is the whole contained in the part?
Can the whole be inferred from the part?
Is the notion of God a convenient fiction we cling to in order to make sense of the world and our place in it?
What if there is no unitary whole?
What if what we really have is a great multiplicity of forces battling each other, without any coherent whole in the picture?
What would that say of God?
Would we really need God if this were the case?
If you equate God with unitary wholeness, then what basis do we have for presuming unitary wholeness?
We could just as well have disunity and vying of separate forces.

[Lindsay]

BTW, because I believe that any discussion of theology involves discussing the healing power of faith I thought I would bring forward a discussion which I had some time ago, with a very interesting poster, regarding HYPNOSIS and its offspring, NLP, which offers what I like to refer to a a technology of faith:

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=51&t=7873

I have often wondered: What ever happened to RTB?

[Culture]

BTW, because I believe that any discussion of theology involves discussing the healing power of faith I thought I would bring forward a discussion which I had some time ago, with a very interesting poster, regarding HYPNOSIS and its offspring, NLP, which offers what I like to refer to a a technology of faith:

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=51&t=7873

I have often wondered: What ever happened to RTB?

Lindsay why do you think it necessary in order to discuss theology one has to to discuss faith healing?
I spent about a year amongst the Khoi San (Bushmen) in the Kalahari Desert and although their belief system is
animistic in many ways there was no belief in faith healing. (we are talking about the oldest known people here) but instead made use of nature for all healing.

[code buttons]

I spent about a year amongst the Khoi San (Bushmen) in the Kalahari Desert...(we are talking about the oldest known people here)

I find myself very envious of you at this moment. How did you do that? Is there any of them left any more? How lucky of you!

[Lindsay]

Lindsay why do you think it necessary in order to discuss theology one has to to discuss faith healing? I spent about a year amongst the Khoi San (Bushmen) in the Kalahari Desert and although their belief system is animistic in many ways there was no belief in faith healing. (we are talking about the oldest known people here) but instead made use of nature for all healing.

Perhaps in order for us to communicate a little more effectively with one another it is necessary that we make it clear what we mean when we use and hear words like 'belief' and 'faith'. In my opinion, all of life--physically, mentally and spiritually--involves the use of faith and belief, in one way or another.

BTW, I believe that there is such a thing as blind faith. There is also false belief.

[Joesus]

You're speaking of Human belief and faith when you speak of all life?

[Lindsay]

You're speaking of Human belief and faith when you speak of all life?

What other kind is there?

Interestingly, I think that our word 'man', or human', come directly from Sanskrit=thinker. The Sanskrit word 'manava' is made up of three words: ma=ignorant; na= desire, and va = action. This makes sense. Our desire causes us to take action to overcome our ignorance.

Yesterday, I had the honour of giving the reflection, or the message, for the day, at http://www.pathwayschurch.ca Using the title, ARE WE INVENTING GOD? I spoke about the above, among other things.

ABOUT SANSKRIT
http://sanskrit.gde.to/learning_tools/learning_tools.html
http://sanskrit.gde.to/dict/
http://sanskrit.gde.to/dict/dictall.itx

[Culture]

You're speaking of Human belief and faith when you speak of all life?

What other kind is there?

Interestingly, I think that our word 'man', or human', come directly from Sanskrit=thinker. The Sanskrit word 'manava' is made up of three words: ma=ignorant; na= desire, and va = action. This makes sense. Our desire causes us to take action to overcome our ignorance.

Yesterday, I had the honour of giving the reflection, or the message, for the day, at http://www.pathwayschurch.ca Using the title, ARE WE INVENTING GOD? I spoke about the above, among other things.

ABOUT SANSKRIT
http://sanskrit.gde.to/learning_tools/learning_tools.html
http://sanskrit.gde.to/dict/
http://sanskrit.gde.to/dict/dictall.itx

I think one should point out there is a significant difference between faith and belief
The two are not necessarily interchangeable. I'm not splitting hairs, just want to make sure
we start on the same page.

The word human is indeed an old one but the sanskrit "hsam" translates to earth/soil.
Manava linguistically points to the root Ma - [not[ nava [new] - this among a few possibilities in
Sanskrit, at least in Pali Sanskrit.

[Joesus]

What other kind is there?

Well when were speaking of life and all of life I don't think of life as being restricted to the human experience, nor consisting of belief or faith.
One can have faith in anything and believe in anything but life itself does not exist on faith or belief.
In other words life does not exist because of faith or belief, not even the human experience.

[Lindsay]

Well when were speaking of life and all of life I don't think of life as being restricted to the human experience....

What about self, self-awareness, self-consciousness?

[Joesus]

Well when were speaking of life and all of life I don't think of life as being restricted to the human experience....

What about self, self-awareness, self-consciousness?

What about it?

[Lindsay]

What about it?

In the spirit of dialogue, I put the following question to all readers: What, for you, is self, self-awareness, consciousness--what I call the pneuma factor, or component of being human?

[Lindsay]

...I think one should point out there is a significant difference between faith and belief
The two are not necessarily interchangeable. I'm not splitting hairs, just want to make sure we start on the same page.

Tell us: In what way are they not "interchangeable"?

Culture, your note about the Pali Sanskrit--

The word human is indeed an old one but the sanskrit "hsam" translates to earth/soil.
Manava linguistically points to the root Ma - [not[ nava [new] - this among a few possibilities in Sanskrit, at least in Pali Sanskrit.

--poses the question: Which Sanskrit "expert" is the authoritative one?

For the record: Would it be possible for contributors to this thread to tell us the basic philosophy/theology, if any, on which you base you comments and questions?

For example, my basic theology--one not fixed in stone--is contained in my signature. I call it unitheism/panentheism. Culturally speaking, I call myself a Christian. However, I respect and am very open to accept, not just tolerate, all sincerely held belief systems, including atheism, which actively promote moral, ethical and loving living.

[Culture]

[quote name='Culture' post='68911' date='Aug 28, 11:26 AM']...I think one should point out there is a significant difference between faith and belief
The two are not necessarily interchangeable. I'm not splitting hairs, just want to make sure we start on the same page.[/quote]

[quote name='Lindsay' date='Aug 29, 08:08 AM' post='68928']Tell us: In what way are they not "interchangeable"?[/quote]

Belief is intellectual, and belief is supported by reasons which usually are based on the senses.


Culture, your note about the Pali Sanskrit--[quote]The word human is indeed an old one but the sanskrit "hsam" translates to earth/soil.
Manava linguistically points to the root Ma - [not[ nava [new] - this among a few possibilities in Sanskrit, at least in Pali Sanskrit.

[/quote]--poses the question: Which Sanskrit "expert" is the authoritative one?

Point taken. Let us move away from the semantics.

For the record: Would it be possible for contributors to this thread to tell us the basic philosophy/theology, if any, on which you base you comments and questions?


For example, my basic theology--one not fixed in stone--is contained in my signature. I call it unitheism/panentheism. Culturally speaking, I call myself a Christian. However, I respect and am very open to accept, not just tolerate, all sincerely held belief systems, including atheism, which actively promote moral, ethical and loving living.
[/quote]

Thats a wonderful way to live this life.
Culturally speaking I call myself a seeker of truth. I am of a similar mind as you are, except that I do not have a religion. I have beliefs but not faith. I have no qualms with anyone has faith. Understanding why people or cultures think, believe, behave the way they do is what I try to do and find the best way to do so is by livings amongst the people.

[Lindsay]

...Belief is intellectual, and belief is supported by reasons which usually are based on the senses.
...Culturally speaking I call myself a seeker of truth. I am of a similar mind as you are, except that I do not have a religion. I have beliefs but not faith. I have no qualms with anyone has faith. Understanding why people or cultures think, believe, behave the way they do is what I try to do and find the best way to do so is by livings amongst the people.

Like you, I still consider myself a "seeker". And I had the good fortune of being born into a "faith" which encouraged this.

BTW, I still think of myself as one who is in the process of seeking. Beyond high school, preparation for the ministry of the United Church of Canada took me seven years (BA, plus three years theology/Bible/Greek/Hebrew/Church History, etc.) Beyond that, after my first assignment (Labrador, NL) I did two years of postgrad studies (The History of Ideas) at Boston University. I had forty years as a minister of the United Church of Canada. I had the fun of preaching not only to myself, but to others.

In addition to theology, the Bible and other sacred writings, I the opportunity to study philosophy/psychology/history/literature/science and art. All this helped me cultivate my part of the garden of life, to sow seeds of belief and to establish my faith, which I feel is ever in the process of evolving. For me, faith must be a sighted one. It is not a blind leap in the dark, but a slow walk in the light and grace that I have been given.

ABOUT THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
BTW, take a look at http://www.united-church.ca/gc39/news/1807.shtm
This will give you some idea of the UCC. It is not a perfect church, nor does it claim to have THE Truth. If it ever did, I would seek elsewhere. The same is true for the specific congregation-- http://www.pathwayschurch.com -- of which I am pround to be a retired and volunteer associate.

[Culture]

[quote name='Lindsay' date='Aug 29, 09:15 PM' post='68943']
[quote name='Culture' post='68930' date='Aug 29, 11:45 AM']...Belief is intellectual, and belief is supported by reasons which usually are based on the senses.
...Culturally speaking I call myself a seeker of truth. I am of a similar mind as you are, except that I do not have a religion. I have beliefs but not faith. I have no qualms with anyone has faith. Understanding why people or cultures think, believe, behave the way they do is what I try to do and find the best way to do so is by livings amongst the people.[/quote] Like you, I still consider myself a "seeker". And I had the good fortune of being born into a "faith" which encouraged this.

[quote name='Lindsay' date='Aug 29, 09:15 PM' post='68943']
BTW, I still think of myself as one who is in the process of seeking.[/quote]

For the sake of dialogue...do you consider the mind/body seperate?

[Lindsay]

...For the sake of dialogue...do you consider the mind/body seperate?

For some time. now, I have come to think of myself as a whole and spiritual being who happens to be having a physical/mental experience. In this physical/mental form I know that I am subject to many limitations and lack of freedom. As a spiritual being my desire is for freedom.

As quite a young child I began looking for ways and means to become more and more at one with Spirit (GØD) of freedom, which knows no limitations. Somewhere along the line I came to the understanding that all that was necessary, on my part, was for me to simply make the choice to be at one with GØD. I am discovering that as I succeed in doing this, my physical and mental struggles become less and less. I have the faith that the Love (agape, not just eros and philia) of GØD casts out all fear and limitations. To put it in verse form:

Deep, deep within this living heart of mine
GØD lives as goodness, pure and true, as order and design.
GØD is the source of faith and hope and love;
The source of justice, joy and peace, around, beneath, above.

[Lindsay]

In other words,

I think of GØD as goodness,
As order and design,
Which lives in perfect harmony
Within this soul of mine.

GØD's not some distant person
Who lives in heaven, apart,
GØD is the One who dwells within
The open, willing heart.

GØD dwells within each one of us,
Whene'er we give the nod,
We all become, with every breath,
Extensions of our GØD.
---------ooo0000ooo--------

[Culture]

...For the sake of dialogue...do you consider the mind/body seperate?

For some time. now, I have come to think of myself as a whole and spiritual being who happens to be having a physical/mental experience. In this physical/mental form I know that I am subject to many limitations and lack of freedom. As a spiritual being my desire is for freedom.

As quite a young child I began looking for ways and means to become more and more at one with Spirit (GØD) of freedom, which knows no limitations. Somewhere along the line I came to the understanding that all that was necessary, on my part, was for me to simply make the choice to be at one with GØD. I am discovering that as I succeed in doing this, my physical and mental struggles become less and less. I have the faith that the Love (agape, not just eros and philia) of GØD casts out all fear and limitations. To put it in verse form:

In other words you see the mind/body/spirit as one?
There is a clear distinction from body and mind for me.

So lets rewing and get back on topic.

BTW, I believe that there is such a thing as blind faith.

But do you condone it is the question?

I maintain that acting upon blind faith, and therefore acting upon most aspects of most religions, is abnormal human behaviour and perhaps an unfortunate side-effect of complex cultural constructions in social species such as our own.

The success of an organism in the universe relies primarily upon it's ability to predict the properties of the universe and react accordingly. Abiotic systems define biotic systems define cultural ones, and each are governed by a set of laws, some of which we know, some of which we don't. Our ability to successfuly achieve a deliberate action in the universe depends on our ability to use those laws to predict future events.

This is the basis of instinct, probably in all life that exists in the universe that functions by processing the same 4 deminsions as we do.

In social creatures such as ourselves, where individual success relies on collective success, deviation from this mechanism is perhaps the most fundemental abnormality.

eg. a man crosses a busy road trusting himself only to his faith that he will survive. He ignores the probable result of the various properties the road and fast moving cars would have on his body and instead relies on something other than his observations. Chances are he'll die, and society will consider him a maniac.

This is not the function of religion by any means, but perhaps the most destructive side-effect, and to my mind represents a decidedly undeveloped rationality in intelligent creatures.

[Lindsay]

...In other words you see the mind/body/spirit as one?

Until someone comes up with evidence to the contrary, yes.

Your comment, "There is a clear distinction from body and mind for me." is what Rene Descartes concluded. I do not accept his dualism. IMO, consciousness, or Spirit, is the great unifying factor.

I also happen to think that as we become more and more conscious that we are one in Spirit we will begin to understand how to unify gravity and electromagnetism--the great goal of modern physics. I happen to think that this is what Seth Lloyd and other of the new physicists are up to doing.

http://www-me.mit.edu/people/personal/slloyd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd/lloyd_index.html
================================================

You ask if I, "condone blind faith".

Absolutely not! I have the same feeling about irrational religions, which abhor what I call "sighted faith". Good faith, like good theory, may go beyond fact and reason, but it need never go contrary to it.

I have no problem agreeing with you when you write

...The success of an organism in the universe relies primarily upon it's ability to predict the properties of the universe and react accordingly....

Perhaps the new physicists are helping us make such conscious (spiritually-based) choices so that we need no longer be puppets dangling on the strings of our heredity and our environment--our animal instincts.

[Joesus]

I maintain that acting upon blind faith, and therefore acting upon most aspects of most religions, is abnormal human behaviour and perhaps an unfortunate side-effect of complex cultural constructions in social species such as our own.

So you believe that making choices is abnormal...

The success of an organism in the universe relies primarily upon it's ability to predict the properties of the universe and react accordingly. Abiotic systems define biotic systems define cultural ones, and each are governed by a set of laws, some of which we know, some of which we don't. Our ability to successfuly achieve a deliberate action in the universe depends on our ability to use those laws to predict future events.

I think that the laws you refer to as known laws are forever changing due to the learning curve created in the dynamic of setting forth what it means to be human and all associated beliefs to that effect.
The natural laws of the universe support all beliefs and as such belief has a direct effect on the manifestation of experience and function.
Some believe that consciousness is projected from the human mind and therefore dies with the body.
Consciousness however has a correlation to the manifest body that is beyond what can be contained in the human mind, but is still accessable in the human experience through desire and belief.

Predicting the future from the belief that you are a victim to creation leaves the ignorant ignorant, and that thinking is what creates the god in the sky and the distortion of spiritual reality and births belief systems that become religions.

In social creatures such as ourselves, where individual success relies on collective success, deviation from this mechanism is perhaps the most fundemental abnormality.

This belief is the single greatest cause for failure in spiritual awakening. The dependance one creates on objects of perception, including fellow mankind stifles the ability of the individual leaving him/her powerless to create anything beyond what society and their beliefs allow to be true.
Like lemmings the group will follow a leader even if the leader jumps off a cliff.

eg. a man crosses a busy road trusting himself only to his faith that he will survive. He ignores the probable result of the various properties the road and fast moving cars would have on his body and instead relies on something other than his observations. Chances are he'll die, and society will consider him a maniac.

If you follow this course in belief of the nature of your surroundings you will draw this into your experience and it will flourish. It is not up to them to change. It is up to you to understand the nature of yourself. Only then will the outer appearance and experience of reality change.