The Ten Commandments Options

[Lindsay]

... so the default position is atheism, since it's a simpler model. ...

So, if atheism is the simpler model, I am all ears: How come you do not take it?

[Lindsay]

What if the agency lives through us, or, what if we are the agency? Can the agency be called God if it is represented by the collective action of being?

Phi, how familiar are you with panentheism--not to be confused with pantheism? And pneumatology--the mother of psychology? BTW, perhaps you are aware that I prefer to speak of unitheism--a term which I introduced to Wikipedia. Also, I prefer to use the acronym, GOD, rather than the noun, God--the person believed in, by theists, and rejected by atheists.

That's what I mean by it not being supernatural. It's us, and we're part of nature.

I dislike calling myself "god" (people tend to misunderstand) so I choose to be a gnostic pantheist.

Interesting. Gnosticism--based on the Greek 'gnosis' (knowledge). "Gnostic" is the name given to a 1st Century group of Christian mystics and philosophers. As I understand it: "Gnostics (then and now) believe that they have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe, of which the general population is unaware." The following site has excellent information.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

[Rick]

Right, secret knowledge, hidden in plain sight.

Regarding the simpler model, there is still a wrinkle:

The human experience of the sacred, or reverence or whatever you want call it, would be misleading if the atheistic model is correct. That's not to say that nature is not misleading. Maybe it is. However, agnosticism is too wishy-washy a position for me.

[Phi]

That's just mind management, isn't it?

In a sense, but it may seem godly in how far it can stretch. Very slow in a lifetime but possibly timeless in effect.

[Rick]

The main idea is to promote positive action over wishful thinking.

[Joesus]

How do you separate the two, absolutely?

[Rick]

The scientific method isn't absolute, but provides a means to approach reliable knowledge.

[Lindsay]

The scientific method isn't absolute, but provides a means to approach reliable knowledge.

I agree. Otherwise, why would it be part of GOD, which I believe it is.

[Joesus]

The scientific method isn't absolute, but provides a means to approach reliable knowledge.

A physician tells a patient, "I'm very sorry to tell you, Mrs. Jones, but your breast cancer has metastasized throughout your internal organs; you'll be dead in six weeks." If Mrs. Jones believes her doctor, her body will respond and kill her.
For decades, surgeons assumed that if you were unconscious during surgery, it didn't matter what was said in the operating room. But it was found that what is said affects the likelihood of recovery! If they open you up and say, "Oh, look at that, it's worse than we thought -- " then your chance of recovery goes way down. The more positive the surgeon's remarks, the greater the chance of recovery. The power of the mind is awesome.
In a study of four hundred spontaneous remissions of cancer interpreted by Elmer and Alyce Green of the Menninger Clinic there was only one factor in common -- every person changed his or her attitude before the remission occurred, fundamentally changed his or her way of thinking, became more hopeful, courageous, positive. They somehow broke through the collective consciousness, through their self-destructive beliefs and programs and changed their minds on a fundamental level, deep inside. And so they were "miraculously" cured.

In every case where the patient was told by scientific methods that they would die of their ailment, the only thing that changed the outcome was the positive effects of the patients outlook on the situation.
The scientific method is not always reliable knowledge.

In my own recent experiences with the stroke that my Mother in Law had, the doctors were not at all positive. In fact they were trying to convince us that she had no real chance of a recovery or a life. Six months later she is walking talking and performing tasks such as folding laundry and mathematic calculations.

I don't think there is any way to separate the two or elevate one over the other. People have a tendency to lean towards something they give authority to and it has an influence on the way things are created.

I also don't think one can define God or atheism unless they put their own limitations forward and try to encapsulate the personal into the absolute.

There are those who can't seem to stray from their labels of identity however and for them it is a limitation rather than a boon. Diversity cannot exist within relative absolutes, or at least, the personal will not allow it.

[Rick]

... But it was found that what is said affects the likelihood of recovery! If they open you up and say, "Oh, look at that, it's worse than we thought -- " then your chance of recovery goes way down. The more positive the surgeon's remarks, the greater the chance of recovery. The power of the mind is awesome.

This is evidence of my thesis: science tends in the long run toward the truth. False beliefs get replaced with true ones.

The power of the mind being awesome is in furtherance of my theme of "mind management." The shaman uses feathers, rattles, and smoke to effect a cure. It's not really the feathers and rattles, but the attitude of the patient. Knowing that, how can we use that power within ourslves? I call it mind management. What do you call it?

[Joesus]

Conscious awareness or enlightenment.

Which brings up a curious idea.
Shamans use feathers, rattles, and smoke to effect a cure. Doctors use machines, programmed knowledge and science to effect a cure. Which is more intuitive or in tune with the patients ability to cure themselves?

[Rick]

The shaman's method, of course, because he knows what he's doing in that regard. Western medicine is just beginning to play with these ideas.

This post has been edited by Rick: Aug 01, 2008, 08:37 AM

[Phi]

The scientific method isn't absolute, but provides a means to approach reliable knowledge.

I agree. Otherwise, why would it be part of GOD, which I believe it is.

Why couldn't the definition of God be redefined through enlightenment to include the scientific method, or has the idea of God been too tainted and abused in the past to ever reclaim what was originally intended?

[Joesus]

The shaman's method, of course, because he knows what he's doing in that regard. Western medicine is just beginning to play with these idea.

Well then regarding the statement:

The scientific method isn't absolute, but provides a means to approach reliable knowledge.

I gotta be like the kid in the back seat... Are we there yet..Are we there yet?

Until we get to where we have decided smoke, feathers and rattles absolutely play no part in the evolution of man and knowledge I say we don't make any quick judgments about God in the form of superstition but take a closer look at what has inspired it in the first place, and by that I don't mean fantasy but universal inspiration and spiritual insight that is connected to the likeness of humanity.

[Lindsay]

The scientific method isn't absolute, but provides a means to approach reliable knowledge.

I agree. Otherwise, why would it be part of GOD, which I believe it is.

Why couldn't the definition of God be redefined through enlightenment to include the scientific method, or has the idea of God been too tainted and abused in the past to ever reclaim what was originally intended?

I agree. This is why I prefer to write the name of Divine Being as, GOD--all Goodness, Order and Design. Orthodox Jews feel the same way, and write it as, G-d

[Lindsay]

The shaman's method, of course, because he knows what he's doing in that regard. Western medicine is just beginning to play with these idea.

How many have heard about Norman Cousins and his two great books on this theme?:
ANATOMY OF AN ILLNESS (1979)
In this book he chronicled his recovery in the best-selling Anatomy of an Illness as Perceived by the Patient: Reflections on Healing and Regeneration, published in 1979. In the book, generalizing from his own experience and research, he affirmed that "the life force may be the least understood force on earth" and that "human beings are not locked into fixed limitations. The quest for perfectibility is not a presumption or a blasphemy but the highest manifestation of a great design."

and
'HEAD FIRST, The Biology of Hope (1989)--the result of the tens years of work he did at UCLA as an adjunct professor to medical students.
The book is really about SPIRIT FIRST, the biology of faith, hope and love.
========================================================
http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/book_r...head-first.html
Cousins describes how fear and despair cause biochemical damage and how positive attitudes promote wellness and healing. He supports his fascinating anecdotes with powerful scientific data demonstrating how the mind can hugely influence the course of illness and health.

In 'Head First' Cousins also explains how to encourage confidence and hope in patients in order to activate all their resources against their illness. He shows how a cultivated positive attitude (as an adjunct to good medical treatment) can lead the body toward health.
========================================================
BTW, as part of the large amount of information in his book, he tells the story and offers proof regarding the value of what I call pneumatherapy--the spiritual use of Ericksonian hypnosis. That is, hypnosis without the hocus pocus. This is so simple it can be done over the phone. I have done it, as recently as last week--part of the "secret knowledge in plain sight" you mentioned, Rick .

Chapter 12 is titled: MESMER, HYPNOTISM, AND THE POWERS OF THE MIND.

For more details on the work of Norman Cousins check out:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/cousins.html

[Rick]

Why couldn't the definition of God be redefined through enlightenment to include the scientific method, or has the idea of God been too tainted and abused in the past to ever reclaim what was originally intended?

Yes, too tainted and abused. Why carry all that old baggage (inquisition, witch burning, jihad)? I say throw that old word overboard. Splash. Lindsay, of course, disagrees, but he's rather old fashioned.

[Joesus]

Why couldn't the definition of God be redefined through enlightenment to include the scientific method, or has the idea of God been too tainted and abused in the past to ever reclaim what was originally intended?

Yes, too tainted and abused. Why carry all that old baggage (inquisition, witch burning, jihad)? I say throw that old word overboard. Splash. Lindsay, of course, disagrees, but he's rather old fashioned.

The ego is always responsible for trying to change God into something perfect, whether it be inquisitions, witch burnings, Jihad or changing the name of God to G'd. It is because of self absorption that the eye does not see, the ears do not hear and the mouth revels in the dogma of personal opinion and self aggrandizement.

God itself is never really born of the decoration of personal ideas and superstition, only religion is born of personal ideas and superstition, or ego.

[Phi]

Why couldn't the definition of God be redefined through enlightenment to include the scientific method, or has the idea of God been too tainted and abused in the past to ever reclaim what was originally intended?

Yes, too tainted and abused. Why carry all that old baggage (inquisition, witch burning, jihad)? I say throw that old word overboard. Splash. Lindsay, of course, disagrees, but he's rather old fashioned.

Well I think that there could be an understanding from the scientific side and a welcoming of old religious types if God were kept in the system but just as an evolved understanding. I never think it's too late. I just think it would be a harder process of unity if religious folk were alienated.

[Phi]

Unless rick would rather cleanse the population of traditional God believers...I have friends like that...I can understand.

[Rick]

The trouble with not alienating religious folk is that they keep trying to contaminate the rest of us with suspect ideas. Let them abandon their false beliefs and then we can unite.

This post has been edited by Rick: Aug 01, 2008, 01:01 PM

[Phi]

Unless rick would rather cleanse the population of traditional God believers...I have friends like that...I can understand.

It's sort of like the spread of Christianity: just incorporate the old belief.

[Phi]

The trouble with not alienating religious folk is that they keep trying to contaminate the rest of us with suspect idea. Let them abandon their false beliefs and then we can unite.

So what specifically, or more accurately, would you call those religious folk?

[Rick]

So what specifically, or more accurately, would you call those religious folk?

Deluded. I'd like to help them, but they won't listen.

[Rick]

It's sort of like the spread of Christianity: just incorporate the old belief.

I guess I'm kind of a "Puritan" when it comes to that. Keep it pure and true.

[Phi]

It's sort of like the spread of Christianity: just incorporate the old belief.

I guess I'm kind of a "Puritan" when it comes to that. Keep it pure and true.

You're funny Rick, too bad I can't play some chess in California right now. But I have to say, Puritans haven't really prospered from what I've seen.

[Lindsay]

Why couldn't the definition of God be redefined through enlightenment to include the scientific method, or has the idea of God been too tainted and abused in the past to ever reclaim what was originally intended?

Yes, too tainted and abused. Why carry all that old baggage (inquisition, witch burning, jihad)? I say throw that old word overboard. Splash. Lindsay, of course, disagrees, but he's rather old fashioned.

Lindsay... but he's rather old fashioned? , Well!!! this is amusing.

Interestingly, most people tell me: You are ahead of your time!!!! Some do so, approvingly. Others do not approve of the new way I conceptualize ALL-THAT-IS.

Rick, in case you did not get the point: God and the acronym, GOD, are not one and the same.
In English, we often use similar words to say very different things: For example, shooting a film is not the same as shooting a person.
Even atheists will utter the exclamation, "My god! or God damn it... eh?"

You said you like the word 'nature' instead of 'god'. Go ahead, use it. But I suggest you use 'Nature' so that I will know you mean to be inclusive of ALL-THAT-IS.

BTW, in another forum, I just finished writing an essay on the difference between Christians who say: "Jesus is God, etc.,--I call them JIG--Jesus is God--talkers--and those of us who say: There are Christians who are more inclusive and who believe otherwise...
If you can get it, and read it, the essay is titled:
TALKING ABOUT GOD
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/forum/showthr...&pid=662#pid662

[Phi]

What if the agency lives through us, or, what if we are the agency? Can the agency be called God if it is represented by the collective action of being?

Phi, how familiar are you with panentheism--not to be confused with pantheism? And pneumatology--the mother of psychology? BTW, perhaps you are aware that I prefer to speak of unitheism--a term which I introduced to Wikipedia. Also, I prefer to use the acronym, GOD, rather than the noun, God--the person believed in, by theists, and rejected by atheists.

That's what I mean by it not being supernatural. It's us, and we're part of nature.

I dislike calling myself "god" (people tend to misunderstand) so I choose to be a gnostic pantheist.

Interesting. Gnosticism--based on the Greek 'gnosis' (knowledge). "Gnostic" is the name given to a 1st Century group of Christian mystics and philosophers. As I understand it: "Gnostics (then and now) believe that they have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe, of which the general population is unaware." The following site has excellent information.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

I'm familiar with Ernest Holmes, and I like where he extends GOD into. I don't know much about the differences of the theisms you listed yet(although I've crossed them from time to time) but I don't see the importance of the differences between them really...btw I like the GOD idea

[Lindsay]

I'm familiar with Ernest Holmes, and I like where he extends GOD into.

Phi, Holmes was one of the early New Thought thinkers. In his movement, SCIENCE OF MIND, he was very much a bridge builder over the gap between science and faith. http://www.scienceofmind.com/

I think Holmes was originally a member of Christian Science, which says there is no need for physical medicine, at all. I wonder what percent of believers never really turn to medical science.
Here is the official site of CS:
http://www.tfccs.com/index.jhtml;jsessioni...TNTATKGL4L2SFEQ
IMO, the basic principle--the primacy and power of the spirit--of CS is sound. I just feel that they take it too far. BTW, I notice that CS members do wear glasses and they do get their teeth filled and their hair cut. I am sure they don't neglect broken bones and serious wounds, do they?
=============================================================================

I don't know much about the differences of the theisms you listed yet (although I've crossed them from time to time) but I don't see the importance of the differences between them really...

Theism (from the Greek for God, which is theos--the idea behind all that is). It is the short way of saying monotheism.
Polytheism--there can be any number of gods.
Atheism--there is no god, or gods, at all.
Pantheism--God is the sum of all things.
Panentheism--God is in and through all that is--whether physical, mental or spiritual.
Unitheism--similar to panentheism, http://www.unitheist.org

btw I like the GOD idea

. For me, it fits with the idea of unitheism, which I like. It is my way of getting away for thinking of the deity as being a human-like person.

[Phi]

I guess the part I didn't understand was how pantheism and panentheism contradicted.