Ricks Questions on Divinity Options

[catseye]

I moved this to a new thread as it goes off topic of "ego death" - sorry Phi that I didn't do this before with Joesus- I just got caught up in the conversation.

name='Rick' date='Jun 11, 2009, 08:33 AM' post='102001']

Lindsay keeps saying that all this natural stuff is really god, but that seems to be cluttering up the language with redundant and misleading labels. If it's not supernatural, isn't calling it god misleading? It's nature!

I would guess that there is always an answer. Is God - Nature? It's the old battle of
"where is God?" If we give in to the theory that God created all things then it's, yes.
but if we believe God is outside of Nature then , no. That's one reason I don't give in to the word "supernatural" . We do know that there is a creative force,(big bang) that begot all things. Does this "force" have a name? Is it just the "nature of life" or does this life have an origin such as God. So many want to combat the theory of was it "created" or "cause and effect" ?. To prove against the creationist we have to find what was the cause of the big bang. To prove against cause and effect we have to find God.
And still there are many (like me) that believe in the meathod of a middle way, that basicly it is both.
I can say this due to my experiences of knowing there is more than just my body, just my mind. But no one can force an individual to experience this "knowing".
I don't think Lindsay was mislabeling as much as he was trying to describe this "middle way".
Like the thread that discusses "what is consciousness?" no one can really give an answer- only opinions. We can say is was necessary to instinct or we can say it is the grace of God- again we revert back to the same questions.

Feelings of divinity: if divinity does not exist, then the feelings are illusory. I hate being mislead, even (especially?) by myself.

di·vine

di·vine [di vn]
adj
1. having godlike nature: being God or a god or goddess
2. relating to God, gods, or goddesses: connected with, coming from, or caused by God or a god or goddess
3. connected with worship: relating to the worship or service of God or a god or goddess

4. lovely: pleasing, attractive, or well performed (informal)


v (past and past participle di·vined, present participle di·vin·ing, 3rd person present singular di·vines

1. vt realize something: to come to understand or realize something

2. vt discover something as if supernaturally: to learn or discover something by intuition, inspiration, or other apparently supernatural means

3. vt predict something as if supernaturally: to predict something by apparently supernatural means

4. vti search with divining rod: to search for underground water, metal, or minerals using something such as a divining rod


n (plural di·vines)
1. theologian: a member of the clergy, especially one who is knowledgeable about theology
2. Di·vineGod: God, or an underlying creative and sustaining force in the universe


[14th century. Via French < Latin divinus < divus "god"]


-di·vine·ly, , adv
-di·vine·ness [di vn nəss], , n
-di·vin·er, , n

When I spoke "it's all divine" I was speaking in the terms of that which I put in bold print. But, I do have the view that we are all divine- even God-like. We have the consciousness to create that which was not in existence prior. We have the ability to, suppose, theorize, and imagine. This is divinity at it's core. For me it's not a measure of divinity being real or not but being actualized from the real to the illusionary.

---
I'm not a fan of quackwatch....they hate everybody, including my profession. It isn't placebo to see a man go from a wheelchair to playing football with his son. It's a matter of getting the body to heal properly with understanding and instruction of anatomy and physiology. I don't think they are any different then those who preach from the other-side - they are just too far to the right as the others are too far to the left. This kind of imbalance will never convince me.

As acupuncture goes, I continue watching. If it is placebo than the conditions or diseases will return to those who receive this treatment.
but could I argue the same with chemo...many have there cancer return. Or with just about any medicine out there....yes.
Even the miracles that Jesus preformed, many returned to the same conditions they were "healed" from. Perhaps it really is a matter of lifestyle and conviction to what is begun for healing - not medicine or miracle?

It has always seemed to me that the main benefit of acupuncture is that it's like an enforced meditation. The patient is so full of needles, that he is afraid to move at all,

[Rick]

... I do have the view that we are all divine ...

Me too. That view is called humanism. I am a humanist. We are all constrained by physical law, however.

A humanist believes that life is important. That may sound like the understatement of the year, but to say more is presumptious. So that's all I can say.

I'm not a "species chauvenist," however. Our species were merely the first to evolve intelligence of the kind that leads to language and philosophy. All living things are important.

These are at bottom intuitive ideas. However, I need to question and test intuition. Many counter-intuitive ideas turn out to be true. And of course, the opposite notion is of concern. Many intuitive ideas are false. For example, the murderer of an abortion doctor is acting on his intuitive notions.

So it looks to me like the best phlosophy is one that can be communicated and agreed on by rational principles.

[Lindsay]

... I do have the view that we are all divine ...

Me too. That view is called humanism. I am a humanist....

... So it looks to me like the best phlosophy is one that can be communicated and agreed on by rational principles.

Good stuff in both posts above. I heartily concur with all the important points made.

Rick, is there a mathematical symbol such a zero '0' with a / through it? If so, I would like to use it. When I use the null symbol it keeps mutating into something incomprehensible.

BTW, as a lover of new words, I like to think of myself a humaneist.

[Rick]

Ø

[Lindsay]

Ø

But what is the one with the / inside the '0'?

When I use the null, Ø--the / through the O, in this forum it tends to revert to something incomprehensible GØD. This is why I had to change my signature. Interestingly, this hasn't happened in scienceagogo.com, nor in redefiningGOD.com, yet.

[Rick]

Don't know that one.

Greek letter Theta: Θ

[code buttons]

Ø

But what is the one with the / inside the '0'?

When you find it make sure and always put an ® by the right upper corner of it just in case it becomes an original invention and make you some money

[Rick]

Right, ® Represents Rick.

[Lindsay]

Ø

But what is the one with the / inside the '0'?

When you find it make sure and always put an ® by the right upper corner of it just in case it becomes an original invention and make you some money

Are you serious? Is the creation of a symbol considered to be an invention?

What about the following? With an ® of course:
GØD = as in holo-unitheism, panentheism
G0D = same as above
G?D = skeptics and agnostics
GD??? = atheists
G$D = financiers
G D = mellow people
GD = comedians
GD = happy people
GD = sad people
GD = angry people
G-d = Orthodox Jews
GD = true lovers
GD = cool, or disguised
Any more suggestions?

[catseye]

='Rick' date='Jun 15, 2009, 11:54 AM' post='102085']


These are at bottom intuitive ideas. However, I need to question and test intuition. Many counter-intuitive ideas turn out to be true. And of course, the opposite notion is of concern. Many intuitive ideas are false. For example, the murderer of an abortion doctor is acting on his intuitive notions.

So it looks to me like the best phlosophy is one that can be communicated and agreed on by rational principles.

counter-intuitive ideas? example?

The murderer was not acting on intuition but personal opinion and bias fed by schizophrenia disturbance.
I would agree on the last sentence but unfortunately we live in a world that puts any principle in regard to personal opinions. Jesus gave perfect principles as did Moses, both are rejected by the atheist "because" of it's source to or reference to religion. Freud and Sagan were correct but rejected by creationists because of the origin of science. How can we find principles that work for all people when intuition is confined to opinions of perfected resources?
How can intuition be defined or examined without the belief of a one sided extreme or the other?

[Rick]

counter-intuitive ideas? example?

There are many, small and large. There are many mathematical theorems that are counter-intuitive. For example, it's provably true that there are an infinite number of true theorems that are unprovable. This goes against most peoples' intuition.

Another one is the concept of the unknowable. Humans generally have the intuition that anything can be known, given enough time or endeavor. However, there are some things that are unknowable in principle, and that's counter-intuitive.

Take the case of Andy who was born with his vision system wired backward, so that when he looks at something green like the grass, he sees what normal people see as red. This case might be true, but there's no way that anyone can ever know it.

[P.j.S]

"Take the case of Andy who was born with his vision system wired backward, so that when he looks at something green like the grass, he sees what normal people see as red. This case might be true, but there's no way that anyone can ever know it."

Rick how do you explain the color uniformity by sight in people? Like the ink on the computer screen is basically black and most everybody seemes to know that.

[Rick]

Andy points at the (to him red looking) grass and says "it's green" because when he was a child, his mother told him that it was green.

[Lindsay]

On the topic: Ricks Questions on Divinity, there is a new book, just out by Professor Terry Eagleton. It looks like the debate about the god-hypothesis is heating up, again.
=============================================================

FOR A BRIEF BIO OF EAGLETON check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eagleton
It seems that Eagleton--born in 1943, which means he is now 66--was raised a Catholic.

The following comments in his bio are about RELIGION:
========
In October 2006, Eagleton produced an impassioned, widely quoted critique of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion in the London Review of Books. Eagleton begins by questioning Dawkins' methodology and understanding: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."

He concludes by suggesting Dawkins has not been attacking organised faith so much as a sort of rhetorical straw-man: "Apart from the occasional perfunctory gesture to ‘sophisticated’ religious believers, Dawkins tends to see religion and fundamentalist religion as one and the same. This is not only grotesquely false; it is also a device to outflank any more reflective kind of faith by implying that it belongs to the coterie and not to the mass. The huge numbers of believers who hold something like the theology I outlined above can thus be conveniently lumped with rednecks who murder abortionists and malign homosexuals."

Although many of his texts include aspects of philosophical debate, Eagleton himself does not claim to be a philosopher, stating, "Perhaps I should add that I am not myself a philosopher, a fact which I am sure some of my reviewers will point out in any case."

DITCHKINS
=========
During four days of talks at Yale University's Terry Lectures in April 2008, Eagleton spoke of a fictious person, Ditchkins, which is derived from the merger of the two last names Hitchens and

Dawkins (Etymology: Dawkins + Hitchens). In these lectures Eagleton often caricaturizes the two famed writers and outspoken atheists, routinely drawing Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins as one single, comedic debate opponent.

* "...someone like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, a couplet I will henceforth reduce to the solitary signifier Ditchkins..." (April 1, 2008 Christianity Fair and Foul)

[Phi]

Uh, what were ricks questions on divinity in verbatim?

[catseye]

Uh, what were ricks questions on divinity in verbatim?

Quote Rick- From thread Ego Death post #77

June 10,2009 10:17 pm


I know, taking one sentence out of context can be unfair. But it triggers a bunch of questions in my mind.

An emotion like anger requires a body or a brain. Where is god's brain? The only evidence of divinity in the universe that I know of is consciousness itself, and even with that, it's not certain that divinity exists.

If one were to say that god is the aggregate of all people or their minds, I could go along with that, but what makes it necessarily divine? Really trying to find out.

[Lindsay]

... Where is god's brain? The only evidence of divinity in the universe that I know of is consciousness itself, and even with that, it's not certain that divinity exists.

If one were to say that god is the aggregate of all people, or their minds, I could go along with that, but what makes it necessarily divine? Really trying to find out.

FOLK THEOLOGY
Do not confuse the following with what sophisticated theologians, of any number of schools, think and write.

Traditional folk theology--even among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others--is something like as follows: There is a creator god (God) who is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present and is in control of the past, present and future. In the beginning, He created a very pleasant place (Eden means a pleasant place) called Eden. Following the act of creation, "He" allowed one of his angels, the devil, to rebel and compete with him for the souls of people. That is the on-going struggle in which we are all involved.

You say, "If one were to say that god is the aggregate of all people, or their minds, I could go along with that..."

While I appreciate and pass no judgment on those who accept a folk theology, I agree with you. This is why I talk about "process" theology. For me, G0D is an acronym, not a noun. G0D includes us and all that IS. There are no separate beings--God, the devil and the universe.

G'0'D--note that I use a 0, zero--is all that is Good, Orderly and Desirable. G0D is all power, knowledge, wisdom, truth, and beauty, and, the process of life itself.

WE ARE HERE TO CREATE THE FUTURE
At this point we have two choices: We can waste our time dreaming of the lost paradise we read about in the first chapters of Genesis--the mythical garden of Eden; or by a simple act of willing we can,open ourselves to receive all the knowledge, wisdom and power we need to create a real garden of Eden, right now. We are here to make the future present, not waste time and energy regretting an illusionary past.

[Joesus]

WE ARE HERE TO CREATE THE FUTURE
Instead of wasting our time regretting that we lost the opportunity to have a perfect past. By the simple act of good will (agape Love) we can, right now, appropriate all we need to create a true garden of Eden, now. Instead of wasting time predicting the future, let us use our wills and imaginations to act on making it happen.

We are here creating our vision and experience of a future by the various thoughts that we entertain. There is only ever the now. The future never comes for there is only now and the past doesn't exist for there is only now. IF we were in the future it would be now if we could, and if we were in the past it would be now if we could and so there is only now. The mind jumps from idea to idea like a monkey jumping from one tree to another searching for an ideal banana and the minds reflections reveal what it wants to see in probable realities of the now.
With all our good and greatest intentions we will believe that there is something superior to what we experience as long as it includes the duality of opposites such a good and evil. God is not all that is Good orderly and desirable if Good has a dual aspect of not Good, or orderly if orderly has a dual aspect of disorder, or desirable if desirable has a dual aspect of undesirability. God is absolute. We are here realizing Truth thru the process of understanding and knowing what that is. We are already perfect and live in perfection, it is only the mind seeing its own reflections of ignorance that focuses on a projected future or creating one different than the one it sees imagining from imperfect a perfection.

'Lookin' for love in all the wrong places'........

[maximus242]

Interesting thoughts.

How do you know we are living in perfection and that it is an imperfect reflection or perception? Could it not be the opposite as well? What allows you to know one is correct and the other incorrect?

If god is absolute then are we not god, for if not, how could it be god, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute...

[Joesus]

Interesting thoughts.
How do you know we are living in perfection and that it is an imperfect reflection or perception?

You would have to know something without qualities such as perfection and imperfection and if that is reflected in every account of quality the appearances are surface appearance only.

Could it not be the opposite as well?

Only if you were stuck between two opposites and felt only one of them was real.

What allows you to know one is correct and the other incorrect?

When you find that they are both the same in their origin and understand how one labels one or the other and how that becomes an illusion, is how you know neither of the single choices are permanent but just a momentary presentation of judgment.

If god is absolute then are we not god, for if not, how could it be god, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute...

The reflections of the absolute are the appearances of nature. They are in themselves subjective by self (ego) pescribed determination and belief. No two eyes see exactly the same thing regardless of similarity when experiencing any single event. One event can bring joy to one person and another sadness. The reflections of the world are created thru interpretation, the source of all creation is without flaw. If you look beyond interpretation of quality it is all Just the One absolute.

[Lindsay]

Max242--where have you been? You say:

If god is absolute then are we not god? For if not, how could it be god, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute...

BTW, I revise my last post as follows: At any point in the now, that is, in the present moment, we have three choices.

First, we can choose to waste our time painfully thinking of a lost paradise we thought we had-- the mythical garden of Eden we now read about in the first chapters of Genesis and believe we lost because of the temptations of others.

Second, we can continue the pain and suffering in the present, as we allow ourselves to get sucked into the ain't-it-awful games many social leaders, including our politicians--aided and abetted by the media--like to play as they rail against all kinds of circumstances and enemies, including members of the opposition, corruption in high places, criminal elements in our midst and rogue nations abroad. Of course it is always easy to blame circumstances or someone else, out there, for all our problems.

Or, third, guided by our inner spirit of wisdom we are free chose the G0D-like power of agape-love. By this simple choice we open ourselves to receive--from deep within the human heart, or spirit*--all the knowledge, wisdom and power we need to create a real garden of Eden, right now. In the present we can accept that all illusions about the past and future are self-created. What we do with them and how we live now is the one true reality.
==============================================
*Of course, I presume we can agree that those wish to think of this in natural, or transcendental, terms ought to be free to do so.

[maximus242]

Interesting thoughts.
How do you know we are living in perfection and that it is an imperfect reflection or perception?

You would have to know something without qualities such as perfection and imperfection and if that is reflected in every account of quality the appearances are surface appearance only.

Could it not be the opposite as well?

Only if you were stuck between two opposites and felt only one of them was real.

What allows you to know one is correct and the other incorrect?

When you find that they are both the same in their origin and understand how one labels one or the other and how that becomes an illusion, is how you know neither of the single choices are permanent but just a momentary presentation of judgment.

If god is absolute then are we not god, for if not, how could it be god, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute...

The reflections of the absolute are the appearances of nature. They are in themselves subjective by self (ego) pescribed determination and belief. No two eyes see exactly the same thing regardless of similarity when experiencing any single event. One event can bring joy to one person and another sadness. The reflections of the world are created thru interpretation, the source of all creation is without flaw. If you look beyond interpretation of quality it is all Just the One absolute.

So in other words your saying inperfection and perfection are only perceptions.

Okay so from what I read in the last paragraph your saying that quality is subjective however then you also state it is without flaw.

Now how can something be without flaw if quality is subjective because then that would mean the belief that it is without flaw is relative to your subjective interpretation of quality and therefore eliminates itself.

If the reflections of the absolute are subjective then are you saying there is no way to know whether this god of yours is truly absolute or not because we are self-contained in our own perceptions?

Isnt the idea that it is all just the one absolute also an interpretation?

How do you know that your views are the correct views and are not also self-limited perceptions with the illusion of being 'the one truth'?

[Joesus]

So in other words your saying inperfection and perfection are only perceptions.

Well to be even more specific they are only words, which lead to perception

Okay so from what I read in the last paragraph your saying that quality is subjective however then you also state it is without flaw.

The paradox of creation. If in the sense that a creator creates exactly as the creator wants it, that creator may after the fact decide it is with or without flaw according to how he/she/it decides to look upon itself as a creator. IF the Creator knows itself to be flawless it will know everything it creates is flawless. IF it, (the creator) knows itself to be flawed, it will see all of its creations imbued with those same flaws.
Since we are discussing the ultimate creator and it is seen as without Flaws by everyone that believes in a Flawless creator, the determined flaws can then be projected as being created perfectly by a perfect creator with the flaws that are determined to be flaws, according to those outside of the creators vision or mind. Unless one can join the Flawless creator in mind and intent, the conjecture of opinions taken outside of that condition become subjective, or conditioned by the ego of individual belief and interpretation created by past impressions, the gathering of information taken in, in a determined or specific time period. In this Case, using God the Flawless creator, being timeless and without the constraints of time specific programs of belief, it is often determined from the time specific programs of ego, that God is, according to what has been accumulated by determination and as such, is God's creation.
Logically this becomes a paradox if something that is separate from the Mind of one, can determine what is in the mind of another and what that mind accomplishes.

Now how can something be without flaw if quality is subjective because then that would mean the belief that it is without flaw is relative to your subjective interpretation of quality and therefore eliminates itself.

If the design of something is exact and comes to fruition as intended it becomes flawed by the interpretation of something outside of the loop. Not by design.

If the reflections of the absolute are subjective then are you saying there is no way to know whether this god of yours is truly absolute or not because we are self-contained in our own perceptions?

No. What I am saying is that there is no subjective way to know the absolute. One would have to rise above and beyond belief that is subjective.

Isnt the idea that it is all just the one absolute also an interpretation?

Anything of duality is subject to deterministic interpretation but exists regardless in its pure state, regardless of what interpretation does with it. It would then have to be amorphous or absolute.

How do you know that your views are the correct views and are not also self-limited perceptions with the illusion of being 'the one truth'?

The same way you know you are breathing, without someone else telling you that you are. The context of the experience is less dedicated to the physical but more to that which underlies it. That non-physical essence is experienced in everything physical. It may also help to mention that it has always been a part of everything I experienced since birth but didn't put words to it, until I researched the philosophies and religions of the past and present to put into context and words as have those throughout the history of man have.

Since then I have joined others who seek and teach of it from their own experience.