Einstein said: But, keep in mind: in other quotes he makes it clear that he is not talking about "a" god in the form of a personal being out there. Einstein's theology is a scientifically-based one, similar to that of the modern Dalai Lama, who is a non-theist Buddhist.

THE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE
BTW, IMO, it is okay for each of us to develop our own theology. It is okay to give it any name we wish. I call myself a unitheist--G-D is the Oneness--for now.

For me, G-D (note the spelling) is not a person, out there, separate and apart from us and the cosmos--the all that IS, physically. G-D is, rather, the totality of ALL being, the cosmos, of which you and I, and all that is, are a part.

CURRENTLY, I AM A UNITHEIST/PAN-EN-THEIST NON-THEIST
Keep in mind, I believe I was born asking questions. However, I was raised as a traditional theist in a non-sophisticated family. At 23 (1953), I was ordained as a minister. Fortunately, I was ordained in a church (The United Church of Canada) which encourages questions.

Not being one who ever wants to be dogmatic and to paint myself into a corner, I will revert to theism anytime a theist can demonstrtate to me that there is a personal being called 'God', an almighty heavenly and male father, who communicates with us, hears and answers our prayers with a yes, no, or wait awhile.

To be fair, I also agree that I will become an atheist anytime an atheist can demonstrate to me that there is any adavantrage to believing that matter is the only reality and that all consciousness and awareness ends with the death of the physical body.

Their are many possibilities for the origins of a god, my best guess is he is the adult santa clause haha, also make believe. I do not have a ruler or a god and that the way I like it, free to think how I want when I want to. I notice one common trait amongst religions and that is the idea of the master, christians refer to him as jesus or god, I was raised in a christian family but I totally reject this idea or notion that I should bow to some being (whether he exists or not) out of fear that I will not go to heaven, I say then send me to hell at least I will be free. Whether or not one ceases to exist after death almost seems to have little need to worry about it, if you do cease to exist than so be it and if you continue to live on then so be it as well. Their is no point in arguing over it because either we do or we dont.

I think that it is very important to have people express their views and ideas. Religions often enforce the idea that their views are correct and all others are blasphamy and frankly I think its complete bulls**t. My philosophy for life is live it to the fullest however you want, because if we do only live one life you might as well have fun while your here.

- It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees

I think that Freud also believed this.
You add, I agree. I tell atheist friends: If after I die, I find that there is no G-D and no life after death, I will admit I made a mistake. If, on the other hand, I find there is life after death and G-D, think of the fun I will have with you, down in hell

You add: Max...242, I like you style, no sh*t!

QUOTE
Max...242, I like you style, no sh*t!

^.= thanks, one more thing dosent heaven kind of sound like something "a little too good to be true?" I mean if you got everything you ever wanted what more would you do? Their would be nothing out of your grasp, you wouldnt have to work for anything only desire it, I think things would loose value if they could all be obtained at will. In fact over time, heaven could be viewed as hell.. think about it.

I don't think anyone who has given the matter any thought will believe heaven and hell are separate places we go to after death. The concept is so ridiculous that only children can be duped into believing in it, for the most part.

true, also the fact of the matter is that people adapt to their environment so hell would only remain hell for so long before the mind changed its perspective to adapt to its own enivronment. Also when asking for vivid descriptions of hell from people I have only found that they either provide images the church describes and assume it will be negative simply because they are told so or they come up with things that soley frighten them and would not apply to all of man kind. So I definatly agree with you lucid, it sounds more like a fantasy than reality, however not just children believe in the stories, many adults agree to this reality (as discussed before) because they fear the idea of not exisiting after death.

So you're a pragmatist?

"So you're a pragmatist?" you ask, LD.
Yes! Next question? I would like this topic to be more of a dialogue than a debate. Let us see if we can reach some kind of consensus as to what beliefs are valuable, possible and practical.

Pure pragmatism conflicts with truth because it essentially takes the stance that if a truth is not useful then it is not truth. How do you reconcile pragmatism with truth? I do not regard Quantum Mechanics as particularly useful, but I still regard it as to large extent true.

Is it harmful to us and our universe, physicialy mentally or spiritually?

what is and isnt harmful is a matter of opinion, is george bush justified in attacking iraq? on one hand he is getting rid of terrorist but on the other hand (terrorists view) george is = to satan and they must do mohammeds bidding, the us has imprisioned and tortures many islams so who is justified in killing? who is right or wrong and what is useful or not is a matter of opinon. Another example would be the atom bomb.

so if George Bush is not useful, then is the pragmatist warranted in not believing that George Bush exists?


But seriously, pragmatism has its merits, but it should never take priority over truth.

indeed, I think it is a bit naive to assume that because something is not directly good it means it doesnt exist. Besides we all live in a sorta ecosystem of sociology, think of it this way. If people didnt kill people, who would? we would have so many people in this world that it would be worse than killing em. I like to look at things from multiple perspectives

Agreed! If one wants to feel abundant joy, ultimate truth is very practical.

Addressing this thread topic about seeking a Rational And Pragmatic Philosophy Of Religion, I do not maintain religious dogma, and so I do not belong to religious institutions, but I am very religious nonetheless. It is the religious experience of awe, mystery, presence, and other things that characterizes the religious experience. The religious experience is quite separate from the particular religious dogma you choose to attach to the experience. It is the religious experience that is important. The religious dogma is unnecessary fluff.

I agree. Thanks for that comment, LD.
Speaking at a prayer breakfast, the rock star, Bono, admitted that he felt a little out of place, because he had little time for the institution of religion. He pointed out that he was raised in an Irish home where one parent was a Catholic and the other a Protestant. He felt the tension of being raised this way.

He said: "Too often organized religion gets in the way of a person actually finding God." He then went on to call on people to put their profession of faith in, and love of, God and their fellow human beings, into their daily words and actions.

BTW, LD, do you live as a rugged individualist with no attachment to family, or community?

If so, what is intrinsically wrong with, voluntarily, belonging to a family, or a fellowship, or a community of families--for example, a church congregation--for the purpose of pooling resources and talents so as to be able to serve one another and build a better society?

Surely there is value in Aristotle's Golden Mean and the virtue of temperance, or moderation in all things: Happiness is usually found between two extremes. (Niccomacean Ethics)

IMO, morally mature people are those who know how to live life without going to one extreme or another. For example, IMO, individualism as a way of life is an extreme. So is collectivism. For info on Aristotle check out: http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tbivins/J397/LIN...rtueEthics.html

No, I do not. Good point. But, the ancient Indian philosophers, the brahmans, are said to abandon family and home, and go off into the wilderness, before they die. I'm not saying I would do that, just that some people do place special value on rugged individuality.

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR THE RECORD. I do not expect readers here to wade through all the details of the following. I offer it simply as an example of what a challenge it is to have a real dialogue with those who merely want to rant.
=============================================================
In the spirit of dialogue and in keeping with the topic of this thread, in another chat room, the following question was raised --Jan 27 2006, 08:08 PM--by a friend of mine who happens to be a Muslim:

Question: For a change, how many think that it is possible to have a thread devoted to being theologically pragmatic? For example, does what we believe about God have any practical value? Will it make the world a better place?

I happen to believe that God wants to be of loving service to us, if, we in turn, are willing to be of loving service to one another.

Not having a strong ego, I will make myself scarce in this discussion. However, I will look forward to hearing from all members of the board. Please address the following question:

What pragmatic value does what one believes about God, religion, the Bible, the Koran etc., possibly have? In other words, when push comes to shove, what possible difference does our theology make to the way each and all of us live our daily lives? If it has no use, why bother?
======================================
Another positive poster, Farr, Jan 28 2006, responded:
Good question, GfT, esp. for those like me that subscribe to a form of natural theology. In other words, if my theology simply mirrors the real world, why not just believe in the world, minus any theology?

In a sense, that is it for me in a nutshell. That's what my philosophy/theology/unitheology is--trying to better understand our life here on this planet and in this universe, to better use it and enjoy it, and in my case at least speculate on what happens after death takes us, there being no way to know for sure. (Farr writes about this at his site http://www.unitheism.org)
========================
I, Lindsay G. King, responded to Farr:
Farr, for some time now, I have been aware that being a consciously aware and truly human being is quite a challenging problem. THE PROBLEM AND CHALLENGE of being fully conscious is a real one.

Speaking personally, life was so much simpler before I was old enough and knowledgeable enough to be aware that I was aware. Interestingly, born in 1930, though I was surrounded by much poverty-caused suffering, including the death of close family members and relatives, the first few years of life were, for me, a piece of cake--even though there was not much cake for anyone.

How come? In my opinion, it was because I was not fully and consciously aware of what was actually going on around me. I was only potentially a human being.

It was only when I grew in stature and gained knowledge enough of the world around me that I developed feelings of insecurity and a true sense of how dangerous life really is. I came to adult consciousness in the midst of WW 2--the worst war the world has ever known. Our island was actually attacked, twice, by enemy subs. They sank two ore-carriers in September, 1942, and two more in November, just off shore from where I lived. Sixty-nine merchant seamen lost their lives. I saw many of those bodies laid out after they were dragged ashore. Also, there were a few survivors, rescued by the people from my island..

Collectively speaking, I suppose the same is true for the whole human family. Life was so much simpler before our ancestors--according to the Genesis myth--ate of the tree of knowledge and good and evil. Coming to consciousness, our first fully-human ancestors became aware that life is really no Garden of Eden. No one knows when, BCE, our first ancestors actually took that quantum leap from being simply unconscious and clever animals to being consciously aware and fully human beings?

Farr, where am I going with this?

Before we get to the important question regarding the nature, function and purpose of theology, which Guest Toronto poses, do you suppose, using the Socratic, or dialogue, method, we can look at another important question: What does it mean to be a fully functioning human being? Using this philosophic and dialogue-method, do you suppose that you, I, and others who care to join us, could explore this question?

I will start off by saying that, IMHO, most of us are not all that fully human, yet.

Posted by: Farr Jan 28 2006, 02:23 AM

I don't need to talk about god in order to bother about living. If the only reason one has to bother is belief in a non existent god then you are truly in serious doo doo. I don't need comforting tales on non existent gods or a hoped for eternal life to make each day, here and now, worthwhile.

I, Lindsay King write: In my opinion (IMO)--I will try to remember to begin all my posts in this thread with IMO, or even, "In my humble--down-to-earth--opinion (IMHO)--the theology which works for me is one which helps me avoid any kind of anthropomorphism. That is, it help me avoid describing God as strictly some kind of personal, objective and superhuman-like being. This is why I use G-D, G-d, or g-d, for the divine name.

BTW, in your comment, surely you are not implying that communist atheists, like Stalin and chairman Mao, were paragons of virtue? And too, sure Germany was supposedly a Christian nation before and during WW 2, but most Nazis were closer to Germanic mythology than to truly Catholic and Reformed Christianity.
=======================
Posted by: pave Jan 28 2006, 08:01 PM ....

I asked Pave: "If a religion is being used to scare a set of morals and ethics into someone - with some obscure but highly-touted penalties...Define "god-beliefs". Are they the same as "good-beliefs"?

PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/
Have you heard of the non-doctrinaire movement and growing fellowship called Progressive Christianity? which, BTW, is very inclusive. It includes people of all good faiths--Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever--even agnostics and atheists?

IMO, PC seeks to draw and encourage people to be g-d-like (good-like) in nature and to nature, to others and to self. Except for trying to help people avoid physical, mental and spiritual pain, PC is not focused on penalties. It works to find enriching differences, not ones that cause stress. It also believes in using a progressive form of education.
===============================================
The following, Jan 30 2006, is one of a number of a rants, not a dialogue:

Farr commented on the above: "...I think everyone should attempt to verbalize their beliefs, whether they post them as I do on the web or in forums such as this or not. It is a good discipline and yes I think a good use of theology-- or atheology, or unitheology, or whatever you want to call the activity of grappling with ultimate questions. If people don't agree with what I've written that's fine, life would be pretty dull if we all agreed on everything.

"As to converts-- well a dozen gorgeous women would be all I'd need. I don't expect immortality but I want to have fun while I'm here."

(Atheist @ Jan 30 2006, 09:07 PM)
Atheist Unreg., repeated this again and again.

I asked: "Atheist Anon, I would really like to know what is behind your obvious pain (anger)? You seem to be angry about something. If you want to keep it to yourself, that is your choice.

"Promise? What did I promise? BTW, I came to the level of faith and reason I happen to have after a lot of physical, mental and spiritual work. I can only offer anyone the same opportunity I had, and am having. I can honestly say it is like being a good athlete: No pain, no gain. However, the pain is worth it. History is filled with the stories the many clergy, including bishops and popes, who have put their lives on the line for their faith. Here, I will spare you the details of my personal journey.

BTW, did you ever read, in the Gospels, about the physical, mental and spiritual pain which Jesus endured? His promise was, a challenge: "Follow me!"

More ranting, posted, Jan 31 2006

No wonder the moderator, John, wrote, Jan 31 2006, 11:24 AM: "Perhaps, I am missing it. But I don't see that anyone has responded to the original question which started this thread. I am not seeing "practical" reasons for the holding of any theological belief. I am seeing the usual my religion or theology is better than your religion or theology, or all of your religions and theologies are wrong headed.

But where is the account of the practical value of your beliefs about god? What is it that you, personally, gain by believing in god or not believing in god? Are there no practical gains for believing in god? If not, why should anyone who does not beleive in god wish to do so? If it doesn't add anything of any significance to your life why have a theology?"

John, glad you asked. Thanks for your open invitation--the FIRST of its kind--to Farr and me to "sell" you on the practrical value of the theological concept we call unitheism--the old and the new variety.

By way of background: It was way back when (sometime in the 1970's) that, thanks to a lecture I heard the then Dominican priest, Matthew Fox, give, in Toronto that I stumbled on the concept of unitheism. I began preaching the concept in my sermons, immediately. I started writing about it, in TWB, almost from the beginning of this forum. I think that was in 1998.

I DID TRY TO "SELL" IT, BUT IT WAS SLAGGED AS JUST BEING SELF-PROMOTION
Why did I adopt the concept, and try to "sell" it? Because I, personally, found it very rational and useful--more useful and rational than the monotheism in which I was raised.

BTW, your login indicates that you joined TWB in Dec. 2005. Is this correct? My login states that I joined this forum in March, 2005. This is NOT correct. I joined long before that, and I have been writing about unitheism and its practical value, to me, for at least over five years. I think I brought Farr to this forum.

If you really are interested in learning the details about unitheism, to save Farr and me a lot of work re-typing things, would you do me a favour? I do not know exactly how this works, but I think you can register and take part in the FLF forum. There you will read post after post, by Farr and me, defining unitheism and telling about its practical value. There are several other supportive threads.

http://www.flfcanada.com/index_forum.html [This site is in the process of being transfered to a new server.

Let me know if you have problems logging in.

Lindsay King, TRec, writes: "FYI, anytime Farr and I did try to "sell" the practical values of unitheism, we were broadsided by numerous down-putting and demeaning posts. We were called self-promoters, practitioners of new-age mumbo jumbo, and witchcraft--in the worst sense of the word. Anytime a well-known seventy-five per cent semi-unitheist wrote about the practical value of NLP he was met with words like new-age "psychobabble" and other kinds vitriolic diatribe. Any defense we offered was described as "whining".

One of many examples: When I told the story of how, in 1964, with the permission of our family doctor, I used pneumatherapy--the practical spiritual tool of unitheism--to save the life of my only daughter, I was accused of bragging, and resorting to quack cures. She was going on eighth at the time, hand pneumonia five times that winter and was diagnosed by Sick Childrens, Toronto, with a death-threatening condition, not responding to her medications.Today she is a healthy 49 year old. And there were other stories I TRIED to tell, which were cut off at the pass.

Unitheism teaches that "In all things, g-d, in us, works with and through us, for good." Therefore I was not surprised that one good thing that did come out of all that pre-2005 controversy. It did lead Jon Chevreau to reform the format of TWB and appoint good moderators. I hope it will remain reformed."

John, moderator noted: "When I accepted the role of moderator I opted for the use of "Guests" and/or unregistered posters. So far I am not unpleased with the results. If I ever judge that it is getting out of hands, I will stop it."

Jan 31 2006, 04:44 PM

Good stuff, John.

I, too, respect the right of everyone to believe and worship God in any way that pleases them and expect that I will have the favour returned.

PATHWAYS--THE NAME OF NEW CONGREGATION BEING FORMED
Being gregarious, I enjoy being part of a community of believers, small or large,
which encourages enriching differences.
I have found this kind of community in one called PATHWAYS, here in Markham.
Sponsored by the United Church of Canada,
it is affiliated with Progressive Christians--a growing
and a world movement.

I, too, believe in the betterment of the human species.

I, too, believe in individual liberty.

I, too, believe in the equality of all human beings.

I believe in a constructive and non-judgmental approach
to those with whom I disagree. I look for what we have
in common; for enriching differences, if any at all.

I believe G-D is the ONE--that which is infinite and eternal being;
that In which I live and move and have my being.
I have joy--not to be confused with temporary happiness-- now.
I have a strong feeling that this joy IS one with the eternal, now.
Posted by: TRev Feb 1 2006, 12:44 AM

ALL GOOD RULES. JUST A REMINDER:
Rule 3: Stay on topic.
Rule 4: Check your motives. Before you post anything, please ask yourself "Why am I posting this?" What are you trying to accomplish?
Rule 5: Be aware of the difference between fact and rumour. Please do not give every rumour and idle piece of speculation unwarranted credibility by posting it to this forum. If in doubt, do more research and double-check your sources before posting.

Rule 6: Do not make solicitations.
Rule 7: Be respectful of others. Please refrain from profanity or personal attacks on individuals. By all means, share information, opinions and experiences, but avoid misleading, inflammatory or libelous postings. This forum is moderated and may be censored if a post does not live up to the spirit of these guidelines. If your presence becomes a disruption instead of a contribution, you will be banned after one warning.

Posted by: Lindsay, (TRev) Feb 1 2006, 09:11 PM
========================================
And talking, on topic, about theologically finding g-d within us, check out this must read I got from another chatroom I am in:

http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html
===============================
Here is how it begins:


This comment fits almost, if not totally, exactly what comes to my mind when I think of the concept 'g-d' in individuals--that which spiritually interpenetrates that which I am physically and mentally. G-D, in toto, is that which needs nature, including individual and conscious human beings to express collectively, as G-D, and personally, as g-d. But only if we choose to accept the gift. It will not be imposed.

And this fits with what John 1 says: "And the Word (G-D) became flesh and dwells among us..." Emmanuel (G-D) --g-d with us, partners for eternity. Again, only if we choose to accept the gift.

Whatever your concept of god is, keep it if it makes you happy. The only problem I see with your beleives is when you try to impose it, or even share it with others; blissfully thinking that you are doing them a favor. Especially your Christian ideas. Basing your spiritual beleives on a proven forgery such as Christianity is, makes you a fool, with all due respect. Blissfull ignorance is a state of mind I would much rather avoid. There are piles of books collected over time which prove beyond any doubt that The whole religion of Christianity is based on a lie. And if that wasn't enough proof, there is very special book which I recomend you read: Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion. It is especial because the author took careful attention to make some of his arguments based on fatal contradictions found within the gospels themselves. What better proof than the 'word of god' itself to debunk the argument of god's existence? Wishful thinking, fables, fairy tales, they all have a place in our society. They are nice, so long as the reader is aware that they are just that: Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs, for example.
If Bibles, Korans and the likes were published with a strict disclaimer true to their origins in ancient people's imagination, plus the phsychological and social damage that they may inflict (and have inflicted in the past) upon the readers and non-readers alike, then I would have a little more respect for their contents. But as it is today, religions continue their path of destruction of the unity that we as humans so desperetely seek. Stop fooling yourself and others with these lies, please. I know that your intentions are good, based on your life experiences. But, please, try another approach. Noble intentions do not need a religious conviction to be carried out. You are not convincing anyone in this particular website with your argument for one simple reason: rational thinking rules here. That's my beef, respecfully.

Without actually having the experience or the belief in God it becomes a moot point, because there is no common ground to discuss. It becomes a political issue around the usefulness of the whole based on varying experiences created through personal beliefs.

You have to ask yourself do I deserve to have my beliefs?
If the answer is yes then wouldn't that also apply to others?
If the answer is conditional then who creates the standard and what are the conditions?
Is it a democratic process or a process determined by political or natural law?

Do you want or would you want, someone or group of someones, to be in charge of makeing rules about how you are able to think and what you believe, or whether you and your beliefs and ideas have any value?

Joesus' date Feb 15, 09:39 AM' asks Joesus, I am all in favour of the right of individuals to formulate what they believe, as long as such beliefs do not lead to actions which no harm to others. Also, we must allow others the same freedom to formulate their beliefs.

Meanwhile, I am interested in dialoguing, not debating, with others in the attempt to see how many beliefs and ideals--and I suspect we have more in common than not--we have in common and if there really are any serious differences.

IMO, one of the practical, pragmatic, outcomes of this kind of dialogue could be more and more of a just sharing of political, social and economic power. This could certainly lead to a safer, more just and peacful future for all of us.
======================================================
BTW, how many of you caught the PBS TV documentary on the so-called "Reconstruction" period of the South, which followed the "Civil" War? In relation to our beliefs, I am interested in dialoguing, not just on the causes of the CW, but on the causes of all wars.

IMO, it was the lack of just sharing of political, social and economic power, including slavery, which caused the CW. Reconstruction policies did not solve the problems and this led to the crushing of the civil rights of many, and not just the blacks. Some historians call it a "Second Civil War".

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

How's that working for you so far?

in my opinion, religious doctrine and literature is but a stunning testament to the poverty of human imagination regarding religion. Seriously, how many significantly different types of religions/worldviews do we have? Let's see, there's monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, panpsychism, monism, plurism, a few elaborations, and that's it. How boring is that?

Different labels to an external viewpoint of beliefs that are personal to individual experiences of the nature of reality.


What inspires each person to label the universe in such a diverse manner? what is it that inspires us to think about it? what inspires us to ask the question rather than paste the label, and what is the recognizable difference in the label paster and the inspiration that moves us toward seeking an answer the question?

There is something in all of us that can be recognized.

The heart knows no reason and the mind seeks to reason why, but the mind can be influenced by the heart to expand experience and consciousness. Fear on the other hand contracts us when it influences the mind and is motivated by something other than the heart.
The labeling of good and evil and the desire to understand nature of the two have inspired humanity to seek the identity of the two so to avoid one and draw the other towards it.

The unknown often inspires the inexperienced and the uneducated mind to create Gods and boogeymen of great power that live outside of us. We by the power of our own influence create our world as we believe it to be. We have just as much power to find greatness within ourselves rather than in the things we have created through our own beliefs, thereby shifting the responsibility to our own understanding and experience of the nature of reality to that which lies within us. Once that is understood it can be brought forward and it automatically affects everything.

Joesus' date='Feb 15, 07:13 PM'
Great, in this forum. In another forum (since 1999), especially before moderators were set up, anyone who dared to write on religious and spiritual topics, have been the butt of libelous and vitriolic attacks from fanatic fundies, anti-religionists, including atheists. I hung in there and, eventually, managed to get some decent reforms.

[NOT LONG AFTER THIS, THE HOST CLOSED THE BOOMER FORUM. I write this edit, July 30, 2007.]

Keep in mind: Even though I show here as a Newbie, I have been around as lgking and Rev.LGK, from the beginning. Shawn, then a student of the neuro-sciences, even used a sermon I wrote to kick of the god-related topics.

Nicely put. But do you have the power to believe what you will? And do you have the power to will what you believe? Can you will universal harmony and world peace and an end to all suffering? If you can, then what's stopping you? If not, why not?

Everything is relative.

In the Bhagavadgita Krishna dances on the battlefield singing "God, God everywhere God" while Arjuna and the Pandava brothers sit watching in utter disbelief and horror as their families wage war against each other killing and maiming without mercy.
Krishna tries to move their minds into a greater perspective in that the souls that inhabit the bodies of people like a set of clothes are immortal and cannot die. It is only the illusions of the ego which perpetuate separation from immortality and create fear of death and suffering. The collective beliefs in the minds of man create the scenarios of good vs evil and they are the lessons one creates to see the power of the mind at the point of reference of belief in illusion, and or Truth.
God created Man in the image of God meaning that Man has free will to use his mind to create and see life as he/she wills. The ego does not recognize God which is why John wrote in Revelations "no man has seen God." It is only when man puts away foolish notions about mortality and overcomes the illusions of the ego does he see Truth.

1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

'John wrote in Revelations "no man has seen God." '




Then, what kind of man was Jacob? was he not human for having seen god? Should we take the bible at face value, or only those things that please our prejudice mind? Explain this contradiction in the word of god, please?

"... I have seen God face to face ..." -- Genesis 32:30

There is no contradiction, the meaning is simple, John spoke of the man who believes himself a man of flesh and blood rather than the unbounded, onipresent, omniscient spirit.
The Ego also translated from the Greek as Satan grabs the attention of the mind and the mind then identifies with those objects given identity through repetition and belief.
The universe and the body are made up of atoms and molecules which are coalesced through conscious awareness and or intention.
The Self is not bound by the material world and the objective and subjective experience of the Self is quite different from the lesser experiences of sleeping, waking and dreaming states of consciousness.
Jacob was enlightened and through the eyes of the Self experienced the Face of God.(so to speak)

There is a translation of the meeting of Moses on the mountain seeking to know the name of God. There after 40 years of contemplating the name of God Moses asks God if he/she/it has a name.
God replies, "Tell your people I am becoming."
This was to indicate that God is not a single thing or a single thought. God cannot be contained within any concept or idea and any name given to God is only a word pasted onto an experience trying to contain a single experience in the form of control and identity. This control and identity is from the lesser conscious manifestation of the Self known as the ego. Where man sees God as "I am" the Ego/Man identifies God as I am this or that, a stationary definable being or object. (often male)
God is a word but "I am THAT" refers to every object of perception every thought feeling and action whether in the manifest body or witnessed out of body and much much more.
There are often two parts to the experience of God. The male part which is represented by the vertical staff of the cross is the unbounded absolute stillness. Then there is the female aspect which is represented by the horizontal part of the cross. This represents the manifest reality moving outward from the stillness. Consciousness or stillness in activity.

When one unites with the Self and leaves the identity of the body and its limits created in between the ideas of birth and death, then can the Self witness itself as the absolute unbounded consciousness.

So, you do take the whole bible at face value? As the word of god?

There are often two parts to the experience of God. The male part which is represented by the vertical staff of the cross is the unbounded absolute stillness. Then there is the female aspect which is represented by the horizontal part of the cross. This represents the manifest reality moving outward from the stillness.

Is this in the bible, or where did you get this information? And will I experience god in this same way if I was, say a Jew? (having in mind that the symbol of the cross is an offense to the jew)

What you interpret is relevant to you. You can experience anything you put your attention on. If you ask can I experience the same thing I would say yes. Will you? Well, that is up to you.

If the Jew is offended it is only because he abhors any conflict with his own experience and symbology. Generally close minded people do not seek to find commonality in differences that result from different choices and experiences. If one lives in a cave and knows nothing other than the cave it may be difficult to convince him that there is life beyond the cave.

Within the yin and the yang and the symbology that is representative of that lies the same essence as in the OM symbol, the Ankh and the Swastika before it was used by the Third reich etc. etc.


Who's values are you asking about? What translation of the Bible are you asking about?
There are differences in the meanings of the words when looking at the Aramaic and the Greek and then King James put a bit of his own ideas into his version, but on the whole the message still seems to get delivered to one who is open to receive it even if it is the message one needs to hear in order to pave the way for something greater.
Often the lesser interpretations open up the deeper sense of separation in us to push us into looking deeper into things and not taking anything for granted.

As far as the word of God Goes, you have to understand that the voice of God also called the Holy spirit speaks clearly through clear channels and is often distorted by the mind that harbors experience and beliefs in separation. A simple thought bubbles up through the nervous system and is bounced through layers of internal programs of the ego and can be distorted.
Jesus himself never wrote anything down for the record. His disciples wrote of their experiences years after the Crucifixion. John dictated revelations while imprisoned on Patmos in a cave after the death of Mary years after the death of Jesus.
Some of Jesus disciples never achieved enlightenment, but John did.
What Jesus Taught is also taught in many eastern Teachings. It would be difficult to know that unless you spend a bit of time with both eastern and western Teachings. There is a book called the aquarian Gospel which tells of Jesus' travels into the Himalayas to study before preaching in his adult life.
Ultimately you have to let your own heart be your guide to the Truth. Best that you clear any stress you have in the judgments you carry about who and what you don't like and the limited prejudice you might have in those beliefs that carry judgment. Then the heart can lead where there is no reason, where Truth prevails over intellectual beliefs based on lesser experiences of God and the Universe.

Personally, my stress level is very much under control. In seeking the truth, I never felt more at ease with my inner self until the day I was liberated from the opression of religion. Looking back at religion and Christianity (I was raised a Christian), I shake my head at how much in a trance I must have been come Sunday morning at Sunday School: Listening to these fantastic stories about some superior being sending his only son to save us from our sins. And how this infinitely powerful being was watching every move I made, every thought I had checking to see how many sins I was comitting. In all fareness to Christianity, I enjoyed it a little bit more as a teenager, when I found-out that I could be all the mischievious I wanted to be and commit all the sins I cared to commit, no matter how bad they were, so long as I asked god for forgiveness right before I died. That's is true convinience. I didn't care how amazingly hypochritical this sounded at the time.
But please elaborate on the answear to my previous question, if you don't mind. Let's just say, the version of the bible under your pillow, to give you an answer. The books in the bible, Revelations, for example. You actually believe that there's going to be a day of judgment, and a day of rapture? And while in the subject of Jesus, how exactly did he beat death? You seem to be well versed in the ways of human physiology (except for the heart having feelings, ect). I've always been very curious and nobody seems to give me a good answear. How did his decomposed body cells beat post-mortum state?. And please don't give me the obvious hogwash, miracle answear. If you don't know, just say so. I'll keep asking the question.

Keep asking the question.
When the student is ready the Teacher will appear...

Is that your final answer?

Nothing is ever final..

But it will suffice for now.

If we are a part of God, then 'yes', the bible is the word of God, as are the most lunatic ravings ever made throughout history, as are the words I am saying right now. If we are a part of God, then I, speaking as God, am telling you that when I wrote down the bible, I was on crack. I thought it would be obvious to anyone who read the crap.

If the all-powerful God is separate from his creation, then he has empowered me to give you the truth about the bible. And the truth is that the bible is utter crap.

I assure you on the authority of God that I am speaking on behalf of God and communicating His thoughts to you. Amen!


Honestly, the bible is responsible for propagating the biggest lie in history. Think about that next time you open it up.

I am not satiesfied with the answer. But, looking forward to hearing it sometime in the future. I just have a feeling that your pathway to the answear leads to nowhere. Which is actually better than somewhere, if that somewhere is where I don't want to be.

Actually, LD, I enjoy reading the bible. I mean, after all, it is Astrology at its best. And this is one of my arguments about it; why didn't somebody just pointed that out from the very begining? That way we would all enjoy reading these fascinating fables about ancient deitis and their crazy adventures amongs mortals. My favorite book is Revelations. I put its author up there with the best at symbolist prose. Up there with Isidore Ducasse and Arthur Rimbaud, the number one and number two on my favorite all-time list of poets.

Where ever you go there you are. In retrospect you wouldn't be where you are now if you hadn't been everywhere that you have been. In the future you will be where you choose to go even if you believe you have been influenced by another. In the end you will find there is no place you have been, or are at, that you didn't choose to be by your own design. If you have no appreciation for your own life then maybe it sucks to be you.

The mystery of life is simple. It is only a mystery if you separate yourself from everything else.

Feb. 11, I began this thread on
SEEKING A RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION rooted in cosmology and the other sciences by advocating the:
THE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE
BTW, Shawn has asked me if I would take on the role of being a moderator. To see if this role fits me, I am going to do a bit of an experiment. Shawn, if you read this let me know what you think.

IMO, it is okay for each of us to develop our own theology. It is okay to give it any name we wish. I call myself a unitheist--G-D is the Oneness--for now.

GØD--note my signature
I went on to say: For me, G-D (note the spelling) is not a person, out there, separate and apart from us and the cosmos--the all that IS, physically. G-D is, rather, the totality of ALL being, the cosmos, of which you and I, and all that is, are a part.

CURRENTLY, I AM A UNITHEIST/PAN-EN-THEIST NON-THEIST
Keep in mind, I believe I was born asking questions. However, I was raised as a traditional theist in a non-sophisticated family. At 23 (1953), I was ordained as a minister. Fortunately, I was ordained in a church (The United Church of Canada) which encourages questions. Born in 1930, in 1994, I became what I call, re-directed. I don't like the word, retired. I prefer to wear out, not rust out.

In addition to the classics of philosophy (e.g.,Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Kant, Spinoza), psychology (Freud, Jung, Mesmer, Braid) and theology (Barth, Brunner, Niebuhr, Kung) , I have been influenced by the writings of the minister-psychologist, Leslie D. Weatherhead (Psychology Religion and Healing); Harry Emerson Fosdick (Union Theological Seminary, NY); Alfred North Whitehead (Process philosophy and Theology); Norman Cousins (Head First--the biology of hope); Pierre de Chardin, Victor Frankl, Matthew Fox, Bishop John Selby Spong and the whole Progressive Christianity movement. http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/
I will add others as they come to mind.
==============================================

I live with Jean--same age as I am--and a 20 year old cat, Boots, who, without any complaining, and still with affection, is going through the process of dying and teaching us how to do it. A companion of his, gentleman Jets (jet black with white flecks), preceded him, and gave us the first lesson. It would be interesting to know your relationship with pets, if any.

We have a daughter Catherine (1956) an artist, who lives with her artist husband, Wayne Adams, a carver, on a floating house---one quarter acre of floating property--
http://www.wildretreat.com/facil_fr.html
She helped Wayne raise his two young children. I did the wedding of the daughter at the floating hotel. We now have two step great-grandchildren from that marriage. Interesting story. I have a son, Turner, a musician and a teacher. He is married to Farah, a liberal-thinking Sufi Muslim he met at university. There are two daughters and a son. The oldest daughter will enter university this fall.
==================
TO ALL WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED, so far: Thanks for your very helpful contributions. BTW, it would be helpful if you were willing to share something of who you are, with all of us. If you have written anything in introducing yourself, feel free to copy it here.

What is your faith background? Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Cynic, Lapsed, whatever? And, where are you at at this point?

Anonymous guests, if you wish to remain anonymous, okay; but it would be helpful if you would name your town, city, state, province and give us some clue as to your background and where your thinking is now. All sincerely held faiths, which respect the beliefs of others, are welcome. If you can do so without being imposing you faith on others, feel free to express it.
================================
EXPERIMENTS IN PRAYER/MEDITATION
July, 2007. I know use the expression
MEDITATIVE, AFFIRMITIVE, PROCESS PRAYING--MAPPing
========================================
What is the nature and function of PM. Does prayer/meditation have any practical value? Or are we just talking to and fooling ourselves? Is it a powerful tool? Or just a toy? Or wishful thinking? Is there a God--one who hears and answers all prayers?

I will set up a sister thread to this one. In it I want to talk about and hear about approaches to prayer/meditation. Let us not be afraid to write about our personal experiments with this whole phenomenon pf PM to find out if it has any practical value and/or foundation in fact.

so Lindsay, you're saying God is everything; Excuse me, I mean G-D (note the spelling). So what? People have said this since antiquity. Why give it a new name or claim that you developed this theology of panentheism? Your concept of God has been around for at least several millenia.

What would be more useful is if you told us what you got from each of the philosophers you listed above, and what you thought their major contributions were.

IMO, while it is true that the concept and idea of panentheism has been around for a long time, I think it has been neglected by most Orthodox and Catholic theologians, maybe even condemned by many fo them. Certainly, it is not familiar to many people. I did not hear of it, specifically, until I heard The Rev Matthew Fox speak about it is the 1970's, when I was in my forties. BTW, feel free to add your assesment of the approach to understand the god-concept. Meanwhile check out:
http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/panentheism.html
My real interest in not just in theory, but the pragmatic application of it, in real life.

Looks like the Kheper site has a new look; they changed their background color from black to white. Kheper is a great site for a diversity of esoteric info.

"The Pragmatic Applications of Panentheism" - I'd love to buy that book. So when are you going to write it, Lindsay? What would its TOC look like?

I guess, in a way, I am writing it here. What I need is for someone to take what I have written and edit it. I am am not sure I have the patience, or skill, to write a book.