CB defines what he means by "religion": Obviously, there is NO room for dialogue, here. Therefore, I will simply agree to disagree, agreeably. I happen to believe that CB is defining sick religion--the kind that is grounded in ignorance and blind faith. This is not the kind of religion in which I was born and nurtured.

By the way, in my opinion, there is such a thing as sick science. Recently, I read the review of a new book on medical science, DEATH BY MEDICINE, which poses the question: "Is the American medical system the leading cause of death and injury in the United States?" the reviewer added: "According to these authors it is, and they have the evidence to prove it."

But does this mean that all medical science is necessarily evil? I don't think so.

Death By Medicine:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar200...si_death_01.htm

Very interesting details, Rick. BTW, I met Dr. C. Dean, years ago, in Toronto. To me, her approach to total health appeared to be a sound one.

Now I ask: Is DBM a factual book? If so, what ought we to do about it? What can we do about it?

BTW, thanks for your interjection!

This isn't scientific, but it seems to me, based on annecdotal evidence, that people might live longer if they stayed away from hospitals. Emergency trauma care (gunshot wound, broken bone, etc.) might be the only good reason to go to a hospital.

As a medical student I find this shocking.....yet totally expected. Big pharma companies prefer to look after profits rather then patients.

And you thought drug pushers were low timers anymore!

IMO, the challenge to be scientific calls for all who are truly knowledgeable and wise and interested in achieving and sustaining good health, to work together using a fully integrated and holistic approach.

BTW, I think of myself as a spiritual (pneumatological) being who is having a mental (psychological) and physical (somatological) experience. I believe that each of these components is equally important.

Check out the work of Norman Cousins. http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/cousins.html

In my opinion. his great book, HEAD FIRST--The Biology of Hope (1989) should be entitled, SPIRIT FIRST, The Biology of Faith, Hope and Love, because the power of these pneumatological qualities, originating in the human spirit, is what the book is all about.
============================================

NORMAN COUSINS WAS, IMO, A PNEUMATOLOGIST
Interestingly, HEAD FIRST was the result of the ten years NC spent, as an adjunct professor of medicine, at the medical school of UCLA, though he was never, officially, a medical doctor. Was invted to teach at UCLA because of the fame he achieved as a result of his book ANATOMY OF AN ILLNESS.
=============================================


http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitar...es/cousins5.jpg

I say that Norman Cousins took a pneumatological approach because he took personal responsibility for the circumstances in which he found himself and for what had happened to his physical and mental health as a result of his old life-style.

As indicated above, he began his recovery from a virtual death-sentence when he persuaded his GP to work with him. Interestingly, Lou Asner starred in TV movie on Cousins' experience. The first thing he did was to get himself out of the tyranny of hospital routine and into a motel. To the pleasant surprise of his insurance company, the care he received in the motel actually cost less money than that which he received in hospital. It took a year, but using nutrition, including injection of essential vitamins, he recovered and went back to work. He also made a point of watching funny films, such as Candid, Camera loaned to him by a friend, Alan Funt.

BTW, I had a similar experience a decade ago.

An unfalsifiable meme created by human minds based on the habit of thinking of nature in personified terms as well as fear of death.

A concise definition.

"What is a meme?"



http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/what.is.html
=======================================
TaylorS, now, explain to us what you mean by "unfalsifiable".
And, where do we go from here?
You mention: "thinking of nature in personified terms"?
What does this have to do with the "fear of death?"

Fear of death? I AM MORE CURIOUS THAN I AM AFRAID
===============================================
BTW, 1, At 78, I am getting more and more curious about what will happen on, "the other side". Sometimes, I really wonder: Is there another side? Meanwhile, I am very willing to dialogue, with anyone, about what is possible to think about the nature and function of death. Speak up! physicalists!!!

BTW, 2, If I happen to make it to the other side, and, there I find that there is no such thing as a life beyond this one--that is, no meeting with family and friends, in heaven, or hell--here is how I will feel: I will feel like...

Well! I will leave it to your imagination to imagine how I will feel. Any guesses?

I think I can help there. Scientists make up theories then they don't go testing if its true, they try and disprove the theory. The concept of God is outside of science and as such is unfalsifiable. In a similar way that you can't prove there is no teapot orbiting Neptune.

Anthropomorphic personification of natural phenomenon results in...The Grim Reaper - death personified. We bend reality to provide a good launchpad for our stories, hopes and fears. 'Mother' nature is another example, 'Jack Frost' another. The great Horned God of druids and Wiccans is another. All concepts of the natural and supernatural get personified at some stage or another.

The fear of death is the fear of our mortality, something which religions fight against with promises of re-incarnation or heaven.

Fear of death has enormous survival value. We have to live with it. Adopting pernicious memes in order to short circuit this fear leads to maladaption, e.g., suicide bombers.

I agree: Theism's concept of God, as a supernatural and personal being, is out side the realm of science.

THEISM, DEISM AND UNITHEISM -- How they differ from one another
=================================================
T_L, your explanation above is a great help. It gives me the opportunity to say: This is where panentheism/unitheism differs, markedly, from traditional theism, which has spawned quite a number of different religions and hundreds of different sects. Some theist sects are quite open and liberal in their thinking. But some fundamentalist religions and sects--For example, fundamentalist Catholics, Muslims, and Protestants, especially Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and others--are so narrow that they claim that theirs is the only way to find God. Of course they will usually offer to pray for all souls in danger of going to hell.

When any sect, like the JW's visits me and offers to help me find God I usually respond: I didn't even know GOD was lost. I am always polite and offer to have a chat with them. When they offer to pray for me I say: Go ahead! I can use all the good will anyone has to offer. BTW, JW's will not pray with the unsaved. Mormons will. I usually ask: Do you really have the same God? If so, how come you do not get the same message?

Theists and deists expect people to believe, purely on faith, in a god called God. Both isms admit that they cannot prove that God exists. Scientists admit that they cannot prove that God does not exist.

As a unitheist--a shorter way of saying panentheist--I think of GOD--see my signature, where I use the null--or is it nulla?--instead of O--as being as real as the natural and physical cosmos, without being confined to it. I have stopped using the null here because
my 'puter is an atheist and keeps messing with my spelling.

Back awhile, Rick asked: Why not call it "nature"? Go ahead, anyone. But, if you do, I would like it to be capitalized. May I ask: Is Nature just a thing, operated by a quantum computer?

Meanwhile, I assume it is OK for me to use the term 'GOD'. Don't get me wrong: I have a great respect for the things of nature. But I think of GOD as more than just a thing--more like a Holy Spirit, which is in and through all things.

MORE ON THE UNITHEIST THEORY OF GOD
=====================================
Like Carl Jung, I do not speak of a god called, God--one who is separate and apart from us; one to be believed in by faith, alone. I speak of GOD as that which is actually physical, mental and spiritual reality, which can be experienced and explored by all the senses, with the help of philosophy and the sciences, and which can be enjoyed in the beauty of the arts.

Until a better way of saying it comes along, I say: For me, GOD has a body. It includes, but is not confined to, the physical cosmos now under exploration by the sciences. God, also, has a mind, which, IMO, works like a quantum computer. But GOD is a Spirit. That is, a Holy Spirit. All three aspects of GOD are in the process of evolving, or unfolding ad infinitum.

It is my opinion that, the NOW--which I think of as a doublet for GOD--is an eternal process. GOD as Love, is in us now, and is helping us build heaven. If we reject Love, WE will surely build hell. The choice is ours.

IN MY OPINION, OVER TIME, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THREE BASIC LEVELS
====================================================================
Keep in mind that I do not write the following as a Bible-basher, or a Bible-thumper.

Our theist-based Bible tells us that--and I will paraphrase--in the Beginning a perfect God created our first parents, Adam and Eve, in His image--that is, as perfect beings--and placed them in a perfect world, Eden (a pleasant place).

I have a question to those who take this as a true and historic story:
I could be wrong, but as a unitheist, I do not believe that this is true, even as a myth. If a perfect God created the first perfect couple, how come they made such a perfect mess of things?

Without going into great detail, and sticking only with planet earth, generally speaking, I accept the findings of the great evolutionists, including Charles Darwin, that life could only begin on this earth--once a flaming ball of molten lava---when it became cool enough to support it. That was billions of years ago. The first human-like beings appeared about one millions years ago.

It is my opinion that, just like in the womb, we all began as one-celled "animals". Those who know about such things tell us that the stages of embryonic development mimic the stages of evolution. I remember having a flash of consciousness when I was two, going on three. Amazing.

You and I started this life as one cell, which was about one three-thousandth of an inch in diameter. Now that is my idea of a miracle.

LEVEL ONE
==========
I agree with those who say that our planet turned on its own axis and revolved millions and million of times around our sun before the first primitive humanoids--virtually robot-like beings--roamed this earth. For the sake of safety, they probably spent most of their time in trees. It is my understanding that the humanoid beings were not North Americans out to make the world safe for democracy.

It is likely that our primitive ancestors were only interested in surviving in the here now. and, like the selfish gene, propagating its species, physically, into the future. They were not at all like the God-created Adam and Eve we read about in Genesis. I call this level one.

LEVEL TWO
===========
Level two in the process of becoming human probably came into being when a certain few of our first ancestors ancestors developed a kind of primitive consciousness of self, of their bodies, began to develop the ability to speak and became more and more curious about others like them.

Of course they were stimulated by pain, suffering, death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown and the like, to seek comfort and protection. But they were also stimulated the pleasures of life. For example when members of the family and tribe cared for them and showed them loving care and concern.

LEVEL THREE
=============
Level three was reached when some of our first ancestors made the quantum leap to full consciousness, or self-awareness. They developed the ability to say, "I am aware and I know that I know." In other words, when we became human, or thinking, beings. This level probably, also, marked the beginning of spirituality, the idea of gods, and of religion.

Keep in mind that, even as spiritual beings, we still have animal-like bodies and minds. I presume that we can all agree that we all have animal-like bodies and brains. Like all animal beings, we exist within the space/time continuum. But in addition to this, the third level involves knowing and being aware that we are spiritual beings in the process of becoming more and more spiritual.

I repeat: more and more we become aware of what a gift it is to be able to say: I AM a spiritual being--a self-conscious and human being--who is capable of willing and making choices, of using my mind and my body to do good and/or evil.

Now, where do we go from here?

I say 'Nature', 'Mother' Earth etc, because it agrees with my belief that our native planet is alive, as is the space between it and its parent solar system. Gaia concept is more than just the planet if you really expand its scope to include all.

God is simply the spirit or 'pneuma' as you like to call it, in everything. The thing behind all motion and energy transfer, the thing making things spin and making entities recieve conscious thought. An entity given its energy from a process and thinking about that process is about as recursive as it gets. That entity has little chance of comprehending its position in the wheel of life, but its belief that their is a position on the wheel to inhabit will never die. That is religion in a nutshell. Its amazing how many scientists eventually become religious due to their work, because the questions behind religion are never answered, regardless how many physical laws we have mapped.

I'm not religious, but I have felt the passion associated with a glimpse of the divine. This made me burn furiously and altered my behaviour. This believe is a process of God, and when I'm struck with passion I feel content. Whether its a process of physics, God or pure passion, its divine to my interpretation, and something that alters our current worlds path!

Personally I don't understand why the geometrical hexagon on Saturns surface doesn't cause more topics than currently. All these topics on the pro's of science and mathematics, and nothing even semi-mystic on anyones thoughts when it comes to this? Am I mistaken and a fool? If not, why aren't people considering the religious implications of a planet sized geometrical form? Music of the spheres, cymatics, Aum, meditation, religious ecstacy etc. I wonder how many on this forum feel like they've had one of these experiences. I'd be very interested about thoughts on the above and what experiences people have had.

Live long and prosper! \\//

Not religious, T_L? What do you mean by "not religious"? Surely you are not telling me that you are immoral, unethical, apathetic and cynical, are you?
I presume you mean that you do not belong to and support any organized and ritualistic religion, just for the sake of getting on the good side of God, or the gods, right? In the latter sense: neither am I religious.

BTW, read what I say in my last post on the building of heaven, or hell. What do you feel?

BRING YOUR QUESTIONS, AND EVEN YOUR DOUBTS, TO THIS FELLOWSHIP
This includes Dawkins-like, Hitchens, Dennet and Harris-like thinkers.
==========================================================
Last Sunday, Feb.10, the following revised version of the poem, 'Father Sky and Mother Earth, was sung, for the first time at Pathways Church. It was accepted as being on the list of songs we will use to express the kind of non-theist theology which most who come find acceptable. Atheist and agnostic are welcome in this fellowship.

http://www.pathways church.ca
http://deenotes.homestead.com/snowbird.html
Note that SB is a sad song; Father Sky and Mother Earth is anything but.

Keep mind that the special spelling I use for GØD may not transcribe, always, through the computer. I wonder why the null, sometimes, changes into GAWD. BTW, use GØD to make the point that I do not believe in a human-being like god called God.

If necessary, I will use GOD. With, or without the null--the set without numbers--GØD stands for all goodness, all order and all design--physical, mental and spiritual, in which we live and move and have our being.

======================00000000000000000000000=====================

FATHER SKY AND MOTHER EARTH
(Unitheism & GØD--as universal Love. Note the special spelling.)
Lindsay G. King
Jan 14, 2008
Words may be sung to the Gene McLennan tune, Snow Bird

=============================================
We're one with Father Sky and Mother Earth;
With GØD as love in all there is, and every human birth.
We vibrate with the planets 'round the sun;
And with the stars and galaxies, we live and move as one.

In GØD we live and move and have our being;
The source of knowledge, wisdom, power and things that are not seen.
The root of justice and eternal peace,
The soul of life, of health and wealth and joys that ne'er need cease.

There's GØD-like Love in everything we see;
in all the cosmos, and all space, in the all the souls there be.
Let's hear GØD Love in all there is to hear,
Love in the vast eternal now, with neither shame nor fear.

There can be justice, and there will be peace,
The grounds of joy and happiness, which never more will cease.
But only if the work of Love gets done,
By all of us who live and love and always work as one.
======000000======
The following is an extra verse, which may also be used as a chorus, if so desired

With GØD-like spirit 'round us every day,
We know that we are deeply loved in every sort of way.
The Spirit deep within us gets things done,
And help us live with GØD-like Love beneath the golden sun.
======000000======
GOD-like Love: AGAPE
==================
The GØD-like Love--like the kind Paul (I Corinthians 13) refers to as the greatest good of these--spoken of in the Greek New Testament, is spelled, a g a p e, with the e sounding like a long a. When modern Greeks say I love you , they use "Agapo" using a long o--like our I.

Although agape can include 'eros'--that is, sentimental, or erotic love, and 'philia', (we have it in philosophy, philanthropy, etc.) which means the love of a friend for a beloved friend--it must not be confused with them.

AGAPE STANDS ALONE
====================
Agape, operating in and through us, refers to our ability to will the good and the best to all people regardless of who they are and the circumstances going on around us. It arises out of our power to will, not out of our emotions--our feelings. We are not asked to like our enemies--those who despise us--but to forgive and will them good. In my opinion, life works best for us--physically, mentally and spiritually--when we let go of our desire to get take revenge or get even. It is best to let agape guide our emotions.

THE POWER OF GOD-LIKE LOVE, AGAPE
==================================
Here I will start the list. I will add others, later. Feel free to add to the list any you can think of. Also, ask any questions you may have.

AGAPE
======
1. Helps us to tune in to the infinite and the eternal.
2. It helps us get rid of and resistance we may have to what GØD can do in and through us.

Helped us get where we are now.

Why the God of Israel does not talk to us by TV?
Why the other Gods do not talk to us by TV?
Why Angels do not talk to us by TV?
Why Satan does not talk to us by TV?
Why Demons do not talk to us by TV?

An atheists may answer: because they do not exist. (Convention Rick’s responce)
An orthodox christian may answer: who you are a worm of this earth to dare to ask such Satanic questions!
A conventional christian may answer: all answers you can find in the Bible.
A deist may say that the Gods and Elves went to detached transcendence and all rotates itself.
An theist may say: read ruminations of Voltaire or Lindsay from Brain Meta.
An alchemist may say that the messages can be traced all around: those who seek they shall find.
A freemason may say, that they talk and only initiated people can see and listen what they say.
An UFO specialist may say that THEY control our minds and Transformers exist.
A Matrix specialist may say that that all what is around is the Matrix.

But what is the correct answer to this simple question?
Maybe they all just insects and malicious bastards from parallel world so well described in the Golden Compass who use humans as portals to other worlds? Who eat us, kill us, twist us and parasite over us and control us by manipulating the brains of the ruling classes?

What should we do with that Invisible Empires of the Bugs? What should we do with the Harry Potters? Fight against them, ally with them? What we – The Muggles should do with the Wizards? Should we restore the Holly Inquisition and burn them all up? Or should we master to close all the gates to the other worlds? Should we cut our demons off?

1. Should humans be considered Equals among the Equals in the Middle Earth?
2. Should we inform scientifically all the Muggles that world of the Wizards exists?
3. Should we arrive to civil form of existence and establish Embassies and sign agreements?

Any ideas?

I think we all understand the point you keep making about your spelling of God, but do you really need to keep stating it? I'm not trying to take anything away from your approach, but its clear that God and GØD are the same principle. I'd appreciate you taking into consideration the amount of discussions we've all had on various religious topics and also the fact we're all intelligent enough to see your point clearly enough to avoid repetition. It would make your points a lot clearer if you stopped sandwiching the information with this explanation on every post.

How do you actually see the polarity and vibrational frequencies alluded to in this verse? Are they important to your concepts?

We should allow all forms of existence to simply exist, unless it breaks our own personal moralities to the point of undeniable Evil. Then we should take steps to lock the Evil in magic rings. Failing that idea, I'm not sure how to respond

T_L, you say that you understand that GOD and God are one and the same concept.

For me, they are quite different. When theists speak of 'God' they speak of Him as a person, separate and apart from us. He is imagined as being a Heavenly Father who does things--hands out rewards or punishments--to and for us.

I see GOD as a principle, not a person, which works in and through us.

You ask: How do you actually see the polarity and vibrational frequencies alluded to in this verse? Are they important to your concepts?
I am not sure what you are asking. You will need to put your question in other words.

In the case of bugs and other superstitions...

There's always the Men in Black or the Ghost Busters

Do you experience God in everything or is it a conceptual ideal un-manifested but energized and made possible through the singing of songs that describe an ideal?

In other words do you experience Both God, and the illusion of God and no God, and the wisdom to know the difference?

How is that different from a scientific or naturalistic explanation?

Rick, are you telling me that your god is: a scientific, or naturalistic explanation for all that is, including that which is absolute, relative, eternal, infinite, visible and invisible?

I like your god, Rick, but how would poets make use of this in poetry, and put it to music? --even if we used a short form.

But if we were totally inclusive, I can't imagine singing: "O scientific, and naturalistic explanation of, or theory for, everything that is--I mean the absolute and relative, as well as that which is ineffable, eternal, infinite, visible, invisible and everywhere present, including all knowledge, wisdom, truth, beauty, and power, etc. bless America, land that I love."

Or, "O scientific, and naturalistic explanation of, or theory for, everything that is--I mean the absolute and relative, as well as that which is ineffable, eternal, infinite, visible, invisible and everywhere present, including all knowledge, wisdom, truth, beauty, and power, etc. , save our gracious, Queen...."

Even if we made an acronym of it--which is, OSANEOOTFETI-IMTAARAWATWIIEIVIAEPIAKWTBAPE--it simply would not work Rick.

PANENTHEISM or UNITHEISM or NEOTHEISM or--you name it.
===================================================
But seriously, in harmony with the process philosophy and process theology of Alfred North Whitehead--philosopher and mathematician--when I use the acronym GOD--or better still, the way I write it in my signature--I mean to include everything I wrote above. If there is anything I have forgotten, or anything any one wants to add, I want that included, too. GOD is totally inclusive of all that IS, including the process of becoming more and more.

My definition of an atheist is this: An atheist is any one who chooses not to be included as part of the process of being and becoming.

So, the only reason you use the term GOD, is for the romanticism of using the word in language?

You know now that I think about it, I don't even know if Lindsay is describing a god in a traditional sense or rather just referring to science, changing a few words and calling it god.

O, about GOD and personality:

As I wrote, "I see GOD as a principle, not a person, which works in and through us."
Note: I did not say GOD is not personality. After all I did write "us", which is simply another way of writing, "we". Us includes all of us as persons. We are persons. Us and we are very short words, but the concept they contain is, in my opinion, as important as the GOD concept.

Can you imagine what a different world this would be, tomorrow, if every person with the ability to say "I" got out of bed and said: "I am a bit of GOD. Today, I am going to treat myself, everything I experience, and every other person I meet, as a bit, a piece of GOD.

I may not like everything I experience, and I may not like everyone I see and meet, but just for today, I am going to ask myself: In this place and at this time, what is the meaning, purpose and good (GOD) of this experience, this person? Then, at least willing no harm, I am going to do my best act in ways that will do no harm. I do this with and attitude of good will (Spiritual Love)"

Adding to what I wrote above: I strongly believe and feel that GOD is the sum total of all things and all personality. The more of us who agree to be at-one-ment (check out atonement) with the power of "personality" flowing through the cosmos, the more life will become " a thing of beauty and a joy forever" as the poet Keats said.

Chapter 7 of his great book, The Road Less Travelled and Beyond (1997), by the late (2007) Dr. M. Scott Peck--a psychiatrist who dedicated his life to community building--is entitled, The "Science" of God It begins: IN THE END, ALL THINGS POINT to God....

He goes on to write about the Oneness of God, and THE SCIENCE OF GOD. He also writes about process theology... Interestingly, he credits the Mormons with using the concept long before Whitehead. (More summary of his ideas to follow).

Right on, Orbz, the ROMANCE OF GOD. I like that. Thanks!

By Jove, Max, I think you've got it.

What theists think is not the whole view of what the concept of God is. Using the term G0D, G*D, Holy Spirit, Vishnu, Quetzacoatl, Osiris, Horus is all trying to understand and name the same human idea. You can change the O to Ø and its still the same old God. If you believe its a natural process cool, if you believe its a Heavenly Father with a whipping stick then thats cool too. But by changing the letters you're only kidding yourself that you've somehow changed the concept of God. You keep making the statement that your GØD is a different concept than the normal 'God', so why use the same word, albeit slightly modified?

Well you can't use a word or create a word without having some thoughts behind it.
I think he just wishes that in continuing to explain himself and his word he can get more interest in pooling energies toward unity rather than separation in belief, like creating politically correct acronyms for the new age so that we can agree rather than disagree or even agree to disagree.

Personally changing the name, or spelling in this case doesn't change what is behind it, rather it reinforces the need to create a change in ones life.
If you don't see God as perfection or experience God in diversity you will try to change the diversity to match an inner ideal by rearranging the outside, trying to force it into the personal confines of definition.

Take the word nigger, an alteration of dialectal neger, black person, from French nègre, from Spanish negro, which evolved into colored then more correct politically to negro closer to its spanish origin, and then to Black and again into African-American. We tend to socialize our language to meet a need, but say any of the words used and learned from the past and the label regardless of its social relevance still creates a resonant image within the psyche regardless of the spelling or word.

God has a history, change the spelling because of its history and it still retains its history, that is the nature of the ego.

If one rises above the attachments to history and a reason to change the word because of the attachment to history, the history become irrelevant and what becomes relevant is the reality that all evolution leads to the detachment to ones own need to have a reason in standing behind identities and definitions.

Until then having a belief or surrounding ones beliefs with a supporting identity or definition that through co-dependence rallies support from the outside, gives you a sense of solidity of presence and reason for being.

In reference to the label African American, it seems that by referring ones self back to the belief that all Black Peoples originated from Africa would give the minority a sense of self esteem by finding some real heritage or social standing, set apart from the diverse effects associated by the labels given or created that forced the Black people... to identify themselves with whatever prejudice or imaginings of those who were not living their lives, but are living lives that would seem separate from their lives.

Similarly with the word God and its religious association thru history it would be appropriate to change the word so as to separate ones self from the disparities associated to its past.

From Merriam Webster.

Main Entry:
1god Listen to the pronunciation of 1god
Pronunciation:
\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date:
before 12th century

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful ruler

Note: I've highlight the supreme or ultimate reality to show that Merriam Webster like Lindsay, has scientifically defined God, as being the ultimate in definition of any reality. This should in effect surpass any individual definition since it is beyond all individual experiences to incorporate the supreme or Ultimate reality... (obviously this is all inclusive, not excluding the individual interpretation of the all powerful ruler..even a white haired old geezer who lives in the sky..)

Unfortunately, Lindsay, and or anyone else who might at times stand behind a fence, with their personal definitions and acronyms, will suffer the plagues of past impressions associated with the abuse and misuse of the misunderstandings and separation created in the universe by the one and only,
all inclusive.... supreme......God.

Say Hallelujah......

Views and opinions should not be considered special or beyond challenge. Beliefs should not be exempt
from examination by rational, reasoned debate supported by objective evidence.

I just cant help but wonder if you have belief in a single, supernatural creator.. at what
point does _your_ bullsh!t filter react to the beliefs of others?

Two gods? Three gods? The pantheon of Greko-Roman gods? Djinns? Angels?
Tree Spirits? Ancestral Spirits? Ghosts? Raelian Extra Terrestrials?
Bigfoot? The Easter Bunny?

At what point does the irrationality of others result in incredulity for you?

There is and has never been any experiment providing evidence of a
single or multiple supernatural creator. Quite the opposite in fact.

Similarly there has never been any observation, measurement or data
point indicating the presence of a teapot orbiting Pluto - despite all
our telescopoes and space probes. That is NOT cause to believe that such
a phenomenon exists.

If it's true that it's more important not to hold false beliefs than it is to hold true ones, then the safest course is to believe nothing.

"No your wrong."
"It isn't possible."
"I don't believe it"
"There's no proof"
"It's safer to remain uninvolved"


Inspiring words to be sure....

Today, with the help of GØD (GOD, God) I will try to do no harm. Therefore, T_L, if you find my response to your very interesting comments offensive, I assume you will let me know. I have the feeling you are judging my motives and want to debate issues. Because I feel it is wrong to judge the motives of others, I refuse to judge yours or be defensive of mine. Without claiming that I have The Truth, what I present are my beliefs and I offer my opinions--all subject to change. I am more that willing to listen to the beliefs and opinions of others.

L_T, In keeping with this section of the forum, I have a deep interest in philosophy, psychology, pneumatology, theology, what they tell us about human nature--physically, mentally and spiritually--and the way this impacts on our political, social and economic well-being. And I love to write about them in a dialogue, not debate, format. I try to avoid being judgemental or dogmatic.

Here are my motives: I am doing my best to write about the important issues of life having to do with the nature and destiny of humanity. My goals are: to communicate the ideas I have about all issues, clearly, and in an interesting enough way so as to attract readers--essential to any one who writes. The number of responses are very encouraging.

You say you are motivated by response, rather than what is inside of you to express ( Previous quote:"I see GOD as a principle, not a person, which works in and through us").
Providing no one responds does this machine come to a stop? The answer would be no, obviously, but then why so much attention or recognition in the motivation being outside of ourselves if God is the principle which works within us and through us?
This would impose the idea that personal recognition from what we create is more enlivening than recognition of God within us. This would also tend to lead us to a conclusion based on reflection that The God within us is dependent on the recognition we give it to be creative and to work through us.
Hence if we ignore God, God ceases to be creative....

Inspired and wrong can be a dangerous combination. I believe I don't need to provide examples from history.

Evolution is inspired by contrast. Contrast is duality.
Try and maintain relative happiness and things get stale.
One doesn't really appreciate reality without change, and extremes are not mandatory.
Extremes are just examples of choices made from beliefs that are addicted to response and behavior.

Of course we are judging your motives, of course we want to debate. If you are prepared to post in a public forum, your views, beliefs and motives will be questioned. If you are not prepared to defend your view/belief then you should not post it in the first place...really whats the point?



Your motives are good, however almost all your posts at some point start referring to GØD regardless of the topic.

I was simply stating that the idea and emotion behind 'God' is universal, however you want to chop and label it. Therefore I see no reason not to call it God and be done with it. I was only commenting on your repeated introduction to your symbol of God and ideas about pneuma. I am not attacking your beliefs, principles or character, only the way your prefix and suffix all your posts with this concept so in the end it resembles a religious pamphlet/sermon. It just doesn't feel like its a genuine response to the discussions at hand.

I'm a little sad that I've given the thread this negative edge, but no pain no gain I guess! Happy valentines day too people! x

OK, this is your opinion. In the spirit of dialogue: I am making a note of it.

ABOUT NAMES, and changing them
=============
Now, my opinion is this: Because of the baggage connected with words like 'gods' and a 'God', I am not happy, any more, using it in writing. Because I can quickly say what I mean, I have no problem using it, verbally. In this forum I would have no objection to using "Nature", Rick's term. INterestingly, he was the one who pointed me to the mathematical symbol for the null.

BTW 1. What I am suggesting is no big deal. Do a google on "Names of God". For example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism
There is enough here to keep one busy for a long stretch of time.

BTW 2. Talking about names; it would be interesting to know: If it were an easy thing to do, how many people would change the name they were given. I have a friend who changed her name from Barbara to JeweEL. It has made a lot of difference in how she sees herself. In the Bible, Jacob changed his name to Israel. In the book of acts Saul, the the bigoted bully and killer, became Paul, the Apostle (The one sent to spread the message of Love). Read I Corinthians 13. Let me know what you think.

You comment, "I was only commenting on your repeated introduction to your symbol of God and ideas about pneuma." TL

OK, except in threads which I start , I will be careful about this.

"I am not attacking your beliefs, principles or character...."
Good to hear this.

ABOUT DEBATE
==============
I would have no objection with having a debate on the basis of having fun, and with the understanding that it is a zero-sum game, with judges who declare winners and losers.
Can this really be done, in a written forum?

On this day dedicated to celebrating POWER of LOVE. May the FORCE of it be with us, everyday. I believe it can be. Read how I John 4:7 defines God.

Cast ye no pearls before swine.
Best intentions can be misconstrued, and if you are so concerned about what others think, you will eventually divide yourself and shut down your own ability to know yourself in your own experience and in others as well.
People react of their own accord, you cannot climb into anothers mind and push the buttons that cause reactive behavior. People create their own systems of measure from beliefs and as such create the buttons that become sensitized to their surroundings. They either learn and evolve or they build walls around themselves and further recede from the activity of their own creation.
Language is language, free expression is often labeled as dialogue, debate, argument, reasoning, barfing etc. etc.

Freedom is not something someone gives you, its something you live inside and express. IF you fail to acknowledge it in others you fail to see it within yourself.