Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one is saying that logic and science are wrong.
Just that they are not enough.
Your way makes sense to you trans and no one is trying to change your way.
You value "must be validated by science". Others know the many ways that is limiting.
Hear the difference between wrong and limited. Science explains some things but not other things.
Your values and commandments "articles of fairh" are logic science material default and burden of proof. It is how you navigate life. Those are fine for you and ironclad.
They don't address a lot of stuff though. You are fine with saying science does not know. I agree. Science does not know. Thats why it's limited.
"biology" is grand.
Science does biology trans does biology.
Trans does not do spirit. Science does not do spirit.
Your ironclad commandments and articles of fairh do not permit you to do spirit. Thou shalt not.
There is something more than biology. Science is slowly but surely getting there. It's fine Trans it really is.
You dont like magic but the very same magic once science finally gets around to "explaining it" you're fine with. Nothing has changed just the word for it.
Dear lady, they are really all we have. I am fine with 'magic' in the sense of mysterious unknowns that we can accept happen. But until science comes up with an explanation, they are unknowns. Faith based claims are merely speculative and the protests by believers that they are going on what they have experienced is of no help. What they experiences is unexplained and their speculations are just that.
Bottom line, what we don't know, we don't know and the mandate of not know is to not invest belief until we do. When we do, the Magic becomes science.
a little more profound =
if the person pointing at the sun is the sun
then we are all the sun
Just curious: From the "we are all divine" (or "we are all God"?) point of view, how do you explain the origins of evil? One obvious possibility is that God is not just "love". If God is the essence of everything, then God is also the essences of evil. If nothing is outside of God, or if nothing is out of God's control, then evil can only exist if God is, to some extent, evil. If Reality were nothing other than the sun, then there could be no shadows - no cool, dark places where anything that is "not-sun" could grow. Similarly, if Reality just is God, and God is just light and love, then evil is just some sort of illusion. Some Buddhist's take this view. Is this basically the row you want to hoe? If not, then I have to wonder: How does evil take root? Is someone who tortures children just manifesting God's love?
Bringing this back to the thread topic: The Christian narrative points to human free will and ignorance as the origin of evil. But how does evil even get to be an option unless, somehow, it is either already intrinsic to God's essence, or beyond God's essence and beyond God's control? These are among several considerations that lead me to reject theism in any of its "God is Love" or "God is pure goodness" or "God is infinitely powerful" etc. forms. If there is any truth to theism, then God is either a mixed bag of good and evil, or there is stuff beyond or outside of God over which God does not have full control. If, per the thread title, there is any sort of non-magical alternative version of the Christian Narrative that does not collapse in the classic "God is mysterious" chant, then we will need a conception of God that can either accommodates the reality of evil, or gives a convincing argument for thinking that evil is just an illusion (but then we have the puzzle about the origin of the illusion).
My solution: Abandon theism, or at least abandon all variations of theism that imply that God is all good. Something like a Jungian conception of God that includes God's "shadow" might work, i.e., God is not fully self-enlightened or self-conscious, but has It's own version of an unconscious - a realm that even God cannot fully comprehend.
...snip...
My solution: Abandon theism, or at least abandon all variations of theism that imply that God is all good. Something like a Jungian conception of God that includes God's "shadow" might work, i.e., God is not fully self-enlightened or self-conscious, but has It's own version of an unconscious - a realm that even God cannot fully comprehend.
The bold is what I've been mulling for a year or two. Along with all life, a god-thing may be evolving - perhaps an accumulation of all consciousnesses - not just that of humans. It may well not be aware of itself as an entity. Perhaps it never will.
Anyway, it makes a lot more sense to me than the psychotic god-thing in the bible.
As someone who has studied and contemplated philosophy and science for 40+ years, I know how hard it can be to condense and simplify, for the sake of readable posts in this forum, some of the incredibly subtle and complex ideas that are floating around. Even at my best, I end up with post so long that most people probably don't really read them. And just as people tend to lose track of my arguments and/or fail to really get them in the first place, I have to admit that I cannot, at this moment, bring to the forefront of my mind exactly what your best evidence and rational arguments for Christianity consist of. You and I are nearly on the same page concerning most things that you might use to defend a loose Cosmic Mind type of theism, but I have so-far failed to heuristically grasp the specifically Christian aspects, aside from your Christian-mystical experiences.
In other words, I'm wondering if your evidence/reason-based arguments actually apply to the specifically Christian aspects, or do they just apply to the most basic notion of theism-in-general? Aside from your direct mystical insight, what evidence/arguments do you offer to say that the physical human being Jesus is in some sense a savior or divine presence on Earth? That's the part of the picture I have forgotten or, perhaps, never got in the first place.
You must have missed my frequent admissions that the Christian aspects of my BELIEFS are the result of the descriptions of the mind of Christ and their perfect match to the consciousness I encountered in deep meditation. There has never been any scientific reason for the Christian narrative other than the template I discovered in the spiritual fossil record. It is the confluence of my absolute knowledge of the existence of an unconditionally loving and accepting consciousness (Oneness) and the idea that such a consciousness could inspire and influence our consciousness that allows me to credit the recordings in the spiritual fossil record. It was filtering out the inevitable human ignorance and superstition to see the evolution of an underlying consistency in the narratives that led me to the beautiful Christian legend. The mainstream version is so obviously barbaric and irrational that I deduced what I consider to be a far more rational explanation for the existence of Christ, IMO.
Quote:
And since it is me who is asking, you might also have to pinpoint what, exactly, distinguished Jesus from the rest of humanity. (Again, based on evidence/reason other than the Bible says so). I say this because, given my "self-as-an-Aristotelian universal" thesis, it seems (at first blush) that any argument that could convince me that Jesus was divine would also serve to convince me that we are all essentially divine in whatever way Jesus was (because, aside from the-Bible-says-so I have no basis for distinguishing Jesus from the rest of humanity - aside from him seemingly bring a wise fellow who saw a bunch of foolishness in the OT and decided to focus on the core concepts of love and compassion - a trait that is shared by many human beings, though certainly not most).
Bottom line: Assuming we were to become convinced of the general theistic premise, why should we follow the historical Christian narrative, rather than going back to first-principles and assembling an essentially new narrative based on plausible interpretations of current science and logic?
The process of elimination was tedious. There are so many narratives describing an avatar saving us in so many less evolved versions than the Christ legend. Mithras slaying the Bull (symbolic of animal nature) being a less evolved version. The operative achievement that underlies them all is the conquering of our animal nature to resurrection. The Christ version as elucidated by Paul is the most evolved. You are correct Jesus is distinguished from the rest of us ONLY by His achievement of total mastery of His animal nature out of love for us ALL, including His torturers and murderers. This is the perfect achievement of Maitri that Buddha predicted some 500 years before Christ that the Maitreya would more perfectly embody Maitri than he did.
That is the point. Jesus IS just like us in every way except that His connection to the universal consciousness (God) was perfect (perfect resonance). What Jesus achieved is what we all are supposed to be able to achieve but fall short of. In my view, our species is just one of uncounted such conscious species throughout reality that are to achieve this love for all life. At least ONE member of each such species must succeed to connect the species' collective consciousness output with the universal (God) consciousness. In my view, Christ was our species' avatar and we are to follow as best we can in agape love for all life.
I say this because, given my "self-as-an-Aristotelian universal" thesis, it seems (at first blush) that any argument that could convince me that Jesus was divine would also serve to convince me that we are all essentially divine in whatever way Jesus was
As someone who has studied and contemplated philosophy and science for 40+ years, I know how hard it can be to condense and simplify, for the sake of readable posts in this forum, some of the incredibly subtle and complex ideas that are floating around. Even at my best, I end up with post so long that most people probably don't really read them. And just as people tend to lose track of my arguments and/or fail to really get them in the first place, I have to admit that I cannot, at this moment, bring to the forefront of my mind exactly what your best evidence and rational arguments for Christianity consist of. You and I are nearly on the same page concerning most things that you might use to defend a loose Cosmic Mind type of theism, but I have so-far failed to heuristically grasp the specifically Christian aspects, aside from your Christian-mystical experiences.
In other words, I'm wondering if your evidence/reason-based arguments actually apply to the specifically Christian aspects, or do they just apply to the most basic notion of theism-in-general? Aside from your direct mystical insight, what evidence/arguments do you offer to say that the physical human being Jesus is in some sense a savior or divine presence on Earth? That's the part of the picture I have forgotten or, perhaps, never got in the first place.
And since it is me who is asking, you might also have to pinpoint what, exactly, distinguished Jesus from the rest of humanity. (Again, based on evidence/reason other than the Bible says so). I say this because, given my "self-as-an-Aristotelian universal" thesis, it seems (at first blush) that any argument that could convince me that Jesus was divine would also serve to convince me that we are all essentially divine in whatever way Jesus was (because, aside from the-Bible-says-so I have no basis for distinguishing Jesus from the rest of humanity - aside from him seemingly bring a wise fellow who saw a bunch of foolishness in the OT and decided to focus on the core concepts of love and compassion - a trait that is shared by many human beings, though certainly not most).
Bottom line: Assuming we were to become convinced of the general theistic premise, why should we follow the historical Christian narrative, rather than going back to first-principles and assembling an essentially new narrative based on plausible interpretations of current science and logic?
teaching 101. Use what they know.
Its the literalist that hold use back. Maybe they are limiting factor by necessity?
The bold is what I've been mulling for a year or two. Along with all life, a god-thing may be evolving - perhaps an accumulation of all consciousnesses - not just that of humans. It may well not be aware of itself as an entity. Perhaps it never will.
Anyway, it makes a lot more sense to me than the psychotic god-thing in the bible.
I see the god of the bible as I would see the description of a parent by a 12-15 year old child. That description, indeed that brain state, is not what we would classify as mature. In fact, that brain in an adult would be classified as mentally ill.
yes, I agree with you. This god thing, which I would just classify as life myself, only can know what the "energy states" allow it to know. There is no need to assume it isn't self aware. we are, it probably is.
it makes far more sense than omni dude and deny anything.
Just curious: From the "we are all divine" (or "we are all God"?) point of view, how do you explain the origins of evil? One obvious possibility is that God is not just "love". If God is the essence of everything, then God is also the essences of evil. If nothing is outside of God, or if nothing is out of God's control, then evil can only exist if God is, to some extent, evil. If Reality were nothing other than the sun, then there could be no shadows - no cool, dark places where anything that is "not-sun" could grow. Similarly, if Reality just is God, and God is just light and love, then evil is just some sort of illusion. Some Buddhist's take this view. Is this basically the row you want to hoe? If not, then I have to wonder: How does evil take root? Is someone who tortures children just manifesting God's love?
Bringing this back to the thread topic: The Christian narrative points to human free will and ignorance as the origin of evil. But how does evil even get to be an option unless, somehow, it is either already intrinsic to God's essence, or beyond God's essence and beyond God's control? These are among several considerations that lead me to reject theism in any of its "God is Love" or "God is pure goodness" or "God is infinitely powerful" etc. forms. If there is any truth to theism, then God is either a mixed bag of good and evil, or there is stuff beyond or outside of God over which God does not have full control. If, per the thread title, there is any sort of non-magical alternative version of the Christian Narrative that does not collapse in the classic "God is mysterious" chant, then we will need a conception of God that can either accommodates the reality of evil, or gives a convincing argument for thinking that evil is just an illusion (but then we have the puzzle about the origin of the illusion).
My solution: Abandon theism, or at least abandon all variations of theism that imply that God is all good. Something like a Jungian conception of God that includes God's "shadow" might work, i.e., God is not fully self-enlightened or self-conscious, but has It's own version of an unconscious - a realm that even God cannot fully comprehend.
The conundrum, Gaylen, is that it seems that consciousness MUST arise from animal life in some physical brain with survival and self-centered drives and needs. Evincing a universal love for life within such a consciousness requires discriminating among and conquering the indiscriminate and self-centered drives. Since the production of consciousness is ongoing by all such conscious animals there will unavoidably be a lot of consciousness that is NOT discriminating and is remaining self-centered and survival oriented. Clearly, the animal kingdom at large is part of that given the "red-in-tooth-and-claw" nature of it. We all know many humans similarly configured. No need for an unconscious realm.
Good Lord Mystic. I totally agree with that view of the origins and nature of consciousness - animal in origins and essential nature. We really do agree on a great deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Just curious: From the "we are all divine" (or "we are all God"?) point of view, how do you explain the origins of evil? One obvious possibility is that God is not just "love". If God is the essence of everything, then God is also the essences of evil. If nothing is outside of God, or if nothing is out of God's control, then evil can only exist if God is, to some extent, evil. If Reality were nothing other than the sun, then there could be no shadows - no cool, dark places where anything that is "not-sun" could grow. Similarly, if Reality just is God, and God is just light and love, then evil is just some sort of illusion. Some Buddhist's take this view. Is this basically the row you want to hoe? If not, then I have to wonder: How does evil take root? Is someone who tortures children just manifesting God's love?
Bringing this back to the thread topic: The Christian narrative points to human free will and ignorance as the origin of evil. But how does evil even get to be an option unless, somehow, it is either already intrinsic to God's essence, or beyond God's essence and beyond God's control? These are among several considerations that lead me to reject theism in any of its "God is Love" or "God is pure goodness" or "God is infinitely powerful" etc. forms. If there is any truth to theism, then God is either a mixed bag of good and evil, or there is stuff beyond or outside of God over which God does not have full control. If, per the thread title, there is any sort of non-magical alternative version of the Christian Narrative that does not collapse in the classic "God is mysterious" chant, then we will need a conception of God that can either accommodates the reality of evil, or gives a convincing argument for thinking that evil is just an illusion (but then we have the puzzle about the origin of the illusion).
My solution: Abandon theism, or at least abandon all variations of theism that imply that God is all good. Something like a Jungian conception of God that includes God's "shadow" might work, i.e., God is not fully self-enlightened or self-conscious, but has It's own version of an unconscious - a realm that even God cannot fully comprehend.
So far, you have tended to post on consciousness. It would be interesting to have you join in the discussions on the other arguments that come up in the religion -debate: morality and the problem of evil. The Bible and the historical Jesus, theism and atheism and their respective rationales.
The answer to your conundrum by the way it to say that God is good in a way beyond our understanding. What makes no sense to us makes sense to God and we should give up trying to think it out and just accept the Bible claim, God is totally good, so he must be.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2017 at 07:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
