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.
But if the 'Spirit' is - as I argue -what is in heir own heads - then whatever pops into their head - their likes and dislikes, preferences and what they want to see eradicated - gets divine justification without having to do a darn thing to merit it.
Those that have the Spirit, know His voice, know the voice of the Spirit, ie. My sheep hear My voice. Peace
Rbbi, we proceed from such disparate premises and beliefs about God and His true nature that it is unlikely we will ever be able to reconcile our views. I eschew any and all magical thinking, I consider the Holy Spirit of agape to be the essence of God and the achievement of it within our consciousness as the goal of our spiritual development, and I completely reject that blood sacrifice was EVER required by God for anything. That pretty much makes our views irreconcilable. But I pray for you in Christ's love as I do for all.
OUTstanding observation! THIS is why we are told to test the spirits and the basis FOR testing is where the rubber meets the road. If it is NOT how the impulse or message comports with Christ's message of concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation, you can be sure it is a rationalization to justify those "likes and dislikes."
I thought I would do the same concise summary of the philosophical rationale that underpins the science side of my views minus all the detail for my atheist friends. People with very abstract minds are drawn to philosophy but most people can't even begin to adopt the perspective necessary to engage the world on that basis. One of the ways to approach it is to step completely outside of our reality into the perspective of some conscious creature who is not remotely part of it. Analyzing what you are observing from that vantage, you would see a complex of "things" that seem to be comprised of some underlying essence called energy/mass/momentum depending on the way it is being measured and analyzed using mathematics.
Everything we see within this world is some form of this essence in forms ranging from basic radiation to complex aggregations some of which have this quality called life and consciousness. Most of what we see can be measured, but not all. Some of this essence is involved in accelerating the expansion of this universe but only its effect can be measured. Some of it is involved in keeping galaxies together but again only its effect can be measured. Finally, some of this essence is produced by lifeforms as consciousness but again only its effects can be measured. The thing that all these energy/mass/momentum forms have in common is they are comprised of the basic essence that comprises everything, measurable or not.
Now let's assume this creature observing our world from outside has a sensory system that can actually see the basic essence that comprises everything. When it sees dark energy, it actually has some form separate from everything that is being affected by it. When it sees dark matter, it actually has some form separate from everything that is being affected by it. When it sees consciousness, it actually has some form separate from the forms that produce it and are affected by it. Using this perspective, consciousness can neither be an illusion nor can it be considered the same as the body and brain that produce it. It is some form of the basic essence that comprises our world, period.
Once this is understood all bets are off about the continuation of consciousness after the form that produced it ceases to function. If it exists in a form similar to electromagnetic radiation but is not measurable, it can propagate throughout our universe until it is absorbed or otherwise transformed. If it is the same as the forms (dark energy and dark matter) that comprise 96% of our world, then consciousness is at least a part of the vast majority of our world. IF indeed (and that is a big IF)the entire 96% is consciousness, then such a consciousness would have to be considered God. What else would a conscious world be considered?
Ok. so what I suggest Is not to go with personal feelings or judge personal impulses (validated by supposing them to be input from the divine) by innate preferences, but using reason and the codes of ethics devised over centuries. Which is, as I have argued, what the religious do, too, but credit the origins of the moral codes (as interpreted by themselves) to their god. Name your own.
This might be well and good, but sometimes the "codes of ethics d evised over centuries" are in dire need of revision. It took a "movement of the Spirit" and several years to change the perceptions concerning slavery, debtors' prisons, madhouses and things like that, which is why, when considering such questions as a group we (Quakers) try not to have an agenda but discern what God would have us do, and that is a question of the well=being of everyone in any situation, which is not always easy to define.
Just as an example, when the Quakers decided that it was simply not appropriate to hold another human in chattel bondage, they realized that whatever slaves Quakers held represented a financial investment and allowed the former owners to work out a system of indenture to work off that investment, which many did and others (notably Johns Hopkin's family, which bankrupted itself) simply set them free.
Last edited by nateswift; 05-23-2017 at 04:52 PM..
This might be well and good, but sometimes the "codes of ethics d evised over centuries" are in dire need of revision. It took a "movement of the Spirit" and several years to change the perceptions concerning slavery, debtors' prisons, madhouses and things like that, which is why, when considering such questions as a group we (Quakers) try not to have an agenda but discern what God would have us do, and that is a question of the well=being of everyone in any situation, which is not always easy to define.
Just as an example, when the Quakers decided that it was simply not appropriate to hold another human in chattel bondage, they realized that whatever slaves Quakers held represented a financial investment and allowed the former owners to work out a system of indenture to work off that investment, which many did and others (notably Johns Hopkin's family, which bankrupted itself) simply set them free.
Yes. I have heard various claims that religion was at the forefront of social improvement of that kind. But I think it was social improvement on the humanist level and some of the religious saw the sense in it. Not all.
I agree that the codes need constant updating, but from what I have seen of religion, the tendency is to resist change.
True, but we can infer from the surviving writings and practices of the time that agape love as a concern for the well-being of everyone was NOT practiced let alone a prevalent meme. When talking about such broad brush societal phenomena, there will always be the potential for the odd one out. But a human being who could actually love the ones scourging Him and crucifying Him is a rare enough circumstance for the era to suspect that He is a one-off for that era.
I personally don't believe there was ever a real Jesus figure. I also don't believe that what you found in the writings, that you specifically chose to focus on, does not represent the gold standard for everyone. We have big holes in recorded history. Who knows what the rest of the world was doing as far as pursuing a highly evolved conscious life? You do realize that your bible only focused on a tiny little place in the desert? How do you know that societies that had not learned how to write yet, were not pursuing higher consciousness? How do you know what societies on the other side of the world from the tiny desert patch were doing for spiritual enlightenment? A lot of old history is merely interpretation and a lot of history is misinterpreted...keep that in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is the focus on our failures that is counterproductive. The fact that religion deemed them sins punishable by a wrathful God only amplified its counterproductiveness. The whole point of Christ's existence was to remove the unwarranted concern over our human failures and to provide sincere repentance as a remedy for them.
Sincere repentance does not require a "Christ" to provide that for them..most humans innately feel sincere remorse over their bad behavior...sadly there are plenty who don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I agree with your rejection of the exclusivity endemic to the current Christian religion which is why I seek to correct it. Loving one another is the motivation that minimizes (if not eliminates) the harmful interactions among us. When it is extended to everyone involved, it can solve so many of the world's ills.
This is unrealistic. I can't feel love for Hitler or current humans who torture or intentionally harm humans and other species, or who abuse and torture defenseless humans and other species. It's simply unrealistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If we do NOT follow Christ's instructions to "love God and each other" and repent when we don’t we will reap what we sow, but no more and no less than we sow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is not false.
It is completely false. I have been "blessed", for most of my life and am still receiving "blessings"...on top of that I was born with many gifts, but I don't love an imaginary god or believe that I must follow the instructions you posted. Making the claim that I must follow your belief in "Christ's" instructions to love an imaginary god or else face punishment or "will not reap what I sow" is such an oppressive statement that is far from the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I HAVE read most of the inspirational works of the past and many of the more recent vintage.
But yet you for some reason think your version of what you find acceptable should be everyone else's version. That is wrong thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I suspect you are misreading the instructions.
I am not misreading any instructions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It really does mean to simply love God (Existence) and each other every day and repent (change your state of mind) when you don't. God is everything including us who reproduce His consciousness as His children.
But that is exactly what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If we do NOT follow Christ's instructions to "love God and each other" and repent when we don’t we will reap what we sow, but no more and no less than we sow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I apologize for any times I have seemed to be angry or my rhetoric was out of bounds. I am not and never was angry, Matadora Perhaps I did all too zealously and vigorously present my view of things. I will endeavor to correct that. I find your posts enlightening and useful if somewhat stinted in philosophical matters.
Thank you and I appreciate that, even though you think I don't get philosophy.
I personally don't believe there was ever a real Jesus figure. I also don't believe that what you find in the writings that you specifically choose focus are are all the gold standard. We have big holes in recorded history and who knows what the rest of the world was doing as far as pursuing a highly evolved conscious life? How do you know that societies that had not learned how to write were not pursuing higher consciousness? A lot of old history is merely interpretation and a lot of history is misinterpreted...keep that in mind.
We do not disagree other than I do believe there was a Jesus figure. The history of human spiritual evolution and societal events predicted in the narrative spiritual template (which reaches back millennia before Christ in more primitive form) validate it for me. It is what would be expected if God is indeed inspiring our spiritual evolution. YMMV.
Quote:
Sincere repentance does not require a "Christ" to provide that for them..most humans innately feel sincere remorse over their bad behavior...sadly there are plenty who don't.
Of course it doesn't and neither is a specific belief in the Christian narrative. Our life is ALL about what is in our state of mind, however and whyever it is so. We do not cease to exist upon our death, IMV, and we will reap whatever we sow.
Quote:
This is unrealistic. I can't feel love for Hitler or current humans who torture or intentionally harm humans and other species, or who abuse and torture defenseless humans and other species. It's simply unrealistic.
I agree completely. I cannot either. It is something I ask forgiveness for all the time when I encounter evil, cruelty, injustice, etc. It is entirely natural for us to despise such things. But I am NOT Jesus, so I rely on His perfection to cover my inadequacies.
Quote:
It is completely false. I have been "blessed", for most of my life and am still receiving "blessings"...on top of that I was born with many gifts, but I don't love an imaginary god or believe that I must follow the instructions you posted. Making the claim that I must follow your belief in "Christ's" instructions to love an imaginary god or else face punishment or "will not reap what I sow" is such an oppressive statement that is far from the truth.
I understand, Matadora. It has nothing to do with judgment or punishment. It is all about consequences. We accept that there are physical laws that govern the interactions among physical things. We would not consider it a punishment if we violated the law of gravity and suffered the consequences. Our spiritual existence is no different. There are constraints and parameters that define the spiritual environment. If we violate them, there are consequences. That is all.
Quote:
But yet you for some reason think your version of what you find acceptable should be everyone else's version. That is wrong thinking.
Not true. It is true for me. In my belief, God calls us to whatever spiritual path is the right one for us. It should NEVER have been our task to impose our views on anyone but ourselves. That is one of the primary complaints I have about organized Christianity, especially the fundamentalists.
Quote:
Thank you and I appreciate that even though you think I don't get philosophy.
Philosophy is tough and not everyone is drawn to it. It can seem as though we are leaving too much of the solid ground beneath us as we intellectually soar through the possibilities presented by extant science.
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.
Summary of my philosophical rationale
even though you think I don't get philosophy. 
