Originally posted by avalanchethecatI believe it all, until something about it can be
He's not an atheist, no. The bible says a lot of stuff. I'll don't understand why anyone would choose to believe it all, however.
proven to be wrong. I have heard many claims
that there are so many contradictions in the
Holy Bible that who could believe it all, just like
you. But as it turned out, they were wrong, not
the Holy Bible. I'm sure you have what you
think are contradictions. Let's hear a few along
with your proof as to why they are contradictions.
If your palaeontologist friend were a Christian,
he would not ignore the Holy Bible. You say he is
not an atheist, so what god does he believe in?
RJHinds
Originally posted by josephwI'm a bit of a mystic Joseph. I am open to the Divine when I meditate, when I eat, when I make love, when I read any book, when I sit and do nothing, when I type on RHP, when I am in pain and suffering.
[b]".., then it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that a conscious super-intelligence (that some of us call God) was the architect of life on this planet."
And it is therefore perfectly reasonable to believe God communicates with us.
"We need to stop bringing the Divine down to our puny human size,.."
It would be arrogantly p ...[text shortened]... e said so[/b].(But only when I believe)(Because He said so)
How could it be otherwise?[/b]
I do not need any book or any practice to simply be open. I know I cannot define what this Divine is but I know it is within all of life and it never ceases to amaze me, though I do nothing. I see it all around me. I see this One embracing every duality and containing everything and ultimately holding all in an unseen perfection.
I do not think any man or god can finally and perfectly express the greatness of this All Good in words, for words cannot and never did hold the Ineffable. They can only point to it, in both words and actions and most of all in seeming non-action. I do not need any hyped up authority to tell me this is so, whether it be a particular religio-political historical formulation of Jesus the Nazarene, or of Buddha or any Guru, but they have all been an avenue for the Ineffable One, as you are, as science is, as the arts and history, is.
In every mystic path of every religion, including your Christianity, there are those who attest to this same Divine ineffable reality but in their own cultural terms.
One needs to be one's own authority. True spirituality can never be legislated or enforced for it is a free act of the heart.
There are too and always have been those of scientific bent who also believe in this mystic aspect of life. Many are actually excited by the mysteries being revealed more and more by quantum science and other disciplines. Instead of this stupid anti-science stance by some, there should be a strong alliance with those in any religion in any form with the scientists that are beginning to formulate why great "Mind" or whatever you like to label it (that is secondary) is at the very core of existence.
It is a moment in history when such alliance should be happening and the inane endless rubbish about the beautiful poetic statement of Genesis being true science and that evolution is not correct keeps the modern Light of the Divine from shining. We need that Light especially at this moment, and short-sighted, authoritarian-bound fundamentalist "believers" are getting in the way. We are not barracking for footy teams here. Let us use our minds and open our hearts to each other because the Divine reality is there uniting us. We are spiritual consciousness "cells" of one Great Body.
I am not thereby denigrating any sacred scriptures of any religion, for they have all inspired many, and promoted fine values. But to fight for any book as a spiritual lawbook is totally counter-productive.
For me, the ultimate authority of spirituality lies within us and nowhere else will it ever be found so powerfully. This is where freedom lies.
It appears you are seeking to say something of the same thing. But the only thing I am saying that's different is that we do not have to do anything, we do not have to believe anything, we simply need to relax and do and think nothing, simply be open to it and that Divine (no gender) will appear. Real Grace is like that. No-one "possesses" anything. How can you possess yourself?
This how it could be otherwise.
1 edit
Originally posted by TaomanVery well put.
I'm a bit of a mystic Joseph. I am open to the Divine when I meditate, when I eat, when I make love, when I read any book, when I sit and do nothing, when I type on RHP, when I am in pain and suffering.
I do not need any book or any practice to simply be open. I know I cannot define what this Divine is but I know it is within all of life and it never ceas possesses" anything. How can you possess yourself?
This how it could be otherwise.
I am truly moved,(not that I have not come across these sorts of words before), but after you have been pushed this way and that by twitehead primarily.
You are a man of conviction and a great example of spiritual authority and mastery.
A master over no one except yourself, with the authority coming from the inside.
God bless your cool head and wise words.
Its the great artists and poets, such as yourself, that may just be the "x-factor" that pushes this whole thing back to the alliance with Spirit, and away from the uncertainty that is presented by TV and other popular media that we have been missing. Thnx mate 🙂
Originally posted by karoly aczelOnya, mate.
Very well put.
I am truly moved,(not that I have not come across these sorts of words before), but after you have been pushed this way and that by twitehead primarily.
You are a man of conviction and a great example of spiritual authority and mastery.
A master over no one except yourself, with the authority coming from the inside.
God bless you ...[text shortened]... tainty that is presented by TV and other popular media that we have been missing. Thnx mate 🙂
Originally posted by TaomanThis post presents many truthful points of consideration and I welcome it.
Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist. I no longer conceive of a divine being outside of "his" creation, but something more mysterious and ineffable within all of life itself, something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness as a ground of all that arises from it. What you label it as is secondary. It is both personal and impersonal. It con ...[text shortened]... nnot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
Originally posted by AgergI tried to reply to your post last night Agerg, but I had a technical difficulty. 😉
Similarly I am unable to drive the following concept home:
ANYTHING to be known about Hakash the magic pot that creates universes comes from Hakash. We cannot drag it out of her or ascend to her to retrieve it. We cannot DO anything, SAY anything, BEG, BOROW, or STEAL anything to get one thing from Hakash. Hakash gives by magic voodoo rays, we receive. ...[text shortened]... to believe in false gods. They find whatever excuse they can to live in unbelief of Hakash.
I have heard you and others say that before. I get it.
BUT
You made it up. I didn't create God. You don't seem to realise, or it appears you don't, that when a Christian speaks of God, he does so based on the authority of the Word of God contained in the book we call the Bible.
Yes of course I know you don't recognise that authority. After all, you are your own authority. That's not meant as a jab. But you really ought to listen to yourself. You come along in the middle of a thread, disregarding the flow of discussion between me and Taoman, the topic, and progression of thought, and interject some fabricated fiction. Kinda silly.
Now, I really didn't want to say that, but you are DEAD WRONG. You have absolutely no idea whether or not God exists, so why don't you just admit it so's we can move on in our discussion as objectively as we can.
Man! I will debate with you about the existence of God everyday for the rest of my life if you want to. I'm having a really good time here in this forum. I've been here so long I feel like family. 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by TaomanI too am a bit of a mystic Taoman. That's why I understand what you are saying, and vice versa.(Although I feel odd saying it, and I don't know why)
I'm a bit of a mystic Joseph. I am open to the Divine when I meditate, when I eat, when I make love, when I read any book, when I sit and do nothing, when I type on RHP, when I am in pain and suffering.
I do not need any book or any practice to simply be open. I know I cannot define what this Divine is but I know it is within all of life and it never ceas possesses" anything. How can you possess yourself?
This how it could be otherwise.
We really are saying the same thing, but in a slightly different way. Maybe because we are two separate and distinct 'souls' observing the same thing, but from different perspectives. And so on...
But, here comes the but...😉
For another time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you call proof is only theories and there are
You believe it regardless of the proof. You already admit that it disagrees with the scientific account - which is a form of proof.
disagreement among scientist about these theories.
Astromomer Robert Jastrow said, "Scientist have no
proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."
(The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert
Jastrow, 1981, page 19.) Paleontologist Niles Eldredge
pointed out the doubt that had infiltrated the previous,
smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology and
the lack of total agreement among biologist.
(Natural History, "Evolutionary House Cleaning," by
Niles Eldredge, February 1982, pages 78, 81.)
Even Darwin had doubts about the evolutionary theory.
Darwin pointed out that to suppose the human eye
could have been formed by evolution seems absurd
in the highest degree.
(The Origin of the Speecies, by Charles Darwin, 1902
edition, Part One, page 250.)
Also note, genes prevent new forms from evolving and
random step-by-step mutations cannot explain the
organized complexity of life. The proof of the Creator
is the creation that could not come about by random
chance. Scientific fact does agree with the Holy Bible.
It is the theories that do not agree. Do you understand
now, twhitehead?
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsThe term "Theory" in science, especially when capitalized, refers to something we are practically certain about. It is not what you mean when you say 'only theories'. So no, science has a lot more than 'only theories'. If science was wrong, your computer wouldn't work. It doesn't just work only in theory.
What you call proof is only theories
...and there are disagreement among scientist about these theories.
Yes there is always disagreement even when it comes to big questions, but for some issues like the speed of light and evolution, anyone who is still 'in disagreement' is not really a scientist.
Astromomer Robert Jastrow said, "Scientist have no
proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."
(The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert
Jastrow, 1981, page 19.)
Quite true, but that does not mean that scientists have no proof that dinosoars lived before birds. They do have proof of this - which contradicts the bible.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge
pointed out the doubt that had infiltrated the previous,
smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology and
the lack of total agreement among biologist.
(Natural History, "Evolutionary House Cleaning," by
Niles Eldredge, February 1982, pages 78, 81.)
What 'doubt' are we talking about? Doubt in the whole theory? If so, I would like to see the quote in context. Or is he a creationist?
Even Darwin had doubts about the evolutionary theory.
Darwin pointed out that to suppose the human eye
could have been formed by evolution seems absurd
in the highest degree.
(The Origin of the Speecies, by Charles Darwin, 1902
edition, Part One, page 250.)
I suspect that if you put that in context you will find that Darwin did not have doubts in this instance.
Also note, genes prevent new forms from evolving and
random step-by-step mutations cannot explain the
organized complexity of life.
How can I 'note' what is not true. You are welcome to try and support that claim, but merely stating it without support wont get you anywhere.
Also note that the Bible contains lots of blatant contradictions and falsehoods. See how easy it is.
The proof of the Creator
is the creation that could not come about by random
chance.
Nobody claimed that it did. That doesn't proove a creator though.
Scientific fact does agree with the Holy Bible.
So now you admit the existence of scientific fact. What are those may I ask?
It is the theories that do not agree. Do you understand
now, twhitehead?
RJHinds
Yes, I understand that you will never accept any amount of proof, as I previously pointed out, even if you have to lie, misquote or otherwise distort the facts.
Originally posted by daisychainsawSo you are saying that we have taken on drives and instincts from other animals?
Also. humans are cool because they have evoled differnt drives and instincts from everyother animal, as far as i know we are unique in our ability to be creative and to be trully alltruistic. I hope further evolution of humanity further evolves these unique drives.
Can we "tap into" the minds of other animals.
It has been claimed that "spiritual masters" are friends of all animals and the normal fearful response is over-ridden by the love that they radiate.
As Robbie would say-How vewy,vewy interesting
Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]The term "Theory" in science, especially when capitalized, refers to something we are practically certain about. It is not what you mean when you say 'only theories'. So no, science has a lot more than 'only theories'. If science was wrong, your computer wouldn't work. It doesn't just work only in theory.
If you were the programmer, it would not work! ...[text shortened]... have yet
to hear any proof or attempts to prove anything you said.
RJHinds
Originally posted by karoly aczelof course we have taken drives and instincts from ohter animals but becuase of our intelligence we express them differntly.
So you are saying that we have taken on drives and instincts from other animals?
Can we "tap into" the minds of other animals.
It has been claimed that "spiritual masters" are friends of all animals and the normal fearful response is over-ridden by the love that they radiate.
As Robbie would say-How vewy,vewy interesting