[MEGA] God v.2

[B9]

^You do realise that that picture is only a small portion of a 12th century painting?

If christinaity is smehow connected to psychedelics, I'm quitting them as drugs; for fear I'll start an endless worl war too



Well, I am unsure how to answer yer first part; but I'll have a crack at the second...

Jesus was "sent" down by "god" to attone for our sins. He had to die to do this. The people who killed him (tha actual individuals who nailed his limbs) HAD to do this, so our 'sins could be forgiven'. As these elements imply a lack of choice, and indeed, much of his execution was 'prophesied' I feel that those involved did not have free-will in the matter; god "made them" do this so Jesus' death could be worth something to humankind. But, as I said, I believe we have free will.....

My theory- Jesus was a super karma beast; from a pantheon of similar, highly evolved "gods". A meeting was held, and the physical force of "karma" was discussed somewhere up in the ether; it was determined that humanity was never going to be free from karmic-bonds; hence one of these super karma dudes offerred his eternal existence so that humans had the chance to begin again. By some law of meta-physics his eternal death would revoke all karmic troubles, and eradicate them- he could do so, as his nature and life was on a scale much vaster then every human at that time; hence, he died (forever), in agony and torment, and with a puff of smoke, dissolved all humans karma; in a sense, perhaps this opened the gates to paradise, or cessation of the endless cycle of rebirth.

However- I don't believe in that either. :D I think jesus was/is a myth or just a human who died for politcal reasons. As could be argued, the world is no better and maybe worse for his existence.....

BOM. All this above, does not stop my worship of the dark gods

Ok swilow thank you - you make a logical argument. However what if it was simply obvious that acting in a certain way ( especially since it was prophesied) would bring the attention of the authorities to jesus thus creasting a spectacle of Roman injustice. Could this not be an act of freewill ?


I trust you & the dark gods are feeling fine & groovy btw

 

[itsWill]

^Proof please?

Dont say that word in a topic about religion

 

[Alonely]

I absolutely agree. I love God, it's His fan club I can't stand.

The Bible is indeed questionable because it was written by man, which is why I consider myself Christian but no longer Catholic.

 

[WhiteLinesNcoffee]

God Isn't Christian he hopped on the buddism bandwagon some time ago.

No but really, God>religion

religion is the attempt to build a man made structure around god. God does not need a house nor bureaucracy.

 

[New]

Can men of the Sciences also be men of God?

Here's my reasoning:

My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?

 

[MrM]

Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense to me (hypothesising, for the moment, that god really does exist...).

However, i would suspect that whilst you can be a man of god and also a man of Science, you can't be someone who takes the christian bible as the literal word of god (earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs died out because they didn't get on the ark etc) and also be a man of science.

 

[New]

I'm a Jewish Mystic, maybe I have an upper hand.

But no, taken as a history lesson, the core writings can't reconcile with science if taken literally. You're right.

 

[xexon]

I started my own journey from a scientific point of view.

Big Einstein fan.

Like him, I was looking for what ties everything together. The highest form of energy.

It wasn't until I made the jump from physics to metaphysics that I understood.

You can't involve yourself in metaphysics if you don't have a very extended range of perception. I was born that way, so the journey for me was very rewarding and continues to pay benefits to this day.

To know what God is has no dependency on thinking. The power of discrimination is the only real important element of that.

It is the ability to FEEL that reveals "God".

Beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the mind which processes that input.

If you do it correctly, all of creation becomes your body.



x

 

[New]

Being a man of God is being a part of what God created, not running away from it. Enlightenment is in a beaker just as much a yogic trance.

 

[yougene]

However, i would suspect that whilst you can be a man of god and also a man of Science, you can't be someone who takes the christian bible as the literal word of god (earth is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs died out because they didn't get on the ark etc) and also be a man of science.

I think it depends on what is meant by man of science.

Intelligence and beliefs are two different lines of development. Someone can have a firm grasp of science, and still operate from an ethnocentric identity and mythological belief system. Michael J. Behe is a perfect example of such a creature. He works for the creationist "Discovery Institute", yet is a respectable scholar on molecular biology. He can bring up logically coherent holes in the "modern synthesis" left and right. But then leaps to the conclusion that God must have done it.



Schrodinger and Einstein were both mystics and great scientists. I think certain orientations to Spirit or God can go hand in hand with science. An apprehension of the universe's continuity and unity can be appreciated in both domains of inquiry.

 

[MrM]

I think it depends on what is meant by man of science.

I agree. I would argue that in the example you give above Michael J. Behe is for the most part a man of god using science to advance his religion, not a man of science.

Schrodinger and Einstein were both mystics and great scientists.

Einstein a mystic? That's the first i heard of it. I know he used to get pissed off when people misquoted him on god but as far as i can remember he was agnostic.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Sounds more like a scientist than a mystic to me.

 

[xexon]

Being a man of God is being a part of what God created, not running away from it. Enlightenment is in a beaker just as much a yogic trance.

But the reality is, there is no beaker.

There is unmanifest "God", and there is manifest God, "Creation"

The only way I can describe what I see is to use symbolism

"God" is like a luminous ocean of consciousness rather than a being on a throne somewhere.

"Creation" are like the bubbles within this ocean. They exist for a time and are reabsorbed back into the ocean they came from.

Even that is a poor description.

My view of things in life is much like wearing a pair of bi-focals. I see everything here that others see, but at the same time, with a slight shift of my perception, I see the ocean which surrounds our little bubble here. I not only see it, I feel it as if it were me.

Because it is.

And upon my physical death, I'll give up my individuality and return to it.

Just as you all will.



x

 

[yougene]

I agree. I would argue that in the example you give above Michael J. Behe is for the most part a man of god using science to advance his religion, not a man of science.

On what basis?

Einstein a mystic? That's the first i heard of it. I know he used to get pissed off when people misquoted him on god but as far as i can remember he was agnostic.

Sounds more like a scientist than a mystic to me.

You're pigeonholing mysticism and mythological beliefs.

Here Einstein is talking about a personal god. A 2nd person relationship with a mythological being. Mysticism is a 1st person identification with everything, or 3rd person awe in the universe.

Being agnostic is completely irrelevant to ones status as a mystic.

 

[MrM]

But the reality is, there is no beaker.

There is, you can buy them online if you don't believe me.

Even if there is some fantastic universe of energy outside of reality as we know it, i don't see how that makes reality as we know it any less real. Beakers still exist, and they still hold fluids just as well.

My view of things in life is much like wearing a pair of bi-focals.

If it really is like wearing bi-focals and you can see both at once, why do you choose that one of the two visions of reality should not be real and the other real? Why are beakers less real than the bubbles of creation that you see in the sea of consciousness that is god?

 

[MrM]

On what basis?

On the basis that instead of following the logical scientific method (that when you encounter a problem you investigate) he is using the holes in scientific understanding (which you tell me he is quite good at finding as a trained molecular biologist) to manufactor a 'god of the gaps'.

You're pigeonholing mysticism and mythological beliefs.

Possibly my definition of mysticism is too narrow. I do know that most scientists i've spoken to would not describe themselves as mystics, whilst at the same time most scientists i've spoken to would claim to be in awe of the universe (if you understand even a little bit of it, how can you not be?).

If the definition of a mystic is someone who is in awe of the universe, then i'm a mystic. I don't think of myself as a mystic, but as i said, maybe my definition of the word is too narrow.

 

[yougene]

On the basis that instead of following the logical scientific method (that when you encounter a problem you investigate) he is using the holes in scientific understanding (which you tell me he is quite good at finding as a trained molecular biologist) to manufactor a 'god of the gaps'.

In a sense he might be going against the spirit of science. But he's not pointing out missing gaps of knowledge. He points out fundamental misunderstandings of how we think of evolution on the large scale, and what actually happens on the molecular scale. His intentions might be inauthentic but his criticisms are more then just an attack on a lack of evolutionary data. I'm digressing from the thread.

Possibly my definition of mysticism is too narrow. I do know that most scientists i've spoken to would not describe themselves as mystics, whilst at the same time most scientists i've spoken to would claim to be in awe of the universe (if you understand even a little bit of it, how can you not be?).

If the definition of a mystic is someone who is in awe of the universe, then i'm a mystic. I don't think of myself as a mystic, but as i said, maybe my definition of the word is too narrow.

Maybe you're not a mystic, but you have experienced a mystical state.

 

[New]

But the reality is, there is no beaker.

There is unmanifest "God", and there is manifest God, "Creation"

The only way I can describe what I see is to use symbolism

"God" is like a luminous ocean of consciousness rather than a being on a throne somewhere.

"Creation" are like the bubbles within this ocean. They exist for a time and are reabsorbed back into the ocean they came from.

Even that is a poor description.

My view of things in life is much like wearing a pair of bi-focals. I see everything here that others see, but at the same time, with a slight shift of my perception, I see the ocean which surrounds our little bubble here. I not only see it, I feel it as if it were me.

Because it is.

And upon my physical death, I'll give up my individuality and return to it.

Just as you all will.



x

And without accepting both the manifest and unmanifest, you are not truly enlightened.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Here's my reasoning:

My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?

Definitely. One of my professors is a medical doctor and zoologist, who is also a Christian minister, a Freemason, a big fan of the esoteric, and the number one fan of scientist-mystic Emmanuel Swedenborg. The guy's my hero.

 

[Nutswir]

Must there has to be a god?
I think little green men visited our planet and planted a testtube seed which was called "evolution us"
a less smarter group in hte universe, who could evolve into something like them.
How old is the universe? greenies dont have forever to wait us to show something neat, so they pointed us a romodel
LOL and "god" allows them to have control over us

Our system is "the bibel"? Everything and nothing circles around god. So... maybe there are more systems?
Sry for my english but operation scientology is starting to sound good :D

 

[Papa1]

Here's my reasoning:

My understanding of God is reality as we know it as well as a beyond that can't be proven or disproven, so the latter does not exist for the purpose of this conversation. To better understand God, one would have to better understand reality. To better understand reality, one would have to understand scientific concepts and methods. Therefore, when science proves something I understood wrong, my understanding of God was wrong and has to be corrected. Does this make sense?

I might be missing something, but why is having an incorrect understanding of God incompatible with being a man of God? In most religions (such as Judaism) isn't God an infinite entity, and so inherently incomprehensible and confusing to us? Doesn't Judaism also teach interpretation i.e. ambiguity i.e. the potential to be wrong in its holy texts?

I don't think there's anything preventing an appropriate belief in both God and scientific rigor.