Theology

[Whitney]

And you don't like it.

You need to stop putting words in people's mouths.  Me personally not seeing the point in worshiping something doesn't equate to me wanting to make people stop worshiping things.  I swear you say things on here just to cause arguments and I'm getting tired of it.

Dagda...I still don't see the point of worshiping something that would then basically be the equivalent of a supernatural parent.  I don't worship my parents, but I do love them.

[Typist]

You need to stop putting words in people's mouths.  

And you need to stop claiming I have, when I haven't.   It's utterly clear how you feel about worship.   And you have every right to feel that way.  So why should we pretend otherwise?

I swear you say things on here just to cause arguments and I'm getting tired of it.

It's actually physically impossible for any of to cause an argument on a forum.  Takes two to tango as the saying goes.  

Logic. Facts.  Clear minded thinking.  That's what atheists are promoting, right?  How about we all drop our victim poses, given that it's factually impossible for us to be victims here?

Dagda...I still don't see the point of worshiping something that would then basically be the equivalent of a supernatural parent.

Right.

You don't see the point.

Billions of others do see the point.

Everybody can do whatever they want.

So what?  Where's the problem?

[pinkocommie]

Really? I suppose I am the opposite way about. A big thing in Christian theology is forgiveness, and I think forgiveness is impossible unless there is some understanding as to what drove the ‘sinner’ to commit the act which led them into ‘sin’. If someone drives into the back of my car because they had a moments laps of concentration, I could probably forgive them as I understand that it is all too easy for the mind to wander. However, if I was perfect I might not be able to understand, hence forgive, the driver for running into the back of my car. This is a bit of a trivial analogy, but I think it illustrates my argument. A perfect God cannot relate to we humans (relation comes through similarities), and I think this creates somewhat of a tyrant; divine justice is handed down irrespective of the context of the action. However, a God with the same kind of Mind as humanity can empathise with the human condition far more thoroughly; indeed, this flawed God becomes far more personal and, in my opinion, a far more worthy deity than the perfect tyranny that your image of God would represent.

Your concept of flawed gods reminds me a lot of Greek mythology where the gods and goddesses were often 'flawed' in some way.  Zeus was a womanizer, Hera was jealous, etc.  While I see the Greek mythology as nothing more than mythology, I do like the Greek concept of God/s far more than the Christian concept of God for this very reason.

[notself]

Dagda

Answer these question, and please, do not refer to the bible.

a) Why do you think the universe was caused?

b) If it was caused, why do you think there was only one cause rather than several?

c) If there was only one single cause of the universe, why do you think it was intelligent?

[Ihateusernames]

Just a quick question for my own personal enjoyment...

Dagda and Whitney, will you both define 'worship'?  I think a definition (or even a brief start to a definition) would help in the discussion quite a bit.

[Whitney]

Just a quick question for my own personal enjoyment...

Dagda and Whitney, will you both define 'worship'?  I think a definition (or even a brief start to a definition) would help in the discussion quite a bit.

 "idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... d=0CAYQkAE

[Dagda]

Worship can mean (and indeed does mean in the modern context) what Whitney has just described, however Christianity is quite old and the terminology takes a while to change in conservative institutions. Worship originally meant to respect or honour. As such if you called a Judge ‘Your worship’ it did not mean that anyone actually thought the judge a god, but instead that they were honouring the person and the institution they represented. As such many people worship their parents. Obviously in contemporary Christianity God is worshiped in the form Whitney outlaid, but I would be interested to know if you would feel more comfortable worshiping a god as you do a judge?
I must apologies in my justification for the worship of a ‘flawed’ being. I outlined the worth of that worship rather than the point of it. Basically the point of worshiping God is as follows; humanity has constructed mental/spiritual barriers between themselves and the God. These have been erected in defence of the Self-by its very nature the Self cannot survive when subjected wholly to the Universal God/Tao/whatever. However, God is as much a part of our minds as anything else, and in erecting these barriers we shut a part of our selves out. The point of spirituality is to find that happy balance between Self and Selfless.
Perhaps you think I am talking complete garbage, but consider this; resent studies into the more spiritually active members of society have found that, as a general rule, they tend to be happier and healthier than their counterparts (thanks to a mild case of schizophrenia, but never mind). This I believe is because in their spirituality, they have begun to break down the barrier between God and Self, and as such have begun to feel the effects of becoming a whole being again-connecting to the collective unconsciousness if you like. Therefore the point of worshiping this flawed being is to re-connect with oneself.
On reading this I can see that it very much appears that this is New Age mumbo-jumbo, but I do hope that at a theoretical level at least you can see the sense of the argument, if not necessarily agreeing with it-by sense I mean that it makes sense as long as you accept basic premises (e.g. holes are at a minimum). Of course I must delve deeper into the scientific and philosophical material before coming forward with any kind of factual evidence, but I can promise that this ‘theory’ or preposition was inspired by a reading of scientific material.

Dagda

Answer these question, and please, do not refer to the bible.

a) Why do you think the universe was caused?

b) If it was caused, why do you think there was only one cause rather than several?

c) If there was only one single cause of the universe, why do you think it was intelligent?

A)   No idea why it was caused, but as to how I am drifting toward the idea that something does not happen unless it is observed, therefore the Universe could not have been created until humans saw the Universe, but humans did not see the Universe until after it was created. A never ending paradox.
B)   Could have been several, I suppose. Why did the Roman Empire fall? NO one reason. Perhaps the Universe is similar. Perhaps not.
C)   Might not have been intelligent in the way humans understand it. Perhaps the Universe just popped into existence. Perhaps consciousness itself just happened to make the Universe happen. Probably never know. Personally I am more interested in the creation and development of Mind rather than material Universe.

[notself]

Dagda

Basically the point of worshiping God is as follows; humanity has constructed mental/spiritual barriers between themselves and the God. These have been erected in defence of the Self-by its very nature the Self cannot survive when subjected wholly to the Universal God/Tao/whatever. However, God is as much a part of our minds as anything else, and in erecting these barriers we shut a part of our selves out. The point of spirituality is to find that happy balance between Self and Selfless.

Assuming for point of discussion that god is part of our minds, then why worship?  Doesn't the act of worship separate the mind from god, ie. mind is worshiping part of itself?  This type of prayer seems to be developing separation of the mind from the other so you comment doesn't make sense to me.    

Perhaps you think I am talking complete garbage, but consider this; resent studies into the more spiritually active members of society have found that, as a general rule, they tend to be happier and healthier than their counterparts (thanks to a mild case of schizophrenia, but never mind).

What you refer to was not a study but a survey.  People who believe in gods self reported that they were happier.  No brain scans were done to see if the happiness centers of the brain were more active with theists.  However such studies have been done with atheist Buddhist monks and these atheists do have more active happiness centers.The original article from Harvard is no longer up. The below is a report of the study by the Wall Street Journal.  http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/M ... _11-04.htm

Using the brain scan called functional magnetic resonance imaging, the scientists pinpointed regions that were active during compassion meditation. In almost every case, the enhanced activity was greater in the monks' brains than the novices'. Activity in the left prefrontal cortex (the seat of positive emotions such as happiness) swamped activity in the right prefrontal (site of negative emotions and anxiety), something never before seen from purely mental activity. A sprawling circuit that switches on at the sight of suffering also showed greater activity in the monks. So did regions responsible for planned movement, as if the monks' brains were itching to go to the aid of those in distress.

[notself]

Dagda

Answer these question, and please, do not refer to the bible.
a) Why do you think the universe was caused?
b) If it was caused, why do you think there was only one cause rather than several?
c) If there was only one single cause of the universe, why do you think it was intelligent?

A)   No idea why it was caused, but as to how I am drifting toward the idea that something does not happen unless it is observed, therefore the Universe could not have been created until humans saw the Universe, but humans did not see the Universe until after it was created. A never ending paradox.
B)   Could have been several, I suppose. Why did the Roman Empire fall? NO one reason. Perhaps the Universe is similar. Perhaps not.
C)   Might not have been intelligent in the way humans understand it. Perhaps the Universe just popped into existence. Perhaps consciousness itself just happened to make the Universe happen. Probably never know. Personally I am more interested in the creation and development of Mind rather than material Universe.

I think you will make more progress if you eliminate the words god and creation from your process.  There is no absolute necessity for the universe to have a beginning let alone a creator. This just begs the question of who or what created the creator.  Better to move forward in your exploration from the point that existence exists and is ever changing, because, it may be more a fact than any unchanging/eternal gods.

That brings us to the concept of mind.  What do you mean by mind?

[G-Roll]

People do better when they believe they are going to do better. This is evidence of the power of the human brain over the human body.

I agree with this part.

Of course if I came up to you before these studies were conducted and said that I believed that the mind held great power over the body, you probably would have said that I believed in magic. I think this is the way the human mind works; something it does not understand it tends to brand as heresy (in this modern world that would be magic) and mock it.

No.
You stating that the mind has powers that affect the body (like attitude, will, and confidence) is totally different than claiming to harness the powers of heaven to wreak havoc on the earth. Or to use jesus powers as a healing method. Its honestly silly. Just as silly as if i where to claim if i spin around in a circle really fast i can travel back through time and i wont even be dizzy when i get there.
I will agree to disagree seeming we see this from two totally different sides. I doubt anything fruitful would come from our dialect anyhow.

Perhaps this is being needlessly insulting, but then I am just returning the favour.

Fair enough, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
On a friendly note.... i don’t see you as stupid, and find other posts of yours insightful... just i couldn’t let this one go...

[Dagda]

No.
You stating that the mind has powers that affect the body (like attitude, will, and confidence) is totally different than claiming to harness the powers of heaven to wreak havoc on the earth. Or to use jesus powers as a healing method. Its honestly silly. Just as silly as if i where to claim if i spin around in a circle really fast i can travel back through time and i wont even be dizzy when i get there.
I will agree to disagree seeming we see this from two totally different sides. I doubt anything fruitful would come from our dialect anyhow.

I fear that there has been a misunderstanding. I believe that the Kingdom of Heaven has the potential to reside within all of us. When the ‘powers of Heaven’ are called down upon the earth, it is a mere extension of the mind-body relationship (the mind effects the material Universe out with its own body). As such it is an extension of the placebo effect-where as in those studies the mind was proven to affect the body, I am proposing that the mind can also affect reality in unusual ways. When this collective mind comes together, we call it God.

. I think you will make more progress if you eliminate the words god and creation from your process. There is no absolute necessity for the universe to have a beginning let alone a creator. This just begs the question of who or what created the creator. Better to move forward in your exploration from the point that existence exists and is ever changing, because, it may be more a fact than any unchanging/eternal gods.

That brings us to the concept of mind. What do you mean by mind?

Why would I remove the word God? This is the name which I feel comfortable with when describing the ideas in the thread.
You do not have a problem with the Universe having no beginning, but find it difficult to except that a creator has no creator?
What is mind? What indeed. Is the mind eternal or trapped in the body? Does it reside in the brain or out with space-time? What is its relationship with the material Universe? Is it the brain or something more? I think I agree with Jung; the brain is not the mind. Beyond this it is hard to say. I would like to think it survives bodily death, but that could be my own bias. Its relationship with the Universe is probably more concrete and direct than we first supposed, but this, I think, means that it can not reside out with space-time (how can something out with reality affect that said reality?) If this is so, where does mind reside? In the brain seems too simplistic (where about?), so we are left with the problem of a disembodied mind following us around. A tough question for which I think there is no easy answer.

[idiotsavant]

Our mind creates symbols by conceptually dividing reality. We look out over our environment, and divide it conceptually in to tree, leaves, bark, soil, sky, water, animals, plants, air etc. Words, the foundation of language and thought, are a dividing process.

This symbol creating process is very useful for survival, but it introduces an illusion of division, when in fact reality is all one big thing. Example, sunlight from 93 million miles away is an intimate crucial part of our daily life. In a very real way, it is inaccurate to say the Sun is one thing, and we are another.

The most problematic division illusion that is created is the illusion of "me", an internal conceptual identity that is experienced as being separate from everything else in the universe.

And thus, we don't usually don't experience "the Garden Of Eden", ie. the real world, where everything is unified. Instead, thanks to our immersion in thought, we usually experience a cardboard mirror version of the real world, where we feel very separate and alone.

I like these thoughts - your "cardboard mirror version of the real world" is very accurate.  

I was an atheist until I met God.  Unfortunately I bounced off Him into religion, which has little in common with Him.  It was there I learned to separate and isolate - concepts foreign to Jesus' teachings...  

Genesis: (a) God said, "Let us make man in our image..." (b) God said, "Don't eat this fruit..." (c) God said, "Look! Man ate the fruit and has become as one of us, to know both good and evil..."  The fact that Adam's intro to evil has made him more like God indicates that the original Adam was not the finished product.  Like all living things, God is reproducing Himself, and we are / will be the new but not separate (The two shall be one) Almighty.  

My reality / your entertainment....

Peace I/s

[Ellainix]

I enjoy the watchmaker's argument. You look at God and see human characteristics. Therefore, we conclude there was a human creator behind him.

[notself]

Dagda

. I think you will make more progress if you eliminate the words god and creation from your process. There is no absolute necessity for the universe to have a beginning let alone a creator. This just begs the question of who or what created the creator. Better to move forward in your exploration from the point that existence exists and is ever changing, because, it may be more a fact than any unchanging/eternal gods.
That brings us to the concept of mind. What do you mean by mind?

Why would I remove the word God? This is the name which I feel comfortable with when describing the ideas in the thread.
You do not have a problem with the Universe having no beginning, but find it difficult to except that a creator has no creator?

I have a problem with a creator because I see no necessity for a creator.  Why does your world/universe view require an god to complete it? What does a god add to your thinking other than magic?

[notself]

What is mind? What indeed. Is the mind eternal or trapped in the body? Does it reside in the brain or out with space-time? What is its relationship with the material Universe? Is it the brain or something more? I think I agree with Jung; the brain is not the mind. Beyond this it is hard to say. I would like to think it survives bodily death, but that could be my own bias. Its relationship with the Universe is probably more concrete and direct than we first supposed, but this, I think, means that it can not reside out with space-time (how can something out with reality affect that said reality?) If this is so, where does mind reside? In the brain seems too simplistic (where about?), so we are left with the problem of a disembodied mind following us around. A tough question for which I think there is no easy answer.

Mind is a word like the word self.  It doesn't exist on its own but rather is a term used to describe a process of interaction between form (the body), sense perception (the ability to touch, see, etc.), feeling (sense identification such as hot cold), mental formations (thoughts) and consciousness.  Self is a concept like mind that is made up of the interactions of the same five things.  Self does not exist as a separate entity either.

Your belief in god and eternal mind is unsupported even by your own thought process.  You spent an entire paragraph circling the drain on the subject because your concepts of god and mind are magical thinking. What does the concept of god do for you other than give you the illusion that you have a daddy in the sky?  Why do you need a god?