Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Religion, Belief, God and Such

Expand Messages
  • Non
    I think it has to do with the finite and the infinite. If God or All That Is or Whatever is infinite then there is no absolute Knowing, imo, except possibly in
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 18, 2012
      I think it has to do with the finite and the infinite. If God or All That Is or Whatever is infinite then there is no absolute Knowing, imo, except possibly in some spiritual sense of essence. Often it is expressed that to conceptualize and freeze this in time is to lose it. Even saying God may bring up all kinds of preconceptions and projections. It could be that not knowing is a paradoxical way of knowing.

      The Earth is finite, and yet we are limited in what we can know about it at any given time and no one person can know it all at once. We can only know in process, imo, and that depends on how open and honest we are at any given moment, and what kind of "knowing" we are talking about as well.

      Non ;)



      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "iam999freedom" wrote:

      Hi Prometheus, you wrote:

      However, I don't think that
      the seeker needs to have
      a religion. We are our own
      religion! We know that there
      is a connection but it doesn't
      require the worship or the
      following of others.

      I think this is a very good synopsis. I have had "spirtitual experiences" before, during, and after being involved with a religion. I don't claim to know "all the answers". While I still treasure these experiences (so-called mystical and everday life are spiritual experiences)I don't need religion to appreciate life and evolve in my own way.

      Thanks for your thoughts.

      Freedom


      Hello IAM and All,
      I was going to say
      that while it's normal
      and honest to admit
      that we don't "know"
      about God that we
      can still have had
      what we would call
      "spiritual" experiences
      and revelations.

      It's such a private
      and personal matter,
      but religion isn't based
      upon what the individual
      believer experiences.

      Religions are based
      upon: clerical (expert)
      interpretation of handed
      down and revised scripture;
      reenforcement of the
      hierarchical structure;
      the approved stories
      of others supporting
      the dogma; the founders'
      positions on issues of
      the day which helped
      to create that religion.

      However, even though
      true seekers can admit
      that they don't know
      even if "God," per se,
      exists at least we don't
      limit ourselves to the
      religious versions that
      are forced, more often,
      upon the rest of the
      world. Actually, I'm
      not sure that religions
      have been forcing
      their views "more often"
      upon others. It's been
      with about the same
      fervor as it has always
      been.

      Yes, it seems that religions
      just can't allow God to be
      God or "unknown." There
      have to be explanations
      and stories and we're
      supposed to take their
      word that what they were
      told came from the high
      and mighty himself!

      There's no way that these
      spiritual experiences
      of the religious founders
      were untrue or distorted
      in any way and for any
      other reason right? The
      person who told these
      "truths" to others had
      no ulterior motives and
      was of sound mind. BTW-
      I've got a bridge to sell you!

      And, that's not even covering
      all the tweaking, rewrites and
      fill-ins by the scribes who
      transcribed of all of this "history."

      But, it seems that people
      need to grab onto something
      solid when faced with hard
      times, doubts, stress, disease
      or impending death. This
      is why religion works as
      well as it does. It gives people
      beliefs that they can cling
      to by reassuring them that
      they are not alone and
      are loved by at least One
      person or entity... God!

      However, I don't think that
      the seeker needs to have
      a religion. We are our own
      religion! We know that there
      is a connection but it doesn't
      require the worship or the
      following of others.

      We have learned and
      experienced enough
      to know more than those
      who have limited their
      visions by programming
      their minds to see only
      the beliefs from limited
      religious groups of
      thought.

      Yes, all religions have
      their own distortions
      and limited mindsets.
      Religion is a private
      club but wants everyone
      else to join because it
      gives their spin more
      validation and it brings
      in more money and
      makes people easier
      to control via power.

      The "spiritual" is just
      a hook and is kept
      mysterious because
      religions have no real
      idea about what God
      really is. They've created
      their own version as
      it suits their leaders.
      Religions speak in
      generalities and use
      their scripture (mostly
      out-of-context) to
      share what all people
      think and feel about
      life and death. Plus,
      the dogma is an appeal
      to ego by making it
      seem that their followers
      are more enlightened
      and have access to
      the only valid truth.
      The older the better!

      BTW- Sorry for the rant.


      Prometheus


      iam999freedom wrote:

      Hi Prometheus, Thanks for your insights/comments about this subject.

      A few weeks or so ago somebody (can't remember who, I think it may have been
      Post Eck-Con) posted on this site that he/she doesn't feel threatened anymore
      about admitting that God, Spirit, etc is unknown. That essentially saying that
      we don't know is not at all to be seen as ignorant or negative but rather as
      truthfull.

      I had this same insight as a kid but over the years more or less allowed myself
      to be brainwashed by others who claimed to have "all the answers". Not that I
      totally believed all of their claims but that I allowed some of what they said
      to influence my thinking. ie., Eckankar.

      Now I'm back to saying that I don't know and that's okay. Thanks again.

      Freedom


      "prometheus_973" wrote:

      Hello All,
      The truth is we don't
      know what the Truth
      is.

      That's why religions
      have created their
      version of lies using
      embellished and
      highly edited stories.

      At first it was based
      upon a pre-science
      explanation of the
      cosmos using myth
      and superstition, yet,
      similar mythology
      is still being used
      today as though it's
      still valid. Even Eckankar
      has a Garden of Eden
      myth with an Adom
      and Ede (see Polarians).

      Whatever the Truth
      is it's subjective and
      can be experienced
      (somewhat) only via
      what seems to be the
      individual's consciousness.
      No one really knows
      for certain and that's
      why there are so
      many religions and
      so many con men.

      Basically, God, Spirit,
      Angels, etc. is still
      speculation.

      Perhaps humankind
      will be capable of
      learning more as
      the mind evolves.
      Maybe we, via our
      overall actions, are
      heading toward that
      evolution where we
      will naturally become
      enlightened... in
      spite of ourselves.

      prometheus

      etznab@ wrote:

      Here's an other thought. Maybe there is no distinction between God and
      Soul. That there are no Souls and no Gods. And that everything that
      exists, all individuals, are inherently nothing but the same ONE thing
      which, for some, is something they sacrifice by living under the
      illusion of being something less. In this case it is no less than "God"
      responsible for all good things and all evil things as a matter of
      individual choice.

      Is it really beyond the ONE existent reality to "limit itself"? Nature
      would seem to indicate otherwise.

      Yes this sounds like far out talk, but that is only the result of
      looking at it a particular way. What I am saying is that God can limit
      itself and not limit itself at the same time, because God - the true
      realization of it - exists as part of a realm devoid of time as we know
      it.

      Take human thoughts as an example of what I'm trying to get at. People
      can imagine limitation and even imagine being killed and being reborn.
      But when those are only thoughts it doesn't change the constitution and
      the makeup of the person having those thoughts. Like, I could imagine
      myself as an ant but that would only be an imagination and would not
      change the fact that I am human just having a thought of being an ant.
      So what is to say that God can't also imagine, or think, and in no way
      is God, or the ONE, changed by having thoughts.

      And then again, what is to say that people (in the greater scheme) are
      not really God identifying with creation to such an extent as to
      identify with the creation as opposed to the creator? After
      identification with creation is severed upon physical death, perhaps
      the realization of God increases and there might be something to the
      belief in various inner bodies and inner planes. If the individual
      believes and identifies with the creations there, as here.

      iam999freedom wrote:

      Hi, there is an issue that keeps cropping up and troubles me when I
      think of the Newton shootings and all the other tragedies in this world.

      When God,(if there is such a being) created this world, It obviously
      knew of the negative choices that people would make like the Newtown
      shootings, murder, rape, incest, child prostitution, the list goes on
      and on. Human free choice and perhaps subsequent karma has been used to
      explain away God's responsibilty for these hideous events.

      However, if the director of a play (God) creates characters in the play
      (humans) that It knows will make negative choices (because that's one
      of the main ways a human learns) does that not make God at least
      indirectly responsible for these tragedies? Just a thought that leads
      me to thinks:

      1. Maybe God is not as Loving as we are lead to believe.
      2. I have trouble believing in or wanting to follow such a Being.

      Any thoughts from others?

      Sincerely,
      Freedom


      Janice Pfeiffer wrote:

      Well I guess I can say one positive thing and I would think
      religious leaders would focus on that angle.

      There were teachers and school officials who died shielding
      children from the gunman and some even met him face to face unarmed
      trying to deter him from killing those children.

      To me that is supreme love. They put their own safety aside to
      save the lives of the more frail little children. No one could
      demonstrate more love than they in those terrifying conditions.

      Bless all those who has to face this tragedy and may they all one
      day find peace concerning it



      prometheus wrote:
      Hello All,
      I've been watching the
      TV coverage of this tragedy
      for a few days now. It
      makes one wonder how
      a mentally deranged
      young man can do such
      evil and to such innocent
      children... face-to-face!

      However, I found the
      religious take on all
      of it to be quite strange.
      Some of the comments
      in the prayers of the
      ministers were odd.

      One cleric said that
      it happened in order
      to have people to
      question life and to
      be able to go through
      their own transformation.
      Thus, it's a test!

      One guy mentioned that
      the children would not
      have to experience sin.

      "After passion comes
      compassion."

      I'm not sure why people
      were praying to God and
      talking to or beseeching
      God when he didn't offer
      up any protection to these
      innocent children. But,
      are innocent children in
      other countries protected
      from harm? It's like how
      Klemp protects his eckists.

      The Governor of CT. sounded
      like Peter Sellers in "Being There"
      when talking about after Winter
      there will be Spring and growth.

      There is belief that a grander
      plan is afoot and that it won't
      be revealed until you can no
      longer speak and share and
      this gives those left hope that
      the promises will be fulfilled.

      I'm thinking that Eckists
      are probably sad, too, but
      also think that they see it
      as karma being karma and
      that there is no death.

      "What is seen is temporary
      but what is unseen is eternal."

      Do clerics merely repeat what
      we already know or is it merely
      a pep talk while reminding
      us of what we are supposed
      to believe? Or, do they see
      themselves as the experts
      who have memorized scripture,
      dress up in special garments,
      while we regular people are
      the ignorant sheep meant to
      blindly follow?

      It is interesting to see a
      commonality of sorts, but
      individual choice seems to
      take precedence as it always
      will.

      prometheus
    • iam999freedom
      Yes, when expressing God in a finite way there are so many preconceptions and connotations. It s almost as we are trying to analyse It (I say It because in my
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 21, 2012
        Yes, when expressing God in a finite way there are so many preconceptions and connotations. It's almost as we are trying to analyse It (I say It because in my experience God has no gender) in part because that's what our learning bias is and perhaps so we can have It do something for us.ie., the way we would with applied science and technology.

        As a sidenote, the priestcraft has projected their own fears and "knowledge" to enslave the masses until supposedly they become saved upon death. Meanwhile the priestcraft enjoy their delusional sense of power and "exclusive knowledge" of God and their followers for the most part become spiritually stunted.

        From a infinite point point of view if God is to be known imo God has to be "directly experienced" (as you say in some spiritual sense) which from the Normal human state is impossible to comprehend.

        Just some thoughts. Thanks for yours.

        Freedom

        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "Non" <eckchains@...> wrote:
        >
        > I think it has to do with the finite and the infinite. If God or All That Is or Whatever is infinite then there is no absolute Knowing, imo, except possibly in some spiritual sense of essence. Often it is expressed that to conceptualize and freeze this in time is to lose it. Even saying God may bring up all kinds of preconceptions and projections. It could be that not knowing is a paradoxical way of knowing.
        >
        > The Earth is finite, and yet we are limited in what we can know about it at any given time and no one person can know it all at once. We can only know in process, imo, and that depends on how open and honest we are at any given moment, and what kind of "knowing" we are talking about as well.
        >
        > Non ;)
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "iam999freedom" wrote:
        >
        > Hi Prometheus, you wrote:
        >
        > However, I don't think that
        > the seeker needs to have
        > a religion. We are our own
        > religion! We know that there
        > is a connection but it doesn't
        > require the worship or the
        > following of others.
        >
        > I think this is a very good synopsis. I have had "spirtitual experiences" before, during, and after being involved with a religion. I don't claim to know "all the answers". While I still treasure these experiences (so-called mystical and everday life are spiritual experiences)I don't need religion to appreciate life and evolve in my own way.
        >
        > Thanks for your thoughts.
        >
        > Freedom
        >
        >
        > Hello IAM and All,
        > I was going to say
        > that while it's normal
        > and honest to admit
        > that we don't "know"
        > about God that we
        > can still have had
        > what we would call
        > "spiritual" experiences
        > and revelations.
        >
        > It's such a private
        > and personal matter,
        > but religion isn't based
        > upon what the individual
        > believer experiences.
        >
        > Religions are based
        > upon: clerical (expert)
        > interpretation of handed
        > down and revised scripture;
        > reenforcement of the
        > hierarchical structure;
        > the approved stories
        > of others supporting
        > the dogma; the founders'
        > positions on issues of
        > the day which helped
        > to create that religion.
        >
        > However, even though
        > true seekers can admit
        > that they don't know
        > even if "God," per se,
        > exists at least we don't
        > limit ourselves to the
        > religious versions that
        > are forced, more often,
        > upon the rest of the
        > world. Actually, I'm
        > not sure that religions
        > have been forcing
        > their views "more often"
        > upon others. It's been
        > with about the same
        > fervor as it has always
        > been.
        >
        > Yes, it seems that religions
        > just can't allow God to be
        > God or "unknown." There
        > have to be explanations
        > and stories and we're
        > supposed to take their
        > word that what they were
        > told came from the high
        > and mighty himself!
        >
        > There's no way that these
        > spiritual experiences
        > of the religious founders
        > were untrue or distorted
        > in any way and for any
        > other reason right? The
        > person who told these
        > "truths" to others had
        > no ulterior motives and
        > was of sound mind. BTW-
        > I've got a bridge to sell you!
        >
        > And, that's not even covering
        > all the tweaking, rewrites and
        > fill-ins by the scribes who
        > transcribed of all of this "history."
        >
        > But, it seems that people
        > need to grab onto something
        > solid when faced with hard
        > times, doubts, stress, disease
        > or impending death. This
        > is why religion works as
        > well as it does. It gives people
        > beliefs that they can cling
        > to by reassuring them that
        > they are not alone and
        > are loved by at least One
        > person or entity... God!
        >
        > However, I don't think that
        > the seeker needs to have
        > a religion. We are our own
        > religion! We know that there
        > is a connection but it doesn't
        > require the worship or the
        > following of others.
        >
        > We have learned and
        > experienced enough
        > to know more than those
        > who have limited their
        > visions by programming
        > their minds to see only
        > the beliefs from limited
        > religious groups of
        > thought.
        >
        > Yes, all religions have
        > their own distortions
        > and limited mindsets.
        > Religion is a private
        > club but wants everyone
        > else to join because it
        > gives their spin more
        > validation and it brings
        > in more money and
        > makes people easier
        > to control via power.
        >
        > The "spiritual" is just
        > a hook and is kept
        > mysterious because
        > religions have no real
        > idea about what God
        > really is. They've created
        > their own version as
        > it suits their leaders.
        > Religions speak in
        > generalities and use
        > their scripture (mostly
        > out-of-context) to
        > share what all people
        > think and feel about
        > life and death. Plus,
        > the dogma is an appeal
        > to ego by making it
        > seem that their followers
        > are more enlightened
        > and have access to
        > the only valid truth.
        > The older the better!
        >
        > BTW- Sorry for the rant.
        >
        >
        > Prometheus
        >
        >
        > iam999freedom wrote:
        >
        > Hi Prometheus, Thanks for your insights/comments about this subject.
        >
        > A few weeks or so ago somebody (can't remember who, I think it may have been
        > Post Eck-Con) posted on this site that he/she doesn't feel threatened anymore
        > about admitting that God, Spirit, etc is unknown. That essentially saying that
        > we don't know is not at all to be seen as ignorant or negative but rather as
        > truthfull.
        >
        > I had this same insight as a kid but over the years more or less allowed myself
        > to be brainwashed by others who claimed to have "all the answers". Not that I
        > totally believed all of their claims but that I allowed some of what they said
        > to influence my thinking. ie., Eckankar.
        >
        > Now I'm back to saying that I don't know and that's okay. Thanks again.
        >
        > Freedom
        >
        >
        > "prometheus_973" wrote:
        >
        > Hello All,
        > The truth is we don't
        > know what the Truth
        > is.
        >
        > That's why religions
        > have created their
        > version of lies using
        > embellished and
        > highly edited stories.
        >
        > At first it was based
        > upon a pre-science
        > explanation of the
        > cosmos using myth
        > and superstition, yet,
        > similar mythology
        > is still being used
        > today as though it's
        > still valid. Even Eckankar
        > has a Garden of Eden
        > myth with an Adom
        > and Ede (see Polarians).
        >
        > Whatever the Truth
        > is it's subjective and
        > can be experienced
        > (somewhat) only via
        > what seems to be the
        > individual's consciousness.
        > No one really knows
        > for certain and that's
        > why there are so
        > many religions and
        > so many con men.
        >
        > Basically, God, Spirit,
        > Angels, etc. is still
        > speculation.
        >
        > Perhaps humankind
        > will be capable of
        > learning more as
        > the mind evolves.
        > Maybe we, via our
        > overall actions, are
        > heading toward that
        > evolution where we
        > will naturally become
        > enlightened... in
        > spite of ourselves.
        >
        > prometheus
        >
        > etznab@ wrote:
        >
        > Here's an other thought. Maybe there is no distinction between God and
        > Soul. That there are no Souls and no Gods. And that everything that
        > exists, all individuals, are inherently nothing but the same ONE thing
        > which, for some, is something they sacrifice by living under the
        > illusion of being something less. In this case it is no less than "God"
        > responsible for all good things and all evil things as a matter of
        > individual choice.
        >
        > Is it really beyond the ONE existent reality to "limit itself"? Nature
        > would seem to indicate otherwise.
        >
        > Yes this sounds like far out talk, but that is only the result of
        > looking at it a particular way. What I am saying is that God can limit
        > itself and not limit itself at the same time, because God - the true
        > realization of it - exists as part of a realm devoid of time as we know
        > it.
        >
        > Take human thoughts as an example of what I'm trying to get at. People
        > can imagine limitation and even imagine being killed and being reborn.
        > But when those are only thoughts it doesn't change the constitution and
        > the makeup of the person having those thoughts. Like, I could imagine
        > myself as an ant but that would only be an imagination and would not
        > change the fact that I am human just having a thought of being an ant.
        > So what is to say that God can't also imagine, or think, and in no way
        > is God, or the ONE, changed by having thoughts.
        >
        > And then again, what is to say that people (in the greater scheme) are
        > not really God identifying with creation to such an extent as to
        > identify with the creation as opposed to the creator? After
        > identification with creation is severed upon physical death, perhaps
        > the realization of God increases and there might be something to the
        > belief in various inner bodies and inner planes. If the individual
        > believes and identifies with the creations there, as here.
        >
        > iam999freedom wrote:
        >
        > Hi, there is an issue that keeps cropping up and troubles me when I
        > think of the Newton shootings and all the other tragedies in this world.
        >
        > When God,(if there is such a being) created this world, It obviously
        > knew of the negative choices that people would make like the Newtown
        > shootings, murder, rape, incest, child prostitution, the list goes on
        > and on. Human free choice and perhaps subsequent karma has been used to
        > explain away God's responsibilty for these hideous events.
        >
        > However, if the director of a play (God) creates characters in the play
        > (humans) that It knows will make negative choices (because that's one
        > of the main ways a human learns) does that not make God at least
        > indirectly responsible for these tragedies? Just a thought that leads
        > me to thinks:
        >
        > 1. Maybe God is not as Loving as we are lead to believe.
        > 2. I have trouble believing in or wanting to follow such a Being.
        >
        > Any thoughts from others?
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Freedom
        >
        >
        > Janice Pfeiffer wrote:
        >
        > Well I guess I can say one positive thing and I would think
        > religious leaders would focus on that angle.
        >
        > There were teachers and school officials who died shielding
        > children from the gunman and some even met him face to face unarmed
        > trying to deter him from killing those children.
        >
        > To me that is supreme love. They put their own safety aside to
        > save the lives of the more frail little children. No one could
        > demonstrate more love than they in those terrifying conditions.
        >
        > Bless all those who has to face this tragedy and may they all one
        > day find peace concerning it
        >
        >
        >
        > prometheus wrote:
        > Hello All,
        > I've been watching the
        > TV coverage of this tragedy
        > for a few days now. It
        > makes one wonder how
        > a mentally deranged
        > young man can do such
        > evil and to such innocent
        > children... face-to-face!
        >
        > However, I found the
        > religious take on all
        > of it to be quite strange.
        > Some of the comments
        > in the prayers of the
        > ministers were odd.
        >
        > One cleric said that
        > it happened in order
        > to have people to
        > question life and to
        > be able to go through
        > their own transformation.
        > Thus, it's a test!
        >
        > One guy mentioned that
        > the children would not
        > have to experience sin.
        >
        > "After passion comes
        > compassion."
        >
        > I'm not sure why people
        > were praying to God and
        > talking to or beseeching
        > God when he didn't offer
        > up any protection to these
        > innocent children. But,
        > are innocent children in
        > other countries protected
        > from harm? It's like how
        > Klemp protects his eckists.
        >
        > The Governor of CT. sounded
        > like Peter Sellers in "Being There"
        > when talking about after Winter
        > there will be Spring and growth.
        >
        > There is belief that a grander
        > plan is afoot and that it won't
        > be revealed until you can no
        > longer speak and share and
        > this gives those left hope that
        > the promises will be fulfilled.
        >
        > I'm thinking that Eckists
        > are probably sad, too, but
        > also think that they see it
        > as karma being karma and
        > that there is no death.
        >
        > "What is seen is temporary
        > but what is unseen is eternal."
        >
        > Do clerics merely repeat what
        > we already know or is it merely
        > a pep talk while reminding
        > us of what we are supposed
        > to believe? Or, do they see
        > themselves as the experts
        > who have memorized scripture,
        > dress up in special garments,
        > while we regular people are
        > the ignorant sheep meant to
        > blindly follow?
        >
        > It is interesting to see a
        > commonality of sorts, but
        > individual choice seems to
        > take precedence as it always
        > will.
        >
        > prometheus
        >
      • prometheus_973
        Hello All, I kind of like this approach that etznab took. Einstein and Hawking, among others, seemed to be plugged into the cosmology of our beingness and,
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 23, 2012
          Hello All,
          I kind of like this
          approach that etznab
          took. Einstein and
          Hawking, among
          others, seemed to
          be plugged into
          the cosmology of
          our beingness and,
          thus, represent our
          potential more than
          the average human.
          It just goes to show
          the direction of our
          evolution, and with
          technology it has
          certainly speeded
          up.

          Prometheus
          Etznab wrote:
          Here's an other thought. Maybe there is no distinction between God and
          Soul. That there are no Souls and no Gods. And that everything that
          exists, all individuals, are inherently nothing but the same ONE thing
          which, for some, is something they sacrifice by living under the
          illusion of being something less. In this case it is no less than "God"
          responsible for all good things and all evil things as a matter of
          individual choice.

          Is it really beyond the ONE existent reality to "limit itself"? Nature
          would seem to indicate otherwise.

          Yes this sounds like far out talk, but that is only the result of
          looking at it a particular way. What I am saying is that God can limit
          itself and not limit itself at the same time, because God - the true
          realization of it - exists as part of a realm devoid of time as we know
          it.

          Take human thoughts as an example of what I'm trying to get at. People
          can imagine limitation and even imagine being killed and being reborn.
          But when those are only thoughts it doesn't change the constitution and
          the makeup of the person having those thoughts. Like, I could imagine
          myself as an ant but that would only be an imagination and would not
          change the fact that I am human just having a thought of being an ant.
          So what is to say that God can't also imagine, or think, and in no way
          is God, or the ONE, changed by having thoughts.

          And then again, what is to say that people (in the greater scheme) are
          not really God identifying with creation to such an extent as to
          identify with the creation as opposed to the creator? After
          identification with creation is severed upon physical death, perhaps
          the realization of God increases and there might be something to the
          belief in various inner bodies and inner planes. If the individual
          believes and identifies with the creations there, as here.

          "iam999freedom" wrote:
          >
          > Yes, when expressing God in a finite way there are so many preconceptions and connotations. It's almost as we are trying to analyse It (I say It because in my experience God has no gender) in part because that's what our learning bias is and perhaps so we can have It do something for us.ie., the way we would with applied science and technology.
          >
          > As a sidenote, the priestcraft has projected their own fears and "knowledge" to enslave the masses until supposedly they become saved upon death. Meanwhile the priestcraft enjoy their delusional sense of power and "exclusive knowledge" of God and their followers for the most part become spiritually stunted.
          >
          > From a infinite point point of view if God is to be known imo God has to be "directly experienced" (as you say in some spiritual sense) which from the Normal human state is impossible to comprehend.
          >
          > Just some thoughts. Thanks for yours.
          >
          > Freedom
        • etznab@aol.com
          There was an interesting article in the December 2012 Scientific American magazine called: The Quantum Quantum / Quantum theorists often speak of the world as
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 24, 2012
            There was an interesting article in the December 2012 Scientific
            American magazine called: The Quantum Quantum / Quantum theorists often
            speak of the world as being pointillist at the smallest scales. Yet a
            closer look at the laws of nature suggests that the physical world is
            actually continuous - more analog than digital, by David Tong (p. 46)

            The article was interesting in that it said: "Physicists routinely
            teach that the building blocks of nature are discrete particles such as
            the electron or quark. That is a lie. The building blocks of our
            theories are are not particles but fields: continuous, fluidlike
            objects spread throughout space. ... The objects that we call
            fundamental particles are not fundamental. Instead they are ripples of
            continuous fields." (p. 49)

            There was a comment on the S.A. website by vladimir tamari about the
            article that read:

            Quite apart from David Tong's stimulating article and the interesting
            comments above, the original article in the printed edition of
            Scientific American had the title "The Unquantum Quantum". This is very
            interesting: Eric Reiter, who also happens to be the author of an essay
            in this year's Foundational Questions (fqxi) contest, is the one who
            coined the term "unquantum"see http://unquantum.net/. He should be
            given credit for this- but not for mere linguistic cleverness. By
            unquantum emphasizes the challenge that his painstaking experiments
            with gamma rays have posed to the very conceptual foundations of
            quantum physics. Reiter has proven something that Max Planck and others
            have argued for all along - that Einstein's 1905 conclusion that quanta
            of light come in the form of particles is simply wrong. If his
            experiments and conclusions are confirmed this would banish the weird
            particle-wave duality for light, thereby providing a realistic physical
            explanation for probabilistic quantum behavior and much else besides.
            Read Reiters' fqxi essay explaining all this:

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all

            In any case it looks like arguments persist about particles vs. waves
            ... and it seemed to me one of the arguments from the article centered
            around the consideration that discrete particles are an "output",
            rather than an input such as waves existing in a continuum. It also
            pointed out how particles can change into other particles and how
            forces are continuous with one another. That was my impression, at
            least.

            Btw, the article blurb on the S.A. website does not do the article
            justice. One really needs to look at the whole article (which, I don't
            think there is one online yet). There were some other links in the
            comment I referenced which might provide even more insight, but I
            haven't looked at them yet.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
            To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous
            <EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sun, Dec 23, 2012 8:49 pm
            Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Religion, Belief, God and Such

             
            Hello All,
            I kind of like this
            approach that etznab
            took. Einstein and
            Hawking, among
            others, seemed to
            be plugged into
            the cosmology of
            our beingness and,
            thus, represent our
            potential more than
            the average human.
            It just goes to show
            the direction of our
            evolution, and with
            technology it has
            certainly speeded
            up.

            Prometheus
            Etznab wrote:
            Here's an other thought. Maybe there is no distinction between God and
            Soul. That there are no Souls and no Gods. And that everything that
            exists, all individuals, are inherently nothing but the same ONE thing
            which, for some, is something they sacrifice by living under the
            illusion of being something less. In this case it is no less than "God"
            responsible for all good things and all evil things as a matter of
            individual choice.

            Is it really beyond the ONE existent reality to "limit itself"? Nature
            would seem to indicate otherwise.

            Yes this sounds like far out talk, but that is only the result of
            looking at it a particular way. What I am saying is that God can limit
            itself and not limit itself at the same time, because God - the true
            realization of it - exists as part of a realm devoid of time as we know
            it.

            Take human thoughts as an example of what I'm trying to get at. People
            can imagine limitation and even imagine being killed and being reborn.
            But when those are only thoughts it doesn't change the constitution and
            the makeup of the person having those thoughts. Like, I could imagine
            myself as an ant but that would only be an imagination and would not
            change the fact that I am human just having a thought of being an ant.
            So what is to say that God can't also imagine, or think, and in no way
            is God, or the ONE, changed by having thoughts.

            And then again, what is to say that people (in the greater scheme) are
            not really God identifying with creation to such an extent as to
            identify with the creation as opposed to the creator? After
            identification with creation is severed upon physical death, perhaps
            the realization of God increases and there might be something to the
            belief in various inner bodies and inner planes. If the individual
            believes and identifies with the creations there, as here.

            "iam999freedom" wrote:
            >
            > Yes, when expressing God in a finite way there are so many
            preconceptions and connotations. It's almost as we are trying to
            analyse It (I say It because in my experience God has no gender) in
            part because that's what our learning bias is and perhaps so we can
            have It do something for us.ie., the way we would with applied science
            and technology.
            >
            > As a sidenote, the priestcraft has projected their own fears and
            "knowledge" to enslave the masses until supposedly they become saved
            upon death. Meanwhile the priestcraft enjoy their delusional sense of
            power and "exclusive knowledge" of God and their followers for the most
            part become spiritually stunted.
            >
            > From a infinite point point of view if God is to be known imo God
            has to be "directly experienced" (as you say in some spiritual sense)
            which from the Normal human state is impossible to comprehend.
            >
            > Just some thoughts. Thanks for yours.
            >
            > Freedom
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.