God still with me 2008

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:52 AM

"RE: God still with me 2008..."


                      If everything else has failed, you might try a powder wedge.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 10:17 PM

Cayce's abilities kinda transcended the phone network, doncherknow... :D

kallikanzaroi:
mischievous satyrs who exist to irritate both the human and the divine


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 09:42 PM

You've got to wonder if that ever occurred to Edgar Cayce.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 09:18 AM

"Our results demonstrate a correlation between pineal activation and religious meditation which might have profound implications in physiological understanding of the intrinsic awareness."

Intersting. But to me it seems a bit like tracing the phone line out to the nearest switchboard and then reporting "I think we have found out where all those voices you keep hearing at dinner are coming from."



A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 08:38 AM

Scientific search for the soul?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 08:30 AM

Actually, Riginslinger, I was talking about the Zelazny book, This Immortal... not to burst my own bubble or anything (*BG*)!

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 09:57 PM

That's really excellent scholarship, Mrrzy. I had to look it up, and you would make a good point by suggesting it bears looking into.
                   Personally, I was talking about the man. He really looked into the the problem(s) we have been discussing here. Like Dostoevsky, he made an in depth investigation into things, and, in the end, in my estimation, he jumped the wrong way. But he recorded the details of his search, so mankind has better mileposts to find his way.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 08:06 PM

You sure you don't mean the kallikanzaroi?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:42 AM

"-Nikos Kazantzakis-"


             One of the few really honest people who ever walked the face of the planet.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:48 PM

Mostly, a house full of people who wanted to watch Lincoln and General Grant watch a play. Grant's wife apparently wanted to go to country instead, so he was a no show.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 04:56 PM

Slag, I'd say: a houseful of questioning minds, hardly blasphemers. (Thanks for your light touch- you make questioning a joy.)

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 04:08 PM

A packed house of blasphemers! SRO! LOL

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:13 PM

The Lincoln/Jesus quote was one of a number of stories recounted, mostly after his death, that perhaps were intended to soften his unreligiousness. One is inclined to think that many writers were inclined to elevate him to the status of a saint, and being that sainthood is a bit at odds with atheism, they tried to smooth it over.

Also, let us not forget that Lincoln was in attendance at Ford's Theatre on Good Friday, which was regarded by many as a blasphemous act, and there was a natural effort to counteract the nasty gossip with stories about his religiousness--

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: theleveller
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 04:05 AM

Words from a man who spent his life searching for God.....

"We have seen the highest circle of spiraling powers. We have
named this circle God. We might have given it any other name
we wished: Abyss, Mystery, Absolute Darkness, Absolute Light,
Matter, Spirit, Ultimate Hope, Ultimate Despair, Silence.

We come from a dark abyss, we end in a dark abyss, and we call the luminous interval life. "

Nikos Kazantzakis, 'The Saviours of God'.

...and in the end wrote:

"Ihope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."

Kazntzaki's epitaph. He was interred in the walls of Heraklion, Crete, as the Greek Orthodox Church refused burial in a cemtery. His book, 'The Last Temptation of Christ' was also suppressed and banned by the Catholic Church, yet few writers I have come across thought more deeply or more comprehensively about religion. His reply to the Vatican was: "You gave me a curse, Holy fathers, I give you a blessing: may your conscience be as clear as mine and may you be as moral and religious as I"

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 09:22 PM

Thanks for the input. I will look into my source. I, too, have heard much pro and con on the issue. If Mr. Lincoln was a believer, he certainly had his own ideas and was NOT a conventional Christian. But, then again, Christ was not a conventional person either.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 09:07 PM

I"m glad to see this thread back without my resurrecting it! But Lincoln is pretty well-documented as being an atheist. He also had Marfan's Syndrome which made him even more interesting.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 08:30 PM

Here is another page discussing Lincoln's beliefs It seems to indicate that there is much doubt as to his actual beliefs.
   The quote about Gettysburg was not a speech, but supposedly a remark to someone, and not a direct quote. It seems to stand alone as a specific claim that he 'committed to Christianity'.

from the above link:

"In the suppressed biography entitled The Life of Lincoln, by William H. Herndon, who was "for Twenty Years His Friend and Partner," we find the following description of the sixteenth President:

Lincoln was a deep-grounded infidel. He disliked and despised churches. He never entered a church except to scoff and ridicule. On coming from a church he would mimic the preacher. Before running for any office he wrote a book against Christianity and the Bible. He showed it to some friends and read extracts. A man named Hill was greatly shocked and urged Lincoln not to publish it. Urged it would kill him politically. Hill got this book in his hands, opened the stove door, and it went up in flames and ashes. After that, Lincoln became more discreet, and when running for office often used words and phrases to make it appear that he was a Christian. He never changed on this subject. He lived and died a deep-grounded infidel.(23)"

so..much divided opinion.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:33 PM

Lincoln was a Deist, and was never documented to have spoken anything that contradicted that position. Abraham Lincoln, Deist and Admirer of Thomas Paine Here's a little story from there about the Great Man and religion.


In 1846, when he was a candidate for Congress against a Methodist minister, the Rev. Peter Cartwright, his opponent openly accused him of being an unbeliever, and Lincoln never denied it. A story is told of Mr. Cartwright's holding a revival meeting while the campaign was in progress, during which Lincoln stepped into one of his meetings. When Cartwright asked the audience, "Will all who want to go to heaven stand up?" all arose except Lincoln. When he asked, "Now, will all who want to go to hell stand up?" Lincoln still remained in his seat. Mr. Cartwright then said, "All have stood up for one place or the other except Mr. Lincoln, and we would like to know where he expects to go." Lincoln arose and quietly said, "I am going to Congress," and there he went.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 03:47 PM

"Lincoln told a crowd in his home town in Illinois: "When I left Springfield, I asked people to pray for me; I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I saw the graves of thousands of soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. I do love Jesus."

Slag, where do you find this quote? It does not appear to be the language of Abraham Lincoln.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 03:43 PM

"Abraham Lincoln was a backwoodsman who rose from humble beginnings to the heights of political power. During the dark days of the US Civil War, he served as a compassionate and resolute president. Depression and mental pain were his frequent companions. Yet the terrible emotional suffering he endured drove him to receive Jesus Christ by faith.

Lincoln told a crowd in his home town in Illinois: "When I left Springfield, I asked people to pray for me; I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I saw the graves of thousands of soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. I do love Jesus."

Life's most painful tragedies can bring us to a deeper understanding of the Savior.

When two men walked the road to Emmaus, they were dumbfounded by the senseless murder of Jesus of Nazareth. Then a stranger joined them and gave scriptural insight about the suffering Messiah (Luke 24:26-27). The stranger was Jesus Himself, and His ministry to them brought comfort.

Heartache has a way of pointing us to the Lord Jesus, who has shared in our sufferings and can bring meaning to seemingly senseless pain."

-by Dennis Fisher_ copyright 2007 RBC Ministries Vol. 52, Numbers 9,10,11.

Just wanted to share that on this day, Presidents' Day.

No, we are NOT a Christian nation but we ARE a nation made up of many Christians and have greatly benefited from their ideas, ideals and character.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:12 AM

I'm a Christian however I believe in Christ and if don't then you will need to answer to your 'god' and I will answer to my one.

God bless you all.

I just like some relgions but not all, I like the Shike one.

Subject: Dear God, an open letter from Don Hakman
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 04:18 PM

Dear God,
Since you are seemingly not bound by the same limitations of time as I, I need you to pass along certain questions to all the living people I share this planet with. I am not asking for answers. As a creator you may have an opinion or not. I can not presume to know either way.
We are in created in your image and are creators and destroyers at our own specific level and as such, we are respondsible for our own questions.

My first question is what will the unborn say to our current disregard of global warning. The yet unborn for centuries to come have no say, but if they could, what would they say.
What would they say regarding our fishing the oceans to extinction by killing and dumping 20 tons of fish to keep one ton of the most profitable fish?
What would the unborn say about funding death machines and defense contractors with 70 cents of every dollar made or borrowed.

Right now I think the unborn will remain unborn if pursue the preent course.

So God, could you at least pass these questions along to the religious zealots who worship for profit? they have been distracted by political corporate machine that stirred their emotions but raped their soul. I am sure they will still care and work to right the wrongs that could be the end for all the unborn forever.

PS since most if not many of their preachers are gay, as well as being of different faiths, could you help them get over the whole hate thy neighbor thing once and for all?

Please, don't answer, just do it or pass it on.




yeah yeah I know it is ..with whom I share this planet, but comon thats not the way we talk.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:20 PM

Mrzzy, I think you know that I don't think you know what anyone thinks.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 06:02 PM

Nice one, Tom, I really like that. God's valentine to the world!

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Slag
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

Some may appreciate this: John 3:16


    For God so lo V ed the world
          That He g A ve
                His on L y
                Begott E n
                      So N
                           T hat whosoever
             Believes I n Him
               Should N ot perish,
            But have E verlasting life.

Happy St. Valentine's Day.

Tom

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM

I don't say I know what Christians think. I say that Christianity is just as incorrect as, say, the ancient Greek mythology. So are all other theisms.
And since I haven't harangued all Christians, I doubt that the ones I haven't talked to know what I think I think.
But it's an interesting link nonetheless.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM

Nickhere,

Mrzzy thinks she knows what Christians think. Christians know that Mrzzy thinks she knows what they think. But they also know that what she thinks they think and what they know that they think are not the same thing at all.

Here is something that a Christian thinks about the Bible, Homosexuality and Science, that is not what Mrzzy thinks that a Christian thinks. The Bible and Being Gay

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:50 AM

Well, Nick, I submit that is the provenance of the being him/herself, an innate capability.

If your belief system includes the strange (to me) idea that you, as a spiritual being, were created by Someone Else, then you can feed that into your circular argument that this ability is God-given.

If you take complete responsibility for your own spiritual nature, then it works just fine by itself as an inherent ability of life.

Now, don't get too busy writing admonitions and such, or you'll miss your fast for Lent, and you will have to re-Lent. Fast.

A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 11:17 AM

"Morality... can be based on the individual's sense of right action"

Yes, Amos, but I suppose the key question here is, what informs the individual's sense of right action?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 10:47 AM

(Can one give up religion for Lent?)

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 10:26 AM

Lent sure is a busy time of year for some of us.

~Susan

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM

The sense of the universe is entirely in the eye of the discoverer of it. Science is an embodiment of the Discoverer's Club, working out the agreements of what that sense is. :D

A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 08:40 AM

I *did* grasp - but he was arguing with something he thought *I* had said, so I was correcting his misapprehension.

Of course if things make no sense then there is no sense to be made from them. But that isn't what I meant, nor is it actually what I said.

I meant that the universe has no PURPOSE - and in that sense, makes no sense.

Nobody sensible, I think, is arguing that there are no laws of nature which can be discovered through research.

Like the sign on Daddy's office wall - I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 01:40 AM

Morality can be based on lots of empirical things -- social prosperity, survival values in various spheres. Above all else, without respect t science as such, it can be based on the individual's sense of right action.

None of which requires a higher power, and least of all, a higher power which dictates.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Nickhere
Date: 14 Feb 08 - 12:11 AM

Mrrzy, you don't seem to have fully grasped what M.Ted said about science and the universe. He is quite correct - if the universe makes no sense, science could not study it. If there was no order in it there would be no discoverable 'laws'. Therefore the universe must have both sense and order. I do see however that you say "Science is the best way known, so far, for investigating nature. It doesn't speak to anything else" which is an admission that science is of no use in addressing questions of supernatural and abstractions like morality.
On another thread you posted "And science *can* speak to what ought to be - for instance, there are no clear-cut biological distinctions among the races, which supports the idea that there ought not to be racism. (But if there were such biological divisions, racism would still be wrong, so then again, maybe not. Maybe it's SCIENTISTS who can speak to the right/wrong thingie)"

That sounds a bit confused to me - on the one hand you're saying science can guide us morally (the example of races) on what ought to be: racism is wrong since science can find no clear-cut biological differences between races. But on the other hand you say that even if it could find such clear-cut differences, racial discrimination would still be wrong. This tells me that a) you're not too sure yourself whether or not science can be a moral guide and that b) you have a strong sense or indeed conviction that morality (i.e right and wrong) are considertaions that transcend whatever empirical data science gives us. To be fair, you acknowledge as much, but this still leaves the question of where to go from there.

This means we are at last starting to sing from the same hymn-sheet. I hold that morality is not something that can be based simply on empirical scientific data alone (though science can help give an empirical basis to our rationale for morality, as in the case of 'human from conception') but must be based on something science alone can't address.

When you say 'maybe scientists can speak to the right / wrong thingie' I'm interested, but we'd have to see on what basis scientists are going to do this - clearly not from the basis of empirical science alone. We have already seen that science gives the empirical data, it requires something beyond science to make value judgements about the data and what should be done about same.

In short, science should stick to doing what science is good at - namely describing the natural world - and morality should come from some other source.

But morality should have supersedence over science when scientific activity conflicts with morality (e.g the Nazis' experiments on people in a dozen fields of research)

Bill D, Amos, thanks for your replies to my question - I more-or-less agree with a number of the things you're saying. But no time to go into same in detail here.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:40 PM

Bill D:

I said "viewpoints", not "organism". Viva la difference.



A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 08:26 PM

No time to read all these responses--but I am seeing references to "Frottage" and "finding meaning"--is this really what philosophy comes down to?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:54 PM

a fairly well-known old remark says: "In the beginning, man created God in his own image."

It has a certain ring to it.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:44 PM

what Amos said is: any organism with enough brain to be concerned assigns meaning to its life....food, shelter, sex, play...and eventually 'causes'

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

I think the key to this aspect is that life does not come with any particular "meaning"; all meaning is attributed to the universe and its phenomena by viewpoints making considerations.


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:09 PM

Right. Bobobos do a lot of frottage (with great terms like Penis Fencing) but no intromissive, ejaculatory, voluntary recreational sex. So they are like the other mammals, but may provide information on how the female orgasm might have evolved.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 06:05 PM

Things that aren't logical are known all the time - see these threads (*BG*)! But the Universe *is* without reason. That doesn't make it unstudiable. Nobody understands quantum theory, said Feynman. Yet it's used in technology all the time.

I guess I should have worded it better, especially here, where people are being so careful. Sorry. I guess I mean it has no *purpose* - no reason as in no excuse, perhaps, rather than as in no rhyme.

Science is the best way known, so far, for investigating nature. It doesn't speak to anything else. And there ARE no "general" truths outside of that. I guess we *discover* more truths than we *invent* - I consider calculus and algebra, for example, to be discoveries of the way numbers work. To digress slightly, I loved math class because you could be really RIGHT, in that 2+2 *does* =4. In base anything bigger than 4, that is, where it =10. (I have a Tshirt that says There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.)

So I mean, just because it has no reason (as in purpose), doesn't mean it can't make sense, as in, follow natural laws which we can discover (like physics and chemistry).

Also, humans are a part of nature. What we've invented is as natural as a weaver bird's nest. Our dams aren't unnatural and the beavers' natural - they are both natural phenomena for this planet.

The trick is, we don't HAVE to go with our nature, because we have free will. That's why we can have voluntary sex and all other mammals have to go into heat before either sex is interested (bonobos are the closest to having recreational sex but what they really do is rub vulvas all the time with everybody; it isn't so much the males and I don't think they [the males] ejaculate. And the females don't have orgasms, that is ours alone, aren't we special).

So yes, we can throw ourselves in front of various dangers to save others, and we can abstain from sex or from speech or from other natural acts. And all this can be studied! I am So madly in love with fMRI if it had been around I would never, ever have let them give me a doctorate and make me leave grad school!

(Off to research bonobos and ejaculation...)

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 05:13 PM

To claim that the universe makes no sense, is to say that it has no meaning, that it is not logical, and that it lacks reason.   This would mean that it is not knowable.

And science is:a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena--

If the unverse makes no sense, then there would be no general truths or laws--and science would, logically, be impossible. Of course, if the universe makes no sense, then logic would be impossible, as well, so it would be a moot point.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 02:49 PM

? Who thinks science is impossible? Not the same person who posted about the Universe being without sense... that was me.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:21 PM

Well, we tend to believe, we humans, that we can see and aspire to a more refined order than simply responding to our natural impulses to avoid pain, eat, multiply and such. There are plenty of instances where an ethical choice includes taking pain on, in exchange for some benefit, such as throwing yourself on a grenade to save several colleagues in war. We have invented expressions like "higher purpose" and "greatest good". My point was that while these may be elegant and aesthetic, they are just elegant judgements and opinions. Some people may consider them inherent in the system. For example, the "goodness" of following the dictates of a given scripture, or a given guru, even if it is contradictory and unclear. No inherent virtue to it except int he opinion that it will lead somewhere "better".


A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 12:15 PM

Good and bad are abstractions. You seem to mean that they are not absolutes. Since some people like strong, black, coffee, and others can't stand it without lots of cream and sugar--I would say that that is not a profound insight.

Beyond that, if you believe "It's not a "judgment" to go with nature hath wrought. It's just natural." and "the universe is without sense." Then you claim that science is impossible, and reject technology because it is violates "nature".

Or maybe you just like to toss aphorisms at innocent bystanders.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

It's good for the *urvivors*to survive... of course good and bad have no abstract meaning, nothing does, the universe is without sense. What we evolved into notions of good and bad, though, are based on our ancestry and our nature. Pain is bad. Pleasure is good. Nothing fancy about it. Nothing is inherently anything. It's not a "judgment" to go with nature hath wrought. It's just natural.

The wolf keep the caribou strong.

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 10:52 PM

No. We have to differentiate between "goodness" and survival. In the real world, the broadest measure of success is survival because that is what all organisms organize around -- bringing themselves in to the future as individuals, families, colonies, sub-species, species, and en masse.

However, on closer inspection, we survive, for example, at the expense of cows and fish and pigs, carrots and rhubarb. So there is a complex interacting matrix of collisisons of survival and not-survival going on.

Most organisms seem to strive for their own survival, and for reproduction and protection of their own offspring, and for their own herd, tribe, etc. They therefore have more affection for actions which aid those efforts, and deem them (if they have language with which to do so) "good".

But "good" in the abstract sense is a judgement value, and there is nothing inherently "good" about survival of one or another species, or all of them, or none of them. Except to the degree that life forms such opinions. The extreme example of this is the German army's slogan in WW II -- "Gott Mitt Uns", or "God is With Us". A judgement about what is good that most of the civilized world disagreed with. But it was a judgement of good from the perspective of those whose survival depended on that Army doing well.

Abstractly, good and bad are opinions which have no other basis.

A

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:46 PM

I've never done this, but does 200 count for anything?

Subject: RE: God still with me 2008
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:45 PM

Mrzzy, is roughly referencing Abraham Maslow's famous Hierarchy of Needs, which starts out with physiological needs(breathing, food, etc),, then to safety(protecting yourself etc), love/belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization(Mrzzy's favorite, because it includes "acceptance of facts"), the higher needs coming into play only after the lower ones are fullfilled--

The pinnacle of the pyramid was "Playing the Ukulele", which was important to humanistic psychologists back in those days, perhaps because they hadn't entirely gotten past Freud;-)