Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Sage
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: Kefitzat Haderech

Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #1

Post by Pazuzu bin Hanbi »

Mehmet Akif Ersoy wrote:When reaching through the eras of reform
Let your essential nature be your guide —
There’s no hope of salvation otherwise.
Hey there folks. I figured I’d gone long overdue for an introductory thread of my own. And so without further ado…

I grew up in a muslim household and community. Although I loved the idea of worship and the way some people can use it to better their lives, the Islamic lifestyle as prevalent in the community in which I live, the whole (Jewish–derived, I suppose) notion of exegetical analysis of sacred texts, and so on, I grew to realise I didn’t believe in God — or at least as depicted in any religion I’ve studied.

I have read too much and have too much scientific study under my belt to believe in divinity (except perhaps something similar to Aristotle’s views on a completely unresponsive God that created everything through emanation, though less theistic, much less theistic!). I’d like a God to exist, one that doesn’t demand we worship Him in formal ways (as opposed to free worship of the heart), but I’ve never really felt Him or His presence. I’ve slowly come to realise that I simply don’t believe. Not believe as such — I simply don’t care. My living means that God doesn’t really enter my active life (though I think about religion a lot). But I do harbour deep and underlying fears of punishment after death, though if I think about it more rationally I don’t think I believe in life after death.

I’ve studied Middle Eastern religions a lot, and I see all the monotheistic religions as a gradual — and sometimes sudden — break from the old paganistic ways. I see the human evolution of religion too much to give it spiritual credence.

But because of my upbringing, and love for my family and community, I feel compelled to defend their way of life — despite not agreeing with it — especially when outsiders viciously attack them, verbally or physically. It disappoints me that those who depart from Islam then turn to attack it with such viciousness, the Western media then purverying them as experts on the whole culture and religion.
لا إلـــــــــــــــــــــــــــه

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #21

Post by bernee51 »

olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote: No need for calculus...I just consider the possibility that the universe, in some shape or form, is eternal. there is as much evidence of this as there is for the existence of an eternal creator deity.
No, fifty years ago that was what science said, but today evidence from the Hubble telescope and microwave background has concluded that God created the universe 13.7+-.2 billion years ago.
Actually they are referring that the universe as we know it appears to have begun at that time...nothing more nothing less. God does not enter the equation except in the mind of believers.
olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote:Who god says you are is an object in your awareness. It does not answer the question "Who am I?"
God says that I am his son.
That still does not answer the question "Who am I". If you feel you can't or don't want to just say so.
What more can I say? Do you want my name, phone and social security number?
Those items you list do not answer the question "Who am I?". They are objects in the awareness of the 'I'.
olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
olavisjo wrote: If you never want anything, you will lack emotion. God is an emotional kind of guy, and yet he is still perfect.
God has emotions? Then god is not perfect.
Now we are getting somewhere. Why would you feel that emotions makes someone less than perfect?
McC addresses this later. I will defer to his question.
olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
Then don't claim knowledge of same - it is dishonest. I dishonesty part of this god's will you claim to follow?

The lessons in the BG are very much about action.
I did not get very far in the Bhagavad Gita, can you tell me a little of what I missed?
The 'self' you believed is saved in your in Jesus is an illusion.
olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
olavisjo wrote:

Living forever with God in paradise, I can settle with that.
I could not.
What more do you want?
bernee51 wrote:Show me why living within an illusion is better than freedom.
Freedom is an illusion, you will always be in bondage to your needs for food, clothing, shelter, air to breath, love.
Not at all. The 'bondage', the attachment is an artifact conditioned by experience. Freedom entails going beyond this conditioning.
olavisjo wrote: But if you give yourself to be a servant of God his promise is to always provide for your needs and you will be free.
This is an example of an attachment to conditions. This is 'bondage'. This is not freedom.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #22

Post by olavisjo »

Fallibleone wrote:
olavisjo wrote: No, fifty years ago that was what science said, but today evidence from the Hubble telescope and microwave background has concluded that God created the universe 13.7+-.2 billion years ago.
No, it has not. It has concluded nothing whatsoever to do with God's creation of the universe.
'God created the universe', is a perfectly good hypothesis. Given that it is the only plausible one out there, I would say it is settled until new evidence is found to indicate otherwise.
Fallibleone wrote: In some circles, a person who derives a sense of self entirely from an external locus of evaluation is thought to be at a considerable disadvantage when answering the question 'Who am I?'
I am sorry, but I am at a total disadvantage here.
Fallibleone wrote: I do not believe that this is the point at all. We are discussing a supposedly perfect being here, not 'mere' humans. As I said before, the argument is not that emotions make people less than perfect. It is that God, being perfect, would not want, need or desire anything, or indeed be affected by external events causing him to emote.
Now I can understand why you would want to live without God, if he was the way you see him, I too would want to live without him.
McCulloch wrote: Let's look at anger. You might get angry with someone for doing something that hurts you. However, if you more fully understood the circumstances of the person who did such a thing, your anger might be less fierce. If you perfectly understood all of the motivations, the life and the struggles of that person, you would not be angry at all.

Perfection precludes emotion.
Just because people so often abuse the emotion of anger, does not make anger a bad thing.
To be perfect you must have all of it, and use all of it properly and that is God.
Above all, God is Love.
Fallibleone wrote: Have you given away all that you own? God will provide for your needs. Or are your job, home and car God's way of providing for you?
God has given me a healthy body so I can pay my own way and still have enough to give to others, I do own some stocks, that I plan to give to my grandson for his education when he is older.
bernee51 wrote: Not at all. The 'bondage', the attachment is an artifact conditioned by experience. Freedom entails going beyond this conditioning.
olavisjo wrote: But if you give yourself to be a servant of God his promise is to always provide for your needs and you will be free.
This is an example of an attachment to conditions. This is 'bondage'. This is not freedom.
For me, being in bondage to a loving God is as free as I can ever get. Can you describe any other freedom?

User avatar
Fallibleone
Guru
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Scouseland

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #23

Post by Fallibleone »

olavisjo wrote:
No, fifty years ago that was what science said, but today evidence from the Hubble telescope and microwave background has concluded that God created the universe 13.7+-.2 billion years ago.
No, it has not. It has concluded nothing whatsoever to do with God's creation of the universe.
'God created the universe', is a perfectly good hypothesis. Given that it is the only plausible one out there, I would say it is settled until new evidence is found to indicate otherwise.
How is this a perfectly good hypothesis? On what is it based? Obviosuly I disagree that it is the only plausible theory out there. Even if it was, plausibility does not inevitably lead to truth. Unless I am mistaken, I see a 'God of the Gaps' argument emerging here, ie. 'we don't know the answer so God did it'. Nothing at all is 'settled'.

In some circles, a person who derives a sense of self entirely from an external locus of evaluation is thought to be at a considerable disadvantage when answering the question 'Who am I?'
I am sorry, but I am at a total disadvantage here.
Basically, some people think that if you derive your sense of self exclusively from external sources, you have no idea whatsoever of who you are. I am one of the people who think this.
I do not believe that this is the point at all. We are discussing a supposedly perfect being here, not 'mere' humans. As I said before, the argument is not that emotions make people less than perfect. It is that God, being perfect, would not want, need or desire anything, or indeed be affected by external events causing him to emote.
Now I can understand why you would want to live without God, if he was the way you see him, I too would want to live without him.
Am I completely off the mark, or do you believe that your God is perfect?

Have you given away all that you own? God will provide for your needs. Or are your job, home and car God's way of providing for you?
God has given me a healthy body so I can pay my own way and still have enough to give to others, I do own some stocks, that I plan to give to my grandson for his education when he is older.
But you don't need to pay your way or leave anything to your grandson. God will provide for you, based on your argument that he will do so if you give your life to him.

Say you don't have a healthy body, even though you have given your life to God. Why has he not provided for you as you believed he would? I mean, I hope we can both agree that there are disabled committed Christians out there. Can't we?

This is an example of an attachment to conditions. This is 'bondage'. This is not freedom.
For me, being in bondage to a loving God is as free as I can ever get. Can you describe any other freedom?
How about not being in bondage?
''''What I am is good enough if I can only be it openly.''''

''''The man said "why you think you here?" I said "I got no idea".''''

''''Je viens comme un chat
Par la nuit si noire.
Tu attends, et je tombe
Dans tes ailes blanches,
Et je vole,
Et je coule
Comme une plume.''''

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #24

Post by olavisjo »

Fallibleone wrote: How is this a perfectly good hypothesis? On what is it based? Obviosuly I disagree that it is the only plausible theory out there. Even if it was, plausibility does not inevitably lead to truth. Unless I am mistaken, I see a 'God of the Gaps' argument emerging here, ie. 'we don't know the answer so God did it'. Nothing at all is 'settled'.
I am open to any theorys that you may know of.
Fallibleone wrote:In some circles, a person who derives a sense of self entirely from an external locus of evaluation is thought to be at a considerable disadvantage when answering the question 'Who am I?'
olavisjo wrote:I am sorry, but I am at a total disadvantage here.
Fallibleone wrote:Basically, some people think that if you derive your sense of self exclusively from external sources, you have no idea whatsoever of who you are. I am one of the people who think this.
Perhaps the question is so vague that I don't know what you are getting at. If you will tell me who you are, I may be able to give you an answer that corresponds regarding me.
Fallibleone wrote:I do not believe that this is the point at all. We are discussing a supposedly perfect being here, not 'mere' humans. As I said before, the argument is not that emotions make people less than perfect. It is that God, being perfect, would not want, need or desire anything, or indeed be affected by external events causing him to emote.
olavisjo wrote:Now I can understand why you would want to live without God, if he was the way you see him, I too would want to live without him.
Fallibleone wrote:Am I completely off the mark, or do you believe that your God is perfect?
You are not off the mark, my God is perfect.
Fallibleone wrote:Have you given away all that you own? God will provide for your needs. Or are your job, home and car God's way of providing for you?
olavisjo wrote:God has given me a healthy body so I can pay my own way and still have enough to give to others, I do own some stocks, that I plan to give to my grandson for his education when he is older.
Fallibleone wrote: But you don't need to pay your way or leave anything to your grandson. God will provide for you, based on your argument that he will do so if you give your life to him.
Say you don't have a healthy body, even though you have given your life to God. Why has he not provided for you as you believed he would? I mean, I hope we can both agree that there are disabled committed Christians out there. Can't we?
Yes there is, in my church the only disabled person there is the pastor, two years ago he got into a motorcycle accident and the doctors told him he will never walk again. Today he wears a brace and limps because he still does not have function in his foot, only pain. He tells me that God's grace is enough for him, a bad foot is nothing compared to what God has given him and will give him.
The way it works with God, if I can do 90% God will do the 10% that I can't do. If I can do only 10% then he will do the 90%, but I always have to do my part.
bernee51 wrote:This is an example of an attachment to conditions. This is 'bondage'. This is not freedom.
olavisjo wrote:For me, being in bondage to a loving God is as free as I can ever get. Can you describe any other freedom?
Fallibleone wrote: How about not being in bondage?
What would that look like?

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #25

Post by bernee51 »

olavisjo wrote: God is Love.
Is this love conditional or unconditional?
olavisjo wrote:For me, being in bondage to a loving God is as free as I can ever get. Can you describe any other freedom?
The freedom from not acting our of conditions. The freedom of acting, with awareness, in the moment
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #26

Post by bernee51 »

olavisjo wrote:
Fallibleone wrote:
olavisjo wrote: No, fifty years ago that was what science said, but today evidence from the Hubble telescope and microwave background has concluded that God created the universe 13.7+-.2 billion years ago.
No, it has not. It has concluded nothing whatsoever to do with God's creation of the universe.
'God created the universe', is a perfectly good hypothesis. Given that it is the only plausible one out there, I would say it is settled until new evidence is found to indicate otherwise.
It is also a logical fallacy - your incredulity is an argumetn from ignorance.

Using logical fallacies to support the belief in a deity is not uncommon. This is not surprising give that the creator deity who's existence you attempt to defend is itself a logical impossibilty
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #27

Post by olavisjo »

bernee51 wrote:
olavisjo wrote: God is Love.
Is this love conditional or unconditional?
It is unconditional, a free gift, all you have to do is receive it.
olavisjo wrote:For me, being in bondage to a loving God is as free as I can ever get. Can you describe any other freedom?
bernee51 wrote:The freedom from not acting our of conditions. The freedom of acting, with awareness, in the moment
Are you saying, freedom to do what you want and when you want?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #28

Post by McCulloch »

olavisjo wrote:God is Love.
bernee51 wrote:Is this love conditional or unconditional?
olavisjo wrote:It is unconditional, a free gift, all you have to do is receive it.
If God's love is unconditional, I hereby accept it. I'm gonna be in heaven in eternal bliss after I die, if you are correct.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #29

Post by bernee51 »

olavisjo wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
olavisjo wrote: God is Love.
Is this love conditional or unconditional?
It is unconditional, a free gift, all you have to do is receive it.
So it is conditional on me receiving it.
olavisjo wrote:
olavisjo wrote:t;]For me, being in bondage to a loving God is as free as I can ever get. Can you describe any other freedom?
bernee51 wrote:The freedom from not acting our of conditions. The freedom of acting, with awareness, in the moment
Are you saying, freedom to do what you want and when you want?
As long as it fits within the guidelines of lovingkindness which oversee my actions - to be mindful of the happiness and well-being of all creatures.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

olavisjo
Site Supporter
Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Reaching Through the Eras of Reform…

Post #30

Post by olavisjo »

McCulloch wrote:
olavisjo wrote:God is Love.
bernee51 wrote:Is this love conditional or unconditional?
olavisjo wrote:It is unconditional, a free gift, all you have to do is receive it.
If God's love is unconditional, I hereby accept it. I'm gonna be in heaven in eternal bliss after I die, if you are correct.
Yes.

Post Reply