Assume for a moment there is no God...

[templelady]

I have been contemplating--really trying to see the situation from a not believing or not proven stance. I have to admit I can't get there --so I tried looking at the big picture another way and this is what I came up with

I hope it makes as much sense on"paper" as it did in my head

Form follows function is a basic tenet of both the natural and man made world.

So in the natural world things are what they are and behave as they do because it enables them to fulfill their function. So the question is--- If there is no God why does the Universe exist??? Why did "something" come from "nothing"? "Nothing" has no "function" and if "nothing" is all there is or ever was why did "nothing" have to become "something"?

[sirguessalot]

So in the natural world things are what they are and behave as they do because it enables them to fulfill their function. So the question is--- If there is no God why does the Universe exist??? Why did "something" come from "nothing"? "Nothing" has no "function" and if "nothing" is all there is or ever was why did "nothing" have to become "something"?

the way i see it..."nothingness" is almost always been given a bad rap

along with "emptiness, darkness, abyss, the void"

but its amazing how easily our perspectives change when simply find other more neutral words to describe the same thing

because nothingness can also be called a clearing

where there is spaciousness and gracious crystal clarity

simply always forgivingly allowing everything to be

radically honest and true and eternal

like an always open door

always, everywhere

without end

consistent

invisible

oceanic...

sound familiar to anyone?

in the bible and many other elsewheres...

pure emptiness was considered the most feminine aspect of "spirit"

as the infinite intimate unfolding layers of space and grace

the opening and surrendering of agape love

cooing nesting doves from above

pure passive allowance

etc...

nothingness is like the space we call the pupil of an eye

and nothingness is always best at getting out of its own way

which also makes the greatest pupil the greatest teacher

nothingness has also been called the "field of the lord"

and where "a christ knows when he knows that he sits there"

and ultimate universal "ground" of all things

to say that everything sits in spirit

is to say that everything sits in space

call it spirit or space...it is within everything

just as god came neither before nor after that which arose in god,

space came neither before nor after that which arose in space

holy ground zero is not a thing

but the continuum

emptiness is at the top and bottom of all things

as well as the inside and outside

like zeros within zeros within zeros

or how "in my father's house are many mansions"

like...

if body is hard and harder stuff

and soul is soft and softer stuff

then spirit is the clean clear emptiness that they both appear in

the only pure true sense of non-stuff

hey...the skeptics might even like this one...

perhaps it should be said that "god is the ultimate non-sense"

or, the only actual pure holy non-sense that senses all other senses

when and as we realize that "spirit being nothing" is not only very very good and true and beautiful...

...but that it also always has been, and always will be ...forever and ever, yada yada yada

...i feel i must warn you...heaven and earth might not ever look the same again

but/and...so as not to confuse things...

traditionally, the realization of "emptiness" as "spirit"

is still only one "side of the story"

and as such, is as addictive as anything else

and not in the sense that emptiness "one side of the coin"

but rather, how emptiness is NOT a side of anything at all

...which leaves only the one true coin

now that the "false god" is finally "out of the way"

perhaps it could be said that nothingness does have a very unique and vital function

...which is by NOT having form

Edited January 7, 2006 by sirguessalot

[George Aar]

My paradigm? The known laws of physics, I guess.

They've never let me down, not once. They've always done what they say they'll do everytime, no excuses.

It's hard to argue with a record like that, no?

[dmiller]

Ya know --- I might have already replied to this -- but here is an update.

I really don't care what others think.

Sorry --- but I don't.

What works for me, works for me.

And by the same token -- I am also willing to say,

Whatever works for you, works for you.

God bless -- have at it, just like I'm gonna do. :)

[markomalley]

Ya know --- I might have already replied to this -- but here is an update.

I really don't care what others think.

Sorry --- but I don't.

What works for me, works for me.

And by the same token -- I am also willing to say,

Whatever works for you, works for you.

God bless -- have at it, just like I'm gonna do. :)

Very wise statement.

My paradigm? The known laws of physics, I guess.

They've never let me down, not once. They've always done what they say they'll do everytime, no excuses.

It's hard to argue with a record like that, no?

Newtonian physics or Relativistic (i.e., Einsteinian) Physics?

By the way, did you know that about 5 years ago they found that c was not a necessarily a constant? (according to Einstein's Theory of Specific Relativity, c was defined as 3 * 10**8 --sorry, don't feel like doing the html for a superscript)

On edit, to make it clear that I was just funnin' George and not trying to continue the argument.

Edited January 7, 2006 by markomalley

[ChattyKathy]

Another great thread guys. And at risk of embarrassing Geo....he nevers slams me for my belief system when we talk and I assure you the man has had to read it a couple times from me...it's me. As well Sudo and I have had many a wonderful talk and he too knows...it's me.

As for Mark...well I admire the man so much it has to be obvious. He has a way of stripping away the myths and voodoo and the answer for why is the reason I regard him so highly. He searched the scriptures to see that they were and he weighs man's (Catholic) words against the soundness of moral structure that the word provides whether all agree or not.

Now as for the guessingguy.....well I told him recently some of his stuff should be read while stoned....do forgive me but you seem like you have thick enough skin to handle it.

[JumpinJive]

That was a wise statement from dmiller. Was there a point to it? This is a discussion forum. Folks will always have at it and then go do their own thing. It the natural order of things.

-JJ

[markomalley]

TGN,

Thanks for your very kind words. Interesting concept, "full canopy, classic style..."

I say intersting concept because it's truer than what you'll ever know. One good thing I learned from my involvement with Der Weg and as the result of being snookered by the piffle class is that I very rarely take any man's word for anything any more. If it doesn't make sense, I check into it...and verify that it is correct. I don't care if the question under consideration is a theological question (BOTH Catholic or otherwise), a political question (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise), a management problem at work, a technological question, or whatever. I simply don't take it on faith anymore. As a result, even though I come off as a dyed-in-the-wool, bead counting, statue-praying, candle-lighting Catholic, you'd be shocked at the disdain I hold for the majority of the US Bishops as people and the disgust I feel when I see many Catholic parishes (I travel a lot so I have visited a lot of different parishes when I'm on the road). What binds me to the Catholic Church is literally a theological binding -- it isn't a 'people-based' issue at all. So when you say, 'full canopy, classic-style' and then say with a deep appreciation for who's gone on before me, you nailed it...100%

Cathy,

I'm surprised, humbled, and honored by your words. Don't put me up on a pedastal though. I've been wrong before and am likely to be wrong again.

That was a wise statement from dmiller. Was there a point to it? This is a discussion forum. Folks will always have at it and then go do their own thing. It the natural order of things.

-JJ

JJ, a lot of times people get really polarized on this board and try to convince others of the rightness of their belief systems not by expounding the correctness of their beliefs but by deconstructing the others' beliefs.

That's OK, in of itself, because, as you say, it's a 'discussion forum.'

But around here, unfortunately, it often changes from a deconstruction of a person's belief system into a demolition of the person who has that belief system that needs deconstructing (in the opinion of the person wielding the wrecking ball).

I see the value of David's statement as a reminder to all that we still live in a pluralistic society and we shouldn't destroy each other as a result of our differences in religious dogma. Maybe that's not what he intended, but that's what I got out of it.

[ChattyKathy]

Cathy,

I'm surprised, humbled, and honored by your words. Don't put me up on a pedastal though. I've been wrong before and am likely to be wrong again.

I've tried to abandon that. And it's not hard when I look in the mirror. And you're welcome. :)

[sirguessalot]

Now as for the guessingguy.....well I told him recently some of his stuff should be read while stoned....do forgive me but you seem like you have thick enough skin to handle it.

ha!..lol. Kathy...now there is an angle i never thought of that has a sense of truth to it.

in that, the way i write does sort of require that one reads slowly and patiently, if nothing else.

i am actually usually very deliberate with my word choice

and i can explain anywhere i have been unclear

anyway, if getting stoned helps read what i write...well, that is just kinda funny

i could suggest a number of alternatives, though

like a couple of cups of the neti neti tea

But around here, unfortunately, it often changes from a deconstruction of a person's belief system into a demolition of the person who has that belief system that needs deconstructing (in the opinion of the person wielding the wrecking ball).

I see the value of David's statement as a reminder to all that we still live in a pluralistic society and we shouldn't destroy each other as a result of our differences in religious dogma. Maybe that's not what he intended, but that's what I got out of it.

well said, Mark.

here is a clean (but very dry) martini of a blurb on Methodological Pluralism...and a snippet:

Methodological pluralism is the thesis that the use of multiple theoretical models in the course of scientific practice is legitimate. There is no need to settle on the best or true model for everyday scientific use. We ought to choose the model most appropriate to the aims of our scientific practice. Computationally simple models might be used for ``back of the envelope'' calculations. Other models might be chosen because they require less empirical data for setting their parameters (as certain game-theoretic versions of individual-centered models do). No claim is made about the explanatory virtues of the various models. When we are considering the logical structure of our explanations, we may want to take a harder objectivist line. Methodological pluralism, however, is a prescription for scientific practice, not a foundational claim about the nature of evolutionary explanation.

[JumpinJive]

I see the value of David's statement as a reminder to all that we still live in a pluralistic society and we shouldn't destroy each other as a result of our differences in religious dogma. Maybe that's not what he intended, but that's what I got out of it.

I don't know, Mark. He sounded ticked off to me, like he was trying to say shut up and quit talking about stuff like this, its all pointless. But I definitely agree with your point about the polarizing that goes on around this board. Lot's of different experiences. Its kind of invigorating.

-JJ

[dmiller]

That was a wise statement from dmiller. Was there a point to it? This is a discussion forum. Folks will always have at it and then go do their own thing. It the natural order of things.

-JJ

I don't know, Mark. He sounded ticked off to me, like he was trying to say shut up and quit talking about stuff like this, its all pointless. But I definitely agree with your point about the polarizing that goes on around this board. Lot's of different experiences. Its kind of invigorating.

-JJ

Hey there JJ. Naw -- I'm not ticked off. I apologize if it came off that way.

And I would NEVER suggest that folks *shut up and quit talking about stuff like this". I find the back and forth banter very invigorating too, and far from pointless.

I guess what I DID mean was simply that I don't care (to a certain extent) what others think, even though I care about them. I'll use Geo and Mark as examples (sorry guys!) ;)

I was raised Catholic, but do not care for the doctrine or traditions of it anymore. Mark does and is VERY knowledgable about many facets of the denomination that I never knew of. While I don't care for Catholicism, I highly respect his views and comments about it.

Geo comes from the opposite end of the spectrum, saying there is little (if anything) good about God, or the pursuit thereof. Again -- I disagree with this most wholeheartedly, but Geo is a great guy and is really quite kind and compassionate behind the *cynical/ sarcastic* veneer he hides behind here in his posts.

I get the feeling from time to time that others see my posts as a personal attack, when they are not. So my statement of *I don't care what others think* was more of a disclaimer (if you will) to say that while I don't care so much about other avenues of thought, though I do care about the people behind those avenues of thought.

I am always willing to afford the *other side* their POV, and would never seek to squash it. :)

Oh -- (ps) --- whenever you see a smiley like this -----> :) at the end of my posts, you can safely assume I am not ticked off at all, just offering my POV.

Now if you saw one of these ------> then you could say I might be ticked off. :)

Again -- sorry if I came off sounding angry or judgemental. That was not my intention.

David

Edited January 8, 2006 by dmiller

[Too Gray Now]

Mr. O'malley -

I am glad that you grabbed onto the concept and said something about it in a positive way - for it was surely meant that way. The strength of such language "tricks" as the parachute comparison - rests upon the hope that someone "gets it"...

So, if it bombs or works... it is a lot like humor. :)

[doojable]

George et al,

I am a latecomer to this topic, but if i'm correct my hubby is a lot like you. He has a healthy dose of skepticism. (he's actually a bit of a curmudgeon - but I dont' know if you are as well )

For years both during and after twi he has pondered why he should believe. his "faith" comes and goes - simply because - I usually can't give him many answers and I stopped trying because it would just anger him. he ahs stated that he's jealous of my my "faith" and wishes he could feel the same way.

I think he just finally came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Now he's working on how to go from there. I really can't speak for him - but I know that once he got to a conclusion that he was satisfied with he started to really change for the better.

[JumpinJive]

No problem, David! And thanks for the explanation. I wholeheartedly agree with your statements, including the one about being raised Catholic. I see we have some common background.

doojable: "I think he just finally came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Now he's working on how to go from there."

Now there's a topic, eh? We're just exploring that "how to go from there" part from a slightly different perspective. Was your hubby part of wayworld?

-JJ

[doojable]

Oh yes! He was never Corps. We left together during our first year of marriage - all "thanks" to lcm's letter. I never signed up to follow a man - I could have done that with what I left behind. I instead chose to follow God and have not looked back since.

Hubby had major problems with twi's teaching on forgiveness and put it in a thesis way before anyone else was figuring out it was bunk. (At least on public record.)

He's doing well now and taking one day at a time.

Edited January 8, 2006 by doojable

[JumpinJive]

Oh yes! He was never Corps. We left together during our first year of marriage - all "thanks" to lcm's letter. I never signed up to follow a man - I could have done that with what I left behind. I instead chose to follow God and have not looked back since.

Hubby had major problems with twi's teaching on forgiveness and put it in a thesis way before anyone else was figuring out it was bunk. (At least on public record.)

He's doing well now and taking one day at a time.

Very cool, dooj! Half the battle I think is being willing to wrestle with the various possiblities. They are almost infinite and sorting through them can be a daunting task. It seems like there is concentration of those willing to do the wrestling here at GS though. I'm glad this place is around! Does your hubby ever hang out here?

-JJ

[doojable]

No. he doesn't hang out here Jumpinjive. Be gald. I'm afraid that he would get right in the fray with Mike, Allan, jkboeme, and their various caounterparts - and it wouldn't necessarily be pretty. He's a lawyer and he doesn't have a whole lot of patience for some of the stuff that goes on here.

[JumpinJive]

No. he doesn't hang out here Jumpinjive. Be gald. I'm afraid that he would get right in the fray with Mike, Allan, jkboeme, and their various caounterparts - and it wouldn't necessarily be pretty. He's a lawyer and he doesn't have a whole lot of patience for some of the stuff that goes on here.

Hah! Well, you know what they say about lawyers...

Just kidding...

-JJ

[JumpinJive]

I stumbled across this quote from JBarrax on another thread. It was stated in regards to a post by TheInvisibleDan on Albert Schweitzer who rejected the traditional view of Christian origins and Jesus Christ and devoted his life to the welfare of African tribesmen in Lambarene. (The topic can be found here.)

So in other words, Schweitzer studied enough to realize the basic dogma's of Christian religions were flawed. So rather than continuing to try to find a perfect dogma, he tossed them aside and dedicated himself to helping his fellow man. Sounds like a plan to me. :-)

Ya know, that might just be the essence of where I'm trying to go. Try as I might, I find it highly doubtful I'll ever come to any sure conclusions regarding the many, varied and often conflicting doctrines associated with God, Christianity and religion in general. Perhaps my efforts would be better spent attempting to do some good in the world. Lord knows I've been threatening to do that for quite some time now! :)

-JJ

[doojable]

Seems to me that the only reasonable response to knowing God is to help people.

Mother Theresa was addressing a group regarding abortion. When asked what to do with all the unwanted babies (because the foster care system was already overcrowded and it seemed unfair to raise these kids w/o love.) she responded, "Give them to me." She believed that if she were presented with this problem that God would help her solve it.

Now I know that this was one man's response in REJECTING religion - but it seems like the perfect response for embracing God - without religion.

I haven't had the easiest life, but i always forget my problems when I am helping another more in need than I. The greater the resentment or sadness I feel the more needy the person. And the feeling of relif lasts much longer than anything from a bottle or a pharmacy could - because in doing so I believe that God allows healing for the soul.

So follow through on your threats - but maybe hold off on rejecting God - You just might find He meets you where you think you're least likely to find him.

Just my two cents...

[ChattyKathy]

ha!..lol. Kathy...now there is an angle i never thought of that has a sense of truth to it.

in that, the way i write does sort of require that one reads slowly and patiently, if nothing else.

i am actually usually very deliberate with my word choice

and i can explain anywhere i have been unclear

anyway, if getting stoned helps read what i write...well, that is just kinda funny

i could suggest a number of alternatives, though

like a couple of cups of the neti neti tea

I've tried the tea thing several times over the years and can't do it cold or hot. :(

And as for the other....well that is such a misunderstood drug. :blink: And gosh for the times I should have gotten in so much trouble like the time I and a few friends drove in our own car on a field trip during high school. We were headed to a local college to see the Planetarium. And we thought we'd get relaxed along the way. Well to start we were a dead give away when upon opening the doors of the beetle we were in out came this cloud of smoke. And anyone that has smoked that stuff knows it has a unique aroma. So into the Planetarium we go and after a few minutes of looking up at the ceiling full of stars in that darkened room we forgot we weren't alone. What I never understood was why they just let us go on. But we were pulled aside as we exited the building and spoken to quite harshly and threatened should we ever show of cause again.

Oops was I supposed to show this at the beginning of this post.

[dmiller]

we were a dead give away when upon opening the doors of the beetle

we were in out came this cloud of smoke.

(also) ---

He he he HEE!! Ahh -- the memories.

[ChattyKathy]

David,

Were you naïve like I was about it? I guess being young plays in there somewhat but good lord I'm amazed I never got in any real trouble.

Okay y'all you can have your thread back now.

[sirguessalot]

hehe...speaking of incense and smoke...check this and this out

not sure, but it does seem to point to a lot of strict ritual drug use during early early israel's tribal and fire-temple stages

and how indigenous and later cultures were often highly territorial about whose 'native sacraments' were holy and whose 'native sacraments' were evil