Here we go again...~Can you hear me sigh...~

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The Kernel on January 11, 2010 at 8:41pm

David, Seth,
Don't worry folks. Discussing matters like this with Jeff is like playing a video game. We all had to get past or over him to advance to the next RG level. Jeff does this to almost everyone who doesn't agree with his Christian POV. Then, if you look at several of the logs, he invokes an argument and lures people into endless debate. He is unbending and I also suspect proud of it. This is actually a great place to share ideas unless you came here to convert souls to one particular faith or another. This is about our ability to perceive and receive new ways of understanding, defining and refining you understanding (and perhaps even relationship) with the Supreme. As well, the site proposes to the creation of Open Source Religion - so in this was your ideas and input are as important to me as those of anyone else - including Jeff. The world is hungry for new frameworks for understanding so if you would like to help prepare the field for the planting of new seeds to see what will grow great. Those who are hear to prevent the sowing of any seeds but their own perpetuate the very energy that necessitates these discussions. Enjoy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on February 7, 2010 at 9:29pm

Kernal, you're a might full of yourself there bud. I didn't bring this thread back to life, and have resisted jumping into another me vs. mormon debate. Just not worth the trouble. I guess I've grown up a little in my time on RG, even at 49 years.

I have picked up a lot of knowledge as a result. Much of it has buttressed my own faith. Some has altered its course, and some has changed my mind. You're not me so please don't attempt to speak on my behalf. I have found good sense in DT's writing, although I think the only framework that counts is God's. Sid gave me a profound insight into natural versus supernatural; a word I no longer use to describe God. It may not be how he meant it, but there is no exercise of power that is supernatural for a omnipotent God.... only natural even if it seems "super" to us.

I'm sorry if I haven't found a lot of keepers in your writing. I'll keep reading though. Beyond that, speak you own mind on your behalf, and leave me to speak mine, if you would.

The Kernel said:

David, Seth,
Don't worry folks. Discussing matters like this with Jeff is like playing a video game. We all had to get past or over him to advance to the next RG level. Jeff does this to almost everyone who doesn't agree with his Christian POV. Then, if you look at several of the logs, he invokes an argument and lures people into endless debate. He is unbending and I also suspect proud of it. This is actually a great place to share ideas unless you came here to convert souls to one particular faith or another. This is about our ability to perceive and receive new ways of understanding, defining and refining you understanding (and perhaps even relationship) with the Supreme. As well, the site proposes to the creation of Open Source Religion - so in this was your ideas and input are as important to me as those of anyone else - including Jeff. The world is hungry for new frameworks for understanding so if you would like to help prepare the field for the planting of new seeds to see what will grow great. Those who are hear to prevent the sowing of any seeds but their own perpetuate the very energy that necessitates these discussions. Enjoy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Kernel on February 8, 2010 at 9:14am

Thanks Jeff,
Glad to hear from you and thanks for sharing as you have. I'm not sure I understand your reference (9 hours ago) about bringing this thread back to life? Nevertheless. . .

As for me being full of myself, I can see how you would say that. But Jeff, you must understand that I know of no other way to rationalize with someone who argues his understanding of the truth because of his knowledge of the bible. You are a gentleman are you not?

I would like to see people, from as many belief structures as possible, participate in this public forum. To do this, we must find common ground. To do this, I believe people must speak for themselves by using their own word. Can we agree that, with this as a starting point, that we might be better equipped to continue movement forward? I don't believe anyone came here to listen to the scriptural passages of others. We should speak for ourselves - using our own words as best we can and where we disagree, we should try asking questions or seeking clarification before launching into argument. Argument is important but understanding more so.

My interest here is in establishing common frameworks through which more productive dialogue can take place. These frameworks should be inclusive. Diversity (of thinking) within these frameworks will meet the Open Source requirement of our self appointed mandate. After hanging out here for nearly a year, I have observed many discussions but few frameworks have emerged - at least that's I observe.

I recently opened a discussion regarding "The Metaphysical". It came about when someone on RG told doug, "To believe otherwise is entering the realms of metaphysics, fairy tales and such like." Traditionally, discussions like ours assume a framework that takes into account The Physical and The Metaphysical. Knowledge typically flows from the metaphysical into physical understanding. At no time has this been more apparent than now. I seems like no sooner do theoretical physicists dream up their next thought experiment that proves the metaphysical existence of the XYZ particle than the experimentalist actually detect the presence of said particle. By comparison, 3 or 4 thousand years ago, the world was full of metaphysical understanding (working assumptions) and almost devoid of what we would recognize as scientific knowledge.

The framework of "physical and metaphysical" realms traditionally enabled people like you and me and the other philosophes (Faylasufs) to carry out discussion. I am sure there are those who would claim that this framework is old and no longer of use. If there is another framework within which the god-concept can better redefine an Open Source Religion, I'm eager to hear. Discussion without a discernible framework can often get stalled in idle intellectualization. Nothing wrong with that but it is unlikely to result in Religion 2.0.

The notion of natural and supernatural is not one I regularly use but I fully understand and agree with what you say. If there is a god, one should be able to detect it either objectively or subjectively. If objective identification can be achieved, then god would move from the metaphysical domain into the physical world of science and understanding. If god can only be subjectively experienced, then the concept must remain in the domain of the metaphysical - at least for this discussion.

Why am I blathering on like this? Because I believe it is difficult to undertake an intelligent exploration of the god-concept without a discussion of the self, mind, ego, consciousness or whatever else you want to call it, without an exploration of what is often referred to as the immortal human soul.

Jeff, my friend, I look forward to a continued dialogue and debate.


Jeff H said:

Kernal, you're a might full of yourself there bud. I didn't bring this thread back to life, and have resisted jumping into another me vs. mormon debate. Just not worth the trouble. I guess I've grown up a little in my time on RG, even at 49 years.

I have picked up a lot of knowledge as a result. Much of it has buttressed my own faith. Some has altered its course, and some has changed my mind. You're not me so please don't attempt to speak on my behalf. I have found good sense in DT's writing, although I think the only framework that counts is God's. Sid gave me a profound insight into natural versus supernatural; a word I no longer use to describe God. It may not be how he meant it, but there is no exercise of power that is supernatural for a omnipotent God.... only natural even if it seems "super" to us.

I'm sorry if I haven't found a lot of keepers in your writing. I'll keep reading though. Beyond that, speak you own mind on your behalf, and leave me to speak mine, if you would.

The Kernel said:

David, Seth,
Don't worry folks. Discussing matters like this with Jeff is like playing a video game. We all had to get past or over him to advance to the next RG level. Jeff does this to almost everyone who doesn't agree with his Christian POV. Then, if you look at several of the logs, he invokes an argument and lures people into endless debate. He is unbending and I also suspect proud of it. This is actually a great place to share ideas unless you came here to convert souls to one particular faith or another. This is about our ability to perceive and receive new ways of understanding, defining and refining you understanding (and perhaps even relationship) with the Supreme. As well, the site proposes to the creation of Open Source Religion - so in this was your ideas and input are as important to me as those of anyone else - including Jeff. The world is hungry for new frameworks for understanding so if you would like to help prepare the field for the planting of new seeds to see what will grow great. Those who are hear to prevent the sowing of any seeds but their own perpetuate the very energy that necessitates these discussions. Enjoy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on February 8, 2010 at 10:05am

Goodmorning Kernal,

Over a year ago there was a very strident debate between a mormon and I. It was ugly, and I learned from it. I mispoke earlier when I refered to this thread, I meant this topic. You'll note I haven't participated much. I don't want that discussion to dominate RG.

God is very physical for me. If he wasn't I'd be dead. Perhaps that is why I am perceived as "unbending" but when you have the Pillar of Fire, or Column of Smoke before of you, you're kind of bewildered when someone insists you turn another way.

Are you a Stephen King fan? There are several on are. I am myself. If you're aware of the Dark Tower Series, the decay of the "Universes" ("There are other worlds then these...") is tied directly to the replacement of "Magic" (Metaphysical) with science. King isn't Canon, but I think he touches on a truth.

The Kernel said:

Thanks Jeff,
Glad to hear from you and thanks for sharing as you have. I'm not sure I understand your reference (9 hours ago) about bringing this thread back to life? Nevertheless. . .

As for me being full of myself, I can see how you would say that. But Jeff, you must understand that I know of no other way to rationalize with someone who argues his understanding of the truth because of his knowledge of the bible. You are a gentleman are you not?

I would like to see people, from as many belief structures as possible, participate in this public forum. To do this, we must find common ground. To do this, I believe people must speak for themselves by using their own word. Can we agree that, with this as a starting point, that we might be better equipped to continue movement forward? I don't believe anyone came here to listen to the scriptural passages of others. We should speak for ourselves - using our own words as best we can and where we disagree, we should try asking questions or seeking clarification before launching into argument. Argument is important but understanding more so.

My interest here is in establishing common frameworks through which more productive dialogue can take place. These frameworks should be inclusive. Diversity (of thinking) within these frameworks will meet the Open Source requirement of our self appointed mandate. After hanging out here for nearly a year, I have observed many discussions but few frameworks have emerged - at least that's I observe.

I recently opened a discussion regarding "The Metaphysical". It came about when someone on RG told doug, "To believe otherwise is entering the realms of metaphysics, fairy tales and such like." Traditionally, discussions like ours assume a framework that takes into account The Physical and The Metaphysical. Knowledge typically flows from the metaphysical into physical understanding. At no time has this been more apparent than now. I seems like no sooner do theoretical physicists dream up their next thought experiment that proves the metaphysical existence of the XYZ particle than the experimentalist actually detect the presence of said particle. By comparison, 3 or 4 thousand years ago, the world was full of metaphysical understanding (working assumptions) and almost devoid of what we would recognize as scientific knowledge.

The framework of "physical and metaphysical" realms traditionally enabled people like you and me and the other philosophes (Faylasufs) to carry out discussion. I am sure there are those who would claim that this framework is old and no longer of use. If there is another framework within which the god-concept can better redefine an Open Source Religion, I'm eager to hear. Discussion without a discernible framework can often get stalled in idle intellectualization. Nothing wrong with that but it is unlikely to result in Religion 2.0.

The notion of natural and supernatural is not one I regularly use but I fully understand and agree with what you say. If there is a god, one should be able to detect it either objectively or subjectively. If objective identification can be achieved, then god would move from the metaphysical domain into the physical world of science and understanding. If god can only be subjectively experienced, then the concept must remain in the domain of the metaphysical - at least for this discussion.

Why am I blathering on like this? Because I believe it is difficult to undertake an intelligent exploration of the god-concept without a discussion of the self, mind, ego, consciousness or whatever else you want to call it, without an exploration of what is often referred to as the immortal human soul.

Jeff, my friend, I look forward to a continued dialogue and debate.


Jeff H said:

Kernal, you're a might full of yourself there bud. I didn't bring this thread back to life, and have resisted jumping into another me vs. mormon debate. Just not worth the trouble. I guess I've grown up a little in my time on RG, even at 49 years.

I have picked up a lot of knowledge as a result. Much of it has buttressed my own faith. Some has altered its course, and some has changed my mind. You're not me so please don't attempt to speak on my behalf. I have found good sense in DT's writing, although I think the only framework that counts is God's. Sid gave me a profound insight into natural versus supernatural; a word I no longer use to describe God. It may not be how he meant it, but there is no exercise of power that is supernatural for a omnipotent God.... only natural even if it seems "super" to us.

I'm sorry if I haven't found a lot of keepers in your writing. I'll keep reading though. Beyond that, speak you own mind on your behalf, and leave me to speak mine, if you would.

The Kernel said:

David, Seth,
Don't worry folks. Discussing matters like this with Jeff is like playing a video game. We all had to get past or over him to advance to the next RG level. Jeff does this to almost everyone who doesn't agree with his Christian POV. Then, if you look at several of the logs, he invokes an argument and lures people into endless debate. He is unbending and I also suspect proud of it. This is actually a great place to share ideas unless you came here to convert souls to one particular faith or another. This is about our ability to perceive and receive new ways of understanding, defining and refining you understanding (and perhaps even relationship) with the Supreme. As well, the site proposes to the creation of Open Source Religion - so in this was your ideas and input are as important to me as those of anyone else - including Jeff. The world is hungry for new frameworks for understanding so if you would like to help prepare the field for the planting of new seeds to see what will grow great. Those who are hear to prevent the sowing of any seeds but their own perpetuate the very energy that necessitates these discussions. Enjoy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on February 8, 2010 at 11:57am

The bible is a great book. Though not perfect by any means in its many years of attempted transliterations involving additions and edits. And as its historical development with its endless diversity of interpretations bares out even to this day as we experience the negative argumentation of its many different church-led understandings.

The main problem as I see it, are the displays of fundemental acceptance of its messages as only total literal facts, without any possibility of appreciating its stories of actual greater underlying metaphoric meanings.

doone, your outlining of several Christian periods, let alone the many more of the OT, reveals something of the Bible's disconnect of which the so called early Church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD had great difficulty in harmonising into one seemless flowing thought. This they sort of achieved very much like one would force the wrong pieces of a jig-saw puzzle into place to try and make it look something like complete.

David Bee, I thought displayed a most sincere and humble attitude when you said, "Just because I believe something is true is not proof of its veracity."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Kernel on February 8, 2010 at 4:04pm

Jeff. anyone would be bewildered if others insisted they turn away from a profound personal experience. I hope you do not feel I or others are challenging the validity of your experience or belief. We did not come to RG to change each other - did we? It is with this understanding that we should be careful how we display our personal religious experinces or the relative strength of our personal belief. Imagine 2 holy men trying to see who is the holiest by the number of names they can each attribute to god.

Am I a Stephen King fan? Jeff, you forget I am dyslexic and do not read unless I must. It would take me too long to read such a tome.

Jeff, I think that if the God-Concept is not modernized, there may be a risk that people will learn to worship science. I presume King's book speculates on what that would be like. For this to happen I suspect people would come to see the metaphysical realm is empty of fruit and a useless means of understanding day to day affairs. The collapse of the metaphysical concept would, in my mind, be a tragedy.

The concept of physical and metaphysical reality goes back a long way and I can think of no better forum to discuss it than here at RG. However, I am not interested in debating metaphysics within the context of your religion or mine. Do you think it possible to have a "philosophical" discussion about the metaphysical existence of the soul and its relation to the Supreme, for example, in such a way that people from any school of thought would come away enriched?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on February 8, 2010 at 4:54pm

"without any possibility of appreciating its stories of actual greater underlying metaphoric meanings"

Roman, Did Moses lifting serpant for Israel to look upon and be spared the death they were facing have anything to do with the lifting up of Christ on the Cross? Of course it did. It was a "type" or metaphor. The Bible is full of them, but it isn't up to us on how to define them. We need to interpert them to what ability we can the way God would have them be,. Things can be real and metaphorical as well. As far as Bee's humility, I understand that truth better then you know. Conversally, because a person doesn't believe doesn't make something untrue either.

Kernal, Books are available on audio now, and I am dyslexic too, but vertically dyslexic. "Bling was a word in my family long before Rap, as in "What are you bling!"

People are already worshiping science, and argue sicentific dogma with the vehemence of any other zealot. It is expected, just read Romans 1. Worship of creation includes worship of our own knowledge.

As far as the "Names of God" analogy, it means far more me then you know. I was a very cerebreal Christain prior to and during my descent into alcoholism. I knew the names for God and chapter and verse of almost anything. Knowledge didn't avail me. It wasn't until I established a relationship with God that I found relief from my addiction. It taught me the difference between head and heart in spiritual things.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Bee on February 8, 2010 at 9:23pm

Given these "problems" with the Bible, if the God of the Bible is the God of reality (as I believe He is), I do not wonder at all about His reasons for bringing forth the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the anchor of my faith in Jesus Christ. In order to gain anything from it, however, one has to have the desire to so gain. Lambasting it and ridiculing it, and not reading it with a real intent of wanting to see if it has anything to offer, is useless. The book speaks for itself. In RG's quest to find God, should not all potential sources of knowledge be given an honest look?
Roman Kozlowski said:

The bible is a great book. Though not perfect by any means in its many years of attempted transliterations involving additions and edits. And as its historical development with its endless diversity of interpretations bares out even to this day as we experience the negative argumentation of its many different church-led understandings.
The main problem as I see it, are the displays of fundemental acceptance of its messages as only total literal facts, without any possibility of appreciating its stories of actual greater underlying metaphoric meanings. doone, your outlining of several Christian periods, let alone the many more of the OT, reveals something of the Bible's disconnect of which the so called early Church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD had great difficulty in harmonising into one seemless flowing thought. This they sort of achieved very much like one would force the wrong pieces of a jig-saw puzzle into place to try and make it look something like complete.

David Bee, I thought displayed a most sincere and humble attitude when you said, "Just because I believe something is true is not proof of its veracity."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on February 8, 2010 at 9:41pm

Bee, enjoy your book.

David Bee said:

Given these "problems" with the Bible, if the God of the Bible is the God of reality (as I believe He is), I do not wonder at all about His reasons for bringing forth the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the anchor of my faith in Jesus Christ. In order to gain anything from it, however, one has to have the desire to so gain. Lambasting it and ridiculing it, and not reading it with a real intent of wanting to see if it has anything to offer, is useless. The book speaks for itself. In RG's quest to find God, should not all potential sources of knowledge be given an honest look?
Roman Kozlowski said:

The bible is a great book. Though not perfect by any means in its many years of attempted transliterations involving additions and edits. And as its historical development with its endless diversity of interpretations bares out even to this day as we experience the negative argumentation of its many different church-led understandings.
The main problem as I see it, are the displays of fundemental acceptance of its messages as only total literal facts, without any possibility of appreciating its stories of actual greater underlying metaphoric meanings. doone, your outlining of several Christian periods, let alone the many more of the OT, reveals something of the Bible's disconnect of which the so called early Church fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD had great difficulty in harmonising into one seemless flowing thought. This they sort of achieved very much like one would force the wrong pieces of a jig-saw puzzle into place to try and make it look something like complete.

David Bee, I thought displayed a most sincere and humble attitude when you said, "Just because I believe something is true is not proof of its veracity."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Kernel on February 8, 2010 at 9:58pm

Yes David Bee, all potential sources of knowledge should be given an honest look however there are so many sources that it would take years to get through them all. I am suggesting that each one of us here is a potential sources of knowledge. For example I liked what you said yesterday that you do not believe that there will be any conflict between scientific fact/truth and religious fact/truth, when all is known - more. Earlier today, Jeff H. indicated he found good sense in David Thurman's writing. We can all take from one another without the need to regularly quote scripture. Let's see how such an approach might work.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Kernel on February 8, 2010 at 10:31pm

Jeff, I must ask myself why, as you say, people are worshiping science. Can they no longer find understanding, mystery, hope and challenge in spirituality?

Fortunately, it is not necessary that everyone descend into extreme addiction (vice) to develop profound spiritual understanding. As you point out it's not about objective understanding of what god means, it's about developing a relationship with what god is.

Is there no common ground to be found between yourself and David Bee - because if there is not you can perhaps see why people are turning to scientific understanding as a safe alternative to the religious conflict that often prevails. Where's the love between you 2 followers of Jesus? How does this look to others?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on February 9, 2010 at 7:39am

Using the sword of truth like a blunt hammer only isolates and will inevitably produce only more 'sighs'. The visor on the helmet when welded shut is of no benefit to a soldier's actions, no matter how large he thinks his shield is.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page