The Open Source Religion & Spirituality Project and Religion 2.0
Here we go again...~Can you hear me sigh...~
Rather the post a whole lot of scripture, I'm just going to post a reference. Any interested can track it. Any not, no problem.
I don't wish to disparage mormonism as an organization. I served my country promising to protect and defend the constitution. A big part of that for me is that all have the right to pursue their religion as they see fit without persecution, or censure. Where I will step to the plate is when they refer to themselves as Christian when they are not.
Rather then going though all the reasons I feel this is true, I'm going to post a links to pages that covers the subject fairly well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Basics: Click here for "The Basics"
More in Depth: Click here for more in depth.
This get's redundant and boring real quick... sorry folks but its worse then someone telling a lie about your mom... You can't just let that ride.
I don't wish to disparage mormonism as an organization. I served my country promising to protect and defend the constitution. A big part of that for me is that all have the right to pursue their religion as they see fit without persecution, or censure. Where I will step to the plate is when they refer to themselves as Christian when they are not.
Rather then going though all the reasons I feel this is true, I'm going to post a links to pages that covers the subject fairly well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Basics: Click here for "The Basics"
More in Depth: Click here for more in depth.
This get's redundant and boring real quick... sorry folks but its worse then someone telling a lie about your mom... You can't just let that ride.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff H on -
Hi Jim,
Nice to "See" you again!
This takes us back full circle. Are we seeking the reality that is God, whatever that may be. or making up our own? If we are making up our own, what are we founding it on, other then conjecture and personal ethical/moral/philosophical framework (thanks DT)? If that is the case, what makes it more valid then any other, including what are termed "1.0 Religions?
Jim G said:When you become so far out on the "edge" of religion -- I'm out in orbit I'm so far out and maybe past the edge of Catholicism I don't know exactly, I'm in an overlap area I guess with Buddhism, you judge individual religions by their actions. I have not met a bad Mormon in my entire life, and I don't know if I've ever read about one either. Sure there is some crime in Utah, but Salt Lake City is only 50% Mormon still, right (maybe less by now.) No religion has a perfect record as there are bad parents and bad genes everywhere -- there are bad apples in every bunch. But for the most part the reason we don't hear bad things about Mormons I think is because their religion works. That is how I judge a religion. It doesn't make me Mormon in the least because of my being way out on the edge of faith, I realize. I have a bad taste in my mouth for Islam because of the terrorists. Well yes there were the Mormon cults -- but the LDS has tried to stamp them out I think. I can relate actually to having multiple wives. I wouldn't mind, although it's a recipe for jealousy unless the women are bisexual, in which case that would not be allowed in LDS anyways. But they don't go for it nowadays officially. One could have a job and the other stay at home raising the kids as a housewife, and there would be enough income to support everyone in today's dual income reality. Makes sense to me except for some dynamics in the family that could be trouble (3 parents might be one too many for instance.)
Anyhow, this is of course one reason why I think a Religion 2.0 should be something new that everyone could join in on based on what is in common, because many of the religions do work -- they do keep people in good karma. So it is not a matter to me of changing their beliefs, or even wanting to change them, it is a matter of rising above the differences in some sort of "mixer" meetings where shared positive values are focused on, and if you want to prosyletize someone, you do that by setting a good example of yourself and leave it up to the 2.0 member to decide if they want to join a 1.0 religion or not. It would almost be like a chamber of commerce, but a chamber of faith or something, with mixers and meetings on what collaborative projects can be worked on to better the community based on shared values.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on -
Leaving God out of it in 2.0. IMHO, actually Jeff. I know what you mean though by making up our own. That is the problem with redefining God. Of course many people believe all definitions were made up, not revealed. But I kind of feel that way about New Thought -- God as mind, etc. etc. It's just a bit over the top. I think that is why I like Buddhism oddly enough, as it leaves God out of it, although I can still believe in God as a (Western anyways) Buddhist if I want to.
Jeff H said:Hi Jim,
Nice to "See" you again!
This takes us back full circle. Are we seeking the reality that is God, whatever that may be. or making up our own? If we are making up our own, what are we founding it on, other then conjecture and personal ethical/moral/philosophical framework (thanks DT)? If that is the case, what makes it more valid then any other, including what are termed "1.0 Religions?
Jim G said:
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff H on
-
I feel you Jim... I wrote an article called Zen and the Art of Christianity a long time ago. I might see if I can recreate it. It dealt with being so in tune with the Holy Spirit that Christian living could eventually become a MuShin experience.
Jim G said:Leaving God out of it in 2.0. IMHO, actually Jeff. I know what you mean though by making up our own. That is the problem with redefining God. Of course many people believe all definitions were made up, not revealed. But I kind of feel that way about New Thought -- God as mind, etc. etc. It's just a bit over the top. I think that is why I like Buddhism oddly enough, as it leaves God out of it, although I can still believe in God as a (Western anyways) Buddhist if I want to.
Jeff H said:Hi Jim,
Nice to "See" you again!
This takes us back full circle. Are we seeking the reality that is God, whatever that may be. or making up our own? If we are making up our own, what are we founding it on, other then conjecture and personal ethical/moral/philosophical framework (thanks DT)? If that is the case, what makes it more valid then any other, including what are termed "1.0 Religions?
Jim G said:
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on
-
That would be nice to see it Jeff. I have two books from Thich Nhat Hanh on Jesus and Buddha as Brothers type of titles. He gives seminars in his cloister or whatever in the French countryside to Catholic (and maybe others) Religious folks.
Jeff H said:I feel you Jim... I wrote an article called Zen and the Art of Christianity a long time ago. I might see if I can recreate it. It dealt with being so in tune with the Holy Spirit that Christian living could eventually become a MuShin experience.
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on -
Jeff & Jim: I think one must leave God out of R2.0 discussions - at least at present. Why? Because these discussions have not and will not go very far. Most people in the west have a materialistic view of the world and themselves. The media has seen to that. Discussions of God make little sense to The Selfish Consumer. The selfish however may be open to a discussion of What Is Self. It is a hot topic in science.
You both know this discussion. . . 1/ my sense of self is a creation (excretion) of my brain - I am a bundle of perceptions and that's it. . . 2/ I am not physical, I am metaphysical. I am responsible fo My Self. I am connected to My body. I am not My body. Similarly, recognition of who or what "I am" allows be to better connect to the subtle essence of the universe.
Earlier, Jeff, you suggested people today worship science (the creation verses the creator). In a materialistic world, it is not difficult to see how people are intreged with the notion that we exist in a self-organizing universe. There are some real problems with this notion once one steps out of a materialistic view. Many scientist know this but others are dashing around madly trying to scoop up grants to support the notion that human consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain - and that's all. That's the way science works.
A prevailing view in science is - I am a bundle of perceptions that are somehow created and coordinated by the brain alone. The view that matter creates consciousness will continue to gain momentum as the notion that the human essence we call the non-physical "self" falls into popular obscurity.
People in the modern world are increasingly less interested in god but (perhaps) increasingly interested in personal spirituality and Self. Focus on the nature of the "Self" - mind, consciousness, psyche, soul or whatever else you want to call it. Then, if there is a god, people will have a centre from which to connect to the universal essence - chi, god or whatever.
Jim, Buddhism does not recognize Soul or Soul-Consciousness - does it?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on
-
Since you ask Kernel (I didn't notice your question until a week later, sorry about that...)
"Jim, Buddhism does not recognize Soul or Soul-Consciousness - does it?"
From Wikipedia on "Soul":
"Buddhism teaches that all things are in a constant state of flux: all is changing, and no permanent state exists by itself.[21][22] This applies as much as to human beings as to anything else in the cosmos. Thus, a human being has no permanent self.[23][24] According to this doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman), or "no-self", the words "I" or "me" do not refer to any fixed thing. They are simply convenient terms that allow us to refer to an ever-changing entity.[25]
The anatta doctrine is not a kind of materialism. Buddhism does not deny the existence of "immaterial" entities, and it (at least traditionally) distinguishes physical states from mental states.[26] Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul"[27] can be confusing. If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul.[28] Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing corporeal and incorporeal components of a living being. Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go. And there is no permanent mental substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism; rather, conscious mental states simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[29]. When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[28] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the being that is reborn is neither entirely different than, nor exactly the same as, the being that died.[30] However, the new being is continuous with the being that died — in the same way that the "you" of this moment is continuous with the "you" of a moment before, despite the fact that you are constantly changing.[31]
Buddhist teaching holds that a notion of a permanent, abiding self is a delusion that is one of the root causes for human conflict on the emotional, social, and political levels.[32][33] They add that an understanding of anatta ("not-self" or "no soul") provides an accurate description of the human condition, and that this understanding allows us to pacify our mundane desires.
Various schools have differing ideas about what continues after death.[34] The Yogacara school in Mahayana Buddhism said there are Store consciousness continue to exist after death.[35] In some schools, particularly Tibetan Buddhism, the view is that there are three minds: Very-Subtle-Mind, which isn't disintegrated in incarnation-death; Subtle-Mind, which is disintegrated in death, and is "dreaming-mind" or "unconscious-mind"; and Gross-Mind. Gross-Mind doesn't exist when one is sleeping, so it is more impermanent even than Subtle-Mind, which doesn't exist in death. Very-Subtle-Mind, however, does continue, and when it "catches on" or coincides with phenomena again, a new Subtle-Mind emerges, with its own personality/assumptions/habits and that someone/entity experiences the karma on that continuum that is ripening then.
One should note the polarity in Tibetan Buddhism between shes-pa (the principle of consciousness) and rigpa (pure consciousness equal to Buddha-nature). The concept of a person as a tulku provides even more controversy[citation needed]. A tulku has, due to heroic austerities and esoteric training (or due to innate talent combined with great subtle-mind commitment in the moment of death), achieved the goal of transferring personal "identity" (or nature/commitment) from one rebirth to the next (for instance, Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama a tulku). The mechanics behind this work as follows: although Buddha-nature does not incarnate[citation needed], the individual self comprises skandhas, or components, that undergo rebirth. For an ordinary person, skandhas cohere in a way that dissolves upon the person's death. So, elements of the transformed personality re-incarnate, but they lose the unity that constitutes personal selfhood for a specific person. In the case of tulkus, however, they supposedly achieve sufficient "crystallization" of skandhas in such a manner that the skandhas do not entirely "disentangle" upon the tulku's death[citation needed]; rather, a directed reincarnation occurs. In this new birth, the tulku possesses a continuity of personal identity/commitment, rooted in the fact that the consciousness or shes-pa (which equates to a type of skandha called vijnana) has not dissolved after death, but has sufficient durability to survive in repeated births. Since, however, subtle-mind emerges in incarnation, and gross-mind emerges in periods of sufficient awareness within some incarnations, there isn't really any contradiction: very-subtle-mind's original nature, that is irreducible mind / clarity whose function is knowing, doesn't have any "body", and the coarser minds that emerge "on" it while it drifts/wanders/dreams aren't continuous. Any continuity of awareness achieved by tulku is simply a greater continuity than is achieved by/in a normal incarnation, as it continues across several, is only a difference of degree.
Plants were said to be non-sentient (無情),[36] but Buddhist monks should avoid cutting or burning trees, because some sentient beings rely on them.[37] Some Mahayana monks said non-sentient beings such as plants and stones have buddha-nature.[38][39] Some buddhists said about plants or divisible consciousnesses.[40][41][42][43][44]
Certain modern Buddhists, particularly in Western countries, reject the concept of rebirth or reincarnation as incompatible with the concept of anatta, or at least take an agnostic stance toward the concept. Stephen Batchelor discusses this issue in his book Buddhism Without Beliefs. Others point to research done at the University of Virginia as proving that at least some people are reborn.[45]"
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on
-
db said: "I am on this perception that some human beings are reaching and evolving to what I call a level of being as "Creator Beings"... does that concept tune in with anyone here?"
Lately I've been on the thinking that "Perfection" is a characteristic of "God," and as such everything in the Cosmos approaches Pefection, including us. And in our lives we should thus strive for Perfection as much as we can. So I think that is in harmony with being seen as "Creator Beings"? A bit different but harmonious to your thinking db?
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on
-
Earlier you asked if the idea that some people are achieving a level of "Creator Being" resonates with anyone. The term "Co-Creators" is the term I am beginning to use more often.
As for your reference to "Perfection" being a characteristic of God, I have not problem with that. The idea of "Perfection" is problematic when applied to the material realm. Once we think anything is perfect we may be in for a problem. Take religion for example. Once people think their philosophy or theology is perfect, the evolution or further development cease. Once we are told a belief structure is perfect then how can one question it? And when we are convinced our scriptures are the perfect word of god then watch out for the other religion that believes its scriptures though quite different from the first, are also perfect.
So is god Perfection? Of course She is.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim G on
-
"everything in the Cosmos approaches Pefection, including us. And in our lives we should thus strive for Perfection as much as we can."
So I don't think it is a problem as we'll know which things have a hard limit to perfection (water = H2O) and we can't perfect it any further) and which don't have a hard limit and thus "perfection" is a possibility not a truth?
But striving for perfection is not exactly Buddhist I don't think -- it may be seen as craving. But it can be "committed to approaching perfection but not attached to an outcome of reaching any particular level of perfection" perhaps. So I can try to lose weight but it should not be the end of my world if I don't, perhaps?
"is God Perfection?"
I suppose it's as good and valid a definition as any Kernel. But I tend to think it would be closer to the truth to say that God approaches perfection? Because we've all seen "mistakes" in our lives that seemingly should not have happened. I'm not a believer in "everything happens for a reason." I think that can be a copout for people who don't have a heart.
-
Permalink Reply by David Bee on -
I believe that Jeff H and I are in complete agreement that God loves us and wants us to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins; and that the God of reality has commanded all mankind to love Him and our fellow human beings. Through the grace of God we can gain strength beyond our physical and mental capabilities, to deal with our life's challenges. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; we follow the admonition of Paul — We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. If all mankind truly followed these principles, there would be real peace on earth.
The Kernel said: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?
. . . .
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?
-
Permalink Reply by The Kernel on
-
David, I know you a good - just as you say. I just wish the followers of Jesus were a bit more unifies. If they were, Christianity would be a mighty power on this planet - I'm sure you would agree.
I really don't have argument with much of what you say. There are a few sticking points but when I seek clarification, you are gracious in your reply. I am a little unclear from what you say below if God, as you describe Him, commandeth that all follow the teachings of Jesus in such a way, for example, that Buddhists or Jews should convert to Christianity. In your mind, does God say, or Jesus teach, that 1B Hindus should relinquish their belief structures? Muslims seem to be saying that Islam is the faith of true believers. What should people believe?
- - - - -
David Bee said:I believe that Jeff H and I are in complete agreement that God loves us and wants us to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins; and that the God of reality has commanded all mankind to love Him and our fellow human beings. Through the grace of God we can gain strength beyond our physical and mental capabilities, to deal with our life's challenges. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; we follow the admonition of Paul — We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. If all mankind truly followed these principles, there would be real peace on earth.
The Kernel said: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?
. . . .
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?
-
Permalink Reply by David Bee on
-
Kernel,
I didn't intend to say that I was good, where did I say that?
I think you already know my answer to this. I firmly believe that all human kind are the spirit children of God the Father and that the only way to realize eternal life is through His Son Jesus Christ. As far as Christianity being a mighty power, I hope you mean a mighty power for good, only. To the extent Christianity is used by evil men for bad purposes, that is not Christianity, even though they may call it thus, and even though anti Christians may label it thus.
The Kernel said:David, I know you a good - just as you say. I just wish the followers of Jesus were a bit more unifies. If they were, Christianity would be a mighty power on this planet - I'm sure you would agree.
I really don't have argument with much of what you say. There are a few sticking points but when I seek clarification, you are gracious in your reply. I am a little unclear from what you say below if God, as you describe Him, commandeth that all follow the teachings of Jesus in such a way, for example, that Buddhists or Jews should convert to Christianity. In your mind, does God say, or Jesus teach, that 1B Hindus should relinquish their belief structures? Muslims seem to be saying that Islam is the faith of true believers. What should people believe?
- - - - -
David Bee said:I believe that Jeff H and I are in complete agreement that God loves us and wants us to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins; and that the God of reality has commanded all mankind to love Him and our fellow human beings. Through the grace of God we can gain strength beyond our physical and mental capabilities, to deal with our life's challenges. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; we follow the admonition of Paul — We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. If all mankind truly followed these principles, there would be real peace on earth.
The Kernel said: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?
. . . .
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?
Welcome to
Redefine God - Open Source Religion and Religion 2.0
About
Books by Amazon
Latest Activity
I should add the following to the definition of "Mind":
a) Mind of God=the Human Genome
b) Mind of Man=the Divine Genome
"Soul": "The abstract significance of the Body" (what Plato means by "Forms").
"Spirit": another word for meaning (abstract significance). "Soul" is therefore a particular instance of "Spirit".
Here's a few more:
"Consciousness": internal conside…
Could the soul be immortal and is this a curse not a blessing? Yes, life is definitely dichotomous. I personally think it's more about how we choose to perceive or receive the experience than it is about it actually being curse or blessing.
So let'…
I have no inside knowledge of the research. I am only know that current scientific thought and funding is predicated on the belief that consciousness is a product of the brain. Are you aware of any proof that this belief is actually valid? I pointed…
"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon." Song of Songs
"For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside the…
Sometimes during solitude I hear truth spoken with clarity and freshness; uncolored and untranslated it speaks from within myself in a language original but inarticulate, heard only with the soul, and I realize I brought it with me, was never taught…
I see. Now give me some clue about your intelectual preferences. Who are the authors that convey the kind of stuff which impress you in that way?
You are one of the few of us who actively engage in an activity that has relation to The Source Code project, so naturally I came to you.
I went in and tidied up what you added a little bit. There is designated sections for videos in the template s…
About that experiment that you've just mentioned, it was not from Greyson, it was from Olaf Blanke and it was commented by Greyson's IANDS fellows in my original post above, in these terms: A Swiss neuroscientist, Olaf Blanke, claimed that stimulati…
Of course scepticism is the way to go. But when a sceptic has a religious experience he'll not remain sceptical about that anymore, and of course that has no relation to science, empirical evidences, whatsoever. He doesn't need science to convince h…
Yes, you've lied, technically, but I understand you did that out of ignorance and hurriedness to say anything in order to improvise the manipulation of the debate. Get some good information, or else go chat with doone the bedle.
You ask for relevant recent scientific evidence and answers with British CBS trash from 2002 !
Besides you're lying, these are not Greyson's words, go check it on the link above. Greyson was there commenting the findings that you mention, he was hea…
Sid,
Thank You
I will play around with this as I journey. There will be experimentation due to to my creative instinct. A gift.
WHEN - the time one expects
WHEN - the time is now
db
Listen to your Heart
db
sweetguy.
I just looked up your first ref regard Greyson APA, and he gives the reason for such experiences as the "brain disfiring under stress". I quote his opening sentence in full... "Researchers discovered the brain area that is linked to out-o…
If consciousness did not survive death, why would anyone need to "Rest In Peace"? Could it be because the Soul is immortal, and that this is in fact not man's blessing but his curse?
R.I.P.: A Syllogism
The essence of Joy is Motion
The essence o…
© 2010 Created by Sidian M.S. Jones on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
