Hi T4M,
At this point in time, I would say that most of the things fathers offer their sons is ‘faith based’ - more important for those sons is that they are offered anything at all. As soon as one generation looses it’s traditions, inferior surrogate traditions take their place and it takes a long time to rebuild.
Shalom
Bob
Hi Bob, Hello F(R)IEND(S)
Bob, I didn’t intend to make it sound like offering a child a faith based answer is a bad thing. While I don’t believe in the god of the bible, or even a god, I completely understand how some would go choose to offer faith based responses. As you said, most things offered today are faith based.
Is it reasonable to have hope when there is very little evidence to support it? Is it reasonable for one’s hope to waver in the face of more repression? It it right to look into a child’s eyes and tell him that a benevolent being will help them past their trials and tribulations? I think it all depends on the individuals involved… but largely most people around the world would answer yes to all those questions.
In fact, since I am not a father, I struggle to think of what I will offer my child when asked about religion, faith, and god. I think I should start a thread about that… I don’t want to force religion, agnosticism, or atheism onto my child, yet I want them to be informed… what to do? Any advice?
As far as traditions are concerned–they can be good, and they can be bad. Any tradition that tends to set you apart from the community is a tradition that will be a barrier (however unintentional) towards complete peace. Unfortunately, people set their traditions above their own community.
What do you think?
Assuming it’s is worth rebuilding in the first place.
Sorry Bob, et al,
Things are a bit hectic at the moment, I’ll be back later with a more coherent viewpoint…
Thirst - fight my corner while I’m thinking…
A perhaps irrelevent (but please humour me) question for the more faithful of the thread:
Having extrapolated something of God’s (for want of a better concept) personality from his actions throughout religiously-recorded history, and setting aside temporarily the ‘love-of-God’ necessary for a practicing Christian…
…Do you like God…?
Hi T4M,
It depends what you are offering your child. Some people promise their children a ‘pie in the sky’ and their children have to be dissapointed. I have shown my son that I follow the principles of Christianity and I have told him why. He can only be disappointed by me, since I have never told him he must follow those principles, but that he be advised to find something to base his life on.
I haven’t ever faced the kind of repression that some people have had to face in my time. I am appalled by the things that human beings put other human beings through, but I believe too, that this life is suffering. It is hell for most and those of us who are privileged shouldn’t be suprised that others want some of what I’m enjoying.
The ‘benevolent being’ is a Mystery indeed, but can transform our lives if we allow it. It doesn’t help ‘past’ trials and tribulations, but helps through them. We must just never mistake the nature of it. There is a great desire in mankind to find proof of God or of the devil, because we all know what kind of a heart beats in our chest. But the proof is our life, and who we allow to gain control.
I believe that we are what makes something good or bad. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad, we make it the one way or the other. Good and evil represent the two potentials that we have in us. Sometimes we just wait in the middle, but the existential occurences in our lives make us dash for one corner or the other - that’s when we see our own nature and make our choice.
Bad traditions are restrictive and fearful, good traditions promote the good potential we have and make us hopeful. But traditions have both possibilities in them, as we can see throughout history. The saint and the sinner are inside us - but it is the saint in us that condemns us, not the sinner.
Shalom
Bob
HELLO F(R)IEND(S)
God is only a notion that was used to fill the void that our early minds needed to fill. Religion was an attempt to organize these notions of god. The organizations set down rules to be administered by the early leaders of these organizations. The purpose of these rules were intended to aid the common man understand their place within society and god (the notions of god). Since every society experiences there environment differently and is on one end of the result (someone always gets the shortest straw) it stands to reason that several ‘religions’ will exist. Is this not logical?
Also, DO WE STILL NEED GOD TO FILL THE VOID?
I believe so. Societies influenced by religious experts will vary depending on the controlling expertise.
It depends on the society. If you have enough guns and technology to control the masses you could make Communism work. Then people would either love each other in the ways defined by experts or be killed insuring societal harmony. God would not be necessary.
Oh for god’s sake - the only alternative to religion is communism…? Totallitarianism…? Grow up Nick. Straw men are the resort of those without imagination. And answer my question - do you like God…? I don’t know how old your son is, (mine’s 2). He loves you now, and hopefully respects you - but when he grows up, will you not meet him as an equal…? Will you want him to like you, rather than just abitrarily love you as his creator, and respect your greater worldly power…?
Why is it so hard to accept that God may just be our own invention…? It’s a lot simpler, (and just as valid an explaination - it can’t be proved - neither can god’s existance) - than believing in something that knows the location of every quark from instant to instant and has apriori knowledge of our every action - negating free-will/the whole point of life if any. And if you say “ah - God doesn’t know” then what happened to the omniscience clause…?
You “know it in your heart”, or you feel the last gasps of an instinct hard-wired into your cerebrum…?
How much more detailed does Astrophysics have to get before people start accepting that a creator is not necessarily included with the package…?
TR
Its not that communism is the only alternative. The question was if God was necessary. I showed you one way in which the God concept would not be necessary.
I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God. So when you ask if I like God or how God should like me like me to insure this “liking” relationship, I cannot answer.
Superficially, I’ve grown to like the God concept as I’ve learned it cosmologically. But any experiences I’ve had with higher influences are beyond like and dislike and the more superficial aspects of the intellect and emotion.
Many of our God concepts I believe are our own invention. The question for me becomes if there is anything real behind the fantasy. If there is, how can we know God? You can say that it is a lot simpler to just say it is all imagination since it is unprovable. It may not be provable to another but it can be verifiable for oneself. This is why many strive for the experience of gnosis or satori. It verifies for oneself the probability of something higher than oneself. And if there is something higher, what is the highest?
If God exists, it must reflect the ultimate reality and meaning. For us to begin to understand God, we must become real and reflect human meaning and purpose. Then we could be “in the image” but on a smaller scale. We cannot do this as we are. We cannot even begin. We are too caught up in small stuff.
Perhaps what has really become hard wired is our egotism or our opinion of ourselves that has taken the place of reality. Maybe it is this wiring that keeps us locked into small stuff and not giving us the opportunity to gradually grasp the larger perspective. As is said in Buddhism, it is as if we are fools fighting in a burning house.
Such wiring is not easy to disassemble since it is being justified by something in us that takes the place of the human heart and serves as the home of artificially acquired negative emotions that are learned rather than innate.
We live in a machine and don’t know how it works. Yet we expect these unconscious mechanics to know God which is the highest consciousness. This cannot be done. It makes sense to strive for consciousness, self awareness, and self knowledge that may create an inner psychological environment where a God/man relationship can truly begin and take the place of fantasy. Then perhaps a person can distinguish between their own invention and the meaning and purpose of human existence within creation begun by God; a source beyond time and space.
Probably a lot since there are men like Bassarab Nicolescu who are brilliant particle physicists and also believe in something higher than our imagined self importance and a quality of consciousness that is our potential. It would allow us to participate in the will of God rather than only serve as an unconscious slave to the cycles of nature.
These men are unifying science and religion rather than dividing it
Once again I’m feeling that frustrating feeling of being all psyched up - but having no target to shoot at. I scoured the thread for something that indicated what form God took in the imaginations of others, and the best I could find were the above…
Bob’s quiet God, found in comfortable contemplation by the fireplace in a well appointed home. And Nick’s nebulous God-concept existing completely outside of space and time, unmeetable, intangible.
Need to do a bit of research, back presently.
Hi TR
If your research is on the God concept, you may find something after it is finsihed. From Meister Eckhart:
And from Socrates:
I know that you don’t want to hear this but some things are just beyond literal knowledge. 
I smile in sympathy since at one time I fought this tooth and nail.
I’m a chess player and know a lost position when I see one. No amount of huffing and puffing will change it. It is what it is.
[size=75][Tabula looks up from his books][/size]
“There’s no escape then from the big guy in the sky then…? Damn.”
[size=75][continues his so far fruitless contemplations…][/size]
This aside - a question I forgot to ask…
So a man without a sense of spirituality is essentially a ‘thing’…? Are the ‘dead’ forever lost, or lying temporarily in a state of as yet unrealised potential humanity…?
TR
Nope, no escape.
So a man without a sense of spirituality is essentially a ‘thing’…? Are the ‘dead’ forever lost, or lying temporarily in a state of as yet unrealised potential humanity…?
Yes I believe the physical body is a thing much like a dog or horse for example. Its purpose is linked with the earth and the involutionary flows of forces that emmenate through it that are transformed during the processes of life and death of organic life as a whole.
A person with a healthy kernel of life becomes part of the path of tradition which continues on until the end of an age itself. It is very slow evolution. The potential of this kernel is worth preserving itself so is within the body so to speak. However, if it becomes so warped and distorted from various influences, this kernel just remains within universal karma or samsara but lower in scale. Without the conception that there is something beyond itself, unrelated to personal egotism, it devolves lower into expressions of the constant conflict of duality.
Back for a couple last posts. Im going to chicago for buisiness and i wont be back for a few months… Perhaps ill buy a laptop…
Nick…
Rebirth in my understanding refers to spiritual awakening, when the natural man initially awakens to his spiritual self. In christianity it specifically refers to the acknowledgment and acceptance of Jesus as savior, when the spirit of God descends upon you and incarnates within you. The sacrifice of christ cleansing us of our sinful reproach so that the holy spirit might be at one with our spirits again. This annointing from on high thus astablishing us within the grace of Gods judgment. However this new birth is only the beginning of our relationship with God which will evolve over time to become ever more intimate. Now it is my personal beliefe that Gods grace extends to all life and that no judgment is passed upon anyone which is not self inflicted. Man cannot earn the grace of god but he must accept it to bennifit from it. Gods grace is a gift not a mandate. It seems logical to surmise that Gods grace, though a gift freely given to all, is not intended for all. Grace has no substance without severity. Severity is met with severity and grace is recieved by the graceful.
God as the source of all, to which and from whence all things flow even as the rivers and tributaries of this planet find their singular source is the same ocean, is like an artisan. The great artist has his purpose in all his creations. I recall the parrable of the potter who creates one pot to place in the window and contain a beautiful rose, and another pot to place in the closet to recieve his wastes. “Who is the pot to ask the potter - why have you created me for this?” Indeed, the pot will natuarlly conform to its predisposed designe. Still, if the artist so decides to later raise up the pot from the closet and place it in the window, surely the pot would not persuade him contrary.
Tabula Rasa
So a man without a sense of spirituality is essentially a ‘thing’…? Are the ‘dead’ forever lost, or lying temporarily in a state of as yet unrealised potential humanity…?
The flesh is only a temporary abode in which our being resides.
The natural man in whom the spirit nature is degenerate is more like a beast than a human. Cleaver of all beasts and a convincing mimmick in all his ways but witout the sense of charity(compassion and or love) and truth which dignifies mankind and places them above the brute. The natural man seeks only personal gratification and knows community only in the legal sense. His ability to coexist with othesrs is relegated by the civil authority which presides over his actions.
The spiritual man genuinely perpetuates life through his virtues which are inspired by the indwelling presence of God. The spiritual man edifies being and perserves the balance and harmony between all things. THe spiritual mans ability to coexist with others is defined by his awareness of his connection with all things through God.
Just because a person dies doesnt mean that their mind ceases to exist. Nothing that exists ever ceases to exist it just changes states. And just because one body is cast off and deteriorates at the time of death doesnt mean that the mind cannot reincarnate through another body at another time. The energy which makes up your body is no different than the energy which makes up mine, the only difference between your body and my body is how our seperate conciousness’ externalize themselves formally in this world.
Hello Peesaw
First I must say that if you had said you were going to New York on business as the reason for your absence, this would have been excusable. But Chicago? You realize there will be a fine the amount not yet calculated.
Our precise definitions of re-birth do differ. My concern with what you bring though accurate is how often it is taken wrongly. It is a mistake of Fundamentalism to believe that somehow an initial experience guarantees something it cannot. It is an opportunity but can go wrong.
For me it is like a woman just having an orgasm announcing that she just had a baby. They may be related but not the same. We can have profound experiences but they can be lost. Re-birth to me implies a stage where something solid exists that can warrant access to the kingdom, a certain degree of soul.
Yes we must learn how to accept grace. but this is not so easy when there are so many experts telling a person how to do it. With all this advice, the experience of grace is lost. People are more concerned with how to do it than being open to it.
Nick…
im in east texas right now , will be heading to chicago tomorrow…
I agree that even though someone might become “born again” or enlightened to their spiritual being this is not the end all be all of their spiritual evolution. Just as i mentioned in the above how the potter might take the pot from the closet and raise it to the window, he might also cast the pot which is in the window to the curb. In other words even though we awaken to our spiritual lives we must nurture and persavere in our daily walk lest we succumb to our lesser natures. This kind of regression is sometimes called backsliding. Any number of circustances can influence one into regessing, tragedy, loss, or even matterial gain. AS a matter of fact the more things tend to work out easily for us the less we tend to concider God in his relation to us. The more convenient our lives become the more we forget to seek God within our daily lives. In the new testament we are admonished against this apostacy(falling away). INdeed, it seems that names can be taken out of the “lambs book of life”. That is to say, our “candle-stick” can be taken from us…
The only way i know to communicate the acceptance of Gods grace is by having forgivness within your own heart towards those who spitefully use and or abuse you. I dont mean you should excuse their actions or allow them to continue, but you should always forgive in the sense that you understand the mortal delimna as it affects all, including yourself. Forgiving yourself is one of the hardest things to do especially when that means truly accepting the responsability for your actions to begin with. But i cannot and do not attempt to push others into any model or standard of spiritual grace. THat is not my responsability, only God can do this. God shall open what heart he will, and he shall harden what heart he will. I can only bare witness of my own experience when called upon. If my experience lends to the bennifit of anothers spiritual plight then that is Gods purpose in my life.
[size=75][Tabula throws his books into the fire and spits into the flames][/size]
Okay Nick A - I’m going to agree with you.
After a bit of reflection with my feet up on the balcony and the baby safely asleep, I acknowledge that deep down inside my me, below the level of rational thought - there is something.
Something like a automatic beacon way down in the ocean of self (perhaps with a little flashy light on top) that goes beep: “There’s something greater” beep: “There’s more to it than this” beep: “There’s something out there” beep: “There is a point to everything” beep: “There is a God”…
And any amount of rationalization and logic and clever phrasing has not been able to shut the damn thing up.
I suppose people are defined by the way they respond to this irritating little beacon -
Some embrace it without thinking, raise it to the surface and become faithful dog-servants of whatever religious building is nearest at the time.
[size=75][Can you detect a little bitterness here…?][/size]
Some ignore it completely and become the souless mechanisms you describe.
Some fight against it and become tired.
Show me another path…
(One that preferably doesn’t include re-incarnation. There is a limit to even my credulousness)
TR
As you said there are many different responses to this "irritating little beacon ". All this means is that these different responses are reactions from differing degrees of distortions. This beacon is our inner desire to experience ourselves, our humanity. But all we normally experience and defend is the interpretations of our distortions.
The first step is to begin to “Know Thyself”. Any path can only be as good as its foundation. The foundation must be self knowledge. It must be the experience of the real and unreal within yourself WITHOUT judgement. Judging destroys the experience. Nothing good can come out of building on the unreal other than to put money in the pockets of charlatans and misguided “experts”.
Until you can become willing to lower the defenses and become open to the impartial experience of yourself, no path can have any real significance since it will be built on inner lies.
You have to seriously ask yourself if there is enough of you to strive for what this beacon within you is asking for. This is not a matter of shallow curiousity. Your ego does not want this realistic experience and suffers as a result. Is one willing to suffer themselves for the sake of reality? It is a personal question.
Nick…
Nick
well heck that didnt work right. Only your words where supposed to be in the quote… sorry for the confusion…
Hi Peesaw
I’m already completely confused. You can’t make it any worse.
It is the premature categorizing that denies any understanding. An experience becomes good or bad in accordance with our preconceptions. We lose the understanding that it just “is”.
Before we can judgeourselves we must first be ableto distinguish between the truth and a lie in ourselves. We underestimate how much of our personal psychology is determined by inner lies we are even unaware of. This is very subtle.
What is this"heart’ that you refer to? A person may become a law unto himself but this IMO is not a good thing by definition.