Belief, faith and evidence.

Carlos said:
The theory of Relativity is not an illusion but a delusion.
Click to expand...
:D .. so what about this.. ?

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) provide the most direct, everyday example of technology that relies on Einstein’s theory of relativity. Without continuous adjustments for relativistic time dilation, navigation systems would drift by several miles each day.

Sorry mate .. you are not much of a scientist.
I agree with you about 'time' in general .. being a dimension of space-time (universe),
says little about its overall nature.
Philosophy_of_space_and_time - Wikipedia
 
Carlos said:
You must understand that reality must be present, like in my case, the car besides me it does exist.

The theory of Relativity is not an illusion but a delusion.
Click to expand...
The reality perhaps is the glob of plasma.
I am not competent enough to write on Relativity. I go by what science says today.
 
wil said:
the portion of "church" I like is the camaraderie... and I like to discuss things with thinkers...me thinks this has pretty much became my church
Click to expand...
I like that. A space where ideas about deeply important orientations of our being can be shared.
 
Carlos said:
I can state that one can't prove the existence of God simply because "miracles" happen.

One can believe that God makes miracles to happen, and have faith as a corollary.
Click to expand...
An interesting theological concept I have been entertaining recently is that God is Pure Being, not the noun form (we see objects), but the verb form, as in fully being or “beingness.” We do, and do, and do. From this cognitive frame (God as Beingness), it is not God’s action that makes a miracle, but our action of CHANNELING Ultimate Being (Beingness). Interesting that the source of our own action is our own being. All action is made possible by our physical existence, our incarnation. To the extent that our actions flow mindfully from our being we achieve more coherence, harmony, sense of meaningfulness. Same as Christ’s advice to give with a glad heart (the “heart” being our beingness that is not defined by any one, relative, thing, but instead is a kind of ineffable wholeness from which all our particular actions and characteristics emerge, arise out of, become manifest.).
My thanks to Will’s “wimpy” religious orientation. In my preceding reply (to him) on this thread, I spontaneously blurted out the phrase “orientations of being.” This, as a possible substitute for the concept of “belief.” While physical existence kind of forces, traps, or “throws” (an Existential philosophy term) us to act, often brashly or too quick to be mindful, aware, there might be a being-rich action that might be more like an orientation or “lean,” than a more-or-less irreversible action. Would a mere orientation be considered “wimpy” to an action and answer oriented personality? Probably. But to me it allows room to breathe. And breathing is a concept and experience behind the word “spirit.” Breath interconnects , overlaps. Spooky action at a distance. The stuff of miracles.
 
My G!d has been the TOE...The Theory of Everything that science seeks. A concept of G being a primciple a formula that allows the macro math, the micro math, evolution and all (maybe multiverses) to work.

But now....i sorta want that being....and inwant that being to "be" for everyone "I am that I am" and you are cause you are, we is as we is and this sea of goo that is potential...manifestation...desire....de sire...it is all of the father all of the mother....it is upto eyes to see.

Maybe to early from waking...i have yet to stretch my body and you have stretched my brain otherbrother from anothermother
 
David Bentley Hart has just published a translation of the Tao Te Ching via Yale University Press.

Here is a redacted essay he wrote for the publisher.

The Tao Te Ching: The Ancient Case for Letting Go

The essential question of the text, perhaps, is whether it identifies a single principle ... And the answer is that there most certainly is: the principle of the refusal of mastery, whether of nature or of other persons or even of one’s own self and possessions. This is the one recurrent and plangent leitmotif sounded again and again throughout the eighty-one chapters of the text. It makes even the most calculating of the book’s political and martial axioms subordinate to an ethos of selflessness, humility, and even love.

... the Tao Te Ching unremittingly promotes as the essential truth ... that of “giving way”: “not striving,” “not contending,” accepting rather than imposing, allowing things to unfold out of their true natures rather than attempting to force them into alien and factitious shapes... to allow what is at once other than oneself and yet the deepest truth within oneself to come forth into the light of being, arising from the Earth (di) and under the canopy of Heaven (tian), rather than attempting violently to craft reality according to one’s own ambitions, or even according to one’s own inflexible sense of how things ought to be.

It is ... an attitude, a disposition of the soul toward all of reality whose practical working out in the course of one’s life – private or shared – will reveal itself only as one continues to adopt it in every situation. This is as it should be, given that the text announces in its very first lines that the Way that is the source of everything is in itself nameless and so beyond rigid conceptualization. Simply enough, it is indeed a way, not an abstract table of laws or taxonomy of substances, and a way is only truly understood in being followed. For what it is worth, to me this is a moral and spiritual truth that becomes more precious and luminous the more one seeks to live it out.

To those who prefer a strict set of rules, it might seem infuriatingly vague. But I can attest, to the contrary, that this is not so. I undertook the translation of the Tao Te Ching during a period of considerable personal darkness, and the labor proved to be itself a path—a Way—out of that darkness and toward the light.
 
wil said:
I have been accused and just might be wimpy spiritually....definitely religiously wimpy.

I dont follow anyone's rules, dogma or tradition.

I follow whatever portions resonate of everyone's tradition but dance to no particular drummer or beat.

I light or blow out a candle based on needs or whim in the moment...this veggie dont need a rule book to tell me not to kill...or that eating animals or organs that clean and filter water may not be the best for ya.

There is discussion of metaphor and I believe some metaphor is metaphor me and others metaphor you and it all changes based on the time and your life and experiences.

There is what we know...and that may change as new info is presented...and what we believe...which by definition is something we dont know....something for some reason we have faith it is worth believing or we believe to be true.

This is why I will get involved in discussions of allegory and parables and metaphor and glean benefit from turning water into wine or virgin births but will not be attached to them.

Why knowingly base my spirituality on something which could be proven wrong? That is right I unknowingly base my spirituality on a lack of belief and faith.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the way you put this. I read your post as being honest about uncertainty without turning that uncertainty into hostility toward anyone else’s path.

The part that stood out to me is the difference between what we know, what we believe, and what still helps us even when we do not take it literally. I think metaphor, parable, and allegory can still have value without needing to become a rigid rulebook.

For me, that kind of approach feels more careful than “wimpy.” It sounds like you are trying not to overclaim, while still taking meaning seriously where you find it. I respect that.
 
we6jbo said:
I appreciate the way you put this.
Click to expand...
i appreciate your appreciation!

There is no way for me to enumerate the number of people from this site who have assisted me in formulating my belief and being comfortable with my unknowing. The clarity of my understanding is as questionable as my sentence structure and responses here...but many have helped me improve both...so many lovely people have moved on from this site, and or from this earthly realm in the past twenty years of discussion....

Almost all have had an impact...some for how to respond and inspiring posts which assisted me in discovering what I believe...and others have been examples of how I prefer not to respond ...and their posts steered me away from what they purported to espouse.
 
I am currently espouse 'monistic Christianity' as a position which ties up a number of loose ends in my varied beliefs.

So 'Christian monism', whereas before I would have called it Holistic Christianity, but that I suppose I would have to qualify, but you get my drift.

I posted excerpts from a D. B. Hart essay on the Dao's non-dualism, he having just published a translation of the Tao Te Ching.

(As a matter of interest, in that essay he says that although the Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing) "... may be ascribed by tradition to Laozi, but it is clearly a compilation and, in all likelihood, redaction and revision of aphoristic or oracular sources emanating from various places and times in Chinese antiquity.")

Then I thought I would post about non-dualism in the Shobogenzo of Eihei Dogen, the 12th century founder of Soto Zen in Japan. This would be drawn from various sources because I'm a dipper-into, not a scholar, of that text.

Then I thought of inviting non-dual concepts from all the Traditions, and see where that gets us?
 
Carlos said:
That is in a piece of paper.

Formulas, equations and their results are not evidence but mere abstract calculations.

I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me. Lol
Click to expand...
Scriptures of all religions are pieces of paper too.

Calculations may appear abstract, but to the engineer they are handed to, they are instructions for measurement and building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top