Conference hydra::dejavu

         
    Thanks for entering that.
    
    Cindy

    Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, does it?
    
    Laurie.

    Thank goodness I'm an atheist.

    Jamie.

>>    Thank goodness I'm an atheist.

>>    Jamie.
        
        You are contradicting yourself here.  This is a prayer of sorts.
        
        
        Steve 8^)

    No had I said "Thank God I'm an atheist" I would have been
    contradicting myself.

    Jamie.

         
    Some call it God.
    
    Others call it non-local consciousness.
    
    "Goodness" could even be a form of reference to some diety outside
    one's self.
    
    Cindy

O-k.  I'll start this.

If this translation had been in the KJV, then we would have a legally
respected and degreed profession called Birther.  Birthers would go to an
accredited college for at least 4 years to obtain a degree in Applied
Spiritual Midwifery.

They would assist individuals (Junior Birthers), and groups (Senior
Birthers), in creating new spiritual meaning in their lives--especially
during times of personal or national crisis.  The term "organized labor"
would have an entirely new meaning.

Birthers would replace many functions now performed by mental therapists,
and pastoral counselors.  They would teach people to "release the strands
of guilt" used to strangle each other.

The "National Enquirer" would run headlines about Madonna's Birther being
in a love triangle with Elvis and space aliens.
    

    I copied it off and showed it to a couple of devout Christians that I
    know. I got two totally different reactions, one laughed at, I quote,
    "The sillyness of it" while the other was quite upset. One I should
    point out is pro women as priests and the other is virulently opposed.

    Jamie.

    But Jamie, which was which?
    
    Laurie.

    They were in the same sequence.

    Jamie.

    Let me guess Jamie was one of those devout Christians --- Laurie?

Our-Father-which-art-in-heaven-hallowed-be-thy-name.......

These words are so ingrained in so many brains.  Words shape our culture,
our thoughts.  Words are so powerful and important.

Because the KJV Bible was so widely distributed and so sincerely embraced
by so many people, it provides many wonderful examples of how words affect
us individually and as a culture.

Here's an example ----

Last December National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast a piece on
fundamentalist snakehandlers in Appalachia.  For those of you who do not
know about this practice, there are churches all over Kentucky, West
Virginia, and Georgia who believe that the Bible must be followed
literally, to the letter.  There is a passage in the book of Mark that says
that the believers will take up snakes and drink poisons (among other
things). So, true to their belief, they gather boxes of rattlesnakes and
work themselves into a frenzy (they believe that the Holy Ghost is
transporting them into a mystical, state of spiritual esctasy), and -- get
this -- they grab these snakes and wave them around.  They get bitten and
do not see a doctor.  One man said that he did it because "it's in the
Bible" and he didn't want to go to hell over it.

Now according to a bunch of Bible scholars that text in the book of Mark
was probably added by a "document copier" much later than the original text
to give the book of Mark more punch (like a car chase scene in a Hollywood
movie).  This is how I imagine it;  the church managers holding the book of
Mark say to the scribe:  "Could you just spice it up a bit?"  So the scribe
pulls some tidbit about snakes out of his own accumulation of mythology and
bingo! hundreds of years later there are people in West Virginia dancing
with snakes.

Another Example 

There was another passage in the KJV Bible, where Jesus says something like
this:  "Unless you become like little children you can't enter the Kingdom
of Heaven."

There is a corresponding passage in one of the recently found scrolls commonly
referred to as the Gospel of James, that when correctly translated goes
beyond the above passage and says something like:  "You can't enter the
Kingdom of Heaven unless you become like little children and take off your
clothes and trample them on the ground."

My mind just goes into sheer little blissful imaginings on this one.  If
this had been the passage that had mainstreamed into KJV, we would have
church ceremonies where everyone took off their clothing and trampled on
them.  

RE:                     <<< Note 1783.11 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>

�    Let me guess Jamie was one of those devout Christians --- Laurie?
    
    Nope. I'm as big an atheist as Jamie is. I'm too cynical to have the
    "gift" of faith, y'see.

    Laurie.

    The people in question are both friends of mine who do not work for
    Digital.

    Jamie.

    As a point of information, the prayer in .0 can be a translation from
    the Aramaic only in a metaphorical sense.  There is no original Aramaic
    to translate from.
    
    Christ probably did utter the original prayer in Aramaic (possibly 
    Hebrew), but the oldest texts for it are in Koine Greek, the trade-
    tounge of the eastern Mediterranean in the 1st century.  If you want to 
    translate it "from the Aramaic," you first have to translate from Greek 
    to Aramaic, then from Aramaic to English or whatever final language you 
    select.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

Note 1783.12                    
ELBERT::FANNIN 
    
>referred to as the Gospel of James, that when correctly translated goes
>beyond the above passage and says something like:  "You can't enter the
>Kingdom of Heaven unless you become like little children and take off your
>clothes and trample them on the ground."
>
>My mind just goes into sheer little blissful imaginings on this one.  If
>this had been the passage that had mainstreamed into KJV, we would have
>church ceremonies where everyone took off their clothing and trampled on
>them.  
    
    
    Life is great, isn't it? :-)
    
    Sometimes I think we created the whole thing just so we'd have
    something to laugh at...  :-)

Earl,

I recall former Dejavu'r, Karen Berggren entering another translation
(very similar to the base note) by the same author in the Christian- 
Perspective notesfile.  I'll crosspost it here (will call her at home
for her permission as she no longer works for DEC).  She mentions in her
note that the author is an Aramaic scholar and that the translation and
transliteration is derived from the Peshitta, the Syriac-Aramic version
of the biblical texts.  There was quite a bit of discussion about the source
being Greek vs. Aramic, but I don't recall offhand what note topic that took
place in.



        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 6.461   Inspirational Quotes and Messages - comments: Note 100   461 of 482
CARTUN::BERGGREN "drumming is good medicine"         60 lines  13-NOV-1992 18:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One Aramaic translation of the Lord's prayer (by Neil Douglas- 
    Klotz, Aramaic scholar) begins to show how rich the Aramaic 
    language actually is:
    
    1.	Abwoon d'bwashmaya 
    
    (Abw = all sources of parenting, coming from, birthing, being   
    created, emanating;  oon = inside of, creator of the shimmering  
    sound that touches all.  Notice "shm" in "bwashmaya")
    
    	"O Birther!  Father-Mother of the Cosmos, you create all that 
    	 moves in light."
    
    2.	Nethqadash shmakh:   (notice the root "shm" again)
    
    	"Focus your light within us -- make it useful: as the rays of 
    	 a beacon show the way."
    
    3.	Teytey malkuthakh:
    
    	"Create your reign of unity now -- through our firey hearts 
    	 and willing hands."
    
    4.	Nehwey tzevyanach aykanna d/bashmaya aph b'arha:
    
    	"Your one desire then acts with ours, as in all light, so in 
    	 all forms."
    
    5.	Hawvlan lachma d'sunqanan yaomana:
    
    	"Grant what we need each day in bread and insight:  
    	subsistence for the call of growing life."
    
    6.	Washboqlan khaubayn aykana daph khnan shbwoqan l'khayyabayn:
    
    	"Loose the cords of mistakes binding us, as we release the 
    	 strands we hold of others' guilt."
    
    7.	Wela tahlan l'nesyuna:
    
    	"Don't let surface things delude us,"
    
    8.	Ela patzan min bisha:
    
    	"But free us from what holds us back from our true purpose."
    
    9.	Metol dilakhie malkutha wahayla wateshbukhta l'ahlam almin:
    
    	"From you is born all ruling will, the power and the life to 
    	 do, the song that beautifies all, from age to age it renews, truly 
    	 power to these statements -- may they be the source from which all 
    	 my actions grow."
    
    10.	Ameyn:
    
    	"Sealed in trust and faith -- Amen."
    
    Translation and transliteration derived from the Peshitta, the 
    Syriac-Aramaic version of the biblical texts.

>referred to as the Gospel of James..

oops, excuse me the part about taking off clothing is in the Gospel of
Thomas (not James).  I'm surprised none of you caught that!

I received mail this morning pointing out that the taking off one's
clothing is a rich spiritual metaphor for letting go of our ego.  Yes!  The
Gospel of Thomas is wealthy with wonderful metaphor that could have
enriched Christianity had it not been left out of the Bible.  But, I still
think that it would have made one really peachy church ceremony...

And yes, the new translation was from the Peshitta.  Some scholars (the
famous bible translator George Lamsa is one) believe that the Eastern
Orthodox Peshitta was ignored because of antiSemitism on the part of western
translators.

RE:   <<< Note 1783.16 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>
    
�    Sometimes I think we created the whole thing just so we'd have
�    something to laugh at...  :-)
    
    Bingo! All I disagree with is the motive.
    
    Laurie.

    What do you think the motive is, Laurie?

RE:   <<< Note 1783.20 by VERGA::STANLEY "what a long strange trip it's been" >>>

�    What do you think the motive is, Laurie?

    You have to ask? I've said it before.
    
    I believe that organised religion, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu,
    whatever, is a case of the greedy and unscrupulous wannabee fat-cats
    preying on the insecurities and weaknesses of the vulnerable. The
    game-plan was set up MANY years ago, and is still running today. FWIW,
    I also believe that a lot of the "New Age" stuff is the same thing in
    new clothes. Mankind in general *needs* a "deity" of some kind to 
    believe in, to follow, and to order life. Many of us, like Jamie and I,
    have no such need. 
    
    Naturally, others have the right to believe otherwise.
    
    Laurie.

        Which brings up one of my mottos:
        
                                                                       
          My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the  
          universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own  
          image to be servants of their human interests.               
                                                                       
                                          -- George Santayana          
                                                                       
        

        Steve

> I believe that organised religion, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu,
> whatever, is a case of the greedy and unscrupulous wannabee fat-cats
> preying on the insecurities and weaknesses of the vulnerable.

In my opinion, which I've stated before, this is mostly, but not
entirely, true. There are some genuine mystics, and spirit is real. If
you believe that greed is the motivation behind all religion, you may
never find this treasure.

But I'm puzzled: you said "I believe that organised religion"
                                          ^^^^^^^^^
It's curious that you would add that qualifier. Do you believe that
there are some people who have found a spiritual truth, though not
through organized religion, but through some personal religious path?

    It's a minor point, but I think that arguing against _religion_ is
    different from arguing against the special significance of particular 
    _religious_institutions_.
    
    To me, the former implies that the individual believes that people
    can not come together in the spirit if they observe a common
    ideology and institutions, which I find an absurd position personally.  
    
    The latter implies that spirit cannot ever be captured or described 
    completely in a collection of writings or traditions, as if that were a 
    revelation. 
    
    						peace,
    
    						todd

    I don't believe that organized religion originated as a conspiracy 
    set up by the greedy to steal from the weak.  I do believe, like 
    everything else human, it has been spoiled by many greedy people who 
    saw and made use of the opportunity it presents to steal.  The same, 
    of course, is true of business, medicine, government, and just about 
    every other organization with "deep pockets" that exists.
    
    Fact is that if you collect a bunch of money, regardless of the
    intended purpose, the leeches will arrive in droves.
    
    Mary 

    That's how I see it too, Mary... 

>    I don't believe that organized religion originated as a conspiracy 
>    set up by the greedy to steal from the weak.  I do believe, like 
>    everything else human, it has been spoiled by many greedy people who 
>    saw and made use of the opportunity it presents to steal.  The same, 
    
    And in the case of the medieval Christian Church, it's not that hard
    to understand why they came to grow away from the virtues of poverty.
    The growth of the church in its relationship to secular political
    activities must have made it very uncomfortable to consider trying to 
    return to poverty even once many members recognized the inevitable
    corruptions of wealth.  They had certain responsibilities to maintain
    a presence, although as we now know, the entire theocratic experiment
    eventually failed.   But it was not likely simple 'greed' that
    motivated the initial growth of power, in the original church at least.
    
    We know that power corrupts, but we might also learn from this that the 
    City of God and the city of men are two separate places, each with
    their own laws.   Which tells us more than simply that people are
    greedy.
    
    But that's just my interpretation of the history, of course.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    RE: .23 I like that.
    
RE:  <<< Note 1783.24 by ENABLE::glantz "Mike @TAY 227-4299 TP Eng Littleton" >>>

� It's curious that you would add that qualifier. Do you believe that
� there are some people who have found a spiritual truth, though not
� through organized religion, but through some personal religious path?
    
    Mike, as you probably know by now, I'm very careful with my choice of
    words and phrases. My use of "organised" as a qualifier was deliberate.
    I don't believe exactly as you state, but I do accept that such a thing
    could happen, indeed, I suspect it might even be likely. Whether that
    is influenced by or part of any outside force, I have no idea.

    Laurie.

    >>Do you believe that there are some people who have found a spiritual
    >>truth, not through organized religion, but through some personal
    >>religious path?
    
    
    Yep...me.
    
    (Thought I would put my two pennorth in!)
    
    Until two years ago I lived my life as an intellectual cynic (as far as
    religion was concerned) You were born, you did your best, you
    died...seemed good enough for me. I could never cope/come to terms with
    organised religion (apart from the local sunday school whose cricket
    team was so bad they would let me play...when I was twelve)
    
    Organised religion, apart from being about as boring as "Dallas",
    seemed to be used to either promote racialism...for self interest
    groups, superiority over "them" 
    ...catholics/protestants/Muslims/Greeks/etc 
    or otherwise manipulated by the greedy for their own purposes. 
    I guess man will use anything, including religion, to suit his own
    purposes. Most religions seemed to have started off with the right sort
    of inspiration and then over the generations got
    used/mistranslated/obsessed with dogma, creed, incantations and other
    rubbish.
    
    I met a girl who I later found has a naturally strong psychic ability
    (She can astrally project, has good clareaudience (spelling?) and
    pretty good clarevoyence. ( I personally have little psychic abilities,
    though much more now than then) I found I could sense when there was
    someone in the room. Now I am not stupid, I know about drafts and the
    power of suggestion.  I checked and rechecked, which was fairly easy as
    it happened about three times a week. I told her I could feel someone
    when I couldn't, I said nothing when I could feel someone to see if she
    said something first. I could go on. I checked for a period of over
    three months. I could only feel the presence, she could listen and talk
    to them.
    
    I finally had to admit to myself that there was obviously life after death.
    (I could easily have ignored this, but how hypocritical can a cynic
    be?)
    
    Now I doubt if any atheist like myself or Laurie etc could believe in
    anything as "daft" as spirits unless we actually experienced something. 
    I could never cope with organised religions demanding that we believed in
    their particular dogma as the only road to salvation. Or such incredible
    concepts that a fella, probably the greatest inspiration to come to the
    world, could die an agonising death, and relieve us from our own
    personal responsibility for the crap we doled out to others in life.
    No way Hosay.
    
    Now I was faced with the fact of life after death. I had to completely
    review my concept of life. I read a lot about Spiritualism. I came to
    understand why we are on this plane and what life is for. (Basically a
    learning experience for you to clean your act up...this can be
    expanded) One thing it is not, is an obsession with talking with
    spirits. People are about as interesting or boring after they have
    "died" as they were in life. A sadistic selfish person is exactly the
    same when they have died as they were in life. People who dabble with
    Spirit communications will most likely find themselves talking to a
    person who finds it funny to fool you, or pander to your own sense of
    importance. Like attracts like.
    
    
    I could go on to describe my beliefs but I would be wondering off the
    topic (If encouraged I just might...it all leads BACK to learning to be
    GOD..but in an everyday ordinary way. I dont believe in the Paranormal
    for instance. The universe/whatever operates to natural laws like
    gravity etc, just because you cant see spirits (most of us) would
    surely lead you to think...that they operated above the speed of light?.). 
    If you want to be a good spiritualist, start with trying to get rid of
    being selfish and work from there.
    
    
    Best wishes
                                  
    Steve
     
    

    .. good advice...

    but... there IS a true GOD, and you may not find Him through "organized
    religion.  When God reveals Himself to a person through someone else
    who has a personal relationship with Him, that person comes to know who
    God is personally also.  Those two people then become members of the
    same family, brothers if you will, adopted as sons (and daughters)
    through the atoneing sacrafice and blood of Jesus Christ their Lord. 
    It is a personal relationship with the Creator, not a religion
    dedicated to a made-up god to serve whatever selfish purpose was in
    mind of its founders, whether human agencies or spiritual.
    
    GOD has enabled some to know the Truth to set them free from religions
    of the world.  He desires fellowship with all who know Him- man, woman,
    black, white, red, yellow, Jew, Muslum, Humanist, whoever.  His Church
    is made up of all, from whatever walk of life, who know Him.

    .30 was most interesting. Food for thought for sure.
    
    .32, well, more of the same old stuff, as *I* read it.
    
    Laurie$cynic.

    Replying to .32...yes I also believe that there is a God. and a pretty
    good designer he is too. I am constantly amazed at how lucky I/we all
    are to have some entity so completely dedicated to our well being
    (He/she...it? has a mighty long term time perspective) .
    
    I'm not sure I feel comfortable with the blood sacrifice /sister /brother
    hood bit.  I look on Jesus as a VERY advanced spirit who came into the
    world by exactly the same process we all did (ie a standard birth).
    Whose total task was to live as a man, suffer in doubt, triumph over
    problems etc ie to show us how a man can live. He was obviously a
    master as a medium (talk with spirits) and could manipulate natural
    forces (walk on water, water to wine) and was obviously in well with
    the higher powers that be..(resurrection of others as well as self)
    
    I have read, and believe that there have been many inspirational beings
    that have come from time to time to earth. Jehovah and his mates,
    Allah, ..James/Jim Baker?..(just a joke)
    
    
    My point is it doesn't matter a fart WHAT you believe. Believing 
    that jesus came to save the world wont help you on the other side one
    jot. A pious person who believes in Christ, goes to church, and is
    a selfish person will have a lower spiritual rating than a total
    atheist who is:
    
    
    		Understanding  		
    		Compassionate
    		Tolerent
    		Loving
    		Wise		  
    
    
    
    Belief is not important, it just keeps you focussed on what it's all
    about. 
    
    This world is a crude first filter to sort out
    and to knock the edges off your lower self. if you dont do it this
    time, you will keep on coming round (reincarnation) until you have done
    enough here and can progress purely within the spiritual planes. I know
    loads of kids who are much kinder (and more advanced
    spiritually...probably older souls) than many adults (I think of my
    girlfriends mother at this point..horrible old witch...Note my lack of
    compassion and understanding...long way to go yet) 
    
    Why this world???
    
    This is the only plane where people of ALL levels of spritual degrees
    co-exist. The crappy with the nice. You need the mix in order to learn
    
    Works like this...if you are a nasty cruel sort of person, the only way
    you will learn not to be, is to be the victim of a cruel nasty person.
    There IS perfect justice. If a nasty bastard doesn't get an opportunity
    to learn (suffer) this time around, ten bob to a dollar he will be born
    to parents who will be cruel in the next. Only through experience do we
    learn.
    
    	Vengeance is his...but not in a nasty way...it's all done for your
    own good. You've got to get a real long term perspective on all the
    suffering you've gone through yourself to understand the why. I learnt
    a lot about myself by analysing the real awful times in my life. (Some
    trials are also tests to see if we have learnt)
    
    
    Remember to Spirits, anyone dying is no big deal, (funny enough they
    get quite upset when someone leaves to get born again ...shows we're
    all human dunnit?) it just means another wait of ten/twelve years for you 
    to learn to use your body again as an infant.
    
    
    	Apologies again, I'm just wandering about..I could go on...but
    
    best wishes
    
    
    Steve
                                          

    >Replying to .32...yes I also believe that there is a God. and a pretty
    >good designer he is too.

    I am always amused by the argument that there is a God because we are
    to complicated to have occurred naturally. I have seen some quite
    intellectual people trot this out as "Stands to reason" logic. Now I
    have yet to get an answer to the question; "If we could not occur
    naturally and had to be created by a superior being, then who created
    that being and how many levels are there above us?"

    I tend to get an awful lot of waffle, but never an answer.

    Jamie.

>    "If we could not occur
>    naturally and had to be created by a superior being, then who created
>    that being and how many levels are there above us?"

  When I was six, my parents put me in Sunday school to learn about
  religion. This was the first question I asked. It's typical for a
  child to ask such direct questions. When they don't get direct answers
  (for their entire lives), they conclude that the answers are, in one
  form or another, lies. I never got a direct answer, and I concluded
  (at the age of six), that it was pure bull. What I still couldn't
  figure out was why so many people were lying to me and to themselves.

  As I grew older, I began to see why, and to understand that people
  learn how to lie to themselves, and they do it to fill some other
  void: emotional problems, money problems, chronic illness, loneliness,
  etc. It became easier to see why people lie to themselves and to
  others: it's a way of pretending that problems aren't really there, or
  more importantly, that they aren't their responsibility to deal with.

  At the same time that I was learning how people deceive themselves
  (though not necessarily seeing that I was doing the same thing to
  myself), I was learning that there were true scientists: people who
  would attempt to put aside their own bias to learn what was really
  happening in the world. So my trust moved from religion (where it
  never was, even from the beginning) to science.

  Until I was 21, when I met some people who were able to show me that I
  wasn't immune to self-deception, and that religion wasn't the only way
  to lie to yourself about your problems. And that there is a source of
  knowledge which is outside of ordinary experience. Although that was
  half my life ago, I still feel as though it happened last week.

  Today, twenty years later, with some learning behind me, and most of
  it still to occur, I half understand an answer to "Who created God?":
  I do. It's a "closed system".

  I now also know that there are questions whose answers I will not be
  able to understand at the time I ask them, but which doesn't mean that
  the answers aren't correct. Just because you ask a legitimate
  question, and want an answer pronto, doesn't mean that you'll get an
  answer which will satisfy you. It's not necessary that you receive
  instant gratification for the answer to be valid, or for you to learn.

  The child wants dessert first, but the parent knows that the
  nourishment is in the main course, which must be eaten first, or it
  will not be eaten at all.

    Hi,
    ...replying to .35
    
    I do believe we were designed, but I also think it is a pretty poor
    argument to say that because we are so complicated there must be a god.
    We're only talking about bodies which were designed to adapt to
    environment (I also believe in evolution)...given
    another few tens of thousand years we might be able to do a half way
    satisfactory design of a body ourselves.
    
    When I was talking about God being a good designer I wasn't talking
    about anything as simple as our bodies. I was talking about the WHOLE
    scheme of things, ie the set of natural laws which control our
    environment on this plane and the next, nothing as trivial a design as
    our bodies, irrespective of how complicated they are.
    
    Like I said before, I could never myself believe in God until I HAD to
    face the existance of life after death. I do not believe you will
    either until you experience something...but then it doesn't matter if
    you believe or not. Belief aint the point at all. If God doesn't care,
    I'll leave it to others (who have convinced themselves it matters) to care
    if you do.
    
	As for who designed God etc, I havn't got a clue. Neither has
    anybody else on this planet. Asking the question is about as clever as
    asking how big infinity is. There just isn't an answer we can
    understand. I mean ...look at the scale of the question...how can a bit
    of 20th century bacteria buried in a brick somewhere in Australia know 
    anything about the father of the person who invented the wheel in a
    cave at the edge of primeval swamp hundreds of thousands of years before. 
    
    
    In a similar vein to yours, I used to know a pretty good line of
    argument that I used to use with fervent Christians that ending up proving
    (to me at least) that God HAD to be indifferent.
    
    I was wrong, but what the hell it felt good at the time.
    
    All the best
    
    Steve

    The usual rash of non answers that I usually get.

    There is one possible answer that is within my power of reasoning, it
    is quite simple and requires no mysticism. There is no God. The concept
    is just there to fill a need but in actuality does not exist.

    Jamie.

    Jamie,
    
    	   I honestly dont care.
    
        All my life, up to two years ago, I would have totally agreed with
    you. I'm not pulling a maturity thing on you. Believing that there is
    no God is a rational, totally logical viewpoint. Without proof it is
    inevitable in a person who operates from his centre of intellect.
    
    I repeat, it doesn't matter if you believe or not.
    
    It it becomes importent for your growth, something will happen to you,
    an experience which will be difficult to ignore. If not, nothing.
    
    
    What is importent is that you live your life properly. Help others when
    you can, be understanding, compassionate, loving...come on, we must
    have common ground here. Dare I suggest that these FEEL right. (Try and 
    shift the emphasis from intellect to feeling.) It is from your feelings 
    that the above traits come from, not your intellect.
    
    What do you think of the purpose for life in this world, I described it
    in an earlier note. Deranged?
    Personally I like it even from an intellectual perspective, at least
    it suggests a point to life here and a consistancy in the same vein
    into the next worlds.
    
    
    (By the way "the concept is just there to fill a need but in actuality
    does not exist" is a cause and effect statement based purely on opinion
    and wish fullfilment...sorry just joking..but I really dont need to
    believe in a God. I believe because I intellectually couldn't avoid it,
    it really did complicate an otherwise nicely simple atheistic view)
    
    regards
    
    Steve
    

    Re .39

    >I'm not pulling a maturity thing on you.

    Well that made me smile at least.

    >Help others when you can, be understanding, compassionate, loving..

    Strangely enough I have these abilities, however it does not require
    any belief in a god to acquire them.

    >What do you think of the purpose for life in this world,

    Why are you so sure that there is a purpose, this is just an assumption
    on your part. There is really no necessity, apart from human vanity, to
    have one.

    >Personally I like it even from an intellectual perspective, at least
    >it suggests a point to life here and a consistancy in the same vein
    >into the next worlds.
    
    OK so it gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling. On the other hand does
    the contrary view make you feel worthless? Are you really just a bit
    frightened that there may not be a "Next world" and this is a form of
    rationalizing away your fears?

    Jamie.
             

> There is one possible answer that is within my power of reasoning,

And your power of reasoning defines the limits of intelligent thought,
I suppose. Well, now, how egotistical can you get? I dare say, Jamie,
that there are even earthly concepts which you couldn't understand, no
matter how hard you tried. Pick up a text on algebraic topology,
sometime, and let me know how far you get. That's the point at which I
dropped Math as a major, because the light bulbs stopped coming on for
me, and I was resigned to learn it by rote, rather than by intuition.

Haven't you met people who just don't seem to be able to understand
something, no matter how often or well it's explained to them? I find
that true with programming, which I'm good at: I can do things that
other people just look at and ask "how'd you know/do that?", and my
answer, even after much explaining, ultimately has to be "it was just evident".

Let's face it, there's a wide range of human ability, and there are
certain ideas which are (at least temporarily) above the grasp of some
people. I say "temporarily" not because they haven't been taught
enough, but because their minds are just not ready -- they just don't
"get it" -- the little light bulb just doesn't come on. You know what
I'm talking about, I'm sure.

But no matter how smart you are, no matter how little difficulty you
have learning things, there's always somebody a little smarter, always
a concept that your mind is just not ready to grasp. To conclude that
because you don't understand something, it must be rubbish, is an
indication of lesser ability than I would have credited you with.

    I see Mike. You are using the age old "it is far too complicated for
    your tiny mind to grasp" argument. This is one of the oldest cop outs
    in the game. Just convince you opponent that he/she doesn't have the
    mental ability to grasp such a concept and you are home and dry. It is
    really the Emperor's suit of clothes in another guise.

    Got any proof that needs to be a god? Or ar you hiding behind the cop
    out.

    Jamie.

Is that the line of reasoning you tried at university to persuade
professors to give you a higher mark? I hope it didn't work with them,
and it certainly won't work with me. But it's curious that you jumped
to the conclusion that I was accusing you of having a "tiny mind". Is
that how you interpreted I said?

The thing you must admit about the claim that "it's too complicated for
you to grasp (yet)" is that you don't know whether that's true or not.
And unlike your interpretation of what I said, which doesn't credit you
with *ever* being able to understand, I only asked you to consider the
possibility that it's merely something which you don't understand
*yet*. But you seem to think that you can already understand anything
and everything which you can formulate a question about, and that if
you don't understand the answer, then (1) you never will, because (2)
it's rubbish. You would be wrong, because (1) you eventually will, and
(2) it's not rubbish.

Vanity and obstinacy are the curses of intelligence, and impede
learning more than intelligence facilitates it.

    >Is that the line of reasoning you tried at university to persuade
    >professors to give you a higher mark? I hope it didn't work with them,
    >and it certainly won't work with me.

    Actually as my general education ended when I left school at 15 and
    went to work the university professors were spared my comments.

    However to get back to your input. You make no attempt to answer the
    question. You do imply that I am (currently) incapable of understanding
    the answer. 

    This is a straight cop out. It saves you having to think. You just
    dodge behind an excuse and provide absolutely no enlightenment. In fact
    all you appear to be doing is trying to confuse.

    Still as this is the standard get out for this question one can hardly
    blame you for continuing the farce.

    Now I noticed that you strangely enough don't seem to be able to
    address the question "What is the need for a god?"

    Jamie.

>    Now I noticed that you strangely enough don't seem to be able to
>    address the question "What is the need for a god?"

	give me a break. sheesh.
	Jamie, go take a nap.
	
	Jay

This note and the following one, extracted from the Philosophy conference, may 
be of some help in the current discussion.
    
    Earl Wajenberg
                                -< Philosophy >-
================================================================================
Note 177.9                     Christian Theology                        9 of 40
ATSE::WAJENBERG "Make each day a bit surreal."       53 lines  10-OCT-1988 14:28
                            -< Unity & Simplicity >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the LESS controversial doctrines of monotheism is God's unity.  You may 
disagree with monotheism and believe in no gods or a million, or that the 
number is strictly unknowable, but there's nothing very tricky about the 
proposition that there is exactly one god.

God's unity, however, is closely related to a more obscure divine property, 
His simplicity.  This was more often spoken of by the medieval Scholastics 
than by later theologians.  It doesn't seem to attract much interest.  But I 
think it has an application to arguments such as we have seen in this file and 
in its predecessor about the origin of the universe.

By His "simplicity," the Scholastics meant that God has nothing comparable to 
anatomy; He is without parts.  Even His omnipresence does not mean that He is 
spread out in space, so that two shoe-boxes contain twice as much God as one 
shoe-box.  In this way, God is like an abstract principle, say gravitation.  
There may be twice as much gravitational flux passing through two boxes as 
through one, but the principle of gravitation is merely operating in both.  
One place doesn't have twice as much of the principle as another.

(This does not mean that monotheism believes God to be an abstraction.  This 
is just another analogy, like those made between God and parents or 
shepherds.)

Just because God is simple, it does not follow that He is obvious.  "God is 
subtle," said Einstein, referring to the way He designed the world, but the 
Scholastics would also apply this subtlty to God's own nature.  In fact, they 
joined the mystics of all religions in declaring Him unsearchably subtle and 
mysterious.  (More about that in a later note.)

As an example of how simplicity co-exists with subtlty, cast your mind back to 
some problem you strove to solve, hammering away at it, beating out long 
chains of code or strings of equations or whatever the medium was you were 
working in.  Then you had a flash of insight.  You saw an answer, much shorter
and simpler than the futile efforts you had been trying.  But if you would be 
unable to explain your solution to anyone who had not had the same insight.  
To anyone else, it would look like a trick of dubious validity or utility.  
This new solution is both simple and subtle.

God's simplicity becomes significant when God is used to explain the origin of 
the universe.  People sometimes complain that this does not simplify the total 
picture, as good scientific explanations are supposed to do, because the 
explanation brings in something even more complex than the universe, i.e. God.
But, at least according to this little-discussed aspect of traditional 
theology, God is NOT more complex than the universe, though He is certainly 
greater.  (It does not follow automatically that God can be properly used in 
scientific explanations.  There may be other objections.)

I believe the "Tao Te Ching," the central book of Taoism, somewhere describes 
all things as arising out of the Tao, the Way, though the Tao itself is of an 
utterable simplicity.  If we equate the Tao with God, monotheism would have no 
objections to that idea, though it would have a great deal more to add.

Earl Wajenberg

                                -< Philosophy >-
================================================================================
Note 177.13                    Christian Theology                       13 of 40
ATSE::WAJENBERG "Make each day a bit surreal."       35 lines  18-OCT-1988 14:22
                                 -< Necessity >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to classical theology, God is "necessary."  That is, under no
conditions could God fail to exist.  He "contains the cause of His existence
within Himself."  He is uncreated, the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover.

Just as any logical system of theorems starts off with a small set of unproved 
axioms and laws of inference, so the universe of actual beings is founded on 
an uncaused Being.  Just as the subsequent theorems depend on the axioms for 
their proof, so the other beings depend on this first Being for their 
existence.

The most famous approach to God's necessity is St. Anselm's ontological proof, 
discussed in this conference in Topic 32.  The ontological proof attempts to 
show (and for some people it succeeds in showing) that God's nature ensures 
His existence.  Given what God is, He would have to exist.

Non-theists reject Anslem's proof, of course, but so do many staunch
monotheists. (Naturally, they agree with his conclusion that God exists.)  
They may even agree with Anselm that God exists necessarily; they simply do 
not accept Anselm's demonstration of that necessity.  For example, if they 
believe, on other grounds, that God exists and is the creator of the world, 
they may conclude that, whatever the reason for God's existence, He exists 
necessarily, since there exist no other beings that could create Him.

God's necessity relates to the use of God as a scientific or metaphysical 
hypothesis, just as His simplicity did.  After being confronted with some 
version of the cosmological argument for God's existence, people sometimes 
ask, "If you have to have God to explain where the universe came from, why
don't you have to explain where God came from?"

The answer is that, just as you don't have to prove an axiom and couldn't if 
you tried, you can not and need not provide God with a creator. According to
the doctrine of necessity, God is not obliged to "come from" somewhere. 
Rather He is obliged to NOT come from anywhere but to have always been there. 

Earl Wajenberg

Hang on, I don't remember you asking "what is the need for a god". You
asked "who created god", and I gave you an answer: "I (we, you) do
(present tense); it's a closed system". If you find this answer hard to
understand, press on, and maybe we can make some progress.

As to "what is the need for a god", that's not even a well-formulated
question. It's approximately equivalent to "what is the need for
electrons". Do you mean "what purpose do they serve" or what? Electrons
just are. This has certain consequences, but it's not clear that that
was the question you were asking, and there isn't much point to
attempting to answer a question you didn't ask.

    
    Wow, this note gets really hot doesn't it.
    
    Look..there's too much agro here.
    
    Jamie...please note...I am not trying to either prove or convince you
    that there is a God. No-one can. It doesn't matter if you believe or
    not.
    
    You have, you say, understanding, compassion , love etc. You're ok then
     as that is all that matters. (Question...tolerance?)
    
    For the third time...I was an atheist all my life. I was happy as such.
    I changed my mind because I had no intellectual alternative. I have no
    NEED to have a purpose in life. I am just happy that there is one after
    all. 
    
    Surely you can credit others with belief contrary to your own for some 
    other reason than they must be inadequate?  
    
    regards
    
    
    Steve
    
    

>    Surely you can credit others with belief contrary to your own for some 
>    other reason than they must be inadequate?  
    
    	Maybe, but I always thought admitting inadequacy was one of
    	the prerequisites for perfection.   ;*)
    

    
    
	A butterfly was talking to a larva...
    
	Butterfly:  There is a whole different world out there.  There are 
			birds, huge animals, people, lakes, mountains, huge 
			trees and houses.
	Larva:	    I don't believe you, I can't see any of those things.

	Butterfly:  You can't see them because you can't fly.
	Larva:	    Unless you can prove those things to me, I can't
			believe in them.  Why can't I fly like you ?.

	Butterfly:  Because I have evolved and developed, when you grow
			up, evolve and develop, you will be like me.
	Larva:	    That's a cop out, you're saying that because you can't
			prove any of your claims.  I want to fly now!!.

	Butterfly:  Before you can fly, you need to go through the stage 
			called the transformation, until then you can't fly
			and you'll have to take my word.
	Larva:	    That's typical of you!!.  You're making yourself look 
			better than me by putting me down and making me feel 
			lower than you.

	[ Any simmilarities with people, dead or alive is purely coincidential.
	

    re: .51,
    	Juan,
    		That's cute.  I liked that.  You got a reference ?  ;-)
    
    							todd

    >Jamie...please note...I am not trying to either prove or convince you
    >that there is a God. No-one can. It doesn't matter if you believe or
    >not.
    
    As yet no one has proved even a need for one. But there is the
    assumption that there must be a point to life and based on that they
    continue the assumption that there is a god. There is also the
    possibility that there is no god but for a number of reasons we like to
    pretend that there is.

    >You have, you say, understanding, compassion , love etc. You're ok then
    >as that is all that matters. (Question...tolerance?)
    
    Tolerance? When you are searching for the truth where exactly does
    tolerance come into it? Am I expected to be tolerant and accept what I
    know to be lies and pretend that I believe it just to save someone's
    feelings?

    >For the third time...I was an atheist all my life.

    Yes we heard you the first time. Why do you keep repeating this? Are
    you proud of your atheism or your conversion?

    >Surely you can credit others with belief contrary to your own for some 
    >other reason than they must be inadequate?  
    
    They are totally free to believe anything they like. As I said some
    replies back it just amuses me watching them bend the facts to fit
    their beliefs instead of altering their beliefs to match the facts.

    Jamie.

>    As yet no one has proved even a need for one. 

  And no one will succeed in proving that there is, that's a promise.

>    There is also the
>    possibility that there is no god but for a number of reasons we like to
>    pretend that there is.

  Yes, that is not only a possibility, but a fact for many people. But
  the statement is not quite accurate. It should read:

"Some people like to pretend there is a god even though they don't truly
believe there is"

  Jamie, there is one thing which I can assure you of: if you should
  choose to investigate the possibility of knowledge outside of what the
  scientific method can ever offer us, you will not be asked or required
  to deny anything which you already know to be true. This knowledge
  augments and *completes* what you already know to be true, it does not
  contradict it in any way. Never. Things which are true will always
  remain true, no matter what your method of understanding is.

  However one thing which you will probably find is that it sheds light
  on things which you deceive yourself about. Things which you would
  loudly assert are true, but which you really know aren't. I don't know
  what these things might be, for you, nor do I even know for a fact
  that you deceive yourself in any way. But it's an exceedingly rare
  human being who doesn't, and you will have to part with these
  self-deceptions in a process which is always uncomfortable, to say the
  least. Which is why most people back off from it, and content (and
  fool) themselves by saying "I believe there is a God", but don't take
  it any further.

  I have only one thing to add about this entire discussion, by way of
  analogy: This sort of discussion is like being faced with an
  exquisitely beautiful work of art, and spending all of your effort
  looking for the signature of the artist.

    Strangely enough Mike, every time I leave the scientific method I tend
    to find someone is trying to make me believe something that isn't true.
    This may be mythical beings, snake oil that cures AIDS. About this
    point the rational part of my mind kicks in and I start to analyze the
    situation. Usually I find that those who want me to believe in a
    mythical being have a terrible materialistic urge to part me from my
    cash and those who are selling me snake oil mysteriously share the same
    urge.

    Jamie.

>    every time I leave the scientific method I tend
>    to find someone is trying to make me believe something that isn't true.

  It is not strange at all. The probabilities strongly support your
  experience, and your conclusion that it will forever be this way. But
  the important thing to remember is that it is only a high probability,
  not a certainty, that people who advocate "spiritual" things are
  deceived (or deceptive).

  In this universe, anything that is possible actually occurs to the
  extent that it is probable. There are some highly improbable (based on
  the laws of thermodynamics) configurations of matter which are
  nevertheless known to occur. Based on the extremely low probability,
  one would surely conclude that they do not occur if one didn't
  actually see them. In one instance, we don't even know how small the
  probability is, because we have only observed a single instance in the
  entire universe. Yet we observe that it occurs, and suspect that there
  may be more than one instance.

re: .53

>    They are totally free to believe anything they like. As I said some
>    replies back it just amuses me watching them bend the facts to fit
>    their beliefs instead of altering their beliefs to match the facts.

And what exactly are the facts?

    >And what exactly are the facts?

    Observe and draw your own conclusions.

    Jamie.

>    Observe and draw your own conclusions.

Precisely.  End of discussion from your perspective, right?

    >Precisely.  End of discussion from your perspective, right?

    No. I'm quite willing to wait and let you have time to observe and
    reach conclusions. Then you can come back and continue the discussion.

    Jamie.

(Jamie)
First, you said:
>    They are totally free to believe anything they like. As I said some
>    replies back it just amuses me watching them bend the facts to fit
>    their beliefs instead of altering their beliefs to match the facts.

And I asked:
>And what exactly are the facts?

Then you replied:
>    Observe and draw your own conclusions.

I said:
>Precisely.  End of discussion from your perspective, right?

With which you retorted:
>    No. I'm quite willing to wait and let you have time to observe and
>    reach conclusions. Then you can come back and continue the discussion.

I asked you what the facts are that you feel people are bending to fit their
beliefs.  Please stop talking in circles and evading the question.  Please
answer the question, or admit you have no answer.

    OK you want an example of people twisting the facts to match their
    personal views of God. Here is one that was on the news here this
    morning.

    As I have mentioned there is an extreme religious cult in Holland that
    forbids giving medicine to people who are healthy. Because of this
    belief they now have 67 of their children ill with poliomyelitis and
    two dead from the disease. That is just this outbreak, the last one
    infected 110 children and while it killed none it left many lame.

    They justify this blight, not on their actions in forbidding the
    children to be vaccinated against the disease but on "God testing their
    faith" This I find a perfect example of twisting the facts to meet
    their perception of god. However it is not one of the instances that
    amuses me.

    Now you may turn your attention to those who rant regularly on your
    religious TV channels and watch them bend the facts to fit their view
    of god.

    When you have done that look at how the Islamic faith bends things to
    make it look like god approves of women being treated like animals.

    As I said, observe and you will see it all around you.

    Jamie.

    Hi again,
    
         in .34, I stated a purpose for life, all human life.  In addition I 
    gave my view for the mechanism for how life in this world achieves that 
    purpose. 
    
    I put it simply, but has no-one bothered to look behind it and to try
    and taste if it might FEEL right. 
    
    I hear jamie..it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Fair enough and so it
    does. I thank him for at least answering. I would say he over prizes
    the power of intellect and undervalues the power of "feeling", but that
    is his decision.
    
    Does everyone agree with him. Any thoughts?
    
    With respect, this conference misses out on ideas every time you get
    dragged into winning for it's own sake. I know there are some people
    who have been around out there, I've read your notes and measured your
    worth. 
    
    I'll try something else.
    Did you know that most mediums who operate on a public platform are
    "generally" non intellectual, average, people.
    
    The way it works is a public medium has to be a general purpose person,
    ie a mr/mrs average intellectually to be able to tune to the frequency
    of the majority ...of average spirits. A spirit with an average intellect 
    would find it difficult to tune into the mind of an intellectual.
    
    A medium suitable for receiving advanced knowledge needs to be
    spiritually advanced themselves. I do not mean a very good medium, I
    mean strong in spritual development...love/compassion/wisdom etc. These
    are generally different people to the public mediums. They would need a
    good degree of intellect to be able to translate the concepts,
    otherwise it would be like sticking a picasso with a 12" paint brush. 
    
    or how about.
    
    Life when you die is EXACTLY as good or shitty as you are, spiritually
    (as defined above) You will live in a plane which exactly reflects your
    level of advancement. 
    
    What is life like when you die, do you sit around praying for ever, or
    do you get stuck into some work? What kind of work?  I know what I think, 
    what about you?
    
    
    regards
    
    Steve
    
    

    re >.63
    
    I agree, people can be stupid with religeon as with anything. People 
    can manipulate others for power using anything. or people can just be
    wrong unintentionally.
    
    It's hard to get the right perspective on this...but...death really
    doesn't matter and there are some great opportunities for people to
    learn in really shitty circumstances.
    
    
    Steve 

>    I hear jamie..it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Fair enough and so it
>    does. I thank him for at least answering. I would say he over prizes
>    the power of intellect and undervalues the power of "feeling", but that
>    is his decision.
>    
>    Does everyone agree with him. Any thoughts?
    
    My perspective is that there's a personal process of developing
    your 'inner life,' and that this process for most people involves
    for various phases of their life swinging back and forth between valuing 
    their emotional and spiritual experience, and valuing their intellectual 
    development, and so on.
    
    Most people find a reasonable balance, usually after suffering
    various crises of faith in various things.  A few perhaps find a more
    gradual path.
    
    The people *I* really admire are those that have emerged from these
    crises 'transformed' in such a way that they have not taken
    to rejecting large areas of human experience; like the anti-intellectuals 
    or the ascetics or the more severe atheists; but have taken to enriching 
    human experience and helping to show the rest of us the way, by
    example rather than attempts at conversion or persuasion.
    
    The metaphysics, to me, are optional.  The personal experience and
    how it affects our lives is what is most important in the end.
    The 'fruit.'   I don't know whether this process eventually can
    be explained in terms of science or psychology or whatever, 
    (I strongly suspect it will be), but I don't think we are fully human, (or
    even intelligent !) without both our intellect and our 'soul.'
    
    						
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    I find extremes in anything very uncomfortable. Your comments that the ideal
    position is a balance between intellect and soul feel right. I suspect
    that there are many other attributes forming the complete person eg the
    emotional self. As before though the same applies, moderation in
    everything. 
    
    	I also doubt if there are many who make a slow transition to their
    "inner life" I view life as a series of jerky improvements based solely
    on how well I struggle and overcome life's problems. Improvement of
    this kind comes almost totally from personal experience with hardships.
    
    eg how can you learn that having vast fortunes (beyond that needed for
    modest survival) does not make you happy until you obtain your dream
    and find it completely hollow. I can look around me at several in my
    family who have convinced themselves they want to gather money and 
    possessions. Their actions and personal relationships become 
    tarnished by this need.
   	ps I learn more by analysing people who are extremes than at an
    average person.
    
    
    The thought that a person would be stupid enough to marry another for
    money is so incredibly naive to me ...yet so common!!
    
    It took a person I know over 45 years to find out that it was other 
    people who make you happy. How did they learn...by being totally unhappy 
    for the last 20 years of her life.
    
    I cannot explain the relationship between intellect and soul. I
    visualise the various attributes that make up an individual to look like a
    radience composed of overlapping fields. Not that that helps me
    understand much, but there you go.
    
    
    regards
    
    Steve
     
    
    
    

TRUCKS::MANGAN                                       
    
>    Does everyone agree with him. Any thoughts?
    
     I agree with him that religion is too often used as a tool to control
     people.. and that too many people allow themselves to be controlled
     by it.

>     I agree with him that religion is too often used as a tool to control
>     people.. and that too many people allow themselves to be controlled
>     by it.
    
    Religion is the classic case because of its traditional role 
    interpenetrating all of human life.   The control effect can be 
    just as true of nationalism, and a host of other expressions of mass 
    movements as well.  The detailed content of the ideology is relatively
    unimportant, I think, whether it is religion or whatever.  
    
    Also, I'm not sure that it's always so much a matter of 'them' 
    controlling 'us' (except at the start of a new movement) as it is a social 
    pattern that gets caught up in a lot of momentum and sweeps the 'them' in 
    its path as much as the 'us.'  The leaders of extremist groups often seem 
    to succomb to the worst of the group madness when a group starts to go off 
    the deep end.   That's the kind of negative dynamic that I think people
    associate with religious groups, but it's a more general kind of
    effect, imo.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

I agree with Mary on that one. I'm sure I'll be labeled anti-religious again 
but who cares -).


    
    My perspective is that there's a personal process of developing
    your 'inner life,' and that this process for most people involves
    for various phases of their life swinging back and forth between valuing 
    their emotional and spiritual experience, and valuing their intellectual 
    development, and so on.
    
    Most people find a reasonable balance, usually after suffering
    various crises of faith in various things.  A few perhaps find a more
    gradual path.

I found a lot of good things in your note Todd. I find myself identifying 
greatly with the above paragraphs. I spend a lot of time outside of DEC 
developing my 'inner life.' My spiritual life and the teachings that I am 
going thru are the biggest part of my life and I view my DEC life as 
secondary, neccessary because of the way society is, today. But I swing back 
and forth between this and my "other life", the life of PCs and Windows/NT, 
etc. My problem is that I have been unable so far to find a balance. I will 
go thru periods of months where I will do only all my spiritual stuff, done 
another period where I drop all that and spend every night on the PC and drop 
every thing else, and get crazy about understanding all the technical stuff. 
Then when I get sick from all the stress, I get right back into all my 
spiritual stuff and drop the other.

After suffering a crisis of faith in the past and a crisis of panic attacks 
and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I questioned all of the stuff in my life and I 
changed completly. I dropped organized religion because it just wasn't right 
- I was not allowed to ask the fundamental questions that I had. I found the 
spiritual path that I am on now and it works well when I am in balance, and 
centered. When I drop everything, it goes to heck in a handbasket quick. 

The things I do work for me but I have no scientific explanation. One hasn't 
been needed for the last 10,000 years where this stuff has been used. It just 
works. I know it is good because i know in my heart. I fought so long with 
rationalizations and having to have scientific proof for everything, but it 
didn't work and I experienced far less that way. A lot of things didn't 
happen until I was open to them. For me, there is a big difference between 
knowing and reading things in books. Jamie's science books mean nothing to me 
as well as religious books. Jamie puts down books that some of us cite here, 
saying not to believe what we read, while citing things from books that he 
chooses. I don't believe those. For me, I understand how things work by 
observing nature. The Creator has put all the things one could want to learn 
by observing nature. There are many lessons there.

Sorry for rambling. Your note got me thinking. Thanks.
Sam

    Re. various (Jamie)
    
    You asked someone in this conference (all of us?) to observe and draw
    their (our) own conclusions. What makes you think they haven't? You 
    keep talking about the belief in God as lies. Lies, according to the
    dictionary on my desk, is an assertion of something known or believed
    by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive. 
    
    As abhorrent as the case of the ultra-religious in Holland you
    described is to me, what makes you think what they believe are lies?
    Do you think those parents are intentionally letting their children 
    die or become lame? Deceived, yes. I think organized religion has
    often carried things too far. But that has nothing to do with the
    intent. 
    
       The way to hell is paved with good intentions...
    
    
    p.s. Remember your precious Occam's Razor, it is simpler to assume 
    people believe than to assume their intent is to deceive themselves and
    others. 

Re .65 & .69

I found I could identify with Todd's note too. My life to date has been
a largely unbalanced intellectual one. Last year I had some difficult 
decisions to make that were intellectual quagmires. I struggled through
them very unsatisfactorily. Partly as a result of this I have determined
that I need to develop the emotional side of me, develop my feelings and 
let these have a lot more direction in my choices. I have some more big
decisions coming up - this time they will be made on the basis of what
will help make me more "fully human" and to allow me explore what works for me.

Maybe I'm just starting on the first swing of a spiritual phase and I will
swing back but at the moment I am looking forward (with some apprehension!) 
to the experiences this will make me open to that could not be part of my 
intellectual phase. I'm trusting that the opportunities will appear as I 
need them.

Re .66

> took ... 45 years to find out that it was other people who make you happy

Now this doesn't *feel* right to me! Part of what I want to do is spend
some time contemplating what makes me happy (so that I can do more of it!)
I don't believe this is dependent on other people. What do others think?

Linda 

    Re .70
    
    >You  keep talking about the belief in God as lies. Lies, according to
    >the dictionary on my desk, is an assertion of something known or
    >believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive.             
    
    I have no doubt that your definition is correct, however I never
    accused anyone of lying, just twisting the facts to match their views.
    
    >p.s. Remember your precious Occam's Razor, it is simpler to assume 
    >people believe than to assume their intent is to deceive themselves and
    >others. 
    
    Yes it is simpler, but by decieving others they may well gain from
    their actions., in some cases this amounts to a luxurious lifestyle.
    This is a tremendous incentive.
    
    Jamie.

Linda,


> took ... 45 years to find out that it was other people who make you happy

**Now this doesn't *feel* right to me! Part of what I want to do is spend
**some time contemplating what makes me happy (so that I can do more of it!)
**I don't believe this is dependent on other people. What do others think?

I thought it was a typo when I first read it because I believe no one 
outside of one's self can make you happy.  Happiness comes from 
within!!

Warm thoughts to you as you start exploring your spiritual path 
(although I think this is something we do our entire lives it is just 
that at some point we begin to do it *consciously*).  Learning to 
trust that inner knowing is one of the most precious gifts you can 
give yourself.  There are many books out there that can help with 
this, especially ones focusing on women's unique way of knowing.

Ro

    
    Re. .72 Jamie,
    
    With regards to your comment that you nver accused anyone of lying,
    please see your comments on note .53 in this string.
    
    To wit, "Am I expected to be tolerant and accept what I know to be lies
    and pretend that I believe it just to same someone's feelings?"
    
    Again, why are you so convinced everyone is lying? 
    
    And more importantly, how do you *know* they are lies? What special 
    knowledge do you have that is somehow not know by anyone else on Earth?
    Or could it be your personal beliefs???
    
    Marilyn

    Marilyn, to make a comment like that and to call someone a liar
    directly to their face is another thing. People may believe whatever
    they choose however I draw the line when they deliberately try to make
    me believe it too. Ever since I was a child people have been trying to
    get me to believe in their particular god, in fact the last instance
    happened at the w/e when someone from the Jehovah's Witnesses was round
    my door.

    As all the views of god and what god wants mankind to do vary wildly
    from religion to religion, and from sect to sect within religions, then
    all cannot simultaneously be correct, some must be lies, I suspect that
    they are all lies and there is in fact no god. As my theory appears to
    fit all the known and demonstrable facts I cannot fault it.

    Jamie.
    

    Talking of Jehovah's witnesses, there was a case in the UK last week of
    a young woman who died after the (complicated) Caesarian birth of her
    second child. She was a JW and on religious grounds refused to have the
    blood transfusion neccessary to replace the blood she lost. It took two
    days but she finally died.
    
    The article in the paper (the Daily Telegraph, a serious, not tabloid
    "Enquirer"-type paper) made much of the fact that the family were
    distraught, that there was a young husband with a toddler and a
    new-born baby to support. Both sides of the family were also apparantly
    upset. All however were JWs, and continued to believe that the Bible
    tell us in "many place" that to take blood from another animal is
    wrong.
    
    I found it interesting to note two things. Firstly, it was within this
    woman's right to refuse treatment, and once she had been adjudged
    incapable of decision, for her nearest kin to also refuse said
    treatment. To ensure that this was complied with, the JW movement sent
    lawyers to the hospital. Secondly, the Telegraph ended the article with
    the comment from one of the senior doctors, something along the lines
    of "It's all very well for these people to kill themselves because of
    their religious beliefs, but my staff will have to live with the trauma
    of watching this woman die over several days.".
    
    The longer I live, and the more I observe organised religion, the more
    I want no part of it. Nobody can tell me that any benevolent deity is
    going to insist that a young family be destroyed in this way. The
    whole lot of these religious nuts are SICK.
    
    Laurie.

>    I suspect that
>    they are all lies 

  I'm basically with you on this, and for the same reasons.

>    and there is in fact no god.

  This doesn't logically follow from the above. Choose to believe it or
  not, as you wish, but don't link these two propositions together and
  claim that it's a rational process. People say all sorts of things
  which happen to be true in support of unsavory aims. This doesn't in
  the least negate the truth of those things.

	Consider the following:

		There are 3 people on the beach, each one has a cup
	of a certain size, shape and color.  Person one goes and dips
	his cup into the water and says:  The sea is yellow, round in
	size and 5 inches high.   Person two does the same thing and
	says:  You are wrong, the sea is red, shaped like a rectangle
	and only 2 inches high.  Person three now dips his cup into
	the sea and says:  You are both wrong, the sea is yellow, 
	shaped like octagon and 6 inches high.

		Each of these persons was not lying, they only expressed
	what they saw on their cups after dipping them into the water,
	each believing that his perception was the only right one and
	that the others were wrong.  Now, you substitute the sea for
	God, the cups for religions, and you will see what is taking
	place in our world today.

That's a very good analogy. Importantly, it does not contradict what
Jamie has been saying: these three perceptions, while sincere enough,
are too far from being true to be useful statements. They are
self-deceived if they believe otherwise. This is why Jamie and Laurie
are justified in saying that proponents of organized religions are
deceitful or deceived, whether they have malicious intent or not.

However Jamie goes on to conclude that because the three perceptions
are far from the truth, the sea cannot exist.

    I think it's a terrible analogy. How can they say "the sea is ..." when
    the very thing they dipped their cups into was... the sea? Since they
    did the dipping, they must be aware of this, and indeed, of what the
    sea really is. The three are clearly idiots.
    
    Laurie.

What's your point?

    >took years to find out that it was other people who make you happy.
    
    
    Sorry about this, but I said what I meant very unclearly. I meant to
    say that it was only by serving other people that you
    will become happy. I agree happiness comes from within. I wonder how
    many people would say that they agree that material things dont make
    you happy, and yet envy people their possessions. Say it but dont live 
    or believe it?
    
    There were several people who mentioned the swings in shift from
    developing intellect to developing feeling during life. Our society
    tends to ignore the development of feeling, (feeling...not emotion)
    
    
    	I imagine a very advanced spirit like this...
    
    Imagine a little baby, perhaps your baby, asleep in her cot. Dont just 
    read these words, I really mean, imagine the scene for a second. 
    
    
    	Immerse yourself in the feeling of love and compassion that you
    feel for this helpless person, full of promise. Completely innocent of
    it's needs, it's actions. You forgive anything, because it is learning
    and you fully understand why it cries when it wants, when it is
    frustrated. Take a second and really feel it. 
    
    
    An advanced spirit who has finished with this plane of existance would
    feel the same for you, because they would love everything and
    everybody, because they would understand. They are happy to serve
    others. 
    
    A quick check...if this sounds sickly sweet, it is probably because you
    didn't really try and feel it, you just read it with your intellect.
     Humour me and try again.
    
    Do you know that the tears of joy that you are capable of are due to
    the fact that you, your spirit, is capable of greater feeling than can
    be confined in your material body, so your body lets them go like a
    release valve.
    
    The goal for anybody in this life is to develop themselves towards this
    type of goal. To be that person some day.  It comes from feelings. It
    is separate from intellect. 
    
    A keen enquiring mind, a mind that
    analyses/reviews/checks everything is good. Dont lose it. Supplement it
    by developing a desire to give through helpfulness, wisdom, understanding,
    compassion. 
    To be honest it is only through experience you will gain these. If you
    focus yourself, however, you will gain more, quicker.
    
    Best wishes
    
    Steve
    

    
    Christianity says: "God is Love."                             
    Vedanta says:  "You are God."
    
    Christianity also says: "The Kingdom of God lies within you."
    (A good book to read is Leo Tolstoy's book by this same name, which was
    banned by both the Russian government and the Church at that time for
    obvious reasons, but was one of the primary books that inspired Gandhi 
    in organizing the non-violent revolution which got the British out of 
    India earlier in this century.)
    
    The rest of organized religion is just fluff.  Denominations, rules, 
    regulations, etc.  Unfortunately, and sadly, a lot of this fluff gets 
    twisted and applied by people who do not truly know God (Love). Then
    things happen to the followers that are mentioned earlier in this
    topic.
    
    There was a great saint in India in the last century named Sri Ramakrishna.
    He was the guru of Swami Vivekananda, the first swami from India ever to
    come to America in 1893 (100 years ago this year) and he addressed the 
    World Parlament Of Religions held in Chicago that year.  
    
    Sri Ramakrishna is famous for following each of the major world religions 
    (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and a few others), and showing that each 
    of them, when correctly followed, leads to God-realization (within
    one's own self).  However, this true knowledge - and the true reason
    for religion - is all but buried in the fluff and misinterpretations
    that have propagated down the lines over the centuries.
    
    I happen to feel that God is Everything - you, me, coffee, chocolate,
    plants, planets, the Universe - everything manifest and unmanifest. 
    This is the Vedantic nondualistic view of God.  Dualists, however,
    believe that God is outside of one's self.  Christianity and Islam are
    essentially dualistic religions, though there are nondualists in their
    ranks.  If anyone's interested in reading further on this, I highly 
    recommend Swami Vivekananda's book, "Vedanta - Voice Of Freedom".  It 
    is excellent.
    
    Cindy

    Re Jamie,
    
    The point I've been trying to make you see is that these are not
    necessarily lies. You agreed with my definition of lies, and you 
    have not shown the intent. If someone tries to make you believe
    something which is not true, but they themselves believe it to 
    be true, then they are operating under a misconception, or are deceived, 
    but they are not lying. 
    
    It is possible that there is no God, and also that no one is lying.
    
    
    Marilyn
     

    
    Marilyn,
    
    Swami Vivekananda even covered the 'even if there is no God' belief, 
    then he says to be nice to each other anyway (paraphrased.)  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, I'm glad you specifically included chocolate in that "God is
    everything" statement. :-)
    
    Seriously, I happen to agree very much with what you have to say here.
    To me, it makes perfect sense. 
    
    BTW, on your reccomendation, I recently purchased Autobiography of a
    Yogi and I'm finding a lot of "TRUTH" in it. Thank you for the
    suggestion. I will say that it is tough sleding because when it was
    written, the format was to put the footnotes at the bottom of the page
    and in this book, the footnotes are often as interesting as the main
    body. (No one say he has a footnote fetish :-)   ) It does take away
    from the smooth flow of the rest of the tale, but I will get through
    it. Thank you for reccomending it.
    
    PJ
    
    

                                              
    Hi PJ,
    
    I'm so glad you like "Autobiography...".  My copy is so worn that the
    binding is almost white.  It's such a wonderful book, and you're right,
    the footnotes do get a bit lengthy at times.  Even if one reads it from
    a purely historical perspective, it really brings together East and
    West (India and America).  
    
    In that book somewhere, Sri Yukteswar tells Yogananda that God is to be
    found in the depth of peace that one finds in meditation, and not some
    figure sitting in some antiseptic part of the cosmos.  I think it's
    in the chapter on Cosmic Consciousness.  
    
    I'm now reading one of Swami Vivekananda's biographies, and that's 
    excellent too, but nowhere near as good as "Autobiography...".
    
    Cindy

    I too found the sea analogy pathetic.

    You know I have never had, or for that matter heard of, any group who
    wander from door to door trying to get you to believe in atheism.

    As to Cindy's point that all religions, correctly followed, lead to
    god. Try it stated another way. All religions followed looking for god
    end up appearing to find one. The interpretation of what is the
    "correct" way to follow a religion is a highly individual thing. I
    suspect that the source Cindy quoted just set out with that goal in
    mind and eventually, by biasing his judgment on what was and was not
    correct in a religion finally "proved" himself correct.

    Jamie.

re: .88

>   the source Cindy quoted just set out with that goal in
>    mind and eventually, by biasing his judgment on what was and was not
>    correct in a religion finally "proved" himself correct.

What else would you expect.  This is true regardless, since he is searching
for something intangible, yet, he knows the truth when he finds it.

>    As to Cindy's point that all religions, correctly followed, lead to
>    god. Try it stated another way. All religions followed looking for god
>    end up appearing to find one. 

What you've said is no different from saying if you don't look for it you
won't find it.. neither of which is necessarily true or false.  You are
twisting it to suit your own views (which is what one would expect).

Confucious say, "Get your head out of the sand before you give someone
else directions to the ocean."

Corollary: "If you don't like the ocean, don't offer your advice on swimming
in it."

FWIW, I liked the sea analogy.

    Re .89

    Consider the problem, the man sets out to prove that all religions, if
    properly followed, lead to the same god. He sets all the criteria for
    "properly followed" he interprets all the facts and rather unamazingly
    he reaches his conclusion. Strangely enough he finds not a single
    anomaly that casts any shadow of doubt on his findings. To say that
    this is a biased investigation is a bit of an understatement.

    Had the man set out to see if there was any common link between all
    religions, set up his criteria, had others check that each instance met
    his original criteria and come up with the odd unexplained anomaly, it
    might be believable. Currently it looks like an exercise in self
    deception.

    >Confucious say, "Get your head out of the sand before you give someone
    >else directions to the ocean."

    I was totally unaware that Confucious ever uttered that one.

    Jamie.

    Cindy,
    
    A '90s update to your saying is "be excellent to each other".
    
                            - Bill and Ted.
    
    :^)
    
    Marilyn

                                                              
    Re.88
    
    Jamie,
    
    >I suspect the source Cindy quoted.....(etc.)
    
    This might be a novel idea - perhaps you should actually read the book 
    itself.  You might just find out otherwise.  Besides, it's good reading.  
    
    (While I don't want to give the punchline to you, I'll give you a hint 
    - Tolstoy was very much a non-believer in God for a significant portion 
    of his life.)
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Good one, Marilyn!  (;^)

    Cindy,
    
    In return, why don't you read _A_Brief_History_of_Time_ by Stephen
    Hawking.
    
    He explains that he began his study of the beginning of the universe
    as a search for God, and found -- to his surprise -- that his
    researches led him to the discovery that a deity is unnecessary to
    the creation, continued existance, or end of the universe.
    
    					Ann B.

    "Those guys who can't see the sea are stupid !
    	There is no sea, anyway !"
    	
    	Either this came out as an unintentional irony, or
    	some people have a very dry sense of humor.  :-)
    
    						todd

                       
    Re.94
    
    Ann,
    
    I've read it.  He does not find a diety, yet he does find perfect
    order.  In the minds of many - including mine - that is very much
    evidence of God (or in another definition - non-local consciousness).
    
    What I see Hawking as doing, from the yogic model, is treading the 
    path of a jnani yogi.  Working it through in his mind to see the 
    order, and coming to the very same conclusion of a jnani yogi.  He's
    definitely not a bhakti (devotional) yogi, which is why he would see a
    diety as being unnecessary.  He rarely consults the physical realm, and
    admits to only looking through a telescope a few times in his life. 
    
    There is a great chapter in one of Shirley MacLaine's books (Inner
    something-or-other) where she meets Hawking and spends a day with him.  
    It's absolutely delightful, and very insightful.  He does let on though, 
    that in the midst of all the order, as his wife says to him, one does 
    need the heart.  Then his daughter enters the room, and his eyes light 
    up, and Shirley writes of the great love he feels for his family, and 
    how that love is what has sustained him through his physical challenges 
    and is keeping him alive to see the love grow.  Very touching.
     
    Cindy

RE:                      <<< Note 1783.91 by CSC32::M_VEGA >>>

�    The sea analogy is very good.
    
    Why?
    
    Laurie.

    >>The sea analogy is very good.
    
    >Why?
     
    Because it appears to prove their point. However I found it stunningly
    na�ve.

    Jamie.

    An analogy is rarely satisfactory as a proof, it is generally a 
    communication tool.  You say 'this is like that,' and the other
    person is supposed to think 'ok, in what ways is this like that ?'
    And maybe see something new in their own mind, or maybe not.  If they say 
    'no it isnt, its nothing like that,' the analogy hasn't had the desired 
    effect.
    
    Although it might have a mild comic effect. :-)
    
    So why belabor it ?
    
    							todd

    Possibly a bit off the current subject, but...
    
    There have been lots of notes about the corruption of some of those who
    have used religeon for their purposes, also about the money that can be
    made from quack remedies and faith healing methods.
    
    No doubt many would also recognise that there are some genuine ones out
    there.
    
    I personally know several of these people. Pat, the lady medium who
    runs the Psychic development circle I attend is just such a one. Apart
    from being a very good medium, she is also a full time, completely
    unpaid healer. She actively discourages even free will gifts. 
    
    At the very least, a sceptic must acknowledge that her motives are
    altruistic, even if the cynic would claim self deception.
    
    Although a general purpose healer, her speciality is the treatment of 
    cancers. I know two of her patients personally. I was talking
    to one last night in Worthing, England. He was diagnosed as having
    bowel cancer and given 12 months to live. He is now clear of cancer
    cells according to Worthing hospital. (I appreciate this proves
    nothing, please note I couldn't care less)
    
    
    A note here on the mechanism of healing..I will go into more detail
    some other time.
    
    The healer herself does not actually do "healing". She is purely a
    psychic medium of a type that can be used by Spirit doctors to act
    through her. Cell destruction, as is needed for cancers and arthritus
    is fairly easy to heal it appears. Naturally, as with most fields, it
    is horses for courses, ie I wouldn't use a spiritual healer if I had a
    broken leg. Most brands of "medicine" have their fortes. 
    
    By the way...there have been many documented examples of Spiritual
    healers. (Oh hell, I suppose I'll have to look some up now or I'll get
    accused of being fuzzy) 
    
    
    best wishes 
    
    
    Steve

Hi Steve,

Is the medium a member of the White Eagle Lodge by any chance?  It is 
in Liss, New Lands, England?  Just wondering as we plan to stop there 
during our trip to Great Britain next week.  I was involved in a White 
Eagle absent healing group and am very attuned to the White Eagle 
material.

Ro

    Cindy,
    
    Perhaps you should have read with greater attention.  He points out
    that an infinite number of universes could have been created and
    destroyed, each with its own order OR LACK OF ORDER, and (1) we
    would never know it and (2) the duration of the universe would
    depend on the success of the laws.
    
    In other words, the order you see as implying a deity means only
    that *this* universe has survived this long because, by the chance
    of its creation, it had a decent set of rules.
    
    You brought yourself to the book.  There is nothing wrong with that,
    but do not impose your opinion on the author.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re.104

    Ann,

    Actually, I should have read it more recently.  Ah well.  (;^)  It
    was several years ago that I read it.  Couldn't find my copy last
    night, but did find "Going Within", by Shirley MacLaine, and had a
    great time rereading her interview with Prof. Hawking.  It's priceless.

    Anyway, you have provided a good setting to enter the following short
    story that appeared in another notes conference recently. Apparently 
    even dieties have been known to make mistakes too...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    PS. >Do not impose your opinion on the author...
        Now I feel sufficiently chastized.  (;^)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Brings to mind something that happened a few years ago in Heaven.  This
    is paraphrased--I can't find the original.
    
    "Hey, Gabriel!"
    
    "Yo, Michael.  What's cooking?"
    
    "Seems there's a bug in the micro-physics laws-of-the-universe module. 
    Some guy in Utah figured out how to get cold fusion power by mixing
    together exothermic matter in a lab retort."
    
    "What?  Can't be.  Let me look.  Ohhhh...yeah.  I see it.  Right here. 
    Hol on a sec, Mike... <click, click, click, clickety-click...compile,
    link, load, replace>  There.  That should do it."
    
    "How far did this bug spread anyway?"
    
    "Not too far--just that one lab.  You caught it in time.  It's been
    fixed, so anyone who tries to duplicate it will get the standard stuff
    from now on."
          

>    "Seems there's a bug in the micro-physics laws-of-the-universe module. 
    
    Good one.  :-)

Now that is funny!

    The Stephen Hawking's stuff reminded me of a pattern of reasoning that 
    is very common when people interview some leading scientists on their
    spiritual views, especially those involved in brain science and some
    areas of psychology.  I submit it without intending any editorial
    comment.  It basically represents what might be called a 
    'utilitarian' view of belief in general.
    
    Interviewer :  Do you believe in God ?
    
    Scientist   :  Yes, of course I do !
    
    Interviewer :  But you are a woman of science, of facts, how can you
    			believe in something you can't see or verify ?
    
    Scientist   :  I was evolved to believe in God.  I have no choice.
    			The transcendent in some form is a human neccessity, 
    			without it we have difficulty finding a sense of 
    			purpose, we might as well be dead.
    			So I believe.
    				

> how can you
> believe in something you can't see or verify ?

The Sufis assert that this dimension most certainly can be observed and
verified, using the proper instruments. There is nothing "fuzzy" about
it at all.

>The Sufis assert that this dimension most certainly can be observed and
>verified, using the proper instruments. There is nothing "fuzzy" about
>it at all.
    
    Indeed. Apparently the interview isn't representative of
    discussions between Sufi biochemists and interviewers.  They 
    would obviously have a different discussion entirely.
    
    							todd

> Indeed. Apparently the interview isn't representative of
> discussions between Sufi biochemists and interviewers.

Indeed indeed! Such an animal exists (Sufi biochemists)! What is
possibly even rarer is Sufi interviewers.

    What do the Sufi's say, Mike?  Do you know anything about them?

    
    Mary,
    
    Sufis lie, so don't believe anything they say.  (;^)
    
    (Someone else may want to explain the above.)
    
    Cindy

    Don't bother explaining, Cindy... I won't believe you anyway.. ;-)

I only know what I've read, and from the one or two Sufis I've met.
Best idea would be to check out the books by Idries Shah. Fascinating,
and well worth the time spent looking for them. I'll have to warn you,
though: the Sufis take a very Jamie-like approach to things. They don't
put up with much "feel-like" stuff, and will rip to shreds anyone who
isn't brutally honest.

Re .109 (Mike)

>The Sufis assert that this dimension most certainly can be observed and
>verified, using the proper instruments. There is nothing "fuzzy" about
>it at all.

The next question is: will these instruments be acceptable for 'common'
science?

<chuckle>

Arie

Oh yes, Mike! Jamie would be considered a Sufi by the Sufis!

:-)

Arie

    Hmmm ... I wonder if The Amazing Randi and Martin Gardner are
    Sufis as well.  Arabic mystics show up in the strangest places !
    
    							todd

> The next question is: will these instruments be acceptable for 'common'
> science?

In all seriousness, absolutely without a doubt. There is nothing
unsavory or slippery about Sufi methods. In fact, Sufis know that their
methods are as pure a science as could be found. Much purer, in fact,
than our conventional science which is polluted by political
favoritism, personal bias, and what have you.

The challenge for the "uninitiated" conventional scientist is in coming
to understand and accept a methodology and paradigm which is not so
different from quantum mechanics, where experiments must be designed
and executed carefully, because the act of observation affects the
result. Once this obstacle is surmounted, everything proceeds
completely normally, in perfect accordance with accepted scientific
practise of rigorous, objective observation. Any attempt to shade or
disguise the truth is ruthlessly ripped apart. Reading Shah's books
gives one the clearest understanding of this.

    Do you happen to have an ISBN number?

I'll check tonight. Shah has written over a dozen books, many short and
very readable, some fairly difficult (along the lines of Hofstadter's
_Goedel, Escher, Bach_, or the stuff by Krishnamurty, or even Pirsig's
_Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_).

    Mike,
    	Any examples of well known 'initiated' conventional scientists ?
    	I'm not sure I follow you completely.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

Re the 'concreteness' of Sufis.

The book I have read from Idries Shah (called, quite appropriately, 'The
Sufis') indicates such a view on the spiritual that it would probably also
be called 'fuzzy' by the 'common' scientists.

An example can be found in the book on page 173, on El-Ghazali. El-Ghazali
is considered an influential Sufi, and has written many books, one of which
is called Mishkat el Anwar (Niche for Lights). Idries Shah:
"He explains that everything has an Outward and an Inward significance. They
 do not operate together, though they both work consistently within their own
 dimensions."

A few lines down:
"In a translation of the Niche made in English by (...) Mr W. H. T.
 Gairdner, (he) speaks of the difficulty of understanding Ghazali on the
 subject of the point at which belief and disbelief meet (...):
 'All these things are incommunicable mysteries, secrets, from the revealing
  of which our author (Ghazali) turns away at the exact moment when we expect
  the denouement. (...)'"

I wouldn't suggest to read Sufi literature to resolve the fuzziness in other
people's heads.

Then again, there were many Sufis.....

:-)

Arie

Mary,

Idries Shah - The Sufis.

An Anchor book, published by Doubleday.

ISBN 0-385-07966-4

Glad to be of service!

         
    Re.114
    
    Mary, if Arie explains it, don't believe him either.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

In reading Shah, one should keep in mind that his work is directed at a
Western audience, and one which comprises a mix of "seekers of
enlightenment" and "scientists". Inspecting any particular passage out
of context, it is possible to conclude that Sufi methods are "fuzzy".
Or otherwise. And a single reading is not necessarily sufficient to
understand the topic, any more than a high school student's first read
of Max Planck's _Theory of Heat Radiation_ will bring an understanding
of QM. At least Shah makes sure to include an element of entertainment,
so the reader isn't left with totally dry material, unlike Planck's treatise.

Re Todd:

> Any examples of well known 'initiated' conventional scientists ?

I confess to not being qualified to name any, though I'm sure there are
quite a few (though I'm also sure they wouldn't necessarily admit it,
for a variety of reasons). Aside from that, Shah leads one to
understand that you need to be able to recognize this quality yourself.
It does no good to have someone point and say "see there, that person
understands". If you couldn't see that for yourself, you won't have any
better luck approaching the identified person and asking "what/how do
you know about this stuff?".

    re: Mike,
    
    Oh, then I guess I missed the point of why it matters that they
    might be initiated in Sufism.  I thought you were implying that it
    would be expressed in their work, somehow ?
    
    							todd

Let's go back to my original statement:

> The Sufis assert that this dimension most certainly can be observed and
> verified, using the proper instruments. There is nothing "fuzzy" about
> it at all.

Then later, I said:

> The challenge for the "uninitiated" conventional scientist is in coming
> to understand and accept a methodology and paradigm which is not so
> different from quantum mechanics ...

  An "uninitiated" scientist would be a person who we would recognize as
  a scientist, but who has not mastered the instruments and techniques
  of Sufi research (might even be unaware). Or, having been told of
  their existence and purpose, might be skeptical they they do, in fact,
  represent a totally rigorous and honest science, as opposed to some
  "feels-like" fantasy. Such a person could be totally honest and
  rigorous, yet not work in the domain of Sufi study.

  Now, please help me to understand what your question is.

    	
    
    	I was reading a book, and came across this passage:
    
    	"In a more general sense, the lower mind, whenever it attempts
    	 philosophy, is never quite certain that life is worth living;
    	 and in its utter blindness to spiritual realities, perceiving
    	 only the phenomena of the material world, it formulates theories
    	 of existence based merely upon them, regarding all else as
    	 unknowable."
    
    	I thought it was appropriate for this conference, since it fits
    	the profile of quite a few noters.  There is hope, however,
    	since this condition is only temporary, and it's only a matter
    	of time before the Inner Self gradually, slowly but surely takes
    	control over the lower self.
    
                    

    My goodness, I missed this conference!

    Fellow Deities:

    Jamie and Laurie are right.  There is no god.

    Cindy is right.  God is chocolate.

    You are all right about your definition of god.

    You are "right" because you create your own perception of god (or
    not-god).  

    When I hear all of us telling each other that our own position is
    "righter" than someone else's, I think about one inmate in an insane
    asylum whispering to another "Gee I think you're nuts."

    --Ruth

    :-) ... I've missed you, Ruth.. :-)