fatherman

For many of my years on this board I identified as a Christian panentheist. I still do some days. I have a whole other software engineering metaphor for panentheism. Object Oriented God. I know so few object oriented programmers who believe in God, that it is quite esoteric, but the correlation is astonishing.

relevant Science of Happiness: Why Your Complaining is Literally Killing You

Judgment meaning a value we place on something. Good bad ugly beautiful right wrong. It is our free will and consciousness which allows us to transcend a state of perpetual judgment. We have a store of judgments about everything in our subconscious. We cannot directly change that until we become conscious of it and choose to let it fall away from our perceptions of the world. February has been warmer than usual. We hit 80 degrees. In the summer, 80 degrees feels very nice. It's supposed to be warm in the summer. However, I feel very uncomfortable with it in February because it is abnormal. I worry that it is an indication of undesirable climate change. I don't enjoy it. If I let going of my judgment that it is a bad thing, I might enjoy the weather more.

I want amend to say that I do think there is value in experiencing the world without my brain's judgment, but I wonder if there are limits to it.

It is a device for the writer to express the common view that our ideas and senses betray us. One guy sees a mountain and sees nothing but danger, another guy sees nothing but beauty. We've judged the thing based on our ideas and experiences. The truth is that it is a pile of rocks, nothing more. It is our human consciousness that causes us to see something that isn't actually there. It really only exists in our minds (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). The question I am working with for myself is whether or not I will benefit from shedding my judgement of an object (whether it be a person, a god, a thing)? Many say I will. Many say that it is the key to enlightenment (whatever that may be). But I am hesitate. It is contrary to the way my brain naturally works. I can't not see the color. I can't not judge the mountain. This is how my brain grows in order to navigate my environment. Without it I would be in state of perpetual confusion. Some claim that I would be in a state of perpetually wonderment. I have a very close friend who is a very spiritual person. He subscribes to the notion that everything is an illusion in the human mind. In his view, the mountain doesn't exist at all except in his mind. It is true that it exists in our mind. But the mountain existed before human minds could perceive it. What an very human-centric thought to say that the Universe never existed until a human experienced it. I don't argue with him about it anymore because it helps him live the life he wants to live. Personally, I think it's a path to sociopathy.

As part of my Lenten discipline, I've done some spiritual writing. It's been many years since I'm written here about my ideas on The Beatitudes. I've written an 8 week study on the subject, and this is the premise. This is written from a theistic perspective, my I believe the principles hold true from a non-theistic perspective. I believe that one of the reasons there is a rise in the Spiritual But No Religious (SBNR) demographic and the diminishing of traditional Christianity is because so often the focus of Christianity is not on what to do but what not to do. Whereas, what people really want is a clear path to spiritual fulfillment. This makes programs like the eight-fold path of Buddhism and the 12 steps of AA so appealing to folks. There is a clearly defined path to spiritual fulfillment which has been tried and proven millions of times. So where is the step path in Christianity? I want to suggest to you, as have many, that the Beatitudes is such a path; a path to beatitude, which means supreme blessedness or happiness. Happiness, in American culture, is a very shallow thing. It's the name of a kid's meal at McDonald's. It's the word that really means that our life is going the way we want it to. But Jesus is proposing a different kind of happiness; one that orders society and our lives in such a way that brings about something far greater than our small ideas for what will make us happy. When we talk about the teachings of Jesus, we think of the parables and his various sayings, but Jesus had a stump speech that represents the culmination of his teaching. I say stump speech because Jesus went about teaching all over the place and this may have been his go to sermon. It's most associated with a large gathering on a hill which is known as The Sermon on the Mount. Many would have heard it, and I've certainly heard it or read it many times. But it has always perplexed me a bit. Is it Jesus rewarding the people he is describing? Is it a social justice movement? Is it about socio-economics? Have a look at it. On the surface, it is a description of the social order of the Kingdom of Heaven in which the last shall be first. All of the people at the bottom of society will rise to the top. It is a charge to recognize this order by how we see people and treat people. But I think there is more to it than social justice. It is, I believe, a personal spiritual path which culminates in a beatific life.Matthew 5 New International Version (NIV) The Beatitudes He said: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Jesus' Beatitudes provide for us eight steps to beatitude. I believe that they are ordered and build one upon the other. It is an unfolding path, from virtue to blessing, from blessing to virtue. The journey can be interpreted as: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Empty yourself and become humble, then receive a share in the responsibility for God's kingdom. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted." Out of care for God's world, mourn for the suffering of others and you will find comfort for your suffering. "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." When you are comforted, become comforting to those who are suffering in your midst and you will inherit a share responsibility with God for those who are suffering. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled." When you inherit responsibility for those who suffer, you recognize when suffering is unjust. You will not be satisfied with what is unrighteous in the world until righteousness wins and God satisfies you with it. "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." In being filled with righteousness and meekness, you will temper your zeal for righteousness with mercy, and in turn will be shown mercy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." When you receive mercy, your heart will be made pure and free from judgment and selfish intent, then you will experience the true nature of God. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." When you experience the true nature of God, you will have peace and will share it with the world, then you will be called a child of God. "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." When you are called a child of God, you can withstand all manner of pressures to swerve from the path of righteousness, you will experience beatitude. The culmination of these blessings is a state of supreme blessedness and happiness. We will be given the King of Heaven. And the Kingdom of Heaven is something which is "at hand". It is happening. It is within reach of our hand through this path. And with our blessing will play our part in furthering the kingdom that Jesus has described. Beatitude is the relationship between virtues and blessings. In our virtue, God will bless us. And in our blessing we will become virtuous. Jesus' Way (as in the Way, the Truth, and the Life, or as in the original title of Christianity, The Way) teaches us that we are to become perfected in this way, but not on our own. It requires a relationship with God and a relationship with the world. Virtue and blessing flow from God, and do not exist outside of relationships. The Beatitudes, like the Commandments, are the principles for ordering a new way of living for a new society (the Kingdom of God). Just as the Commandments ordered the Chosen People, the Beatitudes order the Kingdom of God.

"the question becomes do we need to fill that incompleteness." I think we have needed this since the dawn of human consciousness. Some on this board have recently made compelling arguments for not filling the gap with God just in case God is not real, and that this is the next step in human consciousness evolution. I see the validity in this, but reject it for myself. Music is an interesting example. I've written extensively on this subject. Sounding Brass or Clanging Cymbal. My contention is that the human mind draws a distinction between noise and music based on what is already in the mind or not. In that sense, it is subjective and not necessarily a choice It is our experience which gives sound meaning. Believing in God is not necessarily a choice, but choice can be a significant factor. My belief in God began with my parents. But for most of my young adult life, God was primarily an idea which I accepted as true. But it was not until I had certain experiences did I truly believe. These experiences could have very well happened to you and yet you might choose not to attribute any of it to a god. I realize that it is not that simple. My experiences up to that point influenced my choice, but I still believe that there was a choice to make. "For me god is like Santa Claus ... a useful concept to get me through a certain stage in life. Perhaps like training wheels on a bicycle; its OK to take off those wheels when we are ready and experience life for what it is rather than for what we want it to be." There certainly is a construct for a god that is like a Santa Claus, and that needs to be shed in order to better understand the nature of God. If Santa Claus God is like training wheels, then what do you have when you remove the training wheels? Atheism or a step closer to a truer relationship with God? Either are valid. Neither is a sign of maturity or immaturity.

You wrote, "But evolution has also created brains and central nervous systems that make consciousness possible, but the raw data bombarding us is useless as raw data; it must be interpreted. So where does data turn into the experience of color? Not in the rods and cones of our eyes. Not in the neurons of our brains. There is no physical locus where we can objectively show that data has been turned into the experience of color. So I conclude that experience is non-physical, and that our consciousness is affected by external stimulus, but is not totally controlled by it. " My color illustration was a response to this. I may have misunderstood. Perhaps I'm making a poor example of it. My point, however, stands as a subject of conversation. The Matrix metaphor, in fact, points to the problem of not knowing what ultimate really, but believing as if we do. My point is that Keanu knows for a fact that the gray stuff is the reality of the food, but that what if he didn't know the ultimate truth of it? Should he still choose the gray stuff just in case? That is the choice we have when it comes to God. We don't know if God is the ultimate reality, so why choose the gray stuff over the good stuff or vice versa? My purpose on this forum is primarily selfish. I'm not interested in persuading anyone. I'm interested in exploring my ideas and yours for my benefit. I've learned a lot from the folks here over the last decade plus (since before it was even hosted here), not just by what they wish to teach, but how they respond to my ideas. It helps me develop and grow intellectually. It's immaterial whether it is a playful exercise. You may be referring to me pushing on you regarding your desire to start a revolution of sorts. I couldn't really fully understand what your idea was until I understood what the impetus and the goals were. The gap between what we experience and what the object truth is can only be filled with subjectivity. The first choice is to fill the gap or not. I suspect that some here are making a case that filling that gap when it comes to God is problematic. If I don't implement ideas discussed here in a practical way in my life, then yes it is a playful exercise. Often, that is the case. In so, discussion here is merely a hobby. Or course, I've seen writing here become influential and even become a form of ministry to folks who come here looking for answers. That is my secondary purpose here, to work together with the members to support those who need it, and that is most certainly one of the missions of this movement, to gather seekers and questioners into the fold of Christianity; folks who felt excluded by the mainstream. If you participate here long enough, you will see how people's views evolve. If the archive from the previous site were available, you would see my humanistic, hyper-intellectual, scientific self grow into a hyper-new-age-spiritual self, grow into what I am now, whatever that may be. This evolution starts with experience, but this forum has helped me clarify and articulate what my experiences mean to me. That was more than you were looking for, but this seems like a good opportunity to express to you what this discussion is to me.

Fair enough. I've shared similar sentiments.

I've had my fair share of spirits on a cruise before. Costly.

I deleted part of the last post to which you may be referring because I needed to rethink my example a bit. I think, though, I'm just going to let it be. Perhaps science will reach a limit in objectifying the Universe. I toy with the idea from time to time but ultimately abandon it. One of the reasons I abandon it is that although science may not ever be able to disprove God and all that might come with it, it's just a tiny bit conceivable to me that science could isolate an intelligent non-material force in the world. If that happened, then what are the consequences? Now, rather than having faith, we will have a choice: put your trust into God or go it alone; whereas now, the first choice is to believe if there even is a God. Until you take a step of faith, you'll never have to consider the choice you will have if God is quantifiably true. Would knowing God existed be good for humanity? That's really the question I come to. It might be worth working through.

There is no positive use in arguing with that. If that is working for you, then I whole-heartedly recommend you continue esteeming maturity with that measurement.

You've identified a hierarchy of belief. Because I believe this, it allows me to believe in this, this, this, and this. The argument of whether ascension is possible starts with the belief that God is supernatural and "is capable of violating physical law at will." There is no point debating the ascension. There is only debating the nature of God, and as you've said, our beliefs about the nature of God are entirely subjective. Well, you may say, most people believe in a supernatural God so how can they all be self-delusional? That is bad logic, but it might have some truth to it. Why do so many people believe in a supernatural God? Are most people too stupid to know better? Most people know little of quantum mechanics and such. So is there no hope for the dumb masses? Does proper faith require a high IQ and exhaustive scientific study? Well that question has a flaw as well. I don't need to know how my smart phone works to use and enjoy it. Perhaps we should put all of our faith in the scientist just as we have in the engineers. Maybe that's what we are actually debating. In their ignorance, who do the dumb masses trust? (dumb masses sounds ugly, but that is an inference we can make from the nature of our discussions on tcpc) Ultimately, for me, it comes down to how we want to live, not how or who we want to believe. When I meditate, something quantifiable happens to my nervous system that produces the effect I am seeking. This is recent knowledge. All we knew before is that it works. Would it not be arrogant to assume that other things we do which work or not work will be supported in a quantifiable way in the near future? When a consensus of scientists agree on something, it becomes something objective, something that was perhaps before subjective. Are we done then? Understand, I am no scientist. The collective scientific knowledge of this board is extraordinary, and I would never enter into a debate on scientific matters. But I have learned a lot about spiritual matters through many years of experience and practice. What spiritual people are doing is causing their brain to work in a certain way that can be very positive, like isometrics. I contract my muscles as if there were a weight in my hand. The muscle grows regardless.

So elegantly reasoned, Rodge. This raises the question for me, then what are we to make of the difference between our perception and the ultimate reality? I've explored this a little in a previous post. I used the scene from The Matrix when the true reality of food has been revealed to him. He has a choice to experience the illusion that his food is appealing and delicious. He chooses the reality that his food is gray and tasteless because he is training himself to live in reality. So what would he do if he had no way of knowing which was real and which was illusion? He might choose the gray stuff in case it was real. He might choose the juicy steak because it might be real. Either way, he doesn't know. We cannot choose not to experience color, although we may know it is an illusion, but we can choose to enjoy it or not even though it is an illusion. In some philosophies, it is suggested that the living in reality is a higher state of consciousness. But what of matters of spirituality? We don't know if God is a factual reality. Should we then live as if it is or live as if it isn't? Harry is very self aware. He has acknowledged that God's reality is a flip of the coin, and finds peace in living as if God does not exist. I accept the same thing, but I choose to live as if God does exist. I'd rather have the juicy steak in other words. Again, I love what you've written here. There is a free will thread where this would be a valuable contribution. Maybe you've already written there. this notion of human consciousness "I think it is more reasonable to think my human consciousness was able to make an unpredictable choice". I agree with this. This, perhaps, is something uniquely human, though it is a matter of elevating consciousness. It's easy to be predictable. Our genes determine far more than we realize. I saw a picture of my deceased grandmother sitting precisely the way my daughter sits. My daughter never met her. Imagine that. The way she sits was predetermined at her birth. It makes one question free will altogether, but I believe that we are capable of determining our fate.

You've stated that those who believe in a literal ascension are self-delusional. Perhaps you are putting that in that category of fairy tale, something an immature person such as a child would believe. Am I understanding you correctly?

It is worth considering. In the scope of these questions, science is incomplete. My position on this in flux. I might say something different even tomorrow. Today, I have an image that God is a designer. God has designed a universe where perhaps billions variations in human biology are possible. Even though I have an identical twin with identical DNA, I'm am unique in some ways. DNA suggests a biological configuration. Take my smart phone. It has a configurable state. I can choose my lock screen image. I can choose my security settings for the lock screen. My thoughts, my experiences, my health, my environment affect which of my genes are dormant and which are active. If bipolar is genetic, then my gene for it is turned on. This goes back to my idea of binary building blocks. Something triggered my bipolar gene. My brother's bipolar gene never turned on. Did God want this for me and my brother? I don't know. Whether or no God intended this configuration for me is less important than what meaning I attach to it. I configured my phone because I desired a certain state for operation. I might decide that I welcome the activation of my bipolar gene. This puts me in a more proactive posture for living. That is, I live as if I've chosen to have bipolar. I learn and grow because of it. For me, where God enters the picture, is in helping me grow from my circumstance. If I surrender my bipolar to God, then I become open to the possibility that he can do something good with it. The question of whether it is an actual reality is less important to me than how living this way can better my life. I believe that we can unlock potential in this process. To continue with the programming metaphor, I would say that God is like Gosling, the inventor of the Java language, he is the God of Java. Both God and I can program with it. Let's say I hire Gosling as a consultant. He can code the parts of my system which I give to him. He's actually an infinitely better programming than I am so there is benefit to contracting him when I just can't figure it out. There is also benefit for me to figure it out. Being a musician is a large factor. Musicians brains grow through the study of music into a biological state that is optimal for software engineering. Music study can be likened, in this metaphor, to spiritual practice. When we attend to regular practice (spiritual or otherwise), we will gain the skills to create our own software. We can't create the computer or the operating system, but we can build software which can enhance our capabilities and make our lives closer to the way we want it. Gosling can also give me ideas which inspire me to build things I might not have conceived otherwise. So God, through the Universe, designed us. There are choices which make that can make something out of that design. And if we are open to it, God can enhance us in ways we have not yet imagined.

Soma, as I'm reading this a rainstorm is making a soundscape for your thoughts. Perhaps you and God sensed my need of these thoughts and sounds tonight. This is grace for me. I've been thinking a lot about brain programming this week. I'm working with the idea that I can change the structure of my brain over time for the better or the worse. I've chosen an affirming statement to help change some unwanted behavior rather than beat myself up over it every time I behave this way. A say it all day regardless of whether i do it or not. My understanding is that over the course of months, my brain may change in a way that will decrease the behavior. I'm a programmer, and I often speak with clients about training the software to do what they need it to do. My approach is organic aND artistic. I don't manufacture software. Its an ongoing process. I think that is what we are: an organic, artistic, process. We've written a lot about absolute truth of late. It's good to see things as they really are, but we are like God, we are artists. When we see a tree, we become artists. We see it the way we see it, based on a million little variations in our organic process of living. We paint our own reality in the absence of absolute truth. What prevents us from seeing reality, though, is judgment. We say that this tree is beautiful and this tree is ugly. This stands in the way of our artistry. If we can paint our reality, that means we can change our reality. We talk about mind altering. Mind altering drugs. Mind altering sex. Mind altering meditation. We can change the way we see and understand the world at the atomic level, the energy level even if only for a single second. We get a flash of what reality could be or truly is. We can train our software to be what we as the programmer want it to be, the artist.

Rodge, s group in my city tried precisely what you are proposing. It was put on by an interfaith alliance. They hosted discussion events around topics of all sorts and with speakers. It fizzled our when the leader fizzled out which is a shame. It's possible. Will ponder your response more tomorrow.

(to be read with smiling energy and passion...sometimes I look angry when I'm not.) 1. You wrote, "If personal faith is based on experience, learning, and inspiration, what is institutional faith based upon?" You cite committee reports. The way Presby USA and UMC work is that representatives from every church get together annually to propose statements of belief or change statements of belief, a consensus by way of voting. Do I support every statement? No, but I support enough of them to remain a Methodist or a Presbyterian. Some say they're dead or worthless documents, but there has to be a way of denominating those churches. I can walk into any city in the US and most likely be able to walk into one of those churches a feel a sense of solidarity with the members, feel that I can worship without the distraction of significantly conflicting beliefs or doctrine. So how is national consensus gained if not by experience, learning, and inspiration? These churches are egalitarian. There are no dictates from hierarchy. It starts with people like me. So PCUSA and UMC are institutions, true, but not like a bank or a library or school. In a school, the kids don't get to decide the rules. In PCUSA and the like, the kids DO decide the rules. 2. "That means that it can be claimed to be true for the individual expressing it, but not that it can be claimed to be true for anyone else." Yes. No one here is arguing with this. A faith could also be defined as a collection of spiritual beliefs held by an individual, a congregation, a denomination, or a religion. I don't even belief what everyone in my congregation believes, but we stand and confess the Apostle's Creed together. We sing the hymns together. We hear the scripture together. We are bound together by certain core beliefs, if only a belief in community. I know there are lot's here in Oklahoma and throughout the Bible Belt that fervently believe that there is nothing subjective about the Word of God. That will never change. That is why fundamentalists feel so compelled to change the minds and hearts of people and even the laws. To them, it is FACT, and the facts are veeeeerrry scary. Many act out of pure love. They don't want to see me burn in Hell. That is very compassionate. However, many, even in this state, are not fundamentalists. That means the interpretation of the Bible is subjective. And if the Bible is subjective, then belief is subjective and personal. All of that scary BS that the fundies thump on about is written in black and white in the scriptures. That cannot be denied. But through scholarly reading, I see it very differently. And to be honest, I flat out disagree with much which was written. I make no bones about me being a heretic. It would be rather arrogant of me to claim that I knew the TRUE message of scripture and that it all agrees with me if you all just interpret it the way I do. In another time, I would have been burned at the stake. But it is all subjective to me, to the point that I support the concept that to some it is actually 100% objective. 3. "Instead, I am arguing, the true mission given by Jesus is to call people to consider more seriously their gift of human consciousness. The Christian church can do this by providing communities where respectful discussions about subjective truths can take place." I believe you are underestimating the depth of knowledge within "The Church" regarding human consciousness. Jesus's message is about changing human consciousness into a state of love, compassion, forgiveness, humility...read the Beatitudes. This is not a secret at all. This is preached from pulpits of all denominations every Sunday morning. There are many many many thousands of Christian communities doing just this, "respectful discussions about subjective truths can take place" every Sunday morning. I would like you to be very specific here. Please describe the faith community you actually participated in that is not these things that wish The Church were. I like hypothetical conversations, but they carry a lot more weight and are far more persuasive when they are life-tested. If you haven't already attended a number of churches, you might consider doing so before you attempt to "rally thoughtful Christians" to do anything. Christianity is not just a debate or an idea for everyone. It's a life-giving, life-saving, transformative path. Is that what you are hoping for for yourself and other "thoughtful Christians"?

I've edited my last post to remove a negative personal response I had that would not at all be helpful in this conversation. If you already read it, just know that it is immaterial here.

Self-delusional. For clarity's sake, are you implying that religious faith is a form of mental illness? I know there is a push for this within the APA. Perhaps that is not what you are suggesting.

Rodge, I'd like to look at your question as well. The answer is yes and no. There are Christians who do claim to know the objective truth about God. However, many call it a matter of faith, and not just progressives. Christianity has always been about faith. The truth is that even if God walked down here and showed everybody he was real, some people would still not be compelled to have a relationship with him. It would still be a matter of faith. As far as what Christians should do, I not only agree, it's been my church experience 100%. Presbyterian, Methodists, and even a few experiences with non-denominational. Like I've said, it sounds like it's time for you to consider trying out some other churches if only to have a better understanding of what mainstream Christianity looks like. What could it hurt? I'm not sure where you've been. Church of Christ? Jehovah's Witnesses? Southern Baptist? Catholic? Why not Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian USA, United Methodist, Disciples of Christ? I'm not sure the non-church going public knows that there is a vast difference between those 1st four and the last 5.

I like the idea "I am not a human being having a spiritual experience. I am a spiritual being having a human experience". I think it is important to be conscious of the soul, even to live in soul consciousness at times. But if we are truly spiritual beings having a human experience, we should embrace the humanity in our lives. I no long subscribe to the idea that we should always be striving to transcend our own humanity. We will live a fully spiritual life soon enough. But problems arise when we forget what we truly are. Our brains are wired in a way that we may remember our soul and even live in it with practice. It is important because it is very possible that we or perhaps God have ordained our human life for a purpose, as was said, to experiment. But it would be worthless for a scientist to experiment with no sense of purpose, no hypothesis, no measurements. I wonder if It's the soul which is aware of this.

Rodge, I believe that the concept of supernatural is an illusion. Scientific knowledge continues to evolve. If scientists had it all figured out, then they could go and be professors or chemists or something. There is a gap between ultimate reality and what we've observed scientifically. Of that, there can be little doubt. The word supernatural should properly be superscience.