Knowledge Instead Of Faith, Direct Experience Instead Of Dogma

[Amergin]

Personaly I like both of these

but faith is very important, faith the size of a mustard seed and all that, the substance of things unseen, the currency of heaven, the Kingdom of Heaven is an invisible Kingdom which we access by faith.

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying. If faith is so important, why are there so many different faiths. What does it mean, the "currency of heaven?" Faith is invisible, intangible, and really unexplainable. If Heaven is invisible, for what reason do you think it is real?

Microbes are invisible to the naked eye, but I can see them through a microscope. Atoms are invisible but we can see them with the Atomic Force Microscopy, and we can examine their structure through precise observation of their activity.

UpQuarks, DownQuarks, Higgs Bosons, and superstrings are not yet visible so we must agree that they are theoretical, yet we can measure their effects. We in the Science professions must admit that some of the findings in the Quantum Universe may be incorrect and await more information.

That is what makes Science so different from Religion. Science investigates. I seeks answers based on the best evidence. We admit that sometimes we will be wrong and need to revise theories. We never claim infallibility like Christianity or Islam only to expose them to debunking if their beliefs are wrong. E.G. 6000 year old Earth, geocentric solar system, 6000 year old universe, humans created by magic and being special (unrelated to Anthropoid Apes,) thought being a brain function, impregnating a virgin by a being without DNA, death and resurrection of a proven dead man.

The Church never compromises and says it may be wrong. It maintains some disproven beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Amergin

 

[Dogbrain]

That is what makes Science so different from Religion.

What makes science different from religion is that real scientists, as opposed to groupies and scientismists, don't capitalize "science", since science is not a religion a-la Islam, Jain, etc. It's a methodology, not worthy of silly gestures like capitalization. I don't capitalize "socket wrench", even though I find them to be pretty darn useful. Likewise, even though I've got a pretty good list of publications in peer-reviewed journals, I consider science to be bread-and-butter, just a tool. It's not to be capitalized with some kind of daffy para-religious awe.

So, tell me, what is your field, and what are your publications? This is not an unfair question, since that is how scientists "get to know" each other if a face-to-face meeting is not practical. If you're not a scientist, then upon what authority do you presume to tell the world what "Science" as you like to spell it, does and how it does things? Perhaps you have some very good authority, but I tend to be the sort of person who would ask a plumber what plumbing is before I'd ask someone who is a fan of plumbing.

And, to forestall the "you first" response:

​

1. Lahiri, D. K., and Maloney, B. (2010) The "LEARn" (Latent Early-life Associated Regulation) model integrates environmental risk factors and the developmental basis of Alzheimer's disease, and proposes remedial steps. Exp. Gerontol. 45, 291-296
2. Maloney, B., Ge, Y. W., Petersen, R. C., Hardy, J., Rogers, J. T., Perez-Tur, J., and Lahiri, D. K. (2010) Functional characterization of three single-nucleotide polymorphisms present in the human APOE promoter sequence: Differential effects in neuronal cells and on DNA-protein interactions. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 153B, 185-201
3. Lahiri, D. K., Maloney, B., Bailey, J., and Ge, Y.-W. (2009) Role of alzheimer's amyloid-beta peptide as a putative transcription factor. In Peptides: Breaking Away, Proceedings of the Twenty-First American Peptide Symposium (Lebl, M., ed) pp. 185-186, Prompt Scientific Publishing, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
4. Dosunmu, R., Wu, J., Adwan, L., Maloney, B., Basha, M. R., McPherson, C. A., Harry, G. J., Rice, D. C., Zawia, N. H., and Lahiri, D. K. (2009) Lifespan profiles of Alzheimer's disease-associated genes and products in monkeys and mice. J. Alzheimers Dis. 18, 211-230
5. Lahiri, D. K., Maloney, B., and Zawia, N. H. (2009) The LEARn model: an epigenetic explanation for idiopathic neurobiological diseases. Mol. Psychiatry 14, 992-1003
6. Lahiri, D. K., Zawia, N. H., Greig, N. H., Sambamurti, K., and Maloney, B. (2008) Early-life events may trigger biochemical pathways for Alzheimer's disease: the "LEARn" model. Biogerontol.
7. Wen, Y., Yu, W. H., Maloney, B., Bailey, J., Ma, J., Marie, I., Maurin, T., Wang, L., Figueroa, H., Herman, M., Krishnamurthy, P., Liu, L., Planel, E., Lau, L. F., Lahiri, D. K., and Duff, K. (2008) Transcriptional regulation of beta-secretase by p25/cdk5 leads to enhanced amyloidogenic processing. Neuron 57, 680-690
8. Wu, J., Basha, M. R., Brock, B., Cox, D. P., Cardozo-Pelaez, F., McPherson, C. A., Harry, J., Rice, D. C., Maloney, B., Chen, D., Lahiri, D. K., and Zawia, N. H. (2008) Alzheimer's disease (AD)-like pathology in aged monkeys after infantile exposure to environmental metal lead (Pb): evidence for a developmental origin and environmental link for AD. J. Neurosci. 28, 3-9
9. Ge, Y.-W., Maloney, B., Alley, G. M., and Lahiri, D. K. (2007) Important Differences between Human and Mouse APOE Gene Promoters: Implications in Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Neurochem. 103, 1237-1257
10. Lahiri, D. K., Maloney, B., Basha, M. R., Ge, Y. W., and Zawia, N. H. (2007) How and when environmental agents and dietary factors affect the course of Alzheimer's disease: the "LEARn" model (latent early-life associated regulation) may explain the triggering of AD. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 4, 219-228
11. Lahiri, D. K., Maloney, B., and Ge, Y.-W. (2006) BACE1 gene promoter is differentially regulated: Detection of a novel promoter region for its cell type–specific regulation. J. Mol. Neurosci. 28, 193-210
12. Lahiri, D. K., Maloney, B., and Ge, Y.-W. (2006) Functional Domains of the BACE1 and BACE2 promoters and mechanisms of transcriptional suppression of the BACE2 promoter in normal neuronal cells. J. Mol. Neurosci. 29, 65-80
13. Sokol, D. K., Chen, D., Farlow, M. R., Dunn, D. W., Maloney, B., Zimmer, J. A., and Lahiri, D. K. (2006) High levels of Alzheimer beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP) in children with severely autistic behavior and aggression. J. Child. Neurol. 21, 444-449
14. Maloney, B., Ge, Y. W., Greig, N. H., and Lahiri, D. K. (2006) Characterization of the human beta-secretase 2 (BACE2) 5'-Flanking region: identification of a 268-bp region as the basal BACE2 promoter. J. Mol. Neurosci. 29, 81-99
15. Lahiri, D. K., Wavrant De-Vrieze, F., Ge, Y.-W., Maloney, B., and Hardy, J. (2005) Characterization of two APP gene promoter polymorphisms that appear to influence risk of late-onset Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol. Aging 26, 1329-1341
16. Lahiri, D. K., Ge, Y.-., W., and Maloney, B. (2005) Characterization of the APP proximal promoter and 5'-untranslated regions: identification of cell-type specific domains and implications in APP gene expression and Alzheimer's disease. FASEB J. 19, 653-655
17. Du, Y., Chen, X., Wei, X., Bales, K. R., Berg, D. T., Paul, S. M., Farlow, M. R., Maloney, B., Ge, Y.-W., and Lahiri, D. K. (2005) NF-kappaB mediates amyloid beta peptide-stimulated activity of the human apolipoprotein E gene promoter in human astroglial cells. Brain Res. Mol. Brain Res. 136, 177-188
18. Huang, Z., Elkin, G., Maloney, B. J., Beuhner, N., Arntzen, C. J., Thanavala, Y., and Mason, H. S. (2005) Virus-like particle expression and assembly in plants: hepatitis B and Norwalk viruses. Vaccine 23, 1851-1858
19. Maloney, B. J., Takeda, N., Suzaki, Y., Ami, Y., Li, T. C., Miyamura, T., Arntzen, C. J., and Mason, H. S. (2005) Challenges in creating a vaccine to prevent hepatitis E. Vaccine 23, 1870-1874
20. Ge, Y.-W., Ghosh, M., Song, W., Maloney, B., and Lahiri, D. (2004) Mechanism of promoter activity of the beta-amyloid precursor protein gene in different cell types. Identification of a specific 30 bp fragment in the proximal promoter region. J. Neurochem. 90, 1432-1444
21. Ge, Y.-W., Maloney, B., Sambamurti, K., and Lahiri, D. K. (2004) Functional characterization of the 5' flanking region of the BACE gene: identification of a 91 bp fragment involved in basal level of BACE promoter expression. FASEB J. 18, 1037-1039
22. Sambamurti, K., Kinsey, R., Maloney, B., Ge, Y. W., and Lahiri, D. K. (2004) Gene structure and organization of the human beta-secretase (BACE) promoter. FASEB J. 18, 1034-1036
23. Bellingham, S. A., Lahiri, D. K., Maloney, B., La Fontaine, S., Multhaup, G., and Camakaris, J. (2004) Copper depletion down-regulates expression of the Alzheimer's disease amyloid-beta precursor protein gene. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 20378-20386
24. Maloney, B., Ge, Y. W., Greig, N., and Lahiri, D. K. (2004) Presence of a "CAGA box" in the APP gene unique to amyloid plaque-forming species and absent in all APLP-1/2 genes: implications in Alzheimer's disease. FASEB J. 18, 1288-1290
25. Guo, P., Scholz, E., Maloney, B., and Welniak, E. (1994) Construction of recombinant avian infectious laryngotracheitis virus expressing the beta-galactosidase gene and DNA sequencing of the insertion region. Virology 202, 771-781
26. Guo, P., Scholz, E., Turek, J., Nodgreen, R., and Maloney, B. (1993) Assembly pathway of avian infectious laryngotracheitis virus. Am. J. Vet. Res. 54, 2031-2039

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Religion is for puddinheads. Again.

A scientific enumeration of religion reveals a great deal about how culture works. But religion itself is concerned with creating status. That is it's function. Politics is more akin to religion than religion is to science. And only in political reprise can religion present itself the coefficient of science.

Chris

 

[Dogbrain]

Today's vocabulary word is "Scientism".

 

[Dogbrain]

Religion is for puddinheads. Again.

A scientific enumeration of religion reveals a great deal about how culture works. But religion itself is concerned with creating status. That is it's function. Politics is more akin to religion than religion is to science. And only in political reprise can religion present itself the coefficient of science.

Chris

An Orthodox Christian priest, Fr. John Romanides, has referred to religion as a "sickness", actually. No, he was not censured for it.

 

[c0de]

Religion is for puddinheads.

actually, u know what's really for "puddinheads"?

The use of the word "puddinheads"

But religion itself is concerned with creating status. That is it's function. Politics is more akin to religion than religion is to science. And only in political reprise can religion present itself the coefficient of science.

sounds like the standard marxist inspired spiel.

also sounds like you desperately need some thoughts of your own.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying. If faith is so important, why are there so many different faiths. What does it mean, the "currency of heaven?" Faith is invisible, intangible, and really unexplainable. If Heaven is invisible, for what reason do you think it is real?
Amergin

i am talking about faith as per my understanding of faith in Christianity not faith as in different religions,

I will paraphrase, faith is the substance of things unseen, the things unseen are eternal the things seen are temporary, as for heaven being invisible i have not seen it with my eyes but i have been there in my spirit, in fact i am seated in heavenly places with Christ all time my spirit is anyway.

 

[Raksha]

Hello Thomas, that's quite an interesting name you got there. Well of course Thomas is a popular name, but I do have a particular interest in the disciple Thomas, he is one of my favorites of Jesus's disciples. In particular, my favorite book in all of christianity would probably be the Gospel of Thomas. I do feel that this gospel catches the message of Jesus quite well, much more than other gospels. It's a shame it was left out of the official canon that the majority of christians consider as the word of god. I suppose this has something to do with the fact that Constantine, the so called "Saint" who convened the council of nicaea, didn't like what was being said in how the gospel empowered individuals, not the church, in their quest for union with the divine. It's no wonder this same tyrant murdered millions of christians to promote his new church as the only valid one.

Psychedelic Dragon,

Wow...You really ARE a newbie!!! I'm not, although I haven't been around for a few months until today.

I don't disagree with anything you said in your post. I have the same high opinion of the Gospel of Thomas you do, and the same low (or lower) opinion of the Council of Nicaea. But the Thomas you addressed your post to isn't going to see it that way, unless he's had some kind of metanoia experience in the time I've been away from this forum.

I'm only on the first page of this topic and just now catching up with it, so you have undoubtedly found that out already. It should be entertaining if nothing else to see how it unfolds.

--Linda aka Raksha

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

actually, u know what's really for "puddinheads"?

The use of the word "puddinheads"

sounds like the standard marxist inspired spiel.

also sounds like you desperately need some thoughts of your own.

Puddinhead..

 

[Paladin]

Puddinhead..

ah such language! Everyone is right and yet so very wrong! So sad that such a thread embodies bifurcation, but that is the way of things isn't it?


Gentles, do not reprehend! If you pardon we wil mend...

 

[earl]

I'd agree with Paladin that this may be a false dichtomy, but not for perhaps the same reason he does. Krishnamurti may have famelessly spoke of how Truth is a "pathless" land but then spent many decades attempting to point folks to the same realization he had attained, perhaps having faith it was in them to achieve while the many thronging to his talks had faith he had something worthy of listening to. earl

 

[Paladin]

I'd agree with Paladin that this may be a false dichtomy, but not for perhaps the same reason he does. Krishnamurti may have famelessly spoke of how Truth is a "pathless" land but then spent many decades attempting to point folks to the same realization he had attained, perhaps having faith it was in them to achieve while the many thronging to his talks had faith he had something worthy of listening to. earl

That is why I value your presence so much.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

ah such language! Everyone is right and yet so very wrong! So sad that such a thread embodies bifurcation, but that is the way of things isn't it?


Gentles, do not reprehend! If you pardon we wil mend...

What?! Why you....

Hey Mark, happy fourth!

You know, I find myself in the interesting, and not enviable position of having come to the end of my quest to figure it all out. And the answer is...E: all of the above.

Chris

 

[Paladin]

What?! Why you....

Hey Mark, happy fourth!

You know, I find myself in the interesting, and not enviable position of having come to the end of my quest to figure it all out. And the answer is...E: all of the above.

Chris

Happy fourth my friend!

A man I once knew told me that when two buddhas meet, they both fall down laughing...

I kinda understand what he meant now.

Reality is wonderful all by itself isnt' it?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Happy fourth my friend!

A man I once knew told me that when two buddhas meet, they both fall down laughing...

I kinda understand what he meant now.

Reality is wonderful all by itself isnt' it?

That's awesome! Two Buddhas bumpin' bellies! Ha, ha, ha!

Yeah. All meaning is derivative, and life is what we make it! You climb and scramble to get on top of the rock, then you wonder "what the hell am I doing up here?" "I'm tired, and there's no place to go to the bathroom!"

I tried like hell to find the all-encompassing model. I tried on ists and isms looking for the ultimate bathing suit. You know, you come out of religion with this giant block on your shoulder, and a serious need for superiority. I've done it all, man! Atheism, then a born again experience when things were tough. Then on to New Age feel-good-ism, into Taoism and Buddhism, and the Western Magical Tradition. I spent years on Kabbalah looking for the ultimate Logos. I dabbled in Scientology, go figure. Then it was Gnosticism, and Theosophy. I've read everything from Rand to Krishnamurti. I've hung out with ISHKONis, meditated with spirit guides, channeled space dudes, lived in a commune, been a vegan... lost weight, gained weight, got married, had kids, got divorced, been a Republican, been a Democrat, thought I was an anarchist. Now...I don't know anything- because I know everything.

It all comes back to purposeful living and the idea that nothing: no philosophy, no dogma, no politics absolves us of our responsibility toward each other, our fellow creatures, and the land. That's it. Empathy and responsibility. Laughing Buddhas indeed!

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

An Orthodox Christian priest, Fr. John Romanides, has referred to religion as a "sickness", actually. No, he was not censured for it.

Once I had read Ernest Becker it ruined me. We're all deeply in the neurosis of death denial. Really, religion provides the only available remedy, but it's an illusory remedy based on transference. Even Becker took the Kierkegaard route at the end and pussed out. It's an impossible thing to accept.

Chris

 

[Raksha]

Then it was Gnosticism, and Theosophy. I've read everything from Rand to Krishnamurti. I've hung out with ISHKONis, meditated with spirit guides, channeled space dudes, lived in a commune, been a vegan... lost weight, gained weight, got married, had kids, got divorced, been a Republican, been a Democrat, thought I was an anarchist. Now...I don't know anything- because I know everything.

Chris,

I know about most of the the other stuff, but I didn't realize you got divorced. When did that happen? It must have been fairly recently, because I was last around here in last November, which really all that long ago. However, we didn't exchange any PMs or e-mails, and I was also preoccupied with a relationship from my misspent youth that had recently been re-activated--but long distance and by e-mail this time.

In other words, even if there were signs of trouble in your marriage that were reflected in your posts, I could easily have missed them. Or it could be that you weren't saying anything in public at all. In any case I'm very sorry to hear about it.

Love and Light,
Linda

 

[bananabrain]

It all comes back to purposeful living and the idea that nothing: no philosophy, no dogma, no politics absolves us of our responsibility toward each other, our fellow creatures, and the land. That's it. Empathy and responsibility. Laughing Buddhas indeed!

i do rather agree with this. if everyone kept this in mind the world would be a far better place, whatever religion or none you belonged to.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Thomas]

Hi PsychedelicDragon —

I was just saying personal experience is a great spiritual tool we have, and exercising the spiritual centers of our body and mind are a good way to increase your spirit.

Depends on whether you mean little-s spirit, or big-s Spirit ... if the former, I quite agree. In my experience both mental and physical exercise does wonders for the spirit ... but then I regard spirit in this context as the psychodynamic entity — the person.

If the latter, big-S kind, then we're talking of something beyond the human person, and a soul-level engagement, that is of the whole person, heart-and-mind.

This you cannot 'exercise' as such, its not actually part of human nature. Rather it's something you 'engage' with, through prayer, whichI happen to believe, along with the
+++

But we should not lose sight of the fact that 'personal experience' is invariably a distraction, it's a product of a consumer-oriented culture that sees the only value of any investment in a return. It tends to lead one in the direction of quantitative rather than qualitative practice.

In reality, often when it appears as if nothing is going on, something is actually happening, but that process never gets to fruition because, in the error of assuming nothing's happening, the seeker gives up (and this nothing going on might last years ... )

Whereas conversely, when everything appears to be going on, actually there's often not much to speak of at all: Empty vessels make the most noise, etc..

The Christian Tradition has a long experience of testing personal experience, going back to Christ himself. Likewise Buddhism, in the practice of meditation, teaches one to disregard the phenomena that can accompany the practice. And of course Brahminic tradition would laugh at many of the West's supposed notions of 'enlightenment'.

My favourite expressions are two, One from the Sufi Tradition:
'The Way of the Sufi used to be a Way without a name, today it is a name without a way'

And a Zen one:
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water'
How would an experientialist recognise the difference?

It is axiomatic of every spiritual tradition, the need for a guru, and a master/disciple relationship is a given, for any real spiritual progress. The placing of oneself in the hands of another, the cultivation of detachment, humility, etc.

Only in the last 50 years or so has the idea of autonomous self-development emerged, and mostly as a byproduct of the post-60s 'turn on-tune in-drop out' syndrome which in many ways is the living antithesis of authentic spiritual development actually is.

The idea has now taken root in Western consumer-oriented materialist consciousness, fed by a plethora of 'how-to-do-it' books fuelling a subjectivist and ego-oriented optimism in the face of a personally-constructed fantasia.

In short ... one cannot overcome oneself, as the saying goes, 'the last to see it is you'. But there are plenty out there ready to take your money ...

Also ... what if 'experience' is not the object? The idea of doing good, or doing the right thing, is because it's the right thing to do, not because there's something in it for me.

The felt presence of immediate experience is quite important. When you are near the the higher altitudes of your consciousness it is a very powerful spiritual event.

I would consider this part of the psychodynamic range, rather than spiritual, but its a matter of lexicon and landscape, I suppose.

"The intense mystic altered state, producing loose cognitive-association binding, which then produces an experience of being controlled by frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future. Experiencing this model of control and time initially destabilizes self-control power, and amounts to the death of the self that was conceived of as an autonomous control-agent. Self-control stability is restored upon transforming one's mental model to take into account the dependence of personal control on a hidden, separate thought-source, such as Necessity or a divine level that transcends Necessity. Myth describes this mystic-state experiential insight and transformation."

Whew ... I thought my comment above was verging on psycho-babble ...

Constantine whiped out gnostic christianity.

What's your evidence for that? Arianism vexed him, but not gnosticism ... that was all over by the time Constantine came along.

Gnostic christianity had an enlightenment element to it, more so than the post-constinian christanity that represents the sides of salvation and redemption.

That seems an enormously assumptive and might I say ill-informed statement?

In my experience, I find far more 'light' in Christian writings, than in Gnostic, which seem largely speculations founded on poor philosophical concepts ...

Gnosticism imposes a number of intermediate realms / barriers (aeons, syzergies, etc.) between self and 'The One', which became ever-more inaccessible to any but the elite (the pnuematic), while the psychics were largely helpless, and the hylics hopeless ... so 'enlightenment' was reserved to the elect few.

Whereas Christianity shows that it is possible for the poorest soul to attain the most sublime heights ... Christianity was far more egalitarian, compared to gnostic elitism.

Then again, 'enlightenment' depends upon whether one's talking about 'self-enlightenment' (small-s spirit) as gnosticism does, or the Mystery of the Nuptial Union in the Mystical Body (big-S Holy Spirit) as Christianity does ...

Either way, Christian doctrine was no different before or after Constantine, that's my point.

But Jesus was a mystic.

I think that's a very 20th century rationalisation. Certainly, for the Christian mystics — from Justin Martyr to Thomas Merton — He is way more than that.

And please. Constantine was a murderer. Don't deny stuff like that.

Well, to be fair, I cannot condemn him on such a generalisation as that. What 'stuff' am I supposedly denying?

The Romans are the ones who killed Jesus anyways ... Like that prick Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe, but you cannot condemn one man for something that happened 300 years previously, nor hold one man guilty because his politics coincides with someone 2,000 years later ...

Constantine canon is not the official canon of anything.

More than that, as far as I know there is no such thing as a 'Constantine canon' at all ... so I'm not sure what you're talking about?

God did not come magically the Constantine and tell him what was real.

Nor has anyone ever said he did ... where are you getting this from?

The gospel of Thomas is as valid as any other gospel.

Depends on how you define 'valid' ...

I regard the GoT as an ancient sayings text belonging to a Syrian Christian tradition, possibly very early ... but why anyone should suppose it is the 'authentic' voice of Jesus, I'm not sure, as we're pretty sure its author wasn't an eye witness.

We know less about its author than we do of the author of Mark, Luke or John, for example, so their claim to 'validity' is greater ... and their testimony of what Christ did, as well as what Christ said, might suggest that the author of GoT knew nothing of Christ except a collection of sayings, which he redacted to suit his own purpose.

The author of GoT, unlike the author of the Gospels, or the Epistles, claims to be in receipt of a secret teaching — this is a typically gnostic claim in itself, and says volumes.

The text, largely a collection of enigmatic says, difficult to locate in any tradition (it was thought gnostic, but no longer, I think) is hamstrung by the fact that the sayings are not explained (another signifier). Personally I think the appeal of the GoT is that one can imagine any Jesus one likes, so in terms of that alone, it's the least valid ...

Some Roman Emperor is not going to change that.

That's my point, no emperor did ...

Thomas

 

[earl]

Even in Buddhism the intermingling of faith and experience was central. The Buddha obviously sought to instill among his students faith that, if treading a path similar to his own, they, like him, would reach the same realization. Though famously also said words to the effect, don't just take his word for it, check it out for yourself-sort of a "trust but verify" sort of thing.