Which Early Christian Heresy are You (good silly fun quiz)

This totally does away with the possibility of any 'spiritual consciousness'. Carl Jung's universal subconscious is out the window for serious consideration.

Anything like that. If it's not allowed by 'the standard model' (of physics) it cannot possibly exist -- or cannot possibly be proved or falsified. Because science demands that an idea must be falsifiable.

In other words, someone might be able to come along and prove that Einstein's special theory of relativity is actually incorrect. It might happen one day. So it's a 'falsifiable' theory.
 
I don't believe there to be anything behind the scenes. "This is it", if you ask me. It's all in the open for us to see, if we have eyes to see.

That said, I've had some experiences that I think were mystical or holy. I don't remember there to have been anything there, not me, not anything else either. Hard to make sense of.

For me there is no divide, only people trying to make sense of it all, each in their own ways. I don't expect anyone to share my conclusions.

Somewhere, there may well exist beings that are more intelligent or powerful than us. The universe is a big place. I don't think they would be Gods.
 
Did I miss a post? By Wil? (Edit: found it :) )

I find the idea that matter might be contingent and consciousness fundamental very intriguing.

Whether that means that there could be a shared consciousness on an individual human level is another discussion.
 
RJM Corbet said:
This totally does away with the possibility of any 'spiritual consciousness'. Carl Jung's universal subconscious is out the window for serious consideration.

Anything like that. If it's not allowed by 'the standard model' (of physics) it cannot possibly exist -- or cannot possibly be proved or falsified. Because science demands that an idea must be falsifiable.

In other words, someone might be able to come along and prove that Einstein's special theory of relativity is actually incorrect. It might happen one day. So it's a 'falsifiable' theory.
Click to expand...
Now you don't have to push the nuclear button, this a discussion.

You've skipped.half a.dozen steps that are not likely to be taken to.reach those conclusions.

Things don't have to be falsifiable, but they should be provable.
 
Cino said:
In the sense that all human constructs are imaginary, yes.

I also believe that the biblical injunction against forming images of God is good advice, and should be extended to mental images, and assigning properties (including existence).
Click to expand...
You know, my wife and most of my in-laws are Hindu. They hail from the Fiji Islands and in their particular Hindu tradition, they do acknowledge other faiths and are somewhat failure with the old and new testament. Not in depth by any means, but the basics. Like the 10 commandments for instance.

Now being Hindu, they approach the 10 commandments from an entirely different perspective than do most Christians. Take #2 for instance, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image..." To them this simply means not to assume God is one thing or looks a certain way and not to worship on that basis. Or, less eloquently put by one family member, "Don't make [stuff] up about God...."

Basically that perspective comes from Bhagavad Gita 7.26:

O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.​
 
wil said:
Now you don't have to push the nuclear button, this a discussion.

You've skipped.half a.dozen steps that are not likely to be taken to.reach those conclusions.

Things don't have to be falsifiable, but they should be provable.
Click to expand...

No nuclear button. Lol. Just trying to establish parameters.

In science nothing is proveable. Except in mathematics. Even Relativity is still just a 'theory' which has predictable conclusions, which have so far been proven to work.

But it is 'falsifiable'. That's the scientific attitude.

So science asks for evidence, not proof.
 
wil said:
You need to understand.what a theory is.in science.
Click to expand...

I do. Everything around us, phones and computers and incredible spacecraft are based on the fact that relativity theory and quantum theory have predictable conclusions, which can be tested and then -- but not always -- put to work, like transistors.

There are more transistors manufactured every year than 100 x all the grains of rice consumed on earth in a year. There are more than a billion in every cell phone.

That's science theories in action.

But even now there are standard model physicists starting to say that Relativity may be wrong, that quantum theory has 'won' -- as Relativity won over Newtonian physics. It's fluid.

I've huge respect for the standard model. But there's a scientific arrogance which goes beyond correctly insisting that belief in 'God and religion' should never be permitted to influence the work of science -- to insisting that the possibility of any 'spiritual' power greater than human, is a purely imaginary concept only believed in by silly and superstitious and ignorant folks.

In a way these 'new atheists' are the new flat-earthers. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of anything beyond their ability to perceive and measure. Imo. Always imo ...
 
Last edited:
Namaste Jesus said:
Or, less eloquently put by one family member, "Don't make [stuff] up about God...."
Click to expand...

I like you family member's thinking! And eloquence or no, that statement you quoted is very elegant and direct.
 
Last edited:
"Just a theory" - I think Wil was getting at the "just".

The word "theory" has almost opposite meaning in scientific vs everyday language.

(Not trying to be a smart alec here, just pointing out what I think may be a misunderstanding)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
I like you family member's thinking! And eloquence or no, that statement you quoted is very elegant and direct.
Click to expand...
That particular family member was like that about most things. He's since passed on, but has left a lasting impression on me and all who have known him. To think, I had once written him off as a raging alcoholic. I'm so glad I took the time to get to know the man behind the Bottle.
 
Cino said:
"Just a theory" - I think Wil was getting at the "just".

The word "theory" has almost opposite meaning in scientific vs everyday language.

(Not trying to be a smart alec here, just pointing out what I think may be a misunderstanding)
Click to expand...
No worries.
 
Last edited:
I'm not arguing. I'm trying to get an idea of where you are coming from? On a 'faith' forum. Friendly.
 
RJM Corbet said:
I'm not arguing. I'm trying to get an idea of where you are coming from? On a 'faith' forum. Friendly.
Click to expand...

What's more, an inter-faith-forum!

Like I wrote on my introductory post, I'm a mystic.

More details: I practice contemplative exercises, I have looked at Western and Eastern Esoteric teachings in some depth, but am not a scholar.

I don't hold any beliefs in God, but I'm not anti-God or anti-religion or anti-religious-persons. I'm not an adherent of the new atheist movement, I'm not a debunker. I do not seek converts to my point of view.

I'm glad to have found this place and am enjoying the discussions here a lot!
 
Cool. I've had experience of scientific 'new atheist' participation in faith forums that amounts to trolling. So glad to know you're open. And equal. Peace ...
 
RJM Corbet said:
I've huge respect for the standard model. But there's a scientific arrogance which goes beyond correctly insisting that belief in 'God and religion' should never be permitted to influence the work of science -- to insisting that the possibility of any 'spiritual' power greater than human, is a purely imaginary concept only believed in by silly and superstitious and ignorant folks.
Click to expand...
I often wonder if that 'scientific arrogance' actually comes from scientists.

From what I've read, I think not. Not unless you're throwing out a soundbite to promote a new book or something, Hawkings was good at that.

Too often I see this 'scientific arrogance' from non-scientists who rather display a blind faith in science, and an assumption that science will, in the end, provide the answer for absolutely everything.

When I listen to scientists, they are, certainly by comparison to the new atheists, remarkably open-minded. The best of them will tell you that: a) we don't know everything, b) we might be wrong and c) science is about science, and just science, it's not about 'everything'.

And, of course, there are scientists at the very peak of their fields who hold religious beliefs without paroxisms of contradiction.

The New Atheist arguments are, for the most part, unreasoned and depend on the ignorance and assumptions of an unthinking audience.

IMHO ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
The Bahais have a way of saying God is unknowable.
Click to expand...
I think every authentic spiritual tradition says that?

Cino said:
So I don't believe that thoughts and concepts are a good way to experience God.
Click to expand...
This is the catch though, isn't it?

Without thoughts/concepts we do not consciously experience anything. We would not learn nor grow.

There are those who find fault with the sacra doctrina of the world, and those who find wisdom, insight and illumination – I'm thinking the Dionysius, the Eckharts, the Mertons, the Rumis and the Shankaras ...
 
Cino said:
So maybe we can give this a slightly less silly spin, by stating in which ways we think our personal insights differ from Christian orthodox (as opposed to heretical) views?
Click to expand...
First off, I don't accept the West/East schism. Probably a technical one, but it would alter things significantly for those inside the tent, as it were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top