Your religious/spiritual journey

[wil]

It's a myth if it ain't metaphor yet

No typo, just my strange thought...but yes, you grok the essence.

It's a myth if it ain't metaphor you yet...once it is it becomes allegory.

It's a myth if it ain't meant-a-for you yet!

When the student is ready scripture is there....it is written...

 

[otherbrother]

It's a myth if it ain't meant-a-for you yet!

When the student is ready scripture is there....it is written...

Epistemological philosopher Ken Wilber distinguishes between subjective truth and objective truth (actually 4 basic kinds or truth “quadrants,” but subjective/objective seems the main distinction). Metaphorical
or figurative truths reveal reliable subjective meaning that can be applied to various settings, are abstracted from specific facts/situations, so as to be beyond the specific form/thing (meta-form).
This is the kind of truth we glean from the symbols and stories of various religions. Unfortunately, many so-called “believers” conflate subjective and objective truths, and insist on the factuality of their scriptures. Which dilutes the deep meaningfulness into superficial pseudo magic formulas.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It's not the same in my community. Maybe because it's a community of immigrants, many refugees, and only the younger have the power and the motivation to emigrate and seek a better and secure life somewhere although high fences and administrative obstacles try to hinder them.
I'm 58 years old now and I'm one of the four oldest regular members, so that my help, support and sometimes mediation is often requested (and I assume it with satisfaction although responsibilities tend to grow over my head).

Maybe, it's just a phenomenon of continuous change that established majority communities tend to grow old whereas small minority communities grow.

It's a decades long phenomenon of decline of the establishment Protestant denominations. However, non denomination evangelical type churches remain steady and/or are growing. It's a shift of identification within the Protestant tradition methinks.

For a long time, denomination served as an identity marker. Some denominations were associated with some immigrant groups, others were home grown American innovations. That entire profile is shifting.

 

[wil]

It's a decades long phenomenon of decline of the establishment Protestant denominations.

Seems it takes either fire and brimstone sermons or promises of gold (prosperity chirches) to facilitate growth today...

 

[Thomas]

“Metaphors” may be better word for what I meant by myth. Clearly, I use words loosely. You differentiate better.

We get there in the end.

BTW, I’m fairly sure you knew it was YOU I was talking about when I said a participant nudged me back to humility about discerning God’s nature. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with an impressionistic thinker like me. You refine but don’t reject. An admirable quality.

I try. That's very kind of you to say.

And you make me think, because you're so close to the mark that I have to ask myself are you not actually on point before suggesting you might not be.

It's a pleasure, and more fun than butting heads.

Although my Gaelic genes do like butting heads!

 

[Aupmanyav]

And by all, I include the originators of all religions.

The problem of originator does not exist in Hinduism. It is the child of many beliefs (including those of Indian Aryans) and has fathered many beliefs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks from the water that I shall give him will most definitely never thirst ..."

Smart words. Words that a Christian believes but have no meaning for an atheist. Simply a boast without evidence.

Why, when the spiritual has no physicality?

What are you referring to - the thoughts in your mind. Yes, thoughts do not have any physicality.

It's when we take a step to far and say 'this is what God is' or 'this is how God does', then we're into the alchemists' search for the Philosopher's Stone as a material substance or the Holy Grail as a material cup.

One who goes by science and Quantum Physics will generally not have a God. He would not say what you have written. He would discuss how energy/space changed into mass.

 

[Thomas]

A single flowing fountain with different aspects according to what depth level it is experienced and/or interacted with, is easier to grasp (to me, that is) than the three in one. With a fountain model, each of the three can be located.

Here, again, we might be 'dancing' and I use that term advisedly, around nuanced differences about the same thing ...

"I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).

The Pauline scribe records a verse from a hymn of the early church, that in the incarnate Son "all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Col. 1:19).

This 'in-ness' or indwelling applies to all three persons of the Trinity:
The Father is in the Son and the Holy Spirit;
The Son is in the Father and the Holy Spirit;
The Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son.

The Greek term used to describe the eternal mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity is perichoresis (in Latin, circumincession). All three are in the one Divine essence; where one is, the other two are ... we cannot see God without seeing all three persons at the same time.

The deepest level is where the Father is, and as far as we can tell, it is like an immaterial “mind.” Perhaps home of “logos?”

Here's where we trip up, as Logos is predicated of the Second Person, Jesus, not the First Person, God.

A way of addressing this is Logos has a broad range of meaning: principle, thought, reason, discourse, word, speech ... in his prologue, St John says: "In the beginning (En arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with Theos, and the Logos was Theos... " (John 1:1)

The Greek term arche means first principle or originating source, rather than the first event in a series of temporal events (it echoes Genesis 1:1, which likewise does not refer to temporal duration).

The Fathers speak of the Son as Logos and arche, whereas they speak of the Father as arche anarchos, the principle without principle – so Logos emerges, and implies an order of determination, from that which is undetermined. You could say, and I could allow, that the Son is the thought of Father, or the Son is what the Father thinks, but only on the agreement that God transcends 'mind' as such ... which I think we do.

The Holy Spirit or Ghost is in the intermediate depth location of the fountain. It seems like the quantum realm that is not limited to “simple location,” is highly interactive, interwoven/entangled. Behaves more energy than matter, because it is less defined and closer to potential than actuality, but still has some matter like characteristics (packets of energy, blotches of being).

Again OK, an analogy, as long as we don't cling to it ... God is not a Quantum-anything, and is neither energy nor matter ... if 'mind' is an anthropomorphism, then quanta is a materialistion.

The Son is the outmost, surface area of the fountain where much vitality/potentiality is lost, and yet still mages to shine through, is not totally lost or kept separate from the deeper parts of the fountain. The surface area of the fountain behaves like matter. Has the appearance of “simple location.” Rocks here, trees over there.

You've lost me now.

In the Tradition, it's the Spirit reveals the Son, the Son reveals the Father, but this is the Trinity according to the Divine Dispensation, 'the Economic Trinity' as it's called, from the Greek term oikinomia ('household management'). The 'Theological Trinity', which is the contemplation of the Divine Nature in itself, there's no separation.

And yet, because the fountain flows throughout its depth extension, all three designated levels are in contact with each other. God has not lost touch with Creation. And as created entities we have access to the deeper parts of the fountain.

OK ...

By “being,” I mean the act of being, verb form. A way to intentionally exist. And if we intend to exist in a manner that is rooted in a deeper reality, we improve the quality of that existence.

I so agree that being is dynamic .... St Maximus speaks of the entire creation as an incarnation ... a conditional panentheism. We find God 'in here', not 'out there', but not because we're inherently divine by nature, which we are not, but that to know God is to withdraw from all aspects of creaturely knowing, withdrawing from the world, as it were.

Although through the world is a way to serve, and know, which is its own reward.

There's a start ...

 

[Thomas]

Smart words. Words that a Christian believes but have no meaning for an atheist. Simply a boast without evidence.

OK. I read it differently.

What are you referring to - the thoughts in your mind. Yes, thoughts do not have any physicality.

Spirit is not simply thoughts in the mind.

One who goes by science and Quantum Physics will generally not have a God. He would not say what you have written. He would discuss how energy/space changed into mass.

Generally speaking, but then again, there are quantum physicists who see no issue with a belief in God.

I'd go further, there are theologians who would not say what I have written!

The religion v science thing is well passed its use-by date.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Smart words. Words that a Christian believes but have no meaning for an atheist. Simply a boast without evidence.

What are you referring to - the thoughts in your mind. Yes, thoughts do not have any physicality.

One who goes by science and Quantum Physics will generally not have a God. He would not say what you have written. He would discuss how energy/space changed into mass.

In fact, everyone here knows that you are an atheist. Arguments against the existence of God are welcome in the thread "Does God really exist?", but not everywhere. Although threads tend to lose focus after a while, we should all not discuss everything anywhere (that doesn't only apply to you).
In the context of this thread, you may explain how you became an atheist, what you see edifying you mentally (as taken equivalent to spiritual to someone who would deny terms like"spirit" or "soul"), but please, don't post the same everywhere.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Here, again, we might be 'dancing' and I use that term advisedly, around nuanced differences about the same thing ...

"I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).

The Pauline scribe records a verse from a hymn of the early church, that in the incarnate Son "all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Col. 1:19).

This 'in-ness' or indwelling applies to all three persons of the Trinity:
The Father is in the Son and the Holy Spirit;
The Son is in the Father and the Holy Spirit;
The Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son.

The Greek term used to describe the eternal mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity is perichoresis (in Latin, circumincession). All three are in the one Divine essence; where one is, the other two are ... we cannot see God without seeing all three persons at the same time.


Here's where we trip up, as Logos is predicated of the Second Person, Jesus, not the First Person, God.

A way of addressing this is Logos has a broad range of meaning: principle, thought, reason, discourse, word, speech ... in his prologue, St John says: "In the beginning (En arche) was the Logos, and the Logos was with Theos, and the Logos was Theos... " (John 1:1)

The Greek term arche means first principle or originating source, rather than the first event in a series of temporal events (it echoes Genesis 1:1, which likewise does not refer to temporal duration).

The Fathers speak of the Son as Logos and arche, whereas they speak of the Father as arche anarchos, the principle without principle – so Logos emerges, and implies an order of determination, from that which is undetermined. You could say, and I could allow, that the Son is the thought of Father, or the Son is what the Father thinks, but only on the agreement that God transcends 'mind' as such ... which I think we do.


Again OK, an analogy, as long as we don't cling to it ... God is not a Quantum-anything, and is neither energy nor matter ... if 'mind' is an anthropomorphism, then quanta is a materialistion.


You've lost me now.

In the Tradition, it's the Spirit reveals the Son, the Son reveals the Father, but this is the Trinity according to the Divine Dispensation, 'the Economic Trinity' as it's called, from the Greek term oikinomia ('household management'). The 'Theological Trinity', which is the contemplation of the Divine Nature in itself, there's no separation.


OK ...


I so agree that being is dynamic .... St Maximus speaks of the entire creation as an incarnation ... a conditional panentheism. We find God 'in here', not 'out there', but not because we're inherently divine by nature, which we are not, but that to know God is to withdraw from all aspects of creaturely knowing, withdrawing from the world, as it were.

Although through the world is a way to serve, and know, which is its own reward.

There's a start ...

What I wrote to @Aupmanyav before also applies to you. You, too, have fallen into your favourite subject.
We should somehow try to focus on the subject of the thread, and not discuss everything anywhere. There would be a lot to say on the main subject.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Seems it takes either fire and brimstone sermons or promises of gold (prosperity chirches) to facilitate growth today...

Probably always did.
I think the dignified mainline churches were a creature of existing prosperity and generational legacy membership rather than converts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Spirit is not simply thoughts in the mind.


Generally speaking, but then again, there are quantum physicists who see no issue with a belief in God.
I'd go further, there are theologians who would not say what I have written!
The religion v science thing is well passed its use-by date.

'In the spirit of the game' or as the game should be played. Other than that what is 'spirit'?
Yeah, there are people who compartmentalize. Keep science separate from rational thoughts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the context of this thread, you may explain how you became an atheist, what you see edifying you mentally ..

Lack of evidence, three words to illustrate my religious journey..

 

[Faithfulservant]

I see evidence every day. A year ago a friend from church had a tumor in her brain our church prayed over her and when she went back to the doctor they scanned her brain getting ready to do surgery and the tumor was gone. I had bursitis and arthritus in my hip and had to use s cane for the last two years. My church prayed over me. I havent needed my cane ever since. Another man had stage 3 cancer in his stomach he couldnt walk without assistance.. the church prayed over him when he went back to the doctor to have the cancer removed the cancer was gone he walks on his own now. Science cannot explain these miracles. My God is a healer and He heals His people.

 

[otherbrother]

It's a decades long phenomenon of decline of the establishment Protestant denominations. However, non denomination evangelical type churches remain steady and/or are growing. It's a shift of identification within the Protestant tradition methinks.

For a long time, denomination served as an identity marker. Some denominations were associated with some immigrant groups, others were home grown American innovations. That entire profile is shifting.

“Wave” (spirit) function collapse? Older beliefs taking on increasingly deadened, matter-like characteristics, like quanta acting more like a particle than a wave. In psychology, new therapies work so well that the promoters assume it is based on the theory behind the therapy. As the therapy becomes more practiced and codified, its effectiveness tends to decrease. Do our beliefs get in the way of our truly “believing” in (as in willing to take a leap of faith)?
One of the advantages I imagine from my Depth-dynamic Being model of faith practice is that it posits a deeper, convergent, zone of wave-rich (vibrant) energies flowing into surface zone where cognitive beliefs are held.
In a fountain model, the surface areas are continually refurbished. Synthesis reigns over Thesis and Antithesis. Or the latter two are less determinative than Synthesis. The Dialectical is played in the key of Synthesis.

 

[otherbrother]

I see evidence every day. A year ago a friend from church had a tumor in her brain our church prayed over her and when she went back to the doctor they scanned her brain getting ready to do surgery and the tumor was gone. I had bursitis and arthritus in my hip and had to use s cane for the last two years. My church prayed over me. I havent needed my cane ever since. Another man had stage 3 cancer in his stomach he couldnt walk without assistance.. the church prayed over him when he went back to the doctor to have the cancer removed the cancer was gone he walks on his own now. Science cannot explain these miracles. My God is a healer and He heals His people.

The “active” part of David Bohm’s and Basil Hiley’s “active information” that orchestrates coordinated action between isolated electrons suggests an energy component of the “information.” This quantum behavior would be consistent with phenomena such as remote healing. If, during collective prayer, humans minds can connect with the active part of active information, there would seem to be the potential for remarkable healing (via quantum override?) .
The ONLY advantage that a quasi scientific explanation would have is the possible added benefit of liberating or minds from dogma that may limit growth in some areas of life, even though it might work exceptionally well in other areas (such as the power of prayer).
Nope, not the only advantage. Another advantage is that it opens up the minds of the scientifically informed minds of a modern era to the possibilities and uses of spirituality. Perhaps the modern mind would prefer “quantum mechanics” over “power of prayer,” but both (modern and traditional believers) could effect remote healing together. Even an atheist could “pray” via enacting quantum mechanics or quantum override of Newtonian physics operating on classical objects. Same or similar processes, but different explanations.

 

[otherbrother]

The “active” part of David Bohm’s and Basil Hiley’s “active information” that orchestrates coordinated action between isolated electrons suggests an energy component of the “information.” This quantum behavior would be consistent with phenomena such as remote healing. If, during collective prayer, humans minds can connect with the active part of active information, there would seem to be the potential for remarkable healing (via quantum override?) .
The ONLY advantage that a quasi scientific explanation would have is the possible added benefit of liberating or minds from dogma that may limit growth in some areas of life, even though it might work exceptionally well in other areas (such as the power of prayer).
Nope, not the only advantage. Another advantage is that it opens up the minds of the scientifically informed minds of a modern era to the possibilities and uses of spirituality. Perhaps the modern mind would prefer “quantum mechanics” over “power of prayer,” but both (modern and traditional believers) could effect remote healing together. Even an atheist could “pray” via enacting quantum mechanics or quantum override of Newtonian physics operating on classical objects. Same or similar processes, but different explanations.

Consistent with the hypothesis of an “observer effect,” a suspension of regular knowledge by trusting in God, would improve the ability to mentally access and use quantum effects. The modern mind would need to suspend certainty in other ways. Perhaps seeing/sensing that physical reality is secondary to deeper (quantum and sub-quantum substrates) “realities.”

 

[otherbrother]

We get there in the end.


I try. That's very kind of you to say.

And you make me think, because you're so close to the mark that I have to ask myself are you not actually on point before suggesting you might not be.

It's a pleasure, and more fun than butting heads.

Although my Gaelic genes do like butting heads!

I think I might have some of those argumentative genes also. My last name of Moneyhon is most likely of Irish origin. The area where I was raised was mostly German and Irish ancestry.

 

[otherbrother]

Our discussion here inspired this potential beginning of a potential book.
Please critique (if interested). :


After many years of philosophizing about spirituality, I seem to have settled on one main focus: depth. While I continue to touch on many other foci, such as wholeness, potentiality, expansiveness, fullness, etc., depth has become my “primary key” against which I match other thoughts about growing spiritually.

In terms of spiritual practice, I try to go mentally and physically to a deeper place (or zone), and then invite it to dynamically interact with my actions here on the surface. I trust that the connective and integrative function of spirit happens more or less automatically once we operate from a deeper zone. To the extent that the nature of things at the deepest levels of seeing and being are not knowable in terms of clear identification, a “Let Go and Let God” attitude is very useful, as long as God is not put in a little box of feigned knowing.

I don’t see the practice of depth dynamic being in any way at odds with my Christian faith tradition. Rather, it is a useful adjunct to it. As I go deeper, I sense that I come closer and closer to being “In Christ,” channeling the energies and ways of my number one role model.

Although I’m not an expert at world religions, I strongly suspect that the cues of “going deeper” and “operating from a deeper zone” will work as a useful adjunct to other religions besides Christianity. Depth Dynamic Being is not a new religion, but a practice to use within other religions or views.

For instance, it seems entirely consistent with the philosophical belief of Idealism, which sees Mind as being the ultimate reality. That is, if Mind is adopted as being the best guess of what lies at the deepest level of overall reality. Physical reality is thought to be rooted in a more-real mental reality of some sort. Dig deep enough into physical reality, and you feel/sense (and/or ascertain by reasoning) those nonphysical “roots.”

But the focus of deep is not limited to physical depth. We can focus on what I would call “mental depth” instead or in addition to physical depth. Move deep within your thoughts. What do you sense there? Not singular or multiple thoughts, but a mind within or behind those mental projections that we call thoughts. Deep mind transcends, operates independently of, thoughts and thinking. But it can only register to regular human consciousness as a blank slate or a nothing from which something unfolds. Creative ideas come (seemingly) out of nowhere. It is as though there is another dimension within the already non-matter-like nature of our minds.

Lucid dreaming involves the skill of getting within (behind) the dream content that is witnessed as one dreams. The mind that is doing the dreaming enters into the dream itself, and then interacts with the dream. The dreamer senses that he or she is dreaming, but chooses to continue dreaming instead of waking up because he/she decided it was nothing but a mere dream. In the case of mental depth, the “depth dynamic” interaction (and potential integration) is between the dream and the mind itself.