Are we religious?

Ehhhh wrong; I knew him as Mr Spock as well for many many years and still do, but his character is associated with science and science fiction and I didn't go looking for his religion anywhere, and probably saw that on Entertainment Tonight or maybe read in People Magazine somewhere at some point. :

 

Scott, you threw a lot of words to contradict a point that I never made. In my answer to you, I never spoke of God or faith. I only spoke of Hawking's own incompatible positions. He did the talking, not me. I don't need to be a man of faith to see that his views are inconsistent with themselves. That is perfectly evident.

In essence, Hawking has now decided that the Law of Gravity exists outside of nature, beyond the bounds of space and time. I've already explained why that can't be. But venturing now, for the first time, into certain spiritual things to which you have already posted somewhat of a reply, in this new position of Hawkings, this "Law of Gravity" is merely a surragate for God. It performs the same function as God. It has no beginning and no end, just like God. And this Law of Gravity is responsible for all natural creation, just like God. The only difference in the two that I can see is the the "Law of Gravity" is merely an object. It has no personality as God does. It just exists, and has always existed.

And that brings us to your last point, the eternal nature of God. You say that God had to be created. Yet you accept that the Law of Gravity has no need for the same. But in these two views of the creation, both of these, the Law of Gravity and God play the same respective roles. How can you accept one model that is based upon the eternal nature of a certain inanimate law, but you defy that the same eternal nature could exist in a living God? You and Mr. Hawking can't have it both ways sheerly at your convenience.

But to answer your point directly concerning the eternal nature of God, this is really not difficult to understand if your mind is not already as closed as you say that mine is. The Big Bang brought into play a new animal, a natural universe. The very nature of this animal requires time and space, and gravity for that matter. But prior to this animal's creation, no such attributes were necessary. Whatever created this universe, whether God or the Law of Gravity, had to exist outside of time as we know it. That is because time as we know it began with the Big Bang. That means that there is another realm, another dimension apart from our natural dimensions, that just "is." The inhabitants of that realm just "are." They are always in the present. There is no time in this realm. There is no mass or space. It is something we cannot imagine living within the four dimensions of space and time. But whether Hawking is right today and wrong in 1988, or whether he was right in 1988 and wrong today, this realm is a necessary requirement for his explanation for natural existence as we experience it.

And finally just for kicks, curiously enough, if you look into the Old Testament, you will discover that God refers to Himself by name as YHWH, translated from the ancient Hebrew to mean, "I am He Who is." That is God's name for Himself, "He Who Is." In God's realm, God just "is." In that realm there is no time, no requirement for beginning or end. It just "is." So that may be something you have to contemplate. But you have to contemplate it whether you choose to believe Hawking in 2010 or 1988, the only difference being that in 1988 it was God Who just "is." In 2010 it is the "Law of gravity" that just "is."

 

Maybe I am wrong but below is the definition and meaning found in Webster, and the last part of it makes it sound like it was derived from science.

trademark the philosophy of the Church of Scientology, a nondenominational movement founded in the US in the 1950s, which emphasizes self-knowledge as a means of realizing full spiritual potential

[C20: from Latin scient ( ia ) science + -logy ]

Scien'tologist

 

Chris -- science is certainly about gaining knowledge but it's not about finding a means of realizing full spiritual potential. That's New Age/ religious mumbo jumbo. Science would first set out to discover if there was such a thing as a "spirit" in the first place. Again, zippo evidence but that's another debate.

I'm slightly off topic here but while I would love to think that we are more than just the meat between our ears, so far there's not much to show otherwise. I always remain open about this however. I've said it before but I find it very difficult to get my head around the idea that when I die, that's it, the lights just go out and the "I" that I am aware of just vanishes from existence. It's probably just an illusion though like many things. But until I am shown otherwise, I am happy to accept that the latter is likely the case – that the lights simply go out. End of story. No pearly gates or 15 virgins waiting ... no need for any man-made faith/ fairy tales/ belief systems to make me feel better about the unknown.

 

Regarding Scientology, it is more pseudo-science than science. A major tenet in scientology is that we all lived past lives, and that we can access memories of those lives if we shut out all memory and knowledge of the present life, via sensory deprivation. They call this, "regression." They put you in a tank of water for, say, a weekend, with the lights out, only breathing, no food, just you floating with air connected to you. Supposedly, eventually you begin to leave consciousness of this life and go back mentally to previous lives. (Sarita, you might really like this ). Supposedly, when you are done, whatever came to mind while in this state of deprivation is evidence of your past lives. [I expect no more than normal dreaming is.]

Back in the mid 1980's, one of Winde's highschool friends, searching for something she could not find in this life, found Scientology. She did the regression. Was convinced that in a past life she was a medievil princess. She did this a number of times. But what all this does, eventually, is brain wash the victim. And she was a brainwashed victim. She slipped off the planet for all practical purposes. Scientology became her life. She became a manager in the Scientology system. Ran a the east coast operation of the Church of Scientology, for peanuts I interject.

Eventually, after 20 years of this, she came to the conclusion that this was not science. It was pseudo-science. There was no way to verify anything that anyone dreamt while under sensory deprivation. It was all just hollow, which meant that all of the rest of Scientology was hollow.

She had married another manager in "the church." Eventually the church tried to separate them, placing one on the east coast and one on the west. The church does not like its managers to marry, too much power concentrated. That is when they finally figured out this was a hoax. It is all about the funding, and keeping notable Hollywood members happy and interested in the church. That keeps the church in the headlines and keeps new members coming in. If it is good for John Travolta and Tom Cruise, then since they are glamorous actors, it must be good for them. That is what it is all about.

Our friends had to literally escape from the church. They could not leave on their own. They knew too much. They finally settled into a peaceful life in the rural northeast, and believe it or not, both became ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We plan to visit them in a few weeks.

So Scientology is not science, it is hoax, a way of life, but a way to escape this life and live in a dream world. And Sarita, I was just kidding before about you liking it because of the past lives. No you are firmly grounded in this life and it is in this life that any of us find our answers, not in proposed past lives. So please regard that remark as it was meant, a lite comment.

 

Scott, I am interested to know your most sincere thoughts on what what I wrote to you earlier and brought forward. I have been very sincere with you and I have even detected a certain sincerity in your own remarks. So I am pursuing this. I want to point out that you easily accepted the notion, put forth by Hawking, that the Law of Gravity can live outside of the natural realm created in the Big Bang. Yet you decry that this realm could exist when one speaks of God residing in it. Plainly, science takes us back only so far, only to the very first moment of natural existence, the moment after the Big Bang. Prior to that moment, the natural universe did not exist. But according to Hawking, the Law of Gravity, a natural law of this universe, a universe that did not exist prior to the Big Bang, did exist. If it did, it existed in a realm that is outside of the natural realm. I will call it a supernatural realm. You can call it what you like.

You say that until you see evidence of such a realm, you cannot accept it. I propose that you already accepted the evidence when you cited Hawking's latest theory as your "evidence" that God does not exist. You are the one who proposed Hawking's latest ramblings as scientific evidence. And you accepted it in order to deny the need for God's existence. So you are in a push here. Hawking's remark proposing certain existence, that of the Law of Gravity, prior to nature's existence, requires the existence of a certain supernatural, or at least beyond beyond natural, realm, a realm you say that you cannot accept without evidence. But before you cited that very evidence as proof of your point. So which is it? Earlier, I asked which Hawking remarks we should give credence to, 2010 or 1988. Now I ask which of Scott's remarks we should give credence to, those supporting Hawking in 2010 or those that deny Hawking's same remarks. I think you understand me here. I think you know the issue. You appear in a paradox.

I would like your most sincerity to explain this paradox. Note: Merely saying the paradox does not exist would not be sincere. To be sincere you must explain how these conflicting positions of yours are consistent.

 

i think religion is like marriage for some people, a private thing

 

Studio43 and Jim.........I am curious as to how you would interpret my situation that day, please tell me. I don't know you Studio34......but I ALWAYS read Jim's post and respect what he says. I know the physical changes that take place as a person is nearing death, I also believe things start happening in their brains as well. Please tell me what ya'll think.

 

My question to the doubters and non-believers of life after death is, would you want to live on without pain or suffering and feel spiritually free if it's possible and would you be ok with it if after you died that is what you discovered to be the truth(think about that open minded before you answer)?

 

I hope that it does, because I would love to see you & everyone else on here end up there as well as myself when that time comes.

 

Ummmm no, unless you want my wife to freak out because she thinks message boards are silly and creepy - lol.

 

I see and enjoy ALOT of people on a weekly basis and look forward to seeing them at a much much higher level when we all leave here, but it's a shame that you and a few others want no part of that so..........to each his/her own.

 

Can I come, too? ;D

 

Chris,
If there really is an afterlife, and I discover it to be true after I die, then I would be ok with it as long as there are no strings attached. That's the part I have a struggle with .

If it's just poof! lights out, game over, same as it was before I was born, I'm ok with that, too.

What I wonder is, Chris, what do you envision this afterlife with no pain and suffering to be like? Are you exactly the same as you are now, just pain free where everything is ticketyboo? Are you in a spirit form, human body form?

 

I imagine it to be that this high charged super energy inside of me that is pure & clean and pushes me to be better and do good things, will be released from this body and not perish or die and that I will know exactly who I was and where I came from. And then as this ball of thinking energy I plan on finding my way back to the ultimate and enormous energy life form that placed me here.............which is God, and hopefully I have done enough good with my life that he grants me an eternal one.

So if that is not your belief then simply fold up and die or go where you think you're going when the time comes I guess. :-\

 

Henry,

I mean this in the most sincere way and I hope you will recognize it as such.

you use words like hoax, hollow, no way to verify, brainwash.

The way you describe Scientology is the way I feel about most religions.

My nephews have been taught (brainwashed) from the age of 3 to believe in the B'hai faith. They have had that information drilled into them since they were three or younger. They have no reason to question or wonder about the veracity because that's all they have known . The information comes to them from people they trust and love. In my opinion they have been brainwashed. They have never been told this is what we believe, this is what others believe, they have only been told this is the truth. There is no room for them to take the information and decide for themselves.

Insert any other religion, Scientology, B'hai, and for me, it's what you said... no way to verify, hollow, hoax, brainwashed etc.

 

Sorry if my question annoyed you. I was trying to understand your thinking and what you envisioned the after life to be.

It's ok with me that you don't think like I do and I have no wish to change your belief. I'm befuddled by your last statement, Chris.

You are sure you're going to heaven, you're secure in your belief system. I respect that. I'm not trying to persuade you to think other than you do, so why does it bother you that I am ok with no afterlife?

 

It doesn't really "bother" me persay because when all is said and done we arrived here alone and we will leave here alone, so I will be thinking & worrying about myself and what's gonna happen to me when my time comes pretty much.

 

Except, Carrie, perhaps the difference is that Scientologists are LITERALLY brainwashed, not just taught things. These folks go into sensory deprivation, supplanting old knowledge and overlaying new information.

I can understand how you might think this similar, but this is practically diabolical.

 

You had an experience that you say solidified your beliefs. My explanation will seem paltry and inadequate compared to the experience itself, but I see it something like this. If I am a Christian, I am likely to say that God and the way he works is incomprehensible to a certian extent. If I am a scientist (and I know and have read many very bright ones), from the scientific perspective, they will also say many things about the universe are beyond comprehension. The difference is that the scientist will scurry about using the scientific method to test his assumptions, theories, etc., but the theologian will not. But they both are likely to accept a certain degree of unknowing, or limitations in their ability to understand the grand unifying force, be it a God or just a partially understood physical process.


Your experience? There is no way to prove what you think you experienced is either true or false, so I wouldn't presume to. I would offer an example that is from a true life experince that you may have read from my past posts. If I am deathly afraid of storms and I am sitting in the middle of a well insulated house, in a room with no windows or doors that allow me view of the outside, and someone enters the room and says, there is a really black wall cloud right over the house, and the weatherman is saying we are going to have severe thunderstorms and perhaps some funnel clouds, I am likely to respond with great fear. This response will occur even if the skies outside are sunny and calm and the person who told me was lying to me. I am in the middle of a well walled house, I didn't actually see or sense the impending storm, but I BELIEVED, as most people would, the storm was there. The actual event didn't matter--whether or not your father went directly to a heaven as you imagine it or something completely different is not what counts--we can't prove he didn't and there would be no purpose (in my eyes) to even attempt to. What you believe is all that matters. It is real and meaningful to you.

PS: I'm not phobic about storms--the reference was to an example I used when talking with a Baptist minister and his daughter