New Spirituality Forum

A spiritual perspective on phenomenon

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby wetsystems » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:32 am

b
ut then Kim is an Academic Extraordinaire....a supercilious Armchair Socrates sitting in his proverbial E-Z Chair dishing out overwhelmingly brilliant gems of wisdom to the internet peasants.


Actually I'm a construction worker. Although I do love Socrates, who was a stone cutter, and Jesus, who was a carpenter. No easy chair nor easy life here.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain


Postby ScaRZ » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:09 pm

Jesus as you stated Kim (Toon) was not a Christian. He was CHRIST, all his followers, believers on him, those having faith in he and the gospel (Good News) are Christians. He had no need being a follower of himself, Jesus was The Christ, Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Image
User avatar
ScaRZ
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Postby wetsystems » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:47 pm

ScaRZ wrote:Jesus as you stated Kim (Toon) was not a Christian. He was CHRIST, all his followers, believers on him, those having faith in he and the gospel (Good News) are Christians. He had no need being a follower of himself, Jesus was The Christ, Lord of Lords and King of Kings.


Scarz,
With all due respect please realize that I was being facetious in that statement as I've previously pointed out to Ryan. My contention was that Jesus did not believe what I consider to be the nonsense that those who appropriated his name believe- such as, in my opinion, that he was the lord of lords and king of kings- or that he was hamoshiach. To my mind he was simply the greatest and most brilliant of a long line of Jewish prophets. So I suppose that is the basic nub of our irresolvable disagreement about him. On the other hand- we can still both acknowledge that we love and admire him- albeit for varying reasons. The difference would seem to distill down to our own chosen world-views- yours as a Christian and mine as a humanist (or maybe a cartoon-ist!).

Best,

Toon
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:28 pm

wetsystems wrote: My contention was that Jesus did not believe what I consider to be the nonsense that those who appropriated his name believe- such as, in my opinion, that he was the lord of lords and king of kings- or that he was hamoshiach.


And that's ok. At least you've pointed out the specific issue you have with the Christian perspective overall. You certainly aren't the only one. However I do find it odd that you would say Jesus did not believe what Christians now believe - because in it's simplest form, it's only one thing - and it's at the very core of what Jesus taught up until his crucifixion. It's something so simple, yet of such magnitude, that there's no mistaking it or misunderstanding it. That is - Jesus was God.

Now, setting aside for now the debate about the accuracy of scripture (which hopefully we can discuss in another thread), if we take the general story and his statements to be as they were reported - then we know that Jesus asked people he met many, many times whether they believed he was the Son of God. That's the message so many couldn't swallow, and chose not to follow Jesus. The others, who accepted that Jesus was who he said he was, followed him - and form the core of what we call Christianity today.

There's no middle ground here. During his ministry, there are many differences between Jesus and all of the other prophets. Jesus claimed to be God. There's no getting around that. You either believe his own words, or you don't.

However - the point of this area is "Spirituality and the Paranormal". Which means if you hold a Spiritual view, this is the area to analyze the Paranormal from that Perspective. That's likely why Scarz and I will be heading up a thread to do an analysis of the Paranormal from a Christian perspective. Not to force the Christian view on anyone, but to take a look at phenomenon within the context of what we believe.

I welcome anyone, from any religious and/or spiritual background, to start a thread to do the same from any other perspective - Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Humanist (or Cartoon-ist), etc...

We aren't here to shove this perspective in anyone's face - everyone here has an equal opportunity to express their views from their perspective. The larger forum is dedicated to a very non-religious perspective, which I find extremely important. But I also find some aspects of the various Phenomenon to fall into the realm of spiritual - so this perspective is just as important.

We understand you don't agree with this particular perspective Kim. You've stated as much, your opinion has been noted and all we can do is accept that we disagree. If you want to open an new thread of your own to review the phenomenon from a "Humanist" perspective...feel free...but I think that you have plenty of opportunity to do that in the larger forum area.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby wetsystems » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:06 pm

There's no middle ground here. During his ministry, there are many differences between Jesus and all of the other prophets. Jesus claimed to be God. There's no getting around that. You either believe his own words, or you don't.


I suppose from a Protestant perspective this may be generally true but I've always been more impressed by the Roman Church in this regard and in particular the use of an exquisitely reasoned (non-simplistic) Dialectical approach to the divinity of Jesus- the Trinity. Father/Son/Holy Ghost. (In transliterated Hebrew: Abba/Bar/Shekinah.) This Roman Catholic tripartite God incorporates Talmudic (i.e. evolving) Judaism and Talmudic terms in its approach- to the extent that God is a Process not a Category per se. That wise solution I believe was driven by the same words (from the Synoptics) that you use in justifying your contention that 'Jesus claimed to be God.' Jesus referred to God as Abba- so was he his own father as well? He also referred to himself as 'son of man' (bar adam)- can the father of man be at the same time the son of man?
There's no middle ground

I humbly disagree.The Trinity, in examining the 'essence' of the ontological God, resolves these problems and is therefore , in fact, a 'middle ground' and points to Jesus as the living process by which one may ultimately come to God- not God him/herself. (i.e "I am the way" in this sense.) It was also then, and remains, a very Jewish notion revolving around the concept of Shekinah (holy ghost.)

We understand you don't agree with this particular perspective Kim. You've stated as much, your opinion has been noted and all we can do is accept that we disagree.


On the other hand, if you feel I have nothing of value to offer in this discussion, certainly I'll withdraw- this being my last comment here.

Apologia: The ideas posed in the above comments are solely my own. I do not pretend them to represent the positions of Roman Catholic scholars.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:35 pm

wetsystems wrote:I suppose from a Protestant perspective this may be generally true but I've always been more impressed by the Roman Church in this regard and in particular the use of an exquisitely reasoned (non-simplistic) Dialectical approach to the divinity of Jesus- the Trinity. Father/Son/Holy Ghost. (In transliterated Hebrew: Abba/Bar/Shekinah.)


Cool...looks like we have something we agree on. I am more impressed by the Roman Church in this regard as well - maybe that's why I'm Catholic. lol

You really should be more careful about making presumptions.

This Roman Catholic tripartite God incorporates Talmudic (i.e. evolving) Judaism and Talmudic terms in its approach- to the extent that God is a Process not a Category per se.


I disagree strongly, and I believe you grossly misunderstand the Catholic definition of the Trinity. Or maybe you don't - and I'm actually misunderstood what point you are trying to make here. Take a look at the "mysteries" as defined by the Church and a common theme that may help you understand how Catholics appreciate the Trinity is that all three are one - the Father, Son, and Holy ghost are considered three parts of the same "whole".

That wise solution I believe was driven by the same words (from the Synoptics) that you use in justifying your contention that 'Jesus claimed to be God.'


I agree although it's not a contention. Since the holy Trinity as understood implies that the three parts are one and the same. We might also review a few of the stories where he lost believers because of his unwillingness to stray from this central claim - that he was, in fact, the Son of God.

Jesus referred to God as Abba- so was he his own father as well? He also referred to himself as 'son of man' (bar adam)- can the father of man be at the same time the son of man?


Yes of course. However you are making several different references to things he's said, out of context and without specific quotes, it's almost impossible to really respond. I'll try to help with a few quotes - and actually point out that you are right - he did claim he was both the Son of Man and the Son of God. In fact, he confirmed the concept of the Holy Trinity in refering to his father as a seperate "entity" (for lack of a better word), but stating that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him.

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, `I am the Son of God.'"

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 14:28 "You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.


John 17:3-12 [3] Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.



There's no middle ground

I humbly disagree.The Trinity, in examining the 'essence' of the ontological God, resolves these problems and is therefore , in fact, a 'middle ground' and points to Jesus as the living process by which one may ultimately come to God- not God him/herself. (i.e "I am the way" in this sense.) It was also then, and remains, a very Jewish notion revolving around the concept of Shekinah (holy ghost.)


No - the middle ground as I was referring was to your earlier claim that Jesus was but a brilliant teacher or prophet. If you are now conceding the truth of the Holy Trinity - that is hardly a "middle ground"...but at the core of the truth that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same. In which case we are in complete agreement.

As I said, if his own words were the truth - if he truly is the only "Way" to God, and if we are to believe his own words - then there is no middle ground where we might call him simply a teacher or a prophet.

We understand you don't agree with this particular perspective Kim. You've stated as much, your opinion has been noted and all we can do is accept that we disagree.


On the other hand, if you feel I have nothing of value to offer in this discussion, certainly I'll withdraw- this being my last comment here.


If you can maintain the excellent decorum contained in your wonderful post you've just made - then you clearly have much of value to offer in this discussion. And I very much look forward to more of the same.

Best,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ScaRZ » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:46 pm

wetsystems wrote:On the other hand, if you feel I have nothing of value to offer in this discussion, certainly I'll withdraw- this being my last comment here.


I certainly hope you don't withdraw Kim, you in my opinion have much to offer.
Reading you and Ryan's post got me very interested in the subject of Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

I've always been on a line of thinking that all three are of different personages.
Much like the Church is the body of Christ,each member is part of the Body of Christ[The Church]. We are all different indiviuals but of one Body of believers.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one with each other.
Image
User avatar
ScaRZ
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Postby wetsystems » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:52 pm

I said:
(Wetsystems) This Roman Catholic tripartite God incorporates Talmudic (i.e. evolving) Judaism and Talmudic terms in its approach- to the extent that God is a Process not a Category per se.



And you replied:
(Ryan) I disagree strongly, and I believe you grossly misunderstand the Catholic definition of the Trinity. Or maybe you don't - and I'm actually misunderstood what point you are trying to make here. Take a look at the "mysteries" as defined by the Church and a common theme that may help you understand how Catholics appreciate the Trinity is that all three are one - the Father, Son, and Holy ghost are considered three parts of the same "whole".


Dialectic is similarly singular and dynamic at the same time. 'Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis' is both process and, as methodology- whole. And you are correct:
you grossly misunderstand the Catholic definition of the Trinity.
But my theory has some anectotal legs being based, in part, on hundreds of hours of schmoozing with the Jebbies at Regis College in the 70's in their rectory over shots of Black Jack. Also there in those discussions was Rebbe Sasha Kaganovich, recently arrived from Minsk, who happened to be the custodian at that Jebbie residence!
Your quotes are heavily Johannine. John's gospel, being much more recent, is not considered to be Synoptical. On the other hand this from Marc (the oldest Gospel): "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" indicates that Jesus and the 'mighty one' are separate dialectical entities. What will we see? The father and the son, (i.e. God and the Son of God) according to Marc. Is there then a disagreement between Marc and John? Perhaps not. The concept of the dialectical nature of God, the Trinity, resolves such a conflict if we allow ourselves to interpret the meaning of John.

No - the middle ground as I was referring was to your earlier claim that Jesus was but a brilliant teacher or prophet. If you are now conceding the truth of the Holy Trinity - that is hardly a "middle ground"...but at the core of the truth that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same. In which case we are in complete agreement.


I am conceding only the exquisite beauty of the Trinity concept. In the sense that it embodies a living Dialectic it is in fact a method of apperceiving God. To conceive of Jesus as a 'brilliant Jewish prophet' in no way invalidates his significance as a teacher of ethics but rather substantiates it. Common religious attributions are far less urgent than his ethical teachings per se and in fact have led to the trivialization of his message. Don't you agree?

I do know this, however- we both love this son of man. It matters not that he is God or man- the ethical message is the central issue. And it is my belief that he would not argue with such an assessment. In a sense, I see Jesus not so much as the 'son of God' but rather as the 'mood' of God.

But this requires some validation- or at the very least, a theory. So I offer this- found posted on the internet a few years ago by Dr. Lazar Sasha Kagonivich:

The Dialectical Concordance: First Principles
1. That among all possible forms and actual entities Ecological Equilibrium necessarily exists.
2. That the basic substance of the universe is characterized by Mood.
3. That the basic substance of the universe is Ethics.
4. That the first three principles constitute the Dialectical Process.
5. That each Principle, in itself, contains the Dialectical Process.
6. That, therefore, there necessarily exists an Identity among all possible realities.
7. That this Identity is dichotomized only by relativity;
8. Which dichotomy in itself constitutes Dialectic.
9. That all argument is therefore by nature, spiralar.
10. That the Spiral Continuum is both ascendant and descendant simultaneously.
11. That Abstraction from the Continuum always results in circularity.
12. That the Will is necessarily characterized as Abstraction from the Continuum.
13. Will is therefore alienation from the Process of Reality- Dialectic,
14. And is therefore in opposition to the Ethical.
15. The Order of Conflicting Wills is Morality.
16. Morality is therefore by its very nature unethical.
17. Process/ Ethics is characterized by Love and Free Harmony among all actual entities.
18. Will/ Morality is characterized by conflict and force.
19. Mergence with Process is accorded by the Imagination.
20. Imagination is the Mood of God.


we are complicit in our own captivity.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby Serpentime » Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:24 am

wetsystems wrote:Dialectic is similarly singular and dynamic at the same time. 'Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis' is both process and, as methodology- whole.

I am conceding only the exquisite beauty of the Trinity concept. In the sense that it embodies a living Dialectic it is in fact a method of apperceiving God.


As another non-Christian who reveres and respects the Christ and his Gift to the world, I would just like to offer that there are some wonderful (IMO) thoughts going on in this thread. :)

To my belief, the Dialectic is also sacred, and represents - in my understanding - the quintessence of Father.


Each of us exists here as a servant of Father, or we may choose to be so.


Best,

Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby ryguy » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:22 pm

To think, that there are aspects of all of this that all of us, whether we're Protestant, Catholic, Agnostic, Jewish, or whatever we classify ourselves as - can come to agree on. There really are times, like this, when I have renewed faith in the cause and purpose behind RU. When skeptics, believers, and all of those in between can find a common starting point - you know that we're all doing something right here (all of you especially).

I have to say Serp - that the quote that you chose from Kim's post was also the one that struck me as especially refreshing and beautiful in and of itself, and identifies a core belief, something we can agree on, that I think makes the ideal starting point for this area of the forum.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby wetsystems » Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:28 pm

In the best tradition of the double edged sword there was another thought expressed in the continuation of that quote. It addresses our point of divergence relative to religion. I personally don't see it as a dagger in the heart of our new-found comity- but it ought to be considered since it lies at the very quick of my reticence concerning faith.
To conceive of Jesus as a 'brilliant Jewish prophet' in no way invalidates his significance as a teacher of ethics but rather substantiates it. Common religious attributions are far less urgent than his ethical teachings per se and in fact have led to the trivialization of his message.


Best
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:13 pm

Yes - it's the part of the message that I obviously don't agree with, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. It just lies at the core of what differentiates the Jewish belief set from the Christian belief set. That is, we believe he is literally the only Son of God. However, setting aside that divergence, I think we can move forward accepting this difference in beliefs with the understanding that, aside from that, we have a great deal religiously/spiritually that we agree on.

Settling the divergence between our two major faith-systems certainly isn't something we'll be able to accomplish in one thread (if it's even at all possible) - however just the fact that we can accept eachother's beliefs without ridicule or discontent is a huge step, in my opinion, considering the negative effect that divergent religious beliefs have had throughout all aspects of our society (of which current military/political conflict is only one major example).

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby wetsystems » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:53 pm

This:
considering the negative effect that divergent religious beliefs have had throughout all aspects of our society (of which current military/political conflict is only one major example).
is just another way of saying this:
Common religious attributions are far less urgent than his ethical teachings per se and in fact have led to the trivialization of his message.


So on the significance of the sublime ethical teachings of Jesus we certainly do agree. Imagine the possibilities of an ethical world! Certainly that is the central goal of the Roman Church and of Rabbinical Judaism. No difference there- although it's been a long and tedious road. Theories concerning the divinity of Jesus ought never divide. I believe that's what that great and beautiful human being, John XXIII, had to say about it.

I'll ignore here any comment concerning the false religiosity of the 'militaristic polls' you alluded to since the mere thought of them makes me nauseous this morning- and besides- I already pushed jello in their faces in the Political thread!
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Re: New Spirituality Forum

Postby AussieMike » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:02 pm

I dont have any proof for what im about to type, its pure speculation, but its speculation that i personally am more comfortable with as an answer to the nagging question thats plagued humanity down the eons.
To me reality is a system of mechanisms.
My words reach you via a series of mechanisms, both mechanical and biological, the application of these mechanisms is what allows my ideas to be present in your conciousness now.

Death has always been our biggest concern, from the moment we are able to understand the concept it lurks at the back of our minds. What happens when you die ?

The world is chock a block full of spiritual traditions that claim to have an answer, and not just the answer, in order for the answer to be of comfort it must be the right answer, and most of them claim both aspects ie the answer and the right answer at that.

So what happens to our memories, our conciousness when we die ?

medicine explains the mechanism, a vital part/organ breaks down, fails to function and in turn the body dies.
It might be the heart of kidneys, or the whole body, ie caught in an explosion and torn to bits.

spiritual traditions posit a supernatural mechanism for extending the conciousness after this event, but ive never found that a satisfying answer personally.

Science on the other hand is making great leaps and bounds in deconstructing the biological mechanisms that make conciousness

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 92555.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 898177.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... chine.html

http://www.physorg.com/news171565512.html

http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/brainchip.html

If this technology is perfected, it will be possible to upload "yourself" from your original biological body to a new location. either a machine, or a biological "blank" cloned and created for the purpose.
a full body transplant, now while that may seem farfetched to some, so too was the idea of a heart transplant a mere few hundred years ago.
A person who's heart has failed and has received a transplant, is literally experiencing "life after death" via a medical mechanism, not a spiritual one.
Personally i think if i am to enjoy "life after death" it is far more likely i will do so via a medical/mechanical mechanism than it is a spiritual one.

Its important for me to stress again here what i posit is a maybe, but maybe.....

What we are seeing here is a situation where the earth is a factory of biological conciousness and secret school, secret in that most dont know they are in school.
That this phase of existance is the larval stage, the first steps in a linear time conciousness hatchery, with the greater bulk of our existance waiting for us offplanet by means of technology.
That when you "die" you wake up a grey.... or as JC once promised "a new body" in heaven.

http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/tissues.html


It may also explain why there can be no disclosure, how do you explain what its like to be a frog....to a pond full of tadpoles
AussieMike
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:14 am

Re: New Spirituality Forum

Postby AussieMike » Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:02 am

To me its a more satisfying explaination, than the magic sky genie or flying spaghetti monster.
And what an elegant model for eternal life..... if time travel or "true travel" is i like to call it (the ability to be any where and anywhen) is a factor, you have the ability to go to your hatchery phase of existance "anytime" you need to and collect the gene samples needed to create new bio-vessels as the ones you "wear" break down.


To me this is a more easily understood explaination of the "eternal life in the heaven(s) in a "new" body meme espoused in the bible
AussieMike
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:14 am

Previous

Google

Return to Spirituality and the Paranormal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron