|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 9:22:16 GMT
I prefer the term "Holistic", or "Wholistic" over spiritual. It depends on what circles one is mingling in and "spiritual" can more often than not stir up feelings of contempt or ridicule in many. I 'get' that and their are all kinds of connotations.. You are with friends here...can you describe what it means to you?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 1, 2018 15:57:37 GMT
We often use the term "soul searching" to mean doing a reevaluation of one's core principles too, regardless of our belief in a Christian style soul. Then what is the thing that you refer to as 'soul' when you re-evaluate your core principles? It's just an idiomatic expression. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to literally parse meaning into the component words, any more than we would with "up shit creek" or "between a rock and a hard place". Anyway I suppose an answer could be soul : oneself
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 17:30:22 GMT
I don't have to filter my experience through a man made God filter either. I also use my perceptions of what I find in the universe and internalise them to try and make sense to find my personal place. I think you are perceiving Christianity as requiring that somehow I need to ask God™ or something to find my place in the universe(I maybe wrong but that is the only way I can interpret what you have said), but on a metaphysical level God™ is just an interpretation of the universe and our place in it, I see no difference between what you are describing and what I interpret and experience as a Christian. Where does God, fit in then? Why have that when you are perfectly capable of sussing stuff out for yourself? Surely God is superfluous? I don't get it. What does a belief in God add to your experience of the universe? God™ is the interpretation I have to explain the existence and functioning of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 19:55:50 GMT
I 'get' that and their are all kinds of connotations.. You are with friends here...can you describe what it means to you?
Simply put, it means being connected to body, breath, mind and spirit. It is about wholeness and oneness and completeness. It is about having self-awareness of our lives and our purpose of being, and not just what we may perceive on a physical or external level. It is about transcending the ego dominated mind.
How very 'Buddhist' !
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 20:00:41 GMT
Where does God, fit in then? Why have that when you are perfectly capable of sussing stuff out for yourself? Surely God is superfluous? I don't get it. What does a belief in God add to your experience of the universe? God™ is the interpretation I have to explain the existence and functioning of the universe. I have rejected that explanation because to me it is preferable to acknowledge something that I don't understand fully than to ascribe it to 'God'. That is God of the gaps, hence my agnostic atheism.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 20:30:47 GMT
God™ is the interpretation I have to explain the existence and functioning of the universe. I have rejected that explanation because to me it is preferable to acknowledge something that I don't understand fully than to ascribe it to 'God'. That is God of the gaps, hence my agnostic atheism. Yeah it's a bit more complex than that, but God™ is the source of the metaphysical map, not a thing in place of what I do not understand.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 20:46:56 GMT
I have rejected that explanation because to me it is preferable to acknowledge something that I don't understand fully than to ascribe it to 'God'. That is God of the gaps, hence my agnostic atheism. Yeah it's a bit more complex than that, but God™ is the source of the metaphysical map, not a thing in place of what I do not understand. Could you please explain the 'source of the metaphysical map'? Surely you aren't referring to Creationism?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 20:58:53 GMT
Yeah it's a bit more complex than that, but God™ is the source of the metaphysical map, not a thing in place of what I do not understand. Could you please explain the 'source of the metaphysical map'? Surely you aren't referring to Creationism? I am in a way referring to creationism, God™ the creator is the source of all creation. God™ is the source, that is to say the originating point of the metaphysical map I ascribe to, the very nature of God™ as the source is the basis of the map, without God™ being a source of intelligence the map cannot make sense. I am happy one day to elucidate on this over a cup of tea or a beer (but a good one, none of that VB bin juice rubbish), but I am not really inclined to try to express it in a forum such as this.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 21:12:38 GMT
Could you please explain the 'source of the metaphysical map'? Surely you aren't referring to Creationism? I am in a way referring to creationism, God™ the creator is the source of all creation. God™ is the source, that is to say the originating point of the metaphysical map I ascribe to, the very nature of God™ as the source is the basis of the map, without God™ being a source of intelligence the map cannot make sense. I am happy one day to elucidate on this over a cup of tea or a beer (but a good one, none of that VB bin juice rubbish), but I am not really inclined to try to express it in a forum such as this. OK. You were talking like an atheist there for a while, I guess God had to make an appearance sooner or later, though I hadn't taken you for a beer drinking Creationist! MOTH and I had planned a trip to New Zealand in March butt he is unwell at present so we have not confirmed it. Maybe one day we can have a drink and a chat together as long as I don't have to drink that cats piss Sav Blanc you guys send over here!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 21:49:10 GMT
I am in a way referring to creationism, God™ the creator is the source of all creation. God™ is the source, that is to say the originating point of the metaphysical map I ascribe to, the very nature of God™ as the source is the basis of the map, without God™ being a source of intelligence the map cannot make sense. I am happy one day to elucidate on this over a cup of tea or a beer (but a good one, none of that VB bin juice rubbish), but I am not really inclined to try to express it in a forum such as this. OK. You were talking like an atheist there for a while, I guess God had to make an appearance sooner or later, though I hadn't taken you for a beer drinking Creationist! MOTH and I had planned a trip to New Zealand in March butt he is unwell at present so we have not confirmed it. Maybe one day we can have a drink and a chat together as long as I don't have to drink that cats piss Sav Blanc you guys send over here! If you believe in a God (which I do) then at some point you are a creationist. I also understand and accept evolution and the scientifically accepted age of the earth.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 21:57:26 GMT
OK. You were talking like an atheist there for a while, I guess God had to make an appearance sooner or later, though I hadn't taken you for a beer drinking Creationist! MOTH and I had planned a trip to New Zealand in March butt he is unwell at present so we have not confirmed it. Maybe one day we can have a drink and a chat together as long as I don't have to drink that cats piss Sav Blanc you guys send over here! If you believe in a God (which I do) then at some point you are a creationist. I also understand and accept evolution and the scientifically accepted age of the earth. Then at what point in the process do you perceive God? Presumably as the instigator? So does that mean that you don't understand or accept the physics of creation? You would not be alone butt to me it is still God of the gaps!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 22:06:14 GMT
If you believe in a God (which I do) then at some point you are a creationist. I also understand and accept evolution and the scientifically accepted age of the earth. Then at what point in the process do you perceive God? Presumably as the instigator? So does that mean that you don't understand or accept the physics of creation? You would not be alone butt to me it is still God of the gaps! I accept the physics of creation. God is the instigator, it might sound like the God of the gaps, but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 1, 2018 22:38:44 GMT
Then at what point in the process do you perceive God? Presumably as the instigator? So does that mean that you don't understand or accept the physics of creation? You would not be alone butt to me it is still God of the gaps! I accept the physics of creation. God is the instigator, it might sound like the God of the gaps, but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start. 'but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start.' IMHO they are the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 23:38:43 GMT
I accept the physics of creation. God is the instigator, it might sound like the God of the gaps, but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start. 'but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start.' IMHO they are the same thing. Yes, that is a pitfall many people fall into.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 1, 2018 23:39:07 GMT
I accept the physics of creation. God is the instigator, it might sound like the God of the gaps, but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start. You are the intelligent start Gad. That is nice of you to say, but not really true in this context.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 2, 2018 0:04:15 GMT
'but it is not a case of me going I do not know what is here, It should be god, it is a case of me going, ahh, I perceive the metaphysical universe in this way, and the only way that can make sense is if there is an intelligent start.' IMHO they are the same thing. Yes, that is a pitfall many people fall into. How are they different?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 2, 2018 0:15:05 GMT
Yes, that is a pitfall many people fall into. How are they different? the god of the gaps is when I see a gap and fill it with god, what I am describing is a full unified theory that has god at the top, there is not a gap to fill, god is an inherent part of the model.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 2, 2018 0:57:44 GMT
That is nice of you to say, but not really true in this context. What context though? The context of God? It all depends on what one's notion of god is. I do not believe I am an intelligent start in the same way that I am describing THE intelligent start to creation.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 2, 2018 1:48:05 GMT
the god of the gaps is when I see a gap and fill it with god, what I am describing is a full unified theory that has god at the top, there is not a gap to fill, god is an inherent part of the model. How do you know there is a 'start'? Top of what? and of course the next inevitable question 'Who created or started the starter?' I am content not to know or be sure, so what makes you different?
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 3, 2018 7:05:53 GMT
That means exactly what it says. but since many around here don't believe in God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) that concept goes over their head apparently. basically we are spiritual beings in a physical body/world. so human beings don't truly die as we are eternal beings. the soul animates(gives life to) the body. so obviously, when we die here on earth it's just our body as our soul/consciousness lives on and after this world you only have but two final destination be it Heaven or hell (there is purgatory also but that's only a temporary state as if you get there your guaranteed Heaven eventually. that's why i said 'final destinations' and only listed Heaven/hell). our choices/actions here on earth ultimately determine where we end up after we physically die here on earth. that's the truth. but like I always say it seems to boil down to this for many people... @winterssuicide Both of those are false. there is no reason to have sex other than to reproduce as that's it's purpose and you won't be reproducing in the afterlife. Well the Catholic church is the one Jesus Christ started. don't you think it's a good idea to follow His church and it's teachings on morals etc? it seems unwise to think you know more than His church does/teaches on what's sinful and what's not etc. trust me on this one That's a violation of God's law (i.e. it's a sin) as the 3rd commandment says, "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day." (i.e. weekly mass)
|
|