The Religion Discussion

[rocknrolla]

Will ignorance of such simple concepts be accepted by GOD on the day of Judgment for worship of other than HIM?

other than him? this is where christianity's interpretation makes more sense than yours.

the Holy Spirit is of God, and the Holy Spirit is God. God created the Spirit, and God created the flesh. Jesus is man in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is the spirit that fills the flesh and it is of God and it is perfect. in the likeness of God. The angels were instructed to fall prostrate towards Man as though in WORSHIP which is why Satan refused.

thus via the Holy Trinity, man is God by the divine spirit within him which is of God and is God. arm to the leg leg arm to the head. what u know about that?

was that too complicated to loop back in the eternal?

[rocknrolla]

Will ignorance of such simple concepts be accepted by GOD on the day of Judgment for worship of other than HIM?

other than him? this is where christianity's interpretation makes more sense than yours.

the Holy Spirit is of God, and the Holy Spirit is God. God created the Spirit, and God created the flesh. Jesus is man in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is the spirit that fills the flesh and it is of God and it is perfect. in the likeness of God. The angels were instructed to fall prostrate towards Man as though in WORSHIP which is why Satan refused.

thus via the Holy Trinity, man is God by the divine spirit within him which is of God and is God. arm to the leg leg arm to the head. what u know about that?

[Sacchetto Boutique]

Will ignorance of such simple concepts be accepted by GOD on the day of Judgment for worship of other than HIM?

other than him? this is where christianity's interpretation makes more sense than yours.

the Holy Spirit is of God, and the Holy Spirit is God. God created the Spirit, and God created the flesh. Jesus is man in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the flesh and it is of God and it is perfect. in the likeness of God.

was that too complicated to loop back in the eternal?

with all due respect, you are basing "God" and talking about this "spirit" as u say...on what is said in the BIBLE. Again, how can you expect any muslim to accept today's bible as truth? The Queen uses the "royal" we and us and she is singular..anyway thats not even the point really. Ur telling us about spirituality but ur basing all of that "spirituality" on the bible and christianity.
On a serious note...Are you turbotursty btw? Your writing style is very similar to his.

[rocknrolla]

the only reason im speaking from the point of view of christianity is because i can claim to have read the bible from cover to cover like an action packed novel. retaining most of the information tho it may not be exact quotes.

i would not pretend to have read the koran cover to cover but have no doubt if asked questions i can decode and interpret the parts u wish.

the spirit/soul of man is something that traverses all religions. that should not bother u. and i would never advicate changing religions as i mentioned before, that act negates ANY truth that may have been in the one u were in before changing religions.

first is acceptance in the knowledge that all religions are flawed and should not be regarded as perfect. this alone can create great peace among faiths.

second is in understanding that until one attains a level synonymous with prophethood, they are mere scholars and aspirants and should carry the humility of that level

3rd is to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is not an imaginary place but is physically real and accessible in the spirit.

4th is to know how to traverse the heavenly realms in spiritual form.

5th, attaining prophethood/sainthood/God's forgiveness/Blessing/Salvation is a real and mindblowing PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. it cannot be imagined or faith-believed. when it happens YOU WILL KNOW!

6th is instead of searching for differences we should look for similarities between faiths. the individual will cover more ground in understanding using that method.

7th acknowledge that God never meant for us to kill eachother over his name but to aspire to receive his blessing and be granted entry into his world where all is eternal. Thou Shalt not Kill is universal!

when we meet other men of faith we should not be judgemental for their beliefs and ridicule them. when we encounter men claiming to be prophets we should not do so or seek to harm them either simply because WE cannot be sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are false. we are instructed to question and test their knowledge. we can make our own call from there what we choose to accept or reject in their teachings.

islam is now in the hotseat the world over because theyve ignored many of the items i have listed in the top 7. violence begets violence and revenge is a neverending cycle. if a man speaks against your God or burns your Sacred texts then it is for God to deal with him on Judgement day.

i may speak from a christian perspective, but what i speak is universal. i can reference Allah as equally as i reference Osiris etc. know that my words are biased to no side. i sit in the middle of all religions and the truth i profess is a HUMAN truth, not a religious one.

[bluefete]

Sorry, Daran.

Vatican corrects infallible pope: atheists will still burn in hell
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 09:12 AM

The Vatican has just announced that, despite what Pope Francis said in his homily earlier this week, atheists are still going to hell.

What a relief. For a brief moment there it was possible to imagine a brave new world of compassion, generosity and acceptance, not qualities we have come to associate with the Holy See.

Said Pope Francis this week: 'The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!'

That seemed like a pretty clear admission that people of other faiths and none have intrinsic worth to God and will be saved alongside the faithful. But this turned out to be wishful thinking.

Although they are otherwise good, moral people they are still doomed to burn in a lake of fire for having the temerity to have been born outside of Catholicism or having chosen to remain so.

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, spelled it out for the world on Thursday. People who know about the Catholic church 'cannot be saved' if they 'refuse to enter her or remain in her,' he said.

So that's one tall order of eternal hellfire for the rest of us, then.

It makes for an interesting spectacle to see the infallible pope being corrected by his handlers, doesn't it? For a moment it was possible to recall the welcoming and indulgent style of the short lived Pope John Paul I in the unexpectedly all-embracing words of Pope Francis. But you'll recall how quickly John Paul I was replaced by the much more doctrinaire John Paul II.

There's no question that Pope Francis sees the divinity in all human beings, but that's a message that comes with caveats. God may make them all, Jew and Gentile, but unless they're Catholic they're ultimately kindling. The Vatican waited 24 hours to correct him, but they corrected him.

Yes, yes, the Council of Trent clearly taught that Jesus Christ, humanity's one and only Redeemer, redeemed both Jew and Gentile. But there is a huge difference between redemption and salvation. See how that works? Judas Iscariot was redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, but he was not saved - Catholics believe he is damned in hell.

To be justified requires faith - and that faith must be Catholic. You see where this is going?

If I was Pope Francis, I'd be employing a food tester right about now.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/m ... z2UWfh5rkD
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

[ruffneck_12]

Good thing I does warship satin

when I go to hell, I get the remote for the AC

[rocknrolla]

the Pope is not enlightened. ive said it before. thus he is a scholar and a servant of the Jesuits. we have not had an enlightened pope in centuries upon centuries. so as usual it is ur choice to follow all his teachings hook line and sinker but where he is wrong you would follow suit. but we all have brains. use them and find God on ur own and then you can stand tall on judgement day and say "my Lord i did the best i could, do with me as u wilt". with rigid faith accepting punishment as well as reward with the same praise and adoration of our Creator.

[djaggs]

This article was written by Dr Ian Hutchinson, it is very long but quite worth the read.
Duane, I hope these credentials meets your approval:

Ian H. Hutchinson is professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His primary research interest is plasma physics and its practical applications. He and his MIT team designed, built and operate the Alcator C-Mod tokamak, an international experimental facility whose magnetically confined plasmas are prototypical of a future fusion reactor. He received his bachelor’s degree in physics from Cambridge University and his doctorate in engineering physics from the Australian National University. He directed the Alcator project from 1987 to 2003 and served as head of MIT’s nuclear science and engineering department from 2003 to 2009. In addition to over 160 journal articles on a variety of plasma phenomena, Hutchinson is widely known for his standard monograph on measuring plasmas:


The designation “New Atheists” has been gaining ground as a name given to this century's best-selling authors, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and company, who attack religion. I greatly prefer the designation “Militant Atheists". It is far more accurate. There is very little new in their critiques. Their militancy is the distinctive feature of their writings. Calling them “Hysterical Atheists” is funny and makes the same point, but it is a bit too provocative to be useful.

Engaging their arguments has been undertaken already by a very respectable variety of commentators, including both Christians and unbelievers.1 It is not altogether a rewarding task, because while the militants' writings are fluid and stylish, the arguments are often silly. David Bentley Hart's tone is more disdainful than charitable when he refers to their “embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning ... that raises the wild non-sequitur almost to the level of a dialectical method”2, but his criticism's content is right on target. Terry Eagleton, no Evangelical apologist, begins his blistering critique in the London Review of Books “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology”.3 There is plenty in the militant atheist writings to criticize.

I want to explain what I take to be the most important idea that enables us to understand the true relationship between science and the Christian faith;4 and then to examine the extent to which this idea answers the militant atheists.

The idea, put in its simplest terms, is that the predominant basis of confrontation between
science and religion as well as between science and other intellectual disciplines is scientism — the belief that science is all the real knowledge there is. What's more, the error of scientism is committed not just by scientists or secularists or atheists. In fact significant threads of scientism permeate the modern Church's thinking, including the thinking of many Evangelicals. But science does not entail or establish scientism. Scientism is actually a philosophical, and in the end a religious, commitment that is internally incoherent, not to mention inconsistent with Christian belief. Making sense of science and Christianity therefore absolutely requires us to draw a clear distinction between science and scientism: to value science for the truths it unveils about nature, and to repudiate scientism as an intellectually bankrupt fallacy. This might seem straightforward but it isn't.

The first thing that makes scientism difficult to repudiate is that it is rarely explicit. Even scientism's most ardent believers almost never get up and say “I believe that science is all the real knowledge there is.” Even in the long-past heyday of Logical Positivism, its criterion of meaning through testability was not explicitly scientific, though it was in a subtle sense an adoption of the methods of science. Rather, and especially now that Logical Positivism is intellectually unsupportable, scientism is implicit. The illustration of implicit scientism that I like to use is this passage from Nobel prize-winning biologist, Jacques Monod, who writes, “The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. In other words, the systematic denial that `true’ knowledge can be got at by interpreting phenomena in terms of final causes — that is to say, of `purpose’.”5 See in this quotation how there is an almost imperceptible transition from “nature is objective” to “true knowledge”. The second sentence makes sense as an explanation of the first only if all true knowledge is knowledge of nature, i.e. science. He is of course correct that modern science's approach (in contrast to Aristotle) is to avoid final causes and purposes in its description of the world. But to extrapolate this characteristic of `scientific’ knowledge so that it becomes for Monod a feature of any `true’ knowledge is pure presumption, pure scientism.

The second feature of scientism that makes it difficult to combat is historical and philological. It is that the original meaning of `science’, based on its derivation from Latin, was simply any kind of systematic knowledge. The meaning of the word science is still volatile, and that volatility makes it susceptible to misuse. In common usage today, science means what was once called `natural philosophy’, or in today's terminology natural science, the science of the natural world, epitomized by physics, chemistry, biology, geology and so on. When we talk about reconciling Christianity and science we don't mean struggling to understand the consistency of our faith with current economic, sociological, historical or political theories. We mean, and everyone else means, asking how the Bible and Christian doctrine can be consistent with modern cosmology, genomics, and neurology for example: the natural sciences. If, in the teeth of common modern usage, one insists upon a classically-derived meaning of the word — that science simply means any systematic body of knowledge — then scientism is a tautology. On that basis all knowledge is science by definition, and theology, even if it is no longer the Queen of them, is a science like other disciplines. Many discussions of science and scientism flounder because of a vacillation between these meanings. If science describes any systematic knowledge, then of course all of our disciplines are science. Yet when we talk about the penetration, power, persuasiveness, or prestige of science we are referring to natural science. It is vital to have in mind a stable meaning of science. I mean natural science.

A third substantial problem in distinguishing science from scientism is made all the greater because current opinions in the philosophy of science emphasize the difficulty in demarcation between science and non-science. It is pointed out that there is no convincing algorithm either for the practice of science (of which a candidate might for example be induction) or for evaluating what is or is not science (for example falsifiability). If then, the thought goes, we are uncertain how science is to be practiced or identified, then who is to say where its boundaries lie? Why should we concede that there are any limits to science's knowledge? And if there are no limits to science, then scientism starts to look very plausible. Maybe we don't yet have really scientific knowledge of some aspects of the world, but that's perhaps just because those aspects are at an early stage in scientific development. We just need to keep working to turn them eventually into truly positive sciences. Actually (and here we touch on the questionable novelty of the militant atheists) these sort of arguments echo the early nineteenth-century positivists: Saint-Simon and Compte.6 But they are erroneous.

It is true that the common simplistic descriptions of the scientific method are largely mythological. But, nevertheless, there are identifiable characteristics in science as it has been practiced since the scientific revolution, and these constitute substantial limitations of the scope of science's ability to describe the world. I identify the two key characteristics as reproducibility and Clarity. Science describes the world in so far as it is describable in terms that are reproducible. An experiment done here, and now, by me, if it is part of science will give the same result when done somewhere else, sometime else, by someone else. Or if we are discussing something inaccessible to manipulation, for example the stars in astronomy, then multiple consistent observations at different places and times, by different observers must be possible, providing reproducibility in practice even if not necessarily at will. Moreover science requires that its descriptions have a specialized Clarity (capitalized to indicate my use as a technical term), so that they are unambiguously understood by the trained scientist. This often (but not always) involves quantitative measurement and mathematical theory. Such mathematical forms of expression most abundantly possess Clarity but other forms such as systematic description or classification also provide it in ways that would not normally be described as mathematical. In any case Clarity is required even to know whether reproducibility has been attained, and these requirements place limitations on science.

Many of life's most important matters simply do not possess reproducibility. History, for example, cannot be understood by appeal to reproducibility. Its most significant events are often unique, never to be repeated. There is no way to experiment on history, and no way to repeat the observations. Some parts of historical study benefit from scientific techniques, but the main mission of history cannot be addressed through reproducibility; its methods are not those of science. Yet history possesses real knowledge. Or in respect of Clarity, consider the beauty of a sunset, the justice of a verdict, the compassion of a nurse, the drama of a play, the depth of a poem, the terror of a war, the excitement of a symphony, the love of a woman. Which of these can be reduced to the Clarity of a scientific description? Yes, a sunset can be described in terms of the spectral analysis of the light, the causes of the coloration arising from light scattering by particles and molecules, and their arrangement and gradient in the sky. But when all the scientific details of such a description are done, has that explained, or even conveyed, its beauty? Hardly. In fact it has missed the point. Many-layered connections and implications are intrinsically part of the significance of these subjects. We appreciate and understand them, we know them, through sharing conceptually in the interwoven fabric of their often only evocative allusions.

One of the attitudes within Christianity that feeds scientism is a premature pretension to unification of knowledge. “All truth is God's truth” is undoubtedly correct, but it does not follow that there is just one way to discover that truth. Our Christian forebears taught that there were two books of revelation, the book of God's word, the Bible, and the book of God's works, the creation. And the Christian scientists of the early modern period argued, rightly I believe, that each book needed to be studied in the first place on its own terms. Our human impulse to form an integrated, coordinated understanding of the one self-consistent world we believe we inhabit, is not to be denied. Of course, we strive to see how the two books fit together, developing a more or less integrated conception of reality. This striving for an integrated understanding is natural and praiseworthy, but there are dangers in it. Perhaps none of those dangers is greater than to persuade ourselves that we can have or do have a purely scientific proof of the truths of revelation. In the first place, such a proof is impossible. We can no more prove scientifically the love of the heavenly father than we can prove scientifically the love of a human father. Both are beyond the inherent limitations of the scope of science, properly understood. In the second place, and I believe even more damaging to Christian witness, the enchantment by and striving for a scientific demonstration of God, or the supernatural, or design, effectively cedes to scientism. It has the perhaps unintended effect of confirming scientific demonstration as the supreme arbiter of truth. It betrays by its program the attitude (at the very least) that science is the most convincing form of knowledge. From there, a full blown scientism is only a step away. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not disavowing all intellectual arguments for God or the reasonableness of faith. Quite the contrary, I came to faith as an undergraduate in part because I was (and am) convinced by intellectual arguments that Jesus is who he says he is. I am saying simply that with few exceptions the arguments for God are not, and cannot be, scientific. That is not a cause for concern provided we repudiate scientism, provided we accord due credit to modes of thought and knowledge other than science.

[djaggs]

Hutchinson continued...

Distinguishing science from scientism is at the heart of the attitude towards origins that is represented by BioLogos. There are some extremely convincing scientific descriptions of the development of the cosmos, the earth, and of biological organisms. All the scientific evidence indicates that the universe is just over 13 billion years old, the earth perhaps 4 billion, and multicellular life on earth close to a billion. As best we can tell — and the evidence has strengthened greatly recently — the exquisitely adapted diversity of life came about by a process of common descent over immense time spans through natural selection. But nothing in science demonstrates the unwarranted additional a-theological assertions, which scientism's advocates often add, that this process is `impersonal’, `unguided’, `blind', or `purposeless’.

The scientific enterprise shows every sign of steadily progressing towards what may be a seamless account of the physical basis of life, and perhaps (though we are very far from this as yet) a physical description of the workings of the brain. But if science is not all the knowledge there is — if scientism is false — then having a physical description does not explain away descriptions at different levels: physical, personal, or spiritual. A physical description of the processes of my brain does not prove that I don't have true thoughts. If it did, then the thought that embodies that idea, in my brain or any other, ought not to be believed. The reality of human thought and agency cannot be disproved by constructing some sort of scientific description of its embodiment. We, like other animals, may well be complicated self-regulating biochemical factories guided by a vast code written in our DNA. But it does not follow that we are nothing but biochemical factories.

Similarly, an evolutionary explanation of origins does not disallow an explanation in terms of God's design or providence. Indeed the idea that there might be a perfectly natural explanation of events attributed to God's action is a commonplace of the Bible. When Our Lord spoke of the birds of the air and the lilies of the field as being fed or clothed by the heavenly Father, for example,7 he was not ignorant of the fact that these things had a perfectly natural explanation. It was precisely the naturalness that gave force to his teaching about worry. Jesus seemed completely comfortable with the idea that events which
are natural are also attributable to God's care, in other words that explanations at different levels, the natural and the spiritual, are sometimes simultaneously valid.


In broad strokes, the case made by the militant atheists consists of three assertions: (1) God is a scientific hypothesis that has been essentially disproved by science. (2) Evolution explains religion as nothing more than a natural phenomenon. (3) Religion is demonstrably evil. How convincing is their position? Here, I'm going to have to skip the third point about how evil religion is. I don't believe that argument stands up to serious scrutiny8 but my discussion of scientism bears immediately mostly upon the first two claims.

The God Delusion9 returns time after time to statements like “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other”. Occasionally this is a “suggestion”, but more often it is a bare assertion. The remarkable thing about this basis for the book's whole argument is how contradictory it is to common understanding. Surely if ever there were a topic that is not a question of science, it is metaphysics, theology, and the existence of God. The only way that Richard Dawkins' assertion could possibly make some kind of intellectual sense is in the context of scientism. If indeed all matters of real knowledge were matters of science, then presumably it would follow that science and science alone is competent to answer this question, because it alone is competent to answer any question. Under scientism, God is a “scientific hypothesis like any other”. But scientism is a fallacy. The existence of God is, in my view, a factual question. “Either he exists or he doesn't” is the way Dawkins puts it. I see no reason to dispute that statement. But insisting that God's existence is a scientific question is a giant leap further that only the most blatant scientism could justify. That today's atheists can get away with this scientistic presumption without being summarily dismissed is a sign of how rampant scientism is in our culture today.

When the militant atheists tell us that there's no evidence for God or Christianity, what they are saying is that there's no scientific evidence. Actually even that is an over-statement. There are some aspects of scientific understanding that favor a theological position. But I am willing, for the sake of argument, to grant the simplistic version that there is no scientific proof of God. My response, though, is that there is no scientific proof, either, of the assassination of Julius Caesar on the 15th March 44 BC. Yet historians think that's a fact. There's no scientific proof of the genius of a Bach or a Michelangelo; yet musicians and artists think they know that genius. And there's no scientific proof of the love between me and my wife; yet that may be the surest thing in my life.

There's nothing much new in these arguments. Perhaps the only significant novelty in the recent militant atheist writings is an insistence that evolutionary explanations are intrinsically more satisfactory than others because they explain the complex in terms of the simple.10 Complex life is explained in terms of simpler chemical and physical laws of nature. In contrast, it is argued, explaining anything in terms of God is to explain the simpler (things in the world) in terms of the more complex (God). But this argument, too, rests on a scientistic presumption. It is far from self-evident that evolutionary explanations are
meaningfully ‘simpler’ than theological explanations. To most non-scientists, explanations in terms of personal agency are far more familiar, and in that sense `simple’, than explanations in terms of the laws of physics or biology. It is only scientistic presupposition that underwrites a view that scientific explanations are intrinsically more satisfactory. At the origins end of the explanatory chain (contradicting the unwarranted recent interpretations of Stephen Hawking) no amount of science answers the question where do the fundamental laws of physics come from. And even if there were a fully comprehensive scientific explanation of the development of the physical or biological aspects of nature, we would in any case be forced at the other end of the explanatory chain to regard complexity, in the form of our own human, personal, mental capacity, as intrinsic to the act of knowing it. That's one of the long-recognized philosophical insufficiencies of the scientistic viewpoint: scientific knowledge itself rests upon lots of non- scientific and unspecifiable “personal knowledge”11 possessed by humans. Scientism cannot account for science itself.

Here an important distinction between evolutionary viewpoints is essential. Scientists who see the strength of evidence for common descent (and this applies to other scientific descriptions of the evolution of nature) may well be persuaded that inheritance of naturally selected favorable variations is the mechanism by which the adaptation of organisms to their environment came about. But such an acceptance of an evolutionary `physics’, does not compel one to adopt the evolutionary `metaphysics’ embodied in such atheistic fundamentalism as “Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life.”12

The second claim of the militant atheists is that evolution explains away religion as a natural phenomenon.
Explaining away religion as a natural phenomenon is not new. Seeing religion as a product of human psychology is as old as religion itself. Christianity recognizes the religious impulse as a universal part of human nature and, of course, argues that a universal religious tendency is just what one might expect if God really exists. Seeing religion as having developed over human history is a similarly ancient understanding. The Bible portrays God's self-revelation as developing through a sequence of events of history. Explicitly Darwinist explanations of religion are, practically speaking, as old as Darwin, even though the Origin of Species was at pains to avoid that hot issue. So there's nothing new in the idea that religion is a universal part of human nature or in atheists arguing that religion is nothing but a natural phenomenon. What is taken to be the recent arguments' additional plausibility is based upon (1) the `progress’ in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in recent decades and (2) the growth of fundamental measurement and understanding of mechanisms in the brain. It might not be obvious to non-scientists, but actually the scientific status of evolutionary psychology is (unlike evolutionary biology) highly suspect within the (natural-)science community. Its problem is that there is practically no scientific evidence to support it. When Edward O Wilson13, or Steven Pinker14 (or, second hand, Daniel Dennett15) offer us evolutionary stories that purport to explain some aspects of moral or religious behavior, there is, practically speaking, no moral or psychological fossil evidence to which the stories can be compared. Remarkably, it was some of the champions of biological evolution such as atheist Richard Lewontin and agnostic Stephen Jay Gould16, who were most vociferous in their criticism of sociobiology when it first emerged. They saw, and thoughtful scientists today see, a fundamental difference between the evidence for biological evolution, and the lack of evidence for sociobiology and evolutionary psychology; and they are at best embarrassed by the unfounded claims for these psychological just so stories.17

For the most part, the arguments offered to explain away religion are not scientific. We do not require any evolutionary theory to tell us that humans can deceive themselves, are prone to wishful thinking, exercise commitment to ideas, or have heightened ability to detect agents. These traits might lead to stubborn belief in the supernatural, which might be mistaken. But the ideas surrounding them are not scientific. They are pop-psychology to which is being attached a spurious honorific as if they were derived from scientific analysis. Yet, trite as they are, these are essentially the explanatory options that evolutionary psychology supposes itself to have `discovered’. What's more, the atheist polemicists have no basis for making specific choices between the options, so they leave them open. For their purposes, it does not matter which of the dozens of different and incompatible evolutionary explanations might be correct. Provided we can be persuaded that some natural explanation or combination of explanations is going to work, their point is made. A truly scientific explanation ought to be different. It ought to be uncomfortable with the myriad of possible explanations (with no way to decide between them) not, like the polemicists, seemingly happy to pile up more and more possibilities as if their multiplicity somehow made the argument weightier. In any case, psychological analyses, whether evolutionary or not, do not decide whether the content of the beliefs analyzed are true.

There is serious progress, by contrast, in brain science. We do now have the beginnings of an ability to measure the functions of the brain as it is working. And I think this century will see steady technical progress in measurement and towards an understanding of the physical mechanisms that constitute the brain. Does this threaten the Christian faith? It depends.

If we maintain that Christian belief inherently requires a dualist and explicitly supernatural understanding of the mind, then probably that will be challenged by the progress of brain science. If however we adopt the more rational, and I would argue more Biblical, viewpoint of seeing the soul as the totality of the person, including mind, body, humanity, consciousness, and spirit, then I do not believe Christian belief needs to be on the defensive. I don't doubt that atheists will argue that understanding the mind at a scientific level disproves religion. But it is a poor argument. Psychological determinism, it has long been realized, is logically self-defeating. If one supposes that the ideas humans have are fully explained by a physical analysis of the brain, or by a behaviorist analysis of training, or an evolutionist description of inherited predispositions, or some combination of these or other so-called scientific analyses, then presumably the very belief that this is the case is determined just by these influences. If that were so, then why should we suppose the content of the belief to be true? In short, if our beliefs are determined by evolution or psychology, why should one believe so? No, the mind is not explained away by a physical analysis of the brain. Nor are other levels of description, including the spiritual.

In my experience, both Christian and agnostic students are interested in this debate and open to thoughtful responses on either side. But they rarely hear the issues addressed in a respectful way. While some individual Christian writers have engaged directly, most churches have done little to help young people understand the debate. Perhaps pastors feel inadequate, but really the academic credentials of the militant atheists are not all that intimidating. At university inquisitive students usually face either bombast or embarrassed silence. At a place like MIT, there are few students who are unaware of the strength of the scientific evidence for common descent. All undergraduates take a course in biology, which naturally touches on molecular and genetic topics. Christian students, especially if they come from evangelical backgrounds, often experience a crisis if their church has taught an excessively literalist view of origins. They are looking for a thoughtful intellectual response from more experienced Christians, faculty and researchers, on both how to understand the relationship of science to faith, and how to respond to the claims of the militant atheists. Agnostic students are also often on a search for the transcendent. It is, I believe, very helpful when major campus speaking events open up these questions in the manner of a set-piece or a formal dialogue. But also, when a Christian faculty colleague and I held a discussion seminar a couple of years ago on the topic of “Is Belief in God Ridiculous?", addressing the critiques of the new atheists, it was attended by agnostics as well as Christians. They all reportedly found it an interesting and stimulating discussion opportunity. Who knows what seeds were sown? Moments of challenge are also moments of opportunity.

[djaggs]

Richard Dawkins true agenda.......response by Dr. Ravi Zechariah

[AdamB]

Will ignorance of such simple concepts be accepted by GOD on the day of Judgment for worship of other than HIM?

And who made up these concepts and constructs my friend?

Until I'm shown otherwise, I will live my life according to my morals which are defined by empathy and intelligent judgement.

You can live like sheep and dedicate your life to a man made fairy tale. You have your freedom and it's your choice.

I will not entertain nor be blackmailed into behaviors and views I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

Especially, when it comes to your views on Evolution, the Big Band, Alien life and Homosexuality. You have no place to preach about things you have no business in. If you think you're privileged to do so then expect Atheists to attack call you out on it.

Daran,
My post was not in reference to you but the clown who has been spiritually enlightened but doesn't know of the "royal WE and US". I respect your denial of GOD for it is half of the profession of faith in the ONE TRUE GOD. The other part may come to you one day before your last breath or before the sun rises from the west (yes, this last part was deliberate).

[AdamB]

Sorry, Daran.

Vatican corrects infallible pope: atheists will still burn in hell
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 09:12 AM

The Vatican has just announced that, despite what Pope Francis said in his homily earlier this week, atheists are still going to hell.

What a relief. For a brief moment there it was possible to imagine a brave new world of compassion, generosity and acceptance, not qualities we have come to associate with the Holy See.

Said Pope Francis this week: 'The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!'

That seemed like a pretty clear admission that people of other faiths and none have intrinsic worth to God and will be saved alongside the faithful. But this turned out to be wishful thinking.

Although they are otherwise good, moral people they are still doomed to burn in a lake of fire for having the temerity to have been born outside of Catholicism or having chosen to remain so.

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, spelled it out for the world on Thursday. People who know about the Catholic church 'cannot be saved' if they 'refuse to enter her or remain in her,' he said.

So that's one tall order of eternal hellfire for the rest of us, then.

It makes for an interesting spectacle to see the infallible pope being corrected by his handlers, doesn't it? For a moment it was possible to recall the welcoming and indulgent style of the short lived Pope John Paul I in the unexpectedly all-embracing words of Pope Francis. But you'll recall how quickly John Paul I was replaced by the much more doctrinaire John Paul II.

There's no question that Pope Francis sees the divinity in all human beings, but that's a message that comes with caveats. God may make them all, Jew and Gentile, but unless they're Catholic they're ultimately kindling. The Vatican waited 24 hours to correct him, but they corrected him.

Yes, yes, the Council of Trent clearly taught that Jesus Christ, humanity's one and only Redeemer, redeemed both Jew and Gentile. But there is a huge difference between redemption and salvation. See how that works? Judas Iscariot was redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, but he was not saved - Catholics believe he is damned in hell.To be justified requires faith - and that faith must be Catholic. You see where this is going?

If I was Pope Francis, I'd be employing a food tester right about now.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/m ... z2UWfh5rkD
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

So what is the worth of redemption? Someone christian other than tusty / rolla please explain.

[AdamB]

the only reason im speaking from the point of view of christianity is because i can claim to have read the bible from cover to cover like an action packed novel. retaining most of the information tho it may not be exact quotes.

i would not pretend to have read the koran cover to cover but have no doubt if asked questions i can decode and interpret the parts u wish.

the spirit/soul of man is something that traverses all religions. that should not bother u. and i would never advicate changing religions as i mentioned before, that act negates ANY truth that may have been in the one u were in before changing religions.

first is acceptance in the knowledge that all religions are flawed and should not be regarded as perfect. this alone can create great peace among faiths.

second is in understanding that until one attains a level synonymous with prophethood, they are mere scholars and aspirants and should carry the humility of that level

3rd is to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is not an imaginary place but is physically real and accessible in the spirit.

4th is to know how to traverse the heavenly realms in spiritual form.

5th, attaining prophethood/sainthood/God's forgiveness/Blessing/Salvation is a real and mindblowing PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. it cannot be imagined or faith-believed. when it happens YOU WILL KNOW!

6th is instead of searching for differences we should look for similarities between faiths. the individual will cover more ground in understanding using that method.

7th acknowledge that God never meant for us to kill eachother over his name but to aspire to receive his blessing and be granted entry into his world where all is eternal. Thou Shalt not Kill is universal!

when we meet other men of faith we should not be judgemental for their beliefs and ridicule them. when we encounter men claiming to be prophets we should not do so or seek to harm them either simply because WE cannot be sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are false. we are instructed to question and test their knowledge. we can make our own call from there what we choose to accept or reject in their teachings.

islam is now in the hotseat the world over because theyve ignored many of the items i have listed in the top 7. violence begets violence and revenge is a neverending cycle. if a man speaks against your God or burns your Sacred texts then it is for God to deal with him on Judgement day.

i may speak from a christian perspective, but what i speak is universal. i can reference Allah as equally as i reference Osiris etc. know that my words are biased to no side. i sit in the middle of all religions and the truth i profess is a HUMAN truth, not a religious one.

This is how religious terrorists are born...when freaks like these become "religious" and their warped mind, though they may not exibit outwardly, propels them to illogical acts of violence / terror.

The man is a prophet / saint or something greater by now. I have never heard of prophets making incoherent ramblings / rantings.

What is it other than loose screws in the head that leads a person to make statements like these? Why are claims like these most common in christianity? What are they trying to accomplish? Who are they trying to fool (other than their own selves)?

How do they know that it's not some evil spirit that has possessed them, making them believe that it is Jesus or the spirit or GOD?

[rocknrolla]

the only reason im speaking from the point of view of christianity is because i can claim to have read the bible from cover to cover like an action packed novel. retaining most of the information tho it may not be exact quotes.

i would not pretend to have read the koran cover to cover but have no doubt if asked questions i can decode and interpret the parts u wish.

the spirit/soul of man is something that traverses all religions. that should not bother u. and i would never advicate changing religions as i mentioned before, that act negates ANY truth that may have been in the one u were in before changing religions.

first is acceptance in the knowledge that all religions are flawed and should not be regarded as perfect. this alone can create great peace among faiths.

second is in understanding that until one attains a level synonymous with prophethood, they are mere scholars and aspirants and should carry the humility of that level

3rd is to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is not an imaginary place but is physically real and accessible in the spirit.

4th is to know how to traverse the heavenly realms in spiritual form.

5th, attaining prophethood/sainthood/God's forgiveness/Blessing/Salvation is a real and mindblowing PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. it cannot be imagined or faith-believed. when it happens YOU WILL KNOW!

6th is instead of searching for differences we should look for similarities between faiths. the individual will cover more ground in understanding using that method.

7th acknowledge that God never meant for us to kill eachother over his name but to aspire to receive his blessing and be granted entry into his world where all is eternal. Thou Shalt not Kill is universal!

when we meet other men of faith we should not be judgemental for their beliefs and ridicule them. when we encounter men claiming to be prophets we should not do so or seek to harm them either simply because WE cannot be sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are false. we are instructed to question and test their knowledge. we can make our own call from there what we choose to accept or reject in their teachings.

islam is now in the hotseat the world over because theyve ignored many of the items i have listed in the top 7. violence begets violence and revenge is a neverending cycle. if a man speaks against your God or burns your Sacred texts then it is for God to deal with him on Judgement day.

i may speak from a christian perspective, but what i speak is universal. i can reference Allah as equally as i reference Osiris etc. know that my words are biased to no side. i sit in the middle of all religions and the truth i profess is a HUMAN truth, not a religious one.

This is how religious terrorists are born...when freaks like these become "religious" and their warped mind, though they may not exibit outwardly, propels them to illogical acts of violence / terror.

The man is a prophet / saint or something greater by now. I have never heard of prophets making incoherent ramblings / rantings.

What is it other than loose screws in the head that leads a person to make statements like these? Why are claims like these most common in christianity? What are they trying to accomplish? Who are they trying to fool (other than their own selves)?

How do they know that it's not some evil spirit that has possessed them, making them believe that it is Jesus or the spirit or GOD?

please tell me more.. how many religious terrorists do u know? u sound like u know what ur talking about.

how many messengers of Divine Truth Ordained by God himself have you known? are they supposed to fit within your preconceptions of what is good in God? please relay to God how u expect his chosen to present themselves that will be all in accordance with adamb's standards.

the only thing incoherent is you ignorance. you obviously cannot hear the voice of reason. a sign of a hardened heart. u are doing well adamb.. very well.

[Numb3r4]

Are we coming to the conclusion that God is a crutch for humans?
Something to justify our suffering during existence?
Doesn't say much for humans that we can't handle our own problems?

What if God only came about because of our inability to explain certain things in nature and the Universe, as such with time and the acquisition of knowledge/wisdom through societal debate, science and research we may come to better understand ourselves and that which is around us.

[nareshseep]

Are we coming to the conclusion that God is a crutch for humans?
Something to justify our suffering during existence?
Doesn't say much for humans that we can't handle our own problems?

What if God only came about because of our inability to explain certain things in nature and the Universe, as such with time and the acquisition of knowledge/wisdom through societal debate, science and research we may come to better understand ourselves and that which is around us.

Be careful Numb3r4, some folks are not logical. You will be labelled an atheist with no morals.

[djaggs]

the only reason im speaking from the point of view of christianity is because i can claim to have read the bible from cover to cover like an action packed novel. retaining most of the information tho it may not be exact quotes.

i would not pretend to have read the koran cover to cover but have no doubt if asked questions i can decode and interpret the parts u wish.

the spirit/soul of man is something that traverses all religions. that should not bother u. and i would never advicate changing religions as i mentioned before, that act negates ANY truth that may have been in the one u were in before changing religions.

first is acceptance in the knowledge that all religions are flawed and should not be regarded as perfect. this alone can create great peace among faiths.

second is in understanding that until one attains a level synonymous with prophethood, they are mere scholars and aspirants and should carry the humility of that level

3rd is to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is not an imaginary place but is physically real and accessible in the spirit.

4th is to know how to traverse the heavenly realms in spiritual form.

5th, attaining prophethood/sainthood/God's forgiveness/Blessing/Salvation is a real and mindblowing PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. it cannot be imagined or faith-believed. when it happens YOU WILL KNOW!

6th is instead of searching for differences we should look for similarities between faiths. the individual will cover more ground in understanding using that method.

7th acknowledge that God never meant for us to kill eachother over his name but to aspire to receive his blessing and be granted entry into his world where all is eternal. Thou Shalt not Kill is universal!

when we meet other men of faith we should not be judgemental for their beliefs and ridicule them. when we encounter men claiming to be prophets we should not do so or seek to harm them either simply because WE cannot be sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are false. we are instructed to question and test their knowledge. we can make our own call from there what we choose to accept or reject in their teachings.

islam is now in the hotseat the world over because theyve ignored many of the items i have listed in the top 7. violence begets violence and revenge is a neverending cycle. if a man speaks against your God or burns your Sacred texts then it is for God to deal with him on Judgement day.

i may speak from a christian perspective, but what i speak is universal. i can reference Allah as equally as i reference Osiris etc. know that my words are biased to no side. i sit in the middle of all religions and the truth i profess is a HUMAN truth, not a religious one.

This is how religious terrorists are born...when freaks like these become "religious" and their warped mind, though they may not exibit outwardly, propels them to illogical acts of violence / terror.

The man is a prophet / saint or something greater by now. I have never heard of prophets making incoherent ramblings / rantings.

Youve finally said something that is true.....

From Al Jazeera news

[Numb3r4]

HHHMMMM.......interesting point (& very true in today's society) nareshseep and you could almost be right about me being an atheist however I will make it clear that I do believe in a cosmic higher power I choose not to make it too personal as religion makes God out to be.

My belief is that science is a better belief system that traditional religion. Yes it is colder and harsher but somehow (to me) that is more liberating. Also at times I find it easier take Newton's Laws;

1) An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by another force. Similarly if you are going down a particular road in life if you wish to change or make a difference then you have to exert a force (will power, resolve etc.) to change the direction. Similarly people have experiences that change their life they were going down a particular path and they were acted upon by other forces and they realize they had to change.

2) F = ma; namely force needed to slow or stop an object is the product of the objects mass and its acceleration. Okay well I didn't think this one through too much but here goes. If you try to do too much to fast well you might find yourself in great difficulty to stop. It's all about momentum. The message is to live slowly a lesson in patience effectively and don't burden yourself with too much. The equation proves this if you live slowly then your rate of acceleration is small and if you don't burden yourself then your mass is small hence from the formula then you would not have to apply much force to change you ways, thus you could enact more change in your life.

3) His third law states that for every action there is a reaction (Ideally he said opposite reaction but I'll gloss over that for now). This one is the easiest: Put good in Get good out. Do onto other as you would have then do onto you. What you have done to the least of my brethren you have done onto me. Deferred gratification. KARMA in a nutshell.

So for me I don't think I am an atheist I do believe in a higher power it is just that it is not the same warm fuzzy lovable image of a fatherly God or one that would "smite oh yee of little faith".

For me the higher being is more ethereal, more formless and subject to more natural rules as opposed to man's interpretation as in traditional religion. If you must personify God then to me he is a Scientist or an Engineer, he sets goals and will work to see their fruitful conclusion, however he is honest enough to know and admit when they have failed.

[rocknrolla]

^each person's path is different, but i would have to agree that u are on the right path. u have eyes to see the underlying truth in newton's laws. either ur highly intelligent, highly inquisitive, or both. but not many ppl would be able to pull out from newton's laws what u have. good luck on the path and remember that meditation is key. seeking the flaws in ourselves before we seek the flaws in others. always bettering ourselves by incorporating those things which are universally good into our way of life.

[AdamB]

the only reason im speaking from the point of view of christianity is because i can claim to have read the bible from cover to cover like an action packed novel. retaining most of the information tho it may not be exact quotes.

i would not pretend to have read the koran cover to cover but have no doubt if asked questions i can decode and interpret the parts u wish.

the spirit/soul of man is something that traverses all religions. that should not bother u. and i would never advicate changing religions as i mentioned before, that act negates ANY truth that may have been in the one u were in before changing religions.

first is acceptance in the knowledge that all religions are flawed and should not be regarded as perfect. this alone can create great peace among faiths.

second is in understanding that until one attains a level synonymous with prophethood, they are mere scholars and aspirants and should carry the humility of that level

3rd is to acknowledge that the kingdom of God is not an imaginary place but is physically real and accessible in the spirit.

4th is to know how to traverse the heavenly realms in spiritual form.

5th, attaining prophethood/sainthood/God's forgiveness/Blessing/Salvation is a real and mindblowing PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. it cannot be imagined or faith-believed. when it happens YOU WILL KNOW!

6th is instead of searching for differences we should look for similarities between faiths. the individual will cover more ground in understanding using that method.

7th acknowledge that God never meant for us to kill eachother over his name but to aspire to receive his blessing and be granted entry into his world where all is eternal. Thou Shalt not Kill is universal!

when we meet other men of faith we should not be judgemental for their beliefs and ridicule them. when we encounter men claiming to be prophets we should not do so or seek to harm them either simply because WE cannot be sure without a shadow of a doubt that they are false. we are instructed to question and test their knowledge. we can make our own call from there what we choose to accept or reject in their teachings.

islam is now in the hotseat the world over because theyve ignored many of the items i have listed in the top 7. violence begets violence and revenge is a neverending cycle. if a man speaks against your God or burns your Sacred texts then it is for God to deal with him on Judgement day.

i may speak from a christian perspective, but what i speak is universal. i can reference Allah as equally as i reference Osiris etc. know that my words are biased to no side. i sit in the middle of all religions and the truth i profess is a HUMAN truth, not a religious one.

This is how religious terrorists are born...when freaks like these become "religious" and their warped mind, though they may not exibit outwardly, propels them to illogical acts of violence / terror.

The man is a prophet / saint or something greater by now. I have never heard of prophets making incoherent ramblings / rantings.

What is it other than loose screws in the head that leads a person to make statements like these? Why are claims like these most common in christianity? What are they trying to accomplish? Who are they trying to fool (other than their own selves)?

How do they know that it's not some evil spirit that has possessed them, making them believe that it is Jesus or the spirit or GOD?

please tell me more.. how many religious terrorists do u know? u sound like u know what ur talking about.

how many messengers of Divine Truth Ordained by God himself have you known? are they supposed to fit within your preconceptions of what is good in God? please relay to God how u expect his chosen to present themselves that will be all in accordance with adamb's standards.

the only thing incoherent is you ignorance. you obviously cannot hear the voice of reason. a sign of a hardened heart. u are doing well adamb.. very well.

So were you "chosen" by GOD? Are you a messenger of Divine Truth ordained by GOD Himself? Are you a prophet? Are you a Saint?

Your rantings are far from the voice of reason. You should try politics....maybe walk about with Jack!

[Numb3r4]

To rocknrolla

Thank you. I especially like the piece on meditation being key.

But even you would accept that cultivating a habit of proper meditation is not an easy one.

[AdamB]

HHHMMMM.......interesting point (& very true in today's society) nareshseep and you could almost be right about me being an atheist however I will make it clear that I do believe in a cosmic higher power I choose not to make it too personal as religion makes God out to be.

My belief is that science is a better belief system that traditional religion. Yes it is colder and harsher but somehow (to me) that is more liberating. Also at times I find it easier take Newton's Laws;

1) An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by another force. Similarly if you are going down a particular road in life if you wish to change or make a difference then you have to exert a force (will power, resolve etc.) to change the direction. Similarly people have experiences that change their life they were going down a particular path and they were acted upon by other forces and they realize they had to change.

2) F = ma; namely force needed to slow or stop an object is the product of the objects mass and its acceleration. Okay well I didn't think this one through too much but here goes. If you try to do too much to fast well you might find yourself in great difficulty to stop. It's all about momentum. The message is to live slowly a lesson in patience effectively and don't burden yourself with too much. The equation proves this if you live slowly then your rate of acceleration is small and if you don't burden yourself then your mass is small hence from the formula then you would not have to apply much force to change you ways, thus you could enact more change in your life.

3) His third law states that for every action there is a reaction (Ideally he said opposite reaction but I'll gloss over that for now). This one is the easiest: Put good in Get good out. Do onto other as you would have then do onto you. What you have done to the least of my brethren you have done onto me. Deferred gratification. KARMA in a nutshell.

So for me I don't think I am an atheist I do believe in a higher power it is just that it is not the same warm fuzzy lovable image of a fatherly God or one that would "smite oh yee of little faith".

For me the higher being is more ethereal, more formless and subject to more natural rules as opposed to man's interpretation as in traditional religion. If you must personify God then to me he is a Scientist or an Engineer, he sets goals and will work to see their fruitful conclusion, however he is honest enough to know and admit when they have failed.

padna,
You have a basic belief in GOD ALMIGHTY, that's great!

However, possibly you have not been exposed to any religion or maybe to the wrong, innovated religions where man has changed the message from GOD. So you have formed an opinion like the one you have about religion because you have seen that things just don't add up so far from your experience with religion.

The problem is that you are going down a path of trying to define GOD by your own philosophical ideas like your statements above of what GOD is not and what GOD is. Is this the way that GOD wants for us? How would you know?

What is your evidence and basis for these statements? If everyone were allowed freely to define GOD, then what manner of deities would we end up with? You have spoken of Newton's Laws but these have been defined and proven.

Did GOD create us and just leave us - without a purpose and direction? I beg to differ...

Some thoughts and comments from you now, so we may have a conversation.

[AdamB]

To rocknrolla

Thank you. I especially like the piece on meditation being key.

But even you would accept that cultivating a habit of proper meditation is not an easy one.

Can anyone PROVE anything they claim of "astral travel" / traversing the heavens with the spirit / soul?

[Numb3r4]

Think ESP; Extra Sensory Perception

Think of an MRI it detects the way our brain responds to certain stimuli and produces an image.

Similarly an astral experience may just be a way in which our brain responds to some stimuli.

In the olden days witch doctors and such would often consume herbs, potions and other drugs to illicit a journey to the astral plane this could very well be considered the use of a chemical stimulant to stimulate the brain into producing a particular response.
I am NOT advocating drug use for religious or spiritual purposes far from it we all know the consequences.

Similarly with meditation we are attempting to control the physical stimuli that would promote the the mental response that we would otherwise consider a journey to the astral plane.

If you were to perform an MRI of someone on drugs his brains image might be different to that of a normal person and he would think that he is the happiest person alive.

Again if you perform an MRI on a person who meditates regularly his image might be different to that of a normal person and he would think he is close to the if not on the Astral Plane.

The journey to the Astral Plane could very well be an entirely mental process that offers you added perspective on (all) things physical, it does not necessarily mean that you would warp (think Star Trek) past the moons of Jupiter and end up on Alpha Centauri.

[AdamB]

Think ESP; Extra Sensory Perception

Think of an MRI it detects the way our brain responds to certain stimuli and produces an image.

Similarly an astral experience may just be a way in which our brain responds to some stimuli.

In the olden days witch doctors and such would often consume herbs, potions and other drugs to illicit a journey to the astral plane this could very well be considered the use of a chemical stimulant to stimulate the brain into producing a particular response.
I am NOT advocating drug use for religious or spiritual purposes far from it we all know the consequences.

Similarly with meditation we are attempting to control the physical stimuli that would promote the the mental response that we would otherwise consider a journey to the astral plane.

If you were to perform an MRI of someone on drugs his brains image might be different to that of a normal person and he would think that he is the happiest person alive.

Again if you perform an MRI on a person who meditates regularly his image might be different to that of a normal person and he would think he is close to the if not on the Astral Plane.

The journey to the Astral Plane could very well be an entirely mental process that offers you added perspective on (all) things physical, it does not necessarily mean that you would warp (think Star Trek) past the moons of Jupiter and end up on Alpha Centauri.

Anything concrete there? That could be proven? Like Newton's laws.

So someone on marijuana or other drugs could be just as astral travelling as someone meditating?

Could it produce any results that would be acceptable to scientists like knowledge of the Universe, not known before? And how could those claims be substantiated?

[redmanjp]

To rocknrolla

Thank you. I especially like the piece on meditation being key.

But even you would accept that cultivating a habit of proper meditation is not an easy one.

Can anyone PROVE anything they claim of "astral travel" / traversing the heavens with the spirit / soul?

i read something online where someone astral traveled to a nearby room & read something that was setup as a test and was able to say what it was when he came back into his body as proof

[Numb3r4]

If you consider just the mental response then yes drugs can produce result like meditation...however you have to consider the consequences. Meditation has no consequences drugs do.

The journey to the Astral Plane you are considering to be a physical one that's why you seem to think it would produce physical knowledge. However if you consider that the experience is personal then it may produce a personal epiphany something that you as a person may have to evaluate yourself.

If you go back to my comparison about the MRI then maybe the imaging of the mind could produced results.

However like I said the Astral Plane is very personal it is not you rocketing past the rings of Saturn it is a more revealing journey into one's self.

It is learning to understand yourself and the place you have in the physical world.

National independence through personal independence; only when the citizens can enjoy true freedom and independence within a country can the country as a whole be independent.

Same it is with us as humans only when we are entirely independent physically and mentally as individuals then we can progress as a species as a whole.


It is clear that to be physically independent is not hard we have the technology....it is the mental aspect that is and will be difficult. I will not ever attempt to underscore the difficult in attempting mental feats.

[rocknrolla]

To rocknrolla

Thank you. I especially like the piece on meditation being key.

But even you would accept that cultivating a habit of proper meditation is not an easy one.

yes indeed. for 10 years i practiced meditation as regularly as i could. and for 10 years it was nothing more than an excercise in imagination. somehow i kept the faith to keep trying and praying while meditating for help, knowledge and wisdom. when u unlock the mind from going deeper and deeper within u start to see and feel real results. not just like personal wellbeing and the fickle benefits. but true detection and awareness of the spirit within. my search was successful.. the soul is not a myth or fairytale or figment of our imagination. it is real.

[rocknrolla]

To rocknrolla

Thank you. I especially like the piece on meditation being key.

But even you would accept that cultivating a habit of proper meditation is not an easy one.

Can anyone PROVE anything they claim of "astral travel" / traversing the heavens with the spirit / soul?

i read something online where someone astral traveled to a nearby room & read something that was setup as a test and was able to say what it was when he came back into his body as proof

it is a difficult process regarding the focus involved. i practice in my spare time since perma-wareness as i will call it. i have done it numerous times. stepping outside of your body while watching ur body is a sight to behold. combinations of channelling spiritual energy via different chakras takes u to different places.

but yes.. i would not back down from a test of such sorts once im given the appropriate time to prepare my focus. i would be able to do it numerous times in one day if need be.

but i wouldnt be the first to have done and passed that test. which is why im in search of something more concrete. levitation.. even tho i think many will dismiss it as a trick if successful, it would be a fun accomplishment for me so screw who doesnt believe lol.

just a normal guy who's science experiment using his own resources bore fruit of success. as i mentioned before, i am at the very least guru level in matters of the spirit. my knowledge and experience can sit with the best of them, tho some may know of things i do not and viceversa.

[rocknrolla]

Think ESP; Extra Sensory Perception

Think of an MRI it detects the way our brain responds to certain stimuli and produces an image.

Similarly an astral experience may just be a way in which our brain responds to some stimuli.

In the olden days witch doctors and such would often consume herbs, potions and other drugs to illicit a journey to the astral plane this could very well be considered the use of a chemical stimulant to stimulate the brain into producing a particular response.
I am NOT advocating drug use for religious or spiritual purposes far from it we all know the consequences.

Similarly with meditation we are attempting to control the physical stimuli that would promote the the mental response that we would otherwise consider a journey to the astral plane.

If you were to perform an MRI of someone on drugs his brains image might be different to that of a normal person and he would think that he is the happiest person alive.

Again if you perform an MRI on a person who meditates regularly his image might be different to that of a normal person and he would think he is close to the if not on the Astral Plane.

The journey to the Astral Plane could very well be an entirely mental process that offers you added perspective on (all) things physical, it does not necessarily mean that you would warp (think Star Trek) past the moons of Jupiter and end up on Alpha Centauri.

Anything concrete there? That could be proven? Like Newton's laws.

So someone on marijuana or other drugs could be just as astral travelling as someone meditating?

Could it produce any results that would be acceptable to scientists like knowledge of the Universe, not known before? And how could those claims be substantiated?

yes..
attainment of enlightenment as many think is not 'knowing everything'.
what is gained from enlightenment is the ability to understand all things because u learn the building blocks of existence. a universal equation just like in maths class, defines how everything is built in the universe. it is a simple equation. 1+1=3, but it is seen in every aspect of life and this equation must be championed to understand and enter the spiritual world. for this reason, an enlightened person in any field of science can bring views that will cause speedy and significant advancements. their minds and thoughts are usually many years ahead of their time.

and yes.. the '3' is symbolic of the Holy Trinity.