GENIUS FORUMS

The religious mind is involved with the reconciliation of emotion.

You can see the religious mind in dialogue on any and every subject, including science, religion and philosophy.

Statements are doctrines to be worshipped, revered--held onto as a matter of life and death--and are offered precisely as such. There is no flow of ideas; no understanding. Just a sequence of sentences that surface upon some ineffable feeling or “intuition.”

Logical connections are expressed not as a flow of ideas but as complete sentences.

Thinking becomes preaching or a form of emotional self-analysis. An appeal of and to the emotions.

Meaning and truth are nothing more than a rock-solid word, like “God.”

The religious mind is utterly lost to all that it proclaims to represent.

.

Haha! Was it purposeful that you took on "the religious mind" to write your post?

Oh my God!! I did? You suuuure????

Of course, I also had no idea it would elicit such a response from--some.

Stupid me.

:)

You can see the religious mind in dialogue on any and every subject, including science, religion and philosophy.

Given that the Universe is the totality of everything there is, would you agree that science, religion and philosophy are a part of the Universe?

Are scientists forbidden to engage in dialogue regarding religion and philosophy? Are philosophers forbidden to engage in dialogue regarding science and religion?

Of course not, so why should the religious mind be forbidden to discuss the subjects of science and philosophy?

You seem to state that these three areas have no connecting thread. I think a historical perspective proves this inaccurate.

The religious mind is involved with the reconciliation of emotion.

You have closed your mind to all things that cannot be sensed or calculated on a computer, and then slap the word “emotion” it, when it could be that your universe is narrow.

If the religious mind is indeed “on to something”, and the nature of the Universe is not something that can be measured or indeed understood by mere mortal minds, have you just destined yourself to be completely unenlightened? If you have not figured out how to create the Universe, then how can you argue that the possibility of intuition is not the secret to unlocking the whole of the Universe? Because you refuse to be introspective for fear of appearing emotional or weak? Come on, Leyla. Give me some good arguments why I'm wrong.

Lovely Leyla,

What you're talking about is the mind set of organized religion, not the religious mind.

Oh, fair dinkum...

!

That last post was directed as passthrough's reply. This one is for you, mah deah kowtaaia:

Would you care to outline how you distinguish between the oranised-religion mind and the religious mind?

.

A religious mind is undivided. It loves without having an object of love. It cares.

Oh, fair dinkum...

??? Not being from Australia, this term eludes me. From what I read, this could either mean, “get real” or “fair enough”. Two diametrically opposed notions, I suppose you can enlighten me as to which it is.

W. D. Hart stated: In philosophy there are no facts. It is all just arguing, thinking and reasoning.

Perictione, a female philosopher, suggests that philosophy is ultimately a search for an understanding that goes beyond mathematics and the other sciences for they look only at particular aspects of the world. Philosophy is the attempt to understand the most basic and general aspects of ourselves, our place in the universe, and our relationship to the divine.

So, to combine your previous comment in another post and this one, the journey towards union with God is continuing. Complete union cannot occur until one dies because one is limited to sensory perceptions in the physical and very limited understanding of the spiritual, especially if one does not make some attempt to reach it.

passthrough:

So, to combine your previous comment in another post and this one, the journey towards union with God is continuing. Complete union cannot occur until one dies because one is limited to sensory perceptions in the physical and very limited understanding of the spiritual, especially if one does not make some attempt to reach it.

Fundamental to a few threads at the moment is the idea "infinity."

Mooney has posited infinite space and time. This against establishment science's infinitely dense universe pre the big bang. Now, here, on the subject of God, you (and, of course others) posit some entity exisiting outside of space and time (and, therefore, matter/energy and the senses).

I don't think Mooney or establishment science expect to meet up with anything once they're dead, since--by definition--it would not exist or be able to be sensed.

By what measure of logic (since you have already implied there can be no empirical evidence) do you think you will find anything categorised as infinite once you are dead and, if what you have said is true, what would be the point of discussing "it" whilst you are alive?

.

First of all, I must sincerely apologize for not answering you [Leyla] in another thread. Until I went back to reread something another person wrote within “Christian Conundrum”, I had no idea you had an unaddressed post. But onward:

Fundamental to a few threads at the moment is the idea "infinity."

I am certain that there is no new topic under the sun here in this forum, but I haven’t been around the block as long as you. I am learning as I go, and occasionally I try to do a bit of research on this forum in order to understand another’s point of view by assessing their responses to issues…but not always.

Mooney has posited infinite space and time. This against establishment science's infinitely dense universe pre the big bang. Now, here, on the subject of God, you (and, of course others) posit some entity exisiting outside of space and time (and, therefore, matter/energy and the senses).

Maybe others perhaps, but I do not see that God exists outside of space and time, he is all these things and as close as your breath. What I am trying to point out is that Leyla Shen is an identity, of sorts, a personal universe. So, too, are Tharan, Elizabeth, Millipodium, all their own revolving universe, however, they are but a subset of something more vast, yes, infinity. As it is that each personal universe can only see and perceive a limited amount of infinity and has as yet been able to grasp the concept, much less create it, how can you deny the possible existence of something that you have not been able to grasp?

Are we puppets in a bizarre show with a twisted puppetmaster? Are we beings that were created in order to find the true Creator through questioning and being open-minded to those things we cannot grasp, as a father teaches a child to open his mind to all things possible? Or are we just circumstance? You cannot answer any of these things, nor can anyone else, including Mooney. We can study, calculate, research, but we are all still blind walking into, as Tharan put it, the Abyss.

I grant that you are very well read, and certainly have opinions on very many academic minds throughout history, but not yet one of them has the answer, the key to it all, do they?

I don't think Mooney or establishment science expect to meet up with anything once they're dead, since--by definition--it would not exist or be able to be sensed.

Although of a religious mind, Gamaliel’s reservation offers an interesting theory about that one. A Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

He knew the fragility of man and to what end, if they were wrong, they would meet. What if you are wrong? What caused you to completely discount any thought that a spiritual life is non-existent? It is easy for you to say prove how you know this to be true, but how do you know it to be false? Because people have their theories?

"Skeptical doubts purport to take place within a framework of rational debate, but by doubting too much, they undermine rationality itself, and so undermine the very basis for doubt.” ~ Wittgenstein

By what measure of logic (since you have already implied there can be no empirical evidence) do you think you will find anything categorised as infinite once you are dead

Self-analysis, looking backward in time to determine how I got from one point to the other and what the catalysts were at each given point along the way. Perhaps not logical, methodical, yes…assimilation of what was learned, what changed and why.

I am not here to opine on other people’s theories but to understand them and how they got where they are in their journey. Frankly, I don’t really care about so and so’s opinion on Kant, I want to understand why the one with the opinion thinks he is right or wrong as it applies to them personally. Arguing without showing example of experience in life is just a mental exercise. How does this help one to move forward? I can’t talk to Kant, but I can talk to you, Elizabeth, Tharan, etal.

and, if what you have said is true, what would be the point of discussing "it" whilst you are alive?

I’m beginning to think there isn’t one, unless there are others here who are attempting the same objective. Godless people are as closed-minded as those who are religious radicals. As in all things, somewhere midway is the Truth.