If God is real ...

[pianoperformer]

ALG, though I appreciate your perspective, I do disagree with a lot of it. I don't accept anything like LoA or the like as true, and I certainly don't accept the sort of Pantheist belief you seem to be writing about. I've gone down that path before.

Thanks though.

[pianoperformer]

mercuryrising:

I found The Reason for God on Amazon as a CD. It does say abridged, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, or what if anything is missing.

I should be receiving it on Wednesday. I'll let you know what I think. Thanks again for the recommendation.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I certainly don't accept the sort of Pantheist belief you seem to be writing about.

Ooooh, "pantheist" - such a big word.

Let's put it more simply. If you meet ALG in an Internet forum, you get one kind of impression of what kind of person he is.

If you meet ALG at a party, you get a 2nd kind of impression of what kind of person he is.

If you see ALG at home playing bricks with his little kids, you get a 3rd kind of impression of what kind of person he is.

If you meet ALG attending a meeting in the corporate boardroom, you get yet another impression of what kind of person he is.

Now, the more complex and multi-faceted a person ALG is, the more different impressions you would get, if you see him in different places and settings.

And what could be more complex & mutli-faceted than God itself?

Whether one believes that there are MANY gods, or only one god, may be nothing more than the number of different places and settings which one has observed God/Gods to be at work.

In Christianity ALONE, there are several versions of God. One version is the vengeful, angry one which would smite entire cities; turn people into salt; send locusts and plagues; turn rivers into blood; prescribe death for adultery. And another version is the all-loving, compassionate, ever-forgiving, "You've got a Friend in Jesus" version of God.

It's the same guy? Really? Wow ....

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I don't accept anything like LoA or the like as true

As you please.

Now, just for fun, let me share with you the earliest recorded example of IM at work, that I've come across so far. It goes something like this:

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said, "Let there be light ....!" ...

... and there was light.

Every miracle in the Bible, IMHO, is an example of IM. There is an intention, and and then the corresponding effect occurs.

However, if you do come across examples of Jesus unintentionally healing the sick or inadvertently walking on water, or opening his shopping bag only to be utterly surprised by the tremendous amount of bread and fish inside, do let me know. I might have accidentally missed those accounts.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

No, no...those things only apply on the subatomic scale.

No, no ... As I have mentioned before, your scientific knowledge is out of date. Quantum effects are quite observable on the macroscopic level. Some links for you to check out, and note: these are not "New Age" websites:

Access : : Nature
"Entanglement is a quantum phenomenon usually associated with the microscopic world. Now it is clear that its effects are also relevant on macroscopic scales, such as in the magnetic properties of some solids."

Quantum effects writ large
"Physicists have long held that the macroscopic properties of a material at a quantum critical point are completely described in terms of fluctuations of a classical variable called the order parameter," said Rice University theoretical physicist Qimiao Si. "Our results show instead that inherently quantum effects play an important role, and that these can be seen in thermodynamic measurements."

IEEE Xplore - Login

Real-World Quantum Effects Demonstrated

Macroscopic quantum effects in Josephson systems

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

No, no...those things only apply on the subatomic scale. Above that, down to the very atom, everything is very predictable according to the scientific laws already in place. I don't think one can extrapolate anything from this..

Another case of limited thinking. You may want to read up a bit more if you're really interested.

Ah well. One will indeed be a (literally) perpetual seeker, if one wants to be. I wish for you to find the answers within, because nothing from without seems to satisfy your yearnings. Good luck to you.

[pianoperformer]

ALG, I think you mean nothing that agrees with your own beliefs will satisfy me. I understand you really really think you are right, but you did just say every religion has a little of the truth, so you can't even claim to have the whole thing, can you? Funny how that works.

I just wanted perspectives here. Please don't get offended when I disagree with them. I've just dealt with them so much in the past that, well, I'm not going there.

[Ecce Homo]

Wow Piano. I am impressed with the sincere tone of your posts. It sounds like you really want to know the truth. Genuine seeking seems to be a relatively rare thing, so I applaud your efforts. As I’ve said before on this forum, it is my experience that people always find what it is they are truly seeking, so I have every confidence that you will as well.

Kudos to you and I hope you are enjoying the journey!

[The Cloud]

Personally, I don't care if there is a god. I don't believe in one, but even if he (a non-sexual he) existed I would probably act the same. The way I figure it, if god created the universe, he created it to be as he wanted it to be. Therefore, I must act within the constraints of the universe to achieve his good will. Not that hard to stay on his good side, if breaking the laws of physics is the only way to sin .

What about other rules, rules not enforced by physical reality? Well, as far as I can tell such rules are rather arbitrary. I mean, there's almost always the "thou shalt not kill" thing, but anywhere that people want to live that is going to be a rule, whether it is religious or not. But there seems to be no way to pick a book or a set of teachings that can be shown to be more religiously "true" than any other. If you rigidly follow any of them, you will like as not find yourself in a rather unholy mess of contradictions.

And if you don't rigidly follow them, then what's the point of saying you're Chistian (or any other religion with set written rules and teachings)? People that say they are Christian, but say that the Bible must be interpreted, bother me. They often seem to think that there is some fundamental difference between them interpreting the Bible and me (a non-Christian, or ex-Christian) interpreting it. I don't see what that difference is. Both of us are making decisions about our lives based on our own interpretations of our experiences. But one of us damns the other for not labeling that interpretation as Christianity.

So my religion? Live. Live by the rules that cannot be broken, and learn that you can break all the others. If there is a god, then that's what he wants you to do, because if he wanted different he would have made the rules different.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Ecce Homo

Wow Piano. I am impressed with the sincere tone of your posts. It sounds like you really want to know the truth. Genuine seeking seems to be a relatively rare thing, so I applaud your efforts. As I’ve said before on this forum, it is my experience that people always find what it is they are truly seeking, so I have every confidence that you will as well.

Kudos to you and I hope you are enjoying the journey!

Thank you. I am really trying. I understand that it is strictly a personal journey, but I was just curious how others have come to their beliefs, and if they are truly dedicated to those beliefs, or just believe what is convenient or sounds right. Neither way is inherently wrong, I guess, but those who are truly dedicated to their beliefs probably have a good reason.

I did get a little angry at ALG, unfortunately, but I'm just annoyed when people say "this is how it is, and if you disagree, you are mistaken," especially when that person also says all religions have some aspect of the truth and none have it all.

But yes, I have asked to be shown the truth. If there is a God, then perhaps that will be enough for Him to help me find it.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Personally, I don't care if there is a god. I don't believe in one, but even if he (a non-sexual he) existed I would probably act the same. The way I figure it, if god created the universe, he created it to be as he wanted it to be. Therefore, I must act within the constraints of the universe to achieve his good will. Not that hard to stay on his good side, if breaking the laws of physics is the only way to sin .

What about other rules, rules not enforced by physical reality? Well, as far as I can tell such rules are rather arbitrary. I mean, there's almost always the "thou shalt not kill" thing, but anywhere that people want to live that is going to be a rule, whether it is religious or not. But there seems to be no way to pick a book or a set of teachings that can be shown to be more religiously "true" than any other. If you rigidly follow any of them, you will like as not find yourself in a rather unholy mess of contradictions.

I do see where you are coming from. But religions such as Christianity say there is more than just following a strict set of moral guidelines, so if God requires something more, it seems wise to find out what that thing is.

Originally Posted by The Cloud

And if you don't rigidly follow them, then what's the point of saying you're Chistian (or any other religion with set written rules and teachings)? People that say they are Christian, but say that the Bible must be interpreted, bother me. They often seem to think that there is some fundamental difference between them interpreting the Bible and me (a non-Christian, or ex-Christian) interpreting it. I don't see what that difference is. Both of us are making decisions about our lives based on our own interpretations of our experiences. But one of us damns the other for not labeling that interpretation as Christianity.

I'm not so sure I understand. Obviously it is a rather large book, and some parts can be interpreted in different ways. I would argue that the parts that matter the most seem pretty clear.

Originally Posted by The Cloud

So my religion? Live. Live by the rules that cannot be broken, and learn that you can break all the others. If there is a god, then that's what he wants you to do, because if he wanted different he would have made the rules different.

Or maybe He's giving you free will to choose to follow His rules or not.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

ALG, I think you mean nothing that agrees with your own beliefs will satisfy me. I understand you really really think you are right, but you did just say every religion has a little of the truth, so you can't even claim to have the whole thing, can you? Funny how that works.

I just wanted perspectives here. Please don't get offended when I disagree with them. I've just dealt with them so much in the past that, well, I'm not going there.

So you have no comment on ALG's info on quantum effects on the macro level? No offense, but it's interesting the things to which we choose to react. You seem to have asked people to put their ducks in a row mostly so that you'll have something to knock down. If you were interested in new information, you would absorb it or not, and move on.

If I knew you in real life, and your approach proved to be as shown here, I'd say you seem to possess a critical mass of negativity that gets in your way quite a bit. But I don't know you, so I have no right to judge that. Still again, good luck.

I had a teacher long ago who taught that being broadminded is folly, but being openminded is essential.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

So you have no comment on ALG's info on quantum effects on the macro level?

I can only debate about that with which I have experience. I would hazard a guess that neither ALG nor I have experience with quantum mechanics, and so I will not debate about it. I can only offer what I know or have heard. I would take his opinion about quantum mechanics more into consideration if he were a physicist who has explicitly studied it, but assuming that is not the case, I feel neither of us are qualified to discuss it. I have seen both articles supporting his points and refuting them, so all I can do is offer what I know, which admittedly isn't yet very much.

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

No offense, but it's interesting the things to which we choose to react. You seem to have asked people to put their ducks in a row mostly so that you'll have something to knock down. If you were interested in new information, you would absorb it or not, and move on.

If you read my original post, I stated that I would be questioning and asking for more information about everyone's beliefs. I do get defensive when someone lectures me about how their beliefs are correct, and implies I am mistaken when I disagree with those beliefs, or will be a "perpetual seeker" forever just because I disagree. Therefore, I was a bit terse with ALG because I have seen his past posts, and know (no offense to him) that there is no arguing with him without encountering the aforementioned attitude.

If you also read my other posts in this thread, you should notice that I have tried to remain as respectful as possible, while trying to question people and ask for more information about their beliefs. My goal is to see what people believe, why they believe what they believe, how dedicated they are to those beliefs, and how they have come about them.

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

If I knew you in real life, and your approach proved to be as shown here, I'd say you seem to possess a critical mass of negativity that gets in your way quite a bit. But I don't know you, so I have no right to judge that. Still again, good luck.

Lol. Indeed you are right you have no right to judge me. I can't respond to what you said without offending, so I won't.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am attacking you or am close-minded, nor does it mean I am trying to knock down your proverbial ducks.

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

I had a teacher long ago who taught that being broadminded is folly, but being openminded is essential.

One is often accused of being close-minded merely for disagreeing with another's belief. To each his own.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I'm just annoyed when people say "this is how it is, and if you disagree, you are mistaken,"

LOL, it's just your own neuronal habit (sometimes called an opinion).

Mingyur Rinpoche calls it the "gossipy neurons". There's a little mass of neurons in your brain and due to your past experiences of my posts, those neurons have previously rewired themselves to keep passing the following message:

"That ALG is an arrogant son of a b**** and he ALWAYS says I'm wrong!!"

... to each other in different forms. It leads to something called a confirmation bias. It gears your senses towards a tendency to perceive as much as possible of what I say, as evidence of an arrogant son of a b**** who ALWAYS says you're wrong.

Actually if you look back carefully on my posts, there is only one point (a rather small one, in the overall context of this thread) where I have said you are wrong. You had said that quantum effects are not observable beyond the size of an atom, and I said that this is untrue, and cited you several links to various scientific studies (And GASP!! None of the linked articles actually have "The Secret" or Fred Alan Wolf or the phrase "Law of Attraction" in them).

-------

On the more general points in this thread, let's be quite clear. I didn't say that you are mistaken just because you disagree with me. I didn't say that you're mistaken at all.

In fact I think that you are quite right within your own reality. After all, whatever meanings you attach to your reality, that is what your reality will mean.

For example, if you currently think that God is a mysterious possibility well worth further investigation, then that is what God will currently be for you - a mysterious possibility well worth further investigation.

So you are certainly right.

Until you change your thoughts about God, of course. Then you will be right again, at that time, because at that time God will exist in your reality in the form corresponding to your change in thinking.

---------

A much less significant point - if you currently think that ALG is an arrogant son of a b**** who ALWAYS says you're wrong, well, you would also be right about that. In your reality.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

mercuryrising:

I found The Reason for God on Amazon as a CD. It does say abridged, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, or what if anything is missing.

I should be receiving it on Wednesday. I'll let you know what I think. Thanks again for the recommendation.

No problem. And please do let me know what you think. He has really given me some food for thought. It's some of the best reasoning I've heard from the Christian side of things.

Between that book and this thread, I've been feeling the need to be more forthright about what I believe and not placate to others simply because they disagree or my beliefs are unpopular. My appreciation once again.

[Maguru]

I used to believe in the biblical god and I've had to perform an exorcism on myself to get rid of that demon. God had me turned inside out trying to be perfect and rendering me incapable of embracing my own humanity.
Without god I am more understanding of myself. Without god I am more understanding of others without the judgement that always accompanies godly qualities. Without god I am finding and being myself.

God was very real to me and now he's not. Without god I can choose.

[Parthon]

pianoperformer: You sir .. just blew my mind! :P

You ask for honest perspectives about God. Excellent. You say you are a seeker of truth and enlightenment! GREAT!

People say "My perspective of God is <blah>"

You respond: I disagree. .... Wait what? Do you disagree that it's not their perspective? Do you disagree that the perspective for them isn't true? What exactly are you disagreeing with?!?

ALG's perspective *is* his perspective. Doesn't mean it's right/wrong/yellow/chocolate. It just means that after all the time he's spent searching and seeking, he has, so far, come to that conclusion. It's a perspective, and you can't disagree with it. You can say that you've tried it on and it doesn't fit. You can say that it's not your perspective and never will be. You can even give your own opinion on the perspective. Saying you don't agree with it is just mind boggling, there's nothing to agree/disagree to.

The reason why I say this is to just focus the conversation back on discovery, intro/extrospection and seeking through the mystery of life together, rather than debate or semantics.

As for quantum mechanics, now I'm no quantum scientist, I don't have the patience, but from the fair amount I've read on on the subject I've come to these conculsions, they aren't exactly scientific conclusions, but they are interesting.
Quantum mechanics surrounds the possibility of existance of atomic and sub-atomic particles. There's such laws as the law of uncertainty, and the law of observance. The fact that we can't measure something exactly, and things can "shift" randomly. On top of that the observer is pulled into the experiment itself just by the simple fact of observing it. On top of that we have chaos theory, which says that small changes in the environment can cause macro changes elsewhere. Plus there's been a few studies about how much thought and brainwaves affect the energy or form around it.

So right now, we are living in a universe whose fundamental blocks shift randomly, can't be accurately measured, are intertwined with us observers, MAY be affected by our very thoughts and even those tiny changes will eventually cause large effects in the macro scale world that we live in. Just this conclusion alone suggests that even if IM isn't real, that it at least is possible. While large body physics are controlled by newtonian physics, the tiny particles in between might just be enough to shift the universe, we just don't know yet.

Now, if I were a God will infinite intelligence, that's how I'd design it.

Also, there's more to life than science. Where is the love particle? How do you measure a friendship? What's the standard deviation of a hug? Why are people people? Is chocolate really that yummy? Why the universe? Why "why"? If? Because? If you could answer these questions, you'd be a great scientist indeed.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I used to believe in the biblical god and I've had to perform an exorcism on myself to get rid of that demon. God had me turned inside out trying to be perfect and rendering me incapable of embracing my own humanity.
Without god I am more understanding of myself. Without god I am more understanding of others without the judgement that always accompanies godly qualities. Without god I am finding and being myself.

God was very real to me and now he's not. Without god I can choose.

It's interesting how you phrase this belief system: that you say, for instance, that "God had me turned inside out" rather than "my belief that there is a God had turned me inside out;" and "without god I'm such and such" as opposed to "without my belief in a god I am such and such."

You even say God was very real to me and now he's not -- like this god you don't believe in is a person for you (a person who does not exist!), not a thought.

I am not picking on your semantics, but just pointing out how the shape of thoughts creates feelings -- in the case of this wording, it creates "god" as an entity (who doesn't exist) and must be exorcised (and therefore has a kind of reality) -- in other words, it occurs as resistance. When you talk about god and how he doesn't exist, it occurs as stress rather than peace. As if you were at war with god -- who doesn't exist!

By the way, I believe there is no personal interventionist god.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I do see where you are coming from. But religions such as Christianity say there is more than just following a strict set of moral guidelines, so if God requires something more, it seems wise to find out what that thing is.

If God is passive-aggressive enough to have requirements for us that haven't been made absolutely clear, then I simply see no point in playing His game. I've no desire to put up with that in people, let alone my supposed Lord and Savior. A God that expects me to unconditionally love and follow Him despite the lack of evidence supporting His very existence is no God for me, nor is a God that creates rules that are GUARANTEED to be broken by EVERYONE created to follow those rules. Such laws, laws that are impossible to follow, are created in corrupt governments so that the leaders have a legal excuse to threaten or exercise force against people if they are becoming obstinate.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I'm not so sure I understand. Obviously it is a rather large book, and some parts can be interpreted in different ways. I would argue that the parts that matter the most seem pretty clear.

But who are you to decide what parts matter? That is your interpretation. Not only is that your interpretation, but it is your interpretation of other men's interpretations of other men's interpretations. The Bible has been translated and re-written many times over the course of history, and had countless opportunities for modification or mistranslation. It's very contents have been censored by the Catholic church; there are scrolls that have not been incorporated, for political reasons most likely.

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Or maybe He's giving you free will to choose to follow His rules or not.

Well, that's pretty cruel in and of itself. He creates us, then gives us this "free will" that is basically an excuse to make it impossible for us to follow his rules unconditionally. He, a supposedly perfect being, creates imperfection. How does that work? Perfection by its very nature does not allow for imperfection. So either God is imperfect, or we are perfect.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Maguru

I used to believe in the biblical god and I've had to perform an exorcism on myself to get rid of that demon. God had me turned inside out trying to be perfect and rendering me incapable of embracing my own humanity.

The fundamental basis of Christianity is that you and I are imperfect, that Christ is perfect and that through him we are forgiven for our transgressions. It's not about how good you are or about trying to be good. It's about what's in your heart.

My human nature says that if someone steps on my foot, I punch them in the face. If someone steals from me, I burn down their house. If someone hurts my family, I murder theirs. This is probably how every war got started, someone stepped on someones foot.

The Christian God says that if someone offends me, I should forgive them as I've been forgiven and let him handle it. That goes against my human nature. But I've seen the results from both methods in my lifetime. I'll take option B any day.

I think this is what faith in Christ means in practice.

Without god I am more understanding of myself. Without god I am more understanding of others without the judgement that always accompanies godly qualities.

It's interesting how people think Christians are so judgmental. Didn't Christ teach his disciples not to judge?

"Before you remove the splinter from your brothers eye, remove the log from your own."

"He who has not sinned cast the first stone."

Maybe Christians aren't particularly good at practicing this. Nonetheless, it is a teaching of Christ to not judge others.

God was very real to me and now he's not. Without god I can choose.

I feel that exact opposite.

[NightSpirit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianoperformer
I don't accept anything like LoA or the like as true

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

As you please.
Now, just for fun, let me share with you the earliest recorded example of IM at work, that I've come across so far. It goes something like this:
"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said, "Let there be light ....!" ...
... and there was light.

ALG does have a point and I will tell you why I think so. I believe the theory LOA is based on is a spiritual law that God created and is in the Bible, that what we hear and believe in our hearts, will happen if it exists, which is another way of saying "if it’s the truth." ‘Whoever shall say unto this mountain, be removed and be cast into the sea and shall not doubt in his heart that what he says shall come to pass, shall receive whatsoever he says’ is a pretty bold statement Jesus made. I don‘t think we have fully taken advantage of all that He gives us or maybe our opposing doubts are standing in the way.

I believe, as some have said here, that all of God's creation and his laws, physical or spiritual, apply to us whether or not we are seeking Him and want to know Him. The Bible says, ‘that God causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good and that the rain falls on the just and the unjust.’ When they say LOA is working whether you believe it or not, as a spiritual principle, it is. ‘Ask and receive, seek and you shall find’ is followed by Jesus saying ‘for everyone that asks, receives’ not just Christians.

We can just plain ask things and get them or, as He said, we can ask anything in His name and He will give it to us. I think if we ask and don’t receive, it may be because we have asked for two things that are in conflict. Or it could be that He is answering a higher request, say, ‘to know the truth’ over the request we just made. Asking but not believing, the doubt Jesus spoke of, is called resistance in LOA.

If we ask out of our own understanding and get it, sometimes we get what we didn't want from asking from an incomplete knowledge. If we ask under the umbrella of the will of God, which seems scary or limiting to some, then Christians believe He will do what is best for us and all others. In LOA, it’s ‘this or something better‘ and the synchronicity of the universe and to a Christian it’s miracles or answers to prayer from God because that's who we were asking.

We are not required to have the correct theology or know the creator to benefit and make use of gravity. And we don't have to know all there is about God or to love him to make use of His spiritual laws of faith. Jesus said the devil and even those who are working against God can do signs and wonders, that you can gain the whole world and lose your own soul. And there are numerous examples in the Bible of people speaking evil things, of cursing their own selves or family with their words because of this law of 'Ask and receive.'

If we take these principles and use them to have our own power outside of God then LOA can become our religion of self. Asking and receiving, seeking and finding, can draw us toward God or away from God depending on what we are seeking. The Bible call it 'worshiping the creature' and not the creator, to seek fulfillment and be thankful for the pleasure in something of His creation and not to God, like reaping the benefits of the system of LOA but not humbling to the God that created it.

Calling God the power of universe, source, etc may seem to be more enlightened as a generic term but what if it is less enlightened, like calling ALG 'man' which he fully is but that doesn't describe him completely. What if those terms in LOA are just parts of who He is…that whole pantheism thing where He is one but also many at the same time? ALG was kind and didn't point out the mystery of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God in three manifestations but still one.

It's just that some think God can't be the God of the Bible because that is one name but there are many names of God in there. God says in the Bible, when asked, that His name is "I am that I am" a term which I think carries tremendous implications, that He just IS and anything we could thing of He IS. Or that He is Now and that is His power and what makes Him eternal.

The entire Bible, OT and NT is about Jesus and it's the same God in both. Jesus is described as the fulfillment of all creation and that the fullness of God dwells in Him. It is possible for Jesus to be revealing aspects of Himself to people in other religions and still be the only way to God at the same time.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Every miracle in the Bible, IMHO, is an example of IM. There is an intention, and and then the corresponding effect occurs.

However, if you do come across examples of Jesus unintentionally healing the sick or inadvertently walking on water, or opening his shopping bag only to be utterly surprised by the tremendous amount of bread and fish inside, do let me know. I might have accidentally missed those accounts.

ALG, do you believe that these events really happened or do you see them as just symbolic stories to teach us principles? I seem them as both, things that Jesus really did that also had symbolic meaning behind them when examined. It seems illogical to me when someone points to verses in the Bible in support of some truth like LOA that others may not see but then implies that the rest of the Bible is not true or a conspiracy of men to control us, like some from Steve on down do here. Surely the Apostles and the Catholic Church weren't conspiring to teach us the LOA principles that are in there, were they?

[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Angela

By the way, I believe there is no personal interventionist god.

Following the intent of the thread, why do you believe that? Instead of telling us what you believe is not, can you say what you believe is?

I think pianoperformer was wise in his OP in asking us to state why we believe what we do. It just seems so many have formed an opinion of what is right by saying they believe what they do because they think everything else is wrong.

I know none of us can prove anything, just asking what evidence that this is right proved the belief for you.

[pianoperformer]

NightSpirit: That was an amazing post.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

ALG does have a point and I will tell you why I think so. I believe the theory LOA is based on is a spiritual law that God created and is in the Bible, that what we hear and believe in our hearts, will happen if it exists, which is another way of saying "if it’s the truth." ‘Whoever shall say unto this mountain, be removed and be cast into the sea and shall not doubt in his heart that what he says shall come to pass, shall receive whatsoever he says’ is a pretty bold statement Jesus made. I don‘t think we have fully taken advantage of all that He gives us or maybe our opposing doubts are standing in the way.

I believe, as some have said here, that all of God's creation and his laws, physical or spiritual, apply to us whether or not we are seeking Him and want to know Him. The Bible says, ‘that God causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good and that the rain falls on the just and the unjust.’ When they say LOA is working whether you believe it or not, as a spiritual principle, it is. ‘Ask and receive, seek and you shall find’ is followed by Jesus saying ‘for everyone that asks, receives’ not just Christians.

So what's the difference between just asking, and asking in His name? Obviously non-Christians are not going to ask in His name.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

We can just plain ask things and get them or, as He said, we can ask anything in His name and He will give it to us. I think if we ask and don’t receive, it may be because we have asked for two things that are in conflict. Or it could be that He is answering a higher request, say, ‘to know the truth’ over the request we just made. Asking but not believing, the doubt Jesus spoke of, is called resistance in LOA.

I don't know. It seems there are people who do sincerely ask things, and not receive them. My theory is perhaps that each of us has some purpose here, and we won't receive something that conflicts with that purpose. For instance, I'm blind, and probably will be so no matter how sincerely I ask otherwise. I am not bitter about that, but assume it is something I just have to go through for whatever reason, and I don't question that.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

If we ask out of our own understanding and get it, sometimes we get what we didn't want from asking from an incomplete knowledge. If we ask under the umbrella of the will of God, which seems scary or limiting to some, then Christians believe He will do what is best for us and all others. In LOA, it’s ‘this or something better‘ and the synchronicity of the universe and to a Christian it’s miracles or answers to prayer from God because that's who we were asking.

I do feel wrong though asking for "worldly" things. For instance, to do well in school. There are the obviously important things such as finding truth, having a closer relationship with God, etc, and then there are the things you just feel silly for bothering God about, if you know what I mean.

That was the debate I had with myself when i've studied Christianity in the past. Do you just ask for God's will to be done, or can you ask for specific things that you might desire? If the former, then one could say His will is going to be done, anyway, whether you ask for it or not.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

We are not required to have the correct theology or know the creator to benefit and make use of gravity. And we don't have to know all there is about God or to love him to make use of His spiritual laws of faith. Jesus said the devil and even those who are working against God can do signs and wonders, that you can gain the whole world and lose your own soul. And there are numerous examples in the Bible of people speaking evil things, of cursing their own selves or family with their words because of this law of 'Ask and receive.'

Very good point.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

If we take these principles and use them to have our own power outside of God then LOA can become our religion of self. Asking and receiving, seeking and finding, can draw us toward God or away from God depending on what we are seeking. The Bible call it 'worshiping the creature' and not the creator, to seek fulfillment and be thankful for the pleasure in something of His creation and not to God, like reaping the benefits of the system of LOA but not humbling to the God that created it.

So isn't that a little of a fine line? Could you clarify a bit? I do see what you mean about humbling yourself before God, but how do you know when you're perhaps asking the wrong things or for the wrong reason?

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

Calling God the power of universe, source, etc may seem to be more enlightened as a generic term but what if it is less enlightened, like calling ALG 'man' which he fully is but that doesn't describe him completely. What if those terms in LOA are just parts of who He is…that whole pantheism thing where He is one but also many at the same time? ALG was kind and didn't point out the mystery of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God in three manifestations but still one.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

It's just that some think God can't be the God of the Bible because that is one name but there are many names of God in there. God says in the Bible, when asked, that His name is "I am that I am" a term which I think carries tremendous implications, that He just IS and anything we could thing of He IS. Or that He is Now and that is His power and what makes Him eternal.

Also a very good point.

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

The entire Bible, OT and NT is about Jesus and it's the same God in both. Jesus is described as the fulfillment of all creation and that the fullness of God dwells in Him. It is possible for Jesus to be revealing aspects of Himself to people in other religions and still be the only way to God at the same time.

I don't understand that, either. If Jesus quite obviously said you must believe in him and what he's done, then how can there be a way around that?

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

ALG, do you believe that these events really happened or do you see them as just symbolic stories to teach us principles? I seem them as both, things that Jesus really did that also had symbolic meaning behind them when examined. It seems illogical to me when someone points to verses in the Bible in support of some truth like LOA that others may not see but then implies that the rest of the Bible is not true or a conspiracy of men to control us, like some from Steve on down do here. Surely the Apostles and the Catholic Church weren't conspiring to teach us the LOA principles that are in there, were they?

Agreed.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Angela

It's interesting how you phrase this belief system: that you say, for instance, that "God had me turned inside out" rather than "my belief that there is a God had turned me inside out;" and "without god I'm such and such" as opposed to "without my belief in a god I am such and such."

You even say God was very real to me and now he's not -- like this god you don't believe in is a person for you (a person who does not exist!), not a thought.

I am not picking on your semantics, but just pointing out how the shape of thoughts creates feelings -- in the case of this wording, it creates "god" as an entity (who doesn't exist) and must be exorcised (and therefore has a kind of reality) -- in other words, it occurs as resistance. When you talk about god and how he doesn't exist, it occurs as stress rather than peace. As if you were at war with god -- who doesn't exist!

By the way, I believe there is no personal interventionist god.

Thanks Angela. I was of course speaking metaphorically as the whole experience was internal. As you rightly point out, I have been at war with god and I still am. However, it is the belief imprinted within the psyche and the effects of those beliefs on sense of self that I am warring with, and not actually god, who doesn't exist right?

Ding! Ding! Bloody hell, I'm fighting myself! ha ha ha

What kind of god do you believe in?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The fundamental basis of Christianity is that you and I are imperfect, that Christ is perfect and that through him we are forgiven for our transgressions. It's not about how good you are or about trying to be good. It's about what's in your heart.

Yes, I was taught I was imperfect too. I no longer believe that to be true because perfection is variable and depends on comparisons from a human perspective.

My human nature says that if someone steps on my foot, I punch them in the face. If someone steals from me, I burn down their house. If someone hurts my family, I murder theirs. This is probably how every war got started, someone stepped on someones foot.

I'm sorry that is not my human nature. I am much more understanding towards my transgressors because I see them as human beings first. Why is always a good question.

The Christian God says that if someone offends me, I should forgive them as I've been forgiven and let him handle it. That goes against my human nature. But I've seen the results from both methods in my lifetime. I'll take option B any day.

I think this is what faith in Christ means in practice.

Is this what is in your heart? Don't you choose to be offended? If you chose not to be offended then forgiveness would not be required.

It's interesting how people think Christians are so judgmental. Didn't Christ teach his disciples not to judge?

"Before you remove the splinter from your brothers eye, remove the log from your own."

"He who has not sinned cast the first stone."

Maybe Christians aren't particularly good at practicing this. Nonetheless, it is a teaching of Christ to not judge others.

Why is it so difficult not to judge?

[mark7]

i'll shall throw a wierd slant on this,
i once got thrown off a buddhist forum for saying this and was called a NAZI ??? hope it dont happen here lol, ive only just arrived.

ok you may find this next few lines a bit contradictory.

i consider myself to be what alot of people call a christian, but my views are a little different,

there are many religious books in the world, all claim to be the "one "true religion, i dont believe the bible should be taken word for word, but rather, should be read with insight,
just because it may say there was a "tree of life" it doesnt neccesarilly mean an acctual tree in the sense of the word that we use today.

if we look at Genesis:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after ourlikeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and overall the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepethupon the earth.

you will notice he says, :let "us" make man in "our" image, after "our" likeness

this is plural!, not singular
and again:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of "us",to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

"none shall enter heaven except through him"

i believe this to mean, not through acctually believing in the physical man that was jesus christ, but through his practices, although for me it is hard not to also believe in the physical man, as he layed down his life in his eyes so that i may live, or have a chance of getting into heaven, if this happened today, and someone went through what he did, and said "im doing all this for you" so that one day you might enter heaven, you would probably be a bit awe struck with this person, for going through so much for you, and believeing so strongly that he was doing so.

so i dont think he was asking for blind faith in this statement, he was acctually trying to explain something to you, but!!! you have to have insight to understand, dont just take the words for what they at first may mean,
i believe what was acctually being said here is that none shall enter heaven unless they follow the principles i have layed down before you,
ie. live as he lived or at least try to.
dont hate, love everyone, because we are all of the same stuff, to hate someone is to hate yourself, if you believe we are all of the same energy and that energy is universal, also if you push out bad energy against someone, you mayaswell be pushing that bad energy against yourself, as it will at somepoint come back to you, if we are indeed all one and the same.

im not 100% but i have a feeling God is plural more than one, but of one if you follow me, this is why God in most cases referes to himself as "US"

i also belive that the truth everyone is looking for is not just to be found in say the western holy bible, it is scattered amongs all the holy books of the world, but!!!! most have been adapted or changed in someway by man to fit his own delusions of grandure about himself,

why would a god who had basically seeded the whole earth only give the truth to one group of people ?, he wouldnt would he,
if you had 10 kids and each of those had 10 kids would you only give the truth to one of your sons or daughters and not give anything to the rest of them ?, this could go on for hours lol, so ill shut up about it now ha ha ha

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by NightSpirit

ALG, do you believe that these events really happened or do you see them as just symbolic stories to teach us principles?

According to the Gospels, there was this guy whose name was Jesus and he went around doing lots of stuff which in our modern times, we might aptly describe as "paranormal". He also went around telling lots of stories about vineyards and wine and servants and sheep etc, and these are the parables - the symbolic stories that teach us principles.

But I think the Bible is very clear about (1) when Jesus was reportedly performing a miracle (a paranormal event) and (2) when Jesus was just narrating a parable. Focusing on the miracles / paranormal events, here are the possible conclusions we might draw:

1. The Gospels are true, and the accounts of Jesus' miracles are largely accurate;

2. The Gospels are somewhat but not completely accurate. Some of the reported miracles are true, but some others, especially the more "dramatic" & "amazing" ones, are not.

3. The Gospels are completely false about the miracles. None of these events happened, because paranormal events just do not occur. They are either fictitious; fraudulent; or myths that built up over time. It is unscientific & irrational to believe in these tales.

If you are a "Christian", in the conventional sense of the word, you accept at the very least, the following: (a) Jesus rose from the dead, and is your saviour; and (b) if you believe in Him, you too enjoy a glorious afterlife in Heaven.

But if it is possible for a person to rise from the dead, and if it is possible that by sheer belief in a person (Jesus) alone, you too can have a wonderful afterlife, then it must follow that the true nature of the universe is very, very different from what our five normal senses, and conventional science, tell us that it is.

And if it is sooooo very, very different, why should we not believe that Jesus' miracles were true? Let me put it this way - it is ILLOGICAL:

(a) to believe that a man can rise from the dead, and that there exists a wonderful Heaven that you can go to, after you die, if only you believed in that man;

AND at the same time:

(b) NOT believe that this same man could have healed the sick just like that; walked on water just like that; killed fig trees just like that etc etc.

...... AFTER ALL, the events described in (b) are not any more improbable or amazing than the events described in (a).

To put it another way, accepting the idea of Jesus as ultimate saviour, but completely rejecting the authenticity of his miracles is like saying:

"Oh yes I am a Christian and I do believe in God, but I don't think he's particularly amazing. Maybe he pulled off a few amazing feats in the past, like creating the entire universe, but that's really it, you know. As of now, he can no longer do stuff that modern science tells us is not possible."

This is inherently illogical.

--------------

Now if we accept the Bible as true (as far as the paranormal events are generally concerned), we have to accept that the universe is NOT as our five senses, and Newtonian physics, suggest that it is. This is a matter of strict logic.

If for example, we accept that:

(1) Jesus could INSTANTLY heal very sick people who had FAITH in him;

then we MUST accept that:

(2) it is possible for very sick people to get healed INSTANTLY,

and:

(3) a necessary ingredient in this process is their FAITH.

Since FAITH is a state of mind, or a specific set of thoughts and beliefs, this must lead us, at the very least, to the logical POSSIBILITY that:

by adjusting our thoughts and beliefs in certain ways, we could effect very rapid changes in our health, and in a manner that would astound the average modern doctor.

In other words, if we ACCEPT as true that Jesus could instantly heal people who had faith in him, it is only logical to accept that it is POSSIBLE that the kind of LOA technique set out in, say, "Ask & It is Given" by the Hicks COULD work. (Abraham has a process therein which relates to how to adjust your own thoughts to heal your own illnesses).

------------

That was just one example. You can repeat my reasoning process to each of Jesus' reported miracles.

For example, Jesus reportedly cast out demons. If we accept this as true, we must accept that there are such things as demons and demonic possession; and this must lead us to accept that there are such things as "non-physical entities", and if there is such a thing as demonic possession, we must accept as a logical possibility that there could be such a thing as "channeling".

Another example - Jesus got angry with a fig tree and cursed it, and it died pretty much instantly. If we accept this as true, we must accept as a logical POSSIBILITY that human thoughts (including angry thoughts) can affect matter (for example, the living tissue of a tree) without the intervention of any actual physical action.

(I call that magick, I'm getting pretty good at it actually but I haven't killed any trees yet, I like trees so I wouldn't do that) .

Yet another example - the Bible tells us that Jesus foresaw the future. He knew beforehand that he was going to be betrayed by a kiss; and he knew beforehand that Peter would fail him. If we accept this as true, it follows that we must accept as a logical POSSIBILITY that psychic phenomena such as premonitions and clairvoyance exist.

---------------

So as I see it, it is pretty much impossible for a logical Christian to dismiss outright all the kinds of weird mind stuff described by LOA folks like Esther Hicks; Shakti Gawain; Deepak Chopra; Sanayan Roman etc.

If you believe in the Christian story of salvation and redemption, it would be illogical for you to dismiss the existence (or at least the possibility) of phenomena like non-physical entities; channelling; levitation; manifestation of instant objects; affecting physical matter through your mind only; afterlife; clairvoyance etc etc.

Of course I accept that some people may say that there is no such thing as a "logical Christian", in that these people may take the view that the entire story of Jesus is false (things like the afterlife; Heaven; salvation; walking on water etc etc being just impossible and severely lacking in scientific evidence). That, however, is another kind of discussion and not within the context of the present thread.

[pianoperformer]

Maguru:

I'm sure you will agree you are indeed not perfect. I'm sure you have made mistakes, or have done things you wish you hadn't. I'm sure you have been tempted to do something you believed to be wrong. I'm sure you have lied, hated, judged. If you've done any of these, you are not perfect.

Further, if there is a God, I believe He would have His own standards of morality. Perfection would be in comparison to those standards.

Everyone is offended from time to time. Maybe it shows something about ourselves that we are offended, or maybe it is just because, as I said, no one is perfect.

I also think everyone judges, and is something we all try not to do. You speak of it above like it is some novel concept to you, and you have no idea why anyone has trouble with it, but I think it is a universal concept and vice.

mark7, just to remark on one of your points:

I think the reason God refers to Himself as "Us" is because of the trinity. At least, that's the explanation I've heard for it.

ALG: I disagree. I think the whole thing with Jesus being God might help Him with some of these miracles. I think it's pretty clear that if He is God, He could do things that we cannot. He was both God and man, so had the abilities of both God and man.

[philm]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I think the reason God refers to Himself as "Us" is because of the trinity. At least, that's the explanation I've heard for it.

How are you so sure God refers to Himself as "Us" ? do you have a direct line with God ?

[mark7]

hmmm it says "US" not me or i or him, but US