Carl wrote:Wtf? The show was a trading of opinions. Show me your dick and I'll show you mine. No reasoning, just beliefs. Pleasant enough, but Kevin seemed to lurch abruptly through his list of questions as if he'd never held a conversation before, and it was over in a flash.
Carl G wrote:Wtf? The show was a trading of opinions. Show me your dick and I'll show you mine. No reasoning, just beliefs.
Dan Rowden wrote:Personally I think this guy's "movement" and its catholic trappings make a total mockery of his spiritual "philosophy". Robes and crosses and sacraments? I mean, what's that all about?
tooyi wrote:Have you considered the fairness/clarity of the shows as you simply fire the questions without there being a visible agenda for the piece? Of course, the talk brings up the stuff and new questions. But, to have some kind of spine for the talk that also the interviewed could plan beforehand for.
The whole question of the relation of God's omnipotence and goodness to evil (instead of the differentiation that God accomplishes the good and merely permits the evil) is resolved quite simply in the following way. The greatest good, after all, which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to make it free. In order to do just that, omnipotence is required. This seems strange, since it is precisely omnipotence that supposedly would make [a being] dependent. But if one will reflect on omnipotence, he will see that it also must contain the unique qualification of being able to withdraw itself again in a manifestation of omnipotence in such a way that precisely for this reason that which has been originated through omnipotence can be independent. This is why one human being cannot make another person wholly free, because the one who has power is himself captive in having it and therefore continually has a wrong relationship to the one whom he wants to make free. Moreover, there is a finite self-love in all finite power (talent, etc). Only omnipotence can withdraw itself at the same time it gives itself away, and the relationship is the very independence of the reciever. God's omnipotence is therefore his goodness. For goodness is to give oneself away completely, but in such a way that by omnipotently taking oneself back one makes the recipient independent. All finite power makes [a being] dependent; only omnipotence can make [a being] independent, can force from nothing something which has its continuity in itself through the continual withdrawing of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not ensconced in a relationship to another, for there is no other to which it is comparable - no, it can give without giving up the least of its power, i.e., it can make [a being] independent. It is incomprehensible that omnipotence is not only able to create the most impressive of all things - the whole visible world - but is able to create the most fragile of all things - a being independent of that very omnipotence. Omnipotence, which can handle the world so toughly and with such a heavy hand, can also make itself so light that what it has brought into existence receives independence. Only a wretched and mundane conception of the dialectic of power holds that it is greater and greater in proportion to its ability to compel and to make dependent. No, Socrates had a sounder understanding; he knew that the art of power lies precisely in making another free. But in the relationship between man and man this can never be done, even though it needs to be emphasized again and again that this is the highest; only omnipotence can truly succeed in this. Therefore if man had the slightest independent existence over against God (with regard to materia), then God could not make him free. Creation out of nothing is once again the Almighty's expression for being able to make [a being] independent. He to whom I owe absolutely everything, has in fact made me independent. If in creating man God himself lost a little of his power, then precisely what he could not do would be to make man independent.
I'm not sure I fully understand this piece by Kierkegaard, but I think it has something to do with God and evil, which Kevin and Peter were talking about in this episode
Kevin Solway wrote:I was trying to make the point that since God is all things, evil (ignorance) is necessarily a part of God. This is indisputable, based on the definition of "God". But that doesn't mean that God is evil, because a thing is only evil if it does evil. God has evil as part of his being, but doesn't do evil. God doesn't "do" things, because he is all things. There is nothing for him to do.
Ataraxia wrote:Clearly Father Bowes is a believer in intelligent design.
Secondly on the subject of literal reincarnation not only did Kevin try and 'save' him he even agreed literal reincarnation was plausable-"entirely possible" was the term i think he used.
Well i'm highly suprised to read you say such a thing.In fact it seems you're equivocating rather like the Father.It is in fact entirely possible that the contents of our consciousness are somehow transferred to another body when we die. There's absolutely no evidence that this does happen, and there doesn't appear to be any mechanism whereby this can happen, but it's still possible.
That's what I had in mind.
For example, if we were able to download the entire contents of a person's brain before they died, and then upload it into the brain of a healthy body, that would be at least some sort of a "reincarnation" of the kind Peter wants to believe in.
Kutadanta: You believe that beings are reborn,
that they migrate in the evolution of life,
and that subject to the law of karma we must reap what we sow.
Yet you also teach the non-existence of the soul!
Your disciples praise utter self-extinction
as the highest bliss of Nirvana.
If I am merely a combination of the sankharas,
my existence will cease when I die.
If I am merely a compound of sensations and ideas and desires,
where can I go at the dissolution of the body?
Buddha: O Brahman, you are religious and earnest.
You are seriously concerned about your soul.
Yet your work is in vain because you are lacking
in the one thing that is needful.
There is rebirth of character,
but no transmigration of a self.
Your thought-forms reappear,
but there is no ego-entity transferred.
The stanza uttered by a teacher
is reborn in the student who repeats the words.
Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream
that their souls are separate and self-existent entities.
Your heart, O Brahman, is still cleaving to self;
you are anxious about heaven,
but you seek the pleasures of self in heaven,
and thus you cant not see the bliss of truth
and the immortality of truth.
Kevin Solway wrote:I'm not sure what "beliefs" you're referring to.
Ataraxia wrote:Well i'm highly suprised to read you say such a thing. In fact it seems you're equivocating rather like the Father.It is in fact entirely possible that the contents of our consciousness are somehow transferred to another body when we die. There's absolutely no evidence that this does happen, and there doesn't appear to be any mechanism whereby this can happen, but it's still possible.
That's what I had in mind.
Carl G wrote:Kevin Solway wrote:I'm not sure what "beliefs" you're referring to.
I'd have to listen again, but I recall you kept using phrases like "in my view" and "my position is" instead of "this is logically what must be." That is the phraseology of opinion and belief. I was somewhat surprised by that, from you.
Alex Jacob wrote:Kevin wrote:I could have opened up the program saying, "I know everything there is to know about God, so I can tell you exactly where you're going wrong", but I don't think that would have gone down too well.
But you might just as well start from this assertion, it would certainly be more honest. It would likely make a more interesting show too, no pussy-footing and less mincing of words.
a naturalistic doctrine
Your model seems essentially naturalistic, or biological, and this view stands pretty starkly in contrast even with many of your own 'source books' and source personalities: Kirkegaard, Ramakrishna for example.
This sort of mental ordering, where the totality of the person does not really seem to appear (that is, with the emotions of the individual, the general panorama of 'experience' which is far more than the sum total of the mental aspect of the person; of sentience, a sort of internal connectedness, etc.)
in the podcast: almost astoundingly boring, quite useless, devoid of any real 'juice' of the human being
I think Father Bowles expresses what I think is a far more 'real' sort of connectedness with 'God', as an inner experience that everyone can have, if they make the effort, make the sacrifice.
the symbols and 'myths' of Christianity seem to make more sense as inner maps, or guided meditations if you will.
The symbolism is ancient, the symbols potent, and the meaning intuitively realizable.
What is being asserted and to what conduces these assertions?
Personally, I believe that the quest for absolutes is its own stumbling block.
I guess you either go into that inner world and find out what is there, or you erect all these edifices in your head, and confuse them with the inner world, that you experience yet don't control.
Kevin Solway wrote:The devil himself, so to speak, must have a great panaroma of experience - but it's not one that I want.
Peter Bowes wrote:Kevin wrote:With regard to evolution, it has been suggested that you believe in "intelligent design".
Would you mind outlining your reasons as to how you believe it is possible that God (the All) could be conscious, given that there is nothing other than itself.
Also, you said that God's consciousness was different to our own. Could you please explain exactly in what way is it different?
Further, you seemed to agree when I said that the only way God could be conscious is *through us*. Do you actually agree with this idea? Because if you do, then you wouldn't believe in intelligent design, since we ourselves are not designers of evolution (not *yet* at any rate).
God is conscious of God's Self and completely perfect in God's awareness of God's own being. Just as a human being can be aware of itself, so can God, since we are made in the spiritual image of God. We are the microcosm (little world) and God is the macrocosm (great world). If you say that since God is all, then God cannot be conscious of God's Self, then you attribute a limitation to God that is not possible for God. God is Infinite and unlimited. God can look, feel and sense within God's own being and thus be conscious of God's Self. God is a Being who personally knows and understands each human being and every other created thing within God. God is within the chest of every person and unfortunately that is the last place human beings look for God. God is not in the frontal lobe, as a concept in one's mind. God is not a contrivance for the misled who need to postulate a God to explain things to their childish fears. God is the Mother and Father of all things and is intimately and personally connected to everyone and everything. God is more than everything because God is deeper than matter and more rarified than the most tenuous ether. God is a Spirit and those who know God, worship God in spirit and in truth.
God's consciousness is different from ours in that God is big and we are little. God is the creator and we are the created. We don't create God, even in our arrogance of imagining we can conceive of God without experiencing God. God loves perfectly and we are learning to love that way. God makes all expressions of any worth possible due to the benevolence of God's intelligence. There is only one intelligence and anyone who opens to that intelligence will be able to express some portion of God's intelligence. Intelligence is infinite and does not generate from an individual person. Intelligence as well as all good things are on loan to human beings. We don't own anything except our experience.
As for intelligent design or other forms of evolution: all forms in the material world go through changes where things fall away which are no longer useful and other forms come on line that are new developments that are needed for the times. Human beings were created as a separate creation aside from and much higher than and exceptionally unique from the primate chimps and gorillas. Human beings were created as souls and not merely as an instinctual species. That primates forms resembled human beings is no proof that they changed one day into human beings. Humans were a unique creation made in God's image and likeness, not physically, but spiritually. We are creative and made to be responsible for the earth and everything on it. But even some human changes have occurred in the last few thousand years that are necessary from an evolutionary point of view. For example, we have less tearing teeth because we are more refined in our food choices. We have less hair than when we had less skill in making clothing to warm ourselves. We are losing the need for the appendix as it seems less and less useful to our needs.
The next phase will be loss of working memory due to computers and internet habits.
Hope this hleps
Bowes : God is more than everything because God is deeper than matter and more rarified than the most tenuous ether. God is a Spirit and those who know God, worship God in spirit and in truth.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests