Getting Nearer to God..

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: "God" Explanations Fail

Post by _Inconceivable »

JAK wrote:
we recognize that spiritual really means emotional, we can avoid much confusion. Our emotions are constantly affected by our health, our plans, our set-backs, etc. Religion capitalizes on emotion. While doing that, religious pundits often use the word “spiritual” or some form of the appeal. But we recognize love for our children, family, dogs, food, etc. While love is a generic here for other possible terms, I refer to emotion in a broad sense.



My experience and perspective seems a bit broader in a way, I suppose. There is emotion (and it is what it is), and then there are things spiritual in nature that direct, enlighten, inspire that can bring about notable changes in physiology as well as character.

For example, though it has been some time now since I have taken part in healing the sick and being healed - the ones I speak of were those where the remarkable corrections began immediately - from violent and troubling accidents (internal injuries, head trauma, broken bones etc) to debilitating illnesses (neck injuries). It was not emotion that caused the miracles (There were however, a few troubling incidents where the blessing given had no effect - these were understandably faith confusing).

What can I say, I was there, they happened. At the time I equated them to the authority of God given to man to act in His name (legal administrators of course), faith in His power, revelation which I literally connected to, and an empathy and love toward those present. Now this was the same God that I thought gave me clues that Joseph the pirate was His prophet.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Guys, hope you don't mind the intrusion? :-) But the topic title intrigues me, (if i'm using the correct word?)... "Near to God"??? Dificult IF/WHEN one is not a theist... Soooo, my thoughts might bounce between the A-Theist & the Theist, as that is how i experience 'myself'...

As a "Theist" i believe in a "Creator/Creation" of which i have no idea of the process that put the Universe together... But here i am, having A WONDERFUL TIME, (one of the lucky ones) and have listened to the many RELIGIOUS theories, that matter not one iota, to me. They are not the least bit SPIRITUAL... (More later :-)

As an "Atheist" i cannot believe in Bible "God"... When a child i knelt with my Mother nightly bonding through nursery rhymes & prayer. As a child it never occured that they were not one-and-the-same. They were both wonderful! Later i learned the difference--supposedly. Yet the Bible stories of "God" were little else than changing the settings of the magic stories. That such stories are taken to be absolutely true--Adams rib; the "Fall"; the ark/flood; Jonah, etc--today by some, is a testament of humanity's difficulty to disbelieve their indoctrination--even when it is obviously the best thing to do. Can't be done until readiness rings the inescapable truth into their reasoning ability... Sometimes never...

Spiritual connected to emotion? Maybe, but IMSCO & experience, there are those spiritual experiences that confirm what some call 'luck', inspiration, acute awareness, consciousness, opportunity, direction, etc. that a 'tuned' individual benefits from; while a crude, untuned, fearfilled, narcisist seldom, if ever, experiences. Which makes a spiritual-person a better friend/person than most religious-persons, IMSCO...

Inconceivable, in your opening post 1. A-to-M, you touch many things that are not as 'religious' as they are social, humanitarian, and moral in the real sense of the word. Possibly why they seem missed by Joseph Smith the Religion-Founder opportunist of ignorance and heaven-seekers as Kings & Queens... Something that, i think is losing appeal in todays world of reason... You being a case-in-point, if i'm correct??? Warm regards, Roger
_Valorius
_Emeritus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by _Valorius »

Been a while since this thread saw action. Without promising I will continue, I'd like to say,

Well, RM, you hit so many nails on the head. Creator/Creation, okay. Gotta be one, even though we surely don’t know the process. Something happened.

Yes, religious and spiritual are different. Religious seems to be what’s on the earth and visible, earthbound. Churches and charities and doing good deeds and all that, more specifically for a particular denomination or religion. “Social,” like you say.

Yes, again, in today’s world, where people have more information and are accustomed to getting explanations, we need a strongly reasoned explanation for God and spiritual things. When people find one, suited to their intellect, desire, and experiences, they can believe in God and spiritual life, eternity after death. The ones that don’t find it seem often to become atheists and some even very hostile against religions, religious people, and people seeking spiritual understanding.

Spiritual is more real. The earth changes, people change, bodies change, programs change. Spirit is the part of us that doesn’t change. I am still the same person I was at birth and will be at death, spiritually speaking, but never the same physically or in religious involvement. Spirit has something to do with personal identity, eternal identity as an individual being, as well as personality, character, emotions like you say, but I think there are thoughts, too – thoughts not related to “I’m hungry” “I’m tired” (etc.!), but thoughts like “Is there a God? How can I know? What is my purpose? Does anything matter? How can I be loved? How can I give love? I never want to be without my children! What a beautiful sky! That’s the funniest thing I ever saw!”
"[The Lord] doeth NOTHING save it be PLAIN unto the children of men" 2 Nephi 26:33

"Then why tell us not to seek after the 'mysteries' of the Lord? What mysteries?" - Valorius
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Val, a lot of nailing down & retrofitting needed, :-) You said:

Spiritual is more real. The earth changes, people change, bodies change, programs change. Spirit is the part of us that doesn’t change. I am still the same person I was at birth and will be at death, spiritually speaking, but never the same physically or in religious involvement. Spirit has something to do with personal identity, eternal identity as an individual being, as well as personality, character, emotions like you say, but I think there are thoughts, too – thoughts not related to “I’m hungry” “I’m tired” (etc.!), but thoughts like “Is there a God? How can I know? What is my purpose? Does anything matter? How can I be loved? How can I give love? I never want to be without my children! What a beautiful sky! That’s the funniest thing I ever saw!”



I'm sure about--sort-of--unchanging DNA. Unchanging spirit, i'm less sure of?? Spirit definitions maybe???

OK, born a combination of parental DNA. Raised from butt-slap under their influence, good & not-so-good. So your "Spirit": mean, gentle, brave, cowardly, etc is environmentally produced in the "Nest"... Your questions re "God" etc seem an inate part of being a normal, healthy, well adjusted soul flying from a positive, inspiring, "nest". I don't see ones spirit being stagnant or static. Rather i see it as dynamically fostering an ever increasing spirituality that enables functionality to respond to 'whatever' with increasing equanimity... Being freed by truth and respected/known for apply it... Why not?? Warm regards, Roger
.
_Valorius
_Emeritus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by _Valorius »

Spirit is the Person with an identity. Yes, of course, each spirit/person raises questions, and they need not be identical. They will drive the spirit/person to a common telos/purpose/direction. In Spirit is not only the Person-ality, but also an inherent Drive of some sort that pushes or pulls us, or somehow brings up questions in our minds, like "Is this good? What is good? What happens when (after) I die?" and those who have the culture surrounding them, or an uncommon intellect in a godless culture, ""Is God?" If so, What?"

Nest alone is insufficient to explain individual choices. We can microtune and say, even twins, one is older, one is stronger, one has a quicker wit. That's true; that effects each; but doesn't condemn either to a particular predetermined fate. Both can still make choices to redirect themselves. Some people convert to a religion out of fear, some out of greed, some out of sincere belief, some due to a spiritual (non-physical or not physically caused) experience.

If a single individual's DNA does change, I doubt the direct result is an increase in spirituality, intelligence, or compassion. More likely, it's dementia or a physical handicap. As there is a DNA that identifies the individual (presumably), there is also (presumably) a non-physical correlate to DNA that identifies the individual's spirit.

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Val, a lot of nailing down & retrofitting needed, :-) You said:

I'm sure about--sort-of--unchanging DNA. Unchanging spirit, I'm less sure of?? Spirit definitions maybe???

OK, born a combination of parental DNA. Raised from butt-slap under their influence, good & not-so-good. So your "Spirit": mean, gentle, brave, cowardly, etc is environmentally produced in the "Nest"... Your questions re "God" etc seem an inate part of being a normal, healthy, well adjusted soul flying from a positive, inspiring, "nest". I don't see ones spirit being stagnant or static. Rather I see it as dynamically fostering an ever increasing spirituality that enables functionality to respond to 'whatever' with increasing equanimity... Being freed by truth and respected/known for apply it... Why not?? Warm regards, Roger
.


Me, too, no spirit is stagnant. It either "grows" in some sense or degenerates. The identity remains. "I know I am I," even if my thoughts, emotions, and attitudes change.

Truth unlatches the door. It is Love that truly "frees" us. I do not believe this is a cliché; I believe it is fact. Well, maybe I know it is fact. I've had both, and I know which was more liberating. Who knows?, Maybe people with smaller capacity to love need a greater abundance of truth to compensate for the lack.

Jesus knew a lot, and was apparently respected for that. But he is remembered and honored not for his knowledge, nor even for his wisdom, but for his love. Jesus' love seems to have liberated people, and probably had something to do with his own spiritual, emotional, and intellectual liberation.
"[The Lord] doeth NOTHING save it be PLAIN unto the children of men" 2 Nephi 26:33

"Then why tell us not to seek after the 'mysteries' of the Lord? What mysteries?" - Valorius
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Val, me thinks we're on the same page... You said:

Me, too, no spirit is stagnant. It either "grows" in some sense or degenerates. The identity remains. "I know I am I," even if my thoughts, emotions, and attitudes change.

Truth unlatches the door. It is Love that truly "frees" us. I do not believe this is a cliché; I believe it is fact. Well, maybe I know it is fact. I've had both, and I know which was more liberating. Who knows?, Maybe people with smaller capacity to love need a greater abundance of truth to compensate for the lack.

Jesus knew a lot, and was apparently respected for that. But he is remembered and honored not for his knowledge, nor even for his wisdom, but for his love. Jesus' love seems to have liberated people, and probably had something to do with his own spiritual, emotional, and intellectual liberation.



Yes, i think, "It is Love that truly "frees" us." The questions about "Love" however are, if not numerous, are very debatable... I will present my seriously considered opinion (MSCO :-)...

D.O. McKay & H.B. Lee, both made, IMSCO, profound statements re the family/nest. Unfortunately they have been trumped by less profound, if not absurdities, when one REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE "NEST" IS BY NATURE--"GOD"--DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH...

In the 4-leg animal kingdom it's to perpetuate the species. As too in our human breeding... However it is more than perpetuation with us 2-legs type, generally speaking. IMSCO, humanoids "nest" to advance the species. Seems evidence of that, in general, or we'd still be chasing lightning to capture a flame...

Being products of 'evolution' in technics we are also evolving in conscience, ethics and stewardship of our limited resources. Which could suggest we are also developing a "Love" equation that is yet missing some 'factors', so to speak...

It is in this regard that religion must be held accountable for leading the masses away from the "Love-of-Christ" that he demonstated and taught. Christianism has compromised his simple principles for a complex of rituals and creeds that have little changed the character of humanity since He wept in the garden for the hardness of heart of those who could not abide his Two New Commandments.

Traditionally, and historically 'we' practice a tokenism "Love-FOR-Christ" unschooled in how to "Love-AS-Christ". Seems the secular world might have done better when it comes to the "Social-gospel" than has the sectarian world, generally speaking, of course. In the case of LDSism they make it clear governments can do what ever they choose to do. (Made them a favoured sect in WW II Germany.)

OK, i've rambled.. My point is, Love begins (was meant to begin) @ home. In reality what passes for Love is absorbed there 24-7-365 x X-years of exposure. Since "home" is still in the development stage its 'products' have too often stumbled from the "nest", with their unique gene-load, (and nurturing) to influence for good or ill their own "nestlings" and community... But we are 'Loving' more, or wheel-chairs would still be fighting curbs, there'd be no "Smoke-free Envionments", Blacks would still be in chains--without Preisthood, fathers could still abuse their families as they wished, add to the list as you wish...

IMSCO the crux of Jesus' message is in the Mount Sermon and deals with every day situations having to do with wants and needs, and human relations; not public relations.

To thnk that the mode of "baptism"--sprinkle or dunk--has driven so-called Christianity would be laughable if it wasn't such a defilement of the "good-news", IMSCO... Warm regards, Roger

_Valorius
_Emeritus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by _Valorius »

Well, whup my horse and fry me a horny toad, Brother Roger Morrison of Stake High Council quality, yo, indeed, I do believe we see Eye-2-Eye on this here matter. Slightly diffrunt ways of sayin' the same thing, but overall, pritty much the same.

Your remarks carry many implications and connections that take some figurin' out. Symbolism and such are a bit diffrunt from what I'm used to. But all is well. Maybe not in Zion, but 'tween you and me, I think things are okay.

I might add, in friendly support, that whereas animals are granted instincts for survival and propagation, what humans have is a step above instincts. Our physical bodies have instincts, true, but our "spirits" have some other directive force, something innate, something from The Source, God, Origin, Ultimacy, Direction, however a person sees or wants to see it.

I might also ask for the sake of the reader, that when pointing out failures of "religion," we make clear that we don't mean religion in re divine dogma and praxis, but "institutionalized religion hijacked by ill-motivated humans." Would that be okay? Because I know there are others like me, who kind of like "religion", and want to keep religion as a sincere, theological way of thinking and a sincere, moral way of life separate in our minds from religion as humanized, institutionalized, and subverted to private interests.

Otherwise, and even with that, I do generally concur with your comments.
"[The Lord] doeth NOTHING save it be PLAIN unto the children of men" 2 Nephi 26:33

"Then why tell us not to seek after the 'mysteries' of the Lord? What mysteries?" - Valorius
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Well Vel, i ain't never whupped no hause nor chomped a 'horny-toad"... though me thinks i've met sum of Democrat toads alrite... It sur is good ta find anudder smatt-un! dat's fer gull dang sur...
My ritten ain't two easy for the dumbers, but yew gettin' says yer no dummer, Bro! Congratuations! I heerd it's grat evin if it ain't A-O-K in Zion. Is that trew? Thankya fer yer friendie support...in my condisun i'll taek all i can git. Frum a guy like yew, dat's reel speshull two mee. Cuz animals seam ta have it over a lot of humanbeans i think mayb we got this reeligus stuff harnest ronng end too. Ya no wat i'm sayin? Like da spirt shud be leadin reelign...not reeligun tellin how ta be spirut lkie, eh? i like all Democrat nams yew say fer GOD. Cuz me eh, ithink GOD don't kar wat ya call him if he he or she if she ain't but GOD don't want ya to call otrs bad names, eh. i'm yoked with yew of the trew an false church stuff two. Jesus wernt in ta dat donkey-dew! Like he tol it lik it wer & stod up ta does guy who mad up all Democrat ruls, like wat ta eet, hoo ta takl two Ya no Bro Jesus is da won good thing cum outa reeligun Ya no, mayb da farder we gets him from the scarey stuff, like yew sayd wit dos big werds insteetowshuns & all, da closer wes git too his luv stuff thatll end wars an dat, eh?
Yae, wat yew say's OK wit mee two Bro Cux i think we unerstan eech udder. an even if we don Jesus do, rite? Bess two yew bro, roger :-)
_Valorius
_Emeritus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:17 pm

Post by _Valorius »

Th'only thing anybody can rightly say ta that is "Amen!"
"[The Lord] doeth NOTHING save it be PLAIN unto the children of men" 2 Nephi 26:33

"Then why tell us not to seek after the 'mysteries' of the Lord? What mysteries?" - Valorius
Post Reply