[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: I guess if you're going to look at God as a personal deity then your blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara tradition taught God as the impersonal. If you accept that laws of nature is a secular term for God, then you must accept that MMY was preaching a personal God because the terms nature support and Maharishi effect are implying intervention at a fundamental level. That's the issue. Personal, schmersonal...that is irrelevant. The relevant issue is the belief being sold that there is a sentient basis to creation that has the ability to 1) have a will or a desire for how it should be working, and 2) has the pos- sibility of intervening to affect creation, and that thus can be appealed to via butt-bouncing or yagyas. I'm not sure where we're getting the idea of intervention here. That may be how some people think of it, but it's by no means the *only* way to think of it; it's certainly not how I've ever thought of it. snip Not that long ago, the laws of nature that most human beings in the Western world would agree were sacrosanct and inviolable involved the sun orbiting the earth. That this turned out not to be true did not invalidate the concept that there may be some rules that shape the nature of the universe, it just revealed the poverty of human imagination in trying to get a handle on what those rules are. Heh. Funny, that's just what I was going to say about the intervention idea--it represents a poverty of imagination, in this case the inability to go beyond anthropomorphism in thinking about divinity. (On the other hand, the notion that the sun went around the earth was a *gigantic* leap of the imagination from previous notions of the sun's relationship to the earth. And it didn't take that long to correct the error in the basic idea once the concept of two huge bodies revolving around each other in space had emerged.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes when I would attend or lead advanced lectures or even intros I would refer to transcending as sitting in the hand of God. The transcendent is so sweet that when we surrender to the transcendent it is like that being suspended in space and totally safe in the hand of God. I like it, I really understand what you're saying here. I feel the ever growing sweetness and perfection of life, I just wish there was such a romantic way to say that endorphins and dopamine hang around longer after meditation :-) Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I hope you're right Louis, I always root for the opitimist. And I've taken part in many a WPA myself. To me the Maharishi Effect is a case of 'theory not proved'. It seems like the world is just turning on oblivious of us, wars, financial disaster, food crisis, environmental collapse, and yet we have pundits everywhere. Maybe I'm too cynical but it aint lookin so good to me. Not yet. But I do hope you're right. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... I'm sure I get what you would call the intimate knowledge of God, my heart is overflowing with it, and I can see where all the devotion comes from. I just call it something else that's all. I think all people are the same, they are just switched on to their hearts or they are not. And the nots are perhaps where the problems lies? The scientific part escapes me, I think God has been remarkably elusive there. sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sometimes when I would attend or lead advanced lectures or even intros I would refer to transcending as sitting in the hand of God. The transcendent is so sweet that when we surrender to the transcendent it is like that being suspended in space and totally safe in the hand of God. For a time, during a period when my meditations seemed especially deep and I had that clear transcecnding, when the transcending would occur it felt, and had a sound componet of a sizzling sound at the point I dipped in. And I baked in that state for a time. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess if you're going to look at God as a personal deity then your blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara tradition taught God as the impersonal. If you accept that laws of nature is a secular term for God, then you must accept that MMY was preaching a personal God because the terms nature support and Maharishi effect are implying intervention at a fundamental level. Consciousness as Unified Field, the enlivenment of which allegedly increases positivity in human affairs, is another term for God. Again, if it was impersonal we wouldn't be able to gain favour just from mental contact. Laws of Nature is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what many call God especially in abstract terms rather than some being that micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to you. :) The laws of nature aren't something we need to *believe* in. I can't walk through walls because of the repelling action of the nuclear forces that hold electrons away from the nucleus of atoms. Secular or not, I doubt there is anything we can do to change that. And unless any genuine sidhas can step forward.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: I guess if you're going to look at God as a personal deity then your blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara tradition taught God as the impersonal. If you accept that laws of nature is a secular term for God, then you must accept that MMY was preaching a personal God because the terms nature support and Maharishi effect are implying intervention at a fundamental level. That's the issue. Personal, schmersonal...that is irrelevant. The relevant issue is the belief being sold that there is a sentient basis to creation that has the ability to 1) have a will or a desire for how it should be working, and 2) has the pos- sibility of intervening to affect creation, and that thus can be appealed to via butt-bouncing or yagyas. Include either of those two attributes, and whether you call your God personal or impersonal, you are still talking God. Consciousness as Unified Field, the enlivenment of which allegedly increases positivity in human affairs, is another term for God. Again, if it was impersonal we wouldn't be able to gain favour just from mental contact. Agreed, although again for me personal or imper- sonal is irrelevant. It's the interventionist nature of the concept that makes it about a God rather than about, say, an operating system. I have *no problem* with an underlying unity to the universe that works like an operating system. It just works in the background to allow creation to run itself, without having to be either aware of creation or having the ability to interfere with it. And for me, this operating system can be reduced to two primary components -- karma plus free will. The combination of those two forces accounts for all phenomena in the known universe, without the need for any kind of Godly sentience or intervention. Since I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy, the simple explanation is the more likely explanation. Any explanation that involves a sentient or interventionist God is more complicated, and thus less likely. Laws of Nature is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what many call God especially in abstract terms rather than some being that micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to you. :) While there may *be* inviolable laws of nature, I would suggest that no human being on the planet knows what they are. At best they have a guess at what they are. And any scientist *or* philosopher worth his salt would probably agree with me. The laws of nature aren't something we need to *believe* in. I can't walk through walls because of the repelling action of the nuclear forces that hold electrons away from the nucleus of atoms. Secular or not, I doubt there is anything we can do to change that. And unless any genuine sidhas can step forward. And if they did, their ability *to* walk through a wall that appears solid does not disprove the laws of nature. It only disproves the puny ideas of what those laws were that humans had before. Not that long ago, the laws of nature that most human beings in the Western world would agree were sacrosanct and inviolable involved the sun orbiting the earth. That this turned out not to be true did not invalidate the concept that there may be some rules that shape the nature of the universe, it just revealed the poverty of human imagination in trying to get a handle on what those rules are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Consciousness as Unified Field... TurquoiseB wrote: I have *no problem* with an underlying unity to the universe that works like an operating system. Then you probably wouldn't have a *problem* with the notion of a 'programmer' who writes the operating system, since something cannot come out of nothing. Obviously, operating systems don't write themselves. It just works in the background to allow creation to run itself, So, you're assuming that the programmer designed the operating system to run itself, but that the programmer doesn't have the ability to make any changes in the operating system - it just runs itself perfectly every time; there are no errors in the system, no flaws, just absolute perfection. without having to be either aware of creation or having the ability to interfere with it. So, you're saying that the underlying 'unity' is a system created by a programmer and that it runs itself in the background but that the programmer doesn't habe the ability to interfere with it's operation - so the system is a static system, not dynamic at all. There is no change possible, it's destined to operate the way it does because it's all pre-programmed. And for me, this operating system can be reduced to two primary components -- karma plus free will. *Two components* would indicate that there is a dualism in creation, each working against the other. But you had previously stated that there was just one component - an operating system. But, you have not defined 'karma', thus you've just introduced an infinite regress or a 'circle jerk'. For example, does the word 'karma' operate on the level of mental states, or just on the level of the material? Is there such a thing as moral reciprocity? Or, is 'karma' just the material law of cause and effect? If so, then you would have just a mechanical system, with the law of karma operating in a purely automatic fashion - if so that would rule out the idea of right actions. If karma is just a mechanical law of cause and effect then that would rule out 'free will'. You can't have a pure mechanical system that allows for free will, because you have already stated that no change can be made by the creator of the operating system. That would be a contradiction and would produce error since a perfect system would have no need for change. Error in a perfect system would produce chaos. The combination of those two forces accounts for all phenomena in the known universe, without the need for any kind of Godly sentience or intervention. You've just introduced another infinite regress or 'circle jerk': are there any 'forces' in the universe? A 'force' would imply change which you have already ruled out. A 'force' could enter into the operating system and could cause change in the system. Since I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy, the simple explanation is the more likely explanation. Any explanation that involves a sentient or interventionist God is more complicated, and thus less likely. If you were an 'Occam's Razor' kinda guy, you would not have introduced a dualism in your system - a creator or programmer AND a interventionist 'force' that could cause change in the system. While there may *be* inviolable laws of nature, I would suggest that no human being on the planet knows what they are. At best they have a guess at what they are. There are the laws of physics. I would suggest that almost everyone on the planet is aware of. For example, human excrement ALWAYS flows downstream. Everything that goes up must come down. And any scientist *or* philosopher worth his salt would probably agree with me. So, which scientist would disagree with the laws of nature? And if they did, their ability *to* walk through a wall that appears solid does not disprove the laws of nature. It only disproves the puny ideas of what those laws were that humans had before. If a person could 'walk through walls' then that would be magic, the ability to cause change in physical object at will. The operating system would be able to create itself manifold and replicate itself. But you have introduced the concept of 'ideas', which would be foreign to the operating system. It has already been established by you that the system is a purely mechanical system without any consciouness - only a conscious creator or operator could have 'ideas'. Not that long ago, the laws of nature that most human beings in the Western world would agree were sacrosanct and inviolable involved the sun orbiting the earth. That this turned out not to be true did not invalidate the concept that there may be some rules that shape the nature of the universe, it just revealed the poverty of human imagination in trying to get a handle on what those rules are. This is however a logical fallacy of accident since a determination of the veracity of a statement does not automatically indicate support of an opinion expressed in
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Sometimes when I would attend or lead advanced lectures or even intros I would refer to transcending as sitting in the hand of God. The transcendent is so sweet that when we surrender to the transcendent it is like that being suspended in space and totally safe in the hand of God. Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I hope you're right Louis, I always root for the opitimist. And I've taken part in many a WPA myself. To me the Maharishi Effect is a case of 'theory not proved'. It seems like the world is just turning on oblivious of us, wars, financial disaster, food crisis, environmental collapse, and yet we have pundits everywhere. Maybe I'm too cynical but it aint lookin so good to me. Not yet. But I do hope you're right. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... I'm sure I get what you would call the intimate knowledge of God, my heart is overflowing with it, and I can see where all the devotion comes from. I just call it something else that's all. I think all people are the same, they are just switched on to their hearts or they are not. And the nots are perhaps where the problems lies? The scientific part escapes me, I think God has been remarkably elusive there. sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. Actually, in Western theology, at least, God had the divine cojones to set himself the God-sized challenge of giving his human creations the choice *not* to submit to his will, when he could have created a bunch of mindless automatons who would do whatever he wanted.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Maybe God is a Democrat authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. Actually, in Western theology, at least, God had the divine cojones to set himself the God-sized challenge of giving his human creations the choice *not* to submit to his will, when he could have created a bunch of mindless automatons who would do whatever he wanted. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. The atheist can enjoy the beauty of a great day also, he just doesn't need to imagine that a divine being is slapping him five with the weather. This discussion reminds me of those guys who pray for victory for their sports teams and then sing his praises if they win. Or the musicians at the Grammies who thank God for their award. Any God who would change the weather for a birthday, create a game turning interception for a specific sports team, or meddle in the affairs of the voting process for best female hip hop artist...while ignoring the Guinea worm and malaria mosquito, would be the lamest God ever imagined by man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I once knew an atheist who believed that God was just something that was created to control people. He believed that the word God was used to keep people stuck in churches and waiting for the will of God. Then one day his birthday something happened extra ordinary, I don't know if it was what happened or the fact that the boy realized that it happened but in any case. His birthday was in the month of April, in the eastern part of the US North East it is common to have snow and cold or rain in this time period. Well on this third day of April after snow had begun to clear the rain had fallen strong for days and it was still very cold even thought it was spring. The boy woke up that April morning to the most beautiful day. The sun was shining bright the temperature was 75 birds were singing outside his window and the smell of spring was strong in the air. His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recent discussions about becoming in tune with the laws of nature have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was using laws of nature and the will of nature as euphemisms for God and God's will all along. As would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru Dev clearly thought in those terms. However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* a will), I think it's time to step back and spend a little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want to become in tune with God's will. I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? Look at the Dude's *track record*!!! Has He *ever* gotten His way? There have been complaints from the supposedly- holy (prophets, spiritual teachers, leaders of religion, and other such spokespersons for God) since the dawn of time that the majority of people (that is, everyone but them) don't understand His will, and are sinning by not acting in accord with it. You could fill the Superbowl with the books written about this subject and the sermons preached to the ignorant to get them to swing over to the side of God and start doing His will. And has any of it worked? Not a bit of it. God's spokes- persons are *still* whining that no one pays attention to them, and that sin and not following the will of God are the reasons for the state that the planet is in. Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. I mean, where's all this supposed omnipotence we keep hear- ing about in his P.R. blurbs? If He is so damned powerful, why can't He just impose His will with a wave of the hand, eh? Surely He doesn't need all these natural disasters (a euphemism for both the floods *and* the preachers in my estimation) to keep trying to convince
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Curtis wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', otherwise you're circle jerking and just making fun of the poor Burmese. Why would you want to make fun of those poor people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. Indeed. Well said. The atheist can enjoy the beauty of a great day also, he just doesn't need to imagine that a divine being is slapping him five with the weather. Well said again. This discussion reminds me of those guys who pray for victory for their sports teams and then sing his praises if they win. Or the musicians at the Grammies who thank God for their award. Any God who would change the weather for a birthday, create a game turning interception for a specific sports team, or meddle in the affairs of the voting process for best female hip hop artist...while ignoring the Guinea worm and malaria mosquito, would be the lamest God ever imagined by man. And yet, there you have it. That IS the God imagined by man. Then again, we're talking man. As a creature, he is ill-regarded in the greater universe. The actual definition in the Encyclopedia Galactica for man reads, An ape-descended, primitive life form so lost in self-importance that it imagines an all-powerful and interven- tionist God, and then the most important thing it can think of to ask Him for is that the Raiders win the game today.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, the Perry Bible Fellowship. http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys)
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? What an odd chain of cognitive disconnects... As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', OK, so what does that have to do with what I wrote? otherwise you're circle jerking Why does it always have to do with sex with you Richard? and just making fun of the poor Burmese. WTF? Why would you want to make fun of those poor people? WTF, WTF? I am so often put into a state of befuddlement by your posts. Sometimes I see a glimmer of wit and think, I can relate to this guy. Then you come from left field like in this post and I can't follow it as humor or as something serious. Were you confusing this post with another post, me with Turq? I have a crazy image in my mind of what you look like when you post that involves the unlikely combination of wild lurching movements and typing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. I had never seen them,thanks for the hook up! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, the Perry Bible Fellowship. http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys)
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. I had never seen them,thanks for the hook up! The one called 'Wishing Well' is my fave, had me in tears. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, the Perry Bible Fellowship. http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys)
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. snip I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. You just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons, the Perry Bible Fellowship. http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF016-Eden.jpg Hilarious. That one is topical. Pick from the list in the middle, I think he has a pretty damn good hit rate. I really liked this one, because it kinda goes along with your comment to RJ: http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF026-Butterflies.jpg (I know RJ, it always comes down to sex with us guys)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I guess it is simply called appreciation. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. The atheist can enjoy the beauty of a great day also, he just doesn't need to imagine that a divine being is slapping him five with the weather. This discussion reminds me of those guys who pray for victory for their sports teams and then sing his praises if they win. Or the musicians at the Grammies who thank God for their award. Any God who would change the weather for a birthday, create a game turning interception for a specific sports team, or meddle in the affairs of the voting process for best female hip hop artist...while ignoring the Guinea worm and malaria mosquito, would be the lamest God ever imagined by man. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: I once knew an atheist who believed that God was just something that was created to control people. He believed that the word God was used to keep people stuck in churches and waiting for the will of God. Then one day his birthday something happened extra ordinary, I don't know if it was what happened or the fact that the boy realized that it happened but in any case. His birthday was in the month of April, in the eastern part of the US North East it is common to have snow and cold or rain in this time period. Well on this third day of April after snow had begun to clear the rain had fallen strong for days and it was still very cold even thought it was spring. The boy woke up that April morning to the most beautiful day. The sun was shining bright the temperature was 75 birds were singing outside his window and the smell of spring was strong in the air. His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. TurquoiseB wrote: Recent discussions about becoming in tune with the laws of nature have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was using laws of nature and the will of nature as euphemisms for God and God's will all along. As would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru Dev clearly thought in those terms. However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* a will), I think it's time to step back and spend a little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want to become in tune with God's will. I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser? Look at the Dude's *track record*!!! Has He *ever* gotten His way? There have been complaints from the supposedly- holy (prophets, spiritual teachers, leaders of religion, and other such spokespersons for God) since the dawn of time that the majority of people (that is, everyone but them) don't understand His will, and are sinning by not acting in accord with it. You could fill the Superbowl with the books written about this subject and the sermons preached to the ignorant to get them to swing over to the side of God and start doing His will. And has any of it worked? Not a bit of it. God's spokes- persons are *still* whining that no one pays attention to them, and that sin and not following the will of God are the reasons for the state that the planet is in. Even when God *Himself* steps in and preaches a few sermons in the form of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, plagues, famines and the like, no one seems to pay attention. They keep acting the way they act. He tries again, and lays a new set of plagues and pestilences on their sinning asses, and the people never get the picture and submit to His will. Seems to me that God's a bit of a wuss. I mean, where's all this supposed omnipotence we keep hear- ing about in his P.R. blurbs? If He is so damned powerful, why can't He just impose His will with a wave of the hand, eh? Surely He doesn't need all these natural disasters (a euphemism for both the floods *and* the
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? Absolutely. He wasn't too keen on New Orleans, either. Except for the French Quarter. He spared that because secretly God is a breast man. Has been since Eden. You will notice that He gave Eve only one fig leaf, right? I rest my case. Anyway, God's got this thing for boobs, and He really likes watching the whole bead thing during Mardi Gras, so the French Quarter got a free pass. Turq wrote: Hilarious. So, you ARE making fun of the poor Burmese and the poor residents of New Orleans. But that still doesn't explain why you're using the 'circle jerk' on us, Barry. Why is that?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. snip I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
What does one thing have to do with the other? As a TM teacher one would not be talking about this in this way. The planet is in big trouble because of man's free will. We do not even know if earth quakes can be caused intentionally. I do not believe that God would ever cause suffering. I do believe that people create their own Karma. Maybe Chickens actually do come home to roost. Who is to say well this is because of that? I think the only thing to do now is to assist in whatever way one can. If I were a monk from Nepal I may have one opinion. If I were Tibetan living under Chinese domination I may think something else. The law of cause and effect, one aspect of the divine intelligence known as God is always functioning. So to try and figure out if God was angry I doubt it is about blaming our mistakes on God. I just wish that these things could happen even more frequently in more places. Human being forget quickly. George Bush will say oh what a tragedy today and campaign to bomb Iran tomorrow. People will pass through 9/11, Iraq missiles of mass destruction, the economic disaster, Katrina and on and on and still think about putting a Republican who wants to continue the current strategies in office. Brasil never has MAJOR DISASTERS but one is coming I believe, why? Because of the way the country treats its own people. No matter how much money this country makes, no matter how much resources it has a great percentage of the people live in complete poverty. Only a few people are rich but those few control all and rape all. I say bring it on, maybe the message will be loud enough that people will begin to listen. God speaks softly we ignore, God speaks a little louder we hear but rationalize the message away, the world begins to speak and then we think well what to do? When God comes around and kicks us in the ass we cry OH GOD IS ANGRY OR GOD IS CRUEL Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', otherwise you're circle jerking and just making fun of the poor Burmese. Why would you want to make fun of those poor people? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. What are you talking about? You have me confused with another poster Richard. I could give you many different versions of either belief from some of the various sources who hold such beliefs. What does that have to do with anything? That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor religious people? Are they poor Richard? I would think that since they are s tight with an all powerful deity they would be able to see my skepticism in a compassionate light. You know the paternal feeling that it is Curtis who is the poor one, with his lack of ability to believe in any of the versions of invisible, but sports event influencing, big daddies in the sky, or within his heart or in the beauty of a sunset or the scent of orange blossoms floating in the wind or in the imagined cannibalistic ritual of drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his flesh in a church. And what is poor Curtis to do when he dies in his state of sin and lack of enlightenment when faced by the almighty OZ who demands an explanation from him for not being like the people who saw his miraculous sign of Mary's face in a piece of burnt toast sold on Ebay...have a little pity on my wretched soul Richard. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', Curtis wrote: Why does it always have to do with sex with you Richard? Non sequitur. So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor religious people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. snip I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have intelligent design taught to kids and instantly their education stops because of the limit a religious belief has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory is how it all moves on.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I always think of God as the visible and invisible. I think of God as Pure Consciousness or Divine Intelligence. Which for me means that the intelligence which determines the sky, the clouds, the earth, the planets, that which keeps all of this functioning to me that is what I call God. Then when you look at the Oceans the rivers the wind the air the sun all of these thing may have principals of nature that control them. For me this to I call God. I am not negating Jesus or Krishna, I am saying that God can be even more simple than that. So to appreciate God in nature this is a good thing, I think. I once heard a story of a man who was visiting Finland, there he was with Atheist In Finland you get a tax break if you are atheist. So the atheist like to sit in nature and grill Salmon over a fire and sausage drink beer and just feel the beauty of the environment. The man laughed. He thought how Holy and atheist these people are. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does one thing have to do with the other? As a TM teacher one would not be talking about this in this way. The planet is in big trouble because of man's free will. We do not even know if earth quakes can be caused intentionally. I do not believe that God would ever cause suffering. Then why do so many animals eat each other alive without a kill bite strategy that some animals were programmed to use? This is the classic contradiction brought out by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: How could an omnipotent omniscient God who is also moral and good, not only allow suffering, but also create it. I do believe that people create their own Karma. Maybe Chickens actually do come home to roost. Who is to say well this is because of that? I think the only thing to do now is to assist in whatever way one can. If I were a monk from Nepal I may have one opinion. If I were Tibetan living under Chinese domination I may think something else. The law of cause and effect, one aspect of the divine intelligence known as God is always functioning. So to try and figure out if God was angry I doubt it is about blaming our mistakes on God. I just wish that these things could happen even more frequently in more places. Human being forget quickly. George Bush will say oh what a tragedy today and campaign to bomb Iran tomorrow. People will pass through 9/11, Iraq missiles of mass destruction, the economic disaster, Katrina and on and on and still think about putting a Republican who wants to continue the current strategies in office. Brasil never has MAJOR DISASTERS but one is coming I believe, why? Because of the way the country treats its own people. No matter how much money this country makes, no matter how much resources it has a great percentage of the people live in complete poverty. Only a few people are rich but those few control all and rape all. I say bring it on, maybe the message will be loud enough that people will begin to listen. God speaks softly we ignore, God speaks a little louder we hear but rationalize the message away, the world begins to speak and then we think well what to do? When God comes around and kicks us in the ass we cry OH GOD IS ANGRY OR GOD IS CRUEL Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', otherwise you're circle jerking and just making fun of the poor Burmese. Why would you want to make fun of those poor people? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. I could give you many different versions of either belief from some of the various sources who hold such beliefs. So, why not do so? Instead of making fun of poor religious people, victims of an earthquake and a cyclone? Why is it that you TM teachers are so ignorant and crass? What does that have to do with anything? That 'God is a wuss' is the subject of this thread? That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor religious people? Are they poor Richard? You're pathetic, Curtis. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
As a TM teacher, you should be able to define 'God' and 'enlightenment', Curtis wrote: Why does it always have to do with sex with you Richard? Non sequitur. So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor religious people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Curtis wrote: I do believe that people create their own Karma. [snip] Oh, come on, Curtis, you can do better than this. What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so full of yourselves that it's pathetic. And to think that you once took philosophy courses at MUM. For what purpose? How can people 'create' anything when there's no evidence of anyone ever in the history of mankind 'creating' anything, much less, creating their own moral reciprocity. This is just outrageous!
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, you can't define 'enlightenment' or 'God'. I could give you many different versions of either belief from some of the various sources who hold such beliefs. So, why not do so? Instead of making fun of poor religious people, victims of an earthquake and a cyclone? Why is it that you TM teachers are so ignorant and crass? I was showing the contradiction in the story Richard. You have missed the point in your desire to attack Ex TM teachers. As far as your trying to get me to give you one of the many versions of the God idea, my answer is crack a book. Enlightenment is not meaningful concept for me Richard. If it has meaning for you, you can define it for yourself. I am ignorant about many things in this world. I learn more every day. Do you find me crass? OK, thanks for sharing. What does that have to do with anything? That 'God is a wuss' is the subject of this thread? I didn't create the title Richard. That's nothing to be ashamed of Curtis, so why not just admit it, instead of making fun of poor religious people? Are they poor Richard? You're pathetic, Curtis. Now we are getting somewhere. So from now on I'll expect a little more compassion from you instead of verbal insults. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Curtis wrote: I'll bet you are as aware as I am of nature's dark side. How much would you be willing to wager? So, now you're saying that 'God' is a black Mother - nature's 'dark side'? Does that make any sense? 'God' is 'dark nature', and a 'wuss'. I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I didn't know that you didn't like black, older women. What's up with that? [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: I do believe that people create their own Karma. [snip] Oh, come on, Curtis, you can do better than this. What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so full of yourselves that it's pathetic. And to think that you once took philosophy courses at MUM. For what purpose? How can people 'create' anything when there's no evidence of anyone ever in the history of mankind 'creating' anything, much less, creating their own moral reciprocity. This is just outrageous! That is a misquote. You are having trouble keeping people straight in this thread Richard. Let me smell that cup you are drinking from...
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Why is it that you TM teachers are so ignorant and crass? Curtis wrote: As far as your trying to get me to give you one of the many versions of the God idea, my answer is crack a book. So, you're a wuss. I thought so - all hat and no cattle. [snip] I am ignorant about many things in this world. Then, why not just shut your pie-hole?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so full of yourselves that it's pathetic. That is a misquote. You are having trouble keeping people straight in this thread Richard. Let me smell that cup you are drinking from... So, you believe people create their own 'karma', but that was a 'misquote', but I'm the one having trouble keeping people straight? I do believe that people create their own Karma. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177409
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What the hell is 'karma' - you TM teachers are so full of yourselves that it's pathetic. That is a misquote. You are having trouble keeping people straight in this thread Richard. Let me smell that cup you are drinking from... So, you believe people create their own 'karma', but that was a 'misquote', but I'm the one having trouble keeping people straight? I do believe that people create their own Karma. That was Louis's quote. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177409
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
I am with you on appreciating nature Louis. I'll bet you are as aware as I am of nature's dark side. But since I'm having a charmed life by the luck of the draw I am inclined to agree with another great guy named Louis: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc My lack of belief in a deity is not meant as being disrespectful of your right to attribute the beauty of life to one of the many versions of God. As long as your God doesn't tell you to kill the non-believers I think we can hang with the grilled salmon together. That was a great story about Finland and sums up my feelings too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always think of God as the visible and invisible. I think of God as Pure Consciousness or Divine Intelligence. Which for me means that the intelligence which determines the sky, the clouds, the earth, the planets, that which keeps all of this functioning to me that is what I call God. Then when you look at the Oceans the rivers the wind the air the sun all of these thing may have principals of nature that control them. For me this to I call God. I am not negating Jesus or Krishna, I am saying that God can be even more simple than that. So to appreciate God in nature this is a good thing, I think. I once heard a story of a man who was visiting Finland, there he was with Atheist In Finland you get a tax break if you are atheist. So the atheist like to sit in nature and grill Salmon over a fire and sausage drink beer and just feel the beauty of the environment. The man laughed. He thought how Holy and atheist these people are. curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Snip I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I didn't know that you didn't like black, older women. What's up with that? Black older women are adorable, especially this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5-WdB_aVEfeature=related Make sure you get to her doing Freight Train at the end of the clip. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. snip I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. Agreed, both in science and regarding God. If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have intelligent design taught to kids and instantly their education stops because of the limit a religious belief has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory is how it all moves on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. Agreed, both in science and regarding God. Good for you, I've gone and scienced God out of my life! If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have intelligent design taught to kids and instantly their education stops because of the limit a religious belief has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory is how it all moves on.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. From my point of view, both are active methods of inquiry, and both have the same ability to become stagnant and fundamentalist. One of the greatest limitations of science is that only physical phenomena can be studied and proven, and even then it is only physical phenomenon for which we have instruments to measure. Leaves a lot out. One of the greatest limitations in a belief in God is using such a belief to explain everything. Lately I have found the use of the term God both imprecise and primitive. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) snip On the oither hand, an interesting story my wife told me recently about a scuba certification class she took awhile back: The instructor was asking a student what he would do in an emergency, and the student was naming all the correct stuff to do, and the instructor kept asking, Yes, and what else? what else? The student was eventually stumped, and the instructor added, pray.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am with you on appreciating nature Louis. I'll bet you are as aware as I am of nature's dark side. But since I'm having a charmed life by the luck of the draw I am inclined to agree with another great guy named Louis: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc My lack of belief in a deity is not meant as being disrespectful of your right to attribute the beauty of life to one of the many versions of God. As long as your God doesn't tell you to kill the non-believers I think we can hang with the grilled salmon together. That was a great story about Finland and sums up my feelings too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie wrote: I always think of God as the visible and invisible. I think of God as Pure Consciousness or Divine Intelligence. Which for me means that the intelligence which determines the sky, the clouds, the earth, the planets, that which keeps all of this functioning to me that is what I call God. Then when you look at the Oceans the rivers the wind the air the sun all of these thing may have principals of nature that control them. For me this to I call God. I am not negating Jesus or Krishna, I am saying that God can be even more simple than that. So to appreciate God in nature this is a good thing, I think. I once heard a story of a man who was visiting Finland, there he was with Atheist In Finland you get a tax break if you are atheist. So the atheist like to sit in nature and grill Salmon over a fire and sausage drink beer and just feel the beauty of the environment. The man laughed. He thought how Holy and atheist these people are. curtisdeltablues wrote: I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Agreed. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. Here I disagree. Science is not a belief like the belief in God. It is a method used to help improve the odds of our beliefs being accurate. The method is a work around for our cognitive flaws. So I see the motives in holding a God belief and using the methods of science to be almost opposite. And most God believers get scientific real fast in the hospital emergency room. The God belief is the last resort after every avenue of science is pursued. (or until your health insurance cuts you off) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. Agreed, both in science and regarding God. If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have intelligent design taught to kids and instantly their education stops because of the limit a religious belief has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory is how it all moves on. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
God is the intelligence that makes the banana and the banana peel. Yet religion in essence as in the spirit of or people in is also God. Yet Religion in the action of controlling, of limiting, of closing the vision may be the result of genetic engineering to make blue and pink banana peels Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. Agreed, both in science and regarding God. If a creationist ends up in the White house you could have intelligent design taught to kids and instantly their education stops because of the limit a religious belief has insisted be put on discovery. Not in the spirit of science at all as spotting where the holes are in a theory is how it all moves on. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
that is really neat I like old Black Ladies curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I didn't know that you didn't like black, older women. What's up with that? Black older women are adorable, especially this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5-WdB_aVEfeature=related Make sure you get to her doing Freight Train at the end of the clip. [snip] To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
Wow, thanks, Curtis, I'd never heard of Elizabeth Cotten before; she's wonderful -- everything about her. Still alive? ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Snip I thought a 'wuss' was always female, but I didn't know that you didn't like black, older women. What's up with that? Black older women are adorable, especially this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tm5-WdB_aVEfeature=related Make sure you get to her doing Freight Train at the end of the clip. [snip]
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess if you're going to look at God as a personal deity then your blog makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara tradition taught God as the impersonal. I always got a charge out of reading the free books ISKON was handing out, especially their Srimad Bhagavatam where Prabupad would go on a rant against the impersonal and he, of course, was ranting against the competition of the time. :) Laws of Nature is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what many call God especially in abstract terms rather than some being that micromanages your life. If you don't believe in the laws of nature then turn on your webcam so we can see you walk through that wall next to you. :) I was not raised in a religious family. I only went to church to get a scout badge and after that I was through with it. To me, even at that age it was pretty lame. As a teenager I was a big fan of the existentialist movement (particularly reading a lot of Sarte) and considered myself an atheist. I now think that becoming an atheist is the last stage before one treads the true path of God realization. Note I put God in quotes. I think it was Bucky Fuller who gave a talk (maybe with MMY) that God was concept and you could name that concept whatever you want. The three letter word tends to be a little lacking though. Now, I believe or experience God as the totality of everything that is, has ever been or will ever be. I also like to think of the analogy of God in terms of sound physics. I enjoy saying the word in my mind and being aware on a vibrational level the sum total of what the word is, and isn't-- Easy enough to do, since words repeated about five times in succession lose their literal meanings... It's like a string on a guitar or bass. God is the fundamental tone and the rest of the universe is the overtone series. That explains the expansion and energy which is creation. It also allows me to explain pre- destiny which cannot be disproved any more than free will can. Under this analogy we would be nothing more than a vibration whose destiny was created when the string was plucked. Everything you have though, now think and will be thinking is an overtone of that. I like this analogy a lot, though I would say the plucking of the string, including overtones is our full potential. Whether or not we realize it fully in this life or another remains a mystery. What one should be experiencing in meditation is the absolute stillness from which all things spring. If you have that experience then it is pretty undeniable and a good platform to understand all of creation and its logic. To the religious, who believe there is a Satan then I like to suggest that Satan is the ego which blinds you from having this knowledge because to experience it the ego must fall away. To the religious I also like to suggest that Jesus was one of many teachers who taught this (though their teachings were perverted with time). TurquoiseB wrote: Recent discussions about becoming in tune with the laws of nature have pointed out that Maharishi clearly was using laws of nature and the will of nature as euphemisms for God and God's will all along. As would be expected, considering that his teacher Guru Dev clearly thought in those terms. However (and assuming for the purposes of this discussion the existence of a sentient God who could actually *have* a will), I think it's time to step back and spend a little time pondering whether it's a good *idea* to want to become in tune with God's will. I mean, wouldn't that kinda be backing a loser?
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess if you're going to look at God as a personal deity then your blog (than your post?) makes some sense. But you're forgetting that MMY and the Shankara tradition taught God as the impersonal. Exactly. MMY did teach about personal God, but much more abstractly than the Western conception thereof, so that the God's will notion was also much more abstract. Barry's is a cartoon version. snip Laws of Nature is still a pretty good secular notion to explain what many call God especially in abstract terms rather than some being that micromanages your life. Yup. I'm in agreement with everything you say in the rest of your post, so I'm gonna snip it, but very well stated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: God is a wuss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Louis McKenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember a great man once said the government reflect the consciousness of the people. I have seen how that part of my mentality that is BUSHIAN has made as much of a mess of my own life as George Has made of the world. I believe in Kicking ass. I believe in full force attacks. If someone declares war on me I will hit them on every possible level before we go to battle.The only difference between me and Bush may be intelligence and how we use our resources. Yet I have had to really look at the Bush in me. So who we put in the white house is reflective of our state of consciousness as a nation. If I have a choice of seeing a film about an English butler and an English maid, or a Film with Arnold S ripping the heads off some believed terror ist I have chosen the Arnold film. Or Bruce Lee films where they fight to resolve issues. Of course a good Robert Redford movie is much more rewarding. However the box office indicates that Schwartzenegger movies make more money. So maybe it is not so good to laugh at and make mockery of the Dali Lama, or kill monks or support genocide in any form. Maybe the people who have fought for the liberation of the very country might have a problem with the new Capitalism. GOD = GOOD even Atheist believe in the GOOD. So the idea of Jesus may be a little much to accept. Yet the idea of a personal God that inspires one to evolve is not a bad thing. However people getting carried away is reflective in the current state of affairs. So Maharishi is 1000% correct in saying that we have to change things from the level of consciousness because there is where the only real change can take place. Changing the consciousness of the masses will change governments through the transformation from the level of consciousness perhaps there will be no need for Terror or guerrilla warfare. I hope you're right Louis, I always root for the opitimist. And I've taken part in many a WPA myself. To me the Maharishi Effect is a case of 'theory not proved'. It seems like the world is just turning on oblivious of us, wars, financial disaster, food crisis, environmental collapse, and yet we have pundits everywhere. Maybe I'm too cynical but it aint lookin so good to me. Not yet. But I do hope you're right. I dont just believe in God I know it from a very scientific and intimate basis. Yet it is not to be confused with the banana peel. God is that but the human consciousness can only be where it is. Look at how it varies in this group. Then you can see the world. Maharishi technology is like a tuning fork without it there is just chaos... I'm sure I get what you would call the intimate knowledge of God, my heart is overflowing with it, and I can see where all the devotion comes from. I just call it something else that's all. I think all people are the same, they are just switched on to their hearts or they are not. And the nots are perhaps where the problems lies? The scientific part escapes me, I think God has been remarkably elusive there. sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues wrote: His father had promised him a car for his birthday. Dad was nowhere in sight. His mother gave him 5.00$, yet what he had received was a grace from God that on his birthday the sun and the birds awakened him, the sweet smells of the divine filled the air and he knew without a doubt that there had to be a God and that God just gave him the greatest birthday gift ever. So following this weather based theology we can assume that God absolutely hates China and dropped a huge earthquake on it's ass and despises Burma and sent them a nasty cyclone? It seems a little grandiose and narcissistic to me to attribute a day's weather to God's intention to give him a bitch'n birthday while his same power over the weather is causing untold misery and death in other places. I think we as humans like to look for patterns and extrapolate our intelligence onto nature. Whether we do it through a belief in God or in science, the motive is the same, and either belief remains full of holes when viewed superficially. I don't think the motive is the same, opposite in fact. I sum it up as; Religion claims to explain reality whereas science is an *attempt* to explain experience. You have to remove projection to do science it wouldn't work otherwise, you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. you have to keep challenging things or you never progress. Agreed, both in science
