₦airaland Forum

Pantheism as "Sexed up Atheism" Pantheist Atheists

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

However, Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. It's a form of spirituality that is totally compatible with science. Indeed, since science is our best way of exploring the Universe, respect for the scientific method and fascination with the discoveries of science are an integral part of World Pantheism.

If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.

Why go beyond straight atheism?

Does atheism need sexing up? As such, atheism answers only a single question: is there a creator God, or not? That's an important question, but if your answer is "no" it is only a starting point. You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence and science, and those too are vital values. Yet after you've reached that initial "no God" answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, remain open.

If atheism, humanism and naturalism are to advance, then they need approaches that don’t simply leave the individual alone in the face of an increasingly threatening physical, social and international environment. They need ways of life that offer as rich a range of benefits as traditional religious ones.

Atheism is advancing. Growing numbers of people, across almost all nations, declare themselves to be non-religious or atheistic. Atheistic books on religion, like those of Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, are best-sellers.

But so far atheism and atheist groups have focused on attacking conventional religions, especially the Western theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s true that these religions often come with high costs: submission to written or priestly authority, belief in terrifying concepts such as demons, Apocalypse, Last Judgment and Hell, or the drive to impose one’s beliefs or religious values on other people. In many cases they give cachet and endurance to backward, repressive or destructive social values, developed in agrarian societies many centuries ago. And it's valuable to highlight these costs.

The attractions of religion

But negative critiques will not suffice. There are many motives beyond fear or habit why people hold fast to old religions or convert to new ones. There are many reasons besides ignorance and folly why they make religion the center of their personal and social lives.

Religions are not just a confidence trick on the part of prophets and preachers, or a self-destructive aberration on the part of believers. They have had social survival value in the past, and they continue to provide individual and personal benefits today, and these benefits are the source of their continuing numerical strength.

Religions provide communities of mutual support.

They overcome existential isolation and alienation, giving people a meaning for their lives and a sense of their place in the universe and nature.

They provide remedies for grief at the death of loved ones, and for the fear of one’s own death.

They combat the feeling of helplessness in a threatening world full of crime, conflict and disaster.

These benefits show up in the form of better health and longer life.

Of course, if you’re buying these benefits at the price of abandoning logic, ignoring evidence, believing in contradictions and impossibilities, teaching your children to fear a God who is getting ready to destroy the planet, signing on for social values that repress the rights of others, let alone sacrificing your life to slaughter those who disagree with you, then maybe the price is too high.

A naturalistic spirituality

Are these negatives an inevitable part of the bargain? They may well be an inevitable part of belief in the unbelievable or of uncritical adherence to ancient scriptures.

But is it impossible to get the benefits that conventional religions offer, without giving up one penny of the value offered by reason, science, and progressive respect for the human rights of everyone? Don’t we need approaches that offer the same range of advantages as supernatural religions – but without the costs?

Can there be such a thing as a religion without god, an atheistic religion or a religious atheism? The Buddhism of the Pali scriptures does not have a God or gods. Nor does the Taoism of Lao Tzu or ChuangTzu.

Can there be such a thing as a completely naturalistic form of “spirituality” with no supernatural elements?

At World Pantheism we have been exploring this possibility since the beginning of 2000 CE. We do so through our global and local mailing lists, through our magazine Pan, and through a growing number of local groups. We have lists about scientific and philosophical ideas, as well as about practical ways of developing our naturalistic spirituality. You can find links to these on our main page.

Our completely naturalistic Pantheism does not believe in any supernatural beings, forces or realms and is fully compatible with atheism and skepticism. As Richard Dawkins writes:

Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.

In practice, while a significant minority of our members like and use the word God to express the depth of their feelings for Nature and the wider Universe, the majority do not use the word about their own beliefs.

There are other names for similar approaches, such as religious naturalism or naturalistic paganism. We have gone with Pantheism simply because it's the best known, and has a long pedigree.


http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CMfI89fbjKgCFUlkfAodii7gCw

Pastor AIO:
@ Aribisala0

You might not be aware of the fact that Deepsight is a lawyer. This might influence the manner in which he discusses and tries to force an agreement out of people.

I just thought that I ought to let you know.

Lol, Pastor, but this will not be enough reason to avoid making a response to Post No # 101 above.

aribisala0:
these are very strong and categorical statements. it is not clear exactly what they mean and a bit off the topic of the thread.

Well do you regard the human mind to be uncaused?

Even evolution itself surely indicates a cause. So if that is a categorical statement, it very well should remain so.

however good logic from two people can lead to two opposite ways of doing things like driving on the right or left hand side .
i believe that the igbos have a proverb that says where one thing stands another thing will stand besides it. igbo kwenu!

I certainly agree with this.

However let us carefully note as follows -

If there is a tea cup orbiting the planet saturn and -

Man A believes it is there -

Man B believes it is not there -

Neither the belief or disbelief of either man will have any bearing on whether it is in fact there.

aribisala0:
you are making assertions but really that is your opinion or belief . i have no doubt you are an intelligent fellow but there are other intelligent folk who might have the opposite view.
i do not know if you are right or wrong and i am not saying either.
all i am saying is if somebody says the exact opposite to what you have just said there is no logical reason FOR ME to prefer either position .

i prefer to have a DIscussion rather than an indoctrination or lecture. that means there is no presumption that one participant knows more than the other and any claims must be justified by EVIDENCE

Well I am sorry if i have come across as though i am attempting to indoctrinate you. That is certainly not my intention. You asked a question, and I offered my view: that is all there is to it.

However let me just say this: a logical chain of thought is itself evidence of that which it asserts so long as the premises and conclusions therein stand firmly within the rules of logic. So if you find disagreement with any view i have offered, by all means do go ahead to point out the logical lapses therein.

Pastor AIO has attempted to argue that the references to Allah, Brahman and Olodumare and not references to the same entity.

Pastor AIO:
I wonder why Allah is not called Brahman in India.

I have offered a differing view which i believe seizes upon the core element of what each entity is understood to be  -

Deep Sight:
In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of the primordial Being Hiranyagarbha and all subsequent Creation. Brahman is conceived as personal (with qualities), impersonal (without qualities) and supreme depending on the philosophical school.

The word "Brahman" is traditionally derived from the verb ((brh)) (Sanskrit: to grow), and connotes greatness and infinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

"Say, ‘He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not Nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.’’’
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]

It is, to my mind, beyond cavil that there exist some clear similarities in the concept of God as delivered by the Jews, Muslims and Hindus. There are also differences.

However the theme of an eternal and absolute nature seems unshakeable in all of these traditions.

I think it is important to understand that notwithstanding that people have had tribal deities which they worshipped, and from which the names they gave to God arose, this has not stopped people from conceiving of the core attributes of the ultimate cause within their conception of GOD. Thus the names are altogether irrelevant, and what remains relevant is simply the collection of attributes which form a conception of the Godhead.

Deep Sight:
And in light of this -

"Olòrún is the Yorùbá name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems), Who is either the sole entity in monotheism, or a single entity in polytheism. Eitherway, It is regarded as a Self-Existing Being.

Commonly addressed as Olódùmarè, It is often regarded as the infinite ruler of the heavens; all-encompassing, and said to be the owner of all heads. No gender is typically assigned. Hence, It is commomnly referred to as "It" or "They" (although this is meant to address a somewhat singularity). The divine creator and source of all energy, It is often thought to be the conduit through which the thoughts and actions of each person in "Ayé" (the world) interact with those of all other living things, including the universe itself.

Olòrún has also been variously conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation and the "greatest conceivable existent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

- - - with regard to the highlighted portions of the above, i will find a very hard time agreeing with you that the same precepts are not at play in the conception of Olodumare as is within the conception of YHWH, Allah and Brahman.

That there are differences in conception is well acknowledged, but the core precept in all remains that of a self-existent, eternal, absolute element which is the origin of all things.

. . . The Oneness of Infinity. . .

- - - If the Yoruba, tha Arabs and the indian, each refer to Olodumare, Allah and Brahman as the ETERNAL ABSOLUTE ELEMENT WHICH CAUSED ALL EXISTENCE - - -

Can we really claim them to be references to different entities? - - -regardless that each tribe of course interpolates its idiosyncracies into the ontology of that entity?

aribisala0:
this question of an ultimate cause is that a function of the human mind or of reality after all it will only be valid as long as TIme does exist

The human mind itself could not exist uncaused. As such we cannot claim that the ultimate cause of all things is a figment of the human mind - which itself required causation.

is time a perceptual or an absolute reality??

Time is THE reality. We live in an infinite circular instant: one united moment of eternity that permeates all things.

thehomer:
Of course that too could be a possibility.

Excellent. I am happy we agree on this.

Why must it be singular? Why not multiple or none? To clarify, a person can trace their origin to four grand-parents

This does not apply when one is speaking of the ultimate cause. The very term "ultimate cause" logicaly denotes a single final cause.

To explain: the four grand parents you mentioned are not an ultimate origin since they also have origins. If we were to limit the causative chain to life on earth, the ultimate cause would be perhaps that single molecule that existed in whatever pre-biotic soup life was generated from. but that is nevertheless just a rough example because in reality even such molecules in turn had a cause. When we speak of the ultimate cause, any multiplicity would in itself logically contradict the word "ultimate." An ultimate cause is perforce singular.

I would have very much liked to set out in further detail the philosophical rationale for the necessity of an ultimate cause being perforce singular, but i have noticed that you do not like philosophical discourses. You perhaps disdain such as "unscientific."

thehomer:
while floating castles can be traced to no entities.

Floating castles do not exist as we know. This alone shows up the flaw in your thinking. You trace such to no cause since they do not exist: that reveals that if there was no cause, then similarly the world would not exist.

You thus inadvertently accede to the existence of a Cause for all things - and stretching the logic further, since YOU claim that time had a beggining, then its cause could not be itself, and as such must be timeless. A timeless thing is eternal and as such you therefore accept the existence of an eternal cause of all things.

Unbeknownst to you, you are already on the cusp of being a Theist or Deist.

Well we are clearly not on the same page. I think Justcool's post sums it up.

As this will show, and as i stated to you, there are several differing ideas as to what time actually is -

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3] An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events.[27] This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but , are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us.

The Vedas, the earliest texts on Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy dating back to the late 2nd millennium BC, describe ancient Hindu cosmology, in which the universe goes through repeated cycles of creation, destruction and rebirth, with each cycle lasting 4320 million years.[28] Ancient Greek philosophers, including Parmenides and Heraclitus, wrote essays on the nature of time.[29] Plato, in the Timaeus, identified time with the period of motion of the heavenly bodies. Aristotle, in Book IV of his Physica defined time as the number of change with respect to before and after.

In Book 11 of his Confessions, St. Augustine of Hippo ruminates on the nature of time, asking, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." He begins to define time by what it is not than what it is,[30] an approach similar to that taken in other negative definitions. However, Augustine ends up calling time a “distention” of the mind (Confessions 11.26) by which we simultaneously grasp the past in memory, the present by attention, and the future by expectation.

In contrast to ancient Greek philosophers who believed that the universe had an infinite past with no beginning, medieval philosophers and theologians developed the concept of the universe having a finite past with a beginning. This view is shared by Abrahamic faiths as they believe time started by creation, therefore the only thing being infinite is God and everything else, including time, is finite.

Isaac Newton believed in absolute space and absolute time; Leibniz believed that time and space are relational.[31] The differences between Leibniz's and Newton's interpretations came to a head in the famous Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence.

Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

“”Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), trans. Vasilis Politis (London: Dent., 1991), p.54.Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience.[32] With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events. (See Ontology).

Henri Bergson believed that time was neither a real homogeneous medium nor a mental construct, but possesses what he referred to as Duration. Duration, in Bergson's view, was creativity and memory as an essential component of reality.[33]

Time as "unreal"In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[34] Time as illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought,[35] and some modern philosophers have carried on with this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).

However, these arguments often center around what it means for something to be "real". Modern physicists generally consider time to be as "real" as space, though others such as Julian Barbour in his book The End of Time, argue that quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless configuration spacerealm containing every possible "Now" or momentary configuration of the universe, which he terms 'platonia'.[36] (See also: Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

thehomer:
Or he could simply be referring to someone else.

FINE: so long as you accept that this, along with all other possibilities which i mentioned are all tenable possibilities, then i am happy with that.

So basically it could also be reference to the same person.

The problem here is that you simply assert that there must be one. Why can there not be two, four or twenty? Could it simply be because you like it that way? This to me has all the appearance of defining into being some entity whose concept of existence you like.

The word "origin" is perforce singular in this context.

thehomer:
The phrase scientific dogma is an oxymoron. What actually are you referring to as scientific dogma?

You are so zealous in your dogma that you failed to notice the " . . ." quote marks I placed around the word "scientific" deliberately to cast a doubt on just how scientific such theories are!

thehomer:
If you're so serious about this, then you need to do the work required and get to the point where you need to rename time. Do not underestimate the lay man. What do you think the lay man means when he says "the phone rang 5 minutes ago"?

I don't think the lay man observes such magical things as time being a physical fabric expanding or contracting anywhere.

Here is Wikipedia's definition of time -

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1]

And this makes it clear that what is actually referred to is a measurement of events and objects in motion.

Time itself does not move anywhere. Events and objects move within a static continuum that is time.

I can prove this, you know. Because if time moves, then the only rational conclusion is that it moves backwards - - - because the future regresses to become the present which further regresses to become the past. We do not see the present proceeding forward to become the future, rather the future becomes the present, which in turn becomes the past.

What this means, if you will reflect, is that people, objects and events are occuring in a static continuum and not that time is moving anywhere.

But I can bet my hat that you will make a hash of this simple reasoning.

thehomer:
That depends. Think of it this way. I am thehomer. A Greek citizen with one brother, one father, one mother and one son only. If someone approached you and mentioned that they met one thehomer with a father and mother and another set of adoptive parents who has one brother two sons and three daughters. Would you say they were referring to the same person?
So, I think the surrounding myths are important because it enables us to follow the way religions flow and become accepted even in cultures. Foreign to their origins.

.

Firstly, humanity is more complex and variegated that this. It could very well simply be that the person is ill informed about your relatives. Or that in his culture (African Culture for example) the definition of a sibling extends to everybody from the same village. So perspectives like that abound and could easily create the seeming differences you refer to. At all events even if some people are entirely wrong in their information about you on some, matters, that would not change the fact that it is still you they are discussing, would it?

Secondly, and more importantly, it is actually not possible in this case for you to use such an example because the core defining qualities which i referred to are very unique and not to be found in any random person strolling down the street. They could only possibly refer to one thing - - - the cause of the universe.

Remember the qualities i mentioned which they all share: a self-existent, eternal, absolute element which is the origin of all things.

These are qualities that are unique to that entity percieved as teh eternal creator, and as such you cannot realistically assert that they are all referring to different entities.

My dear brother, i cannot go over this all over again. Try and read the posts of Justcool within this thread, to see if there is not obviously a different understanding of what time is.

The word 'time' used by scientists in context of this discussion is actually a misnomer. They should use another word for it. A specific scientic jargon should be deployed for it: because it has little or no co-relation with that which the lay man understands to be meant by the word 'time.'

Kay 17:
Since time actually is measured by the change in things, in absence of matter or space, could one say time operates?

Perhaps you need to reflect on whether time itself moves at all or whether it is objects that move within time.

Unbelievable, wasn't this! Some people are clad in "scientific" dogma in as much as they accuse others of being clad in religious dogma.

thehomer:
The main point I'm making is that due to the difference in the characters involved with Olodumare, he cannot conceivably be the same entity as Allah.

You. Mr. Homer, are perceived differently by different people, are you not? You are also approached differently by different people, are you not? Indeed different people have different opinions about you, do they not? In fact, different people may well have different myths and legends about you, may they not?

Does any of the foregoing mean that you are not the same, ONE person referred to as thehomer?

Thus, the various myths, legends and dogmas about God, and the various differences in the way that people approach God, do not suffice to suggest that the same entity is not being referred to - for the simple reason as i stated in the foregoing post - namely that the idea remains centrally the same - to wit - a self-existent, eternal, absolute element which is the origin of all things.

Unless you can claim that this central idea is not common to Olodumare and Allah, then your arguments are rather pedantic.

And in light of this -

"Olòrún is the Yorùbá name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems), Who is either the sole entity in monotheism, or a single entity in polytheism. Eitherway, It is regarded as a Self-Existing Being.

Commonly addressed as Olódùmarè, It is often regarded as the infinite ruler of the heavens; all-encompassing, and said to be the owner of all heads. No gender is typically assigned. Hence, It is commomnly referred to as "It" or "They" (although this is meant to address a somewhat singularity). The divine creator and source of all energy, It is often thought to be the conduit through which the thoughts and actions of each person in "Ayé" (the world) interact with those of all other living things, including the universe itself.

Olòrún has also been variously conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation and the "greatest conceivable existent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

- - - with regard to the highlighted portions of the above, i will find a very hard time agreeing with you that the same precepts are not at play in the conception of Olodumare as is within the conception of YHWH, Allah and Brahman.

That there are differences in conception is well acknowledged, but the core precept in all remains that of a self-existent, eternal, absolute element which is the origin of all things.

. . . The Oneness of Infinity. . .

Pastor AIO:
I wonder why Allah is not called Brahman in India.

In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of the primordial Being Hiranyagarbha and all subsequent Creation. Brahman is conceived as personal (with qualities), impersonal (without qualities) and supreme depending on the philosophical school.

The word "Brahman" is traditionally derived from the verb ((brh)) (Sanskrit: to grow), and connotes greatness and infinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

"Say, ‘He is Allah, The One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not Nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.’’’
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]

It is, to my mind, beyond cavil that there exist some clear similarities in the concept of God as delivered by the Jews, Muslims and Hindus. There are also differences.

However the theme of an eternal and absolute nature seems unshakeable in all of these traditions.

I think it is important to understand that notwithstanding that people have had tribal deities which they worshipped, and from which the names they gave to God arose, this has not stopped people from conceiving of the core attributes of the ultimate cause within their conception of GOD. Thus the names are altogether irrelevant, and what remains relevant is simply the collection of attributes which form a conception of the Godhead.

Al-Khalid, the creator

Saga, your continous reference to him as this seems actually on point. There is a striking resemblance especially the lower jaw and eyes

Pastor AIO:
Why are you painting such an arrogant picture of me? Where did I disdain you? Okay, you might have given me a few headaches in the past. Sometimes just reading some of your posts has me reaching for the panadol within 5 minutes. However I am not disdainful of you. Far from it.
And also it is as painful for me not to get into personal touch with people from this forum as it seems to be for you. I made up my mind and I'm not going to go back on it, even though there are so many people, yourself included, that I would love to meet for a drink, get drunk even (why not?), but I must insist that we must not have any theological discussions.

If you want to get into Hebrew notions of God's transcendence and ineffability then check out Ein Soph Aur. That is Hebrew for the limitless light.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_05655.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Judaism#Concepts_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

Most grateful for this Pastor. And do pardon my whining. Inspite of all my bravado i tend to be quite a wimp.

Now to hone the question more precisely: and this is not to say that you did not answer it: you did: i merely wish to focus more succintly.

Does the perception of YHWH contained in scripture not also betray elements of the ultimate cause such as you describe the Yoruba conception of Olodumare to be?

To specify: You are well aware of my hideous perception of the tribal entity YHWH: however - a conception of the ultimate cause certainly crept in here and there in the Jewish thought development regarding YHWH: and you have yourself acceded that names may be meaningless when an idea is concerned.

Thus can we really say that Jewish ideas of Yahweh such as (I AM THAT I AM - self existence) do not rhyme with the ideas of Olodumare that you set out above.

Thanks, and genuinely seeking,

alaper:
I have a completely different opinion on this issue.
Religion has nothing to do with morality. Infact, the ‘morality’ of the religious is not real. They engage in what I call “command morality” While the non-religious has developed the ability to reason out moral issues on their merit, the religious has to follow pre-packaged instructions from his holy book. Or worse, follow instructions from other people who claim to know the opinion of their God. These self-styled men of God just package their own infantile moralities or immoralities as the word of God. That is why you have dozens of interpretations of the same passage of a holy book. And each proponent of a particular interpretation firmly believes his own interpretation is the real opinion of God!!
Why do you still have ‘bible study’ more than 2000 years after the book was written? As if all the possible meanings have not been discovered yet!! New meanings, and newer twists to old meanings of the same passages are still being churned out daily in various churches, bible study sessions, seminaries, and religious communes around the world.
“Command morality” is what makes a pastor in calabar to brand an innocent child a witch and torture them in the name of deliverance! Command morality is what causes a Boko Haram convert to kill fellow human beings just because they don’t share his beliefs. Command morality is the underlying factor for the September 11 disaster, the crusades of old, religious wars and a lot of man’s inhumanity to man! An Aladura prophetess was arrested in Lagos recently for burning the two hands of a little girl, believing she was being delivered from evil spirits!! You need to have seen her on TV. She sincerely believed she was helping the poor girl!!
When you become religious, you mortgage a bit of you right and ability to reason out moral issues for yourself. The reasoning has already been done for you. Independent reasoning is frowned upon. Just listen to your ‘man of God’ for the direct instructions from God or his interpretation of passages of the holy book(instruction manual) And the more religious you get, the more you mortgage. In the extreme, you become a zombie, a cult member, following only the instructions of the leader, or the leader’s interpretation of the holy book for even basic aspects of your life, like what to eat, what to wear, how to spend your money etc.
Believing in God does not make you good. It does not improve your ability to be good. You do good deeds when the holy book instructs you to do so, or when it promises some reward either here or in an afterlife. I don’t know how many religious people will still do good deeds if they are told there are no ‘blessings’ or ‘eternal life’ to be derived from such acts. You can be good or bad whether you believe in God or not. And you are an intrinsically better person when you are good without believing in God.

Word! God bless you brother. This is the pure unadulterated truth.

Someday unmistakable archaelogical evidence of Jesus' very life will be found, and doubtless somebody somewhere will denounce it as the work of the devil.

And it is in this ^^^ light that i find difficulty understanding - - -

JeSoul:
. . . and in process divorce the spirituality that is at the heart of it, and dismiss it as irrelevant -

- - - what exactly is meant by "spirituality" in the above sentence.

-How exactly does an atheist accomplish these 3 core - spiritual - requirements? When by his every breath he actually rejects it?

Read Nwankwo's post again. Also read Matt 25:35 again.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=634923.msg8033390#msg8033390 date=1301679053]God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.


In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.[/quote]I do not know with what words to bless and thank you for this priceless post. I will be sharing it with my siblings.

It captures the spiritual truth perfectly.

Hi Pastor, please can i have your take on this  -

Deep Sight:
Hi Pastor. I am not versed in Yoruba spiritual tradition but could you just clear up something for me. Is it your suggestion that the semitic peoples had no conception of the ultimate divine cause in the sense that it is suggested that the Yoruba conceive of Olodumare. Thank you.

In this regard perharps you may want to also consider the refrain within the OT - "I AM that I AM" - which to my mind implies nothing else if not the quality of self-existence - a principal atrribute of the ultimate cause.

I do obviously believe that the semitic gods are largely tribal constructs, but do you not accept that here and there the thought development of the peoples has transcended those constructs into ideas that clearly conceive of the ultimate cause itself: regardless that they still referred to such with the ancient names of their tribal deities.

It would be heart-warming to hear your take on this one, [size=2pt]although I am schooled enough in your disdain for me such that i will not be waiting up for it. [/size]

Jesoul. If what Nwankwo posted above was not the teaching of Jesus why did Jesus say 'By their fruits ye shall know them'

Reflect carefully on that.

Another scriptural pointer.

Thanks for that: i actually mean Matt 25: 35.

Enigma:
You can find my views on the questions you raised by using the search engine here.

I don't know what key words to search for, so please i wouldn't mind if you drop a link to a thread where you have discussed this before. Thanks.

Hi Enigma, long time.

Enigma:
1. Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God

What does it mean to be born again? How exactly does one go about it, and what are the manifestations of those who are born again.

I simply believe that it refers to renewal. A man must be renewed from sin and worldly attachment and thereby is born into his spiritual nature and into spiritual things because his attachment is now to the spiritual.

If there is more to it, please do help me out.

2. To inherit the kingdom of God, you should love God with all your heart etc and love your neighbour

What do you think of the import of Matt 25:35 and Matt 7:23 in this regard?

The issue concerning the parable of the Good Samaritan has been dealt with ---- it was a parable to help answer and identify "who is my neighbour?" not a parable in itself answering "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Please see my post to Pastor AIO above. The definition of neighbourliness was ancillary to the original question on salvation.

One last point: in any event even the Samaritans acknowledged "God".

In view of Matt 7:23 and Matt 25: 35, what would you say it takes to acknowledge God, in Jesus' view?

Jesoul. Please do not worry about dear old viaro. In terms of our discourses i am sure there are absurdities enough to fill the entire universe. Such as physical bodies dwelling in spiritual heavens and the like. We leave that to himself and myself.

Let us focus our discussion on the matter for today. Before i proceed, I sense a sense of futility about you: namely that you believe i am deliberately playing the Ostrich. Let me just try to assure you that this is not so. Whatever may be your misgivings about me and my antics either past or present, i hope over time it is at least obvious that i sincerely believe that which i try to discuss. If there is no sincerity there is no purpose in these discussions. So please accept my assurances in that regard, for i would very sincerely love to have an open discussion of this, regardless that it has been discussed from other perspectives in the past.

Now you have pointed out two things to me which i will address. The two things you pointed out to me are as follows-

1. That the first requirement is to love God, and i have ignored this by focusing only on the second requirement - love of fellow man.

2. That Jesus spoke severally about salvation and i have ignored his other injunctions on the requirements, focusing only on the parable of the good Samaritan. And that another of his injunctions wa sthat one may only get to the Father through him.

In response to your first contention i say as follows -

- - - That the transcendental nature of God is not so concerned with an egoistic receipt of human praise or human acknowledgment as that would belittle the very nature of God.

- - - That the worship of God in spirit and in truth, the love of God, is manifested through a love of life. By this i do not mean a hedonistic love of worldly pleasures, but a love of that which is living - a love for that which emanates from God - namely, LIFE and LIVING THINGS. In the immediate sense this connotes the whole wonder of existence and the living beings about us, with whom we share our experience, but in the deeper sense this connotes love for such truly living things in an abstract sense such as love for love itself. I hope you get my meaning.

- - - I say to you that the bible itself is replete with many suggestions to this effect.

- That way to love God is not by any acknowledgment of doctrine or dogma, for that would be an empty and dead love.

There is no way that we can conceive of a transcendental God whose obsession is with egoistic praise and acknowledgement of doctrines such as thie identity of this or that person.

Rather i am persuaded that the gospel of Jesus affirms that the acknowledgment of God is in itself empty and quite useless in spiritual terms beside the simple practice of love. He also made it clear that acknowledging his name by itself would profit no man - even going so far as to corroborate his message in the parable of the good Samaritan by saying that what it would take to love him and to love God would be to show love to fellow men.

Here is relevant scripture in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

There is a deep spiritual reason why this is the truth. And that is simply because we are all a reflection, and minute part each of the totality of the being that exists as ONE. This is the reason for the command of love: it is an adjuration of oneness which trumps all things and goes to the gut of who we are and and what God is.

Without having to separately address your second contention where you said that Jesus stated that no man comeS to the father except through him,  i hope you can already see in the scripture quoted above what it really means to " come  through" Jesus. He has made it clear already both in the parable of the Good Samritan and where he describes love shown to fellow men as love shown to him.

You must therefore see that the first command of love of God, is, in Jesus' view, only fulfilled by exhibiting love TO fellow man in the truest sense.

Pastor AIO - the fact that the parable points out who a good neighbor is is obviously only ancillary to the main thrust, namely the requirement to love one's neighbor, which is in turn a requirement for salvation. Thus singling out the tail-end as you have done is totally unhelpful and indeed serves to distort the whole picture as it really should stand.

Clearly the question was what shall a man do in order to be saved. In giving an answer to this question, Jesus talks about loving one's neighbor. Ancillary to this is the query as to whom one's neighbor is. It thus forms one big picture, within which Jesus both identifies who a neighbor is and shows exactly how neighborly love should be manifested in his bid to demonstrate the essentials of salvation. Seeking to hive-off and separate issues as you have done distorts the clear and simple UNITED picture that Jesus drew up.

Hi Pastor. I am not versed in Yoruba spiritual tradition but could you just clear up something for me. Is it your suggestion that the semitic peoples had no conception of the ultimate divine cause in the sense that it is suggested that the Yoruba conceive of Olodumare. Thank you.