The course

Hi and greetings to you from Yorkshire , EVEN though I have not commented much about this course I have found it not just a course that is academic but practical too Plato has so much to teach us especially the republic although we have a monarchy here we are aware of the problem our American cousins face at this time yet Plato has so much to teach us in our ministry and we are so blessed in our service this course has taught me much about the philosophy of life and how to apply this to our continued spiritual work I appreciate very much the books I have been led to read about as I see it the philosophy of life I am a spiritualist minister and philosophy plays a great part in our belief I do however speak in a Christian spiritualist church were the richness of the Christian faith and the broad belief of spiritualism bring a wider understanding of what faith and philosophy are about in short to show the variety of Faith and belief are evident in our individual ministry And ministers in the UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH

→ Van wrote you a message

Hi (Uqnknown), Van left you a message Van Van left you a message . Click on the button below to read it: Read Message

This message is sent on behalf of Van Onyeaka. Block future emails like this· Privacy policy Zorpia Co. Ltd. P.O. Box #28960, Gloucester Road Post Office, Hong Kong

David Hume concept is interesting so offering we don't use spirituality in its purest form of thought maybe ministers have little time to do this and we spend so much time at the coal face we are apt to think of philosophy as a separate ideal yet with Hume and the other philosophical teachers. We have concepts to guide us forward I have not commented before on the lessons kindly sent asvi actually wanted to. Read around the subject before replying philosophy by its very nature. Possibly is not an exact science and therefore. From the humanist point of view relies not on the existence of a supreme being but on our training from childhood to use. Logic in so many ways we loose our childlike Faith at about 9 or 10 due in part to our education system in the uk I appreciate in certain states in America they do not accept the concept of the death of God philosophy as readily S we do here I would like to just say that a lot folks here readily accept spiritualism or the new age belief its not the fact they are not spiritual they are but not in the traditional sense e.g. Anglican Methodists etc but. Their concept of Faith is based on spiritualism and its. Seven principles, which are open minded spirituality that is the concept of logical spirituality based on the ones in the spiritual dimension called higer side of life along with scientific explanation via aura camera's etc. That is scientific approach to scientific applied spirituality and a living philosophy of life

The opening paper

Thank you for your opening notes I was surprised to receive them so soon after registration and payment I must right from the start say I have served GOD. From the age of 19 not always at full power but like an earthly father well some anyway he has loved me through 2 divorces and I am hanging in their what I like about the notes I have received is. The fact that at all times we are servants of God not. Out their in the world to treat people with disrespect just because their belief system is different to our concept of Faith or if you take the scientific approach a completely different view of the world as those with a humanist approach I can accept both points of view for example my mom as you Americans call your mum she was a woman of Faith but I have always known she thought parts of the. New testament were questionable that is why when I conducted her funeral I chose psalm 121 and dis a secular committal because I was not prepared to do mums service to please and comfort others as it happened apart from my partner BERYL and a friend from a spiritualist church 2others were we're not Christians as defined by. Faith one was a wiccan the other was a lapsed Catholic the other was an old school chum of mine ,, now the point I am making is. Whatever the view of this present it showed a love that went beyond personnel faith to what we. Call agape part of what we are to show to all thank you Amie GOD BLESS YOU X

Hi

Greetings


http://lamdepcothe.com/wash.php?rich=1hfc52n5yk7n


bsykes62@yahoo.com

Final Lesson Master of Spirituality - lesson 19

Final Lesson Master of Spirituality - lesson 19
Having reached the end of the Master of Spirituality course I am happy to offer my assessment of its construction, arguments and content. I will lay out my views in no particular order.

I enjoyed this study very much and looked forward each week to receiving a –fresh lesson. As the course progressed a succession of philosophers were discussed with reference to their teachings some of which were quite challenging. However, the writer had a flair for breaking down complex issues using vivid illustrations to aid learning. That was very good. The stated object of this course is to help ministers convey their faith to scientifically minded people; and it achieved that end magnificently in my view.

I have been in Christian ministry in England for over twenty five years and during that time I've studied a great deal of theology and related topics. Prior to that, and many years ago, I studied to "A" and "O" level passing various public exams from Economic and Social History to Religious Studies. One course I did was in "Classical Civilisation" which included a study of ancient Greek culture and philosophy. So, it was wonderful to get my old books out again and revisit: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thales and Anaximander etc. The first time I studied them I learnt a great deal and this course helped to build on that by digging a bit deeper. That was very rewarding and I enjoyed it a great deal. Throughout this course I bought additional books to broaden what I learnt and to help me write the essays I submitted.

As a Christian some of the teaching in this course challenged me deeply and at times made me feel distinctly uncomfortable. I was taken out of my comfort zone which made me defensive of my beliefs. However, I gradually came to see this as a positive thing. Having preached the Bible for over twenty five years during which time I've been totally immersed in my faith I've rarely been exposed to alternative (atheistic) points of view. So, again although challenging it has made me stronger, wiser and more able to deal with similar arguments when I meet them. In that sense the course has achieved the purpose it was designed for. I also liked the fact that I could write freely in response to the lesson notes without feeling hemmed in or restricted in what I could say. That was truly liberating and enabled me to be creative in my responding.

But there were down sides too. If I were to undertake an MA in England a supervisor would be appointed; between us we would have to agree a title for a dissertation; I would have to submit work from time to time for marking and the whole thing would take around two years. This course on the other hand seems to require little from anyone which seems odd to say the least. As far as I can see I could have completed this course without doing anything at all not even reading the weekly lessons. That cannot be right. A course needs to set "outcomes" and then have some means of assessing whether those outcomes have been met. How could the ULC know with any degree of certainty if these outcomes have been achieved if there is no means of assessing a student's work? Won't this make the qualification worthless? It would certainly be laughed out of court in England – and that's discouraging as it won't build confidence. To counter this I made up my mind to write an essay for every lesson received as a way of stretching me and getting me engaged academically. And because of this I feel I have justly earned this qualification through the work I put in. I guess the ULC's philosophy is to present various ideas and then leave the interpretation up to the student. That maybe commendable but it will not promote consistency across the board.

I was also surprised at some of the views expressed by the writer - some of which I felt were bazaar and occasionally offensive. For example presenting the God of the Old Testament as a child throwing its toys out of the pram was, in my view, offensive particularly as it has no basis in historical fact; and when "Star Trek" made several appearances during the course this, in my view, was bazaar. I found these things challenging and, to a degree, threatening but I stuck with it for reasons already stated above.

Finally, I would recommend this course for various reasons. Firstly, it encourages one to think carefully about what one thinks one knows. Do we know anything at all? For Christians the ideas expressed by ancient Greek philosophers will help to illuminate what they read in the New Testament e.g. where Paul speaks in his letters of opposites: "when I am weak then I am strong" etc. Also, living in a scientific age this course presents a convincing argument of science as a "faith" every bit as unprovable as any other philosophy. The prospective minister will learn from this course how to enquire of the scientifically minded person how s/he "knows" what s/he knows as Socrates did of old - not to win an argument or to come across as superior, but to challenge people and so get them thinking about what they think they know about life; death and beyond. Well done!

Rog

7th May 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #18

Spiritualism - Lesson #18

This lesson gave a challenging assessment of the personal qualities needed for ministry. We are human-beings with human-limitations but there can be no room for pride or self-serving in ministry as if we possess all the answers; our motivation should be to serve others in humility gaining rapport through listening and empathy. But as the writer of the course makes clear we have no means of knowing what motivates someone into ministry, charity-work or any other profession if it comes to that. As one charity worker once said about volunteers working for their organisation: "volunteers need us as much as we need them." People are driven by powerful unseen forces e.g. guilt, insecurity, inferiority, superiority, regret and loss etc. I repeat what I said above that we are human; consequently we all wear masks.
During this course it soon became apparent that much of the material presented was subjective rather than objective in tone so it was informative to read that the writer had intended this. Since time began everyone who has ever lived has had an opinion which they've either keep to themselves or sought to force on others. Because of that it's a wonder that agreement about anything has ever been obtained. Emanating from the subconscious self-interest is a powerful motivator craftily manifesting itself as concern for others. It's part of the human-condition which we would do well to be mindful of. While a person's thoughts cannot be known one only has to look on social media to see the kind of destructive, critical comments people hurl at others from the anonymity of a computer. And it's noteworthy that when those who make such comments are traced by the authorities they're often embarrassed or remorseful at the distress they've caused. With that sobering thought ringing in the ears anyone responding to a "call" to ministry should not be surprised to find themselves in the cross-hairs of critics who "think they know better" and get great delight from kicking the legs out from under us. That may be so hard to bear it may well precipitate a collapse into the darkness of despair. It is not unknown that when a person shows compassion to another they are accused of being "holier than thou" by people hiding from something deep within themselves. Again, we are all human on a journey trying to make sense of life's mystery – and we all come to that journey from different directions.
I have both the Republic and the Crito which have so much to teach about human-nature, people and their problems. And it's interesting that during the final hours of his life Socrates, surrounded by his friends all urging him not to drink the poison, was composed and serene within himself – casually drinking the poison before laying down to die. As a man who confessed to knowing nothing Socrates calmly told his friends that if there was another life beyond death that was fine; likewise if death was nothing but a long sleep that was fine too. To have arrived at that point of contentment within himself with neither regret nor remorse and without heaping blame on the authorities for sentencing him to death Socrates showed great fortitude, courage and a quiet contentment that comes from the assurance of not needing to strive to know anything – that kind of "certainty" is beyond all of us. Yet for many people "fear," with its gnawing-partner "doubt" drives us to cling to life at all costs; yet we know so little about what life is. And here I agree with the writer that we know nothing – nothing meaningful that will survive our time here. For example as a people we have no idea how this planet got here or who may have been here before us – and we will never know that. We can look at Mars through a telescope and speculate whether life existed there billions of years ago; and we can measure, weigh and observe the universe in which we live yet we will only ever scratch the surface of "knowing" anything. The best we can do as far as "certainty" is concerned is concur with Euclid who discovered that in any triangle the internal angles always add up to 180 and that a straight line can be drawn between any two points. But that's hardly earth-shattering knowledge nor even discovering that "pie" is an infinite number. Maybe the best we can say about that is that a mere mortal, Euclid, was able to glimpse something of the immortal.
As a minister my "calling" came out of an acute crisis that almost brought about psychological collapse. But that's not a bad place from which to start - in a heap on the floor. But it was a great leveller. Today, in my preaching ministry I do not hold to any feelings of grandeur; quite the reverse I consider myself inadequate and therefore dependant on God! For those who've been to the "bottom" will recognise that these thoughts, though irrational and silly, are difficult to override. For me it means that every service I conduct (and I've been preaching for around 25 years) and every funeral I preside at I feel incredibly weak and vulnerable. But as the Apostle Paul said: "when I am weak then I am strong" – that is very much my testimony. If knowing oneself is the aim of philosophy I have a long way to go to get there – but not that many years left to complete the journey. The Bible has a verse which says: "If God is for us who can be against us?" My reply is: "myself" I can be my own worst enemy, critic, judge, jury, jailor and cynic. To believe in oneself is probably the hardest concept for me to hold to. Others too may feel the same way as we all carry baggage with us loaded upon us by parents, teachers and others in authority who were labouring under their own heavy burdens. In that sense no-one can know anything about anything that hasn't first come to us through the prism of someone else's prejudice. But those who have been through the mill and survived the dark-night of faith are often the most dedicated, gifted and empathic ministers having been to the bottom and survived. That is the story-line running through the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures so we are in good company.
The plight of others can be so moving it lays on the bleeding-heart a desire to help. I watched a programme on TV the other day about people who drink themselves to oblivion. They wasted their money, were reckless with their health; their lives; their careers; their families and their prospects. Yet they were broken people with heart-rending stories and as sick in body and mind as anyone with a physical illness. Their injuries were mostly self-inflicted yet so sad and moving to watch; these people were God's children (all sharing the image of God) suffering deep traumas often because they weren't able to face the truth about themselves. And I guess that most people would see something of themselves in them. Philosophy asks questions and builds on the insights of those who went before them. Yet how often those insights were manipulated to gain power over others. We may be able to change society but human-nature is constant and cannot be altered so there will always be those who seek to lord it over others. For many life is a riddle. It's as if we've been deposited on this planet not knowing where we came from and so left puzzling what cannot be fathomed. Some people seek answers in science; others bury their heads in activity; still others drink (or take drugs) to dull their fears and insecurities. Words are inadequate to express these gnawing feelings although poetry does help by painting pictures of the obscure. Our task in ministry is to meet people where they to support them in their dilemmas shining a light on the way ahead that they might find their way to the "Spirit." Speaking personally the answer is found in God. That doesn't mean I have some kind of higher knowledge than other people and should I be tempted to think otherwise the Apostle Paul has some helpful words here: "I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to" (Rom. 12:3). So this is obviously a perennial problem! As as ministers we are merely guides pointing the way. In the work we do we may be ridiculed, laughed-at, ignored or side-lined but we take for our example the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah – who though rejected and abused was vindicated and rewarded. So too will those who serve others faithfully (with humility and compassion) from the heart.
Rog

1st May 2016

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #17

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #17

I can only speak from my own experience of ministry in England. But what has become increasingly evident to me over the years is that often depressive illness and emotional distress are the result of people feeling: overlooked, insignificant, powerless and frightened; with the result that they live futile, meaningless and empty lives. The causes are complex but amongst them is a secular society that is growing in confidence and seeking at every turn to eradicate religion from its midst; to get rid of the very faith that gave it birth and which still underpins its laws and institutions. In Britain TV output is also increasingly atheistic in content decided, I'm sure, by people who think they know better and therefore seek to control what people think. No wonder people are increasingly resorting to anti-depressants, and other talking therapies, to ease their spiritual pain. People were created to be in community with one another each contributing of him/herself to its life, vitality and cohesion. But much of that is now lost. Today, governments emphasise individualism i.e. standing on one's own two feet regardless of others. The result is selfishness and a catastrophic fragmentation of society where people no longer talk to each other, no longer know their neighbours and have to lock themselves behind their own front door to keep away strangers. How far we have declined. It wasn't that long ago you could go out and leave the key in the lock of your door. But not anymore.
As a Christian minister I increasingly encounter people living on the edge who harbour underlying fears and desperation. On the surface they seem fine but underneath they are scared of a world perceived as hostile, alien and set against them. But often the immediate cause of distress is loneliness i.e. no-one to talk to, to share their concerns with. So they consult the doctor who dutifully writes out a prescription for tranquillisers or anti-depressants even though there is no evidence this form of mediation works but plenty of evidence to the contrary that it makes matters worse. But what is taking place here between doctor and patient is a kind of unspoken contract. The patient consults the doctor expecting him/her to give him/her something to solve their distress; and the doctor responds by writing out a prescription for the patient thus keeping everyone happy. Happy until the pills don't work and the patient returns for more. And so it goes on. Yet many people suffering from depression (which after all is caused by the "disconnection" from self and one's environment) would benefit from an honest conversation with a friend or family member. But in an increasingly fragmented and individualistic society we've forgotten how to do this and so shunt our loved ones off to the "psychiatrist" or else shut the door on them having no answer to their malady. But there is no pill in existence able to solve our spiritual and emotional demise. What people need to do is "reconnect" with one-another and become a joined-up society again; one that talks to each-another; cares for each-other, listens to each-other, values each-other and supports each-other. In his ground-breaking work Freud traced most personality disorders back to childhood particularly the formative years from birth to around 8. He believed that during this period traumatic experiences are repressed and accessible only through psycho-analysis - a talking therapy also known as "free association." Freud also placed great stock on dream therapy for similar reasons. Today psycho-dynamic therapy, behaviour therapy and CBT etc. are heralded as therapies most likely to help the "depressed" get well again. Yet modern psychology knows very little about the human brain and for the most part does rejects the concept of an immaterial "mind." So we need to look elsewhere for an answer for the popularity of science. And we don't have to look far. People have become accustomed to believing that science has an answer for every question – which is untrue of course. The real answer to psychological distress is paying attention to people; hearing their stories and reconnecting them to their spiritual selves as the only way of restoring hope, meaning and purpose to their lives. That is exactly what I try to do in my ministry and that's so important because as a Christian I do not have the same materialistic-outlook as others do. As a minister I am in the business of "people." Ministry by definition is submitting to God and the "service of others" in his name. People are not a collection of chemicals or a machine devoid of meaning and purpose. People were created in the image of God i.e. a combination of body, soul and Spirit despite what psychology and psychiatry teaches. Just mentioning "God" to a psychiatrist is a sign of delusion! I have psychology books in my library which state confidently as "fact" that the human brain contains ancient and modern bits i.e. new bits added over time yet retaining the most primitive bits but to our emotional detriment. According to this theory the so called "fight or flight" response is left over from the time we were hunter gatherers seeking food whilst dodging wild beasts eager to make us their latest meal. But now that we buy our food in supermarkets and so don't have to evade wild beasts to obtain it the "fight or flight response" affects us in new ways i.e. through phobias and other emotional triggers. However, these "experts" who write this stuff have no more idea than anyone else whether this is fact or fiction; true or false. And this is the problem with science in my view. And because it is we would do well to heed Descartes' words who said that: when developing an argument keep it simple and build it up methodically otherwise you may end up talking nonsense. How true that is. Scientist's today talk confidently of evolution as if it is an established fact. But they would do well to heed Hume's caution; just because an effect is observed doesn't mean we can determine a cause of that effect even where a pattern appears to confirm it. We humans have vivid imaginations and tend to link ideas together to draw incorrect conclusions. Plants, animals and people change but it would be foolish to pronounce as fact why these changes occur. Several years ago I attended a lecture given by a university lecturer who spoke against evolution citing various organs, joints and so on in the human (and animal) body which couldn't have evolved but must have been irreducibly-formed for survival to occur: e.g. the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the wings of various birds etc. There are many more example of course which show that evolution cannot be as simple as Darwin thought. Besides, Darwin was a religious man whose Christian wife constantly prayed for him. Darwin believed that God created the world and then set it free to obey laws he set for it. Yet, today there are people teaching in British universities who no longer believe in evolution yet continue to teach it. One wonders why. Is this what science has become? Some scientists would rather cling doggedly to belief in a material universe rather than admit to there being a creator. It seems it's more palatable to stick with something they don't believe rather than admit to a "mind" (outside space and time) that is greater than that of humanity. Yet scientists are given the greater voice in today's confused and spiritually barren world. But maybe things are changing. Today, spirituality is increasingly being acknowledged as vital for human health and well-being even where it lacks any religious content. Today, people are encouraged to be "mindful" of themselves, their surroundings, their gifts, activities, connectedness to themselves, the environment and one-another i.e. to pause; be aware of their thoughts; their breathing and their surroundings using various modalities. And this is good for reconnecting with one's spirituals nature and with God. For neither: psychiatry, anti-depressants, evolution, materialism nor science in general can solve the emptiness of humanity starved of spiritual nourishment and living in denial of its God-given roots. It is only through belief, hope, creativity, intuition, prayer, faith and spiritual reawakening that the spiritual wilderness in which the western-world is currently languishing will be healed and set free. And for this a sincere, faithful and educated minister is required.

Rog

April 2016

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #16

Nietzsche was first and foremost a classics-scholar who became a professor in his mid-twenties influencing such notable writers as: Lawrence, Shaw and Yeats (some achievement). It was only later that he turned from literature to philosophy but even so his literary bent shone through his writings which in parts were a combination of myth and abstract thought. And I think this is the way to approach probably his greatest work: "Thus Spoke Zarathustra."
And it's interesting that a man who came to reject religion particularly all things Christian e.g. loving one's neighbour, turning the other cheek and showing compassion to those who suffer etc. that he created a new "prophet" (Zarathustra) who descends the mountain (a bit like Moses generations before) to pronounce a new gospel that: "God is dead." But I'm not sure it was God whom Nietzsche rejected or the servility of people who cling to inherited values without thinking about them. For Nietzsche man is capable of so much more but is held back by deferring to a set of values (and a defunct morality) which prevent him from reaching his full potential. Nietzsche writes urging people to reject all this and live authentic lives (to be yourself) even if that means disregarding the feelings and needs of the "herd." Nietzsche also rejected Plato's ideal world just as he rejected the heaven preached by Christians which, he believed, looked for jam tomorrow while rejecting the here and now. To him this was simply turning away from life. This is a man in a hurry, a philosophical "hot-head" who tears up the philosophical rule-book and starts again. Nietzsche wants us to question everything we've come to accept without thinking about ethics and the meaning of life. According to him many of the things we believe are good and wholesome are in fact limiting to us. Nietzsche wants us to see life in a different way and through a different lens having rejected Kant's theory that we're unable to know "things in themselves" For Nietzsche this was a useless doctrine and so held to one world only – this one. But something doesn't add about all this especially when seen alongside his theory of "eternal recurrence" where every living experience comes around again and again as if to give us a second crack at it – sounds a bit like religion to me! Nevertheless, having brought down like a pack of cards all previous ideas of a perfect and imperfect world the stage was set for a re-evaluation of values, ethics and morality. So enters "Superman" the master of the world for it follows that if this world is all there is and if man has dispensed with any authority from above man is free to choose his own values and stand on his own two feet. But there is a problem here and it's one we've encountered several times before i.e. "human nature." Human nature being self-centred and power hungry forever seeks its own ends despite the lofty ideas of people like Nietzsche. Someone somewhere will be looking for ways to lord it over others, and with the green light from Nietzsche to live life as we please without regard for others (although he didn't actually intend that for there is some compassion in his philosophy) the result will be anarchy, social breakdown and ultimately total confusion. This is one reason, in my view, multi-culturalism has failed. For society to cohere it is vital that people share common values; a shared heritage and so on. But where this is rejected, or lacking, society will eventually fall apart. There is another aspect to the materialistic way of thinking i.e. Determinism. Determinism holds that no-one can he held responsible for their actions which, in a closed material world, couldn't be other than they are. But the law doesn't see it that way! The law demands that each person is responsible for their actions. Self-determination is much closer to our actual experience in life. It's people who make decisions, who feel compassion, who love, value and respect others. The brain may be a material organ, able to be studied, measured and investigated, as is the physical body, but the immaterial mind, soul, emotions and intuitions are every bit as real. These things are what it means to be human (with emotions) living together in community. I can understand where Nietzsche is coming from in advocating the inauthentic life. And it's true that some people do strive to be something they're not wearing all kinds of masks to impress others; to fool themselves; to get ahead and to get even. Most people want to impress someone or be better than others even at the cost of their own, personal well-being (it's aby-product of culture). But it's a shaky house of cards we create that will come crashing down one day leaving us in a devastated heap. We may be able to fool others but we cannot sustain fooling ourselves for very long. And I have met many people who have been crushed by the fall-out from this kind of self-deception who then find themselves struggling to build a new life having faced the terrible truth about themselves. It's an unpleasant experience but a learning curve too from which many blessing can flow if lessons are learned so bringing forth the sweet, fragrant blossom of new personal growth. Maybe Nietzsche was plagued by self-doubt which ultimately led to the "death" of an old way of life which he was unable to bring himself to face: madness is next to genius after all.

Rog

11th April 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #15

Spiritualism - Lesson #15
The views expressed in this lesson concerning Marx were reasonably stated and sensitively presented. Whatever one might think of Marx he certainly left a huge mark on history. One writer described him as a social scientist, political philosopher and revolutionary. In my view he was none of these things but a man who took Hegel's philosophy and turned it on its head - even Marx himself admitted doing this. Marx began his career as a romantic poet and political journalist before turning his attention to converting Hegel's dialectic ideas into a theory concerning the power of economics. He certainly grew up in the atmosphere of Hegel's philosophy but other influences acted upon him too e.g. his empirical study of working-class life and movement. Consequently, Marx rejected Hegel's political concepts and outlined his own sociological theory of the state which was not socialist but democratic. What "Spirit" was to Hegel were the forces of production to Marx. And where for Hegel ideas were confrontation for Marx it was competing socioeconomic classes that mattered. For Marx it was all about the material world rather than Hegel's "Geist" which Marx denied. It was class struggle that Marx understood as the recurring pattern of history i.e. the haves against the have nots. History showed that those in power pass laws to subdue the working classes so re-enforcing their economic dominance over them. And as Marx admitted to his daughter it was "servility" he detested above everything else. The class system had been present in ancient times in master/slave relationships, also in feudal times, in the Lord/serf relationship, and present now in the industrial age through the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie i.e. property owners) and the proletariat (working classes). It was, Marx believed, confrontation between these two groups which would bring about change. Marx argued that the industrial way of life sets the wealthy (a minority group) against the great mass of alienated, subsistence workers; a way of life that would eventually collapse under its own internal contradictions to produce a classless society in which work and its rewards would be equitably shared each according to his ability and needs. In such a society no one person would be higher than any other whether doctor or sweeper both would receive equal pay. But the only way to achieve this was for the instruments of economic-production to be held in common. For Marx it was here, in the real process of change, that Hegel's "dialectic" would be worked out in a perfect society where everyone worked together. And one can understand where Marx was coming from when we consider that he lived through the trauma of what today is described as the Industrial Revolution when western society changed from being a predominantly agricultural way of life to an industrial economy. Marx witnessed first-hand the dreadful fall-out of this on the poor when he moved to London, England during the time that Britain was first to industrialise becoming the Workshop of the World. But why was this change necessary? The population of England had begun to increase at the close of the seventeenth-century but by the eighteenth-century it had begun to rise rapidly. New ways had to be found to feed this rising population if Malthus' warning about starvation was to be averted. Prior to this people were cottagers, producing at home what they needed for themselves at a subsistence level. But as the need to grow more food increased, fields were enclosed, new crops introduced and selective breeding experimented with etc. which saw many labourers as well as yeoman farmers driven from the land to seek work in the newly emerging towns – they were becoming "alienated." But the new towns were crowded, crude, unhygienic and disease- ridden. Sanitary conditions in towns were revolting so that cholera was a regular visitor killing many. At this time there were no public health acts, no health service and no support for the needy. Many turned to drinking gin as a means of escape. This state of affairs persisted throughout most of the nineteenth-century while Marx was writing – and we need to set him against this context. With little control of industry, the absence of factory acts, and no escape for the poor the lot of the working classes was dire indeed. True, there were some enlightened employers (often Quakers) and other philanthropists who built homes for their employees and looked after their interests; but these were in the minority. Factories were dangerous places to work while young children were sent to work down coal mines often from dawn to dusk. For those who fell by the wayside their only chance of survival was the workhouse. Here, the old, the sick and the dispossessed were often treated as criminals i.e. husbands separated from wives; then made to wear "uniforms" and required to eat their meals in silencer. Even by the turn of the twentieth-century when Booth did his survey into the conditions of the poor in London the results were alarming. The poverty, hygiene, housing and deprivation were still very widespread. However, while Marx criticised religion as a fantasy it was the Church that intervened to educate the poor through Sunday schools and later day schools. Concerned people observed that on Sundays, the only day of the week children didn't have to work, they ran amuck without control. Sunday schools were introduced and proved to be a stabilising influence on them as were day schools, when they came into being later, even though the education offered was basic and primitive. But at this time in England Government was not interested in educating the masses although it did eventually take over this responsibility. But for Marx religion was not the answer; the only answer was total, social and political change. And I'm sure his intentions were honourable when we consider what has been described above. For Marx in this new classless society government would be by the leaders of the revolution (the communist party) – while the new state would be called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." At this point the "dialectic" would come to an end in a perfect society without dissent or criminality. Alienation would be over and freedom attained – the people would be in control their own economic forces which, after all, would be their own forces. It sounds like Utopia but the reality was very different. What Marx failed to understand is that while it might be possible to change society one cannot change human-nature which is power- hungry, self-centred and unreliable. And the final result? Totalitarianism leading to the extermination of millions – not Marx's intention as he only sowed the seed. It's a tragic tale of the suppression of the human-spirit which (being creative) cannot be silenced and will not be crushed. For God is in all and cannot be excluded from any part of his creation.

Rog

5th April 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #14

Spiritualism - Lesson #14

Hegel has had a great influence both on philosophy and on German nationalism literally changing the world through his most famous disciple, Karl Marx. So, we still see Hegel's influences at work in the world around us today. But to understand where Hegel was coming from we need to know something about the age in which he lived. When Hegel was born it was an exciting time – the world was changing and becoming modern. Napoleon was promising to change the world and Hegel actually saw Napoleon after his great victory. Hegel summarised the trauma and euphoria of the time by announcing the birth of a new world which was manifesting itself in philosophy and politics. This is the background to Hegel's early thinking - everything was progressing towards a climax that went beyond previous conflicts and uncertainties in philosophy bringing everything together. This is the atmosphere of "weltgeist" i.e. (Spirit/Mind). It should also be born in mind that in the closing years of the eighteenth century there was a bitter battle taking place in philosophy about who would be Kant's successor completing what many considered to be his unfinished system. In 1807, therefore, Hegel published a book with the stated object of reaching the absolute truth - an all-encompassing vision taking in many philosophical theories about the nature of knowledge, religion, and ethics etc. Central to this was the idea of "Spirit/Mind" i.e. the cosmic soul that encompasses every person as well as nature. It boils down to God being in all and all being in God. Christians would reject this as "pantheism" i.e. God merged within nature. While Christians accept that the world is sacred (created by God) they do not accept that God is merged with nature but separate from nature. However, Christians accept the possibility of becoming one with God through Jesus Christ his Son who said: I and the Father are one. The underlying thesis of Hegel's thesis movement towards the "Absolute" not so must that every question has an answer, or every problem is solvable, more that "we're all in it together" with an all embracing consciousness. It was a genius idea, of course, one that influenced many who came after him. Knowledge, said Hegel, like consciousness, develops (things are changing, progressing and moving forward) developing new concepts and new categories. This is where the philosophy of "dialectic" comes in explaining that everything grows through confrontation and conflict rather than by understanding and observation. Hegel maintained that all phenomena from consciousness to political institutions are aspects of "Spirit/Mind" of which every individual is a part. As history progresses "Spirit/Mind" recognises these phenomena as aspects of itself and reintegrates them. It is a recurring process of "dialectic" reflecting Hegel's belief that reality is not material but "Spirit/Mind." Put simply human-beings inherit things from the past modify them and then pass them on to future generations e.g. language, science, banks, churches, social institutions and so on. However, consciousness does not appear to change unlike the context of society which does change. Hegel also disagreed with Kant's "a priory" understanding of knowledge, and its uncritical assumptions, replacing it with a more immediate understanding e.g. what is conscious to us exists as something we sense – and to me this makes good sense. And so here we see Hegel going beyond Kant's philosophy which denied we can know "things in themselves" which Kant believed was beyond human knowledge. And I agree with Hegel here. What, for example, do we need to know about a chair other than it is to be sat on? If that chair was designed by Chippendale it might tell us something about Chippendale's thinking and design skills but no more. It's like admiring a picture (or a landscape) which provokes from us an emotional response. But all we need to know is that emotional response making irrelevant any relationship we might be missing with the paint (or the canvass) upon which the paint was laid. Again, we might see a beautiful tree standing in a woodland and admire its height and foliage. But it's useless wondering what the tree is thinking as we will never know. Similarly, when Darwin burst on the world with his theory of evolution others took it forward making all manner of claims based on effects leading to causes. Hume would be horrified at this; rekindling memories of the "virtuous horse" i.e. human beings taking one idea and then allowing their vivid imaginations to conclude all manner of conclusion from it. Some might protest that we Christians do this with our doctrines of God. Hume, cautions that it is improper to go from a minimum attribute of God (Hume had no belief in God) i.e. that God created the world; to deduce that God is love, merciful, forgiving, omnipotent etc. But Hume was wrong in this case. Jesus, God's Son, came into the world (as God incarnate) to teach us about God's attributes and so make us one with him. And even Hegel argues that at certain times in history "Spirit/Mind" may manifest itself as a person (whether or not that person is aware of that role) to overcome oppression and tyranny. Unfortunately, fascism, communism and socialism (legacies of Hegel of which he had no knowledge) are now totally discredited. The idea was the levelling of society which would hold everything in common. The reality was the silencing of the creative spirit in art, writing and so on. Anyone stepping out of line was silenced as being manipulated by powers (possibly unknown) even to them. Hegel gave the example of ancient Greece which seemed to be a fairly settled society. Why? Because, according to him, "reason" had not yet manifested itself; but it was just a question of time before it did. And the goal of this progression through history? "Absolute Spirit" (freedom) i.e. a future state of consciousness which no longer belongs to individuals but to reality as a whole. At that point "Spirit/Mind" is aware of itself as the reality to which history has been working. Hegel has given us much to think about. The thesis, antithesis and synthesis sound a plausible philosophy of growth and development as history unfolds. Unfortunately, and the Bible makes this very clear, human nature is not so accommodating. In every generation the "dialectic" has failed to deliver the goods. Take for example the Reformation in Europe, the Peasants Revolt, Industrial Revolution in Europe (still underway), The French wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; the American War of Independence, the First World War, Second World War, Falklands War etc, etc. None of these conflicts, and many others besides have delivered (or got us anywhere near) "Absolute Spirit." And neither will they so long as humankind is in rebellion against God. I am not God and God is not gradually becoming conscious of himself as the years go by. God is eternal, creative Spirit who holds all things together.

Rog
29th March, 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #13

Spiritualism - Lesson #13
I agree that to some extent human beings do create their own morality the product of culture, upbringing and prejudice etc. For example while one person might see a particular situation as upright and wholesome another might view it as denigrating or even wicked. People are different and living in a changing, opinionated world. We don't all agree on everything. But God, or whatever we choose to call him, is changeless and not subject to these peculiarities of nature. God is never childish (or spiteful) developing as a child might eventually growing up into a reformed character. The moral outlook discussed in this lesson is one of relativism i.e. whatever society decides at any given moment is the accepted morality of the time. But it can never be right to kill. I (me) have no right whatsoever to decide who lives and who dies as if all that's at stake is the rearranging of energy. Conscience tells me that is wrong and I submit that most cultures, if not all, would agree that killing for the sake of it cannot be right. Morality is eternal as God is eternal. This is the conclusion Kant came to. Kant rejected metaphysical knowledge as far as the world or our inner being are concerned. Reason alone serves this purpose so releasing us from the useless bondage to speculation which only leads to conflict of opinion.
Reason, being independent of experience a priory, gives us solid moral guidance which I understand to mean "conscience" (the divine voice within). From this it follows that morality is independent of us and not subservient to sensory pleasures or gratification. This means we are not free to do as we like as if all we're doing is rearranging the furniture in a house that doesn't exist. Pantheism and monism are the offshoots of this way of thinking. For Kant an action has a moral value if it issues from a good will motivated purely out of respect for duty and the moral law. According to him the independence of morality gives us choice i.e. free will.
People often point to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the violence contained there. I would make several observations about this. First it is never good idea for a modern society to look back on an ancient one judging it according to modern standards. If we were to get into a spaceship and travel back five thousand years to the Fertile Crescent the society we would happen upon would be alien to our own so that we would not feel at home there. Nations fought on-another in hand to hand combat. It was a vicious world in which it was either kill or be killed. A powerful empire might swoop down on a smaller nation exiling its population to foreign climes as a way of keeping control e.g. the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empires. This was the environment into which the fledgling nation of Israel began its life. God was not barbaric far from it he was loving and protective. For example when in Egypt God saw the plight of His people, heard their cries and came down to deliver them from the Egyptians who were oppressing them. He then led them across a vast desert, through hostile lands delivering them to a land he had set aside for them – a land surrounded by warring nations. It was important, therefore, that Israel remained unified and untarnished by outside influences if it was to preserve its faith and status ad God's chosen people. The problem was that, as a new nation in a new land, Israel was subject to many outside influences which threatened to overwhelm it. This is why the covenant was established between them and God. It served as a kind of manifesto under which Israel lived out its unique relationship to God – as a light to other nations. The problem was that Israel couldn't keep its side of the bargain and frequently fell into apostasy. This is when the trouble really started but even then God did not abandon his people but raised up "deliverers" to get them out the mess.
In the context of a violent and hostile world the God of the Israelites was an enlightened God who made sure widows and resident aliens were provided for; a God who established cities of refuge for criminals to escape to (to save themselves); God who did not advocate a scorched earth policy in war as surrounding nations did; and who commanded an "eye for an eye" ensuring revenge was proportional rather than unbounded (i.e. only one eye and no more) which was unheard of in those days. And when God did exact judgement upon his people restoration always followed – the book of Hosea is a case in point here. God was a grown up God dealing with an immature and fickle people.
The book of Job comes from the Wisdom section of the Hebrew scriptures which encompasses: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon. These books were used for teaching the next generation of leaders in society. Pupils might sit at a master's feet and be taught there. There is little religious content in these books and Job, for example, addresses a particular problem: "why do bad things happen to good people?" Proverbs taught the opposite to this but the reality is quite different e.g. thieves get away with their spoils while good people may lose homes and incomes. If people create their own morality this shouldn't happen; of course it shouldn't. We're told that Job was an upright man so the world he had been "consciously creating" should have reflected this but it didn't. And neither could it. Yet Job's protagonists couldn't see this. They were locked into the accepted way of thinking that if things go wrong for you it must be your fault – or the fault of someone close to you. But we know this didn't apply to Job which is why he protested his innocence. So, did God cause his suffering? No! There are at least two reasons why a loving, generous and creative God would not do this. First, Job was not just a righteous man he was a controlling man. For not only did he perform his own sacrifices he got up early to offer sacrifices on behalf of his family in case they had forgotten to do it themselves. Now, no-one can have that many plates in the air at the same time without eventually collapsing with a nervous breakdown. And this is what happened to Job. And the symptoms of a nervous breakdown are all there: despondency, collapse; skin eruption, tears, loss of interest and so on. Job became a sick man who could see no way out of his misery. So, this is very much a human story. Second, Kant abstracted from Job's experience according to his philosophical model i.e. by taking some object and stripping away the sensory qualities to arrive at a non-sensory core knowable a priory. In Job we have a person richly filled with sensory pleasures and worldly satisfactions who is stripped down to nothing leaving a moral core that remains intact. Yet even though Job ends up in a heap on the floor with nothing he still has his moral consciousness and retains his faith in God. Why? If moral awareness requires us to postulate God's existence then a purified moral awareness stripped down of worldly happiness would produce a correspondingly intense belief in God. And this is what one often finds in people who are caught up in suffering. Their calmness, acceptance and dignity can be so inspirational it produces a reaction of admiration within others who are taken "elsewhere in their thinking" beyond their immediate situation of ceaseless struggle to strive and "own." Well, once he sees the Almighty face to face he realises how little he really knew. Job thought he knew everything and was prepared to give God a piece of his mind, but in God's presence all that melted away. God was/is moral and Job saw that clearly. From that he found enlightenment and from that restoration.

Rog

20th March 2016

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #12

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #12

This was a sobering read yet true within the context of modern life. Western society is a built on consumerism and constantly creates new products for the consumer to strive after. And most of us do it yet we're seldom content and always want more – the latest: phone, tablet, car and so on. Yet when we get these things the "thrill" of the purchase is quickly lost as we strive after the next "thing." The pain, anxiety and stress of striving is an ever present reality in modern society. No wonder marriages disintegrate, and people resort to all kinds of therapies. For many people life really is an uphill struggle – and one reason I believe why many young men in Britain, today are taking their own lives. If life appears hopeless what hope is there? But what exactly did Schopenhauer believe?
Building on Kant's philosophy of the sensory (phenomena) and objective (noumena) worlds, Schopenhauer maintained that each person takes the limits of his/her own field of vision as the limits of the world. And this certainly the case as people experience the world in different ways according to background, culture, upbringing and so on. Schopenhauer, however rejected Kant's two worlds saying there was only one world which was experienced differently. For example just as we experience our bodies as "objects" (beyond us) so also we experience (within us) the "will." From this he deduced that the will of man and the will of the universe are one. But Schopenhauer was pessimistic of this universal will which man, he believed, was at its mercy. According to Schopenhauer life is a meaningless existence from which the only escape is non-existence. But he held out one ray of hope from this gloomy outlook i.e. music (and uncharacteristic appeal to the arts) which transcends the phenomena world. As human separateness from the universal will is an illusion Schopenhauer thought it possible to live a moral life by showing empathy and compassion to others.
I agree with the course writer that annihilation following death seems a daunting prospect but not everyone feels that way. Socrates considered various afterlife possibilities following his death. If there was an afterlife great! But if there wasn't well death would be like entering a long sleep. Either way he didn't think it mattered too much.
Although Buddha rejected the existence of God the enlightenment he eventually attained (nirvana) was a "deathless" state i.e. permanent and the highest joy compared with the sorrow and dissatisfaction of empirical existence. That sounds like heaven to me! Apparently Buddha had obtained the heavenly eye which enabled him to see clearly into condition of human life and went about preaching this as both an intellectual as well as a mystical state of consciousness. He was able to reach this conclusion having drawn on the wide teachings of his contemporaries e.g. karma, reincarnation, rebirth. This is what gave it such a wide appeal. Much of this is summed up in the Dhamma (teaching) of the Four Noble Truths: (a) life is permeated with suffering; (b) that the origins of suffering lie in craving (burning thirst for the things of this world); (c) that the answer to suffering is to remove craving and (d) that the way to cessation is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha saw himself as a kind of spiritual doctor here to cure people of their spiritual and physical troubles. For what we see around us as permanent: trees, tables, cars etc. only have a limited state; only nirvana is real (nirvana means "cooling off"). And although Buddha rejected "self" as a concept; for rebirth to occur does suggest something of "self" surviving death. It is difficult to see how humankind as a whole could cease striving and spend the day in contemplation; society would stagnate and eventually come to an end. In the Old Testament of the Bible God tells human kind to subdue the earth and rule over it (not to ravage, pollute and destroy it) but to improve life through technology and human ingenuity. The problem is that human nature has a downside (an ugly side). And so Cain kills Able because he is jealous of him and wants rid of him – selfish striving had begun. And so Schopenhauer was correct in his assessment of human nature too. But we already know this.
However, science is unable to tell us anything about the "purpose" of life; yet purpose in life is what people need if life is to be worth living. Some find that purpose in striving after things which, once they've obtained them, fail to satisfy. And it is true that when failures come along they weigh more heavily on us than success does. Why is this? Maybe we fear being judged by others which hurts us more than we care to admit. I have conducted literally hundreds of funerals over the years and a recurring theme pops up i.e. the deceased: "wouldn't hurt a fly; would do anything for anyone and would give you his/her last penny." But we know that generally speaking people are not like that. Most complain, criticise, swear, mock, lie deceive and so on (to a greater or lesser degree) balanced of course by acts of compassion, friendliness and kindness. The Bible is full of such people – this is nothing new either. We are products of western culture; and western culture, by enlarge, is demanding, uncaring, hypocritical and cold. Laws are passed by an elite to control the weak and powerless. Spirituality is ignored and people are taught to stand on their own two feet. The philosophies of Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume and others merely verbalise (in an abstract way), what many people know only too well from daily experience. Many, I'm sure, do not stop to think about it just accepting things as they are. But sometimes, maybe through natural-revelation (e.g. sea, sky, a sunset or an act of kindness etc.) God is momentarily glimpsed and thoughts turn to deeper matters. Philosophy for the most part rejects the idea of "God" as a proposition which can't be proved. But not everything can be analysed in a test tube. Take music. Where in the organ is the music that we hear? We cannot see, touch or feel it so where is it? Is it in the keys, the pipes or the organist? Of course not - but it touches us in the soul just the same. And what is beauty? And what is happiness? We may be unable to define "happiness" yet we know what it feels like when we obtain it. So, feelings are important too.
We may "feel" the presence of God when in a certain place; or when listening to a particular piece of music. We are people with emotions and emotions have a language of their own – the language of love: and love never ends. And as God is "love" – God never ends. Disasters may befall us causing the meaning to drop out of our lives. Depression may be the result putting us in a dark place from which we have to rescue ourselves. We should not underestimate this. But depression has a positive value too for bringing one face to face with a way of life that does not work. For once in that dark place of depression gadgets, possessions and the opinions of others count for nothing. It's as if the darkness of depression brings to an end a way of life that doesn't work. Then "self" seems to annihilate the old "self" opening up the possibility of a more fulfilling and creative way of life to spring forth from it. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said that people preferred darkness rather than light. Change is painful; and putting oneself second to God and others can be very painful yet necessary if we're to overcome the constant struggle to "accumulate."
The error of philosophy is that it tends to restrict talk of reality to what can be seen, proved or reasoned; and even that is not the whole of it. But the human brain isn't big enough to absorb everything. Besides, human beings are part of the created order and not outside of it so we will never know everything even though we have an inbuilt desire to investigate and research. Let go and let God is a good starting point whatever faith or science we subscribe to.
Rog
12th March 2016

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #11

Hume, Kant and others were concerned with "knowledge" i.e. how do we know what we know? Is what we know trustworthy and so on? And this lesson gives a reasonable overview of this topic and makes a fitting response to it. Hume, for example denied "miracles" for the same reason he denied the human ability to know anything other than what comes through the senses. But there is a problem here. Hume, apparently denies "knowledge" particularly second-hand knowledge (reported actions) as that set down in the New Testament by the Apostles. Hume's reasoning seems to be that human testimony is at best shaky (improved if events are affirmed by many witnesses) but unreliable written in the Bible by (what he calls) a "barbarous i.e. uneducated people. The trouble here is that what is maintained is contradictory for on the one hand he denies the possibility of having "knowledge" while on the other he claims to possess what he denies i.e. "knowledge" of the type he says it is impossible to have. Surely, if we lack "knowledge" of things beyond our perceptions it follows that we wouldn't "know" that we lacked that which we cannot know! And as for declaring the testimony of an ancient people to be unreliable that is wrong for the society in which they were writing would have been as modern, to them, as our society is to us. When the Apostle Paul was approached by people who doubted the resurrection of Jesus he told them that Jesus had been seen alive by many hundreds of people at the same time – the implication being "go and ask them for yourselves." Hume's philosophy is interesting but not unanswerable. He lived during the Enlightenment but looking back from the twenty-first century some may want to describe his society as a "barbarous" age compared with today.
After reading Hume, Kant said he awoke from his slumbers combining Hume's empiricism with reason - still denying we're able to know external objects (or the world around us) yet possessing a priory knowledge to help us identify (and make sense of) what our perceptions tell us. It's a bit like living life wearing tinted glasses through which to view the world; while space and time (being eternal) remain beyond any ability to experience directly. The only way we experience time according to Kant is by watching the hands move on a clock or seeing leaves change colour on a tree. These are pessimistic views. If we follow this reasoning I can "know" nothing of hunger nor that fire burns etc. Yet when I get hungry I eat and if I put my hand into the fire I get burnt. What more do I need to know or experience?
Both Hume and Kant deny the possibility of knowing God even though many millions claim they do. And why would people do "good" if there is no moral necessity to do so? And what is love, truth, justice, honesty and so on if there is no accepted notion (or understanding) of these concepts among people? A secular society might seek to determine its own moral standards according to changing whims – yet murder, for example, would still be wrong (according to most people's conscience) – but who or what informs conscience?
Love, intuition the arts, music etc speak a language of the soul. It is these things and others that not only appeal to the heart but connect us to one-another through its silent, whispers of the heart. In the eighteenth century John Wesley, while visiting Aldersgate Street in London, felt his heart strangely warmed. What did he mean by that? The hand of God was upon him not in an empirical sense but in intuitively. It was certainly an experience that changed his life and also the course of his life. The problem with empiricism is that it boxes one into a narrow set of perceptions from which all other claims to reality are dismissed. This is a very narrow-minded position. Yet many people speak of a yearning for God; a hunch of God; a premonition of God and so on. These things are real to those who experience them and are therefore valid testimonies. It is a sad society that denies anything other than what can be touched, seen, heard and so on.
"Spirituality" is engagement with one's innermost-self (the "self" that Hume denies); to the eternal (i.e. God), to one another and to the world of sense experience. Acts of kindness, giving to others, being available to others and supporting those in need is an excellent way to fan this into life – by appealing to the inner-need we have to a part of something bigger than ourselves. Two weeks ago I conducted a funeral for a man of 95 who, as a war veteran, got pleasure from giving his money away to others, and was never happier than when he had nothing. It was something that amazed not only this man's family – it amazed me too (and humbled me). So, while I enjoy studying philosophy immensely, grappling with the teachings of great thinkers, it is vital to engage with their teachings and answer them.
When someone dies we see them no-more. They are in one place while we are in another. From that point on we are unaware of their world just as they are unaware of our world. But this experience o opens up the possibility of other worlds existing of which we no nothing. It doesn't follow there are such worlds just the possibility, from experience, that there might be. Jesus referred to this in his teaching and he should know. It is foolish to deny what intuition informs the soul. Intuition opens up the possibility of encounter; and encounter opens up the possibility of faith – i.e. spiritual knowledge and from faith; assurance as well as certainty.

Rog
7th March 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #10

Spiritualism - Lesson #10
I've enjoyed this lesson even if the views of Hume and others doesn't take us far in our understanding of life or the search for meaning in life. I suspect the average person doesn't think too deeply about life which is taken just as it comes. Why might this be? Possibly because people know very little about themselves i.e. what makes us "tick!" Psychologists tells us that the mind has several layers of consciousness most of which are beyond our capacity to fathom. But it is from these deeper recesses of the mind that many of the drives come which motive us - despite our being unaware of them. For example we repeat the words our parents said (even if they are long dead) without knowing we are doing it. Similarly, we hold beliefs, fears, phobias and prejudices etc. instilled in us by others, again, without any conscious knowledge we do this.
Because of this we never really know ourselves in any meaningful way; so how could we possibly get to know anyone else (or anything)? The answer is; we can't! How often have we heard someone protesting (maybe a wife to her husband) "I thought I knew you." And yet no matter how long people are together that deep, personal knowledge will always elude us.
Hume's philosophy defined knowledge as (a) "sensations" and (b) "ideas" – the former preceding the latter. For example I can only know a lemon is bitter after tasting it. It follows that I can have no idea (or perception) of bitterness until I've tasted a lemon after which I lay down a template of "bitterness" in my mind for future (if weaker) reference. As far as a chair is concerned- all I really need to know is that the chair will support my weight. If I sit on that chair and it gives way the pain will be real enough when I hit the floor!
I've long had a problem with that word "singularity" as outlined by Prof. Stephen Hawkins. Apparently, at the Big Bang there was this tiny "object" of unimaginable mass. Suddenly it exploded, began to accelerate and expanded into the universe we live in today. But hold on; where was that "singularity" situated one second before the Big Bang? Was it sitting on a table somewhere waiting? If so where did the table come from? Maybe it was hovering in space. If it was that means there was something there (space) before the singularity exploded! And who lit the fuse? Apparently, we can't ask that question because that takes us to the other side of the singularity to the unknown. All very unsatisfactory. Others have tried to answer this with a "multiverse" theory i.e. when one ends there's another waiting to take its place. All highly unsatisfactory. The real problem seems to me that some scientists would rather stick to a cringe-worthy theory rather than admit to God being the first cause. Hume makes us think of course. But, and I've said this before, we only have our senses through which to experience the world and we can't do much about that. I'm just glad that where human knowledge fails God's knowledge is complete and all-encompassing.
When I encounter scientifically minded people I share my faith with them in an honest and authentic way. We need to be true to ourselves for if we are sure of what we believe, and share it in an "imaginative" way, it challenges people – this is what people tell me whether atheists, enquirers, sick, bereaved or searching.

Rog

28th Feb. 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #9

Spiritualism - Lesson #9

The individualisation, and therefore fragmentation, of western society is the direct consequence of secularism. Descartes conceived the universe as a huge machine to be studied while Locke took this a stage further when he said: "I am because I think" i.e. man is the judge of what is true (as the basis of logic). Consequently, with the universe as nothing more than a machine all gods, ghosts, and spirits were eliminated with man becoming master of his own destiny through the subjugation of the earth. Secularism denies (as "truth") the existence of God. Yet truth is a slippery term that may be perceived as subjective, objective or pragmatic. So, for example when an atheist states: "there is no God" this is a contradictory statement for it claims as "truth" what the atheist has denied to be true! These kind of logical arguments can be taken in many directions. Secularism denies the objectivity of anything – all things are "relative" and therefore subject to human decision making – which has been disastrous for western cultures.
Secularism elevates man, and man alone, to the position of master of his own destiny. How? Through "reason." It is reason alone that is able to solve every problem befalling humanity. And to be fair it is a worldview that has brought many benefits e.g. limitless food production, technological advance, medicine, genetics, and so on. However, much has also been lost e.g. pollution, over population, discontent and futility (life has no meaning or purpose for when we dies that's it). In the context of this study the breakdown of the family and the fragmentation of society (and erosion of culture) are also major features of secularism as is the loss of spirituality. Individual development, at the expense of others, is advocated as the noblest end of life i.e. to stand on your own feet and be yourself and to fill your life with "activity" so as not to linger too long over one's fears. The downside is that children are impatient of parents who are then side-lined or shunted off to an old-people's home much to the horror of, for example, people from African cultures. There was an interesting programme on the BBC recently where a group of celebrities went to India to see if it would be a suitable place to retire. The conclusions were startling. The celebrities from England discovered just how much British culture has lost in terms of togetherness, family and society – also spirituality. And they liked what they saw even though Indian society is caste based and, for the most part, poor. It was a real eye opener for them.
Within western culture the family is breaking down with children closeting themselves away in their bedrooms taking their meals there apart from others members of the family. And in neighbourhoods, where houses are closely packed together (as in England for example) people often do not know their neighbours with the result that the elderly, who live alone, die and lie undiscovered in their homes for days on end.
Consciousness is also a slippery term. No-one knows what consciousness is or even if human-beings are conscious all the time or just some of the time. For example if a person walks into a room to collect a book etc after leaving the room they are conscious that there was much in the room that they were unaware of (out of consciousness). It's the same when driving a car. A person my drive from A to B without being conscious at all of working the pedals, changing gears, looking in the mirror, negotiating intersections, rotaries, traffic lights and so on. And at journey's end they may have no recollection at all of the journey. Yet something within their consciousness carried out all those functions while their thinking was elsewhere.
The "fight or flight" syndrome is another example of consciousness acting on its own without any help from us. Even before the perceived danger has registered in the brain the autonomic nervous system (involuntary) has taken over. Blood will be surging through the veins, (with the face growing pale), food in the stomach regurgitated (there's no need of food if I die), adrenalin will be realised into the blood-stream to heighten alertness, the palms of the hand may become sweaty and hair may quite literally stand on end. All this is beyond the power of the individual to control. The body is preparing to defend itself against a life-threatening danger. Psychologists tell us this syndrome originates from a primitive part of the brain from when humans were hunter gathers in constant danger from predators. In fact psychologists tell us that during the evolutionary process the brain has added new bits on to itself (some of which are now redundant) which we're now stuck with! As a qualified hypnotherapist I have witnessed personally the power of the subconscious mind helping people to overcome difficulties in their lives – secularism would deny this.
In the many funerals I conduct I always emphasise the importance of family, (of being part of each-others lives) to make life meaningful, fulfilling and worth living. We need each other (no man is an island) for the sharing of gifts, talents, passing on wisdom and sharing love (which binds us all together for all time). It is this that western culture has lost- the concept of the whole people of God in community together. Secularism cannot give us this – soul, spirit, mysticism etc are beyond its remit. Only love (which is the ground and essence of God) can fan the soul into a relationship with him. People are at last waking up to this. Relationships are intuitive, emotional and spiritual all of which negate secularism.

Rog

Feb. 19th 2016

spiritualsim lesson 8

spiritualsim lesson 8
When discussing the subject of persecution it might be helpful to start at the beginning. From its earliest foundation Christianity was a faith that "appealed." Why was that? It wasn't just that the Romans established peace across the empire and laid down good communications for this new faith to spread far and wide. Christianity arose in a society steeped in mystery religions, magic, Greek philosophy, Epicureans, Cynics, Gnostics and so on – none of which offered people any hope at all. But Christianity appealed to all classes of people with a message of love, forgiveness, acceptance and hope of eternal-life particularly to the marginalised and dispossessed in society. And they flocked to it in droves. However, unlike Judaism which was tolerated by the Romans, Christianity was outside its protection and therefore ripe for persecution. And for the first three centuries of the Christian era Christians were brutally persecuted by the state suffering many martyrs. However, after Constantine became Emperor it was the Church that became the persecutor of those outside its teaching – which is deeply regretful.
In is parting words Jesus told his followers to love one another as a witness to their belonging to him. He also told them that the first (and greatest commandment) was to love God and neighbour as self. There is no confusion here; the golden rule is to do unto others as we would have them do to us. Christianity is a religion of peace, forgiveness, mercy, inclusion and kindness. Of course there are Christian fundamentalists just as there are fundamentalist in every religion i.e. people who cherry-pick their scriptures to justify beliefs and actions. However, the correct way is to look across the whole of scripture to determine what the overriding principles are – this is the way to do ethics. Christians have been involved in wars just as others faiths have also. There is a magazine called "Barnabas Fund" which supports the persecuted Church (i.e. Christians) throughout the world. Today in 2016 there are many countries in Africa, the Far East and so on where Christians are brutally persecuted for their faith. It's also true that aetheistic, secular powers (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc) murdered more people than every religion put together.
What should we make of "predestination" a doctrine advocated by Calvin and others? The first thing we should do is discuss God's knowledge – something usually covered in philosophy of religion. If God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal then it follows that his knowledge is perfect too. This means that God eternally knows what "Fred" will do before he does it -he would have to if he is God – for God is not limited in any way. However, "Fred" can change his mind because Fred also has free-will. This doesn't limit God's knowledge – because God is patient and not coerrsive (see the parable of the Prodical Son).
But it should be stressed that while the Bible emphasises love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance it also speaks (in many places) of judgement. For example the Old Testament book of Judges. "Judges" does not refer to a law court but to "saviours," (heroes) raised up by God to deliver his people from a desperate situation. But the people never learned the lesson for once the emergency was over they reverted to their old ways and suffered further "judgement." Jesus too spoke of judgement. There are also many reference in the Bible to the "elect" (e.g. Matthew 24:22; 24:24; 24:31 etc. AV). There are also numerous references to heaven as a place exterior to the human heart. For example Jesus saw heaven being torn apart and the Spirit descending (Mark 1:10); and a voice coming from heaven (Mark 1:11). Jesus also took loaves and fish and looked up to heaven (Mark 6:41). And when people came to Jesus to test him they asked him for a sign from heaven (Luke 24:51). There are many more references besides these. Finally, Jesus said that whoever believes, and is baptised, will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15) – it's a question of faith leading to the transformation of lives, morals and life-style. Predestination has long been a hotly contested issue but it need not be. The gospel is clear where salvation lies – believe in the person of Jesus.

Rog
15th Feb. 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #7

Spiritualism - Lesson #7

The writings of Plato, Aristotle and, in more recent times, Carl Jung are fascinating. Jung besides being a great psychologist was also something of a psychic who possessed second-sight and extraordinary powers of imagery. He sometimes saw the future before it happened and was proved to be correct. Yet he was never triumphant about this but sought answers in the immediate. It was this, in my view, which led him to the concept of the collective consciousness. Jung had been Freud's pupil whom Freud hoped would take on his mantel – but this didn't happen because they fell out and Jung went his own way.
Plato's teaching on Forms is, in my view, too simplistic as Aristotle came to see also. The reason I can recognise a horse is because I've seen one with my eyes! If I had not seen a horse with my eyes there is no way I could possibly imagine one! And if I can't imagine a horse (or anything else for that matter) there could be no "perfect form" of it either! Scientists tell us there are many thousands of yet to be discovered species of plants, sea-life and so on. But until those species are discovered (and seen with human eyes) there is no-one anyone can imagine them. It would seem, therefore, that according to Plato's philosophy humans, themselves, create those perfect forms and therefore the perfect world in which they reside. This doesn't make any sense and is therefore fit only for the bin. This is not to say that human-beings do not muse within themselves that there is more to life than meets the eye. Of course they do. For example the writer of Ecclesiastes, who was himself a teacher of philosophy, came to this very same conclusion. According to him it was as if God has planted within the human-heart knowledge that there is more to life than meets the eye but not the intelligence to work out exactly what it is! So frustrating.
The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything according to its kind. Aristotle seems to follow this with his teaching on form and potential. For example an acorn has the inbuilt potential to become a fully developed tree and nothing other than a tree. As that tree grows up from the earth it aspires to the heavens where God is. However, Aristotle's God is not a personal or knowable God. On the contrary his is an "unmoved mover" who sits on the edge of the universe attracting every living thing to him while he sits there completely oblivious to them. That's not the God Jesus speaks of in the New Testament i.e. God is a loving Father (in relationship with creation) through his son Jesus. The problem with philosophy is that, while it is a fascinating subject helping people to think logically it often ends up talking itself into a corner.

Rog

15th Feb 2016

Spiritualism - Lesson #6

Spiritualism - Lesson #6
The points raised in the current discussion bring us face to face with the imponderables of life. Nothing can really be known for what it is – the best we can receive are "impressions." For example when I watch the news on TV what I am actually seeing is what those transmitting the news want me to see leaving me with no real knowledge of what's going on in the world. This reasoning can be applied to almost anything. For example politicians take the same set of statistics and then use them against each other to make opposing arguments. Neither is right or wrong; honest or deceitful – they are, however, meaningless. Again, I might say a flower is pretty while someone else might say it's horrible – but who is right? What, indeed, is right, wrong, just, beautiful, worthy and good? Socrates made the following point concerning tallness. Person A might be taller than person B and in turn shorter than person C. But A isn't made tall simply standing next to B. In other words A is not made tall because of "B's" shortness; standing beside the Eiffel Tower all three would be minute according to that argument; it follows, said Socrates, you would be afraid to say that ten is more than eight "by two," or that two is the reason for its excess over eight, instead of saying that it is more than eight by, or because of, being a larger number. (Plato, The Last Days of Socrates, Penguin, p, 177)
When it comes to suffering people make subjective judgments according to how it affects them. For example a city built above a fault line in the earth is destroyed by an earthquake. People ask "how could God allow this to happen?" rather than acknowledging that earthquakes are a natural phenomenon particularly in the vicinity of a fault line. Besides, earthquakes, like volcanoes, are benign – quite beautiful when viewed rationally from a distance. I have no right to demand the world conform to my standards of right and wrong not least as morality is culturally bound. Long established laws are overturned according to human whims so that conduct, formerly considered criminal, becomes acceptable and then legalised. Nevertheless, people continue to make these judgements.
Socrates held that seeking wisdom through philosophy was the route to happiness. As such the seeker after wisdom abstains from pleasures, desires, pain and grief which (being "visible" as opposed to the soul which is "intelligible") deceive and therefore imprison us. The first task of life, therefore, is to examine and then question one's cherished beliefs – all the things we accept without thinking about them. To do this is to rise above the daily complexities of life and in doing so be untroubled by them. This was the way to the "good" life and also a peaceful life. For Socrates the only life worth living is a "good" life but one can only attain the good life if one really knows what good and evil are. Good and evil are not relative (as we might think) but absolutes which can only be found by a process of questioning and reasoning. In this way morality and knowledge are bound together. At one point people hailed Socrates the wisest man in Athens. At first he rejected this accolade but upon reflection accepted saying that he knew nothing!
The problem is that the only way we can experience the world is through our senses. But sense-experience is not absolute (we're all different) and this can lead to conflict. What one considers just another considers unjust and so on. For example the rich man sees the poor man as undeserving while the poor man sees the rich man as an oppressor. As a result many people feel powerless because those who rule over them make the laws and dictate the terms under which they live. The struggle to break free from oppression may seem futile. The Buddha sought a middle way between self-indulgence and self-mortification as the way to "happiness" and "enlightenment." The Buddha (like Jesus) was acutely aware of the sufferings (and inequalities) in the world which, he thought, was the result of striving, sickness, old age and death. It was only by freeing oneself from what the Buddha called "attachments" (e.g. sensual desires and ambitions) that peace of mind may be attained.
However, there can be no simple easy answers to life's mysteries because human-beings have no direct knowledge of either a first-cause or a final destination. Nevertheless, it's as if human-beings do possess an elusive kind of "intuition" concerning spiritual matters (knowing there's more than we see) but lacking total insight to solve the riddle. That was the conclusion of the Teacher, in the Hebrew book of Ecclesiastes, – who, having tried many things in life to find happiness, declared life to be "meaningless." That's an honest assessment of his "sensual-experience" yet not even the Teacher fully subscribed to that negative view. Concerning life after death Jesus said let not your hearts be troubled….believe in God and believe in me. Faith is the answer even the faith of the unbeliever!

Rog

29th Jan. 2016

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #5

Master of Spirituality - Lesson #5

The thinking process is as impossible to comprehend as it is to describe. What is agreed is that a constant stream of thoughts continuously enter consciousness but where they come from remains a mystery; however these thoughts are very powerful for determining actions, decisions, prejudices and values. It is thought that human-beings have multi-layers of consciousness most of which are out of sight and unconscious. However, from these hidden depths come many influences which drive us as people put there during childhood by parents, teachers and other influential people. The trusting child accepts these things as "truth" without questioning them but in doing so absorbs the prejudices, habits and phobias etc. of these who put them there. And it was against this kind of blind "acceptance" that Socrates became infamous and finally condemned to death by the Athenian authorities. Socrates was disillusioned with the physical enquiries of the natural philosophers which he held to be speculative rather than knowledge. These philosophers spoke as if they were there at the beginning of things yet they couldn't even agree amongst themselves besides which their theories were subject to constant revision. Socrates held that such knowledge was beyond the human ability to fully attain. And this makes good sense. Why? Because humanity is part of what it seeks to explain. Human-beings are not on the outside looking in, as it were, but on the inside looking out. Socrates dismissed such speculations as dogmatic and useless because no-one knew if they were true or not. (Before and After Socrates, by F.M. Cornford, p, 30). This is a sobering thought especially when we consider that much of what is learnt is set-down during childhood, imparted by people whose views are just as dogmatic and flawed. Socrates turned his attention in the opposite direction to "man" and the ends for which man lives which he concluded was happiness i.e. the "perfection of the soul." To this end Socrates debated with anyone who would listen questioning what they believed, why they believed it and how they knew what they believed to be true knowledge –the "good" being the ultimate perfection of the soul. Indeed Socrates is credited as having been the one who discovered the soul. Socrates wanted people to think for themselves rather than accept what other people told them no matter how noble it was. This is similar to Descartes who, in the pursuit of knowledge, resolved to reject everything he had ever been taught plus everything that came to him via his senses. It was having obtained this that he made his famous declaration: "I think therefore I am." For Socrates knowledge was insight into the value of what people desire. i.e. "virtue is knowledge" (particularly self-knowledge). According to him every individual should judge for him/herself what is good and then allow one's "inner-judge" to clarity it. We might call this inner-judge conscience, spirit or soul; the soul possessing perfect knowledge of what is good, true and trustworthy. What Socrates appears to be saying is that somethings in life can never be known while others things should be tested before being accepted as "knowledge." And each person must reach that point in their own time and in their own way. No-one should force their views on anyone else as they will inevitable be partial, culture-bound and/or incorrect. Yet we see exactly this every-day in many walks of life from newspaper headlines to TV and religious dogma – yet often what is stated is little more than opinion (and opinion is subjective rather than fact). Sure, there are some things I can know. I know when I'm hungry because my stomach tells me and I know when the kettle boils because I hear it switch off. But sometimes my eye tricks me into seeing what's not there and my ears fail to hear my name being called or the phone ringing. So, other than in a few areas of life I can know very little for certain and that goes for everyone else too. And I become acutely aware of this whenever I complete a course of study realising at the end just how little I really know and how impossible would be to learn anymore no matter how long a life-time lasted. Even an atheist cannot be sure that the belief he/she holds in there being no god is anything other than speculative. It's having an open mind and always being open to correction and new-learning that will lead to the kind of wisdom Socrates spoke about. The problem is people are resistant to change (especially changing their minds), while those holding the reins of power are just as reluctant to release them. We see this in the authorities' attitude towards Jesus; we see it also on the world stage every day of the week. Yet religious allegiance is often an accident of birth rather than to a choice made; as such one has little control over it. Yet despite this people often insist that "we're right and you're wrong" instead of taking an overview of the whole. For when viewed from another, more objective perspective, some beliefs may appear incredible or contradictory. And as Carl Jung once said: "Prejudice cripples and injures the full phenomenon of psychic life….people identify themselves almost exclusively with their consciousness, and imagine that they are only what they know about themselves. Yet anyone with even a smattering of psychology can see how limited this knowledge is. Rationalism and doctrinarism are the diseases of our time" (Memories, Dreams, Reflections by C. G. Jung, p, 330). The fact is humankind knows, really knows, very little and in my view will always be so. For example despite increased knowledge of the human brain science is still unable to define consciousness or decide if humans are conscious all the time, some of the time or not at all. The best it can do at the moment is tell us that the human brain weighs around one and a half kilograms and consists of over a billion neurons. These neurons together make many billions of interconnections (circuits) to enable perception, memory, consciousness, and language etc. When a person thinks, speaks, acts and moves etc. a host of chemical neurotransmitters act on synapses causing them to "fire" –which can be seen on an MRI scan. Nevertheless, the process of thinking is as much a mystery as God is a mystery who (in the Hebrew Scriptures) says: my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways. Directing those elusive thoughts towards God, and being open to correction, will direct the conscience towards true "knowledge" – and in matters of faith; trust and submission to God are essential for clarity if one is to attain the "perfection of the soul." Hopefully both the scientist and the theologian would be able to agree on that as a starting point and then move forward together.

Rog

24th January 2016