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
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Friday, February 19, 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
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
Monday, February 15, 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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)