If you have specific questions you would like to have addressed:
Use the 'Leave Comment' icon of this post to ask your question:
|
|
||||
|
Search
This Month
Month Archive
|
Saturday, June 30
What significance do the Judaic concepts of monotheism and the soul have to us as a species? Part II of II
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sat 30 Jun 2007 12:00 AM EDT
What significance do the Judaic concepts of monotheism and the soul have to us as a species? Part II of II ...We are preparing for the common person living in space, traveling to the moon, and moving to other planets. • The idea of expanding the perception of our potential significance was one that allowed us to grasp the understanding that we could do anything we desired, given time, knowledge, and determination. This brought us out of a perception of limited existence. It laid the ground work for the acceptance of an unlimited physical existence. We could learn to fly. We could learn to understand the composition of the atom. We could find a way to study bacteria and viruses and, in turn, learn to conquer them. We could find a way to explore the dark side of the moon. We could learn to explore the edge, the boundary, of the universe itself. And what of we humans? We humans, you and I, are capable of anything we put our minds to, including understanding our relationship and significance to the Causative Force. Friday, June 29
What significance do the Judaic concepts of monotheism and the soul have to us as a species? Part I of II
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 29 Jun 2007 12:00 AM EDT
What significance do the Judaic concepts of monotheism and the soul have to us as a species? Part I of II
If we have significance as individuals, it is very likely we have certain common traits as a species, a total group, that have some meaning or potential meaning to eternity. • And what of the Jews? The Jews brought to the West the concept of one Causative Force being responsible for the creation of our planet and of the universe within which the earth was located. Was this an original idea? No, but it was a new idea for the West and it definitely had an impact upon the development of the West. And what of the West? The West went on to bring the world into its present state of technological development, a state of advancement which would place our species on the threshold of stepping off this planet and stepping into the heavens. At that time of 1000 BC, the idea of the common person being able to travel through flight was unthinkable. And where are we today? Monday, June 25
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part III of III
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Mon 25 Jun 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part III of III
...So again: I will ask, for the readers’ information, will you to define God in your own words. Djs: The purity of faith has no room for reason and dialectics.
Logician: You know you exist way before you understand anything to do with faith, faith and existence are separate entities that sometimes end up in “the mix”
Djs: Again I will say it: We do not ‘know’ we exist. We reason we exist. We see we exist. We believe we exist. We have faith in the concept we exist. Ancient wisdom tells us we exist. Dialectics tell us we exist. We can measure our existence. Our conclusion, we exist. But we do not ‘know’ absolutely, we exist. We could be the figment of the imagination of some ‘being’ or other, … Djs: If one wishes to limit the scope of understanding to faith alone, then you are correct, it is that simple. Logician: Why do you think that it limits the scope of understanding to faith alone, simplicity does not limit anything, in fact it broadens the scope of people you can transfer the knowledge to. Djs: Faith can be a wonderful thing. Faith is one means we use to anchor ourselves to reality as we perceive it. There is, more to understanding reality than faith alone. There is observation, measurement, reason, dialectics,… As such, to rely entirely upon faith is, by definition, to limit one’s self.
Djs: The question becomes is faith alone enough to act as the cornerstone of a more advanced, higher order form of human society in the future? If faith contradicts science, reason and dialectics then I think not.
If as a species we decide to remain as we are, decide not to form a more advanced, higher order form of human society for the future, then yes faith is enough and science, reason and dialectics can be set aside. Logician: All I stated was it is a cornerstone of all societies. There are other cornerstones too. Djs: Obviously I agree, faith is one of many cornerstones. Djs: If one has never seen a tree, then yes one has to believe in a tree to know it exists.
Logician: What if I had put ; you don’t have to believe in your fingernail to know it exists, your retort would then be invalid.
Djs: Whatever. So, Mr. Shepard, may I thank you yet again for your reply. Peace, Love and Respect Remember : Religion guides you, it doesn’t rule you. J °C Logician Djs: Ditto Sunday, June 24
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part II of III
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sun 24 Jun 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part II of III
...Djs: This is not just semantics. There is a definite concept involved here. The concept is one regarding the structure of reality. Damnation implies reality is divided into three regions, the physical, heaven and hell.
Logician: Damnation makes me think of; physical and spiritual
Djs: The phrase no better is not analysis rather the phrase no better is judgmental in nature. I am not taking offence here, rather I am simply pointing out how easy it is to digress from a strictly analytical path.
Logician: True, it is a very judgmental statement.
Djs: So why use it? I thought we were using reason and dialectics as opposed to personal attacks.
Logician: It’s not a personal attack, just very judgmental. Djs: Absolutely not! The model in no way indicates the soul is the property of the creator!
Logician: Certainly looks like that to me, I could be wrong.
Djs: Can you explain why it looks like it to you?
Logician: I will show you by using your own words : Djs: The individual, being given consciousness, in essence is given a piece of God. Do you get it now?
Djs: No. I have biological children. I gave each of them some of my DNA. Half of their DNA came from me, half from their Mother. At no time have their Mother or I considered any of them to be our ‘property’. The law does not consider them to be our property. Society does not consider them to be our property. Are you suggesting children are the property of the parent? If not: What’s the difference? I understand that in the case of DNA we are talking about the tangible and in the case of the soul we are talking about the intangible. But other than that, again I ask: What’s the difference?
Djs: Isn’t believing everything the same as believing nothing?
Logician: No. If you write the word everything, you are in fact including nothing, or it wouldn’t be everything now would it?
Djs: There is a difference in ‘believing everything exists including nothingness’ and ‘believing everything’ ‘Believing everything exists including nothingness’ describes what it is one considers exists within reality. ‘Believing everything’ is a personal statement demonstrating one’s embracement of moral relativism, is a statement demonstrating one’s disbelief in ‘absolute truth’ For example: To believe everything one would have to believe two plus two base ten is four and simultaneously believe two plus two base ten is not four.
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism defines God as The Whole. Perhaps you would enlighten me as to how you would define what God is.
Logician: God, personal as it is, is an inadequate word to describe everything.
Djs: Are you suggesting God is beyond discussion and therefore you refuse to discuss the concept of God? If so isn’t such a stand a form of discretionary censorship based on one person’s fundamentalism, namely your personal decision to rationalize your unwillingness to discuss a particular topic which you find uncomfortable to discuss?
Some would describe this form of personal censorship as a form of cop out. Djs: You sent me a tremendous quantity of material. I don’t feel this blog site is the place for huge quantities of material to be posted in a single setting. I have a separate site for my eight books, 1000 slide presentation, hour and a half audio presentation, …
The site is www.panentheism.com. I would be more than happy to mention your url after your name if you would like but I think it would be inappropriate to post your work in total. I don’t even do it for myself. Saturday, June 23
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part I of III
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Sat 23 Jun 2007 12:00 AM EDT
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part I of III
June 15, 2007 Daniel. J. Shepard The World Embracing Hope Foundation Dear Sir Thank you for your reply.
Logician: You did not reply to the previous mail, outlining more of your works, and I have to ask myself why? You went straight on to the third mail and put it on the blog. I hope that you have received and read the work called A Respect For All Life, in it you will see just how much we differ. Djs: It was an extensive document. I'm still digesting it. Djs: How can truth be dependent upon ones culture, religion, upbringing, personal experience? Truth to be truth must be truth.
Logician: All truths are time related
Djs: I don’t agree. This is not a case of ‘opinion’ but rather ‘truth’. Truth is truth. The concept that ‘what is truth today is different from what was truth in the past’ does not apply to truth but rather applies to opinions, applies to perceptions, applies to social morals, applies to scientific hypothesis and theory, … We are fairly, I say fairly, certain ‘two plus two in base ten is four’. We believe this is ‘truth’. It is true today. It was true a thousand years ago. We have confidence it will be true a thousand years from now. Again I will say it, Truths are not time related.
Djs: Sorry, no literary discretion license here. Logician: There is always a scope of literary discretion, to say there is not, leads to very negative attributes. If someone has a different version of understanding then they have a different version, nothing more or less. There is nothing wrong with having several interpretations of a piece as long as the” jist” of the message gets through. Djs: When you use the phrase ‘as long as …’ you forget the other side of the equation, namely: Often the interpreter twists statements into something entirely different than the writer intended. Twisting is sometimes the result of innocent intents but often twisting is intentionally initiated to reinforce the position and opinion of the interpreter. One may say: Negative and false interpretations are not acceptable. But who is to be the universal judge overseeing all interpretations? Sorry but again I will say it: ‘… no literary discretion license here.’ Djs: Your interpretations are simply what they are, namely: your interpretations.
Logician: Exactly To be continued: Part II of III:
Djs: This is not just semantics. There is a definite concept involved here. The concept is one regarding the structure of reality. Damnation implies reality is divided into three regions, the physical, heaven and hell.
Logician: Damnation makes me...
|
|||