The Scientific Grading of Religions

[TheGreenQueen]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

To our poster OPVerma, the fact that one needs to 'grade' and qualify other religions for their worthiness, meaning judge them is in itself an act only the ego could or would desire to do. The Divine see's all acts of Love as worthy regardless the religion associated with it. The Divine would not say this religion is better than that other, only man would do that. Judging is in itself an act of unenlightenment.

Hinduism says no action is 'bad', only the intent behind it. If the intent is to single out the religion that encourages the MOST good and love for the most people, I don't think your opinion on the matter stands.

Jesus said, 'you will know them by their fruits.' It is not a matter of rejecting what love DOES come out of this or that religion, it is a matter of weighing and comparing the harvest.

A good teacher, after all, does not love a child less for making a 70 vs. a 100. In this case, God loves everyone even if they fail. But singling out what teaching method or study guide facilitates the most As is a worthy goal, yes?

If judging is done with love, with an eye towards the highest good, it is valid.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

Nature is like a big programmed machine operated by GOD. When you practice virtues, God sometime manipulates this Nature's machine to protract you and put you on right track for a tragedy free life and finally to immortality.

Buddhism leads to only one type of immortality ie. Nirvana as compared to 4 types in Hinduism, hence 90%.

Nature is nature and we humans haven't a clue as to what nature actually is. Calling it a "machine" is just silly. And then following this with commenting about god as though god was an entity somewhat like ourselves, making decisions and weighing options, reflects the folly of pure projection . While the term "Buddhism" is a reference point for what some people think they should be doing in relation to spiritual endeavors. The more one invests themselves in any kind of teaching the further they stray from their own connection with self.

We can glance over anything that we feel inclined to consider and yet it's good to keep in mind that whatever we are searching for we are already immerse-in by the fact that all things are entwined. This is an awareness that we may steadily awaken to, while the 'pursuit toward enlightenment' should be approach as entertainment only. We can't take our fleeting thoughts serious about such things, otherwise we may start thinking that we happen to know what some god out there somewhere is up to. That's the kind of thinking that it takes in order to start and maintain a religion. It's an investment in thought that's best employed elsewhere.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

The Divine see's all acts of Love as worthy regardless the religion associated with it. The Divine would not say this religion is better than that other, only man would do that.

Something occurred to me as I was reading your comment and figured I would attempt to convert this thought-impulse into words.

You mentioned "The Divine see's all acts of Love as worthy" and it struck me that you/we tend to organize our feelings, and our thoughts about those feelings, in a fairly static way. We tend to package such things as what you said in such a way that suggests the divine is akin to our own manor of thinking. That acts of love will be remembered in one way and that acts of aggression would be considered differently, albeit on an energetic level. The implication is, that these acts are remembered in an accumulative way.

While Nature is structured in such a way that things which are in harmony with an organism is attractive to that organism, and things that the organism senses as disharmonious to its survival it will retreat from. It's a very tactile thing that mostly involves sensing , with no presence of thought. This suggests that nature operates more out of a sense of continuous flow of attraction and various grades of repulsion, with any memory being employed at a genetic level in terms of traits and not in relation to passing events. Patterns yes, particular events no.

So can we take this thought that you posed; "The Divine see's all acts of Love as worthy" and convert it into a biological component? If left as a "thought" then we have nothing. Thoughts are an amalgamation of observations that are cobbled together in order to address the needs of a moment. They can dissipate as quickly as they are formed. While a physical act that is supportive of a physical need has a biological component that compliments the survival and well-being of an individual in physical need.

This could well be less about the divine and more about practicality. We praise good acts because we culturally want people to move their thinking into a specific direction. We place a priority on such thinking in the hopes of living together in a more cohesive way. In such cases the terms good and bad are employed and such imagery of god and devil are used in order to fluff-up this perceptual priority.

While nature doesn't do this. It's either attraction or repulsion in a more tactile way, and this is played-out in real time and alters as the stimulus alters.

So it's a curious question as to which one of these two would be more universally employed. The good and bad packaging that comes along with our thoughts, or the attraction and repulsion that accompanies the real-time interactions within nature?

[CrystalSong]

My experience says there's no division in the Divine - it appears beyond duality. It's just is Love.
But I get what you are saying Organic born. :)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

My experience says there's no division in the Divine - it appears beyond duality. It's just is Love.
But I get what you are saying Organic born. :)

...and then, there are us very rare breeds - the Bhaktas. I just posted something in the Hindu forum which could also be of use here. This is my personal experience of things, but I can also understand if others cannot relate due to the very subjective, personal nature of it:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...8&postcount=13

[organic born]

Originally Posted by CrystalSong

My experience says there's no division in the Divine - it appears beyond duality. It's just is Love.
But I get what you are saying Organic born. :)

And yet wouldn't there need to be division in order for there to be an experience? :)

We organize our thoughts in such a way that feels like we are doing something by simply the act of thinking. I'm currently working with plants on an increasingly larger scale and it's clear to me that unless I continually initiate action in relation to their well-being then little will come of this endeavour. I spent the winter thinking about what to do with the planting and growing process but it takes actual participation for such things to mature. There is a vast difference between thinking and doing. We can use thinking as a guide as to "what" to do but unless it is done we have nothing of consequence.

And rarely does what we think should be done at the beginning of such an adventure become what we actually do as the project gets underway. We alter our course based on the needs that become apparent along the way, needs that would not have occurred to us while simply thinking about the project beforehand.

So thinking is something of a feedback process that is finer tuned as we embark on a specific course of action. The thoughts are not functional within themselves. Essentially they are empty unless acted on, and even then they only serve to frame a direction that we task our bodies with.

When we think about god or anything else for that matter we can easily become lost in a loop-of-thought without substance. There is no readily physical equivalent of a god for us to interact with so we're left relying on our thoughts as they manufacture the production of a concept. This one is trickier. At least when working with plants there's direct feedback in terms of their growth and continued health. With ideas around a god we are left with our curious impressions. We may have various moments when we feel close to something intense enough to suggest that it's a gods influence, but feelings and impressions are transient moments that are suggestive but not integrative enough that we can adapt and alter our perceptions in order to "effectively" align the way we can when working with plants.

When thinking about ambient things we only have impressions and definitions that are derived from those impressions. In know that in planting things there needs to be direct interaction in order to see with some clarity what needs to be done in relation to the context that such occurs in. There is no such mechanism in place when considering our thinking about a god, or love, or anything else that is imaginatively conceived of.

With plants I can move boldly with results suggesting the way, but with esoteric assumptions the thoughts become a closed circuit of impressions. How easy it would be to become lost among such impressions and to spin into a mental world of pure fantasy.

[CrystalSong]

Yes, when I think about God/Source/Divine what you describe is how the brain could be said to interact with the subject.
But in the silence there is another experience which transcends the brains thinking. An experience of Isness and Oneness becomes present - this is what sustains the soul through the brains meanderings and questionings on subjects it can't fathom or believe its in interaction with.

[r6r6]

OGB, close yes and no.

Charge + and - can be attract or repel ergo polarity i.e. dualistic poles of electric and magnetic phenomena.

Gravity { mass-attraction } is believed to be monopolar, tho no monopolar particles have ever been found.

Dark energy { repels } and less is known of dark energy than gravity.

However, locally planets suns and even galaxies are are falling into one another the effects of dark energy are not seen at these local scales of existence.

It may be, that, like gravity dark energy is very weak particle/phenomena.

Originally Posted by organic born

While nature doesn't do this. It's either attraction or repulsion in a more tactile way, and this is played-out in real time and alters as the stimulus alters.

[baro-san]

Originally Posted by OPVerma

We all think that the religion we follow is the best without knowing why and how.

SCIENTIFICALLY , EVERY object from atom to galaxy including humans are controlled by nature's laws. Religions are meant to enforce code and conduct in accordance with the nature's laws, on its followers for living in peace and prosperity leading to immortality. Any religion could be graded on the basis of 26 virtues and 13 malice that it inspires. Now let us analyze.

HINDUISM : Inspires for all 26 virtues, Zero Malice and leads to 4 types of immortality, hence 100% Best Religion.

BUDDHISM : Inspires for basically 8 virtues( Ast Marg ) Zero Malice, and leads to Nirvana immortality hence 90% Good.

CHRISTIANITY : Inspires for 3-10 ( ten Commandments) virtues, Zero Malice, leads to heaven, hence 75% good.

ISLAM : Virtues not counted. Contains the following 3 Malice Leading to destruction and annihilation of its followers. Hence 300% not good. ( Even 1 malice disqualifies any religion for being good. )
1. Violence : Animal sacrifice on ID festival.
2. Hatred : Jihad or genocide
3. Lust : Permitting to keep 4 wives depriving 3 others.

It is not difficult to see that Islam violets Nature's Bio-Laws therefore Nature forces its followers to live in hellish conditions and killing each other. Now since Nature's Bio- Laws are known, Islamic Scholars must bring reform in their religion. (Ref. 21st Century Bhagavad-FGita ISBN 978819095044 : Nature's Bio-Laws of Action ISBN 978819095037 )

I don't get the "scientific" aspect of your argument. On the other hand, "scientist", "science" are terms often used by people who have an agenda they push, and desire credibility (which is most likely lacking).

I get it: you dislike what muslims do. Take a number ...

[Gem]

Originally Posted by baro-san

I don't get the "scientific" aspect of your argument. On the other hand, "scientist", "science" are terms often used by people who have an agenda they push, and desire credibility (which is most likely lacking).

I get it: you dislike what muslims do. Take a number ...

Nothing to with science. Nothing has been measured quantitatively, statistically, or even qualitatively.