A new path for spiritual development?

[Jessi1]

hi,

I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.

What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Jessi1

What do you think about this perspective?

What do I think?
That the book was written by someone that has never experienced God
up-close and personally - directly and intimately.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by Jessi1

hi,

I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.

What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?

Jessi1,

There is a bridge and it involves articulating our understandings of God. The atheist has no confidence in perceiving or defining God. Religion, on the other hand, has the boldness of presuming to understand and define God. In this sense some would say that atheists are closer to God because they have no presumptions about defining what is possibly undefinable. Many times our presumptions lock us into a conception of God that limits any possibility of understanding God in His fulness.

1 Corinthians 13:12...."Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face."

Ephesians 3:19....."....and to know this love that surpasses(transcends) knowledge----"

Philipians 4:7...."And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding..."

I cite these verses because they speak of transcendence. Many of us view God as both immanent and transcendent. Immanent in the sense that God is with us and we can have an understanding of God from this perspective. Transcendent indicating that God is also greater than we can perceive and even possibly define.

One is also drawn to the theological arguments of of cataphatic vs. apophatic. Cataphatic attempts to define God as what we believe God to be. Apophatic approaches the question by attempting to define what God is not(with the underlying presumption that God is beyond definition). Obviously this amounts to a choice.....but some, in attempting to understand God, utilize both approaches.

Also of interest is Ephesians4:16-17....."I pray that out of his glorious
riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."
The 'inner being' is above mind and rationale....it means being informed by the Spirit and the heart must be distinguished from the mind.

Maybe this will help ?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Jessi1

hi,

I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.

What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?

That's just another perspective. There are zillions of perspectives. That author's perspective seems to be weaker than others' because it seems to be an intellectual exercise.

I believe that both intellectual and emotional perspectives are quite prone to error, and the only perspective available to us, to get the kind of answers that author is looking for, is intuition. Unfortunately most of us can't and don't even try using theirs.

If you're interested in those kind of questions, I suggest you try to tap into your inner source of knowledge and guidance, and consider anybody else's opinions just informative, including those disseminated by gurus and dogmas.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by inavalan

.... That author's perspective seems to be weaker than others' because it seems to be an intellectual exercise.
.....

That's what I meant. Thanks.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Jessi1

hi,

I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.

What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?

It seems to me whether it is thought that God and nature are one or nature is a projection of God.

I don’t think it may be so much an atheist, non-atheist view. It seems more a view upon nature, consciousness, God and how these may be interpreted.

Let go of the definitions and just be with nature, then what is felt, what is there?

Perhaps a matter of how it is related to or not. What does it bring?

Proposing some thoughts.

[Love~is~All]

Originally Posted by Jessi1

What do you think about this perspective?

Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?

That is a sweet question. :) I'm game for a discussion. Very interesting topic.

The same misconception... that's fabulous. Beautiful. I will say this: a misconception, is just a soul-growth step in a lifetime. I have these many times a day, ha! Soul-growth steps, steps in awareness, in being more open, being more loving, being more merciful. Consciousness evolution, the path we are all on. Life can never be wrong for me, all is soul understanding in progress.

Oh, and the above is why neither atheism nor religion have it correct. Not that incorrect is bad, it's just correct-in-progress. :)

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Jessi1

hi,

I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.

What do you think about this perspective?
Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?

Atheist simply don't believe in a god because there has never been any prof of a god, at least from any scriptures, as soon as you try to prove god, it disappears.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by psychoslice

Atheist simply don't believe in a god because there has never been any prof of a god, at least from any scriptures, as soon as you try to prove god, it disappears.

I think we believe what we choose to believe ...

You probably believe you aren't in a dream now. Do you have any proof you aren't in a dream now?

We only accept the proof that confirms what we believe, or what we are ready to believe.

atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Are Buddhists atheists?

You wrote on your info page that you "have no beliefs". I contend that everything is belief. There is no absolute truth. Everything and anything can be hypothesized.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I think we believe what we choose to believe ...

You probably believe you aren't in a dream now. Do you have any proof you aren't in a dream now?

We only accept the proof that confirms what we believe, or what we are ready to believe.

atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Are Buddhists atheists?

You wrote on your info page that you "have no beliefs". I contend that everything is belief. There is no absolute truth. Everything and anything can be hypothesized.

We can believe in whatever we want, but that doesn't make it so, I once believed in all sorts of things just because it made me feel good, I now question everything, and that makes me feel even better.