eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...raw, agreed. Much as Jung said "I hope I never become a Jungian", I feel that Christ would have said "I hope I never become a Christian"...
...chopra? Is that all you can provide in my absence? Wow, I am thoroughly disappointed.
Though I am not a fan of Chopra has helped many people overcome obstacles. It doesn't matter if he is scientific or not.
... since it is in fact hard to clap with one hand you might be successful at being cheerleaders.
How many live at home?
Have you found yourself? Experience is paramount to 'real' criticism.
Wieman was instrumental in shaping thinking about Religious Naturalism. In 1963 he wrote, "It is impossible to gain knowledge of the total cosmos or to have any understanding of the infinity transcending the cosmos. Consequently, beliefs about these matters are illusions, cherished for their utility in producing desired states of mind. . . . Nothing can transform man unless it operates in human life. Therefore, in human life, in the actual processes of human existence, must be found the saving and transforming power which religious inquiry seeks and which faith must apprehend."
In 1971 - "How can we interpret what operates in human existence to create, sustain, save and transform toward the greatest good, so that scientific research and scientific technology can be applied to searching out and providing the conditions - physical, biological, psychological and social - which must be present for its most effective operation? This operative presence in human existence can be called God..." [2] In this statement he is redefining God in a way that some Religious Naturalists would latch on to.
His was a naturalistic worldview, and as it was religious, a form of neo-theistic Religious Naturalism. For Wieman, God was a natural process or entity and not supernatural. This God was an object of sensuous experience. His God concept was similar to The All concept of Spinoza and theistic sectors of classical Pantheism and modern neo-Pantheism[3] but with a liberal Christian tone to it. He had been ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1912 but in 1949 while teaching at the University of Oregon became a member of the Unitarian Church. Nevertheless, he was at the extreme edge of Christian modernism, critical of 20th Century supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy.
Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything. Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. Some models in string theory that are promising by way of realizing our familiar standard model are the perturbative heterotic string models, 11-dimensional M-theory, Singular geometries (e.g. orbifold and orientifold), D-branes and other branes, flux compactification and warped geometry,non-perturbative type IIB superstring solutions (F-theory).[2]
So, where are your dissertations? Can I see them please? What have you done to move humanity forward? You're nowhere near what chopra has done, for better or for worse. Regardless if I read him or not, he's done more than you and you are creating a likeness of him in me. Thank you.
Ridicule is a factor in moving theory forward, so thanks yet again.
Without the 'speculators' you'd have nothing to try and discover. I should add also that 'pure' scientific theory ALWAYS has holes that your community assumes will be filled by reincarnation.
I started out in this tread in a respectful mode, but that was as one-sided as your thinking.
...neer, I'll go and grab some 'stuff'. I am an artist and writer, I live in metaphor and it's hard to 'get out'. I'm really trying here.
...I am a believer that does not believe in the current doctrines. Christ is inside, raw.
...chopra is talking about the inner-verse, if I can put it that way.
...because Christ is an energy. That's why I believe. He was a man who was 'energized'. If not, why are 'we' still arguing about him? Real or not, he's made the mold for the last 2000 years.
...or sarcophagus, if you want to see it that way...![]()
...I am partly native, and believe in shamanism. Europe fkd that up.
As an avid amateur astronomer, I am very familiar with the planets and their dispositions. I have never heard of correspondence to human viscera. Citation/link? Please?...are you hollow? Map the planets and you'll find how they correspond to internal organs. In physical terms, that is real.