Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Harv, Some Comments On Your Comments

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on June 13, 2003 13:13:34 UTC

"[I ]think that God is somehow using each religion to bring out hidden gems of truth"

That is exactly what I believe, even if God is so abstract as to not be personally connected to us.

" but an atheist is one who believes their is no supernatual existence, so revelation becomes problematical."

Here your definition of atheism appears to differ from Glenn's.

It is clear from his statements about the eighth level of consciousness (being both that of the sleepstate and preserving all the experiences of our rebirths) that his version of Buddhaism accepts the existence of what we call the supernatural, and that we may experience it most every night.

I think he is just saying that there is no controlling god. But that of course is contrary to the Tibetian concept of the Lord of Great Compassion who seemingly controls our salvation.


"the vast population of Buddhist practitioners do have supernatural beliefs in an afterlife where their consciousness extends beyond their physical bodies"

His remarks are consistent with your statement here.

"the attempt to base itself on known science, etc, are all negative attributes of religion in my view"

I did not notice such an attempt in Glenn's exposition. But it seems to exist in all religions, particularly in the creation myths. I actually prefer Glenn's claim that there was no creation.

But what really struck me is that 'the attempt to base itself on known science' is exactly what I try to do. So naturally I do not see that as so negative, except when it becomes dogmatic truth, which it almost always does.

Rather I am in awe of the gems of 'scientific' truth recorded in scripture long before they are evident in science. I will not bore you with a list of all those gems. You probably can recall them from my previous posts. It of course is Monday morning quarterbacking; but I take it as evidence of at least a non-physical world, if not sheer past prophecy of science in the future.

What really disturbs me about Glenn's version of Buddhism is that it is based on the teachings of a Japanese fellow who claims to be the original Buddha. Seems to me that this fellow has become trapped in one of the lessor states of Carlos Castenada- the one associated with power and ego.

But I may be being unfair here. Just as Christianity has come to claim that Jesus is god and that Jesus said so in scripture, the same revisionism may be happening in Japanese Buddhism.

That should guarantee a response from you.

Having fun,

Richard

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins