the word

[jackles]

In the begining was the word.the word means meaning.so in the begining there was the meaning.and the meaning or word had no form.it means the meaning had no size in any terms.the word did not happen it always was.then from the viod came the light which is a differentual in the void.but the diffrentual had size and form.but the word moves the form and is the syncranicity and theme for all creation.the word there for is meaning .and knowing the meaning is consciousness.regs jackles.

[Owen]

In the begining was the word.the word means meaning.so in the begining there was the meaning.and the meaning or word had no form.it means the meaning had no size in any terms.the word did not happen it always was.then from the viod came the light which is a differentual in the void.but the diffrentual had size and form.but the word moves the form and is the syncranicity and theme for all creation.the word there for is meaning .

Pure gibberish!

[jackles]

Owen my guess is you use the word gibberish.more than once or twice dureing the day.maybe on waking and just before you go to sleep at night time.

[Owen]

Owen my guess is you use the word gibberish.more than once or twice dureing the day.maybe on waking and just before you go to sleep at night time.

What??

Why don't you at least try to make sense.

Perhaps your lack of understanding of grammar is to blame.

[jackles]

That just proves what im saying is true then owen.meaning is the common in all events.get my meaning.regs jackles

[Owen]

That just proves what im saying is true then owen.meaning is the common in all events.get my meaning.regs jackles

Again, where is the sense in what you are saying??

I give up! Have a nice day.

[jackles]

It is religious philosophy owen.i was just trying here to put across an idea for the begining and there for the meaning of all things.you have to use a bit of imagination.meaning is at the core of being.sorry you dont get it.regs jackles

[Immanuel Can]

No, wait...there's an interesting idea here.

"In the beginning was the Word..." A word is a unit of semantic purpose or intent. It implies that the origin of the universe was an intelligent action. It also implies the instantiation of reason and (physical) law, the foundations of science. Arguably, it also suggests the instantiation of teleological purpose and moral law as well.

It's a huge claim, and one contrary to the idea that the universe is an accidental production and hence inherently incomprehensible from a teleological, material, and moral perspective.

If all of that doesn't open up a space for further rational inquiry, what does?

[jackles]

As in the meaning which is the single solitary meaning from which all other meaning would have its source.the universe then is an expression of that singular solitary meaning.the theme of which is in all animal and human events.music is one example.scientific laws would be drawn from the same universal meaning.

[thedoc]

As in the meaning which is the single solitary meaning from which all other meaning would have its source.the universe then is an expression of that singular solitary meaning.the theme of which is in all animal and human events.music is one example.scientific laws would be drawn from the same universal meaning.

There is also the concept, as expressed by Joseph Campbell, that all Mythology was the same in it's origin which would mean that all religion had the same origin. One set of Myths that led to all the diversity of religion that we see today, just as evolution implies that a few, or just one, simple organism evolved into all the diversity of life today, Parallel development in many different areas?

[jackles]

Yeah mozart from an amobia.

[James Markham]

Religion has truth as it's source, and what we observe as apparent diverse religious doctrines, are actually interpretations of the inherent actuality. It's within us all to find and know the truth about how, why and what, it just has many ways of becoming manifested in thought.

As jackles says, the becoming of anything from nothing, becomes so as a received meaning, or the inseption of concept. Space, presence and moment being the primary creations of thought, onto which reality develops for the pursuit of truth.

[Immanuel Can]

Religion has truth as it's source, and what we observe as apparent diverse religious doctrines, are actually interpretations of the inherent actuality. It's within us all to find and know the truth about how, why and what, it just has many ways of becoming manifested in thought.

You articulate here a fairly common "outsider" position on religion, I think.

It looks liberal-minded at first, but has rather illiberal deeper implications. For it must surely suppose that all religions are ultimately just made of the same warm porridge, and that the adherents of all particular religions are simply ignorant of the "true" meaning of their own beliefs. And while there are ways in which they think they are importantly different from other traditions and have unique contributions to make to important questions, this view would imply that they are simply mistaken: at the end of the day, they have only superficial differences and profound "oneness." So nothing they say matters, really. Everybody wins.

I wonder, James, if they would thank you for your kindly intended words, or whether they would not consider them more dismissive than helpful.

Or were you just floating the idea, not committing to it?

[James Markham]

Immanuel, I don't think there are many religious people willing to adapt there beliefs in such a drastic way, as to accept that their own particular indoctrination is a mere interpretation. But as you say, I'm an outsider, and as such I don't hold anything as absolute, and any position I do adopt, is done so with the understanding that adaptation may become necessary.

But as an example of what I mean, if we look at the ideas in the abrahamic religions that regard god and creation as a pantheistic whole, and compare it with the Buddhist concept of oneness, we can see how the same basic idea, can have slightly different interpretations.

So from my outsiders view, I can see many such consistencies within the religious body of thought taken as a whole, and it becomes possible to maybe extrapolate the truths that are inherent facts of reality, but to any proponent who is immersed in a select interpretation, their beliefs become dogmatic.

As for whether I'm floating or committed, I'd say a bit of both. I like the idea that all, or most, religions are tapping some truth that is inherently within, and perhaps some sort of compass for, an intelligent inquiry into reality, but I'm always willing to adapt my thinking and beliefs.

[thedoc]

Immanuel, I don't think there are many religious people willing to adapt there beliefs in such a drastic way, as to accept that their own particular indoctrination is a mere interpretation. But as you say, I'm an outsider, and as such I don't hold anything as absolute, and any position I do adopt, is done so with the understanding that adaptation may become necessary.

But as an example of what I mean, if we look at the ideas in the abrahamic religions that regard god and creation as a pantheistic whole, and compare it with the Buddhist concept of oneness, we can see how the same basic idea, can have slightly different interpretations.

So from my outsiders view, I can see many such consistencies within the religious body of thought taken as a whole, and it becomes possible to maybe extrapolate the truths that are inherent facts of reality, but to any proponent who is immersed in a select interpretation, their beliefs become dogmatic.

As for whether I'm floating or committed, I'd say a bit of both. I like the idea that all, or most, religions are tapping some truth that is inherently within, and perhaps some sort of compass for, an intelligent inquiry into reality, but I'm always willing to adapt my thinking and beliefs.

I believe that there are a few from within that can accept this view of religion, and I would suggest that many of those are in the clergy. I understand that most of the Bible is not a history or a science text book, it is mythology as are most of the other sacred texts. Odd as it may sound, it was reading Zen Buddhism that gave me a better appreciation and understanding of my own Christian background. I would also suggest that in the Abrahamic religions and the Buddhist 'Oneness' there is less of a difference in interpretation and more of a difference in description. The Buddhists simply do not attempt to describe the concept of Oneness, whereas many Christians go to great lengths to describe what they know nothing about. It is then these descriptions of the unknowable that become the dogma and articles of faith that belief in is demanded. FYI, I don't say things like this out loud in my own church, I've learned when to keep my mouth shut, but when I get the impression that another person is receptive, I will broach the subject, cautiously.

Relative to your last paragraph I once asked the question
-"Does your religion have 'THE' message from God? Or does your religion have 'A' message from God?"-
I have yet to get an answer, or even an indication that anyone understands the question.