|
Post by asiinja on Nov 16, 2010 15:33:48 GMT
So selfdevelopment, is it so hard to say, well you might have a point? Spritual develpment, insight, mental development, I think they are all part of personal development. I didn't say personal development. I said spiritual development. There is a difference. Yeah sure spiritual development can be done trough selfdevelopment, agreed?
|
|
|
Post by jayman on Nov 16, 2010 16:22:35 GMT
Yeah sure spiritual development can be done trough selfdevelopment, agreed? Fair point. The two are connected, but in the opinions of some (including me) are still distinctly different. Personal development may occur when spritual development is being worked on. But not necessarily a given. And vice versa as well. This spiritual devlopment is a key in all forms of masonry as it is not necessarily connected to a belief in a Supreme Being. LDH and Orient masons are also working on spritual development just as UGLE masons are. It's not about religion. Churches give that. It isn't about social bonding as any number of clubs could give you that. Heck, you could get that from a darts league at your local pub. Personal development can also be developed in any number of venues. The spiritual development is not unlike any other western mystery order, such as the Golden Dawn or AMORC. It is about building from the ground up, with the spiritual being as the foundation.
|
|
|
Post by asiinja on Nov 16, 2010 19:45:24 GMT
True, I beleave that anything can be achieved trough personal improvement. If I tomorow start thinking real badly that the earth is flat together with some others, well see what happends to our oval earth.
I find it strange that you call them mystic orders, why is freemasonry or golden dawn a mystic order?
|
|
|
Post by hephaestus on Nov 17, 2010 5:07:27 GMT
Middle Pillar, thank you for elucidating my views better than I ever could.
The Lodge I joined required belief in a Supreme Being and every legitimate Masonic Text I have ever read had this as one of the Core Concepts. I would have a serious problem with Atheists being allowed to join...as it to me would go against everything I have come to understand about our wonderful craft!
Further on that point.... I have always been taught that the "G" in the Square and Compass Image stood for "God" and "Geometry"- is this a myth?
|
|
|
Post by hyperion on Nov 17, 2010 7:34:42 GMT
Not every Masonic jurisdiction uses the "G" but I have understood it's meaning to be personal. I prefer to think of it as Gnosis.
Again, I don't really understand why what someone besides yourself believes or not would ruin your journey.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 23, 2010 23:07:03 GMT
This has been my favorite rendition, not possitive when I came up with it but never forgot. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 3, 2010 10:34:53 GMT
The Ultimate supreme being is truly beyond our understanding, To look at an atom, or a tiny bacteria or the exploding star in the Cosmos - The Architect who put such abundant life forms on Planet Earth, and left the other planets in our Sun's System barren- for those who don't believe in a supreme being must surely get stuck somewhere in their regressive thinking, as indeed I do when I think of who might have created the Creator..
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Dec 13, 2010 14:47:34 GMT
Some deep thoughts there whistler, ive wondered this myself about the creator of the creator. I feel like who made who isnt as important to them as much as who and where its going. Similair to sensory depravation, you would need a response to your actions/words to know you exist. Ive said this before but what would heaven be if only God was there to enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 13, 2010 14:53:51 GMT
9th grade science. The law of conservation of matter and energy. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. From this we can determine that all that is, always has been. This does not require a Deity. If our bodies were made by a Deity I have some things that I would like to talk to He or Her or It about. Our bodies, if they were made in the image of God just like they are now, seem to have been put together by committee. Of course none of this dispenses with the concept of an All-Knowing and All-Seeing and Ever-Present Deity. It is not regressive thinking to include evidence in front of us.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 13, 2010 17:17:00 GMT
Science is by its own definition, that which is understood by man. The proof of and the evidence of that proof.
The bodies we have are the ones that have survived and were the best that allowed that survival.
But as a scientist you would have to prove the theory of the creation of Matter and energy from nothing. We have theories that can create matter from energy and energy from matter, however it will always fall into the category of the chicken and the egg.
As Sherlock Holmes said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 13, 2010 18:15:01 GMT
Currently it appears that matter can be transformed into energy, like buring a block of wood turning it into smoke, heat, light, and ash. I don't think it is too much of leap to think that it can go the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Dec 13, 2010 20:26:42 GMT
9th grade science. The law of conservation of matter and energy. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. From this we can determine that all that is, always has been. This does not require a Deity. If our bodies were made by a Deity I have some things that I would like to talk to He or Her or It about. Our bodies, if they were made in the image of God just like they are now, seem to have been put together by committee. Of course none of this dispenses with the concept of an All-Knowing and All-Seeing and Ever-Present Deity. It is not regressive thinking to include evidence in front of us. I think our bodies and lives are more or less the desired outcome. Everything about my life has told me its mostly self explainatory, but in a way of teaching. If you dont watch where your walking youl stub your toe or trip, so watch where your walking. Saying certain nasty things about objects might be ok, but not saying nasty things to a person. You learn the action/reaction fairly quickly in life, just ask my 4 yr old... what if the bodies we are made in the "likeness" of are used similair to our physical body, but with less physical restrictions compared to our "learning" body (I.E. lack of time/space travel). Not only would you need to have a body to prove your intent in this realm but also learn how to manipulate new surroundings with physical force (I.E. eating food, drinking water, socializing, and perty much everything physical). Perhaps God was just the first to put something together that actualy worked and self perpetuated in a growth seperate of thier own, but still in a realm of time/cycle.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 13, 2010 21:30:41 GMT
Currently it appears that matter can be transformed into energy, like buring a block of wood turning it into smoke, heat, light, and ash. I don't think it is too much of leap to think that it can go the other direction. you know the theory work better than I do I suspect. Where did the original spark come from, the spark that created an atom or the smallest particle of the atom, when in the first instance they had to be [by all the laws of physics] nothing. By all the science that we know, to create something from nothing is impossible, yet we are here. Science can not explain why we came into being. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 13, 2010 21:52:10 GMT
We would first have to be able to dismiss the premise that there wasn't a first spark, it just always has been.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 14, 2010 0:03:46 GMT
We would first have to be able to dismiss the premise that there wasn't a first spark, it just always has been. Then you have to describe time , which has no beginning and no ending. If it has no beginning and no end, how do you measure it. Proof, that is what is needed proof. Scientific proof.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 14, 2010 1:00:59 GMT
By "time" are we talking about a relatively arbitrary measurement of increment based on the Earth moving around the Sun, about the fabric of the time-space continuum?
I agree that proof is needed. For the idea that the universe has always been I offer the law of conservation of matter and energy. Pretty solid in its own right. Proof of a creator would be contrary to the evidence that we have in front of us.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 14, 2010 1:12:22 GMT
Does not give us the why and where from ? it may be fact as we know it, but do we know all the facts ?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 14, 2010 2:21:27 GMT
We do have to work with what we have. We know quite a bit but I certainly hope that we don't have all the facts or I will quickly be out of a job. With the economy as bad as it is I would not want all the facts known quite yet, perhaps right before I retire.
Two things on the where and why. Before we move on to describe or determine the need for a creator we should entertain the thought of matter and energy having always been. That would be in keeping with what we know. The why question is upsetting to me. I don't like null hypothesis that there is no why. I really want there to be a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 14, 2010 14:02:51 GMT
The why question is upsetting to me. I don't like null hypothesis that there is no why. I really want there to be a purpose. Thus we have Faith, which is really another way of saying, 'I don't have a clue, but I hope' ...............................
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 14, 2010 14:45:46 GMT
True Brother. I would be bothered if it turned out there really was nothing other than an instinct to survive and pass on genetic material.
|
|