God needs your input. He/She/It resonates on all levels, but oscillates (vibrates) at a frequency of amplitude. (the squeaky wheel gets the oil) Let me explain.
In the 15th chapter of Luke, verse 1, Jesus is approached by "publicans (tax collectors) and sinners" who wished to hear him speak. There were also scribes and Pharisees there as well, who commented that "this man (Jesus) receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." Jesus then shares three stories, the last one being the Prodigal Son. All three revolve around redemption.
The overriding point of the three stories is that those who already believe and follow spiritual guidelines (pharisees and scribes) should rejoice that those who have been lost are now found. (the publicans and sinners) The way the story unfolds is the younger brother asks for his inheritance early and proceeds to squander it in the most unseemly fashion. ("riotous living") The younger brother hits rock bottom and decides to return home because even his father's servants "have bread enough, and to spare, and I perish with hunger." The father (God) sees him coming, runs out to meet him, "and fell on his neck, and kissed him." The younger son then makes an honest and full confession of his misdeeds ("Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son). The upshot is, the father directs the servants to "bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry."
When the elder son returned from the fields, he heard music and dancing and asked a servant what was going on. Informed that his brother had returned and his father had killed a fatted calf in celebration of his homecoming, the older brother is "angry" and refuses to enter the house. Significantly, the father comes out to talk to his older son, "and entreated him." (entreat; to ask earnestly, beg, beseech, implore) The older son then responds with his grievances: "Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time your commandment: yet thou never gavest me a kid, (goat) that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf." The father then tries to placate the elder son with, "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine." He ends by saying that "this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." The story ends and we are left to our own devices to decide how the situation is resolved.
Many Christian apologetics make much of the older brother's resentment and bitter heart. Nonsense! If ever there was a place for resentment, this is the place. His anger was justified. And I think this is demonstrated by the father coming out to "entreat" him. I think it dawned on him (the father) that he hadn't fully appreciated his oldest sons efforts. Why hadn't he ever offered a goat to his son so he could enjoy a demonstration of his father's favor, let alone a fatted calf? In strictly human terms, try treating a self-actualized partner that way and see how long they stick around. Taking another for granted over a long period of time is a sure fire way of ending a relationship. No, the truth is, the father screwed up royally. When he heard the elder son's complaints, he could have acknowledge them there and then. He could have said, you are right, I have been amiss. Give me a chance to set things right. But for now, let us come together. Please, enhance your father's joy by joining us.
I am sure, to some, it seems blasphemous to "correct" God. Still, there is biblical basis. After reading the first 13 verses of Exodus, chapter 32, tell me Moses didn't "school" God. Verse 14 says; "And the Lord REPENTED of the EVIL which he thought to do unto his people." As I have said a number of times, I am not a Bible literalist, but believe the Bible is "wonderfully instructive." If there is to be a relationship with God, how can it be a one-way street? If we are to be co-creators, how is it that our voice cannot be heard? If we are valued, would not our opinion be valued as well? It is here, in the crucible of being heard (vibrational rate) the amplitude is established at a frequency where we resonate with God. Another term for this would be "praying." But do not come as a beggar before a king, but as a son before a loving father. And tell your father you aren't interested in your inheritance as much as you are in honoring and celebrating him now, before his metaphorical passing. To do so though, entails validation of loyalty to the degree, at least, as being lost. Call the servants. Send out runners to the neighbors...a second calf is about to be placed on the spit!
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Evidence of God Conclusion
Mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. ~Albert Einstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0--_R6xThs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0--_R6xThs
Monday, June 30, 2014
Evidence of God Part 3
Like Tristan, we are the children of sadness. Western people are children of inner poverty, though outwardly we have everything. Probably no other people in history have been so lonely, so alienated, so confused over values, so neurotic. We have dominated our environment with sledge-hammer force and electronic precision. We amass riches on an unprecedented scale. But few of us, very few indeed, are at peace with ourselves, secure in our relationships, content in our loves, or at home in the world. Most of us cry out for meaning in life, for values we can live by, for love and relationship.
~ Robert A. Johnson We
The question is, why? Why do we experience poverty when our cup is overflowing? Perhaps Erich Fromm (You Shall Be As Gods) can explain:
"The fiction is thereby created that anyone who uses the concept (God) is referring to the substratum of experience underlying it. Once this happens--and this process of alienation of concepts is the rule rather than the exception--the idea expressing an experience has been transformed into an ideology that usurps the place of the underlying reality within the living human being.
To which reality of human experience does the concept of God refer? Is the God of Abraham the same as the God of Moses, of Isaiah, of Maimonides, of Master Eckhart, of Spinoza? And if he is not the same, is there nevertheless some experiential substratum common to the concept as used by these various men, or might it be that while some common ground exists in the case of some, it does not exists with regard to others?
A concept can never adequately express the experience it refers to. It points to it, but it is not it. (It) is only an approximate expression of the experience. This is necessarily so because no person's experience is ever IDENTICAL with that of another; it can only approximate it sufficiently to permit use of a common symbol or concept."
And therein lies the rub. We have limited our spiritual experience to fit a 2000 year old mold. This mold was constructed in a socio-political environment that has no bearing on life as it is lived today. It has become a diluted ideology that is neither accessible nor potent. So we flounder. We grope blindly for relevancy. We cry out for meaning in our life.
I have said, speaking of God; "I am the Source and I am the Course. I am that I am and all that you are." I wasn't kidding.
A single consciousness, an all encompassing wisdom pervades the universe.
~Gerald L Schroeder The Hidden Face of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848PLy3VXNI
1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth 2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the waters. 3) And God said, LET THERE BE LIGHT...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pOr1E6hvc
~ Robert A. Johnson We
The question is, why? Why do we experience poverty when our cup is overflowing? Perhaps Erich Fromm (You Shall Be As Gods) can explain:
"The fiction is thereby created that anyone who uses the concept (God) is referring to the substratum of experience underlying it. Once this happens--and this process of alienation of concepts is the rule rather than the exception--the idea expressing an experience has been transformed into an ideology that usurps the place of the underlying reality within the living human being.
To which reality of human experience does the concept of God refer? Is the God of Abraham the same as the God of Moses, of Isaiah, of Maimonides, of Master Eckhart, of Spinoza? And if he is not the same, is there nevertheless some experiential substratum common to the concept as used by these various men, or might it be that while some common ground exists in the case of some, it does not exists with regard to others?
A concept can never adequately express the experience it refers to. It points to it, but it is not it. (It) is only an approximate expression of the experience. This is necessarily so because no person's experience is ever IDENTICAL with that of another; it can only approximate it sufficiently to permit use of a common symbol or concept."
And therein lies the rub. We have limited our spiritual experience to fit a 2000 year old mold. This mold was constructed in a socio-political environment that has no bearing on life as it is lived today. It has become a diluted ideology that is neither accessible nor potent. So we flounder. We grope blindly for relevancy. We cry out for meaning in our life.
I have said, speaking of God; "I am the Source and I am the Course. I am that I am and all that you are." I wasn't kidding.
A single consciousness, an all encompassing wisdom pervades the universe.
~Gerald L Schroeder The Hidden Face of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848PLy3VXNI
1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth 2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the waters. 3) And God said, LET THERE BE LIGHT...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pOr1E6hvc
Friday, June 27, 2014
Evidence of God Part 2
Define: 1. a) to determine or set down the boundaries of b) to trace the precise outlines of, delineate 2. to determine or state the extent and nature of; describe exactly 3. a) to give the distinguishing characteristics of b) to constitute the distinction of; differentiate 4. to state the meaning or meanings of.
We face some problems here. To define God means placing boundaries, outlines, or extents, to something who's distinguishing characteristic is it doesn't have boundaries, outlines or extents. All is not lost. Read the following article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/brainongod.htm
First off, yesterday's dangling question (effect) is answered dramatically. To wit; "If you contemplate God long enough, something happens in the brain, neural functioning begins to CHANGE." (that dear readers, is most certainly an effect) But we said we had to define something to understand it. How do we define God?
"Our research has led us to the following conclusions: 2) Every human brain assembles it perceptions of God in uniquely different ways, thus giving God different qualities of MEANING AND VALUE."
(note--there are five conclusions; see link for the other four)
Newberg also states; "In fact, the more a person thinks about God, the more complex and imaginative the concept becomes, taking on unique nuances of meaning that differ from ONE INDIVIDUAL TO THE NEXT."
So, the definition of God is: there is no one definition of God.
Pat, Pat, you using sophistry! No, I am simply sharing with you what a neuroscientist came up with from his studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Truth be told, I had never heard of Andrew Newberg before yesterday. Regardless of how absurd it may seem, the only definition of God that matters is the one you hold in your head. And that definition is going to be different than mine (and his, hers, or theirs). This can debilitate you, or liberate you in ways unimagined. The gift is yours to do with what you wish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZEVOenOwYU
(A review of the God section might be worthwhile)
http://site.baybridgecentral.com/giftgratitudegod/god.html
We face some problems here. To define God means placing boundaries, outlines, or extents, to something who's distinguishing characteristic is it doesn't have boundaries, outlines or extents. All is not lost. Read the following article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/brainongod.htm
First off, yesterday's dangling question (effect) is answered dramatically. To wit; "If you contemplate God long enough, something happens in the brain, neural functioning begins to CHANGE." (that dear readers, is most certainly an effect) But we said we had to define something to understand it. How do we define God?
"Our research has led us to the following conclusions: 2) Every human brain assembles it perceptions of God in uniquely different ways, thus giving God different qualities of MEANING AND VALUE."
(note--there are five conclusions; see link for the other four)
Newberg also states; "In fact, the more a person thinks about God, the more complex and imaginative the concept becomes, taking on unique nuances of meaning that differ from ONE INDIVIDUAL TO THE NEXT."
So, the definition of God is: there is no one definition of God.
Pat, Pat, you using sophistry! No, I am simply sharing with you what a neuroscientist came up with from his studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Truth be told, I had never heard of Andrew Newberg before yesterday. Regardless of how absurd it may seem, the only definition of God that matters is the one you hold in your head. And that definition is going to be different than mine (and his, hers, or theirs). This can debilitate you, or liberate you in ways unimagined. The gift is yours to do with what you wish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZEVOenOwYU
(A review of the God section might be worthwhile)
http://site.baybridgecentral.com/giftgratitudegod/god.html
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Evidence of God
Excluding this from your life would kill you in three minutes. No one is exempt. And the funny thing is, you can't see it, taste it, touch it, hear it, or smell it. It is invisible. Know what I am talking about?
Air.
Seriously, when was the last time you thought about air? It is the most basic, fundamental, essential component for your existence, yet it isn't detectable by any of your five senses. So why do you believe air exists?
Another example. Science claims black holes exist even though a black hole has never been seen. How does science make such a claim? Through observational (or indirect) evidence. That means they can see the EFFECT on the space (matter) around the black hole. They don't see "it," they see what effect "it" causes.
If this is a fair standard of scientific evidence for black holes, why isn't it a fair standard for God? Throughout this web site I have said "try it" (G-G-G) and see what happens. I know if you perceive life as a gift and you respond with gratitude, God will manifest. But what I know means nothing--that is my experience. What is important is what you know. And you will only know God if you have an experience (feel the effect) yourself.
So I think it fair to say we need not see, taste, touch, hear, or smell God, to claim He exists. We KNOW air exists and none of the criteria applies. And similar to a black hole, observing an effect is evidentiary to asserting a claim that it (whatever "it" is) exists. What is fair for the goose must be fair for the gander--or there is no fairness at all. That leaves us with the task of proving whether or not God causes an effect.
In the next post we will examine the definition of the word God. Only by understanding (defining) a thing can we come to know what it actually is. And how can we determine if a thing has an effect unless we define what that thing is?
Air.
Seriously, when was the last time you thought about air? It is the most basic, fundamental, essential component for your existence, yet it isn't detectable by any of your five senses. So why do you believe air exists?
Another example. Science claims black holes exist even though a black hole has never been seen. How does science make such a claim? Through observational (or indirect) evidence. That means they can see the EFFECT on the space (matter) around the black hole. They don't see "it," they see what effect "it" causes.
If this is a fair standard of scientific evidence for black holes, why isn't it a fair standard for God? Throughout this web site I have said "try it" (G-G-G) and see what happens. I know if you perceive life as a gift and you respond with gratitude, God will manifest. But what I know means nothing--that is my experience. What is important is what you know. And you will only know God if you have an experience (feel the effect) yourself.
So I think it fair to say we need not see, taste, touch, hear, or smell God, to claim He exists. We KNOW air exists and none of the criteria applies. And similar to a black hole, observing an effect is evidentiary to asserting a claim that it (whatever "it" is) exists. What is fair for the goose must be fair for the gander--or there is no fairness at all. That leaves us with the task of proving whether or not God causes an effect.
In the next post we will examine the definition of the word God. Only by understanding (defining) a thing can we come to know what it actually is. And how can we determine if a thing has an effect unless we define what that thing is?
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Suggestion Box
On June 11th I posted Back to the Basics and started a series of posts designed to illustrate the dynamics of how our brain works and responds to sound. (language) I then offered three ways of reacting to events (breathe/acceptance/gratitude) that are the most accessible/effective methods available to us that enhance our well-being. I linked all my suggestions to scientific evidence. At our current level of scientific understanding everything I have presented is indisputable.
I also snuck in a post (We Are Alive--and isn't Marie Digby amazing?) that spoke directly to your attitude toward being "alive." I proposed that if astonishment (astonish: to fill with sudden wonder or great surprise) wasn't part of your outlook, you might consider a course correction. The fact is, there is no cognitive rationale for you even being here.
http://visual.ly/what-are-odds
The tacit message was life is a gift. Your inability or reluctance to experience it as such might be an insight as to what issues you need to address. Or not. You are always the determining factor. If you don't "buy in," nothing occurs. You continue with your life as it was. I would ask one question though; how is that working for you?
So, if you're still reading, I will presume that we have an agreement: you see life as a gift you can be grateful for. These last few days I will present what evidence I have for God being the final part of the equation.
I also snuck in a post (We Are Alive--and isn't Marie Digby amazing?) that spoke directly to your attitude toward being "alive." I proposed that if astonishment (astonish: to fill with sudden wonder or great surprise) wasn't part of your outlook, you might consider a course correction. The fact is, there is no cognitive rationale for you even being here.
http://visual.ly/what-are-odds
The tacit message was life is a gift. Your inability or reluctance to experience it as such might be an insight as to what issues you need to address. Or not. You are always the determining factor. If you don't "buy in," nothing occurs. You continue with your life as it was. I would ask one question though; how is that working for you?
So, if you're still reading, I will presume that we have an agreement: you see life as a gift you can be grateful for. These last few days I will present what evidence I have for God being the final part of the equation.
Monday, June 23, 2014
As Good As It Gets
Well, Gwenn was busy over the weekend. She changed the header of the blog, enabling access in the future under WP Grogan (rather than Gift Gratitude God). What I do with it is moot. My intention is to bring it to a close--Gwenn's argument simply being access, and I have no problem with that. As I mentioned, the actual web site's domain name is not being renewed, so access to everything other than the blog ends July 3rd.
I do wish to explain the "goodness is great if you're good to yourself" quote on the header. It is from a "poem" (not sure it qualifies) in the About Me section. Written years ago as a post script to a friend, she responded favorably to the sentiment. It comes as close as anything else as a "motto" for what it is I promote. To save you time flipping to that section (and perhaps, a future visitor) I will include it here:
Goodness is great if you're good to yourself
And patience is fine if you give yourself time
Trust is must begin with yourself
Loving is due but don't forget about you.
I believe people sometimes get caught in the trap of being "nice." They do and say things they think others want or expect of them. Because the impulse is one of accommodation and not genuine service the ego will (eventually) demand compensation. The tendency then is toward resentment. Instead, the metaphor of a fruit tree illustrates the innate characteristic of "good works." Your nature is to give of yourself. It makes you feel good to do so.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/05/28/helping-others-is-good-for-your-health-an-interview-with-stephen-g-post-phd/
Understanding your impulse, my effort is to refine this instinct to include yourself. Until you learn to be good to yourself, any thought of authentic goodness toward others is flawed. It is conditional and perpetuated only by acknowledgement or validation--rather than a realization of mutual benefit. Including yourself in the equation of being "good" goes a long way in sustaining efforts that fulfill you spiritually. It is a gift you give to yourself.
I do wish to explain the "goodness is great if you're good to yourself" quote on the header. It is from a "poem" (not sure it qualifies) in the About Me section. Written years ago as a post script to a friend, she responded favorably to the sentiment. It comes as close as anything else as a "motto" for what it is I promote. To save you time flipping to that section (and perhaps, a future visitor) I will include it here:
Goodness is great if you're good to yourself
And patience is fine if you give yourself time
Trust is must begin with yourself
Loving is due but don't forget about you.
I believe people sometimes get caught in the trap of being "nice." They do and say things they think others want or expect of them. Because the impulse is one of accommodation and not genuine service the ego will (eventually) demand compensation. The tendency then is toward resentment. Instead, the metaphor of a fruit tree illustrates the innate characteristic of "good works." Your nature is to give of yourself. It makes you feel good to do so.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/05/28/helping-others-is-good-for-your-health-an-interview-with-stephen-g-post-phd/
Understanding your impulse, my effort is to refine this instinct to include yourself. Until you learn to be good to yourself, any thought of authentic goodness toward others is flawed. It is conditional and perpetuated only by acknowledgement or validation--rather than a realization of mutual benefit. Including yourself in the equation of being "good" goes a long way in sustaining efforts that fulfill you spiritually. It is a gift you give to yourself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)