discussions on jwn have led me to start reading about the substantive work of psychiatrists carl jung, john weir perry, loren mosher, stanislav grof and others in "transpersonal psychology".. stanislav explains in this 1-hour long but very revealing video that he had no exposure to religion but became aware of dimensions beyond space-time through controlled psychiatric research experiments with psychedelic drugs (lsd).
this got him started on further research (much without drugs) in "transpersonal psychology" for around 45 years.. his terminology and explanations of the "hylotropic" versus "holotropic" states of consciousness maps powerfully to the "spiritual" versus "physical" in scripture and life (for me at least):.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rxrhfowj0u.
How would you respond to his opening question enquiring if you have ever experienced non-ordinary or transcendent consciousness?
In the affirmative. And they didn't involve LSD or psilocybin, though those trips were rather memorable if only for the ability to enable thinking "outside the box", artificial as it was. But the mind doesn't naturally operate in those states and the side effects aren't worth it.
life come from the living, and this is a universe of life.
his teachings are truth.
which is why i weight it against the truth of the teachings (and one other thing that i will get to).
word :)
i knew this party was too good to last, some inquiring mind is a troll (yes, here on jwn we have moles!
), i think we have a rat here!
i don't feel like "apostate material" and i am not the only one who is going down for this offense!
eh, forget it. Sounds like bullshit.
life come from the living, and this is a universe of life.
his teachings are truth.
which is why i weight it against the truth of the teachings (and one other thing that i will get to).
do any of you use medical marijuana?
i go to aa and there are a few who believe medical marijuana is an "outside issue" and they are ok with it.
i don't know... alcohol doesn't work for me but if it did, i would use it... i wish i could find a "new drug" that works lol.
I've never abused drugs; in fact, I take very good care of them.
And no, ganja isn't uh, it's not, er, what was the question again?
its portrayal of grey wolves was horribly inaccurate.
it will probably lead to an even more negative attitude toward wolves, which puts them in more danger.
i believe i read that the creators bought dead wolves while producing the movie.. its main characters' philosophizing was pretentious, cliched, and insulting to my intelligence.
I guess Farley Mowat wasn't consulted for this one...
just want to share this amazing debate!
caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.
as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.
If we think we have had sufficient academic instruction to speak as we do, to judge like a Jehovah’s Witness and demonize the beliefs and convictions of others like a Jehovah’s Witness does, then guess what? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck…
Cofty's Law dressed up nice for the cocktail party?
Anywho, ain't no crime to have the courage of your convictions. These discussions have been going on since people could speak and they ain't gonna end anytime soon. Some of it ain't exactly pretty, this changing one's whole worldview and belief system. There are challenges people are working through. I say let the chips fall where they may.
And if you don't like the tv program, you can always change the channel.
life come from the living, and this is a universe of life.
his teachings are truth.
which is why i weight it against the truth of the teachings (and one other thing that i will get to).
Still, if you remove the person and their feelings from the equation, where is the evidence for god?
I don't know how we would know otherwise.
Is it safe to say that the evidence for god lies solely within your perception and experience?
Thus, it could be inferred that without perception, there is little to no evidence that identifies god. Otherwise, surely there would be evidence of god in the physical world. Many things are known, understood and even considered immutable laws, but nothing that can be exclusively identified as "god"
Does this sound reasonable?
life come from the living, and this is a universe of life.
his teachings are truth.
which is why i weight it against the truth of the teachings (and one other thing that i will get to).
The question remains, if you remove the person and their feelings from the equation, where is the evidence for god?
life come from the living, and this is a universe of life.
his teachings are truth.
which is why i weight it against the truth of the teachings (and one other thing that i will get to).
Defining the physical is easy.
Defining the spiritual, that's something else.
