Veritass' Religious Science Thread #1: Ask a Religious Scientist

[Bozo Erectus]

Wouldn't that mean there are infinites chances for a devil, or a being superior to God to exist as well then? Also, why are their infinites possibilities for God?

Theres only one God. Saying that something is God, but wait, heres something superior to God, makes no sense.

As far as the devil goes, if youre going with the Judeo Christian version, then if theres a devil, its because God decided to create one. I personally dont believe in the devil, btw.

edit: infinite possibilities means that anything is possible.

 

[Truronian]

Theres only one God. Saying that something is God, but wait, heres something superior to God, makes no sense.

As far as the devil goes, if youre going with the Judeo Christian version, then if theres a devil, its because God decided to create one. I personally dont believe in the devil, btw.

So if I have understood you correctly, you believe that there is a superior being responsible for the creation of everything, but we cannot even begin to comprehend it?

 

[Veritass]

1. What additional understanding of the universe do you gain from religion?

In terms of scientific understanding, none. In terms of human understanding, a greater experience of the verities in my life, and a greater love for the people of the world.

2. You talk of Genesis, how does your religious view point compare with that of Judiaism/Christianity?

I only mentioned Genesis as another metaphor for the aging of the universe. A complete comparison would be exceedingly long.

3. You talk about God's Law, what is that?

This is not a "law" such as "thou shalt." In Religious Science terms, God has an impersonal creative aspect known as Law that creates whatever it put into it from Mind.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

So if I have understood you correctly, you believe that there is a superior being responsible for the creation of everything, but we cannot even begin to comprehend it?

Of course, whats so hard to comprehend about something being too hard for us to comprehend? Do we really have so much hubris that we can rule out the existence of things we arent capable of understanding? Its absurd to believe that Reality is limited only to what the human mind can grapple with.

 

[Perfection]

In terms of scientific understanding, none. In terms of human understanding, a greater experience of the verities in my life, and a greater love for the people of the world.

Those seem like things one can do without resorting to unverifiable claims.

I only mentioned Genesis as another metaphor for the aging of the universe. A complete comparison would be exceedingly long.

Well, do you consider yourself a Christian?

This is not a "law" such as "thou shalt." In Religious Science terms, God has an impersonal creative aspect known as Law that creates whatever it put into it from Mind.

I'm not getting this. Are you saying that God sends his Law to you?

 

[Truronian]

Of course, whats so hard to comprehend about something being too hard for us to comprehend? Do we really have so much hubris that we can rule out the existence of things we arent capable of understanding?

Nothing at all . I kind of feel the same way. I imagine there is a creator, although I do not believe his existance is relavent to us as we will percieve any intervension as free will.

 

[Veritass]

It seems to me that your religion seems like an elaborate emotional scheme to make you feel good. Is this all it is or is there more to it. If so what would that be?

And it seems to me that much of the science-only posturing on this board seems like an elaborate analytical scheme to make you not feel, or feel poorly.

The questions behind the question seem to be: (1) What is the purpose or meaning of life? (2) What is the purpose of religion in life?

I believe there is no inherent, objective meaning in life. There is only the meaning that you choose to give it. Many religions have gone the route that the real meaning in life is in the afterlife, or the next life. I choose to believe that there is purpose to be found in this life, and wonderful joys to be experienced and expressed in the now. Does that make me feel good? Actually, it does.

Religious Science believes that there is wisdom to be gained from all of the teachings around the world. The way to freedom, says Krishnamurti, is to know yourself. “The more you know yourself through awareness of what you are thinking, what you are feeling, the more you will discover the truth of what is; and it is this truth that will help you to be free.”

 

[Perfection]

And it seems to me that much of the science-only posturing on this board seems like an elaborate analytical scheme to make you not feel, or feel poorly.

I don't think so. I am a remarkably happy individual. I just don't see the need for a poetic and emotional view of the universe. I don't need God to experience wonder or joy or love, I'm equipped to do that on my own.

The questions behind the question seem to be: (1) What is the purpose or meaning of life? (2) What is the purpose of religion in life?

I believe there is no inherent, objective meaning in life. There is only the meaning that you choose to give it. Many religions have gone the route that the real meaning in life is in the afterlife, or the next life. I choose to believe that there is purpose to be found in this life, and wonderful joys to be experienced and expressed in the now. Does that make me feel good? Actually, it does.

Religious Science believes that there is wisdom to be gained from all of the teachings around the world. The way to freedom, says Krishnamurti, is to know yourself. “The more you know yourself through awareness of what you are thinking, what you are feeling, the more you will discover the truth of what is; and it is this truth that will help you to be free.”

I think we actually have similar views, and you just cover it with flowery words and silly metaphors.

 

[Veritass]

I am a remarkably happy individual. I just don't see the need for a poetic and emotional view of the universe. I don't need God to experience wonder or joy or love, I'm equipped to do that on my own.

I think that's wonderful. I agree with you that one doesn't "need God" to experience these things.

I think we actually have similar views, and you just cover it with flowery words and silly metaphors.

Perhaps we do. I am not trying to "cover" anything; I am merely expressing it in different ways that might resonate with one person or another. Perhaps you would like to share your world view in your own words? If it is succinct enough, please add it here. If it is a whole new topic, perhaps it would warrant its own thread.

 

[Veritass]

Well, do you consider yourself a Christian?

I was wondering when this would come up, since it is probably going to plug in the most people. By the normal definition of whether I "accept Jesus in my heart as my personal Lord and Savior," no, I am not.

In general, Religious Science believes that Jesus was a master teacher and a great example of someone who lived a life experiencing his connection with God. However, we don't believe that we are in need of being saved, and we don't believe in the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit except in metaphysical terms, so by most Christians' accounts, we would not be considered Christians.

Here are a couple of paragraphs I gleaned from a Religious Science FAQ:

Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science, came out of a Christian tradition. He studied all of the world's religions, and synthesized what he saw to be the truths running through them all, free of any particular dogma. He began the philosophy with the intention that all churches, especially Christian ones, would embrace the philosophy and incorporate those teachings into their own. His book "The Science of Mind" brings clear understanding to the teachings of Jesus. Religious Science comes out of the Christian tradition in the sense that we believe in the teachings of Jesus and use them to create a "Heaven on Earth".

In Religious Science, Christ is viewed as a universal principle rather than a person. It is the principle of God expressing through humanity. Jesus of Nazareth was a human personality through which the Christ Principle, or Divine Personality, expressed itself on Earth. The principle of Jesus Christ represents the mystical marriage of our inner spirit with our outer personality. This union produces an expression of Life that includes both, yet is greater than either. The potential for this expression lies within each one of us. Therefore, Jesus is viewed as a great example for humanity, rather than the great exception. Ernest Holmes, founder of the philosophy of Religious Science, wrote: "Religious Science does not deny the divinity of Jesus; it does affirm the divinity of all people. It does not deny that Jesus was the son of God; but affirms that all beings are children of God. It does not deny that the Kingdom of God was revealed through Jesus; but affirms that the Kingdom of God is also revealed through you and me. "

 

[Veritass]

I'm not getting this. Are you saying that God sends his Law to you?

No, not a "law" as in a restriction or comandment. In Religious Science, the Law is the impersonal aspect of God that makes manifest in form that which is placed into it from Mind. Mind is the creative and personal aspect. One can think of this as God operating upon Itself, or God as Mind operating through God as Law to create the world of form.

 

[JerichoHill]

1) How large is your group?

2) Would you say that affirmations (guided thoughts on particular goals, currently championed by Dilbert writer Scott Adams) are similiar to the form of prayer that you partake in?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I was wondering when this would come up, since it is probably going to plug in the most people. By the normal definition of whether I "accept Jesus in my heart as my personal Lord and Savior," no, I am not.

In general, Religious Science believes that Jesus was a master teacher and a great example of someone who lived a life experiencing his connection with God. However, we don't believe that we are in need of being saved, and we don't believe in the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit except in metaphysical terms, so by most Christians' accounts, we would not be considered Christians.

IMO theres no real way of knowing if Jesus was indeed a master teacher. All the knowledge we have of Jesus of Nazareth is 2000 years of spin, politics and bureaucracy.

Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science, came out of a Christian tradition. He studied all of the world's religions, and synthesized what he saw to be the truths running through them all, free of any particular dogma. He began the philosophy with the intention that all churches, especially Christian ones, would embrace the philosophy and incorporate those teachings into their own. His book "The Science of Mind" brings clear understanding to the teachings of Jesus. Religious Science comes out of the Christian tradition in the sense that we believe in the teachings of Jesus and use them to create a "Heaven on Earth".

Jesus was the Son of God. So am I. So are you. Mathilda and Marla are Daughters of God. Etc.

In Religious Science, Christ is viewed as a universal principle rather than a person. It is the principle of God expressing through humanity. Jesus of Nazareth was a human personality through which the Christ Principle, or Divine Personality, expressed itself on Earth. The principle of Jesus Christ represents the mystical marriage of our inner spirit with our outer personality. This union produces an expression of Life that includes both, yet is greater than either. The potential for this expression lies within each one of us. Therefore, Jesus is viewed as a great example for humanity, rather than the great exception. Ernest Holmes, founder of the philosophy of Religious Science, wrote: "Religious Science does not deny the divinity of Jesus; it does affirm the divinity of all people. It does not deny that Jesus was the son of God; but affirms that all beings are children of God. It does not deny that the Kingdom of God was revealed through Jesus; but affirms that the Kingdom of God is also revealed through you and me. "

Placing too much emphasis on Jesus makes me suspicious of 'Religious Science'. The word 'religious' also makes me suspicious.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And nothing makes my alarm bells go off more than 'The New Thought Movement'.

This seems to be some sort of variant of Scientology.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't think so. I am a remarkably happy individual. I just don't see the need for a poetic and emotional view of the universe. I don't need God to experience wonder or joy or love, I'm equipped to do that on my own.

Except you do if we could only get the capacity to experience wonder, joy, love et al from God. If there is no God, I don't need God to do these things either. And there is no way to determine whether this is the case because we don't have any other universes for comparison.

 

[Veritass]

Hey, JerichoHill. Loved your "ask an economist" thread.

1) How large is your group?

I can't find any good numbers on this right now. There are two main Religious Science organizations, Religious Science International and United Church of Religious Science, each of which have a couple hundred churches in the United States and less international. Ernest Holmes was based in Los Angeles, so there is a larger concentration in the western United States.

2) Would you say that affirmations (guided thoughts on particular goals, currently championed by Dilbert writer Scott Adams) are similiar to the form of prayer that you partake in?

Religious Science "spiritual mind treatment" is a form of affirmative prayer. I don't know the specifics of the type of affirmations you mention. Religious Science prayers are always done in the first person and always in the present; we believe that praying for something to be in the future will keep it in the future. Time is irrelevant to God, but you affirming that your desire will happen "someday" will keep it "someday" in relation to you. Also, such prayers must always be for the affirmative (e.g. health) instead of the negative (e.g. not being sick).

Another pitfall to affirmations is affirming something you don't really believe, e.g. affirming "I'm rich" when your internal voice is saying, "I'm poor; I'm doomed." That is why a spiritual mind treatment always begins with the step of reminding ourselves that God is the sum of all there is, and the step of reminding ourselves that we are one with this creative force. Then and only then are we ready to affirm that (for example) God's creative flow is infinite and divinely guided, and prosperity flows easily into my life. A spiritual mind treatment always ends with a step of giving thanks, for this recognition of the good in our lives is necessary to experience more of it. Finally, there is the step of release, where we release the prayer into the Law, as a way of not holding onto personal responsibility for making it happen.

 

[Veritass]

And nothing makes my alarm bells go off more than 'The New Thought Movement'. This seems to be some sort of variant of Scientology.

I know, I know. Wikipedia has a good article on New Thought, which should help dispell some of the negative connotations.

One of the things that I dislike about going to a Church of Religious Science is that we are not well known, hence I thought this thread might be useful. When people ask, "So, what church do you go to?" I always feel compelled to answer the Church-of-Religious-Science-no-not-Scientology-no-not-Christian-Science.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Veritass, Im sure 'Religious Science' has certain truths to impart, but my advice would be to stay away from 'isms'. Isms are the enemy of truth. The guy who came up with Religious Science is just a schmuck like you and me. Im a schmuck, youre a schmuck, Jesus was schmuck. The schmucks leading the schmucks!

 

[Kozmos]

Can I create a massive clone army and construct devastating biological weapons or is it against the rules?

 

[happy_Alex]

I'm going to post in response to the original thread, sorry to butt in on whatever scenario is going on.

IMHO the term 'religious science' to describe and organisation cannot have any meaning except as a catchy buzzword. It is an irrelevant term as are all discussions pertaining to 'creation' versus 'evoloution' and the like.

Science is a methodology that is incompatible with faith of any kind. To accept faith one has to put aside scientific methodolgy and either explain away some of what is revealed by science or ignore it altogether.

Science rests upon experimental validation, repeatability of the like and mathematical quantifiability.

Since supernatural articles of faith lie outside this methodology the terms science and religion are incompatible.

@ Veritass, reconfigure your world view.