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

[nihilistic]

Aww,come on. Is this even serious? Even the scientologists aren't as explicit. "Religious Scientist"? How is that not a thinly veiled attempt to make people thihnk you are a scientist who happens to be religious than some cultist?

How are you going to convince others that you are honest when even your name isn't?

 

[Veritass]

...but my advice would be to stay away from 'isms'. Isms are the enemy of truth.

I'm sorry. Which "isms" are we referring to here?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

This all seems rather harsh. There doesn't seem to me to be any attempt to get people to do anything bizarre or swindle them. It justs seems to be more or less a form of deism or pantheism with a heavy emphasis on science. I may not agree with their doctrine but it is not dishonest.

 

[Veritass]

IMHO the term 'religious science' to describe an organisation cannot have any meaning except as a catchy buzzword.

Actually, one of my main complaints against Religious Science is that this term (and the term "spiritual mind treatment" for affirmative prayer) is anachronistic and doesn't make a lot of sense in today's context.

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

They are incompatible to be applied to each other's domains, but I do not believe they are incompatible for existing in one person applying to separate domains.

Veritass, reconfigure your world view.

Your wording is a bit harsh, but I am constantly in the process of reconfiguring my world view.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I'm sorry. Which "isms" are we referring to here?

How can you ask such a question? Youre here for the explicit purpose of introducing an alternative 'ism'. Theres nothing wrong with that. If it makes some people happy, great!

 

[happy_Alex]

They are incompatible to be applied to each other's domains, but I do not believe they are incompatible for existing in one person applying to separate domains.

You mean, you cherry pick the results of science where they are compatible with your world view?

That misses my point, RE methodology. If scientific enquiry could be applied to the supernatural (including your God) he would just be 'natural'.

 

[Narz]

Veritass, alot of what you say resonates with me.

You will like catch massive flak from both the religionists and atheists for your views but I think they make a lot of sense.

Watch the movie in my sig, it's probably right up your alley.

 

[Narz]

How can you ask such a question? Youre here for the explicit purpose of introducing an alternative 'ism'. Theres nothing wrong with that. If it makes some people happy, great!

Everyone needs a worldview. You certainly have one (I might label it Bozo's-human-natureism). At least he can admit that all language is metaphors.

 

[GenMarshall]

So you dont believe in the Holy Trinity?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Everyone needs a worldview. You certainly have one (I might label it Bozo's-human-natureism). At least he can admit that all language is metaphors.

I agree, except that if everything is a metaphor, nothing is a metaphor

 

[Sidhe]

I see no comparisson with Scientology here, Scientology is a philosophy plain and simple, with no God figure no Jesus and no spiritual overarching figure, like Budhism a path to personal freedom through awareness of conciousness and the harm suffering brings sometimes through many lifetimes.

Where it jars though is in it's refusal to accept psychology or mental health practices, so in essense someone can become very programmed by it's tennats without the ability to resort to help to free himself from this, also the strongarm tactics used to strike fear into those who speak out against it's beliefs and the general message are worrying; also the non profit when clearly those in power coin huge sums of money, strike me as lies of the worst kind. If it is like scientology then it is well hidden. I have no issue with the relgion from what I've seen.

Like others I see no correlation between science and relgion only philosophy, but that is not inherently harmful unless the religion speaks of a divorce from all other belief systems, my only quesiton is, is this the case?

 

[Veritass]

You mean, you cherry pick the results of science where they are compatible with your world view?

Not at all. I am not arguing against using any application of science that I am aware of. I don't believe that this is the only method of knowledge or experience, however. I mean apply science where science can be applied, and apply faith where faith can be applied, and apply intuition where intuition can be applied, apply philosophy where philosophy can be applied, and apply aesthetics where aesthetics can be applied.

It is illogical to assume that everything is logical.

 

[Veritass]

So you dont believe in the Holy Trinity?

We do not believe in the traditional Christian trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

We believe in a metaphysical trinity of
- Spirit - God as pure essence - creator, active, causative principle (the seed that is planted)
- Soul - God as impersonal, receptive, creative process (the soil within which the seed is planted)
- Body - God as the results of physical form (the new plant).

Note that in this context "Soul" with a capital "S" is distinguished from "your" soul.

 

[Veritass]

Like others I see no correlation between science and religion only philosophy, but that is not inherently harmful unless the religion speaks of a divorce from all other belief systems, my only question is, is this the case?

I was not sure by the end of your post whether you were speaking and asking about Scientology or Religious Science. From the standpoint of Religious Science, we respect all paths to God, all paths to higher understanding. In my personal experience, I find that many people who come to Religious Science do so because they are turned off by their previous church preaching the type of exclusion that you allude to. Why would God create a world of Buddhists and Christians and Taoists and Muslims and Jews and then say only group X (or maybe subgroup Y of group X) is going to heaven?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

- Body - God as the results of physical form (the new plant).

Could you expand on that?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why would God create a world of Buddhists and Christians and Taoists and Muslims and Jews and then say only group X (or maybe subgroup Y of group X) is going to heaven?

It is one thing to say that only Church Y is completely correct, it is quite another to say that only members of Church Y are going to heaven. I can believe the first but never the second.

 

[Veritass]

Could you expand on that?

Certainly. The expression of God in form in space and time is still part of God. Every bit of matter and energy that exists in this space-time is made of a single God-stuff expressed into form. That is why we are connected to God, because we are made of matter and energy, which is made of this God-stuff.

Why we say we are "made in God's image" is that most forms of matter and energy do not have their own creative thought. We have the ability to generate creative thought and turn this into physical reality. We can do this through physical manipulation of the world around us, and through God by planting our thoughts in the universal creative Law (e.g. prayer).

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its interesting Veritass, but its not for me. Religions are all the same, makes no sense to trade one in for another.

 

[Truronian]

Veritass, does Religious Science as a faith involve any kind of organised religion, or personal worship?

 

[Sidhe]

I was not sure by the end of your post whether you were speaking and asking about Scientology or Religious Science. From the standpoint of Religious Science, we respect all paths to God, all paths to higher understanding. In my personal experience, I find that many people who come to Religious Science do so because they are turned off by their previous church preaching the type of exclusion that you allude to. Why would God create a world of Buddhists and Christians and Taoists and Muslims and Jews and then say only group X (or maybe subgroup Y of group X) is going to heaven?

I was trying to divorce your beliefs from Scientology, which bear no relevance to yours, I can see how you might take that as a question about both, or get them mixed up , I was defending you against the allegations of a simillar path to scientology, I hope successfully? Sorry for the mix up.

Anyway I needed only an answer from your religous path and you gave it thankyou.

I think the only path to a God should be through wisdom of as many paths as possible, and once there to recieve no word of religous intolerance about how you came to follow your religion, and what you believe holistically.