On May 6, 3:14 pm, Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
> > The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> > using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> > universe [by a person].
> OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a  
> "staging post" to a future, more "correct" theology. As such, atheism  
> could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I  
> refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be  
> wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump off the rails of its  
> habitual patterns of recognition in order to open up the perception to  
> something hitherto unseen. This is what Lateral Thinking does. By  
> being openly wrong or outrageously inaccurate about something, the  
> local equilibrium of the mind is perturbed and the possibility of  
> "movement" can follow. Your suggestion that a relationship with God  
> expands consciousness is fine. IF such a thing were true THEN the  
> conclusion follows. I also offer the thought that IF God exists THEN  
> we may have to ditch all organised religion at some stage to allow for  
> "correct theology" to see the light of day. This process actually  
> appears to be underway in many parts of the globe which is why I'm  
> talking about it.

Yes, it seems to me that the process of relating to God as a person
and therefore expanding consciousness would result in continuously
"ditching all organized religion" as you put it, i.e. continously
having the old skins slough off to make way for the new.  Such is the
way of life.

> Bruno's suggestions about the "nature of God" (a person, a thing, a  
> mathematical "truth", an experience of altered states, a relationship  
> etc.) is the kind of thought that would probably only occur to an  
> already-expanded consciousness.
> >  As part of the process of calling Kim's
> > suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> > possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> > simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.
> Couldn't agree more. If you want my tuppence worth on this I say we  
> are all of us "God". Religion says that Man was made in the image of  
> God. Well, it could obviously be the other way around. Whatever the  
> relationship, it is clearly a symmetrical one.
> K
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to