Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Favorite Spiritual Books; What are your favorites?
Topic Started: Aug 16 2005, 10:04 PM (440 Views)
~Luthien~
Member Avatar
Little Sister Of Sistertrek
yesh and also she finds it too bloody and aggressive,they filmed it a little bit too realistic for her taste.
I dont find it a bad movie i just dont want to watch it cuz bcuz i believe it has really happened it scares the hell out of me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Fesarius
Aug 17 2005, 09:35 PM
^^^
Who,

Hi. The Apocrypha are the books of the Bible that Protestants don't consider canonical. The Roman Catholics have (from the Protestant perspective) certain 'extra' books (e.g., Susanna, Tobit, Judith, etc.) in their Bibles that Protestants don't consider to have the same authority as the 'standard' sixty-six books. The Eastern Orthodox Church has books in their Bibles that they consider canonical, but which the Roman Catholics and Protestants do not (Psalm 151, and [I think] 3 and 4 Maccabees, the additions to Esther, etc.). So these books would be 'apocryphal' to the Roman Catholic Church and to Protestants. I own one Bible that has all of the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox books in it. This makes me one holy dude, worthy almost--but not quite--of being allowed to attend 38957's church. ;)

I don't know the history of the Upanishads, except to say that they are Hindu scriptures, and are held in high regard by Hindus (up there with the Rig Veda, the Vedanta, and the Bhagavad Gita (of the Mahabarata, I believe). The Gita were written originally in Sanskrit, but I don't know if this is true of the Upanishads. I would need to inquire of Vishnu to be certain. And my Sanskrit is a tad rusty. (BTW, that's a veiled reference to VOY for 38957 and T'Lac--one might say, an 'apocryphal' reference. :Fes:)

You might find some useful information here:

http://www.indiadivine.com/vedic-hindu-scriptures.htm

Fesarius, interesting. I have read a version of the Bhagavad Gita. A PATH WITH HEART is written by an American that spent a great deal of time in India. I was on a retreat that the author and Stan Grof were leading. Gangaji (a name given to her in India who led several silent retreats I went to) is an American woman who spent a great deal of time in India. Her site has her books, books by her tearchers and students. Thomas Merton was a Catholic monk who lived in a monestary in Kentucky until he died a few decades ago. A Course in Miracles is Christian and is often said to be a combination of Christianity, Buddhism, and psychology.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Who,

I know a little about Thomas Merton--isn't he a Christian mystic, along the lines of Teilhard de Chardin (the French Jesuit) et al. of that ilk? I think it was Merton who helped the East and West (in spiritual and philosophical circles, at least) to converse more efficiently and to think more critically about their tenets.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
psyfi
Aug 18 2005, 05:26 AM
Swidden
Aug 18 2005, 12:21 AM
Aside from the usual stuff like the Bible...

Lately I have read: "The Art of Happiness" by the Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, MD (more or less conversations between Dr. Cutler and the Dalai Lama).  "The Power of Intention" Dr. Wayne Dyer, many on reference to St Francis of Assisi and some to "A Course in Miracles."

This sentence is unclear. Are you saying that Wayne Dyer's book references "A Course in Miracles?"

Yes, he does make reference in his book to it. However, Dyer's approach is very non-denominational. More Universalist in some ways. He does not come from a perspective of a single faith but rather numerous faiths and philosophies. Though he does this, he takes a very spiritual approach and allows the reader to define God for onself.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Swidden
Aug 18 2005, 04:41 PM
psyfi
Aug 18 2005, 05:26 AM
Swidden
Aug 18 2005, 12:21 AM
Aside from the usual stuff like the Bible...

Lately I have read: "The Art of Happiness" by the Dalai Lama and Howard C. Cutler, MD (more or less conversations between Dr. Cutler and the Dalai Lama).  "The Power of Intention" Dr. Wayne Dyer, many on reference to St Francis of Assisi and some to "A Course in Miracles."

This sentence is unclear. Are you saying that Wayne Dyer's book references "A Course in Miracles?"

Yes, he does make reference in his book to it. However, Dyer's approach is very non-denominational. More Universalist in some ways. He does not come from a perspective of a single faith but rather numerous faiths and philosophies. Though he does this, he takes a very spiritual approach and allows the reader to define God for onself.

Yes, I have seen a few talks given by Dyer on PBS. I like him quite a bit.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
~Luthien~
Aug 18 2005, 03:41 PM
yesh and also she finds it too bloody and aggressive,they filmed it a little bit too realistic for her taste.
I dont find it a bad movie i just dont want to watch it cuz bcuz i believe it has really happened it scares the hell out of me.

I also believe the crucifixion happened and I also can't watch the movie because it just disturbs me too much. In any case, I do think that the focus should be on the resurrection, not the crucifixion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
psyfi
Aug 18 2005, 05:14 PM
~Luthien~
Aug 18 2005, 03:41 PM
yesh and also she finds it too bloody and aggressive,they filmed it a little bit too realistic for her taste.
I dont find it a bad movie i just dont want to watch it cuz bcuz i believe it has really happened it scares the hell out of me.

I also believe the crucifixion happened and I also can't watch the movie because it just disturbs me too much. In any case, I do think that the focus should be on the resurrection, not the crucifixion.

I understand that Mel either has or is about to release the movie again in a less violent version. I believe it too and I suspect the real thing was more violent than the movie. The violence did not bother me. I found it inspiring. If Jesus could do this for God then we should be able to do our part as well. I am still amazed at the echo of Jesus and the impact he has had through the ages including today.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Fesarius
Aug 18 2005, 04:31 PM
Who,

I know a little about Thomas Merton--isn't he a Christian mystic, along the lines of Teilhard de Chardin (the French Jesuit) et al. of that ilk? I think it was Merton who helped the East and West (in spiritual and philosophical circles, at least) to converse more efficiently and to think more critically about their tenets.

I have read of Teilhard de Chardin but cannot remember much or where I read it. It has been some time since I read all of Merton's books. I do not know if Merton considered himself a mystic. When I was reading Merton I was also reading "A Course in Miracles" and they seemed to be saying the same in their own way.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Teilhard de Chardin is IMO brilliant. His works always inspire and challenge my thinking. Besides the aforementioned Ouspensky, I also love the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (esp. Letters From Prison) and Jacques Ellul (the latter wrote IMO the very best work on the book of Revelation I've ever read).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
who
Aug 18 2005, 07:07 PM
psyfi
Aug 18 2005, 05:14 PM
~Luthien~
Aug 18 2005, 03:41 PM
yesh and also she finds it too bloody and aggressive,they filmed it a little bit too realistic for her taste.
I dont find it a bad movie i just dont want to watch it cuz bcuz i believe it has really happened it scares the hell out of me.

I also believe the crucifixion happened and I also can't watch the movie because it just disturbs me too much. In any case, I do think that the focus should be on the resurrection, not the crucifixion.

I understand that Mel either has or is about to release the movie again in a less violent version. I believe it too and I suspect the real thing was more violent than the movie. The violence did not bother me. I found it inspiring. If Jesus could do this for God then we should be able to do our part as well. I am still amazed at the echo of Jesus and the impact he has had through the ages including today.

I don't think that it is his echo that has or is having an impact. I think that it is him still working with people toward the goal of our Salvation which I define as wholeness of body, mind, and soul.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
Fesarius
Aug 18 2005, 06:39 PM
Teilhard de Chardin is IMO brilliant.




Yup. The only modern Christian intellectual that could send Stephen J. Gould into therapy.


I'm always interested in someone whose ideas were deemed dangerous to traditional religious dogma and to atheistic scientific doctrines both at the same time. I don't think that anyone has ever pulled that off before.


Brief overview of De Chardin...



By now, Chardin's conceptualism has become more integrated into today's current world of theology and scientific thought. He likely won't be truly appreciated though for about another, oh, hundred years.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
He likely won't be truly appreciated though for about another, oh, hundred years.

Agreed.

Quote:
 
Yup. The only modern Christian intellectual that could send Stephen J. Gould into therapy.

Incorrect.*



























*You neglected to mention the other, Franko of SisterTrek--not to be confused with the medieval music theorist and composer, Franko of Cologne. :Fes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
This will probably be one of my favorite spiritual books when I eventually get a copy of it. I have been inquiring about Newton's work (specifically on the book of Revelation) for years, and until only recently began to think it was a myth. Such a great scientific mind, and such a strong belief in God.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

Two excerpts caught my eye:

He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ. He felt unable to accept the current beliefs of the Church of England, which was unfortunate because he was required as a Fellow of Trinity College to take holy orders. Happily, the Church of England was more flexible than the Catholic Church in these matters, and King Charles II issued a royal decree excusing Newton from the necessity of taking holy orders! Actually, to prevent this being a wide precedent, the decree specified that, in perpetuity, the Lucasian professor need not take holy orders. (The current Lucasian professor is Stephen Hawking.) [1995].

Newton was a serious student of the Scriptures. But we are only now learning just how serious. The Newton Project has published, for the first time, a 300,000-word interpretation of the book of Revelation that Newton wrote in the late seventeenth century. In reporting on the released writings, Nature writer Geoff Brumfiel noted: “Newton’s religious writings constitute more than half of his entire written work” (2004, 430:819).

I can't even fathom a 300,000 word interpretation of the book of Revelation.

This link on the Newton Project contains some fascinating material.

www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Franko
Aug 19 2005, 03:17 AM
Fesarius
Aug 18 2005, 06:39 PM
Teilhard de Chardin is IMO brilliant.


Brief overview of De Chardin...

I find this reference an interesting read. We have often discussed science and religion here. It appears clear that he had spiritual experiences and tried to integrate science and religion. Some excerpts:

Quote:
 
All around us, to right and left, in front and behind, above and below, we have only to go a little beyond the frontier of sensible appearances in order to see the divine welling up and showing through. But it is not only close to us, in front of us, that the divine presence has revealed itself. It has sprung up universally, and we find ourselves so surrounded and transfixed by it, that there is no room left to fall down and adore it, even within ourselves.

By means of all created things, without exception, the divine assails us, penetrates us and moulds us. We imagined it as distant and inaccessible, whereas in fact we live steeped in its burning layers. In eo vivimus. As Jacob said, awakening from his dream, the world, this palpable world, which we were wont to treat with the boredom and disrespect with which we habitually regard places with no sacred association for us, is in truth a holy place, and we did not know it.


In the nineteenth century science enjoyed such success at explaining so many of the mysteries of life that it appeared to many as if all the mystery could one day be explained away. In physics one could penetrate to the heart of matter and develop a clear understanding of that fundamental building block, the atom. In biology, the evolution of life forms could ultimately be explained through competition of the various species across vast distances of time. By the same token, intelligence could be understood as a function of the circuitry in the brain and consciousness could be reduced to a complex series of chemical reactions, etc., etc. In other words, argues Teilhard, the mysticism of discovery was fast deteriorating into the mere "worship of matter."(14) The religious corollary of this trend was the death of God. For, if all the important processes of life could be understood through the tools of analysis just recently developed by science, what further need remained for faith in God?

In Teilhard's view the situation has changed dramatically in the twentieth century. In physics, the atoms themselves were broken up and broken down into innumerable subparticles infinitely more mysterious than the alchemists ever imagined. In Teilhard's own words:

The stuff of the universe, examined as a close texture, resolved itself into a mist in which reason could no longer possibly grasp, in what remained of phenomena, anything but the forms that it had itself imposed on them. In the final issue, mind found itself once again face to face with its own reflexion.(15) 

Similarly, in biology, chemistry, and sociology the important phenomena could not be reduced to the simple mechanisms that were once thought to lie at the heart of all things. Far from continuing to explain away the remaining mysteries, science in this century has exposed still deeper mysteries at the very heart of matter itself. At a more mundane level science did not prove to be the unmitigated blessing it was once believed to be. Teilhard lived long enough to witness the explosion of the world's first atomic weapons, and with these weapons the fatal blow was delivered against the nineteenth century idea of progress. If the science of Darwin, Marx, and Freud seemed to make certain the death of God, the nuclear arms race secured the death of science as a substitute religion.



As I continue to read I do not agree with all of his views. I find it interesting that he describes science as a substitute religion as I have said.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
~Luthien~
Member Avatar
Little Sister Of Sistertrek
psyfi
Aug 18 2005, 05:14 PM
~Luthien~
Aug 18 2005, 03:41 PM
yesh and also she finds it too bloody and aggressive,they filmed it a little bit too realistic for her taste.
I dont find it a bad movie i just dont want to watch it cuz bcuz i believe it has really happened it scares the hell out of me.

I also believe the crucifixion happened and I also can't watch the movie because it just disturbs me too much. In any case, I do think that the focus should be on the resurrection, not the crucifixion.

I agree and now that part I could watch on tv :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus