Will science one day make religion redundant

a reply to: Compendium

Thank you Compendium. But I am still a bit confused. Perhaps its less to do with definitions (although agree mine are different) but with our differing attributes to the label of God.

Most see God as a distinct entity from self. So when peeple asked "consciousness beyond the self" I had to answer no. If the question was "consciousness beyond mind" I would have answered yes as the pure awareness that exists before the I AM (self identity) has a very subtle nature of its own (love etc), But that in its own would perhaps not meet most peoples definition of Consciousness.

Is that a possibility or am I being totally brain dead?

a reply to: glend

No, you aren't being brain dead

I refer to that as "the seat" of conscious

It is (at least I think) the best way to describe it for all parties

But again, you should identify a distinction between conscious, and consciousness

It works the same way for a concept like "God", as it would for any other separate conscious to your own

The concept of "God" is, again, locked into perspective. Which people don't often acknowledge or understand as they are talking about it, or arguing the point

Even within the same collective religion you'll find this problem

Some Christians see it removed from self as a separate and unknowable entity. "A" conscious. Others will refer you it as something connected to themselves, within conscious thought (as "mind"). Others see it as something instinctual which they "feel", as through their emotional self in love, etc, which is consciousness

The different aspects of self, all identify the same concept, from a different perspective within the seat of that conscious

Because they are, essentially, trying to identify the seat itself

It is a self-depreciating cycle, whichever way you look at it. Unless you learn to discern the value of the observers perspective on what and how they look at it

In analysing it, you either see the seating "God" connected as self in conscious, with can turn into a "My God" and a belief that you understand and know God better than anyone else. Because it is part of your identity of self (which is technicality correct, though not right) ...

Or you feel it instinctually as consciousness, which leads you to a more spiritual understanding where God is something felt, rather than something that need be defined or possessed, as self

You are defining, from best I can tell, from the middle ground where the seat is within the thinking (which you identify objectively as "mind")

This is technically the best way to view and understand the concept in its fluid nature because it exists Inbetween and can be relatable to both sense of perspective

Theos literally means "thought", so "mind" seats perfectly in understanding the concept

The problem you are going to experience, is that you are trying to explain a fluid concept, whilst sitting on the fluid bridge, to those who don't see the fluid nature. They are polarised

Perspective is the key

Are they looking at it originating from their self as conscious? Or the emotional return of self as consciousness?

The seat and that which sits in it are definitively different from each other. But neither could exist without the other, which is why allot of people get confused

Seat = God, Thought, Science, Philosophy,
Conscious = Self / I
Conscious Thought = Mind (seated)
Consciousness = Emotion / Emotional self / Reflection

This list is a little more abstract than the last one, but I thought it might be a little more helpful to you

Awareness is tied into identifying self for the fulfilment of need. It is relative, but it is action and process, not perspective, so it shouldn't be included in this basis, as it may/might/could/will confuse the matter

Those who you may/might speak with that will argue from both sides of perspective?

They are just arguing the fluid nature of the concept itself, without posing an argument for or against it

They are essentially saying that it can't be answered

Which, to the concept of God in what it supposed to represent, is correct

But, within our ability to relate the concept,it's is not true

You are both technically sitting in the middle of the same bridge

But you are trying to say that the bridge to the concept should be open, while they are saying it should be closed

Both are correct, but only by the nature of what it is to ask the question. Make sense?

Which is why I said there is no point thinking about thinking

It is exactly like trying to look at yourself, to see what you look like moving

You can only ever do it in a mirror. And if/when you do, it will only ever oppose your movements

Completely opposite, though as similar as possible

Thank you Compendium. Your abstracted list and bridge metaphor is brilliant, I have often wondered if the difference in Christian beliefs really makes a difference in spirituality. Your summation "The different aspects of self, all identify the same concept, from a different perspective within the seat of that conscious" makes wonderful sense. You are very kind for sharing your knowledge.

a reply to: glend

No problem 😊

You already understand it. I think you are just now getting confused trying to relate it to others perspective of "God", or their seated conscious

A pleasure as always glend 👍😊