Rstuart,

Niko's story reminds me of a Jewish joke:

--- here goes: ---

New immigrants to Israel are allowed to bring along all their household goods and electrical appliances free of duties, so Mr. Kohen arrives with 5 new refrigerators, claiming they are part of his kitchen.

So the custom officials ask him: "Sir, why do you need 5 refrigerators?"

- "Well", he says, "I am a religious Jew, so I need to separate the milk from the meat".

"Okay", they ask: "that makes two, what about the other three?"

- "but of course", says Kohen, "I am so religious that I need a clean set of refrigerators for passover, which had strictly never any contact with traces of bread-crumbs"

"Fine", asked the officials, "that makes four - but what about the fifth?"

"Don't you understand", says Kohen, "what if I sometimes feel like eating pork?"

--- conclusion: ---

Niko Alm's real test of faith is not in the police's registration office...
His real test would be when his beloved sweetheart tells him: "it's the sieve or I"!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Neither can I follow everything Tillich wrote. His reference to existence and essence - a distinction so prominent in philosophy, in particular medieval - would indicate that his understanding is more subtle than what one understands by it in everyday language. As mentioned above, I had the impression that you understood the term existence (e.g. if applied to God) only in the sense of existing in the “state of a material object”, in which case I naturally agree that to claim His existence would be to deny Him.

As you might know, my “rational orientation” is that of a mathematician (so I feel uneasy when people use the word logical in very loose sense), and it is not just a joke that mathematicians FIRST define concepts (with the exception of very few primitive, undefined concepts like set, relation etc) and THEN discuss them, whereas social scientists, philosophers, like to discuss concepts BEFORE “defining” them. Quotation marks, because “in everyday life” there are no basic concepts (that need not to be defined) on which other definitions can be built, as is the case in mathematics.

This applies also to the alternatives “God exists” and “God does not exist”: only by trying to understand arguments in favour of the one or the other can one “guess” what the author means by “God” and “exists”; often disagreement is based only on different implicit meanings (“definitions”) attached to these basic concepts by participants in the dispute.

So with this qualification I can say I agree with you, provided I correctly guessed the meaning you attach to the words God and exist.

>>The spiritual is therefore not an additional plane, but the absence, the subtraction of the material plane.<<
I agree: The Spiritual (or the other names given to it) is everything that cannot be reduced to the material world, Sagan’s Cosmos. It can be spoken of ONLY in symbols within some culturally constructed (mythological, biblical or more sophisticated) models. Like contemporary physics can speak of Sagan’s Cosmos only within “mathematically constructed” physical theories. No need to mention planes, whatever that would mean.

Okay a few more thoughts...

Crabsy,

It seems to me that the ego is utilised to assist the individual in his material undertakings. I'm more inclined to believe that in order to grasp a sense of the spiritual that one is required to subdue the ego in favour of detachment.
Perhaps both biological "and" spiritual ingestion are basic drives. Perhaps our yearning to return to the state before we were indoctrinated into the symbolic order is what we call our "spiritual" yearning. (to repeat an earlier point I made) The "symbolic order" in this sense is the cognitive apparatus around which we construct meaning in our world. Therefore, our search for the source of our yearning requires us to employ our intellect and its handy toolbox of symbolic references.

George and Yuyutsu,

Seems that semantics always comes into play when trying to define the concept of God or the spiritual. One tries to make oneself understood, and my original reference to a spiritual plane was to differentiate that realm from the material plane - but, of course, Yuyutsu knew that and decided to duck the question.

So, how about some basic questions? How would either of you define God...What is God? Is everything God, as in everything is energy?

poirot..quote..""How would either of you define God""

im used to being the invisable man
and this invisability has helped me comprehend god

as to wether he egsists..[or as a previopus topic asked does he insist]...
its missing the true essence..
[of what god does]..

just as we are
*our works

what god 'does'..for a tree...
sustains even a simple tree to 'be'

[god's goft..that defines what..'it' is]
is lost in only vieuing the forrest..or just the tree
saying are you god..no know god is in me..yet im not god

""What is God?""

the collective of all that is
the body animated by spirit..
that creates the essence..[the soul]
who's works define its fun-ction..via gnosis logic

""Is everything God,""

all flesh is a gift of god
all material is of god
all possable is god
all not possable is made possable
because god is not judging what is
only giving/sustaining.. its right to live/egsist/be

while im not god
i yet have the gifts..of gods good
that allows me to chose to be me..

knowing that 'he' is that which sustains me my every breath
[indeed sustains us..each our very every lifes breath]

from the best..
to the most vile
god alone sustains us our ALL our life
and by sustaining all of us our life's..possabilities
also thus..sustains the totality..of lifes living..lived by Brr'other'

[think of gods essence
as being all that so called dark matter..science cant find
plus all that seen/unse..felt unfelt..known unknown..yin/yang

and gods reality..all that seen and material..
as much spirit...as that unseen and semingly immaterial]

the key to grasping god
is found in the words atonemeant
[at one meant]...to love god is as simple..as loving other

for we are teqniclly all containing within us
his holy spirit..the same holy host wether its hosting a clever beaast[man]..or a dumb bacteria..its the same wholy spiritus

[im using words..chosen from my mind
by imagry..in-spired from outside my mind
so see the image..in-flux[in-spi-ration]..rather than the words chosen

god.."as in everything is energy?"

energy is one of those words
that has become subverted by e=mc2

[look at the equalisation of E[energy]..to equal mass TIMES the speed of light..times the speed of light..[clearly its a buzz-word designed to make weight times speed..to somehow become a joule]

god is the nexus
where the possable has infinate possability
where the impossable is a right..to become possable
[just as spirit has the right to chase after[in-spire]..those with like minds]

ie the devil claim his own
[except there are many demons
of infinite lust...seeking voice/expression..onto this realm

think of realms as being much like red light being invisable
except to those who only see in the red spectrum

that this spectrum..can see from within..outside light
yet the spirit realm sees only by the light within

where the logus dosnt come close to being the gnosis
but you can chjose by that realms logic

where logic is both sustained and refuted..by what is..
having the right to be..by virtue of god helping it to 'be'..

how could..say a bacteria
hope to have the right words/meanings
to describe the qualities..realities of its lifesustaining host...

or say a drop of rain
envision an ocean

is it..the rain drop
that did the bad thing
or the ocean?

i guess my problem is
words give meaning to symbols

but mental images/feelings/emotions..give rise to words
[emotion>>words>>imagry>>symbols]

when we start at the end..[symbols]
we dont know..how to get back to the other end..emotion

[where the true begining..[good]
now has somehow become..the end..[god]

Note to self don't ask a person's religion when leading into further points.

Thanks to Poirot, Squeers, Crabsy and others who are seriously looking at the topic. It is an interesting question, I cannot say the extent to which my Sunday school classes have influenced me as a person. I can precisely note the time I lost patience with formal religious dogma (from any religion) it was on September 11, 2001. I had been an atheist for many years prior, had I been older perhaps the holocaust in Germany would've been my point of no return in taking the religions of man, written by men for men with any seriousness.

I understand Squeers with his comments:

>> I'm personally not convinced that "We are culturally constructed, mind, body and soul", consciousness does indeed remain an enigma that no materialist theory has yet satisfactorily explained. Indeed modern science and analytical philosophy begin with the "assumption" that phenomenal reality is all there is, but this assumption is more like a prejudice than a stable premise. <<

And share his opinion, however that does not prove any of the world's religions to be true, egalitarian, inclusive, tolerant or suitable for every person, let alone the existence of gods or a god.