IS GØD IS OUR WRAPPER
=====================
[Take note of the spelling: GØD. In my signature, it remains constant. However, my 'puter, every now and then, changes it in my posts. Does anyone know why this happens? BTW, I use this special spelling to mkae the point that I am not referring to a god who is a personal being with a male gender. As Nicola Tesla--a great scientist, who was not a physicalist, said, "God has no properties."]

Here, I will replace the , wth a ? :Epitheism. NB: I consider epitheism to be complementary to unitheism. The physical universe is the body of G?D--the manifestation, the physical unit of G?D. My personal body is a cell of G?D. I have my personal "wrapper" (my spirit, my pneuma). Each cell of my body also has its own wrapper.

The idea came to me as a result of my hearing a program about the latest research, in epigenetics. I heard about it on the CBC last Tuesday (Nov. 21, 2006)--the CBC is the Canadian version of PBS.

BTW, do we have any experts in epigenetics reading this post? In addition to what I learned from the CBC program, the following gave me more information.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg...enetics.dtl#gen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
At Process.org, I discuss epitheism with Soma
http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/v...php?p=1538#1538

Most biologists understand that the simple transcription/translation of a long string of DNA is not how it works. Here is a great article illustrating the "multiple answers" approach that we take nowadays:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/gregory.html

(ps the article does not explain everything )

HH, how come the article you mentioned by, T. Ryan Gregory, Ph.D., who is assistant professor in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, is filled with so much scientific jargon?

Is there anyone who is capable of putting the concepts presented by Dr. Gregory into understandable journalize?

Interestingly, my granddaughter, Neda (18), registered in the science department of the U of G, just this past September. Maybe, when she graduates, I can get some help from her.

Science has been around widely for quite some time now, so more than a small number of people understand the language and terms used. Notwithstanding that, the principle holds, of learning a little French vocabulary to truly understand the French! Personally, I think that the article was very well written (by a rising star?) but the area is very complex and spans a great number of biological elements that need to be understood in order to fully grasp the intended hypothesis (more substantial than that actually, but maybe not quite a theory). In essence it supports the notion that the genotype is much more than simply the sequence of genes that are expressed; it is the sequence and the expression mechanisms, the latter being a diverse range of mechanisms that play roles at different times and under different circumstances. This is includes the mechanisms involved during epigenetic inheritance.

For jargon, see ():

For jargon, see ():

Jargon explained:

G�D, is the epi of all that is. That is, G�D is the over all--the center and/or circumference of all that is--the central and over-all mystery. G�D has a body. It is the same thing as the physical and mysterious universe, which I experience with my five senses. My body, like yours, originates from, and exists within, this mysterious universe, the body of G�D, which is the 'no set' �--the math symbol for "set without numbers", and 'all sets'--at one and the same time, more mystery.

Beyond the body of G�D there is a mysterious, G�D-like wrapper, which holds all that is together. Meanwhile, individual things and beings--each with their own G�D-like and mysterious wrapper-- exist within this total mystery, G�D.

Mysteries, unlike jargon, cannot be explained. Otherwise, they would not be mysteries. However, they can be experienced, if we choose to experience them. Whether or not we choose to experience the mysteries of � is up to us. I choose....Which is another way of saying, I believe....
==================
Now, please explain: Fifty years ago, we learned that the total amount of DNA contained within a eukaryotic genome is independent of the complexity of the organism in which it is found. (Eukaryotes are all organisms whose cells contain nuclei and organelles.)

What is a "eukaryotic genome"? What are "eukaryotes" and "organelles"?
Or, are they mysteries? This jargon is driving me nuts!!!

BTW, do nuts (the Greek for nut is 'karyon') grow without trees? Do organs grow independent from bodies?

So, how does G�D think? I mean, can G�D hold one thought at a time? or would that be too over-simplistic for G�D? Does G�D think a trillion gazillion thoughts all at one time? or one at at time? And what is G�D thinking right now? Not when you read this, but right now? Did G�D already think that thought when you read this?

The heading to this thread reads "A Theory of G�D based on the String Theory and Epigenetics"

Lindsay could you please point out how this post brings has anything to do with god and the string theory?

Articlehighlights to which I (LGK) have added, in colour, my humble attempt to mke things clear, to me. Others are free to have their own opinion as to what make it clear to them.
==============================================================
Among the most startling discoveries in the history of genomics--the study of genes and genomes--were these findings:

* Fifty years ago--in the 1950's (I was then in my 30's)--we learned that the total amount of DNA--that is, the substances (carbon, hydrogen,oxygen) of which most genes are made, are chiefly responsible for making genes what they are--contained within a eukaryotic--that is, within a happy nut-like genome...genetic mass is independent of the complexity of the organism in which it is found. (Eukaryotes (happy nuts) are all organisms whose cells contain nuclei... that is, central masses of cells within the skin, or natural covering, of the immature egg (ovum) and organelles (minute parts within cells which act like organs within higher animals). Imagine that: Cells having organs just like other bodies.

* Five years ago, we learned that gene number and organismal complexity are likewise largely disconnected. Really? What about that mysterious skin, or natural covering mentioned above? Is it just sitting there and doing nothing?
About one of the authors: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/cohn/staff/eva-jablonka.htm

* Both of the above findings are intriguing puzzles, not paradoxes, which when resolved will lead to improved understanding of the form, function, and evolution of genomes. May I add: In trying to solve the puzzles, if researchers do not already have this in their game plan, that the pay close attention to that mysterious skin, or natural covering, and how it affects its contents.
=================================
See the concepts referred to in the recent book, EVOLUTION IN FOUR DIMENSIONS
BTW, Jablonka and Lamb write about evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology) (Hardcover)
by Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb "The content and format of this book are a little unusual, so we want to begin by explaining what it is about and how it..."

Jablonka, Lamb, and other epigeneticists, make the point that our genetic structure is important but it is not fixed from conception, or birth. Our chromosomes and genes are very mallable. Our nature (physical, mental and spiritual)--the package we brought with us at birth, can be dramatically changed by the way we are nurtured by family, the community, including our religion, the way we conceive of gods/God, and society at large.

I will add: They are also affected by our pneumature--the pneumatiological factor. That is, how we choose to be affected by our nature and nurture, and those we allow to mold us.

Beliefs are filters of perception. perception either being filtered through belief or filtered through impressions of the source universe and its potential creates the Body of God or G�D G'D or Yahweh or any other interpretation you wish to put on the absolute to bring it into a form that suits the need of the intellect so that it can establish both the presence of ones self and that which creates the self.

The need to identify God in terms relative to ones self is the only way to establish a sense of purpose and to fulfiill ones sense of being. By looking outward at the images rather than inward beyond all images God becomes Iconic.
In the case of the ego, belief is the choice to attach awareness to meanings relative to ones own purpose and worth. Points of reference are in self created systems of measure, opinions of self and stored memories which build a foundation of belief and surreal castles to house ones own image(s).

A person of conviction gets a rush from hearing themselves speak of their own experiences and relative relationship with their God/G�D/G'D. The ego which is attached to sensory perception resonates with the experiences of putting attention on projections of God, rather than God itself. This is so because it preserves the identity of the collector of images.

This is what is or has been described as the eating of the fruit of the Tree of good and evil, the story of Adam and Eve.

God cannot be contained, so God cannot be condensed into an experience or an ism. The essence which is labeled as God can reflect itself in the many forms only as filtered representations of intellectual associative ideas based on individual identification. Ego creates God as image(s).
It seems to be a necessary pathway for the lesser state of consciousness to experience ones "Self" as a collection of experiences to begin to understand "Self" as much more than the castle of sand and its contents of belief.




Lindsay creates these images because he is hungry for more, but his intellect can only combine what he has collected (his history of himself and his experiences) with others that are similar to his own beliefs to attempt to polish and preserve what is HIS.

Finding commonality, in landmark theories, other peoples belief systems and ones own belief system is the intellects attempt to escape age, mortality and its restrictions.
Knowledge is not enough, for every answer there arises a question. To believe in mysteries and to continue to entertain the intellect only temporarily satisfies the ego, but does not fill the heart with anything permanent. That which is born of impermanence eventually dies, all experiences created from changing ideas fade into memory and when the body dies the memories stop reflecting the images projected from filters of perception.
God did not arise from belief, but beliefs continue to create images of that which is not an image.

I think this topic was not started because of the Knowledge of the String Theory but because Lindsay is reaching out to find commonality in his G�D, with what he used to call G'D, and before that God, and with the other changing images and perceptions as they fade from his grasp.
Because God changes in the imaginings of his own mind he must necessarily seek to find himself in others and their thoughts to fill the time, before time runs out.

CB asks: CB, Your questions will only be meaningful to traditional theists and deists. Perhaps they are also useful for atheists who love to taunt theists and deists.

As a unitheist/epitheist, they have no meaning for me. For me, G�D is wrapped up in the process of all that is, and so are we all. Can anyone avoid the process of being by act of will?
BTW, I note that you did not put your basic philosophy/theology in your profile, yet. How come?

ABOUT PROCESS PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY, check out:
http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/v...php?p=1538#1538

Excellent post. You provide some insightful psychological analysis on god(s) or at least mankinds ego interpretation or projection of god. I think people believe in god for the same reason people believe in conspiracy theories. They want to feel like their are apart of something that's greater than them or out of their hands. It enables individuals to make excuses when something goes right and give thanks when something goes wrong, even when those excuses or praises go unheard or unanswered.

Though more people believe in God than conspiracy theories because it's considered socially acceptable.

Fifty years ago we thought that the more complex an organism the more DNA it would have. Now we know that there is no direct relationship between the amount of DNA and the complexity of an organism. By complexity I mean that a worm might be considered less complex than to an elephant.

Stop calling this jargon. The terms are well founded and widely used scientific terms that crop up in early secondary school nowadays.

The term "eukaryote" relates to one of the two major types of cells that make up living organisms. "Prokaryotic" cells are relatively simple cells that contain no membrane-bound organelles. Examples are the bacteria (such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella enteritidis, Bacillus anthracis). Eukaryotic cells are more complex, having a nucleus in which highly folded DNA is kept, and several different kinds of membrane-bound organelles. Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells have organelles that are not membrane-bound, for example the ribosomes, that are concerned with protein synthesis. Prokaryotic cells tend to be smaller than eukaryotic cells; an order of magnitude difference is good to keep in mind, but there are many exceptions. An E. coli bacterium is about 1 micrometre long. It is generally believed and evidenced that prokaryotic cells preceded the eukaryotic cells in evolutionary terms, and that eukaryotic cells developed from prokaryotic cells by the latter associating together in a process called endosymbiosis.

Organelles are tiny subcellular "machines" that have functions in the cells such as energy production (mitochondria), photosynthesis (chloroplasts), molecular modification and transport (endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, lysosomes).

Our own bodies are made up of eukaryotic cells (although in our gut alone we have more symbiotic bacterial cells than total human cells), that make up tissues, that make up organs. Of the five major Kingdoms of organisms (Animals, Plants, Fungi, Protists, Monera), only the Monera are prokaryotes. Life on Earth is dominated by Monera.


Yes, in the lab we can now grow nuts without there having been a tree, and we can maintain organs separately from the body. There is research that is leading towards the generation of tissues and organs independently of any body, although the cells that make up these were originally derived from a body.

I recommend the web resource below as an introductory guide to biology. It is not very up to date, but is an excellent starting point.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabe...BioBookTOC.html

Thanks for your patience HH, and for taking the time to teach me a bit about biology. Now, as you demonstrate, I know that this is one of your interests. How deep are you into it? Why not list it, in your profile, as one of your interests?

BTW, I presume that, by now, you have figuered out that unitheism/epitheism is a rational approach to theology which respects valid science without making science a god.

For me, there are no gods, or God, in the attic, or demons in the basement. G�D is part of all processes. If science every proves that it is infallible, I will be right there praising it as G�D.

At this point, I suspect that true, moral, ethical and loving scientists like Faraday, Planck, Einstein and host of others, see themselves as servants of G�D, and humanity, not as gods. Or, have I got that wrong?

You're welcome. It's my job.

They all had their faults, but what's new?

Unfortunately men make gods of men, and some mengods take advantage of this.

I think that we are very close. I just don't need G�D.

Right on, Dinah. In John 10, Jesus made the claim that he was one with God. In John 10:34, he makes the point that we are all one with God. When, in John 17: 20 and following, he says: "That all may be one...", he makes the same point, very clearly.

BTW, HH, I forgot to mention Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, James Jeans, Jung, even Darwin, Edison, Brian Greene, Whithead, and there are others. It is possible to go beyond scientific materialism without losing ones brains.

I didn't know it was a requiremet here at BM, Lyndsay. I've already stated my lay man's philosophy before and you've read it and posted something in return. Didn't mean to offend you with my question, anyway. But I admit that it could have been construed as burlesque. I just find it very hard not mock at someone, anyone who bases their whole philosophy about the human experience on bonafide ancient astrology. Please forgive me. I just can't understand this weird passion that over-takes someone so, otherwise, seemingly rational, wise and knowledgeable.

CB, believe it or not, I am not infallible.

At my age, which is 76, I have met so many wonderful people that I do not find it easy to keep specifics about them in the front of my mind. This is why I need to be reminded:

I am interested in knowing: Am I talking to the loveable so and so, who happens to be an atheist? Or, am I talking to the not-so-lovable-so-and-so who happens to be a so-called loving Christian?

Knowing which is which will help me frame the kind of response I would like to make.

BTW, at this point, I will assume that you are a loveable so-and-so. Okay?

I say, let us explore what science and faith have in common. Check out:
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/scifaith.html

BTW, in my opinion, science and faith are compatible.

So much for being objective and giving unconditionally. If you prepare yourself according to your previous impressions it would really be difficult to meet anyone where they are at in the moment. You would be meeting everyone where you are at, taking all your preconceived ideas and prjudices with you.
In 76 years you have developed a sense of judgment rather than intuition.

Is this YOUR judgment? Yes, or no?

BTW, I make no pretense of being totally objective. I am not perfect, yet.

Just call me master of the obvious...You did ask me once to Teach you something new, but then you resist everything that is obvious and not what you want to see. It would make sense, to be cognitive of what you ignore, is to learn something new.

They are both products of the brain. It could be possible that they only exist because consciousness exists. And the human brain is a binary contraption. So, yes, I agree with that.

Call me what you want. Just not gullible and ignorant, A.K.A. Christian, Muslim, Jewish (the faith, not the people), or delusional. I'm also loveable as a Chihuahua puppy, but only to the meek and non-pretentious. I keep it simple and I'll say this one more time, quoting Rick here: If and when in doubt " I use Reason, and Love to guide it".
And here is my answer to your question, taken from another threat:

CB are these your words? If so, I quite agree.

I see nothing but congruency here. I have a short way of symbolizing this: G�D. You say that you do not need G�D. Please yourself, but as for me if, as Dianah writes "God is all that is", then I need God/G�D in the same way that I need existence. Without existence, G�D, there would be no me, or you, What a loss that would be!!!!!

Need is relative to feeling separate. Once you realize God within need is not an issue. There is no needing to be something when you are, only when you aren't.

There is no loss when illusions of loss and gain don't exist. You really can go beyond manipulation of feelings and running from fear when you know God, rather than projecting your best guess from foundations that are built on shaky (subjective) ground.
It would appear that what you perceive as congruent is in ignoring Truth in experience of objectivity and accepting truth based on a the manipulation of changing subjective experiences.

24. Mariam said to Jesus: "Whom do your disciples resemble?" He said to her: "They resemble small children who are dwelling in a field which is not theirs. When the Lords of the field come and say, "Give our field back to us." They will strip naked before them to give it back to them, and give their field to them."- from the gospel of Thomas

No, they are not. I'm quoting Rick Wagner's visionary statement from an old post he put up somewhere in 2004. I decided to use it as an my signature because I find it to be a true statement in it's purest forms. It talks to me more directly than a life-time's worth of knowledge ever could. And it brought comfort to my heart when I read it for the first time, because immediately it confirmed in my mind what I already suspected: That maybe there is a chance that this insicnificant little nothing that is me has somehow found a way to be something of much more relevance than anyone could have ever concieved. something of a miracle, in your adaptive vocabulary. And I'm speaking in plural when I say 'me', of course.

How can there be a loss when there was no way to know what a loss was if God never existed? We are here and now. That's all that matters!!! If we were not here and now, how can you weigh that as a loss when there woudn'd be anything to weigh the concept against? Does a rock know that it's missing out on so much fun if it were the Queen of England, for example? A loss is only a loss if it's pegged againts a gain. So, what a gain this is, then? Had I given the choice, I would not rather be here. And chosen not to ever exist. That way I wouldn't feel so much responsability over my shoulders about what is it exactly that awaits for us out there in the future. But now I have the power to chose, bacause I got no alternative. So, I'll do my best to chose wisely.

CBDo I take it from what you write here that you regret that you are a conscious being; that you resent being responsible for things and that you fear the future?

Clarify this for me, if I misunderstand what you wrote.

Speaking only for me:
I have the feeling that I, perhaps unconsciously, chose to be a conscious being. Though, as a child, I faced almost third-world conditions of poverty, somehow I knew that I was in control and that I could make things better than they were, at least for me. I couldn't wait to get an education and do something about what was going on around me. I used my power to make conscious choices and thus help make things happen for the better. Being raised to believe in a higher power, I began, consciously, working with that over-all power I now call G�D.

As it happened, despite the occasional bump or two, life developed pretty much according to my choices. Life has been, and still is, a happy adventure.

Currently, having proved things to my own satisfaction, following the principles of pneumatolgy--that is, the study of the spirit of humanity and G�D--I am working on ways to demonstrate how, for better or worse, we are ALL, with or without G�D, collectively creating the future--the eternal NOW.
I find that it is much it is much easier with G�D than without.

I am ecstatic in awe at the chance of being here and now. I am the happiest man alive for this reason. And I cannot believe my luck. I don't know what I did to deserve this, but I don't dwell too much on it, because I realize that it is also a huge responsability, because I realize the times which I live in: A critical time in history where the fate of humanity lies in the balance here and now, Lindsay. So, to answer your question: I may have mislead you with my wording on the previous post.

CB, you said nothing about whether or not you resent having to take personal responsibility for things, or about your fear of the future. Does this still hold true?

I resent nothing/no one. The future is a concept. I only fear that which I/we cannot control. Therefore I find it of utmost importance that we reach the level of understanding that may allow us to control reality. So, I fear time. Not the future.

When someone doesn't meet your expectations do you still experience God in them? If you experience God in everything then why would you have any expectations of God to be or act as you would choose to act?
Does your G�D make mistakes or act inapropriately?

CB, so now you tell me: "So, I fear time. Not the future." This prompts me to ask: How sure are you of your own opinions?

BTW, I make no claim that I can control past, present or future--that is, time. However, I feel fairly confident that I have a working relationship with All that IS, G�D. BTW, I do not have a god/God. G�D has me.

I'm sorry to intrude, but I'd like to ask what the point of evangelising as a panentheist is? You do it all too often. One might say you are a rather flat character. I am very interested in the homeostasis of all things; the network of all matter, and I could say with confidence that several others on this site are as well. It is true that your opinion is quite unique and well-established, but in all due respect, the repetition of your beliefs seems a little excessive.

Lindsay, you try so hard to explore every and any portal through which you might tempt people to join your philosophy, but in the end you still have to answer openly and honestly to YOUR established congregation whether you believe in God (God, not G�D here), whether you worship God, whether you believe that there is a heaven that you hope to expire to (a long way off, I hope) and whether you believe that Jesus rose from the dead (I already know you believe there was a Jesus from other posts you have made). And the list of whethers is actually very long, but you might respond to the ones above for now. It is no good attempting to divert or confuse through semantics, as there will always be someone sharp enough to understand what you are doing. Then your methods are devalued. If you believe in God and would like to convert others, then state this and give it your best shot.

Your background suggests that you have the same fundamental beliefs as millions of believers, particularly Christians. I cannot believe that you would now turn your back on these and say they are wrong or misguided.

Please clarify.

No need to apologize, Ignorance..., intrude all you want. I enjoy it when people add their comments and ask critical and analytical questions. It is only when I post threads and comments which get zero responses (comments/clicks) that I feel bad.

Now to your rhetorical, and not quite clear, question: "...I'd like to ask what the point of evangelising as a panentheist is?"

Are you saying that telling good news--which is what "evangelism" means--is a bad thing to do?

You write: "One might say you are a rather flat character."

I have been called many things during my career, but this is the first time I have ever been called a "flat character". Please define. If I found this thread "flat" I would not bother reading it. Keep in mind that this whole section is about theology, not pharmacology.

BTW, you have probably heard the old one about the difference between "ignorance" and "stupidity".

Ignorance is curable.

I and my Father are not One. Yet....
This is not humility Lindsay, it's ignorance. It's duality, and ignoring the True relationship in the following of processes in mental determiination. A best guess, a collection of politically/spiritually correct ideas of the new age. To know of God in relative terms but not knowing God.

It is reflected in what is perceived as an attempt to sway others, but at a deeper level in the need to convince yourself intellectually through the building and compilation of factual information and intelligent resources that do not come from you but are seen by you as relative.
Saying what is true for you and attaching a link to back your belief only degrades the picture you are trying to create that it is coming from you, lived by you and known by you.

Being fairly confident is not the same as knowing. Not being totally objective means you live your life based on beliefs subject to changing perceptions of yourself and your G�D, which exceeds your ability to unite with it in wholeness. Unification of ideas creates a false sense of Truth but is easily shaken by that which is greater than your current experience.
As long as you ego, creates G�D on the outside relative to changing perceptions separate from you, backed up by internet quotes and links created by others, you cannot know God.

Humanity is evolving and won't give in to the Preacher who claims to know God and speak of God when Truths are backed up by scripture, internet links, changing personal beliefs and experiences.
To be annointed by the Holy Breath is to be free of the need to find God in idolatry and wear it as a badge.

Your greatest fear is that your 76 years were wasted and focused on illusions. Your Pride shows in your inability to let it all go and stand present and free from your past.

I grew up in the United Church of Canada, which allowed me, and still allows me, to think, freely. Otherwise, I would not have stayed within it.

Now that I am retired--this is, I am not a pastoral minister--I am even freer, if such is possible.

In what religion were you raised, HH?

I was raised in the Church of England. I was baptized, confirmed and married in Church. I was Head Choirboy, taught at Sunday School and played organ in Church. I have not been involved with any religion for more than 30 years. I have studied and researched science (professionally) and observed religion over this 30 years. I am free. My wife will worship and sing carols in Church at Christmas. She is also free. But freedom is a state of mind. My mind is and has always been in a state ().

What More To Be Free:

/forum/index.php?showtopic=16272

Couldn't have said it better myself (lol really I couldn't, well put!).

Opinion

Good point

Quite

eh?

The absolute.

The inner reality of everything is the one

If Silence was heard as the Self by the Self would one who is still, point?
What does the ONE hear?

I could have just watched The Matrix if I wanted to come to that conclusion

There is a difference between the literary denotation and the common usage and connotation of a word. To "evangelise" is often used meaning the attempt to convert others into believing as the "evangelist" does. This was my meaning and I'm nearly certain you understood it clearly.

I was using "flat" in the literary sense used in characterization. It means to exhibit one characteristic or trait. By this, I simply meant that each post of your's that I have seen has always rounded back to the same philosophy. So, in my experience, you have only exhibited one vein of thought. That, in my personal opinion, seems flat to me. I apologize for the abstract referrence


I've racked my mind, and I cannot come up with a single answer as to why you said this. Please, clarify.


Yeesh. I find this pretty offensive, and highly untrue. Besides the obvious connoted insult, ignorance is not, how you put it, "curable." To you in this present moment, "curing" my ignorance may be your interpretation of my silly little name, but on a much larger scale ignorance is impossible to escape. An old Zen paradox states "The more I know, the less I know." The more knowledge one obtains, the more he realizes that he knows exceedingly little about the world around him, and truly about all things. Unless, of course, one has religion and has figured everything out through faith and preference.

Do I do so only to convince others to adopt my philosophy and theology? Let me put my goal this way: I write, mainly, to clarify my own thinking and to communicate what I think to others.

I love writing and communicating with others so much that I do not consider it hard work. I am also interested in inspiring people to be moral, ethical and loving human beings. And I readily admit that it is for very selfish reasons that I do so. Selfish? Yes. The more such people I have around me, the better my life will be.

BTW, have I made it clear to all of you that I do not believe in "a" god, a person-like God or "a" G�D?

I use "G�D" as a symbol for the totality of being--physically, mentally and spiritually--whatever that is, known and unknown and in which things exist. In my opinion, G�D is not a male or female personal being. Atheists may chose to have nothing to do with this "totality of being" but I cannot see how they can deny it. Neither ought they deny me the right to define what I believe to be true, at this point. If ever science proves that this universe is the result of a cosmic accident, I also reserve the right to change my mind . Fixed-position thinking is not my style.
============================================================
BTW, I am not the only one who thinks this way as the following will show:
Soma, posted the following in http://www.ctr4process.org/relationality/v...php?p=1538#1538
I will never tell Soma that he must use the symbol that I use for the Divine Presence.

I wrote back:Thanks Soma. I tell the following story--and there are dozens like it that I could tell--to illustrate the point you make:

One Friday evening, while serving as a minister, as I was getting ready to take my family out for dinner, the phone rang. When I answered I heard the voice of a teenaged girl, who gave me her name, which I recognized:

"Rev. King, I am calling from a pay phone. I hate to bother you at home, but something terrible has happened to our family. When I got home from school my parents were out on the street and loading our few belongings into the old truck we own. We got evicted. I realize that you may not be able to help us, but I thought I would call, anyway."

Besides the teenager and her parents there was a two-year old boy.

"Jinny, I said, I know that you and your mother--by the way, she was a very shy person with very little to say--and your baby brother come to church regularly. I also know that you have come to my classes on pneumatology about how we can work with the power of God, which is in through and around us, to get things done and moving in our lives.

Before I say anything else, will you agree, in harmony with me and my family, to tune in, that is, to connect with, the Holy Spirit (Pneuma) of God and make the positive affirmation that we will be guided as to the best way to handle this problem."

Her immediate response was, "Yes!"

Now, put your mother on the line. I asked the mother to do the same thing that I asked her daughter to do. Like her daughter she, immediately, agreed.

Then I asked: "Is your husband near?"

"Yes" she said, "He's across the road loading the truck. But he is not interested in God, or the church. He is kind of bitter about such things."

When she told me that he was within shouting distance I said, "Tell him I would really like to speak to him, just for a minute or two and for the sake of his children. Tell him that I promise not to preach at him."

When he came to the phone I told him about what his wife, his daughter, and the Kings, agreed to do. Then I asked him if he would join in.

His immediate response was: "I would feel like a fool if I prayed to a God...not believing in his existence."

"I understand" I said. "But I am not asking you to belive in a god, out there, or up there, who hears and answers prayers as if he were a Santa Claus.

Instead, I want you to imagine, or even pretend, that I have access to a super computer which is programmed to answer any rational question you and I are prepared to ask, and with a rational answer. Would you be willing to make use of such a computer?"

"If it were true, I would be a fool to refuse. Okay I will play your pretend game."

Then I said, "When you have finished loading your stuff. Drive over to the church and I will meet you, there, in about fifty minutes, or so. There, we have a good kitchen. Bring any food you have. There is also a room, there, which you can use for the week-end, at least.

This will give us time to figure out the next move. I will speak to the social city services people, on Monday. Meanwhile, with the rest of the family, and my family, visualize that we will get the help we need. I will leave from here in about thirty minutes.

Just as I was about to leave to drive over to the church the phone rang. It was the unemployed trucker.

"Mr. King. I am glad I caught you before you left. About fifteen minutes after we spoke, just as I was putting the last few items on my truck, I remembered the name and number of a friend I haven't seen since he moved out of the city two years ago. He lives on his small farm--he was also was into trucking. He lives about ninety minutes drive out of the city. Years ago, we were good buddies and I did him favours, more than once. I phoned him and told him my problem.

"His immediate response was: Come on out. I have space for you and your family. As a matter of fact I was wondering where you were. I am now in the position where I need a good reliable person. Do you still have you truckers' license."

Even I was amazed at how quickly things came together. And this is not just an isolated incident.
"In all things, God works together for good..." as Paul put.
========================0000000000000=======================

Lookin' for love in all the wrong places....

You are? Well, I am sorry to hear that. But don't worry, J! Love is a very renewable resource, and there is plenty for all of us, here--at one of the many right places.

Sarcasm. This is good, a crack begins to form in the protective facade.

I have no opinions. Only conjectures and approximations. I just thrive to ask the right questions.