Religious Views

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by LeoValMer05, Feb 3, 2018.

  1. LeoValMer05

    LeoValMer05 Registered User

    33
    21
    8
    The core of my religious views are:
    • The belief of a Supreme Architect
    • The acceptance of an objective truth
    My views of a Supreme Architect are mostly based on the Christian perception of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience nature. While my view of omnipresence is self-explinatory, I give a deeper explanation of the other two. The nature of omnipotence is always used in the problem of evil, and a way to also justify some views I do not share. For instance, if the Supreme Architect is omnipotent, then he could have created the world in X-form. And to this, I say yes, that is true; however, for omnipotence to also exist, then the decision of how to make the world must depend on how the Architect chose to do it too. This means that the Architect can limit how to the world if that was the Architect's choice. This limitation can extend even to the intervention that the Architect decide to do in our life regardless of our judgement. This leads us to the omniscience, which is why the Architect does this. It is quite clear that if things are done for us, we will not learn, and will not become self-suficient. Moreover, the omniscience of the Architect extends to a sort of multi-universe future, which means that the Architect knows all the possible futures we will have, where the Architect can then decide if to intervene or not.

    Also, you can notice that I evade using any pronoun (either he or she). This is because I believe that the Supreme Architect's identity is metaself one. This means that the Architect is above any gender and identity know, and putting the Architect in one is just limiting the Architect into a mistaken perception. This is where I branch out from most religious organizations, especially the Abrahamic ones. However, a Christian view I maintained is the Trinitarian view, which is the way I describe the essence of the Architect. The three natures that are in my view are the Creator, the Word, and the Presence, which are quite similar to the Christian view of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The way I substituted these was from word Father to Creator, Son to Word, and Holy Spirit to Presence. These words were not randomly chosen though. I chose them because, for me, they truly describe the Architect. The Creator and Presence are quite self-explainatory, which the word Creator explain Architect was the one responsible for the existence of the Universe, and the word Presence explain the way the Architect presents to everything within that Universe. The Word, however, is the one it seems that I had to explain. By the Word, I means the Laws of the Universe that can either be present naturally and socially not matter what any being within the Universe believes. For instance, in the natural world, gravity is something that exist no matter what anyone says. Anyone can deny it even if it's self-evident, but that doesn't mean that the denier can escape such reality even if her or she tries to.

    The objective truth is part of the Word, but I extend this truth to ethics. It also has a nature that some might dislike, and sometimes they can be perceived as controversial. The reason I put it as a core of my belief system. The reason that is controversial is because I present that this objective truth can't ever be obtained fully, and that every philosophy, religion, and scientific theory has only a glimpse of that truth. In other words, this means that even my religious views will be changeable to the areas that are for now changeable. However, this doesn't meant that it doesn't have its unchangeable views; for instance, the core view of the objective truth. This view also opens the door for more core views in the future. This core view also exists for an attempt that prevents me to go according to my passions, and be more rational of any situation or idea. This means that this view is anti-postmodernist and anti-nihilistic, while it's very humanist and somewhat religious in its nature. This is because, while it isn't fully obtainable, it declares the existence of ethics, or what's right or wrong. This doesn't leave its controversial nature as it also says that this doesn't mean that the morality of one person or of a whole group is the right one. This individual, or group, can have a few right and unchangeable ethical views, or even be the one or ones with the closest objective ethical vies, but they will never reach its entirely. This also applies, and even exists in science, which is why everything in science is a theory. Meanwhile, in science, its laws are in fact those unchangeable points I present in my view. However, the only one that knows, has, and applies the objective truth is the Supreme Architect. In fact, the reason the objective truth exists is because of the Architect as it's the way it can be applied. Meanwhile, the reason the Supreme Architect exists is because of the objective truth as if there is no Architect then there is no way it can be applied.

    My religious views on anything else that is outside these two core views are either indifferent, unknowable to me, or undecided. For instance, if you ask me what happens after we die, my definite response will be that "I do not know, but nor I care. The only life we know that exist is this one, and I will treat it as if it was my afterlife by being a good person while doing the highest goodness that I can achieve." Meanwhile, if you ask me how the Supreme Architect exist, then that would be something that is unknowable and undecided to me. While I have tried to define it, I can't as I have a limited, or even no knowledge of how the Supreme Architect exist. For now this is my religious view, and I hope that most, if not all, considered interesting. You all are welcome to disagree, ask and criticize about it too. Finally, if I offended anyone by any means, then it was not my intention.
     
  2. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    >if the Supreme Architect is omnipotent

    Can the Architect change him/herself?

    Does the Architect grow or unfold, perhaps through the experience of manifesting through a universe?

    If this is so, then can we be true to a past state of the Architect rather than the present state?

    If so, is truth static?
     
  3. LeoValMer05

    LeoValMer05 Registered User

    33
    21
    8
    1) Can the Architect change him/herself?
    If you mean if the Architect can reveal to us through other people, or even become a human or any specie, then yes. If you mean if the Architect can change behavior, also yes.

    2) Does the Architect grow or unfold, perhaps through the experience of manifesting through a universe?
    While the Architect is omniscience, the Architect can change behavior toward us. Like I stated before, the Architect knows every possible future that we have. That means the Architect can intervene if that what the Architect desires. However, I do not know if I am willing to accept if the Architect can grow or unfold via experiences as I think that would contradict his omniscience. In other words, I will answer with a no.

    3) If this is so, then can we be true to a past state of the Architect rather than the present state?
    Basing myself with my previous answer, I see the Architect as a more static state. However, I can be wrong.

    4) If so, is truth static?
    There are two truths, the Subjective and the Objective. The objective truth is static, while the subjective is forever changing. The Architect is the only one who holds the objective truth, while every specie within the creation holds the subjective truth. One can say that the subjective truth are distortions, misinterpretations, or glimpse of the objective truths.
     
  4. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    >I do not know if I am willing to accept if the Architect can grow or unfold via experiences as I think that would contradict his omniscience.

    That seems to me to be a belief position, a matter of faith.

    >I see the Architect as a more static state.

    Poor fellow. Even humans are allowed to become more.

    >The objective truth is static,

    Have you considered the concept of pralaya? https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Indian_Mythology/Legends/Pralaya

    The concept of a pralaya allows the Architect to have some downtime with no universe or humans to be concerned with.

    What might the Architect do in his/her downtime? Reflect, meditate, unfold? If so would the truth change with the Architect?
     
  5. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    >the Architect is omniscience

    Does this mean that our future is fixed?

    No free will?
     
  6. LeoValMer05

    LeoValMer05 Registered User

    33
    21
    8
    1) That seems to me to be a belief position, a matter of faith.
    Every religious belief system is based on faith. I am just someone with a subjective truth, not objective.

    2) Poor fellow. Even humans are allowed to become more.
    Well, humans are far off from the Supreme Architect, while there is nothing above the Architect as the Architect is above all of the existence. In other words, comparing humans with the Supreme Architect is a limited perception of our reality, and not possible.

    3) What might the Architect do in his/her downtime? Reflect, meditate, unfold? If so would the truth change with the Architect?
    There can't be a changeable objective truth as the objective truth consist all. In other words, if the Supreme Architect can change via experience then that is part of the objective truth that I don't know/believe, or some know/believe. The objective truth include that which is known and now known by any being within the creation. The Architect knowns everything that can be done, but that doesn't mean that the experiences can't help the Architect to change how is done, or to whom it can be done, or to when it can be done. Knowing is not equal to understanding, and if that is what makes the Architect unfold, then so be it.

    4) Does this mean that our future is fixed? No free will?
    No, it's not fixed. This will all depend on our experiences and understanding in life. In other words, our future is somewhat fixed depending on our experiences and understanding; however, at the same time is not fixed as our experiences and understanding are forever changeable. It is these two factors that will lead our actions as we are submitted by them. This is, of course, not including the biological and pathological factors that might affect the individual. For instance, if a child is born without the frontal lobe, there this child will be submitted by the four factors I mentioned. This child now lacks the part of the brain which leads to judgement as that what's in the frontal brain. This child has no free will, yet it has the factors I did mention. I call my view experience will, or four-factor-will. Not good names, I know.
     
  7. Pointwithinacircle3

    Pointwithinacircle3 Registered User

    14
    15
    3
    Somehow I know that I shouldn't jump in here, but I never did have good sense. It seems to me "omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience" are merely fancy words for "all being". It seems to me that God is doing fine, it is only mans limited understanding that is causing the problem.
     
    Warrior1256, LeoValMer05 and coachn like this.
  8. LeoValMer05

    LeoValMer05 Registered User

    33
    21
    8
    That is the case I am also trying to present in my religious view as well. We only hold subjective truths that can even be entirely false. No species within the universe hold the objective truth, which is held by the Supreme Architect. This truth is independent of our thoughts, belief, and knowledge. It can also exist without us.
     
  9. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    >"omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience" are merely fancy words for "all being"

    Quite so.

    Is "all being" becoming more than it is? Or is Existence ensouled by a non-learning Intelligence?
     
  10. Pointwithinacircle3

    Pointwithinacircle3 Registered User

    14
    15
    3
    As far as I know everything is always everything, even if it became more it is still everything. I have no clue what that second question even means.
     
  11. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    >what that second question even means

    If the omnipresent Beingness is complete in itself then it has no need to learn - and why would it then bother with being present within this messy Existence/Creation that we experience?

    If the Beingness wishes to learn then Existence has a productive purpose - and perhaps humans have a part to play.
     
  12. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    On a few occasions I have seen the Light of the Great Architect approach the lodge. (The "working tools" can be used to test the identification)

    And the GA appears to me as two-faced. The part that faces this set of universes seems male and the other face is female, facing another set of universes.

    There seems to be a student and ambassador exchange program that we see as avatars and other exalted beings. Some of the wondrous beings of the Renaissance seem to have been part of that program.
     
  13. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    5,536
    2,266
    183
    Agreed!
     
  14. Pointwithinacircle3

    Pointwithinacircle3 Registered User

    14
    15
    3
    Perhaps the answer depends on what the word symbol "learn" means to you. Suppose Johnny Appleseed is walking along a creek munching on an apple an he bites too deeply and comes up with a comes up with a mouthful of apple core. Being Johnny Appleseed he doesn't want to waste the seeds so he makes a hole in the moist fertile ground along the creek and buries them. A while later he finishes his trek to the top of a high, dry, rocky, barren hilltop and finishes his apple. Being Johnny Appleseed he doesn't want to waste the other half of the apple seeds so he buries them also. Lets say that two trees sprout from these buried seeds. Did one tree learn to grow in rich soil which the other learned to grow in barren soil? Or is the growing a common trait of both plants which simply adapted to circumstances? There certainly are differences in the plants, but did learning play a part in those differences?
    But, all that aside, here is where your question really gets interesting. Purpose. Purpose, like all words, has at least two meanings. My proactive purpose in writing this may be to engage your mind. My postactive (I may have just made that word up) purpose is to direct your thoughts down a certain path so that I may observe your response, relate it to my own thoughts, (and hopefully) arrive at newer and more precise thoughts and understanding. If we accomplish this I think we have arrived at productive purpose. On the other hand, if we simply eat the apples, chop down the apple trees, and burn the wood to warm our bones, we still have arrived at a purpose in which humans play a part.
     
  15. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,430
    394
    83
    What if humans are not an apex species but rather part of the ecosystem (food?) for a higher species?

    For example, traditional accounts around the world tell us that humans are here to serve "gods". That of course may just be propaganda from the gods, but it does point to the possibility that humans might be part of a bigger system.
     
  16. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    1,667
    1,563
    133
    Nah! That's just not possible ;)
    toserveman.jpg
     
    LK600, dfreybur and Warrior1256 like this.
  17. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    5,536
    2,266
    183
    Lol! The old Twilight Zone! I actually remember this episode from my childhood!
     
    coachn and LK600 like this.
  18. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,540
    1,903
    133
    That's why vampire stories are popular.
     
    LK600 and Warrior1256 like this.
  19. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    5,536
    2,266
    183
    Lol!
     
    LK600 likes this.
  20. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    444
    436
    83
    His statement sounds like a fairly good Sci fi movie though! I'd watch it .
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.

Share My Freemasonry