What is Man...?
This is a question that has occupied the minds of men and women in all ages, in all areas of our planet. What are we? What are we here for? The answers to these questions may not be as elusive as we have been led to believe.
First, Let us consider the obvious:
1) The body of man is part of the Universe in which it exists.
2) The Spirit of man is different from the body of man.
3) The Spirit (or Intelligence) of man controls the body of man.
4) Therefore, the Spirit of man (the "I") is controlling some portion of the Universe in which it operates.
5) Thus, The Intelligence of Man is akin to the Intelligence which governs the Universe as a whole.
6) And, If the Intelligence which governs the Universe is "God", then the Intelligence of Man is also "God" - the latter being a temporal manifestation of the former.
...But, for what purpose?
A close examination of the behaviour of man yields a very simple fact, albeit startling some; and that is the fact that the single goal of Man (and Woman) is...SURVIVAL -- the preservation, improvement, reproduction and continuation of Self. This is the purpose that the Body of Man serves...to allow the Spirit of Man to experience, study, interact with, and manipulate his environment for His own Survival, or well-being.
Incidentally, Man's ability to Survive depends to a large degree upon his ability to properly perceive and interpret his experiences. In other words, Man must be able to see things as they are, and respond to them according to the demands of his impulse to Survive, or the demands of His Nature.
While this may seem simple enough to understand, the Survival ability of man is affected by both his understanding and his environment (among other factors). The more people that exist in his environment, the more complex the struggle for Survival becomes, as one must not hinder or endanger the survival of another, in pursuit of one's own survival, if the Collective of Beings is to Survive optimally. So, the more Beings that are added to the scenario, the more careful and considerate Man must be in the pursuit of the fulfillment of his Natural Needs, and the greater his level of Understanding about the Dynamics at work around him must be. In short, "Knowledge is the Key".
So, then, What is Man...and What is His Purpose?
Man is the embodiment of the Essence and Nature of God, and His Purpose is to Improve Himself -- as an individual and as a species -- so that He may improve His Environment, which includes the Universe in which He lives; so that He may continue to Grow and Evolve toward the Full Manifestation and Glory of God.
Why, then, is the present condition of Man so far beneath His potential? The Bible teaches that "all have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God." What is at the root of this "sin"? And, can something be done about it?
Feel free to read the other articles in this forum.
Thank you.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
The Hijacking of "Psyche-ology" (Updated)
psyche:
[1647, "animating spirit," from L. psyche, from Gk. psykhe "the soul, mind, spirit, breath, life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body" (personified as Psykhe, the lover of Eros), akin to psykhein "to blow, cool," from PIE base *bhes- "to blow" (cf. Skt. bhas-). The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-infl. theological writing of St. Paul. In Eng., psychological sense is from 1910.]
-logy:
["a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science," from Gk. -logia (often via Fr. -logie or M.L. -logia), from root of legein "to speak;" thus, "the character or department of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject);" see lecture.]
psychology:
[1653, "study of the soul," probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon as Mod.L. psychologia, from Gk. psykhe- "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of." Meaning "study of the mind" first recorded 1748, from G. Wolff's Psychologia]
It is interesting to note that the original meaning of the word "psychology" was given to be "the study of the spirit or soul". Then, in or around 1748, it's meaning was "modified" to mean "the study of the mind". In 1879, the first "psychological" laboratory was established under Wilhelm Wundt, in Leipzig, Germany. Then, again, in or around 1895, the meaning of the word was again modified to mean "the study of behavior".
Just HOW, and more importantly, WHY, did the meaning of the word "Psychology" (and thus, the Field) transform in meaning from "the study of the soul/spirit" to "the study of behavior"? And, is it a coincidence that this change in meaning was shortly preceeded by the emergence of Darwinism?
It is quite apparent that there has been some corruption in the development of the field of psychology, to the extent that many have come to condemn "modern" psychology as a "pseudo-science". The reason being that, in order to be duly classified as a "science", certain criteria must be met, not the least of which is the fact that there must be a Universal and Fixed standard of "behavior" by which the actions of human beings can be effectively evaluated as "proper" or "aberrated". Psychologists, psychiatrists and their critics, alike, all agree that no such standard exists in modern "psychology". The closest thing to such a standard is regarded to be whatever are the cultural and/or social "norms" of the time, and these "norms" are far too fluctuating to be accepted as a "control" or "standard" on which to base a "science" that seeks to evaluate the basic nature of Man.
Since we all share the same basic nature, regardless of time or place, then there must be a common principle or nature which can be used as a standard by which Man's behavior can be evaluated. But where to look for this Universal Standard?
It is interesting that, prior to the establishment of psychology as a field, "...psychological questions were in the domains of philosophy, medicine and theology."
(Please Click Here for More Info)
Of these three fields of study, only "theology" makes significance reference to the concept of "eternal life" and an "eternal God", and an "eternal Law" by which existence is governed. Could it be the existence and/or Nature of God that contains this "universal, fixed standard" that the field of psychology (and "psychiatry") is missing?
If "psychology" originally meant the "study of the soul/spirit", then psychology, in its truest sense must be intimately connected with Theology - "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe"; for how can we study the nature of the soul/spirit and neglect the Source of the soul/spirit?
Why was "God" taken out of the picture???
Additionally, when I consider the Nature of the "I", or the "animating principle" (spirit) which is the admitted subject of "psyche-ology", and then reflect on how intimately the the Pharmaceutical Industry is involved with the field of Psychology; I can't help but think that the field has been "hijacked" by people who want to control and manipulate people's lives for their own selfish gain.
What need does the "Spirit" have for Drugs? The Drugs may inhibit certain activities of the BRAIN -- thus making a patient more docile and more manageable -- but the Brain is not the "I"; and in most cases, it appears that absolutely NOTHING is wrong with the Brain. The problem appears to be with the inability of the "I" to properly interpret certain experiences or data. This can cause "bio-chemical imbalances" in the brain, but the solution is not to introduce "drugs" into the body to affect Brain activity.
The solution would be to Help the "I" to gain clarity or certainty about those experiences which are not being properly interpreted.
Ahhh...but that doesn't yield as quick a PROFIT as simply diagnosing, prescribing, and scheduling for a subsequent visit.
It seems a shame that the Reality of Psyche-ology has been replaced with something more like "torture" of the soul than "study" of the soul, and that so few people are even aware enough to notice...even though we are all affected by it in some way.
Just something to ponder...
RM
[1647, "animating spirit," from L. psyche, from Gk. psykhe "the soul, mind, spirit, breath, life, the invisible animating principle or entity which occupies and directs the physical body" (personified as Psykhe, the lover of Eros), akin to psykhein "to blow, cool," from PIE base *bhes- "to blow" (cf. Skt. bhas-). The word had extensive sense development in Platonic philosophy and Jewish-infl. theological writing of St. Paul. In Eng., psychological sense is from 1910.]
-logy:
["a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science," from Gk. -logia (often via Fr. -logie or M.L. -logia), from root of legein "to speak;" thus, "the character or department of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject);" see lecture.]
psychology:
[1653, "study of the soul," probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon as Mod.L. psychologia, from Gk. psykhe- "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of." Meaning "study of the mind" first recorded 1748, from G. Wolff's Psychologia]
It is interesting to note that the original meaning of the word "psychology" was given to be "the study of the spirit or soul". Then, in or around 1748, it's meaning was "modified" to mean "the study of the mind". In 1879, the first "psychological" laboratory was established under Wilhelm Wundt, in Leipzig, Germany. Then, again, in or around 1895, the meaning of the word was again modified to mean "the study of behavior".
Prior to Wundt, "...the field of psychology did not exist; psychological questions were in the domains of philosophy, medicine and theology."
(Lester A. Lefton, University of South Carolina; "Psychology - Fifth Edition", p.7)
Just HOW, and more importantly, WHY, did the meaning of the word "Psychology" (and thus, the Field) transform in meaning from "the study of the soul/spirit" to "the study of behavior"? And, is it a coincidence that this change in meaning was shortly preceeded by the emergence of Darwinism?
It is quite apparent that there has been some corruption in the development of the field of psychology, to the extent that many have come to condemn "modern" psychology as a "pseudo-science". The reason being that, in order to be duly classified as a "science", certain criteria must be met, not the least of which is the fact that there must be a Universal and Fixed standard of "behavior" by which the actions of human beings can be effectively evaluated as "proper" or "aberrated". Psychologists, psychiatrists and their critics, alike, all agree that no such standard exists in modern "psychology". The closest thing to such a standard is regarded to be whatever are the cultural and/or social "norms" of the time, and these "norms" are far too fluctuating to be accepted as a "control" or "standard" on which to base a "science" that seeks to evaluate the basic nature of Man.
Since we all share the same basic nature, regardless of time or place, then there must be a common principle or nature which can be used as a standard by which Man's behavior can be evaluated. But where to look for this Universal Standard?
It is interesting that, prior to the establishment of psychology as a field, "...psychological questions were in the domains of philosophy, medicine and theology."
(Please Click Here for More Info)
Of these three fields of study, only "theology" makes significance reference to the concept of "eternal life" and an "eternal God", and an "eternal Law" by which existence is governed. Could it be the existence and/or Nature of God that contains this "universal, fixed standard" that the field of psychology (and "psychiatry") is missing?
If "psychology" originally meant the "study of the soul/spirit", then psychology, in its truest sense must be intimately connected with Theology - "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe"; for how can we study the nature of the soul/spirit and neglect the Source of the soul/spirit?
Why was "God" taken out of the picture???
Additionally, when I consider the Nature of the "I", or the "animating principle" (spirit) which is the admitted subject of "psyche-ology", and then reflect on how intimately the the Pharmaceutical Industry is involved with the field of Psychology; I can't help but think that the field has been "hijacked" by people who want to control and manipulate people's lives for their own selfish gain.
What need does the "Spirit" have for Drugs? The Drugs may inhibit certain activities of the BRAIN -- thus making a patient more docile and more manageable -- but the Brain is not the "I"; and in most cases, it appears that absolutely NOTHING is wrong with the Brain. The problem appears to be with the inability of the "I" to properly interpret certain experiences or data. This can cause "bio-chemical imbalances" in the brain, but the solution is not to introduce "drugs" into the body to affect Brain activity.
The solution would be to Help the "I" to gain clarity or certainty about those experiences which are not being properly interpreted.
Ahhh...but that doesn't yield as quick a PROFIT as simply diagnosing, prescribing, and scheduling for a subsequent visit.
It seems a shame that the Reality of Psyche-ology has been replaced with something more like "torture" of the soul than "study" of the soul, and that so few people are even aware enough to notice...even though we are all affected by it in some way.
Just something to ponder...
RM
McCain Quote - What's Wrong with this Picture???
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...the Best Knower.
As I sat in my living room a few days ago, flipping through the channels on my television, I came across what turned out to be John McCain's "acceptance speech" at the RNC...so I decided to give an ear...and an eye.
I must admit, however, my mind wasn't totally on his speech. It was more on the fact that his push toward the RNC was significantly affected by an oncoming hurricane. That struck me as ...well...interesting, to say the least -- that just days after what many would call a triumphant speech by Sen. Barak Obama, that went off "without a hitch", the Republican candidate's plans for a rebuttal, of sorts, were thwarted by forces over which he had no control. The timing, I thought, was no coincidence. Could there be a "Higher Power" involved? Could this "Higher Power" be sending the Republican Party a "Message"? That's up for debate...
However, no sooner than that line of thinking was concluded in my mind, I heard Sen. McCain say something that, if I heard him correctly, I found both amusing...and insulting. I would later find that I had heard exactly what I thought I heard.
Sen. McCain said the following...
"We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics. ...We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans."
Wait...you're kidding me...right?
Just why this portion of his speech, out of all the words that he spoke, stood out in my mind...God only knows; but...it did.
First, when I think of the meaning of the word "descendant", I can't help but wonder WHO this "boy" is "whose descentants arrived on the Mayflower", and how such a boy, having never set foot on American soil, would have any relevance to the conditions that America faces today. How would this "boy" benefit from McCain's plans for "getting back to basics", when he has been dead for hundreds of years???
Second, if Sen. McCain meant - by his use of the term "boy" - a descendant of Africa, such a statement should be considered as nothing short of "illiterate", for we all know that the victims of the trans-Atlantic slave trade did NOT "arrive on the Mayflower". Also, if he meant "son of Africa", why didn't he say "son of Africa"? Why ...just..."boy"? He apparently had no problem identifying the "Latina daughter" by culture. Why not identify the "boy" by culture?
Third, if the Senator was NOT referring to any "son of Africa" (by his use of the term "boy") as having something to contribute and having the opportunity to reach his "God-given" potential, then that leaves me to wonder. Why would McCain mention the proposed contributions and opportunities of "Latinos" and "other than blacks", but fail to mention the Historical Contributions and associated Rights of the Children of Africa who helped BUILD America? Was this just a misstatement? A simple "oversight"? More likely, an over"look".
If this statement is any indication of the level of responsibility, intelligence and/or intentions of the man who made it, then I say, as did Thomas Jefferson: "I tremble for [this] country when I reflect that God is Just, and that His Justice cannot sleep forever."
God Bless America?? Well, I pray that God will Bless the PEOPLE of America to WAKE UP and hold their leaders accountable to the Principles of Freedom, Justice and Equality...for ALL...before God's Justice wakes up!
RM
As I sat in my living room a few days ago, flipping through the channels on my television, I came across what turned out to be John McCain's "acceptance speech" at the RNC...so I decided to give an ear...and an eye.
I must admit, however, my mind wasn't totally on his speech. It was more on the fact that his push toward the RNC was significantly affected by an oncoming hurricane. That struck me as ...well...interesting, to say the least -- that just days after what many would call a triumphant speech by Sen. Barak Obama, that went off "without a hitch", the Republican candidate's plans for a rebuttal, of sorts, were thwarted by forces over which he had no control. The timing, I thought, was no coincidence. Could there be a "Higher Power" involved? Could this "Higher Power" be sending the Republican Party a "Message"? That's up for debate...
However, no sooner than that line of thinking was concluded in my mind, I heard Sen. McCain say something that, if I heard him correctly, I found both amusing...and insulting. I would later find that I had heard exactly what I thought I heard.
Sen. McCain said the following...
"We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics. ...We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendants arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans."
Wait...you're kidding me...right?
Just why this portion of his speech, out of all the words that he spoke, stood out in my mind...God only knows; but...it did.
First, when I think of the meaning of the word "descendant", I can't help but wonder WHO this "boy" is "whose descentants arrived on the Mayflower", and how such a boy, having never set foot on American soil, would have any relevance to the conditions that America faces today. How would this "boy" benefit from McCain's plans for "getting back to basics", when he has been dead for hundreds of years???
Second, if Sen. McCain meant - by his use of the term "boy" - a descendant of Africa, such a statement should be considered as nothing short of "illiterate", for we all know that the victims of the trans-Atlantic slave trade did NOT "arrive on the Mayflower". Also, if he meant "son of Africa", why didn't he say "son of Africa"? Why ...just..."boy"? He apparently had no problem identifying the "Latina daughter" by culture. Why not identify the "boy" by culture?
Third, if the Senator was NOT referring to any "son of Africa" (by his use of the term "boy") as having something to contribute and having the opportunity to reach his "God-given" potential, then that leaves me to wonder. Why would McCain mention the proposed contributions and opportunities of "Latinos" and "other than blacks", but fail to mention the Historical Contributions and associated Rights of the Children of Africa who helped BUILD America? Was this just a misstatement? A simple "oversight"? More likely, an over"look".
If this statement is any indication of the level of responsibility, intelligence and/or intentions of the man who made it, then I say, as did Thomas Jefferson: "I tremble for [this] country when I reflect that God is Just, and that His Justice cannot sleep forever."
God Bless America?? Well, I pray that God will Bless the PEOPLE of America to WAKE UP and hold their leaders accountable to the Principles of Freedom, Justice and Equality...for ALL...before God's Justice wakes up!
RM
Thursday, August 28, 2008
So...You don't "Believe" ANYTHING???
Salaam (Peace) to all...
The following was inspired by discussions with some of our "Conscious" Brothers and Sisters who are of the view that they have no "beliefs", because "belief" necessarily suggests inferiority of one's mental state, owing to the lack of knowledge.
belief
a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing; something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group; conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence; A persuasion of the truth, or an assent of mind to the truth of a declaration, proposition or alleged fact, on the grounds of evidence, distinct from personal knowledge.
Thus a person who "doesn't believe anything", by definition, would be a person who does not hold anything true, or trust any notion or concept, that he or she has not personally experienced.
Such a person, by virtue of his/her "non-belief" would be at a severe disadvantage, being unable to imagine a future, set any goals, subscribe to any moral codes, and would basically be bound to a life of "reactionism" (effect), and would not be inclined to inspiration (cause).
Such a person could never be qualified to teach history, or to lead a revolution...as both require the ability to "accept as true that which he/she has not personally experienced."
A person who "believes nothing" is a person who "achieves nothing".
My opinion....what say you?
RM
The following was inspired by discussions with some of our "Conscious" Brothers and Sisters who are of the view that they have no "beliefs", because "belief" necessarily suggests inferiority of one's mental state, owing to the lack of knowledge.
belief
a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing; something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group; conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence; A persuasion of the truth, or an assent of mind to the truth of a declaration, proposition or alleged fact, on the grounds of evidence, distinct from personal knowledge.
Thus a person who "doesn't believe anything", by definition, would be a person who does not hold anything true, or trust any notion or concept, that he or she has not personally experienced.
Such a person, by virtue of his/her "non-belief" would be at a severe disadvantage, being unable to imagine a future, set any goals, subscribe to any moral codes, and would basically be bound to a life of "reactionism" (effect), and would not be inclined to inspiration (cause).
Such a person could never be qualified to teach history, or to lead a revolution...as both require the ability to "accept as true that which he/she has not personally experienced."
A person who "believes nothing" is a person who "achieves nothing".
My opinion....what say you?
RM
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Hypocrisy of the U.S. Government: Beijing vs. Denver
China rebukes US over human rights comment
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Beijing issued a stern rebuke yesterday to the United States after it expressed disappointment over China's human rights image during the Olympics, saying US citizens broke the law during the event.
The remarks came after China on Sunday deported a group of pro-Tibet activists -- eight them Americans -- detained in Beijing following several protests that coincided with the Olympics.
On Monday White House spokesman Tony Fratto expressed disappointment at China's handling of protests during the Games, saying it had missed an opportunity to improve its global human rights image.
http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15234&Itemid=31
Denver Protestors Arrested, Mased
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008 by Connie T
Chaos ensued in Denver, Colorado on Monday when anti-war protestors outside the Democratic National Convention were doused with pepper spray by police for marching in the streets...
Police in riot gear arrested about 100 people from the streets, claiming they were disrupting traffic near the Denver City and County Building. The only warning they were given before police used force was "3, 2, 1." Rubber pellets and batons were also used by police.
http://www.connietalk.com/police_arrest_denver_protestors_082708.html
I think this speaks for itself...
RM
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Beijing issued a stern rebuke yesterday to the United States after it expressed disappointment over China's human rights image during the Olympics, saying US citizens broke the law during the event.
The remarks came after China on Sunday deported a group of pro-Tibet activists -- eight them Americans -- detained in Beijing following several protests that coincided with the Olympics.
On Monday White House spokesman Tony Fratto expressed disappointment at China's handling of protests during the Games, saying it had missed an opportunity to improve its global human rights image.
http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15234&Itemid=31
Denver Protestors Arrested, Mased
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008 by Connie T
Chaos ensued in Denver, Colorado on Monday when anti-war protestors outside the Democratic National Convention were doused with pepper spray by police for marching in the streets...
Police in riot gear arrested about 100 people from the streets, claiming they were disrupting traffic near the Denver City and County Building. The only warning they were given before police used force was "3, 2, 1." Rubber pellets and batons were also used by police.
http://www.connietalk.com/police_arrest_denver_protestors_082708.html
I think this speaks for itself...
RM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)