Messages

I have decided to use this thread as a place for me to complile some of the info about the Kabbalah that I find from the internet...that way myself and others who are interested in it will have a place to come to read about it.  It will be sort of a starting point for those interested in finding out more about it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from:  http://www.tree-o-life.org/science/qabalah.htm

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Cabala \Cab"a*la\ (k[a^]b"[.a]*l[.a]), n. [LL. See {Cabal}, n.] 1. A kind of occult theosophy or traditional interpretation of the Scriptures among Jewish rabbis and certain medi[ae]val Christians, which treats of the nature of god and the mystery of human existence. It assumes that every letter, word, number, and accent of Scripture contains a hidden sense; and it teaches the methods of interpretation for ascertaining these occult meanings. The cabalists pretend even to foretell events by this means.

2. Secret science in general; mystic art; mystery.
-----------------------------------
What Is Qabalah?
(Follow the title-hyperlink above to find out what Aleister Crowley says it is!)
And Why are There So MANY Different Ways to Spell it?
(go to website to get LINKS (ie. to the skeptic dictionary, etc.)

A Variety of Spellings Implies a Variety of Meanings.
I would surmise that there are so many different ways to spell Qabalah because there are just as many different views as to what Qabalah is all about. But before we discuss or examine any of these different views, let's take a look at what several other sources say about it. Let's begin with a purported source of unbiased definitions, good old Webster's definition of Cabala (. Now, to avoid being branded as biased myself, let's take a look at what the Skeptic's Dictionary says about this Cabala stuff! History tells us that Qabalah can be traced to the earliest spiritual teachings of the Hebrew people. So if it came from the Jewish faith, what do the Catholics have to say about Kabbala in the Catholic Encyclopedia? There are other perspectives and Points Of View (POVs) on Qabalah which we will bring to you in the times ahead, but this will have to suffice for now.

So Who Is "Right" About The Definition of Qabalah?
The beauty of living in a universe dominated and powered by Relativity is that there are no "absolutes" to the concepts we call "right" and "wrong". Right and wrong, just like any other dyad, are simply two ends of a continuous spectrum of CHOICE. Therefore, any application of either the Qabalah and/or the Tree Of Life, is no more than what you make them. There is no "right", just as there is no "wrong." There is only your intent for its use. Whatever you put into it, you get out of it. Whatever you WANT it to be, it CAN be, and, in fact, already is!

Oh, And on the Question of How to Spell It....
This becomes another "neither right nor wrong" judgment call based upon your own relative beliefs and uses for Qabalah. We tend to prefer the "Qabalah" spelling because it preserves the historical Hebrew roots of the word, which comes from the letters QBL, which refer to a tradition, or other compendium of knowledge handed down from generation to generation.

Here are a Few Links on Qabalah & Tree Of Life..
The following links will give you several different views on Qabalah & the Tree Of Life. Some deal with the views and teachings of Judaism, others provide a non-sectarian, mystical feel for the benefits of Qabalah. I have not attempted to categorize the sites, because Qabalah can and does touch on so many categories and sectors of the experience of creation we call LIFE. Since internet URLs come and go on a daily basis, I can't vouch for the currency of any of these links! All I can say is that they were active when I put this page together! Please send me updates to these and any "new finds" that anyone runs across while surfing the net! Please select from the following three categories of links:

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

YOU MAY WISH TO CHECK OUT

WORTHY OF NOTE

CHECK BACK EVERY SO OFTEN AS I UPDATE/ADD LINKS


HIGHLY RECOMMENDED SITES!

The following sites are highly recommended because they contain more than the "usual" simple listing of Qabalistic correspondences for the spheres and paths of the TOL. They also contain historical, terminological, and practical information about Qabalah as a technology that moves life forward:

Kabbalah.com- Quite a large source of information on Kabbalah! I have not been through the entire site yet, but I would highly recommend the Kabbalah-Basic Course offered on this site. It contains 15 modular "classes" which you can read and consider at your own speed. There is so much good information in this courseware, with the most important info helping us all to understand that WE are the controllers of our own destiny...that life is about EXPERIENCE and how we are the CREATORS of our experience.

Meru.Org - Stan Tenen has done years of research on the form of the ancient Hebrew letters. His site introduces his theory that the form of the Hebrew letters are based on the 1-2-3 dimensional "unfolding" of a cosmic hand. His work has significant implications for understanding how the PATHS of the Tree Of Life (the letters of the Hebrew alphabet) are used for Conscious Creation.

PS Avalon- This site is built and maintained by Will Parfitt, a personal and spiritual facilitator who teaches people how to explore and enhance their lives. He uses Qabalah and the Tree Of Life as the basis for his teachings. He is located in London, UK, but also offers a "distance learning" option.

Kabbalah Home Page of Bnei Baruch- There is a wealth of information on this site pertaining to the Hebrew religious and mystical uses of Qabalah. Not only is there a LOT of good foundation information on Qabalah's history, but there also some very soothing music to listen to as you surf!

Colin's Hermetic Kabbalah Page- Mr. Colin Low has become one of the de-facto internet resources for his compilation of a good deal of information on modern Kabbalah. There is an especially good FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on Kabbalah that has been well-used for answering common questions.

The Hermit's Page - Here is a GREAT site on Qabalah that will lead you to many different resources! It has information and links on hermetic, mystical, and Hebraeic Qabalah traditions, beliefs, and studies. You can even link-in to a BBS with ongoing discussions covering all aspects of the study & application of TOL and Qabalah.

Kabalah, Qabalah, Cabala- This site is produced by a hermetic and mystical organization known as the Golden Dawn. While this site is VERY heavy on the occult and mystical uses of Qabalah, it also provides a solid foundation in the Hebrew roots of the study of the Tree Of Life as the architecture of our universe.

The Work Of The Chariot- Here is another site that provides a great deal of information on the mystical and historical aspects of Qabalah. It has recently been updated and given a domain name of its own with lots more information on practical applications of Qabalah. I need to get around to checking it out!

OTHER COOL SITES TO CHECK OUT!

The sites that follow are definitely worth a surf when/if you find the time. Many of these sites have clickable Tree Of Life graphics that let you investigate the attributions for each sphere and path. Some of these are very artistic and beautiful renditions of the TOL, and even some you can buy as large, full-color posters!

Earth Qabalah- A cool page that attempts to blend the spiritual precepts of Judeo-Christian Qabalistic study with the pagan, earth-based ritual and practice. There are some interesting thoughts on these pages, many of which apply to our Tree-O-Life.Org approach to teaching the TOL as both a tool of Science and Spirit.

Kabbalah - A web page of the Baha'i Faith group that provides some mystical and religious history and correlations of Qabalah and the Tree Of Life.

The Interactive Qabalah - This is another site with a clickable Tree Of Life graphic as its means of navigation, similar to Tree-O-Life.Org. While this site is primarily based in the historical and mystical attributions of the TOL, it also provides associated information on the Hebrew alphabet. This site also reflects our own "life as creation" theme in that it collectively refers to the 10 spheres and 22 paths of the TOL as "The 32 Acts of Creation."

Qabalah Reference Guide - Another "clickable Tree Of Life" site. It is not as vast or expansive as others, but it does provide nicely organized lists of associations between the spheres & paths of the TOL to various mystical, magical, and practical topics & concepts. It is more of a "quick reference" resource as you begin to study and assimilate the mystical aspects of TOL technology.

Jeff Hengst: Kabalah- A more stylized version in the "clickable Tree Of Life" theme. It contains only a limited number of attributions to the different spheres of the Tree, and unlike other sites, does not (yet) address the attributions of the TOL interconnecting pathways. Still, the artwork for each sphere is very nice indeed! Great job, Jeff!

Fractal Tree Of Life- This is a link to a page with a sample of a colorful Tree Of Life poster which you can purchase. This work is a nice visual reference that can be used when you wish to focus your energy of creation on a certain portion of the Tree. There is another work by the same artist that has an astrological theme, and it can be found here.

Qabalah Map- Here is another clickable Tree Of Life web site. Personally, I like this one the best because it shows the Hebrew letters on each path, and keeps the images & colors of the sephira simple. This site primarily gives the mystical correspondences of the spheres and paths, as with other sites.

SITES AT LEAST WORTHY OF NOTE.

The following sites are either short in their content, or they discuss one aspect of Qabalah and then provide a lot more Qabalah internet links. By no means do I consider these sites unimportant! They are simply not as expansive as those listed above.

Qartoon Qabalah- This is a very short, but amusing site! Rather than reciting the same, old mystical correspondences of the spheres on the TOL, this site shows the correspondences between the TOL and 4 different 20th century cartoon genres. It will definitely get the student of Qabalah thinking about how cartoons can teach us something at many different levels!

The Sephiroth - This site has a short commentary on FORCE and FORM that aligns with our TOL focus on CREATION. Other than that, this page is really just a set of links to other Internet resources (text and graphic) on Qabalah and Tree Of Life.

George's Qabalah Tree- Another clickable Tree Of Life site with correspondences! This one is neat because it aligns each sephira with things like the 10 commandments, I-Ching, and Tarot, among other collections of information. It is worth a browse, I'd have to say.

------------------------------
Kabbala

The term is now used as a technical name for the system of esoteric theosophy which for many generations played an important part, chiefly among the Jews, after the beginning of the tenth century of our era. It primarily signifies reception, and, secondarily, a doctrine received by oral tradition. Its application has greatly varied in the course of time, and it is only since the eleventh or twelfth century that the term Kabbala has become the exclusive appellation for the system of Jewish religious philosophy which claims to have been uninterruptedly trasmitted by the mouths of the patriarchs, prophets, elders, etc., ever since the creation of the first man.

The two works which the advocates of this system treat as the authoritative exposition of its doctrines are the Book of Creation and the Zohar.

THE BOOK OF CREATION

The Book of Creation is a short treatise consisting of six chapters subdivided into thirty-three very brief sections. It is written in Mishnic Hebrew, and is made up of oracular sentences. It professes to be a monologue of the patriarch Abraham, who enumerates the thirty-two ways of wisdom by which God produced the universe, and who shows, by the analogy which is assumed to exist between the visible things and the letters which are the signs of thought, the manner in which all has emanated from God and is inferior to Him.

THE ZOHAR

The Zohar, or second expository work of the Kabbala, has justly been called the "Bible" of the Kabbalists. It is written in Aramaic, and its main portion is the form of a commentary on the Pentateuch according to the latter's division into fifty-two weekly lessons. Its title Zohar (light, splendour) is derived from the words of Genesis 1:3 ("Let there be light") with the exposition of which it begins. It is a compilatory work, wherein several fragments of ancient treatises can still be noticed. The following is a brief account of the chief contents -- doctrinal, hermeneutical, and theurgical -- of the Zohar.

Doctrinal content of the Zohar

The First World

Considered in Himself, the Supreme Being is the En-Soph (Endless, Infinite) and, in a certain sense, the En (Non-existent) since existence is in human conception a limitation which as such should not be predicted of Him. We can conceive and speak of God only in so far as He manifests and, as it were, actualizes Himself in or through the Sephiroth.

   * His first manifestation was by way of concentration in a point called the first Sephira -- "the Crown", as it is called -- which is hardly distinguishable from the En-Soph from Whom it emanates, and which is expressed in the Bible by the Ehieyeh (I am). From the first Sephira proceeded a masculine or active potency called wisdom, represented in the Bible by Yah, and an opposite, i.e. a feminine or passive potency, called intelligence, and represented by Yahweh. These two opposite potencies are coupled together by the "Crown", and thus yields the first trinity of the Sephiroth.
   * From the junction of the foregoing opposite tendencies emanated the masculine potency called love, the the fourth Sephira, represented by the Biblical El, and the feminine one justice, the fifth Sephira, represented by the Divine name Elohah. From them again emanated in the Bible by Elohim. And thus is constituted the second trinity of the Sephiroth.
   * In its turn, beauty beamed forth the seventh Sephira, the masculine potency, firmness, corresponding to Yahweh Sabaoth, and this again produced the feminine potency splendour, represented by Elohe Sabaoth. From splendour emanated the ninth Sephira, foundation, which answers the Divine name El-Hai and closes the third trinity of the Sephiroth.
* Lastly, splendour sends forth kingdom, the tenth Sephira, which encircles all the others and is represented by Adonai.

These ten Sephiroth are emanations from the En-Soph, forming among themselves and with Him a strict unity, in the same way as the rays which proceed from the light are simply manifestations of one and the same light. They are infinite and perfect when the En-Soph imparts His fullness to them, and finite and imperfect when that fullness is withdrawn from them (Ginsburg). In their totality, they represent and are called the archetypal man, without whom the production of permanent worlds was impossible. In fact, they constitute the first world, or world of emanations, which is perfect and immutable because of its direct procession from the Deity.

The Second, Third and Fourth Worlds

Emanating immediately from this first world is the world of creation, the ten Sephiroth of which are of a more limited potency, and the substances of which are of the purest nature. From the world of creation proceeds the world of formation, with its less refined ten Sephiroth, although its substances are still without matter. Finally, from this third world proceeds the world of action or of matter, the ten Sephiroth of which are made of the grosser elements of the other works.

The Angels

Of these worlds, the second, that of creation, is inhabited by the angel Metatron, who governs the visible world, and is the captain of the hosts of good angels who in ten ranks people the third world, that of formation. The demons or bad angels inhabit the fourth world, that of action, the lowest regions of which constitute the seven infernal halls wherein the demons torture the poor mortals whom they betrayed into sin in this life. The prince of the demons is Samael (the "angel of poison or of death"); he has a wife called the Harlot; but both are treated as one person, and are called "the Beast".

Man

Man was directly created not by En-Soph, but by the Sephiroth, and is the counterpart of the archetypal man. His body is merely a garment of his soul. Like God, he has a unity and a trinity, the latter being made up of the spirit representing the intellectual world, the soul representing the sensuous world, and the life representing the material world. Souls are pre-existent destined to dwell in human bodies, and subjected to transmigration till at last they return to God.

Destiny of the World

The world also including Samael himself, will return ultimately--viz. at the advent of the Messias born at the end of days--to the bosom of the Infinite Source. Then Hell shall disappear and endless bliss begin.

Hermeneutical content of the Zohar

All these esoteric doctrines of the Kabbala are supposed to be contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, in which, however they can be perceived only by those initiated into certain hermeneutical methods. The following are the three principal methods of discovering the heavenly mysteries hidden under the letters and words of the Sacred Text:

   * The Temurah (change) by means of which each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is interchanged with another, according to some definite process, as when Aleph, the first letter, becomes Lamed by interchange with the twelfth, the second, Beth, becomes, Mem, the thirteenth, etc.; or as, when the last letter takes place of the first, the last but one takes the place of the second, etc.;
   * the Gematriah (Gr. gemetria), which consists in the use of the numerical values of the letters of a word for purposes comparison with other words, which give the same or similar combinations of numbers: thus in Genesis 49:10, "Shiloh come" is equivalent to 358, which is also the numerical value of Mashiah, whence it is inferred that Shiloh is identical with Messias;
* the Notarikon (Lat. notarius), or process of reconstructing a word by using the initials of many, or a sentence by using all the letters of a single word as so many initials of other words; for instance, the word Agla is formed from the initials of the Hebrew sentence: "Thou (art) (a) Mighty (God) forever."

Theurgical content of the Zohar

The theurgical, or last chief element of the Zohar, needs no long description here. It forms part of what has been called the "practical" Kabbala, and supplies formulas by means of which the adept can enter into direct communication with invisible powers and thereby exercise authority over demons, nature, diseases, etc. To a large extent it is the natural outcome of the extraordinary hidden meaning ascribed by the Kabbala to the words of the Sacred Text, and in particular to the Divine names.

CONCLUSION

Of course, the Book of Creation does not go back to Abraham, as has been claimed by many Kabbalists. Its ascription by others to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 120) is also a matter of controversy. With regard to the Zohar, its compilation is justly referred to a Spanish Jew, Moses of Leon (d. 1305), while some of its elements seem to be of a much greater antiquity. Several of its doctrines recall to mind those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages. Its speculations concerning God's nature and relation to the universe differ materially from the teachings of Revelation.

Finally, it has decidedly no right to be considered as an excellent means to induce the Jews to receive Christianity, although this has been maintained by such Christian scholars as R. Lully, Pico della Mirandola, Reuchlin, Knorr von Rosenroth, etc., and although such prominent Jewish Kabbalists as Riccio, Conrad, Otto, Rittangel, Jacob Franck, etc., have embraced the Christian Faith, and proclaimed in their works the great affinity of some doctrines of the Kabbala with those of Christianity.
________________________________________________


fides quaerens intellectum

Hard to be specific when you don't know much about something!http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>

I am just looking for the"old" or "more original" info...not stuff that is full of modern twists and personal views about it...

I realized that I already posted something about this in the past and got some good info from the net....I guess I am on my own on this one, but thanks anyway!


fides quaerens intellectum

I look forward to reading this book...I subscribe to the belief that all ills, whether they be psychological or physiological, are linked to evil spirits/"negs"...it sounds far fetched until you really study and meditate about it and then it's simply obvious...

fides quaerens intellectum

Welcome!  I think you will like the AstralPulse forums.  By the way, why would you have to capitalize everything?
-DT

fides quaerens intellectum

I believe that God knows the beginning from the end, but it doesn't stop us from making decisions....we always have our free will.  So if I choose to become a heroin abuser instead of a father and husband, or whatever, then I am failing to learn my lesson and will suffer a premature death...that's why I think murder is so forbidden.

fides quaerens intellectum

To be honest I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so forgive me if my own post is somewhat out of line from the most recently discussed ideas...

First of all I want to thank Gandalf (sounds like I am writing a speech or something huh!) for bringing this topic up.  As most of you know, I am indeed a Christian...in fact I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The main thing that comes to my mind when the discussion of Christian writings arises is this: there is ONLY ONE WAY we can know the truth, by the SPIRIT.  Writings are of man, even when they are divinely inspired...and while they can be "living water" or in other words wonderful and alive, they can also be twisted, changed, etc.  as many of you have pointed out.  We must always think for ourselves, we must question...and then we must turn to the source for clarification.  

The Dead Sea Scrolls actually contained bits and peices of Isiah and other Old Testament texts and when compared to the same texts in the modern Bible they matched up beautifully....but there were many "plain and precious truths" regarding the nature of God and man that were lost.  Christianity and the teachings of the Savior today range from gross distortions of the truth to pure truth....but it's up to us to find truth for oursleves.  We can never rely on temporal sources in the search for TRUTH.
-----------------------
Gandlaf- as a side note, I believe that many of the things you have suggested are original teachings of Christ indeed are, but others seem to have been devised by men to propogate their own beliefs.



fides quaerens intellectum

No man has a baby in his womb, it was a hoax...and I guess I am being laughed at by somebody somewhere....but the cloning thing is real, but the proof is still about a week off...

Claim:   A man who has had an embryo implanted in his abdomen is engaged in the world's first human male pregnancy.
Status:   False.

Origins:   The possibility of a man's  becoming pregnant has been the subject of more than a few works of speculative fiction and comedy, and the topic was given some sober consideration in the media after the British weekly New Society ran an article discussing specifics of the procedure in 1986. It could be done, New Society reasoned, if an egg were fertilized in vitro and implanted in a man's abdominal cavity. The embryo would have to attach itself to a major organ, the man would have to undergo hormone injections, and the child would have to be delivered by caesarian section, but it was possible, they speculated. (The child would have to be male, though, or else the necessary hormone injections would effectively castrate the male host.)

The dangers of such a course of action are far too high for the idea to be taken as anything more than a bit of scientific "what if" entertainment, however. Although some women have successfully given birth to children conceived outside the womb, ectopic pregnancies are quite dangerous, and nearly all ectopic embryos are removed soon after diagnosis. For a man to attempt to carry a child to term in such a manner would be an unacceptably high risk (especially since the placenta would have to be left to decay inside the man's body after he gave "birth," as its removal would result in major haemorrhaging).

Now, fourteen years later, people have begun to wonder about the web site at http://malepregnancy.com, which purports to chronicle the efforts of one Lee Mingwei to carry off the "first human male pregnancy." The site hosts video clips of "Mr. Lee," an ultrasound video of his "baby," an "interview" in which he explains why he's doing this, a discussion of how male pregnancy is scientifically possible, and a chat room where visitors can discuss the "social implications" of male pregnancies.

Is this for real? No. It is, like its sister site at http://www.genochoice.com (where you can "Create your own genetically healthy child online!"), an exercise in speculative fantasy. Follow the links from the "Credits" section, and eventually you'll find a disclaimer which reads:


fides quaerens intellectum

I am glad you brought this topic up....science and religion go hand in hand, but as fURIX said, religion and science as "we know it", or as most people know it, seems to conflict.

This is because many intellectuals are aethiests, etc.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints, and as such I am a firm believer that pure religion and pure science are one in the same.  That may sound strange, but the following article sums up my take on this subject more or less:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Cares More about Science??
(from www.whyprophets.com)
Sources:
I did not write the following article. I found it on the now defunct United Order Digest archive in 1997. I can no longer find it on-line, so I cannot contact the author. I took the liberty of copying it in the meantime. The main source for the article appears to be Saints and Scientists, published in 1992 by EduTech, Mesa, AZ (3066 So. Mollera St. 85210). For more up to date statistics, see The Year 2000 Update of the Sixty Year Utah Scientist Study. For more discussion relating to science and the restored gospel, visit the 'Eyring-L' mailing list archives.

----------------------------- start of article ------------------------------

I'm sure that many of us, in our youth, especially during our educational phase of life, experienced a troubling conflict of religion and science. Often, attempts to reconcile religious teaching with scientific reasoning can be troubling to young people, and still can be a sensitive subject to adults. Part of the answer, I believe is in looking at those who are comfortable with both, having no conflict. Especially those who themselves are scientists, and have a background in religion. When I dug into this topic, I found some very striking, and yes, satisfying information.

First, we know that Christian churches have been in conflict with science in the past. The prior conflict of the Roman Catholic Church with science ended up placing Roman Catholicism in a losing position with regard to potential progress. Now, some fundamental and evangelical churches in America, taking a literalistic and narrow view of the Bible are rejecting science more and more. Instead, they encourage and incorporate new Special Creation "science" and modern interpretations which are plugged into the Bible to make it appear to fit certain scientific facts. They are also discouraging interpretive aspects of scientific problems within the Bible.

The revealing part of my inquest was the shocking number of scientific production in the U.S. per state. At the bottom end of the collection are mostly the states considered the "Bible Belt." The ones with the "fundamentalist," and literalistic accentuation. Their production is only about one-fourth that of the high end (per million white population according to the Thomson report; the other numbers of minorities were too low at the time apparently), which is the Northern states.

But far and above all the rest is a surprising find. In fact the top state is so far above all the others, it's currently a full 21 percent higher, even though all the others are merely a few percentage points in between. What's even more revealing and unusual is the fact that one state could maintain such a lead for over fifty years. What's more surprising is the fact that this state, Utah, is one which the cultural force reveres God, Christ, Scriptures, missionary work, and a strong sense of religious tradition.

In 1990, the top scientific production states were:
Utah (1886 per million),
Idaho (1421 per million) and
Colorado (1246 per million).

And church affiliation of the Utah scientists were even more lopsided for the Latter day Saint population, Catholics, Unitarians, Orthodox, and Lutherans combined were smaller than the percentage of non-Mormon population. At the bottom was Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas. (164, 162, and 160 per million.)

In 1995, the numbers for Utah were still impressive. Utah was still a significant leader in the production of scientists with 1685 (per million) while the second place state was Delaware with 1380. The median was Rhode Island with approximately 600 (on a graph) and Virginia was last with 295.

Moreover, the percentage of Utah LDS scientific production was still higher than the LDS population percentage; 75.9%. (Only 54.6% of Utah is LDS; essentially 36.6 percent MORE than it's share.)

Thus, it became obvious to me that Mormons hold not just a lead in scientific production, but hold a *very high* lead. So the significant question might be why this is so. I think looking at the responses of LDS scientists is a good way to find such an answer. In fact, such a study was conducted by a professor of Arizona State University, who was intrigued by the lopsided LDS scientific population. The results are rather conclusive. In brief, there are many reasons; Mormon leaders have always been pro-science, Mormon philosophy encompasses knowledge as a godly attribute, and the Mormon culture's acceptance of continuing revelation from God and openness to new insight.

The Mormon Factor, thus, is the only conclusion for the high scientific numbers. There are no other factors which would lend such a high number. In fact, such a factor has been proven. Even the percentage of the LDS Utah share confirms this.

But do the Mormon scientists have a strong faith? That question was also answered in this interesting study. Of the LDS scientists polled a significant 83% considered themselves strong believers, while those of other Christian faiths were significantly less, the next highest being 44%.

Further, the conviction within these believers that Jesus is a divine person of the Godhead was put to the same scientists (LDS and non-LDS Christians) and results were extremely lopsided. Of the LDS believing population, 91% had a "Very Strong" conviction of this, while all the others maintained a spread between "Weak" and "Very Strong," most of which was under a "Fair" conviction. (Catholics were the next highest.) Also, among these LDS scientists, over eighty-five percent felt that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Of the "Strong Believers" category of the scientists, almost ninety percent of the LDS felt that their religious doctrine and science could be harmonized. And even of the "Non-Believers" category, only 34% said no. Only 64% of "believing Christians" felt that religion and science could harmonize.

Also, of those questioned if their religion had an influence on their perusal to become a scientist, 88.4% of the LDS said "yes," while only 42% of the other Christians felt that their religion had any influence. And twice the percentage of the LDS attended worship services, and twice the percentage of LDS scientists had a favorable attitude toward their church compared to all others.

Interestingly, the places where one might think that there would be the biggest conflict of religion and science, we actually find stronger believing LDS. (This, opposed to those who are not within the physical sciences are less believing among the LDS.) The largest percentage of Utah scientists are those in the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, geology, etc.) Of those in the physical sciences of the non-LDS faiths (Christian) only about 41% were strong believers, while over twice this percentage of the LDS physical scientists were strong believers. It was in the social sciences that the drop of LDS believers was noticed, where the larger portion considered themselves "Nominal." The percentages of all other Christians was still about half of that of the LDS in these categories.

What I found insightful was the fact that 89.9% of the LDS believers felt that religion and science could face each other. And also nearly three times as many non-LDS Christians as LDS said that they were "Intensely Troubled" by the conflict of science and religion.

So it's obvious that Mormonism has a distinguishing position in the world as a science-producing and supporting religion.

But do these scientists hold their "scientific" convictions? Absolutely. Of the 214 LDS scientists who participated in the recent Utah poll, "only three of them supported a young earth belief," (that the earth is only a few thousand years).

Compare this with nearly five times as many non-LDS scientists who believe in a young earth. And of the strong believers, only 10.6% of the LDS agreed with a non-evolutionary view of man's origin. Interestingly, some of the comments by LDS scientists who accepted organic evolution, demonstrated how small the conflict between science and religion really was. One LDS biologists said, "My religion is not biologically related." And another said, "There is no revelation specifically on how God created man; since religion does not explain it we are left to use what the evidence provides." Of the scientists who were "Strong Believers," only 15.5% of the LDS accepted the story of Noah and the flood literally. Twice as many non-LDS scientists ("Strong Believers") accepted the literal story. While most of the LDS believers felt that there was a literal flood, the details of the flood remained interpretive; only half as much of the non-LDS believers accepted this position, in spite of the conflict that such a rejection might hold scientifically.

Of an interesting note, in the 1955 study, less of the LDS scientists had strong agreement with scriptures being inspired and not inerrant (only a tentative agreement), where the recent study shows that a higher percentage (nearly five times more!) agree strongly with this.

The study also concluded that the LDS scientists had a higher percentage of conviction in their faith than before, as opposed to less for the non-LDS.

Ironically, both LDS and non-LDS, including non-believer scientists felt that religion has an important roll in the scientific community. Most of the Utah educated scientists, even the non-Mormons and Nominal Mormons, looked at the Church favorably as an institution for human welfare and support for the scientific community. None were antagonistic.

A clear 85 percent of the Mormon scientists believe in Jesus as the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. *To me, this affirms the testimony of over fourteen hundred scientists about the truthfulness of Gospel;* and that Mormonism excels as a religion dedicated to science. The study left no doubt about this. Mormonism has distinctive doctrines which not only encourage mental development and service, but has produced a value system for family solidarity, healthy living, and a style which facilitates productive achievement. This, to me, is a corollary of spiritual aims, because such good fruit is not just the purpose, but comes as a side benefit of the spiritual nature of God's influence. At least that's how it seems to me.

Sources:
J.A. Thomsom, _Science and Religion_, NY, 1877;
W.A. Whitehouse, _Christian Faith and Scientific Attitude_, NY, 1952;
Alfred North Whitehead, _Science and the Modern World_, NY, 1925;
Harvey C. Lehman, _Scientific Eminence and Church Membership_, NY, 1931;
_Encyclopedia of Mormonism_, "Science and Scientists," MacMillan, NY, 1992;
E.L. Thorndike, _Science_, "Men of Science," August 1940;
Richard T. Wootton, _Saints and Scientists_, Mesa, 1995;
_Historical Statistics of the U.S._, US Dept. of Commerce, part 1, pp 18-52.

---------------------- From a post on United-Order ----------------------

Conclusion – Science and Religion in Harmony
Psalms 19:1-4 – The heavens declare the glory of God:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world."

Job 12:7-8 – And so do the animals, the fish, and the earth itself!

"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee."



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pure religion is not 'pseudo-science' – It is 'non-science':
Such a religion does not claim to be science. It is something much bigger and more fundamental. In contrast, science is often used as a kind of religion, but it is not up to the task. It just becomes pseudo-science.

Non-science is Essential to Science:
Most of life's questions cannot yet be answered by science. So what does the scientist do? The best approach is to find a belief system that (at least):

Is consistent with science
Is shared by many people (to avoid subjective errors)
Is open to rational examination – e.g. it is fully developed and consistent. (This is a great advantage of Mormonism – it rejects the mysterious and unknowable – for example the "trinity" – in favour of what can be understood – e.g. a physical God)
In other words, religion is the most scientific approach to ALL of life. The "how" is science. The "why" is religion. Which of these two questions is the most important to know the answer to?

Contrasting Science and Non-science
For a definition of terms, see Science and Pseudo-Science.

Where Confusion Might Arise:

The Definition:
The word 'science' also has an older, broader definition, meaning just 'knowledge.' Hence we have the 'Christian Science' church, and 'The Science of Theology' (a nineteenth century book dealing with the Bible). This page uses the modern, more precise definition.


The Method, Not the Results:
Science refers to the method and not the results. Knowledge is not science. Science is the experimental method used to arrive at knowledge.


Religion is Not Entirely Unscientific:
Even though some concepts are not science, anything that can be examined is open to science. Hence, for example, 'The Word of Wisdom' (the Mormon rules on alcohol, tobacco, meat, etc.) claims to be revelation, and hence is not science. But science can make interesting observations regarding not smoking, eating more fruit and vegetables, etc. Science is a useful tool that can be applied to many aspects of religion.


The Big Picture:
Science generally deals with small, well defined areas. It is wrong to assume, because a particular point is established, that this is the final word, or even the most important word. This is most obvious in the popular media. Every day a new scientific study is claimed to "prove" something, but the wise person knows that information out of context is of little value.


Is Prayer Scientific?
When we refer to experiments, we usually mean experiments that can be repeated by simple and disinterested steps, and can be seen by an outside observer. So, while getting answers to prayers is in one sense scientific (you can test it by praying), it generally is not considered to be scientific, because the results are personal and are open to interpretation. So, while I could refer to the process of personal revelation as being scientific, for the purposes of this page I will say that it is not.
The Test – Can an Idea Be Disproved?
The key to deciding whether an idea is scientific is to ask, "can it be disproved?" For example, the claim that "my car is faster than yours" is a scientific statement, because anybody can test it under controlled conditions. (In this case, the test would be fairly easy, as my car is rather old, and makes disturbing noises if driven at speeds of over 55 mph.) But the claim that "my car is more beautiful than yours" is not scientific, because it is difficult for anyone else to test.

Many aspects of the church – such as whether the Book of Mormon is a historical record of a people who actually lived where they said they did – are scientific, because they are open to being disproved. So far, while we can argue long and hard about proof, they have not been disproved (despite numerous "straw men"). Download the book about proof for a review of the evidence up to the year 1997.

The big issues, however, those that affect personal happiness, are open to personal interpretation. They are thus not open to being disproved. For more about what the church is and whether it can be disproved, click here.

The Value of Non-science
What Science Cannot Do:
Non-science is needed, because science, although almost universally applicable in some form or other, has severe limitations.

Science Cannot:

Communicate:
Not everyone is willing to examine everything. Most people just want an easy life. Even the greatest physicist will not study biology. The greatest biologist will not know much about physics. Neither will know much about the social sciences. What do you, as a scientific utopian, do about these people? Just criticise them? Ignore them? Control them? Or set up some authoritarian structure to tell them "thus saith the scientists – this is the truth from Mount Sinai!"
Get anything done:
It relies on non-science for this – see next section.
Answer questions where important information is missing:
E.g. most of them!
Prove anything:
It can only disprove things – any scientific conclusion could be disproved at any time, as new and unexpected information is discovered.
Be objective:
If person A is ten times as intelligent as person B, then person A will approach a problem, and interpret the results, in an entirely different way. Thus, the practice of science is always somewhat subjective.
Make hard decisions ("Paralysis by analysis"):
Nothing can ever be studied "enough." There is always more to learn. Even simple decisions rely on assumptions that (if we want to be purely scientific) need to be tested. But if we keep searching, we get nowhere. Science only works if someone has the authority to say "Enough! We must make a decision now!" Scientists discover information, but politicians and businessmen get things done – and pay for the scientists.
Simplify things:
Actually, scientists simplify things all the time. They summarise. They create models and analogies. But is this strictly scientific? No. Every simplification is misleading (or else it would not be a simplification).
Cope with complex human situations:
Although super-computers are getting closer and closer to accurately predicting the weather this is nothing compared with accurately predicting human behaviour. The "social sciences" are notoriously imprecise, and are likely to remain so for some time yet.
Deal with controversial issues:
If you deal with issues with outcomes that would affect your job, or your reputation, how impartial are you going to be? For example, a few years ago a British university was left a sum of money on condition that it went towards researching the paranormal. The university decided (dishonestly, I felt) to use the money to research why people are gullible enough to believe in it. Another example: what if a major company funded you to research its products. Would that not affect the exact questions you asked, and how you reported the results?
Study topics for which here is no funding:
Try and get funding for an investigation into, for example, where skin colour fits on the evolutionary tree. Or any question where there is powerful public opposition. Or anything deeply unfashionable. Who "sets the agenda?" For example, clean water saves lives, yet we study heart operations. Families prevent crime. Yet we study policing methods.
Objectively study feelings, or personal experiences:
These areas are important, but are simply off-limits. Science can only claim to study the clinical aspects of such things, in terms of quantitative data, but cannot define anything subjective or qualitative.
Examples of Non-science:
These are sources of information on which we base our most important decisions. They all provide "right" and "wrong" answers, but none of them are based on science, and they are generally not claimed to be.

Axioms:
Every experiment rests on assumptions. Nearly every assumption rests on other assumptions. Eventually, we get down to assumptions that cannot be proven. In mathematics, these are referred to as axioms. They are assumed to be true, even though they are not derived from anything else. They are non-science. Hence, science rests ultimately on non-science.

Philosophy:
Philosophy is the study of knowledge. It draws conclusions about the nature of reality. But it is not based on science, nor does it claim to be. You or I may fool ourselves into believing that we do not believe in philosophy, but that just shows how ignorant and muddled is our own thinking. Everyone has their own philosophy, but most people choose not to examine it, perhaps out of fear of what they might find – inconsistency, change, and (shock) perhaps even blind faith in something.

Trusting Authority:
What are schools and universities, except authoritarian institutions? The teacher says "this is so," and the student writes it down. Sure, the student could, in theory, test out every fact for himself. But he won't. It is impossible – she has neither the time nor the resources. We all rely on trusting others in the vast majority of cases. Even when we do test something for ourselves, it is only to judge that the person who told us is trustworthy. Trust and authority are essential to science, but they are not science.

Economics:
As the saying goes, 'lay a thousand economists end to end, and they still would not reach a conclusion." Or, "if you have three economists in a room, you have four different opinions." Economics is not driven by science. But it is an academic discipline, and it produces decisions, which implies a concept of "right" (buy this product) and "wrong" (do not invest in that market).

Opinion:
(And, by extension, democracy.) Everyone has opinions. But if they are imprecise, or if they concern issues that are difficult to prove, they are non-science. Often, opinions are extremely useful – for example, a great scientist may have a gut feeling based on years of experience – but even gut feelings are not the same as science.

Morality:
The most important source of "right" and "wrong" is morality. Human rights, for example, are based on agreed standards of right and wrong, yet they have little or no scientific justification.

Fashions in science:
Scientists are susceptible to fashions just like everyone else. For example, for many years the theories of Sigmund Freud were assumed to be reliable. But they were not based on science. Some people would call them pseudo-science. The best we can say is perhaps they were non-science. Every branch of science is guilty of following fashion. For example, I was once reading in a science magazine about AIDS, and it was taken for granted that the simple solution (having one sexual partner for life) was not a realistic option. But there was no scientific evidence for this major assumption – it was just stated as a fact. It was based (I hope) on common beliefs. It was non-science.

Emotion:
Everyone filters their experience through their feelings. Indeed, feelings – happiness, desire, security, love, insecurity – are the facts hat explain and drive just about everything else. Without feelings, what significance is there in anything?

Evolved ideas:
Every waking moment, we take in vast amounts of information, too much to process rationally. We make decisions about what is true or false, based on experience that we may not even be aware of accumulating. If it works, we are more likely to rely on it in the future. This process of "trial and error" is how most information is obtained. It is the basis for the whole concept of evolution – an approach that has applications everywhere. It is extraordinarily successful. But each discovery is not based on conscious or rational experimentation, and so it is not science.

Law:
Society relies on law. It has to say "this or that is right" and "this or that is wrong." Without law, we have reduced freedom, and reduced quality of life.

Conclusion:
Put all these together, and we see that science – although a very powerful approach – is just a small and relatively weak part of experience. It is like a pen (or a keyboard) to a writer. A very useful and potentially powerful tool, but on its own pretty useless and even meaningless.

A Structured Approach to Non-science
What do we do with non-science? Pretend it is not there? Or try to understand it?

How do we understand it? It is, by its nature, horribly complicated. The very first step must be to define our position in each of these areas. Make it clear for other people to see. But most people, including scientists, do not (or cannot) make their position clear on all of these points. They do not even get past the starting line where truth is concerned.

The Mormon church has a clear, highly visible, and consistent approach to all of these areas:

Axioms: clearly set out in scripture.
Philosophy: is nature and origins are stated plainly.
Trusting authority: lines of authority, and credentials, are clearly defined.
Economics: numerous teachings on the subject.
Opinion: the role of (and limitations to) interpretation are clearly set out
Morality: defined in great detail
Fashions in science: avoided by respecting ancient and modern scripture
Emotion: given a clear and visible position in decision making
Evolved ideas: personal revelation encourages experimentation. The line of authority ensures that all such ideas are checked. Obedience to the prophet ensures that, when it is obvious a change is needed, people are willing to change (e.g. in 1978).
Law: church structures provide a model for running a perfect society
You may disagree with each of these points. You are of course free to do so. But criticising is easy.

Can you provide a viable – and visible – alternative?

Conclusion:
Only the Church (or something like it) can even begin to claim a scientific approach to science. Because only something like the church has a clear, consistent, open and visible doctrine – one that can encompass the whole of non-science, and make the best use of each area. Church members, unlike many people who claim to promote science, are not 'in denial.'

The Academic View of Religion
The History of 'Science Versus Religion':
Most of what we see as 'science versus religion' is in fact:

'popular' science (e.g. not very scientific)
versus
'traditional' Christianity (a system that rejected much of Jesus' teachings).
To make matters worse, each side usually has only a vague idea of what the other means.

For a detailed history of the main controversies, see A History Of The Warfare Of Science With Theology, by Andrew Dickson White. Note that the author sees the problem not as science versus religion, but as science versus dogma. I agree. The dogma in question was fixed teachings that tried to copy the Bible. But the Bible is in the language of the ancient Jews and deals with their particular needs. As the centuries go by, trying to copy that written history becomes more and more absurd. Instead, we need a church that is living and can adapt.

As can be seen from the pages on evolution, the church is in a position to accept new findings without threatening its literal beliefs in the Bible.

For details, see the pages on:

A History of Christianity
The Word of God
'Authority
Do We Know What the Church is All About?
The Cultural Elite (Universities and the Media):
From Religion and the Cultural Elite (www.theatlantic.com/unbound/cullen/cmrel.htm) by Cullen Murphy

"Garry Wills has observed in his book Under God... 'Clearly, in our society,' he writes, 'two large groups are talking past one another. One fails to see legitimacy in religious values. The other fails to see legitimacy in irreligion.' The fact that these two large groups are talking past one another is not a trivial matter. It has consequences–consequences for the nature of human inquiry and moral discourse; consequences, in practical terms, for the way in which we as a pluralistic polity deal with a host of pressing national concerns. ...

"The subject of the seminar [is]: 'The Alienation of Intellectuals From Religion Within American Culture' ... That alienation of the cultural elite on a vast scale has occurred can hardly be a matter of serious dispute. Doesn't the message come through many times every day in what we read and hear and watch on TV? In academe, survey data drawn from interviews with faculty have documented the estrangement from religion time and time again... voicing a religious perspective is just not intellectually respectable. In some circles, religiosity constitutes in addition an embarrassing lapse of taste.

"Survey data show that only about 8 percent of those in the elite media attend religious services with any regularity, and that 86 percent attend 'seldom or never.'

"From a journalistic point of view, the fact that 120 million Americans may have attended a religious service on a particular weekend will never be news, even though it is a defining feature of American life; it's not news because the same thing happened last weekend and will happen again next weekend. What tends to get reported on instead–accounts, indeed, for some 60 percent of all news about the Catholic Church, for example... is abortion, dissent, homosexuality, pedophilia, and the church's role in American politics. The coverage of other denominations follows the same pattern. ...

"A few years ago I had occasion to measure the amount of space in the New York Times index devoted to the category 'Religion and Churches' and found it to be equivalent in size to the category 'Teeth and Dentistry.'

"The assumption in political science was that as societies modernized, became more developed, they would also become more secular. But as Huntington pointed out, one cannot survey the last decades of the twentieth century and find a ringing endorsement of that assumption. In many places, perhaps most, the idea that religion should have nothing to do with the running of a polity is simply incomprehensible. And so, Huntington asks, Is it possible to understand the world while maintaining a view of religion as a purely private matter, as we so often do in the West? And his answer is: No, we cannot."

Scientific Progress and Postmodernism
Science has made great progress within its limited remit. But has this led to any progress in answering the bigger questions? Perhaps it might one day, but history suggests this is highly unlikely.

Unless stated otherwise, the quotations following are from The Tower of Babel: Modernity built the tower, from the Premise web site.

Modernism
Progress through intellectual thought. At present, this usually means technological progress.

"Technology is a friend. It makes life easier, cleaner, and longer. Can anyone ask more of a friend? Second, because of its lengthy, intimate, and inevitable relationship with culture, technology does not invite a close examination of its own consequences. It is the kind of friend that asks for trust and obedience, which most people are inclined to give because its gifts are truly bountiful. But, of course, there is a dark side to this friend. Its gifts are not without a heavy cost... It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. Technology, in sum, is both friend and enemy."


The Enlightenment (Rejecting the Catholic Church):

"Modernity arose with the triumph of the Enlightenment. The Renaissance and the Reformation had previously unleashed powerful forces toward liberty, civil rights, the freedom of the secular spheres to operate independently of the church, and had given birth to the rise of modern science, education, and universal literacy. However, the Protestant Reformers were just as insistent as the Roman Church on the importance of authority [the Bible]. .. Individualism was not tolerated, as the Reformers criticized the many sects of their day for their disregard of the institutional church."


Rationalism (Rejecting Any External Authority):

"Much changed when Rene Descartes (1596-1650) put forward his famous formula, Cogito ergo sum–'I think. Therefore, I am.' ... Devoted to rationalism, Descartes insisted upon absolute philosophical certainty. There must be a way of knowing things beyond any doubt, Descartes insisted, and therefore he sought a foundation for grounding all human knowledge. That foundation was universal reason. Like Plato, Descartes believed that instead of the world shaping the mind, the mind shaped the world."

Hume went further. Since he had never seen any miracles, then miracles could not happen. Therefore all of Christianity must be false.

This is pretty much the common view today. "If I cannot see it (or work it out for myself) then it does not exist."


"Progress"
In earlier times, it was accepted that ancient peoples often knew more than we do. One of the best ways too discover something was to learn what the ancients knew: so we studied the ancient Hebrews, or the ancient Greeks. But now that has all changed. If mankind has a foundation in certainty, then we can work things out for ourselves. Each generation can discover even more things than the previous generation. Hence, life can get better and better. Technological change is seen as the ultimate proof of this. Each generation can make better machines than the last, and these machines enable us to do everything bigger, better, and faster.
Actually, this is not such a new idea. This is really "New Age" thinking in a new package. The basic idea is that we, as a people, have grown out of the old ways into a new and better world. It was Joachim's medieval heresy again, that we no longer need external authority because we live in "the age of the holy Spirit".

Problems With Modernism:

It is Based on a Bogus Dilemma:
It is assumed that authority and reason progress cannot go together. They can. It is only faulty authority that needs to be rejected, just as we need to reject faulty reason.


It Rejects its Origins:
It is assumed that modernism arose by rejecting Christianity (or to be precise, Judeo-Christianity). In fact, it was only because of Christianity that modernism could exist. Most other major faiths teach a cyclical view of history – that we are going though the same cycles again and again (e.g. in reincarnation). But Christianity teaches a linear view of history – that we are genuinely going somewhere. It also teaches that we are all individuals, rather than just part of some greater whole. It was only in this tradition that the enlightenment and the idea of "progress" were possible.


It is Illogical:
If we want to act rationally, the first thing we need to realise is that our individual ration of intelligence is limited. The most rational thing to do at the outset is to find someone who knows more than we do. Certainly we should question authority, but we should not expect that sometimes its conclusions will be different from our own.

The early Protestant reformers understood this. They did not reject Catholicism immediately, but spent many years trying to understand it and reform it first – in case they had missed something. When they rejected it, they still kept its structure. They were less likely to be wrong than those modern intellectuals who make far bolder claims (rejecting all religion) based on far weaker understanding (e.g. superficial problems.)


It Does Not Seem to Work:
Modernism took its biggest hits with the world wars. If the world is getting better, why are we destroying each other – and the planet – faster than ever before?
Postmodernism
In reaction to all this "progress," postmodernism gives up any claim to progress, but teaches that diversity, pragmatism, and sophistication are the things that really matter. If modernism is summed up by 1960s tower blocks (an attempt at a planned, perfect society), postmodernism is summed up by 1980s shopping malls (which make any grand claims, but go with whatever the people want).

"Postmodernism knows no commitments: it [says] 'no code is inherently better than any other.' ... 'We live in the age of feelings. Today there is no more truth or falsehood, no stereotype or innovation, no beauty or ugliness, but only an infinite array of pleasures, all different and all equal.' ... the test of a truth is 'its cash-value in experiential terms.'"

Postmodernism and Modern Protestantism:

"But before we get too high-and-mighty, we must realize that this is the prevailing sentiment in the churches, whether conservative evangelical or liberal Protestant. The charismatic movement is not founded on a revolutionary exegesis of relevant biblical passages; it is simply in step with modernity and postmodern intensification of pragmatic sentimentalism. Even in conservative circles one gets the impression that churches are "all different and all equal." Whether one is a Roman Catholic 'evangelical' or a Baptist or Pentecostal 'evangelical,' all that matters is the feeling, the experience, of being 'born again.' This is not a new Age of the Spirit; it is the Spirit of the Age."

Most Protestants are like modernists – they believe in a sure foundation of truth (e.g. the Bible) but have been unable to turn it into reality (e.g. a unified church). Evangelicals are like post-modernists. They do not bother themselves with church structures (they claim that the true church is invisible) but judge their success in terms of popular movements (church growth, TV evangelists, the Vineyard, the Promise Keepers, etc.) In this respect, Protestant Evangelicals are just a cross between the liberal theologians (who dislike physical interpretations of scripture) and the modern consumer economy.

The Bottom Line
Where do you go when you pass beyond the scope of science?
Religion has always been the answer.
And some religions make more sense than others.


fides quaerens intellectum

Here's a "real" review I pulled off the best movie website (www.rottentomatoes.com)  which is a site that polls about 15-30 reviews and then rates the movie according to a consensus (it is linked up with all of the reviews and has a forum, etc.)

--------------------------------------------------------------
'Lord of Rings' II is towering feat of filmmaking

2nd film in epic trilogy is even better than first
By Jeff Vice
Deseret News movie critic


THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS — **** — Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom, Miranda Otto, Brad Dourif, Christopher Lee; and featuring the voices of Andy Serkis, John Rhys-Davies and others; rated PG-13 (violence, gore, mild vulgarity); Carmike 12 and Ritz 15 Theaters; Century Theatres 16; Cinemark Jordan Landing 24 Theaters; Megaplex 12 at the Gateway; Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons; Westates Holladay Centre Cinemas 6.

     OK, this is already getting ridiculous. Perhaps it's a good thing that Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" adaptations end next year, or who knows how long he might monopolize the annual No. 1 spot on many a critic's top-10 list?
     And yes, this is one case where you can actually believe the hype — "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is indeed even better than its predecessor, "The Fellowship of the Ring," which was a pretty terrific fantasy film in its own right.
     However, even that film pales in comparison to this enthralling epic, which makes the wait for the concluding chapter, next December's "The Return of the King," seem all the more cruel.

Viggo Mortensen, who plays the part of Aragorn, continues to display surprising cinematic range in "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers."

Pierre Vinet, New Line Productions
     Be warned in advance that this second part of the ambitious film trilogy is much, much darker than the previous episode. And even children who were able to get through "Fellowship" without much trouble could be unnerved by this infinitely more menacing installment.
     Of course, the darkness is contrasted with the film's messages about the meaning of true friendship and loyalty and good vs. evil. Also, "The Two Towers" has been made with real heart, real emotional resonance, and the film has a somewhat puckish sense of humor that crops up when it's needed most.
     "The Two Towers" jumps right into the story without recap. As it begins, the Fellowship has been scattered, with hobbits Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) headed off to Mordor to destroy the One Ring before it can fall into the hands of dark lord Sauron's evil forces.
     To their surprise, they receive an offer of aid from former ring-bearer Gollum (a CGI creation, bearing the voice of Andy Serkis), who promises to find them a less dangerous path into the teeth of their enemies.
     In the meantime, their comrades Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) are in search of missing hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). But instead, they fall in with the forces of men trying to defend their kingdom from an attack by the armies of evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee).
     They're also startled by the sudden reappearance of believed-to-be-deceased wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), who hints cryptically about how he'll aid them in their time of need.
     As for Merry and Pippin, they've also found help from a most unexpected source, the Ents, a race of sentient trees trying to decide exactly what their part is in the struggle.
     It's hard to remember any action sequence in recent cinematic history as intense and enthralling as the extended Helm's Deep battle here, which makes an already great movie that much greater.
     So does the character of Gollum, which is much more convincing than any CGI creation that has come before it. While some of that can be attributed to the film's digital-effects crews, most of the credit has to go to Serkis, who makes him surprisingly sympathetic.
     In fact, Serkis' performance nearly overshadows some very solid turns by the live-action cast. Wood is appropriately tormented as the film's heroic ringbearer, Mortensen continues to display surprising range and, of course, McKellen is as magnetic as ever. (Kudos also to Rhys-Davies, who provides much of the film's comic relief.)
     "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is rated PG-13 for intense scenes of fantasy violence (sword fights, arrow fire, combat and explosive mayhem), gore and some mildly vulgar humor (belching). Running time: 179 minutes.
     


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-MAIL: jeff@desnews.com



fides quaerens intellectum

From what I understand, yes, you could definetly be out-of-body and then lose the memory download that early in the experience...or OB right after you "fall asleep"...

fides quaerens intellectum

Core-Periphery Model:                                    
 A spatial-temporal framework for organizing patterns of development into a wealthier, better educated, industrial core region and a poorer, less educated, raw material-producing periphery. The model consists of 4 stages (see diagram), and is used to explain the concentration and deconcentration of development (see polarization effects and trickle-down effects). The model also partly explains development of the core in terms of economic exploitation of the periphery.

My note: as long as the inter-state system dominates world civilization, there will always be a domineering, ruling, oppressive system in place and idiots like Jane Fonda and Sean Penn will complain in foreign lands and then come home to their Hollywood mansions...

fides quaerens intellectum

I just strated reading hitchhikers guide...cool!

fides quaerens intellectum

Alivie-

THat's  wonderful lifestyle that allows you to get up for 5-6 hours and then take a leisurely nap...unfortunately most of us have to work.  Anyway, what kind of success have you had getting into the trance state with this routine?


fides quaerens intellectum

Just in case anyone is wondering why I am posting so much lately, I have a break between quarters now at the univeristy and so I have some free time.  I am at work right now and somedays I just get to play around on the net for hours...

fides quaerens intellectum

Despite the way in which some individuals have interpreted Little's book, I want to clarify that I took his theory as basically being that he belives that while they are many arechetypal manifestations, there are indeed intelligent life forms that appear from different areas/realms/levels, which he deems the "EM spectrum".  For example, an angel would come from the far right of the energy spectrum (gamma ray style!) while a weak, evil being would come from the lower astral (is radio waves which are the lowest end?).  Also, a weak, evil being would appear as something that would evoke fear and loathing, or respect...anything necessary to influence and scare it's human victim...ie. a troll or fairy back in the day, or a highly advanced ET wit superior technology and telepathic means.  I would add that it appears to humans who are OBE but are not aware of that fact and therefore think they are actually awake and in the physical....

Anyway, that's just a taste of the direction you can go with this theory that basically melds science, metphysical science, psychology and spirituality.

Here is some more info from the web regarding this book (the cool thing is that about a year ago I couldn't find hardly any info on the web about this book and now there is a fairly large chunk of data out on the web):


JOURNAL OF POSSIBLE PARADIGMS
Issue 3, Summer '95

Grand Illusions
by Dr. Gregory L. Little
reviewed by S. Miles Lewis

Dr. Little has done it again! Subtitled "The Spectral Reality Underlying Sexual UFO Abductions, Crashed Saucers, Afterlife Experiences, Sacred Ancient Sites, and Other Enigmas," this book covers a lot of ground.
With this book Little has completed a sort of trilogy detailing the mechanisms of manifestation behind UFOs, angels, demons, and other apparitions. Far from debunking these encounters as simply hallucinations of the mind's eye, Little proposes that the witnesses often interact with physically real entities whose origin lies in Carl Jung's conception of the archetypes within humanity's collective unconscious. This is the kind of hypothesis which typically infuriates American UFOlogists because it undermines their hope and expectation for an extraterrestrial origin. But Little goes a long way to show he is not a psychological debunker by detailing his thorough investigations of specific Fortean cases. From apparent falls of worms from the sky to the "mysterious" disappearance of the Mississippi's Iron Mountain tugboat. He points out the shortcomings of purported government documents like the Majestic-12 papers and their researchers.

In Little's first book, The Archetype Experience, he brilliantly and succinctly illustrated how Jung (in Dr. Little's paradigm at least) conceived of archetypes as physical entities of psychic energy which have interacted with humanity for centuries. He also showed how the bulk of UFO reports, the 95% haystack, are intimately linked to Jung's concept of synchronicity which arose from his ideas about archetypes.

In People of the Web, Dr. Little extended his hypothesis into the realms of Native American studies. He examined stone circles, Indian mounds, and the ancient rituals that are linked to these sites. He presented a rich tapestry of Amerindian experience exemplified by the annual Massaum ceremony. It was during this 56 day ceremony that the Indians called down and communed with their gods.

With Grand Illusions, his third and most recent UFO book, Dr. Little has rounded out his theory, which could be called the "GeoPhysical Manifestation of Jungian Archetypes." In his first book he briefly mentioned the geophysical theories put forth by Dr. Michael Persinger and he has continued to reference Persinger's ongoing psychotronics research. Yet Dr. Little has strangely avoided any mention of British research into the Earth Lights Hypothesis.

Little presents a sober hypothesis integrating earth energies, brain chemistry, fairy lore, Jungian psychology, and journalist John Keel's ideas of UFOs as ultraterrestrial shape shifting entities of energy.

He details several American flap areas including the notorious Gulf Breeze hot zone. He astutely suggest that it is the perfect stage for a sociological experiment in civilian reaction to UFOs. A telling proposition considering that areas history of psychotronics/navy communications research. Particularly in light of Vallee's revelation of similarly proposed experiments suggested by the now infamous Battelle University memo he cites in his last book Forbidden Science.

Again Little provides much food for thought in his analysis of the near death experience as it relates to UFOs and the NDE Osiris cults of Egypt. He links the use of the pyramid to out-of-body-experiences induced by the cults' priests as a rite of passage to the Great Pyramid's alignments with Orion.

My only "gripes" about this book are these:

-Firstly, Little holds to John Keel's humorous explanation of the Roswell debris as the remains of a Japanese Fugo balloon. While I admit to having no clue as to the "true" nature of the wreckage I feel safe in keeping the fugo explanation far down on the list of probabilities.

-Little is a big fan of Keel's and references much of Keel's works. Yet when it comes to explaining possible links between unmarked helicopters and the modern UFO myth he writes it off as pure coincidence. It was Keel who proposed that certain phantom aircraft were direct manifestations of the UFO phenomena within his book UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse. And Dennis Stillings has utilized a Jungian perspective in his fantastic articles detailing the powerful symbolism of the helicopter in connection to UFO events.

-Lastly, Greg Little dismisses cattle mutilations as simple misidentification of predator attacks and satanic rituals. While I am convinced by some of his arguments (specifically the documentary/experiment where a surveillance camera caught natural predators "creating" a carcass identical to the typical cattle mute within a 24 hour period) I must wonder why an immanent scientist like Jacques Vallee would spend his valuable time on such misidentifications. And what about pre-modern era accounts of mutilations in connection with paranormal manifestations? Are we dealing with living folklore here as well? Thomas Bearden and Dennis Stillings both wrote fantastic articles about the inherent symbolism of these mutilations and the fear generated within our collective consciousness by these terrors. [see The Anomalist #2 ] I still think the possibility remains that some agency could be perpetrating at least some of these horrific mutilations in order to scare ranchers off their land and out of business, perhaps as part of an AgricCorporate Conspiracy or as an attempt by the government to "discredit the ufo phenomena, instilling doubt as to the beneficence of the aliens."

Despite these remarks I highly recommend Dr. Little's latest book. He is a fine researcher who will open many people's minds to the incredible possibilities that are evident within these strange phenomena.

The book is replete with fancifully shocking artwork by John Michael McCarthy as well as photographs and diagrams that help capture the subject matter detailed within Dr. Little's well written text.

Greg Little can be contacted through the fabulous magazine:

ALTERNATE PERCEPTIONS
PO Box 9972
Memphis, TN 38190
-----------------------


fides quaerens intellectum

I usually look at it this way: Talk to someone about OBE and other metaphysical ideas when you come to know that the person is open minded and/or has had an experience that has made him or her more prone to listen to ideas about things they haven't really thought about.  Deep down in the heart of hearts, everyone knows the truth...it's all about then they are ready to look at it.

fides quaerens intellectum

'Columbine' Named Top Documentary of All Time
Thu Dec 12, 6:14 PM ET  Add Movies - Reuters to My Yahoo!

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Bowling for Columbine," about gun culture in America, gained momentum on Thursday as it rolls toward the Oscars (news - web sites), racking up the honor of best documentary of all time from the International Documentary Association.


Director Michael Moore (news) also had the No. 3 nonfiction film on the list with his 1989 title, "Roger & Me," in which he took on automaker General Motors Corp. and its then-Chief Executive Roger Smith over a plant closure at Flint, Michigan that left thousands of employees jobless.


Coming in No. 2 was 1988's "The Thin Blue Line," about wrongful convictions in the 1976 murder of a Dallas, Texas policeman, and rounding out the top five were 1994's "Hoop Dreams" about high school basketball players and 1969's "Salesman," about four door-to-door Bible salesmen.


"All these films provide an intimate, behind-the-scenes look at the human condition," said the association's executive director Sandra Ruch. "They make you think about things you might not have ever considered before."


The International Documentary Association, or IDA, was formed in 1982 to serve as a forum for documentary filmmakers, and has since grown into a respected organization for nonfiction films with some 2,700 members in 50 countries.


For the most part, documentaries are relegated to film festivals and cable television channels because the material is generally considered too cerebral for mainstream moviegoers.


But "Columbine" has been an exception, and it is considered a front-runner for this year best documentary Oscar, which is Hollywood's top film honor handed out each year in March.


"Columbine" has already scored well with audiences, tallying $12.9 million at domestic box offices, which for a documentary is a big sum.


Last week, it earned the U.S. National Board of Review (news - web sites) honor as the year's top documentary and won audience choice award at this year's Chicago International Film Festival. Back in May, it was given a special prize at the Cannes Film Festival (news - web sites) in France.


In "Columbine," Moore takes a wry look at the fear that seems to grip the United States and the widespread use of handguns and rifles to seemingly address that fear, even as Americans face violent crimes and murders involving guns.


Moore covers topics ranging from the shootings at Columbine high school in Colorado to the murder of a 6-year-old girl by a 6-year-old boy in Michigan, and he interviews National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston (news).

Oscar nominations are announced on Feb. 11, and the awards will be handed out in a gala ceremony in Los Angeles on March 23.

"Bowling for Columbine" was distributed by United Artists, a division of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. film studio.




fides quaerens intellectum

Hello and welcome to the forum!  

Yes, both of the things you brought up (and more) have been discussed at length.  Go to the forum tab above and click on "search" and type in whatever you desire.  

Once again, welcome!  Oh, by the way, some hippy kids came by and snagged your bulb...theirs burned out and they thought they could get a free one that was going to be "discarded"...  http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/images/icon_Smile.gif" border=0>



fides quaerens intellectum

The following is the health code I live by...I refrain from alcoholic beverages as well as coffee and tea.  

1—9, Use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks proscribed; 10—17, Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals; 18—21, Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings.

1 A aWORD OF WISDOM, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word• of wisdom, showing forth the order and will• of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

3 Given for a principle with promise•, adapted to the capacity of the weak•and the weakest of all csaints, who are or can be called saints.

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of aevils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of bconspiring men in the last days, I have cwarned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

5 That inasmuch as any man adrinketh wine• or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure• wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong• drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.

8 And again, tobacco is not for the abody, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs• God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—

11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving•.

12 Yea, flesh• also of beasts• and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used csparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used•, only in times of winter, or of cold, or bfamine.

14 All grain• is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

15 And these• hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

16 All grain is good for the afood of man; as also the fruit• of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall• receive health• in their navel and marrow to their bones;

19 And shall find• bwisdom and great ctreasures of knowledge•, even hidden treasures;

20 And shall run• and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass• by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.



fides quaerens intellectum

I was thinking the other day about this topic again and I thought of this:

Imagine if someone had tried to ban "clubs" back in the day, or swords or muskets.  Were they ever banned? Of course not.  Will guns ever dissapear?  Of course not.  It's technology.  Soon they will have casless ammo and they are already working on electric pistols and an array of other large and small arms that use shock waves, etc.  So soon we will be talking about banning electric guns, etc.  Of course this is just the "guns don't kill people, people do..." argument looked at in a different light.  It's the behavior, the psychopaths, that do the killing.  I do agree with laws that restrict who can own a gun, and where you can carry one...but banning guns?  It's really abusrd, despite all of the good intentions.  

Anyway, I really respect peoples take on this subject no matter what it is.  Should we have weapons of any kind?   No.  We should destroy them all...but as long as we have "bad guys" we need to protect ourselves.  I know that's a contradiction of sorts, but that's just the way it is...will it always be "that way"?  That's a really good question.

fides quaerens intellectum

Another thing I once heard is that quite a few of music artists who produce really dark, heavy "satanic" music often rely on "evil" astral experiences as well as lucid dreams to channel some of the stuff they produce.  I guess it's just interesting to note that people can use any natural ability to do either good or evil.

fides quaerens intellectum

Hey, good post...I like that idea of them having to have friends in high and low places...it's too true.  And you're right, if an honest, upright person were to get into office again "flump!" head shot...sad

fides quaerens intellectum

I think my initial question was a little misleading...I know that anyone and everyone can project (and they do probably every night) but I am wondering how many of the really sick, twisted people...especially really talented/intelligent people, project and use this and other psychic abilities to their dubious advantage.

fides quaerens intellectum

Hey Frank, thanks for the kind words!
-------------------------------------
Regarding politics, while I was watching the Godfather Part I the other night, I had an epiphany (is that how you spell that? anyway...)  When Michael (Al Pacino) returns from Sicily he finds his ex-girlfriend and tells her he wants to marry her.  She is afraid because he is in an obviously dubious profession.  She then asks him why he doesn't go into politics or big business and he tells her something to the effect of "And do you think those guys do anything different from what I do?!  They kill more people than my father could have ever dreamed of..."  

Of course there are huge distinctions between organized crime and politics/business, but in the end they all have one thing in common: the pursuit of power/wealth/capital.  As long as these things remain the goals of our societies then EVERY COUNTRY, EVERY POLITICAL REGIME, EVERY PARTY and EVERY INDIVIDUAL leader will, DESPITE their good/original intentions, BE SUCKED INTO THE GAME OF DECIET AND TREACHERY.

I don't really see that much of a difference between Clinton, Gore, Bush or Bin Laden for that matter...but I do tend to side with those people who have, what I personall believe, are more progressive ideals such as democracy, individual freedom, etc.  So in the end, I am a moderate conservative and I am a supporter for Bush, but I too question why there is such a vested interest in Iraq...I think it's BOTH oil and the fact that Saddam is a Hitler style terrorist dictator that will have nuclear weapons soon and won't/isn't afraid to use them.  

You know, my sociology professor (who is a world renound sociologist and has three huge theories in most major textbooks....like anyone cares!) made a GREAT point:

-In the modern world system which is made up of strong core nations (US, Britian, Germany, Japan) and periphery states (Latin America, Africa, Middle-East, etc.) the US moving in on Iraq is actually a very smart move for the US.  Is it right?  NO.  But is anything most states do "right"?  No.  If another country, ie. China was the world Hegemon instead of the US it would do the same thing.

So while Bush might be a bully, in the way the world is set up that's exactly what is the best move....so until things really change, this is the way it is. There have always been hegemons (big, powerful nations), there are always war cycles, cycles of expansion and colonialism.

So it's easy to say, "Bush you bastard!" or chant peace, but what are we really going to do change the fudamental elements of the modern world system that makes such actions beneficial.


fides quaerens intellectum

New from the BBC news network regarding IRAQ dossier:
UN row erupts over Iraq dossier

The US and UK are sceptical about the bulky declaration

The United States has distributed copies of Iraq's weapons dossier to all four of its fellow permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, after apparently seizing the initiative from the UN itself.
Syria - a non-permanent Council member - has protested against the decision to limit early access to the declaration to the US, France, China, Russia and the UK.

Reports say several other members of the Council are upset at the extent to which the US took charge of handing out copies to the others and editing the versions to be given to the non-nuclear powers.


America is still preparing for war with Iraq

The BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington that the move amounts to a mini-coup by the US following the lengthy document's arrival in New York on Sunday night.

It had been previously agreed that the UN would make copies of the 12,000-page declaration and hand them out itself.

But, our correspondent says, American diplomats pressed Colombia, which holds the Security Council's rotating presidency for December, to allow the US to take charge of the copying process.

The official reason given for the transfer was that the photocopying facilities were better and more secure, as US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained:

"We have been asked to ensure that the document is copied in a controlled environment in order to guard against the inadvertent release of information."

'Embarrassing reading'

The Security Council's latest resolution on Iraqi disarmament had explicitly stated that the document should be handed to the Security Council as a whole, not just to a select few members.

But Colombia's UN ambassador, Alfonso Valdivieso, said the decision on early access to the report was taken only after extensive consultations with all the other Council members.

It was based, he said, on the premises that the five big nuclear powers were the only nations qualified to assess potential risks and that the report might contain information which could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weaponry.


 

Iraq's dossier

Contains 12,000 pages in Arabic and English covering Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
2,100 page nuclear component being studied by IAEA in Vienna.
Declaration being examined first by five nuclear powers on Security Council.
See also:

First failure?
Resolution 1441


 
Syria has led the way in protest at the decision to allow the US and the other four permanent Security Council members exclusive access to the declaration.

"It's in contradiction to... every kind of logic in the Security Council," said Syria's ambassador to the UN, Mikhail Wehbe.

In a BBC interview, Mr Wehbe expressed the fear that the five big powers might claim Iraq was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 - triggering "serious consequences" - before non-permanent members of the Security Council had even seen the dossier.

Another diplomat quoted by the Reuters news agency said he believed the Iraqi declaration listed foreign suppliers which had dealt with Iraq.

The disclosure of their names could prove embarrassing for members of the the UN Security Council and other nations, he said.

The CIA is examining the document, and there is no word on how long it will be before America issues a considered verdict.

Correspondents say it is likely to take days, or possibly, weeks.

Inspections continue

UN weapons inspectors are continuing their searches of suspect sites in Iraq using the extensive powers given them by the Security Council resolution.

On Monday, a team visited the al-Tuweitha Nuclear Research Centre for the third time since the inspectors' return last month after a four-year absence.

Other experts checked a military complex near the town of Fallujah, 90 kilometres (55 miles) northwest of Baghdad, which has been repeatedly investigated by the UN.
     




fides quaerens intellectum