kla2

Like any revolution of ideas, there will be those who with the creative imagination to explore and test these new ideas for themselves. There will be those who stick their heads in the sands of denial like an ostrich. You might be amused to know that the responses I have experienced here are a mirror image of those I've had at 'religious' forums. They like it even less then you do, so you have lots of company. I have provided a taste of what is coming and inevitable. There is no stopping it now. The facts on the ground have changed. Time is never on the side of ignorance. "The tragedy for our species will be if existing religion and theology, skepticism and atheism have all so corrupted and discredited the very idea of God, that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real and great this potential is. "

I'm not evading anything. Just putting down on the record, that assumptions long embedded within cultural history, to which we have all been conditioned whatever side of the debate one might be, are in the process of coming unraveled and fast. I'm not here to teach or evangelize, just pointing to where the answers are. Every question is answered and available to those who will take the opportunity to explore this new material for themselves. If you want to be spoon fed this is not for you. Otherwise you can test the teaching on its own merits. A choice you never had before presents itself. What you do with that choice is your business alone.

For a teaching that is prepared to consign the last two thousand years of religious thought in the dustbin, any reference to wikipedia is particularly worthless. This new teaching exists not test your cleverness, but to measure your values and aspirations a human being. Natural reason by itself is not able to subject it to scrutiny, except by testing. You can't have it both ways without hypocrisy. It is one thing to be critical and dismissive of religious claims and ideas that, like all dogma and doctrine, have no means of verification, I am myself, but this teaching offers the precise means [path] to do so. A complete change in the 'faith' paradigm is taking place.

Yes in fact. Hypothesis is presumption, possibility by any other name. And only legitimizes itself when that 'possibility is confirmed by testing for 'expected' results. This new teaching is exactly the same model, offering the same method. Test it for yourself is you have the moral courage to do so. For that is what this teaching commands. The courage to think and act differently.

How can you expect a proof of God not to presume there is a God? Even a decent scientist presumes on his results, even if they fail at the experimental stage. The only epic fail is your own imagination and the intellectual integrity to get past your own prejudices. If allowing prejudice to dictate your answer even before testing it for yourself, is your idea of rationality, that rationality is fatally flawed!

The energon link, whose background colour you seem upset by [quite nice on my Mac] leads to a pdf download of the teaching. In the same way you might read a new scientific research paper, print it out and read it very carefully. It requires serious study. this is no a airport or scan read on screen. The first half, you might call 'a God hypothesis' occupies the first 16 chapters. The second part, details how to confirm the first. But if you don't have more that a 'minute' to inquire, this obviously isn't for you. To quote `Mark Twain, the man who won't read is no better than one who can't read. So be as hostile as you like. I've already tested and confirmed the teaching myself! And it is now only a matter of time before sufficient numbers of others do the same to establish a new reality and fact. "The tragedy for our species will be if existing religion and theology, skepticism and atheism have all so corrupted and discredited the very idea of God, that humanity is unable to re-imagine, discover and experience just how real and great this potential is."

A point well made in the 'locked' discussion is 'what bible'. Considering the scriptural discoveries made only last century one might reasonably ask or even assume that religion as we know it from history and tradition has been running on half a deck for all of it's existence. No wonder it has such falling credibility in the modern world. But to presume that the direct evidence barrier cannot be overcome, is of course the same presumption that the whole of scholastic theology and religion is founded upon. One can ask what would a religious conception look like that could break that barrier and fit the model of scrutiny we have come to associate with science? In a development that may leave 2000 years of religion staring into the abyss and have secularlists scratching more than their heads, we may be about to find out! For what science and religion thought impossible has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith. The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Using both canonical, non canonical texts. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence. Thus 'faith' becomes the path to search and discover a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, an intervention "correcting human nature" by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. However uncomfortable this might be for many, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists and spreading on the web. I can imagine how the religious will respond to this change in the faith paradigm. But how will science confront a religious [moral] ideal, not of human intellectual origin, but that meets all the criteria of their own discipline? Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk, http://soulgineering...final-freedoms/

"Do not post if you have already determined that nothing can change your views." What is important about scientific method is that it presupposes ones willingness to change views and opinions when confronted by an undeniable body of direct evidence, And there could be a lot of mind change coming over the horizon! As a humanity, we have all been conditioned or indoctrinated, for all of history by 'theological' exegesis, particularly by those with their own 'religious' claims and agendas, to accept that a literal proof of God [acceptable to science] is not possible for faith. And thus all discussion and apologists 'theodicy' is contained within this self limiting intellectual paradigm and bubble of presumption, especially evident in the frictions between science and religion. It would now appear that all sides squabbling over the God question, religious, atheist and history itself have it wrong! That bubble could now burst at any time! The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution is getting under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk With apologies to Shakespeare: To test or not to test that is the question?

Why not test for an answer? It has been presumed through all of history, as we understand that history, and we have been conditioned to think, believe and accept, that no way or means exist to confirm the potential reality we call God, by any evidence, causation based method or path of faith. At least that is what religious organizations, their apologists and adherents would assume. But if science tells us anything about the search for understanding reality, before any viable insight is discovered, one can explore an uncountable number dead end assumptions first. And it may now prove to be the case that religion, as we understand that word from tradition is no more than a collection of 'dead ends'! It would now appear that all sides squabbling over the God question have it wrong! The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it of no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution appears to be getting under way. With apologies to Shakespeare: To test or not to test that is the question. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk

I would suggest that one difference between science and religion is how one perceives the potential of natural reason. Early medieval thinkers considered philosophy or theology as a 'spiritual' undertaking and that reason could arrive at knowledge in it's own right. That set up the early conflicts with the church as empirical process began to offer proofs that offered evidence contrary to the assumptions of reason. What I hope should be obvious from history is that reason by itself has limitations, what ever claims of logic are made for it and secure knowledge requires the additional confirmation that empirical scrutiny provides.

I'll add my choice if I may. A sort of everything you always wanted to know about God but were afraid to ask. It's titled The Final Freedoms and it's a free pdf from a number of sites. A review can be found at: http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/ and a download link at: htp://www.energon.org.uk Enjoy

Both my wife and I also came from strong catholic families but came to a similar questioning point in our lives. We don't discount the potential for such a reality as God, just consider it a question history has yet to successfully resolve. And we came deliberatly to the conclusion that whatever 'the church' claims to be, catholic or otherwise, any theologically based tradition, has by definition, can have nothing to do with with either God, Christ or truth. Theology only exists because nothing has been revealed. And we've lived happily ever after ever since!