The Force?

[mfbukowski]

it is not the physical presence of Midicholorians. It is more like a cell phone to the force. To DaddyG, there are plenty of Force Imbued weapons, tailsmens and amulet within the Star Wars. Also Within various Force Traditions, it is not unheard Force users using Crystals and other training aides to amp their force connections. Naga Sadow, a Well known Sith Sorcerer, was known for his love for Focusing Sith Amulets to boost his deep connection to the dark side of the force. Within the Sith Order there is a deep arcane Tradition called the Sith Sorcerer and Emperor Palpatine was consider the Ideal Sith Sorcerer. His master, Plagueis is another Sith Sorcerer as well.

Yeah, but I betcha Gandalf can beat him up any day of the week.

[Peppermint Patty]

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[inquiringmind]

Nothing is ruled out.

We don't know everything- in fact we know very little. All that is "doctrine" is what we do know- but all these other questions/ideas, as long as they don't conflict with known doctrine/scripture - you get to be inspired and choose your own interpretation.

Another way of saying this is that eveything that is doctrinal about God is a very small subset of all that could be said, imagined, or known.

Thank you.

The question that really interests me here is whether Theism's personal God, and Pantheism's impersonal God, are as mutually exclusive as they at first seem to be.

As I said above, Mormon Theology actually makes more sense to me if they're not.

The Pantheist's impersonal "God" could help explain why the Personal God of Mormonism exists, and why He conveniently has the "co-existing" building blocks of creation to "organize."

Edited January 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[DarkScythe]

Yeah, but I betcha Gandalf can beat him up any day of the week.

Well Gandalf is the chuck norris tier of wizards. SO it is not fair match up.

Edited January 18, 2012 by DarkScythe

[mfbukowski]

In all seriousness I have no problem finding out that some mechanism that God uses to communicate with me could be some refined physical source or mechanics of space/time.

I think in an LDS language game that is called the "light of Christ"

[altersteve]

Well Gandalf is the chuck norris tier of wizards. SO it is not fair match up.

Where does that leave Dumbledore?

[mfbukowski]

Where does that leave Dumbledore?

Bruce Lee.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you.

The question that really interests me here is whether Theism's personal God, and Pantheism's impersonal God, are as mutually exclusive as they at first seem to be.

As I said above, Mormon Theology actually makes more sense to me if they're not.

The Pantheist's impersonal "God" could help explain why the Personal God of Mormonism exists, and why He conveniently has the "co-existing" building blocks of creation to "organize."

Well we would not call this impersonal force "God", but we do believe that God follows natural laws; we also believe the Light of Christ is a real "force" which penetrates the universe.

Perhaps the light of Christ is somehow linked to these natural forces. No one knows.

[Peppermint Patty]

Mr. T or Yoda?

[LeSellers]

Now I want to go all nerd on everyone and watch all six movies in chronological order.

Which chronology? The time line of the story or the sequence of the films' releases?

BTW, how long before the idea of "film" disappears from our vocabulary or minds? With Kodak's filing for bankruptcy because they can't sell their patents and, even more basically, because they are not selling film, and with digital and electronic "film" distribution being already upon us, celluloid (another anachronism) will soon be a thing of the past. The word will stay, I believe (just as we still say "Give me a ring", meaning "Call me on the telephone"—a device that no longer has a bell to ring, and may soon disappear itself), but the artifact is a dead man walking.

We live in fantastic (using the original meaning of the word) times.

Lehi

Edited January 18, 2012 by LeSellers

[DarkScythe]

God uses Natural laws but supercedes them as well.

Edited January 18, 2012 by DarkScythe

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Under the direction of the Father, the Son created ALL things both in the heavens and on the earth. ALL things. The only co-eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, is the Father and the Son, period. ALL things came into being through them.

[LeSellers]

God uses Natural laws but supercedes them as well.

No, He does not "supercede" them, if, by that, you mean that He negates them. What He does is apply a superset of the law.

It is similar to what we do when we fly. The law of gravity still applies, but we use Bernouli's principle (another "natural law") to overcome it to some extent.

We can also walk on water, as long as the water is frozen. Is there a force that can create state of matter (unknown to us now) that permitted Christ to walk on the Sea of Galilee, and Peter, too, but which the latter failed to exercise properly, causing the temporary "aura" of the power to dissipate and the water then revert to its normal liquid form? I believe there is, or something like it. But, however that power may be described, or whatever it is, that unknown state of matter would be a natural phenomenon.

Lehi

[Nathair/|\]

I do believe in the force and it is not limited to our religion. The Force in simple terms, is energy focused in useable form. In Eastern Traditions, Chi is the energy flow that all life produces. Western Tradition has their theories.

As of the movies, Jedi and Sith blend Western and Eastern tradition in a warrior monk archtype.

DarkScythe is absolutely correct. Chi/prana/ruach/nwyfre/force is simply energy. It doesn't have a mind of it's own.

...People understood the relationship between mind and body in a very different way. They experienced themselves as three things, not two. A third factor--the life force--existed between mind and body and linked them together...To this older way of thinking, [the Force] is the source of life, energy, and vitality, enlivening the dense matter of the body and connecting it with the mind. In the Renaissance view, [the Force] surrounds and penetrates all material things, uniting them and weaving the universe into a whole.

Greer, John Michael, The Druid Magic Handbook, p. 8

Real Magic is natural, not supernatural. It unfolds from the natural force of [the Force], and its effects follow natural patterns and obey the laws of nature. Thus magic won't make rocks fall upward or apple trees bear tomatoes...Magic can start stop, speed up, or slow down anything in nature--including human nature--within the broad limits nature herself sets on those processes. What nature doesn't do, however, magic won't do either.

p. 15

[Nominee]

Now I want to go all nerd on everyone and watch all six movies in chronological order.

Who's with me?

It's a snow day, I'm there.

[mfbukowski]

God uses Natural laws but supercedes them as well.

Not necessarily. One could argue that we don't know all the "natural laws" whatever that really means.

Newton's "natural laws" for example were contained in the larger understanding of "natural law" presented by Einstein. I am sure there are many other physical models yet to be invented (or "discovered", depending on your epistemology) before we get to the understanding of "natural law" God has.

[Calm]

A minor correction...

It is not "collective subconscious", but "collective unconscious".

Plus it was not necessarily something like a "hive mind" that links everyone, but may simply be an inherited characteristic depending on how one chooses to interpret Jung.

http://en.wikipedia....ive_unconscious

For Jung, “My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.”

The collective unconscious is an universal datum, that is, every human being is endowed with this psychic archetype-layer since his/her birth. One can not acquire this strata by education or other conscious effort because it is innate.

And

The collective unconscious - so far as we can say anything about it at all - appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious... We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual.

http://www.carl-jung...nconscious.html

http://www.timestar.org/collective.htm for Jung's own description as well

Edited January 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

A minor correction...

It is not "collective subconscious", but "collective unconscious".

Plus it was not necessarily something like a "hive mind" that links everyone, but may simply be an inherited characteristic depending on how one chooses to interpret Jung.

Subconscious is a little out of date today, but I believe it was more popular than "unconscious" when Freud and Jung were with us.

And even if modern Jungians might like to downplay Jung's belief in the paranormal, there's no doubt that Jung believed in it.

His collective subconscious (or unconscious) was more than "an inherited characteristic."

He believed it had a real, external existence--an existence outside any individual human organism (as numerous quotes could substantiate.)

P.S. If you've never heard of the famous "poltergeist in the bookshelf" incident, this might interest you.

According to Jung (1963/1989), the first real crisis in their friendship came in spring 1909, from the following incident. Jung visited Freud in Vienna and asked his opinion on precognition and parapsychology. But Freud was too materialistic and rejected these matters in a way that upset Jung. A strange thing happened then. As Freud was leaving, Jung felt his diaphragm burning and a very loud crack came from the bookcase next to them. When Jung told Freud that this is a perfect example of paranormal phenomenon, he still denied it. Then Jung predicted that in a moment there would be another loud noise. And he was right; a second loud crack came from the bookcase. Freud remained puzzled and this incident raised his mistrust towards Jung. (pp. 155-156)

http://soultherapyno.../carl-jung.html

Jung also claimed to have foreseen his attending physician's untimely demise during a near death experience he had while hospitalized for a heart attack.

The doctor did die before Jung was discharged, and whether you believe the story or not, there's really no doubt that Jung's views were more mystical than some of his modern disciples would like to admit.

Edited January 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[DarkScythe]

bump. if there was a verifible Force sect that does use the force as in TK and precongition, Would you join?

[The Nehor]

bump. if there was a verifible Force sect that does use the force as in TK and precongition, Would you join?

Only if I got to choose the color of my lightsaber.

[inquiringmind]

Only if I got to choose the color of my lightsaber.

I never got into the prequels (and I don't remember much of the original, as I saw it a long time ago), but is it possible to separate the idea of some impersonal force (that might have some direct or indirect relationship to a personal God) from Luke Skywalker, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas?

Nothing is ruled out.

We don't know everything- in fact we know very little. All that is "doctrine" is what we do know- but all these other questions/ideas, as long as they don't conflict with known doctrine/scripture - you get to be inspired and choose your own interpretation.

Another way of saying this is that everything that is doctrinal about God is a very small subset of all that could be said, imagined, or known.

Thanks.

Edited January 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[The Nehor]

I never got into the prequels, and I don't remember much of the original (as I saw it a long time ago), but is it possible to separate the idea of an impersonal force (that might have some relationship to a personal God) from Steven Spielberg and George Lucas?

Yes, it's called pantheism.

It makes less sense then George Lucas's silly midichlorian explanation for the Force.

[inquiringmind]

Yes, it's called pantheism.

It makes less sense then George Lucas's silly midichlorian explanation for the Force.

I didn't think a true pantheist believed in any personal God?

BTW: Gravity is an impersonal force, isn't it?

Electromagnetism is an impersonal force, isn't it?

Would you say that neither of them have anything to do with God?

(And does believing in one or more make one a pantheist?)

Edited January 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[The Nehor]

I didn't think a true pantheist believed in any personal God?

In my experience it depends on the pantheist. Many switch back and forth depending on circumstances.

BTW: Gravity is an impersonal force, isn't it?

Possibly. Certainly seems to be.

Electromagnetism is an impersonal force, isn't it?

No it's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.

(And does believing in one or more make one a pantheist?)

No.

[inquiringmind]

No it's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.

I don't think any scientist would deny that electromagnetism is a force, or would agree that it's "an energy field (exclusively) created by all living things."

That's Lucas/Spielberg again, isn't it?

In my experience it depends on the pantheist. Many switch back and forth depending on circumstances.

Maybe you're thinking of Einstein?

Quotes have been produced to show that he was a Pantheist, an Atheist, and a Theist.

Maybe he was one of these deceptive Pantheists you're talking about (who just kept switching back and forth depending on circumstances), or maybe he genuinely believed that the universe he saw was too complicated to be explained by any one theory.

Edited January 26, 2012 by inquiringmind