3:50 pm, Friday, 2013-02-01 1 st , Mayan day 7 Ik/Wind

Science As Sacred – Reverence for Truth

Rupert Sheldrake at EU 2013—"Science Set Free" (Part 1) 30:09 Rupert Sheldrake at EU 2013—"Science Set Free" (Part 2) 27:43 Generous preview of the book – Science Set Free – Rupert Sheldrake Beyond Reason 1:31:30 As Above So Below, An Intro To Fractal Evoloution!! Bruce Lipton 1:11:38 Nassim Haramein, Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library 6:52:21 Video Journal
This is another experiment. It seems to have a lot of mind to it, but it's coming from Heart, so here goes. If we go back into recent history – the last 2 thousand years or so – we precede the birth of what we call science, today. Initially, only the clergy and those of noble birth could read, so everyone else looked to them for instruction and truth. With the church firmly in charge of scholarship, we find God given as the answer to so many things. For instance, Newton's laws worked to predict planetary motion only so far. When quizzed

about their small imperfection, he is said to have answered that the angels must come down now and again to give their orbits a nudge and keep all in proper place. This sort of answer – even preceding the arrival of Jesus and later, the Catholic Church – was quite common. God was looked at creator, prime mover, and very much in charge of all things. Thus were the sacrifices and prayers made to placate or satisfy such a power as that, and to keep man's noses clean and in line with God's desires – as interpreted to us by the priests. To us, back then, this all made good sense. Angels were relied on a good bit, even to the point of one being assigned to each mortal, the Guardian Angel. That worked for a good while, but then the intensely curious began developing things like telescopes, giving them access to even more astute or accurate observations. At this point things began to clash. When the earth and planets were seen to go around the Sun, instead of the church-propounded earth-centric arrangement, heads would roll – well, something like that. It didn't matter how excellent the evidence, if anything at all went contrary to church teachings, the discoverer would likely find himself on the other side, soon. So we saw the split come between science and religion. Up to that point they had always marched hand-in-hand, the sciences there to illumine the handiwork of God. While that sounds a bit strange, today, it's really not that long ago that it was the quite accepted way things were considered to work. It was that day's “normal.” As our maths began to excel, it wasn't long before the flaws in Newton's math, that had him calling on angels as the ones supplying the perfection of things, were eclipsed. Now the math was able to successfully account for how things worked. God and the angels were seen as not needed, anymore. Now, first of all, that's interesting, just on the face of it. It makes me wonder at the separation of God and maths. I'm not arguing for religion, here – far from it. This is still logic at work. Just because something is known, such that the how of some motion can be calculated, doesn't, to me, take God or Source out of it. Do they think Source has no intelligence, or has not an understanding of maths? Do they forbid God from having aught to do

with anything unless it's done by some magical or mystical operation? Is “God” used as the catch-phrase or dumping ground for anything not yet understood – such that once it's understood or calculated out, God is dismissed? If it can later be understood, how does that eliminate God? Let's say you've been praying in earnest to be given an understanding of how something works. You're really fascinated by it, but you can't quite connect all the dots. Later, through any number of avenues, come the missing pieces to your puzzle. They may have come through a class, a book you found, a talk radio show, a friend, or a stranger at lunch. Does their method of arrival prevent them from being an answer to your prayers? Mankind seems quite vague around this sort of thing. It's not well thought out. And with religion having become such a taboo to those of Holy Science, they dare not even consider consciousness, much less divine support for anything. What a mess! So much wiped out with one fell swoop. What is it about maths that they're used to exclude God? Instead, why could it not be that the maths were given in answer to men's prayers to know? Why could not a universe or Cosmos with a built on divine intelligence or even by a divine creator not also be based also on maths? I just don't see them as mutually exclusive. Admittedly, huge swaths of the way God was conceived of had to go. It was too spooky and superstitious. That was clearly man's incomplete conception of things, and no fault of God / Source. So what is it about man's ideas clarifying them shoves God out? Could not that increase in clarify have been delivered or inspired by Source? If not, why not? People haven't had a clear conception of Source – nor have they well understood much of science for very long. I hate to see the baby discarded with the dirty bathwater – God thrown out simply because knowledge increased. Does man think himself the origin of this increase of knowledge? That's pretty arrogant. Why not, along with revising understanding of science, just revise understanding of Source? We don't need any sort of religion at all to still have respect for Source, which can also be seen as All That Is, Was, or Will Be. That's not religious. It's simply spiritual. Nor does it undercut sci-

ence one bit – true science as deeply respecting and seeking out Truth. I think that, in our race to leave behind all the strictures and trappings of religion – most particularly the dogma and doctrine of it – we've pitched out the baby, or God, with the bathwater. We can throw over religion just fine – even remain atheistic – yet make room for the concept of Source as simply the All That Is or the intelligent matrix of things. There is no need to worship That. No priesthood nor tithes are required. I see it as just a more expansive way of looking at things – one that doesn't need to do the either-or duality dance. There's no need to fight or reject the high level concepts involved. This whole thing of butting heads is so old-school. Let's leave it behind. Just because we come to understand something doesn't take Source out of the picture. We can even set aside all of the religious scriptures, for they're too tied in with the dogma and doctrine they promote. All of that can go, and there can still be a place of primacy for Source as All That Is. Things can be sacred without being religious or dogmatic. Please, join me in recognizing how deeply dogmatic many aspects and areas of science are, so much that I've often called it a religion in its own right. To lend me solid, scientific support for this view, I'll link you to some work by Rupert Sheldrake, a well respected scientist of our day. Source/God can be very scientific, indeed. Actually, It can be the very source of science, as well as the home and origin of all Truth. I trust that science at least intends to seek out truth – even though is does a shoddy job in a number of ways. All That Is equals Truth, actually – as all that is. I'm grateful for the powerful seekers of Truth who've incarnated among the ranks of science, today. Nassim Haramein, Gregg Braden, Bruce Lipton , Peter Russell , Amit Goswami , Michael Talbot, and any number of others are breaking ranks with any and all that does not put truth first. Too much of today's science is hidebound and about protecting position and reputation – and funding – with scarce concern for the real pursuit of Truth.

My suggestion is this: let's not only shake-out all the old superstitious, dogmatic aspects of religion – BUT ALSO of science, as well. There are many, many assumptions placed within the structure of what's “known,” today. There are many things we can measure and count for which we have no explanation at all – just our best guess. Well, let's be honest about that, and quit sweeping it under the rug – refusing to bring it up or address it. Great reputations and Nobel Prizes have been built on some pretty shaky structures. Finally, it is most important to follow the money in every aspect of science if we would stick close to truth. Much that is noble and beautiful has been cheapened in the search for reputation and reward. Huge amounts of government money are backing, even fronting such things. It's time to set all the rhetoric aside and opt for clear seeing and to re-elevate real Truth to her spot of honor and respect. For now, money has been made into a God that is too universally respected and sought out. Religion, the way I see it, was created to control the masses. I put money in the same category – a powerful means of huge control. These things no longer control us, as before, once they're seen through. It's time to be seeing, my friends. I call for a worldwide re-visioning of what is meant by science, by truth, by spirituality. God/Source is not religious. God is not wealthy. These are just means of control and manipulation, ways of keeping us enslaved. Just because you can understand something doesn't take Source out of the picture. Furthermore, I'd be careful about claiming to understand much. As history is our guide, no knowledge, no science or facts long remain steady or stable. Whatever it is, give it 20 years and we'll understand how it's not the full answer we thought it was. How can it be otherwise, when the one and only constant, here in 3D, is change? LOL. We're taking ourselves way too seriously, dear friends. It's time and past time to lighten the hell up. It's time to step back from all we think we know – all we pretend to know – and take another, a closer look. Nothing at all is what we think it is. Nothing. Well then, let's withdraw our belief.


science as religion, money as a god, respect for Truth, brave scientists, split between science and religion, God supplied mystery or magic, change our beliefs, follow the money, unproven assumptions, dogma and doctrine, religion for control, Source God or Spirit, OWN being divine, Higher Self as Essence, watch and observe, awaken or enlighten, flexible perspective, live from Heart, let go or surrender

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful