BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> YOUR philosophy of 'god' and religion. Is God (G0D) for real? Or just a figment of the imagination?, Atheists, join in. You are included.
Lindsay
post Aug 06, 2007, 08:32 PM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



NOTE: The new title I give to this thread.
==============================

Dictionary.com defines God, not just in general terms; it also defines God in terms such as that used by the Christian Science faith. My World Book Dictionary, under the word 'Spirit', that is, with a capital, writes that (in the belief of Christian Science) it is the same as God.

Definition number 5 writes about Christian Science as defining God as the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

This begs the question. when dictionaries attempt to define 'God" are they not attempting to define that whicn is beyond definition?

Also, is it fair for a dictionary to include the definition of God as understood by any one particular religion and to neglect other definitions from any number of other denominations?

BTW, I think the Christian Science concept of God is a rather good one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Orbz
post Aug 06, 2007, 08:39 PM
Post #2


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
From: Australia
Member No.: 6770



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 07, 2007, 12:32 PM) *

Dictionary.com defines God, not just in general terms; it also defines God in terms as defined by those who call themselves members of the Christian Science faith.

For example, in definition number 5, it writes about Christian Science, which defines God as the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

IMHO, a dictionary should never attempt to define that whicn is without definition.
If it gives a Christian Science definition, why does it not give any number of other definitions?

It was written by Christian Scientists?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 07, 2007, 12:00 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



Ha! ha! very funny, Orbz! But I think Lyndsay has a point. Despite of any personal believe regarding the God concept, an objective definition of Him/Iti is a futile atempt. That's mainly because the God concept as humanly understood lies in areas of the concsiousness still not well understood by our present means. I guess it falls back the the Schoringer's Cat paradigm, which underlines the limitations of science when attepmting to define nature at a level outside the present human capacity: It falls short every time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 07, 2007, 01:37 PM
Post #4


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Note what I wrote in my revised version of my first post:
I think the Christian Science concept of God is a rather good one. I like many of the principles advocated by CS. It just that in denying the practical value of physical medicine I feel they carry some of their principles too far.

BTW, the reason why CS prayer is so often successful is that, as many medical researchers agree: A negative and fearful frame of mind and spirit can be the root cause of many physical diseases.

Some researchers say that as high as 80% of all diseases, physical and mental, are the result of a stressful mental and spiritual state of mind. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the opposite is also true. A healthy spirit and mind make for a healthy body--total health of being. As an old proverbs puts it: "A merry heart is good medicine."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 07, 2007, 01:45 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



My bad Lyndsay. I was re-dericting the thread more towards your comment about the dictionary definition of God.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 08, 2007, 04:10 AM
Post #6


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(code buttons @ Aug 07, 2007, 01:45 PM) *

My bad Lyndsay. I was re-dericting the thread more towards your comment about the dictionary definition of God.
In the spirit of dialogue, tell us more so as to clarify what you mean.

BTW, I would like to change the title of this thread to:
The god-concept: OUR concept of 'god'. Is God, GØD, god, a who? Or a what? Or just a figment of the imagination. And these questions pose numerous others. What are your important questions?

For me, GØD means three things:
Physically speaking:
GØD is all-pervasive space/time and gravity, including apparent chaos and evil. GØD is also art--the good, the bad and the ugly.
Mentally: GØD is all philosophies and all science--moral and immoral.
Spiritually: GØD is the highest good--faith, hope and love--IF that is the choice we make.

However, within us we also have the amazing love-based freedom to make choices. We can make choices that will lead us to completely be, or not to be. We are free to be foolish, or wise. And in my humble opinion, we have an eternity of time and an infinity of space in which to do it.

Thanks to GØD--within, around, beneath and above--in my humble opinion we also have the power to be humble, teachable, wise. Following the principles: Do no harm and make no judgements, IMHO, we can do this on our own; or in any social group--small, medium or large.

THE ABILITY TO HAVE FAITH, HOPE AND LOVE CANNOT BE IMPOSED
========================================================
Keeping in mind that the ability to have faith, hope and love cannot be imposed on anyone, the goal is everlasting joy for all people in the whole world who choose it. I have made my choice.

There is one thing that, every now and then, cramps my feeling of joy and gives me twinges of despair. I will mention it later.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 08, 2007, 05:45 AM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



I don't know what else to say but just what I said about it. I basically thought you meant that it was futile to try to define God (or the concept of God) in thoughts that were digestible by the humand mind, and I said I cocurred with that. Your concept of God, being different from mine, is the combination of those things you mentioned in your last post combined. But, come to think of it, it's still just that, a concept. Am i right? Whereas my concept of God might mean something different to me. All those things you mention God to mean to you are simply concepts in my mind. Which begs the question: What is it that is so important to you to have all these concepts put together into a definition which you call God (or G-D or G_D, ect)?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post Aug 08, 2007, 08:00 AM
Post #8


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 06, 2007, 08:32 PM) *

This begs the question. when dictionaries attempt to define 'God" are they not attempting to define that whicn is beyond definition?


If you believe god is beyond definition, would that not lead to saying that god is beyond understanding?
The word god holds no constant coherent meaning. Its meaning is entirely subjective and dependent on the person that holds the notion for it's meaning.


QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 06, 2007, 08:32 PM) *

For me, GØD means three things:
Physically speaking:
GØD is all-pervasive space/time and gravity, including apparent chaos and evil. GØD is also art--the good, the bad and the ugly.
Mentally: GØD is all philosophies and all science--moral and immoral.
Spiritually: GØD is the highest good--faith, hope and love--IF that is the choice we make.


I am confused after reading the first post, why you are (from my point of view) trying to define
GØD .

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 08, 2007, 11:09 AM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(code buttons @ Aug 08, 2007, 05:45 AM) *

CB:... I basically thought you meant that it was futile to try to define God (or the concept of God) in thoughts that were digestible by the humand mind, and I said I cocurred with that.

LGK: Nowhere do I say it is futile to try and define the god-concept. [Note that I have been successful in changing the title of this thread.]

As one who admires the process philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitlehead, in my humble opinion (IMHO), GØD is a concept which is always in process of coming into being.

CB: Your concept of God, being different from mine, is the combination of those things you mentioned in your last post combined.

LGK: Refresh my mind: In what ways does you concept differ from mine? Are you more of a theist, or deist?

I agree that concepts are concepts. However, when, like Seth Lloyd, I think of the cosmos as an immense quantum computer, GØD, physically speaking, to me is a very concrete concept.

CB: Whereas my concept of God might mean something different to me.

LGK: Even if you repeat yourself, tell us: What about your god-concept is different?

CB: All those things you mention God to mean to you are simply concepts in my mind. Which begs the question: What is it that is so important to you to have all these concepts put together into a definition which you call God (or G-D or G_D, ect)?

LGK: May I assume that you are not just being rhetorical? If so, I will answer you questions as follows: Anything that I think about, and write about so much is very important to me. I want a god-concept that is based on more than just faith. It must be based on reason also.

Later I will add some comments about the kind of "faith" which I find unacceptable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 08, 2007, 11:14 AM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 12:09 PM) *
Later I will add some comments about the kind of "faith" which I find unacceptable.

I find all faith unacceptable, but what can one do but tolerate the deluded until they come around?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 08, 2007, 11:37 AM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Rick @ Aug 08, 2007, 11:14 AM) *

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 12:09 PM) *
Later I will add some comments about the kind of "faith"--I should have added, god-concept--which I find unacceptable.

I find all faith unacceptable, but what can one do but tolerate the deluded until they come around?
Spoken like a true "know-it-all" and brother of G0D, note I now use a 0 , zero, because this program changes the null to this (GƒœD)
Rick, I hope you realize that this puts you under the great obligation to share more and more of your wisdom with all of us, eh?

THE KIND OF GOD-CONCEPT I FIND UNACCEPTABLE
1. I cannot accept a god-concept which requires me to have a blind faith in one called God, who clothes "Himself in mystery" and demands us to "trust and obey" Him.
2. One who wrote one infallible book, the Bible--or was it the Koran?
3. By the way, the Bible implies that, in the beginning there was nothing but God.

THE FOLLOWING MAY BE GOOD POETRY, BUT NOT GOOD HISTORY
=======================================================
The part of the Bible which we call the Old Testament--which the Jews call the Hebrew Torah, Prophets and Writings--tells us that, out of nothing, God created the heavens, including the sun moon and stars. He also created the centre of the universe, the earth. Surrounding the earth, he created numerous angels, archangels, including fallen angels, demons and the devil, who, under His control, he allowed to visit the earth.

It only took him six days to create all this, including the earth and our first parents, Adam and Eve.

This means that God is the Lord God Almighty, our Heavenly Father who is loving, just and merciful. But then, for some unexplained reason, He did not create an exact copy of His Heavenly Kingdom. He created an earth filled with all kinds of danger.

THE FOLLOWING BOTHERS ME, A LOT,
Especially if we are expected to believe that God is a real person:
===============================
He allowed all kinds of evil and sin to flourish--snakes, talking snakes, even, in the grass--without even informing anyone as to why he did this. Some argue--and this is nowhere stated in the Bible--that God did this because he wanted us to love him of our own free will.

O eventually, after a period of lots of corruption, He tried to make things better by organizing his own holocaust. He sent one humongous flood,which destroyed everything--I presume the fish were happy smile.gif--except Noah, the numerous air-breathing creatures, of all kinds, plus his family, plus his three sons: Shem, Ham and Jappeth--the first parents of all people, of all races, who exist today.

Women! Did you notice that there is no mention of the names of the women? What does this tell you about the one who wrote the WORD of God?

The Hebrew Bible tells us that most of of the descendents of the family of Noah, with a few noted exceptions, were not much better than those who God destroyed in the great flood. Over the next 4000 years, all over the world, things went from bad to worse. Pious Jews prayed to God, fervently: "Send us a messiah, one who will truly save all of us from our sins." They still pray this kind of prayer to this day. Christians pray for the Messiah, Christ, to come back again. The Muslim pray for the 12th Immam to come. Other religions, or faiths, have their own set of beliefs.

THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE REFORMED JEWS
Meanwhile, a sect of reformed Jews, who later called themselves, Christians, came to the conclusion that, eventually, God decided to save the world, this time once and for all. It is recorded in the Christian Bible--in what we call the New Testament--that he had only one son who He decided to send down to earth to save us. According to those who believe this, that happened around 4 BCE.

BTW, does anyone really believe that God only had one son? Surely, he and Mrs. God, with all the rsources they must have under their control, could afford to have millions, if not billions of sons, and daughters! Again I ask, what does this tell us about who it was who wrote the STORY?
Whatever is true, or not true, about the above, the story teller tells us that about 2000 years ago, Jesus was born, in Bethlehem, as the the one and only Son of God.

On this earthly plane. he assigned to be the son of Joseph, a carpenter, and his wife, Mary. Some pious Christians believe that she was ever the virgin wife of Joseph and the virgin mother of Jesus, even though the NT mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Be that as it may, he grew up in Nazareth, of Galilee. In his late twenties he started to gather together disciples by preaching, teaching and healing people. He preached a gospel--that is, good news--based on love, which offered eternal salvation--physical, mental and spiritual health--to all who chose to follow and were willing to suffer and die, if necessary for this gospel.

Needless to say, a certain powerful few, despite that masses heard him, gladly, refused to accept his message. They rewarded the efforts of Jesus with suffering, pain and death, which Jesus willingly accepted.

Three days after his burial, certain followers of Jesus believed that he actually rose from the dead. Inspired by this belief, they came together and formed the first Christian churches which grew up all over the place, not just in one place. Over the next 300 years or so a lot more pain and suffering was endured by the followers of the way of faith, hope and love. But then, about 325, came Constantine, the so-called Christian Emperor. Thopugh he was a brutal dictator most of his life, he had some good points. He agreed not to persecute the Christians, probably because his mother was one. Eventually some Christians became powerful members of his government. This led to more power, to more war, to more corruption and, eventually, to the fall of Rome powerless to defend itself from the invasions of Goths, Huns and other "barbarians".

When the early leaders of the "one true church of God" picked up the pieces, which were left after the fall of the Roman Empire, it looked like it was on the way to establishing "the one and only Kingdom of God" on earth.

All that was necessary was for Jesus to come back from his father's court, in heaven. When he does he will lead the followers of God, in a glorious victory at the battle of Armageddon. Meanwhile, this belief led to the establishing of the "one, true, holy and Roman Catholic church" and the Crusades against the upstart, Islam. Unfortunately for Rome, it also ran into those who saw it as being the main source of couurption. This led to th Reformation, which also led us into the rise of science.

But let us not forget that many--including some very powerful economic and political leaders, mostly Protestants--today, actually believe that, at any minute, God will send his son, again.

I wonder what odds the bookies are offering as to when this will happen..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 08, 2007, 11:50 AM
Post #12


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 12:37 PM) *
Rick, I hope you realize that this puts you under the great obligation to share more and more of your wisdom with all of us, eh?

Certainly, for you of course. Here goes:

1. We should value and work to improve what we will leave behind us when we die, as death means personal extinguishment. What we leave behind is what is important.

2. Remember that love is what lends value to the world we leave behind when we die. When you are injured by someone, do not focus on revenge. Try to put yourself in the place of the one who does injury to try to understand his view. Try to find a way to increase the influence of love.

3. All living things differ from one another only in their particular circumstances. We all die as individuals. We all live as long as life exists.

If everyone followed those three principles, all of people's desires will become fulfilled in time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 08, 2007, 12:14 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Rick, great stuff!!!!
=============

WARNING! I do not want anyone complaining that Rick is off topic.
====================================================

Since this thread was originated by me, and since this thread is about anything found in the dictionaries: EVERYTHING that is INTERESTING, and is found in dictionaries, IS ON TOPIC, in my humble opinion, anyway, and for what it is worth, etc., and so on and on and on. laugh.gif

GOT IT!!!!!!

If what is said bores you, start your own BORING thread, Okay?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 08, 2007, 12:27 PM
Post #14


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 11:09 AM) *

LGK: Refresh my mind: In what ways does you concept differ from mine? Are you more of a theist, or deist?

IMO any G_D (your kind of G_D) out there is the product of our creation. What does that make me?
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 11:37 AM) *

...THE FOLLOWING BOTHERS ME, A LOT...

Why does the story bother you, Lindsay?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 08, 2007, 12:52 PM
Post #15


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(code buttons @ Aug 08, 2007, 12:27 PM) *

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 11:09 AM) *

LGK: Refresh my mind: In what ways does your concept differ from mine? Are you more of a theist, or deist?

IMO any G_D (your kind of G_D) out there is the product of our creation. What does that make me?
LGK: In my opinion, this makes you a father/mother of God, not a son/daughter. biggrin.gif Seriously, I think of us as co-creators, with GØD/GOD, of a great republic, not kingdom, of GØD .

QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 11:37 AM) *

...THE FOLLOWING BOTHERS ME, A LOT...

CB: Why does the story bother you, Lindsay?

LGK: You sound like a psychoanalyst. Are you? What's your fee?

What bothers me is that some rational people actually believe such irrational nonsense as is found in the Bible and some theistic theology.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 08, 2007, 01:05 PM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



Wiki:

God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]

Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Augustine of Hippo,[2] Al-Ghazali,[3] and Maimonides.[2] Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[4] attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes. Philosophers have developed several arguments for and against the existence of God.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 08, 2007, 01:11 PM
Post #17


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



1. One thing is clear for many: something exists out there.
2. The Properties of that something is still a matter of debate.
3. We do not have proper communication line for information exchange with that something; and we do not know why it is so.

We need to research that something and shot down those who say that we cannot research that something.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 08, 2007, 01:17 PM
Post #18


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Enki @ Aug 08, 2007, 01:11 PM) *

1. One thing is clear for many: something exists out there.
2. The Properties of that something is still a matter of debate.
3. We do not have proper communication line for information exchange with that something; and we do not know why it is so.
Excellent points, Enki.

BTW, as to # 3, I feel that I do have a "communication line" that works, at least for me. I promise not to impose my feelings on others, but I will gladly share them, and dialogue about them. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 08, 2007, 01:29 PM
Post #19


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 01:17 PM) *

QUOTE(Enki @ Aug 08, 2007, 01:11 PM) *

1. One thing is clear for many: something exists out there.
2. The Properties of that something is still a matter of debate.
3. We do not have proper communication line for information exchange with that something; and we do not know why it is so.
Excellent points, Enki.

BTW, as to # 3, I feel that I do have a "communication line" that works, at least for me. I promise not to impose my feelings on others, but I will gladly share them, and dialogue about them. smile.gif


Thank you for appreciating my humble rumination related with The Something. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 08, 2007, 01:35 PM
Post #20


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



I agree with Lindsay: MOST excellent point, Enki. And I agree with you on everything you said 100%. This is what gives some of us Hope that not everything is lost. Thank you for sharing such wisdom with us. What forms of communication do you think will work at the colective level? Should we go about it by scientific means, or otherwise?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Culture
post Aug 09, 2007, 01:53 AM
Post #21


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 08, 2007, 12:14 PM) *

Rick, great stuff!!!!
=============

WARNING! I do not want anyone complaining that Rick is off topic.
====================================================

Since this thread was originated by me, and since this thread is about anything found in the dictionaries: EVERYTHING that is INTERESTING, and is found in dictionaries, IS ON TOPIC, in my humble opinion, anyway, and for what it is worth, etc., and so on and on and on. laugh.gif

GOT IT!!!!!!

If what is said bores you, start your own BORING thread, Okay?


By no means is this thread boring!
When you have the time please have a look at my previous question,
which asks if something is beyond definition, does that imply its beyond understanding?
Its not a rhetorical question and did not mean to sound like one either.

I do not want to rehash the definition problem. I think that perhaps an obstacle in dialogue lies in the fact that a word without a concrete definition, makes it difficult to compare the word God to anything in their minds.

Perhaps the problem lies in the way we naturally think. We usually correlate to understand things and build new concepts based on previously acquired ones. The idea of god is not comparable to anything we know, at least in some way that can be reasoned.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 09, 2007, 04:43 AM
Post #22


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(Culture @ Aug 09, 2007, 01:53 AM) *

Culture comments: ...By no means is this thread boring! the adds:
C: When you have the time please have a look at my previous question,
which asks if something is beyond definition, does that imply its beyond understanding?

LGK: Understand: 1. to be familiar with as with a meaningful unit of language; to grasp and know the meaning of.

Given that this is the basic meaning of 'understand', I suppose it is not possible to fully understand anything if one does have a clear 'definition'--that is, a clear explanation of the subject, or object, under consideration. Therefore, I agree with you when you write:

C: I think that perhaps an obstacle in dialogue lies in the fact that a word without a concrete definition, makes it difficult to compare the word God to anything in their minds.

Perhaps the problem lies in the way we naturally think. We usually correlate to understand things and build new concepts based on previously acquired ones. The idea of god is not comparable to anything we know, at least in some way that can be reasoned.


LGK: GØD/God..."not comparable to anything we know" you say. Again, I agree. This is why I try to avoid using any kind of language--any kind of anthropomorphism, which makes of GØD/God a limited subject or object. This is why I think of GØD/God as, like life itself, a process--a set of actions or changes in a special order--even an artistic process within the eternal being of Now. With the help of philosophy and science we can all be artists.

It seems to me that it is not by accident that El--the Hebrew word for God--literally means "power in action". The Greeks translated it as Theos (hence the English, theory)--"the idea behind the action", and we English-speakers think of God as, "the One and powerful good idea behind all that is", "the ground of all being" (Tillich).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 09, 2007, 08:08 AM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(code buttons @ Aug 08, 2007, 01:35 PM) *

I agree with Lindsay: MOST excellent point, Enki. And I agree with you on everything you said 100%. This is what gives some of us Hope that not everything is lost. Thank you for sharing such wisdom with us. What forms of communication do you think will work at the colective level? Should we go about it by scientific means, or otherwise?


Yes, yes indeed. It is not a problem to share such a great wisdom you know.

Yes you can keep the Hope. It may help. smile.gif Sometimes.

Let me to abstain from discussing such a sensitive things online.

I strongly keep to scientific form of investigations of the realms of the ridicule.

"Otherwise" variants are dangerous.

Eventually mankind will clarify the matter, sometimes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Aug 09, 2007, 09:10 AM
Post #24


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
C: I think that perhaps an obstacle in dialogue lies in the fact that a word without a concrete definition, makes it difficult to compare the word God to anything in their minds.

Perhaps the problem lies in the way we naturally think. We usually correlate to understand things and build new concepts based on previously acquired ones. The idea of god is not comparable to anything we know, at least in some way that can be reasoned.


The only problem is dealing with the thought that there is a problem or a solution.
Whether one refrains from using a word such as God or devises within their own mind a temporary solution to their dilemma by cleverly arranging thoughts to create an illusion of ascending the manifest, association of spirit to manifest is the same and the personal will have its own choice in memory of it.

If one man says God another will automatically see it according to their beliefs.
If one man says I don't say God I say Gd another man will see according to his beliefs.
If one man says G*D another man will see it according to his beliefs and relative ideas.
If one could by their belief in having a better word or way, actually reach into someones mind and take away their impressions of life and spirituality to replace it with their own personal thoughts and impressions, then one might be successful in having some authority over another's choice to accept a definition, or impression of a word.
Otherwise it doesn't matter what word you use if you use it within the context of the understanding when speaking to another.
If one man says God and another thinks Yahweh then as soon as you say I think God the other thinks To himself "I think Yahweh, he thinks God"
If one man says I think or say Gfd because of this that and the other, then one might say "Wow that's cool maybe I'll think and say that word because I like how it fits into what I already believe about God."

If one man says God means this to me, another man might say I agree but I also think God means this and I call it Homer.
Basically its the ego that tries to find perfection in using a word or not because it is a form of control, a need to be perfect within the thought that there is little or no perfection in the manifest or the representation of God as one perceives their reality.

For those that generally accept a God of any sort the resonance of that thought gives the word power to align themselves with God, and God is the most widely used word representing spirituality in any culture regardless of the variations.
The word itself has no way of supporting God because if God exists regardless of beliefs and variances of connotative identities, changing labels or font size, or even creating an acronym for each letter in the label doesn't change or alter God.
What does/will change is the experiences of free will as it moves in and out of the attempts to redefine the absolute without defining it.
More energy is expended by the ego in trying to capture the absolute in the proper descriptions to exemplify the existence of God than is expended in actually uniting ones self with it.
It doesn't change the relationship of spirit to the manifest by exerting effort to make it more believable or true.
Regardless of any effort, this relationship exists.

God is not ineffable, because if it were we wouldn't exist.
Because God supports humanity and all experience, no one has the definitive word other than God, and that word is without quality.

Once we remove our need to qualify God then God emerges to present itself to the senses which are otherwise searching in small circles in relationship to the ego. Like a fish searching for a drink of water.

If we align ourself with any word are we aligning ourselves with God or the word and its connotations. Does that word have positive of negative connotations?

One might say I don't say God because to most God means some judgmental white haired old man sitting up in the sky causing mankind to suffer, So I'm going to think of God as being something better and give him another name so that God won't mean that.

There is a question that I really like from Vasishta's Yoga. It goes like this. If a crow lands on a coconut tree and at the same time a coconut falls, does the crow light on the tree just as the coconut falls or does the crow dislodge the coconut?

This question is designed to make one think about the effort we put into what we believe we can change and affect. Some things are happening around us that are relative to us at different levels of conscious awareness.
Ultimately if there is one God then God is creating everything and we are being placed in and amongst experience and action thinking we are in control and doing what we do.
From the traditional Teachings of enlightenment man is the reflection of God and the connection we have means that we are intimate with the source or in another description, are the source God.
As our awareness travels along this thread of intimacy from its most gross point in human individuality and separation to the ultimate opposite end actually becoming God then we could and can experience ourselves as being everything and every one we meet becoming the one who says God and the one who says G*D at the same time.
Where we decide to put our energy determines where we are on the thread of intimacy.

Where we choose to be is by the grace of the creator of all that exists, and any name is appropriate if it brings you closer to being cognizant of that relationship and source.
If you don't believe in a God, then the word, any word, will still lead you to your own beliefs, and all roads traveled considering the meaning of the word or non-word, is personal and within the power of your choice to believe.
One wouldn't even try to give it a name or a thought if it weren't within you to give some mind to it.

It just takes some, longer to get to it than others.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Aug 09, 2007, 02:50 PM
Post #25


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Joesus, just a gentle suggestion. Headline your concepts and ideas; then summerize your valuable philosophy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 09, 2007, 03:41 PM
Post #26


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Enki @ Aug 09, 2007, 08:08 AM) *

Yes, yes indeed. It is not a problem to share such a great wisdom you know.
Yes you can keep the Hope. It may help. smile.gif Sometimes.
Let me to abstain from discussing such a sensitive things online.
I strongly keep to scientific form of investigations of the realms of the ridicule.
"Otherwise" variants are dangerous.
Eventually mankind will clarify the matter, sometimes.

Wise words from a wise man. You sound like a prophet sometimes, Enki. Did you speak to the Oracle already, or something? Witholding information that may benefit humankind is a crime, you know?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 09, 2007, 09:13 PM
Post #27


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(code buttons @ Aug 09, 2007, 03:41 PM) *

QUOTE(Enki @ Aug 09, 2007, 08:08 AM) *

Yes, yes indeed. It is not a problem to share such a great wisdom you know.
Yes you can keep the Hope. It may help. smile.gif Sometimes.
Let me to abstain from discussing such a sensitive things online.
I strongly keep to scientific form of investigations of the realms of the ridicule.
"Otherwise" variants are dangerous.
Eventually mankind will clarify the matter, sometimes.

Wise words from a wise man. You sound like a prophet sometimes, Enki. Did you speak to the Oracle already, or something? Witholding information that may benefit humankind is a crime, you know?


Hahaha. Funny.

I'll tell you a funny story about the Oracle:

Once upon a time there was an Oracle in Delphi, Greece: a group of sexy and extra cute virgin (or possibly virgin) girls under influence of some specific odor were transmitting interesting ideas (in form of irregular words sequence) to common people via some clever and very enterprising guys called priests (who have been dwelling there too ...), who by putting those irregular Words Arrays (Words Matrixes tongue.gif ) into some Poetic Verse were providing consultations to common people of Peloponnesus and the rest of the world; but eventually she/he/it disappeared and the Murmuring Spring possibly shifted somewhere. Since that she/he/it makes biscuits with sultana at her/his/its kitchen here and there on the glob and murmurs fantastic stories to sexy cute guys coming to visit her/him/it hoping to find out the truth. She/he/it makes love with those guys or/and gives them to eat biscuits, and tells them interesting stories as a reward, thus, eventually saving from doomsday the entire mankind. If she/he/it dislikes them sexually, then they have to pay in cash like in any consulting company for consultations. Those who find the Oracle get unlimited power over the course of human events.

So humankind should pay for the information as I still plan to buy dish washing machine, visit some libraries in London and have projects of cosmic importance. laugh.gif

QUOTE
Witholding information that may benefit humankind is a crime, you know?


And if the fraternity of Free Pirates prefers to call me criminal then I will make alliance with the Vatican or/and Lord Beckett and eventually all the Free Pirates will suck and the Calypso will get freedom. And then ... things will change forever. You know?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 09, 2007, 09:20 PM
Post #28


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 09, 2007, 02:50 PM) *

Joesus, just a gentle suggestion. Headline your concepts and ideas; then summerize your valuable philosophy.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Aug 10, 2007, 09:05 AM
Post #29


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Aug 09, 2007, 10:50 PM) *

Joesus, just a gentle suggestion. Headline your concepts and ideas; then summerize your valuable philosophy.


A student, after working several days to prepare a discourse for his Teacher and fellow students stepped up to the podium in front of several hundred of his classmates. He delivered his discourse, and at the end looked outward with his hope for approval, but the entire theater sat without emotion or what appeared any interest, except for his Teacher who sat in the back with a smile.
Frustrated he went back to his room and prepared another discourse, this time in mind to meet the expectations of his peers.
The following day he once again stepped up to the podium to deliver his revised discourse. After presenting the material the theater broke out into applause, but this time his Teacher, who had a frown on his face got up and left the room.

Later when facing his Teacher the student was reprimanded for compromising himself to please the crowd. His Teacher said,"The material you first prepared came from the heart and it was perfect regardless of what anyone thought about it. When you then compromised yourself to meet the expectations of the crowd the connection to your heart was broken, your need for approval drew you outward and away from the surrender to God and your heart. Never compromise yourself to meet the expectations of others."

I can appreciate that you have a structure to your material Lindsay. My interest is in surrendering to something greater than expectation and structure of relative boundaries. If in responding to any topic I don't meet the expectations of others I will assume they have the capacity to find their own respective freedom to express without narrowing ones capacities to fit another's box.
My intent is not to structure God in concept and summarization, regardless of the need to have God stand impervious to doubt and criticism.

No offense taken and none meant, ever.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enki
post Aug 10, 2007, 09:53 AM
Post #30


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sep 10, 2004
From: Eridug
Member No.: 3458



For those who 'forgot' ...
Early open scientific investigations of the realm of the redicule

Sir William Crookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes)
President of the Royal Society
1913–1915

In 1870 Crookes decided that science had a duty to study the preternatural phenomena associated with Spiritualism (Crookes 1870). Judging from family letters, Crookes had developed a favorable view of Spiritualism already by 1869 (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 232–233). Nevertheless, he was determined to conduct his inquiry impartially and described the conditions he imposed on mediums as follows: "It must be at my own house, and my own selection of friends and spectators, under my own conditions, and I may do whatever I like as regards apparatus" (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 177). Among the mediums he studied were Kate Fox, Florence Cook, and Daniel Dunglas Home (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 230-251). Among the phenomena he witnessed were movement of bodies at a distance, rappings, changes in the weights of bodies, levitation, appearance of luminous objects, appearance of phantom figures, appearance of writing without human agency, and circumstances which "point to the agency of an outside intelligence" (Crookes 1874).
Crookes' report on this research, in 1874, concluded that these phenomena could not be explained as conjuring, and that further research would indeed be useful. Crookes was not alone in his views. Fellow scientists who came to believe in Spiritualism included Alfred Russel Wallace, Oliver Joseph Lodge, Lord Rayleigh, and William James (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 62). Nevertheless, most scientists were convinced that Spiritualism was fraudulent, and Crookes' final report so outraged the scientific establishment "that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society." Crookes then became much more cautious and didn't discuss his views publicly until 1898, when he felt his position was secure. From that time until his death in 1917, letters and interviews show that Crookes was a believer in Spiritualism (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 169–170, 249–251).

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2017 - 03:01 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles