100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If God were really standing right in front of you... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
..."which God other than himself does God worship"... I personally feel that the very idea of "worshiping" Gods is an insane idea. It's truly sad that religion has been reduced to such a petty concept. My test for whether or not a God is indeed a "god", is to simply ask, "Does it fully understand it's own essence with no unanswered questions?" If that's true, then it's a God. It doesn't even need to be the "only God". There could be infinitely many such beings and they would all equally be "gods", no need to "worship" each other. The very idea of a God who needs to be "worshiped" implies an egotistical God who already has deficiencies, wants, and needs. Such a God would be petty and incomplete. It would be in as bad of shape as any mortal human. Even if it has an eternal existence, it would still be nothing more than a heavily flawed being that just happens to be unable to die. In fact, that could be a curse. That's an interesting question right there. Can God die? Can God choose to cease to exist? Or is God stuck with eternal existence whether he chooses it or not?  If that's the case, maybe that explains why he's so insane and frustrated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i agree that worship is a lousy word for the way we
interact with god. i think the premise that god is only a being that "fully understands it's own essence with now unanswered questions" is too limiting though.... a housefly might understand it's own essence and not have any unanswered questions... perhaps a little more than that...  i also don't accept polytheism or atheism. but my concept of god is more like a unique and original source - one which encompasses all we perceive. the ultimate superset. which implies one-ness. and it also implies lack of insanity and lack of frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 07/12/10 08:47 AM
|
|
a housefly might understand it's own essence and not have any unanswered questions... perhaps a little more than that... Well, you do have a valid point there. Ignorance truly can be bliss for those who have no questions.  i also don't accept polytheism or atheism. but my concept of god is more like a unique and original source - one which encompasses all we perceive. the ultimate superset. which implies one-ness. and it also implies lack of insanity and lack of frustration. I've been thinking about this myself lately. Can there truly be any difference between monotheism and pantheism? After all, if "we" are considered to be "seperate" from God in a monothesistic religion, then this automatically demands that we are "gods" in our own right. So any monotheism that views God as being "seperate" from individual "souls" is actually a form of polytheism anyway. I've also been thinking about a distinction you pointed out in another thread. The supposed distinction between pantheism and panentheism. But isn't that distinction truly nothing more than the drawing of artificial boundaries. I've made similar arguments concern the science of cosmology. If I define the universe to be "all that exists", then by that very definition there can only be one universe and nothing 'beyond' it. For if anything existed 'beyond it' that too would be part of 'all that exists' and thus, by definition, that too must necessarily be part of "the universe". So in a similar sense if we take pantheism to simply mean "all is God", and then introduce a new term "panentheism" to convey an idea that God is actually "more" than "all", that seems a bit redundant to me. All this suggests is that someone is drawing artificial boundaries somewhere. I would personally suggest to anyone who prefers the idea of "panentheism" over the idea of "pantheism" that, IMHO, they simply had the wrong idea of pantheism in the first place, and their 'new view' that they are calling panetheism is actually the 'correct' view of pantheism that they should have had in the first place but obviously had originally misunderstood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah yes...what are the boundaries of a limitless god?
i knew you would "enjoy" panentheism vs. pantheism! i agree that i always viewed them as identical concepts as i see the spiritual or incorporeal as part of Nature... how could it be otherwise? so, i don't believe in the super-natural - not because i don't believe in wild spiritual things which i have never experienced - but because i think they are natural - a part of Nature. i don't make a distinction. it is just like that in the Wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..."which God other than himself does God worship"... I personally feel that the very idea of "worshiping" Gods is an insane idea. It's truly sad that religion has been reduced to such a petty concept. actually for a believer to worship a God is quite logical...if someone claim to believe in God then the way to affirm that belief to themselves and to the God is through worship, the rules and/or commandments set forth by that particular God and of course approved by the government of which that religion is practice provides the way as to how best to worship that God a belief in God could also be the results of other reasons such as peer pressure,family pressure, sociatal pressure, delusion or paranoia ..which is why for those that makes claims that they believe in a God but don't worship or decide not to follow the religion set forth by that God only displays that the true nature of that belief in a God is doubt.... "to believe is to doubt" .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches Wrote: actually for a believer to worship a God is quite logical...if someone claim to believe in God then the way to affirm that belief to themselves and to the God is through worship, the rules and/or commandments set forth by that particular God and of course approved by the government of which that religion is practice provides the way as to how best to worship that God Well that's certainly true of religions that portray God as being a jealous God who carves commandments in stone with a fiery finger protuding from a burning bush. But all views of spirituality are not based on this kind of jealous dogma. a belief in God could also be the results of other reasons such as peer pressure,family pressure, sociatal pressure, delusion or paranoia ..which is why for those that makes claims that they believe in a God but don't worship or decide not to follow the religion set forth by that God only displays that the true nature of that belief in a God is doubt.... I completely agree on these points. Although, I don't necessarily agree that the "religion" necessarily needs to be set forth by the "god". I think the "religion" could be entirely intuitively inspiried. Whether that came from god or not is a matter of personal belief as well I suppose. "to believe is to doubt" .... I compeltely agree with this as well. I peresonally confess to being 'agnostic' (i.e. without absolute knowledge of the existence of a spiritual essence) Just the same I 'choose' to believe in it, and thus the reason for me to become 'religious' (i.e. follow my intuition with respect to this belief) However, the same could be said of 'atheism'. That too is a 'belief' and a choice. A choice to follow the belief that there is no spiritual essence to reality. And in that sense atheism is ultaimtely agnosticism as well really. I think it basically comes down to the individual. Does a person want to believe in something mundane, or something magickal? It's a choice. I choose to believe in the magical because it's more exciting and romantic. I could choose to believe in the mundane, but in all honestly, I just don't see any reason to waste my time on something so boring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Mon 07/12/10 11:00 AM
|
|
so, i don't believe in the super-natural - not because i don't believe in wild spiritual things which i have never experienced - but because i think they are natural - a part of Nature. Well, that can be a semantically touchy subject. Simply because of how a person might define the "laws of nature". If they define the "laws of nature" to be the "laws of physics" then I believe in the supernatural (if for no other reason than because the laws of physics are far from complete) For example there are obvious ambiguities associated with the "laws of physics". Relativity demands that lightspeed is the maxium speeds at which any phenomena can travel. But certain aspects of QM demand that things can indeed occur that require non-locality (i.e. explanations that require a breaking of the lightspeed barrier. So which represents the "laws of nature"? The limitations of Realitivity, or the wholeness of QM? Or something else altogether? In fact, in cosmology it is accepted that the universe as a whole can expand faster than the speed of light. This does not violate Relativity because Relativity only applies to things that move through the fabric of spacetime. So now which is the 'Law of Nature'. The law that applies to the behavior of things within the fabric of spacetime, or the law that applies to the whole of spacetime itself? Interesting questions indeed don'cha think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so, i don't believe in the super-natural - not because i don't believe in wild spiritual things which i have never experienced - but because i think they are natural - a part of Nature. Well, that can be a semantically touchy subject. Simply because of how a person might define the "laws of nature". If they define the "laws of nature" to be the "laws of physics" then I believe in the supernatural (if for no other reason than because the laws of physics are far from complete) For example there are obvious ambiguities associated with the "laws of physics". Relativity demands that lightspeed is the maxium speeds at which any phenomena can travel. But certain aspects of QM demand that things can indeed occur that require non-locality (i.e. explanations that require a breaking of the lightspeed barrier. So which represents the "laws of nature"? The limitations of Realitivity, or the wholeness of QM? Or something else altogether? In fact, in cosmology it is accepted that the universe as a whole can expand faster than the speed of light. This does not violate Relativity because Relativity only applies to things that move through the fabric of spacetime. So now which is the 'Law of Nature'. The law that applies to the behavior of things within the fabric of spacetime, or the law that applies to the whole of spacetime itself? Interesting questions indeed don'cha think? What are the "Laws of Nature"? God only knows! They have not been discovered yet. Fortunately it is of no serious consequence. It's only natural. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are the "Laws of Nature"? God only knows! They have not been discovered yet. Fortunately it is of no serious consequence. It's only natural. Well, when you look at it from that point of view it would be silly for us to even speak of the 'supernatural' when the assumption is that we don't even know what 'natural' even means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 07/12/10 06:39 PM
|
|
impeccable logic.
 but natural can be taken to mean only that part of nature that we have experience with...then...the spiritual and the physical that we have experienced are still... natural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dancere
on
Tue 07/13/10 12:24 AM
|
|
Note - In THIS instance, alone ... ^^^ ... by DEBATE, I meant to argue points to the death, w/out any intention to consider/learn/grow/change/move in any minute way, regarding others heart felt views painstakingly put forth ... not healthy debate in the least ... Dancere....perhaps a healhty debate would be if you were to release your pent up frustrations by debating the issue at hand instead of constantly venting and whining about me ....it's like we're married or something if you can't answer the question I posed ..."which God other than himself does God worship" ....then move on...no need to shoot the messenger my aim was to show how ironic it was that believers who make it their mission to convert Athiests... in fact worship one and believe it to be all-knowing Funches ... Twice now, I've attempted to engage you - at a respectful level in pursuit of discussion, not debate - healthy or otherwise ... Much less an argument that I'm not interested in! You consistently ignore the content and go straight for the attack kill, I can only expect you will continue to and ignore my gist ... Again ... Fire away? *groan* I've never interacted w/ you previous to this, don't know you at all ... My efforts have been to excite the potential of fresh thought - not shame, nor offend you personally, furtherest thing from my intentions, I can assure ... Do you always resort to some line of personal insults when another attempts to engage you in conversation/thought - and you seemingly view yourself to have the short end of a stick, imagined in your mind only??? First, you mistakenly reduced my original, curious overview as stemming from "childhood trauma issues" ... and went on to erroneously declare my posting impetus as a need for "ranting and venting" , which I redirected ... Now, you falsely decree I've whining, pent up frustrations and continue by making a dismissive misogynist jab, implying you and I as if have some sickly spousal, conjoining contract - All because I responded to you responding to me? Flabbergasted ... Seriously? Are men that respond to you in public forum threads as insultingly deemed to be as if nagging, gay boyfriends of yours, also? Quite below the belt and for what? I alone know my intentions, and your take, twice now, is as far off the mark as it gets, anything but ... I'm speaking to the thread, its content and its participants, not just you - and not illy - hello? My efforts are in hopes of raising the tone towards constructive critical reasoning, not to be 'right' - such a concept is not even possible in the realms of philosophical discussion, imo! Perhaps it is the one finger pointed out, 3 fingers pointed back and you fail to even realize you more accurately describe your posting style ... And? I HAVE answered your question in my original thread post, in as much as your query does NOT apply to my style of free thinking ... so moot! I've a concept of 'God' (for want of a better word, and in keeping w/ OP), 'Source', 'Creative Power' that is so not of this world's language restrictions: undefinable, unspeakable, deeply personal and extremely mutable ... ANYTHING but narrow, another's definition or sourced from 'religion' ... I am convinced there are only personal belief systems, no perfect knowledge - as it is all somehow sullied and diminished as it passes through mortal hands and language ... I'm extremely spiritual in a way that words fail my ability or desire to convey, language can only confine such ... I believe what I believe and have no real need to share it, much less have it graded (degraded!) by a deterministic sharpie ... I'm a very free thinker and find no need to convince another of my ever revisionist, on the move inner truths for the day ... It is like Art ... Free thinking releases me to wake up w/ new concepts, views and epiphanies on a daily basis ... ... Roughed out sketches and some completed masterpieces, then on to the next idea ... I refuse to limit myself to anything I perceive as even remotely dogmatic ... Why would I put up walls and manmade, false constructs to restrain my thinking from the infinite ability towards constant expansion? I can only wish such freedom for others also ... World would be a better place, by far ... Once more, very s-l-o-w-l-y: My analogy was to illicit the awareness that asking the question once was perhaps quite thought provoking ... ... Chasing down each answer like a dog after a car, only to dismiss the answer by disagreeing w/ the answer and nauseatingly repeating the question? ... Is dogmatic by definition, and entirely lost the original luster and nuance of a once, somewhat unique query ... It is not intellectually, spiritually nor philosophically engaging enough for most to answer even once, much less twice, in the context of the OP ... OK, I've answered in depth w/ zero desire for your follow up 'grade' ... Let it go, you can do it! Again, we get it ... Perhaps it would be best suited as a thread topic, that those interested could pursue it w/ you ... For me and I suspect many: Provoke thoughtscaping, not the rolling of eyes ... I'll discuss anything that is wildly intriguing, hence, answering the OP! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God's standing all around me all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God's standing all around me all the time. amen, God is everywhere always. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 ... All is All is One, Connected ... ... Together, Re~Member ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3OXDwmlEZE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm rather taken w/ the awakening concept of replacing the word 'God' w/ 'Love' ...
 It is the closest to a real and graspable definition I can perceive in this moment ... Then? ...  ... ALL the barriers just melt and fall away ... Free at last, free at last ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's certainly true of religions that portray God as being a jealous God who carves commandments in stone with a fiery finger protuding from a burning bush. believers generally expect to be threathen into submission ...it give their life meaning But all views of spirituality are not based on this kind of jealous dogma. all God are jealous in some shape form or fashion ....take Jesus for example....he make claims that you can only get to the father through him ....a sign that Jesus is territorially jealous Although, I don't necessarily agree that the "religion" necessarily needs to be set forth by the "god". I think the "religion" could be entirely intuitively inspiried. Whether that came from god or not is a matter of personal belief as well I suppose. unless God himself handed down the religion to an individual then "intuitively inspired" points to delusion and/or false prophecy However, the same could be said of 'atheism'. That too is a 'belief' and a choice. A choice to follow the belief that there is no spiritual essence to reality. And in that sense atheism is ultaimtely agnosticism as well really. atheism only exist because God doesn't ...it is a label thrusted upon those that are not religious by those that are religious...that's why it's not a belief but a brand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note - In THIS instance, alone ... ^^^ ... by DEBATE, I meant to argue points to the death, w/out any intention to consider/learn/grow/change/move in any minute way, regarding others heart felt views painstakingly put forth ... not healthy debate in the least ... Dancere....perhaps a healhty debate would be if you were to release your pent up frustrations by debating the issue at hand instead of constantly venting and whining about me ....it's like we're married or something if you can't answer the question I posed ..."which God other than himself does God worship" ....then move on...no need to shoot the messenger my aim was to show how ironic it was that believers who make it their mission to convert Athiests... in fact worship one and believe it to be all-knowing Funches ... Twice now, I've attempted to engage you - at a respectful level in pursuit of discussion, not debate - healthy or otherwise ... Much less an argument that I'm not interested in! You consistently ignore the content and go straight for the attack kill, I can only expect you will continue to and ignore my gist ... Again ... Fire away? *groan* I've never interacted w/ you previous to this, don't know you at all ... My efforts have been to excite the potential of fresh thought - not shame, nor offend you personally, furtherest thing from my intentions, I can assure ... Do you always resort to some line of personal insults when another attempts to engage you in conversation/thought - and you seemingly view yourself to have the short end of a stick, imagined in your mind only??? First, you mistakenly reduced my original, curious overview as stemming from "childhood trauma issues" ... and went on to erroneously declare my posting impetus as a need for "ranting and venting" , which I redirected ... Now, you falsely decree I've whining, pent up frustrations and continue by making a dismissive misogynist jab, implying you and I as if have some sickly spousal, conjoining contract - All because I responded to you responding to me? Flabbergasted ... Seriously? Are men that respond to you in public forum threads as insultingly deemed to be as if nagging, gay boyfriends of yours, also? Quite below the belt and for what? I alone know my intentions, and your take, twice now, is as far off the mark as it gets, anything but ... I'm speaking to the thread, its content and its participants, not just you - and not illy - hello? My efforts are in hopes of raising the tone towards constructive critical reasoning, not to be 'right' - such a concept is not even possible in the realms of philosophical discussion, imo! Perhaps it is the one finger pointed out, 3 fingers pointed back and you fail to even realize you more accurately describe your posting style ... And? I HAVE answered your question in my original thread post, in as much as your query does NOT apply to my style of free thinking ... so moot! I've a concept of 'God' (for want of a better word, and in keeping w/ OP), 'Source', 'Creative Power' that is so not of this world's language restrictions: undefinable, unspeakable, deeply personal and extremely mutable ... ANYTHING but narrow, another's definition or sourced from 'religion' ... I am convinced there are only personal belief systems, no perfect knowledge - as it is all somehow sullied and diminished as it passes through mortal hands and language ... I'm extremely spiritual in a way that words fail my ability or desire to convey, language can only confine such ... I believe what I believe and have no real need to share it, much less have it graded (degraded!) by a deterministic sharpie ... I'm a very free thinker and find no need to convince another of my ever revisionist, on the move inner truths for the day ... It is like Art ... Free thinking releases me to wake up w/ new concepts, views and epiphanies on a daily basis ... ... Roughed out sketches and some completed masterpieces, then on to the next idea ... I refuse to limit myself to anything I perceive as even remotely dogmatic ... Why would I put up walls and manmade, false constructs to restrain my thinking from the infinite ability towards constant expansion? I can only wish such freedom for others also ... World would be a better place, by far ... Once more, very s-l-o-w-l-y: My analogy was to illicit the awareness that asking the question once was perhaps quite thought provoking ... ... Chasing down each answer like a dog after a car, only to dismiss the answer by disagreeing w/ the answer and nauseatingly repeating the question? ... Is dogmatic by definition, and entirely lost the original luster and nuance of a once, somewhat unique query ... It is not intellectually, spiritually nor philosophically engaging enough for most to answer even once, much less twice, in the context of the OP ... OK, I've answered in depth w/ zero desire for your follow up 'grade' ... Let it go, you can do it! Again, we get it ... Perhaps it would be best suited as a thread topic, that those interested could pursue it w/ you ... For me and I suspect many: Provoke thoughtscaping, not the rolling of eyes ... I'll discuss anything that is wildly intriguing, hence, answering the OP! Dancere....are you still ranting about me?....look let's just cut through all the red tape and get married and then I can turn on the television and tune you out ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all God are jealous in some shape form or fashion ....take Jesus for example....he make claims that you can only get to the father through him ....a sign that Jesus is territorially jealous Well, to begin with I don't believe that Jesus was God. But more importantly we can't even know whether Jesus ever actually said that or not. If that came from the Bible then it is clearly nothing more than hearsay from a third party. Somewhere in the Bible it claims that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and every tongue will confess that he is God and every knee will bow. In that particular part of the book these words aren't even attributed to Jesus. This is just some guy's personal opinion. To believe that the New Testament is the "Word of Jesus" is to allow every author who was permitted to 'post' to the Biblical cannon, to ram their opinions down the throat of Jesus and then manipulate him like a dead marionette rag doll to get him to regurgitate their opinions in HIS NAME. When you think about this it's truly disgusting.  unless God himself handed down the religion to an individual then "intuitively inspired" points to delusion and/or false prophecy Well, the bulk of the Bible (if not all of it) is nothing more than recounts of men having dreams. In fact, some of the authors of the book have claimed that no man can look upon the face of God. There are very few accounts of God actaully sitting down and having a conversation with people. Job and Moses are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. And for Moses it was just a vision of a burning bush. He could have been dreaming. He was on the mountain for a month. Come to think of it, that would have been plenty of time for him to carve his own stone tablets. atheism only exist because God doesn't ...it is a label thrusted upon those that are not religious by those that are religious...that's why it's not a belief but a brand I disagree. It's human nature to want to know our origins and how we came to be. Even the secularists are desperately seeking the answers to the riddle of life via the sciences. It's human nature to want to understand our truest primal essence. Whether you want to call that 'god' or not is an entirely different matter. Many people prefer to simply call it 'spritiuality'. Those who call it 'accidentality' have yet to explain just what it was that begat the accident. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all God are jealous in some shape form or fashion ....take Jesus for example....he make claims that you can only get to the father through him ....a sign that Jesus is territorially jealous Well, to begin with I don't believe that Jesus was God. But more importantly we can't even know whether Jesus ever actually said that or not. If that came from the Bible then it is clearly nothing more than hearsay from a third party. Somewhere in the Bible it claims that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and every tongue will confess that he is God and every knee will bow. In that particular part of the book these words aren't even attributed to Jesus. This is just some guy's personal opinion. To believe that the New Testament is the "Word of Jesus" is to allow every author who was permitted to 'post' to the Biblical cannon, to ram their opinions down the throat of Jesus and then manipulate him like a dead marionette rag doll to get him to regurgitate their opinions in HIS NAME. When you think about this it's truly disgusting. The New Testament can be looked upon at being a plagiarized version of the Old Testament in which Judaism converts into Christianity and Man converts into God.. but if one takes the bible to be literal or the true word of God then it becomes obvious that Jesus and the writers of the new testament was promoting Pantheism ...in the realm of Pantheism, Jesus as a Man would be God .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unless God himself handed down the religion to an individual then "intuitively inspired" points to delusion and/or false prophecy Well, the bulk of the Bible (if not all of it) is nothing more than recounts of men having dreams. In fact, some of the authors of the book have claimed that no man can look upon the face of God. There are very few accounts of God actaully sitting down and having a conversation with people. Job and Moses are the only two I can think of off the top of my head. And for Moses it was just a vision of a burning bush. He could have been dreaming. He was on the mountain for a month. Come to think of it, that would have been plenty of time for him to carve his own stone tablets. that's the thing about the Bible ..it has all of that which an omniscient God supposedly wants for the human race already patented and copyrighted ...this is why there is no need for God to hand down any other prophecies or commandments in Dreams ...because they are already contained in the bible .... to claim that God forgot to include or wish to upgrade the commandments by "intuitively inspiring" someone to bring them to the world would take away God's omniscience ....for instance....name something that you believe that God forgot to tell the world and then let's see if it's not already in the bible in some shape form or fashion |
|
|
|
|
