I may be mistaken...

[Snoopy]

Having travelled a lot, without a strict regimen, I met some wonderful people who took me down paths I never otherwise would have discovered. Many of these resulted in my most profound experiences and most treasured memories.

Hi Tao,

Do tell.

There are a few folk here I hold in very high regard and I have the feeling few of them would guess it

What, like niranjan?

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi Tao,

Do tell.



What, like niranjan?

s.

I am setting up a blog site that will have some of my stories with associated pics. When I have it ready you will be first to know

No Niranjan was not 1.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am setting up a blog site that will have some of my stories with associated pics. When I have it ready you will be first to know

Cheers, bud!

No Niranjan was not 1.

You do surprise me

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

In short, karma does require an external agency...the Tao, the Absolute, the IS...the exact same agency I have been calling by the term G-d.

Thanks to Vaj for providing these links elsewhere...


Do Buddhist believe in god?



"What is it that may be rightly called the Ultimate?

Buddhist: Dharma, the highest truth, the purest form of goodness, is what may best be called the Ultimate. Yet as the literal embodiment of this purest goodness, a buddha too may be called ultimate. But regardless of whether buddhas existed in the world, or whether they did not, there would still be Dharma, purely in and of itself.

Theist: God alone may be called the Ultimate. It is the existence of God which defines goodness. Goodness is not a principle which is embodied or embraced by God. Rather it is from the nature of God that any and all goodness issues forth. Were it not for God, there could be no ultimate, no goodness, nor any thing at all."

Oil and Water

s.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

whether it be the ruthless damnation of Islam

Hi TE

I don't want to get into another 'rose tinted specs' convo with you so I shall just say



Salaam

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi TE

I don't want to get into another 'rose tinted specs' convo with you so I shall just say



Salaam

Sorry... I read it again the next day and wished I had phrased it differently .... if thats any consolation.

Regards

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Thanks to Vaj for providing these links elsewhere...


Do Buddhist believe in god?



"What is it that may be rightly called the Ultimate?

Buddhist: Dharma, the highest truth, the purest form of goodness, is what may best be called the Ultimate. Yet as the literal embodiment of this purest goodness, a buddha too may be called ultimate. But regardless of whether buddhas existed in the world, or whether they did not, there would still be Dharma, purely in and of itself.

Theist: God alone may be called the Ultimate. It is the existence of God which defines goodness. Goodness is not a principle which is embodied or embraced by God. Rather it is from the nature of God that any and all goodness issues forth. Were it not for God, there could be no ultimate, no goodness, nor any thing at all."

Oil and Water

s.

I suppose that is one theistic interpretation, but not the interpretation I have been attempting to convey. This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Thanks for this.

I suppose that is one theistic interpretation, but not the interpretation I have been attempting to convey. This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible.

Paradox indeedy!! So who/what did create God?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Paradox indeedy!! So who/what did create God?

I suppose we could speculate many things, but that would rank among the highest irrelevances...

I realize this answer seems a cop out, but it is not given without merit and thought. Using the metaphor of the potter and the clay, what is the clay to demand of the potter? In other words, so what if G-d did have a creator? What bearing would that have on our existence? I see none. What is relevant is what directly concerns us in this existence...

[Tao_Equus]

I agree entirely that it is an irrelevant question, but since you posed the statement "This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible" I just wondered to what extent you had mused on the question. Can you imagine a mandlebrot set of Gods?

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I agree entirely that it is an irrelevant question, but since you posed the statement "This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible" I just wondered to what extent you had mused on the question. Can you imagine a mandlebrot set of Gods?

I suppose I could...it would certainly give the term polytheism a whole new level of meaning. But I fail to see the relevance to us in this here and now by speculating what might be way past our farthest guideposts.

On the one hand, I sympathize with the wanderer mentality, wanting to see what is just over the next rise. This is unrelated and far different, this is speculating what takes place on Mars when the farthest you have ever been is Detroit, and you are not very likely to ever leave the planet in multiple lifetimes, and you can't afford a ticket on a rocket ship. In short, what happens on Mars has no relevance beyond mere curiousity if we aren't ever going there. Wondering whether G-d has a creator is similar, we aren't going to that level that it should concern us, even if He does have a creator.

Otherwise, one gets lost on a speculative tangent that has absolutely no bearing on anything of importance as how we "make it" to the next level. Why be lost in thought about something so irrelevent when your neighbor within earshot is getting beaten bloody raw by her abusive boyfriend, or the kid down the street goes without a meal a day on average?

At least, that's how I look at such things.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I agree entirely that it is an irrelevant question, but since you posed the statement "This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible" I just wondered to what extent you had mused on the question. Can you imagine a mandlebrot set of Gods?

TE

And to second juan, it begs the question, who created the creator(s) of God? We could ask that question ad infinum and get no closer to the answer. Why does it need to be a matter of import anyway. Don't we always answer to our immediate supervisor?

In the next place, I find it difficult that there would exist a myriad of gods. Would it not be a clash of egos? Imagine the conversation:

God 2: Well, since you made Man, God 1, I think I'll make Woman.
God 3: I thought I was going to get to make Woman.
God 1: Hush up, you got to make all the animals. But if there is anyone who ought to make Woman, it should be Me. After all, I made the Prototype. Now let's see, we'll start with three breasts.
God 2: You idiot, why do you think she needs three breasts when she'll be prefectly fine with two.
God 1: In case she had triples, ya nerd!
God 2: Ya figure the odds, Bozo. She has a better chance on having twins than triplets.
God 3: Sigh.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

Originally Posted by Dondi

And to second juan, it begs the question, who created the creator(s) of God? We could ask that question ad infinum and get no closer to the answer. Why does it need to be a matter of import anyway. Don't we always answer to our immediate supervisor?

I think that is what Tao was on about referring to Mandelbrot sets. They are actually quite beautiful, the ones I've seen, but they are a graphic representation of endless puzzles such as this one. And in the end they bring us no closer to a solution, so they are an irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Dondi

In the next place, I find it difficult that there would exist a myriad of gods. Would it not be a clash of egos? Imagine the conversation:

God 2: Well, since you made Man, God 1, I think I'll make Woman.
God 3: I thought I was going to get to make Woman.
God 1: Hush up, you got to make all the animals. But if there is anyone who ought to make Woman, it should be Me. After all, I made the Prototype. Now let's see, we'll start with three breasts.
God 2: You idiot, why do you think she needs three breasts when she'll be prefectly fine with two.
God 1: In case she had triples, ya nerd!
God 2: Ya figure the odds, Bozo. She has a better chance on having twins than triplets.
God 3: Sigh.

Hadn't thought of it that way before...

[Tao_Equus]

Juantoo

Ok..........but!!

The reason stated for it being an exercise in irrelevance was "But I fail to see the relevance to us in this here and now by speculating what might be way past our farthest guideposts." That assumes the first level is knowable? I have yet to see any evidence for that!!

A generation ago the surface of Mars was unknown to us. Now we have a large part of it mapped down to a fairly high resolution. I reckon if we were to compile a list of facts on Mars and another on the contents of the Bible then the Martian one would be the most extensive. This may not be the right thread for this but as Dondi illustrated so well many many Christians have anthropomorphised God into a Santa Claus figure, (well Dondi saw them more as Beavis and Butthead). That is not where you are at I know but none the less it is the truth. We cannot know God is my thought. And speculating on the nature of God is just as much an exercise in futility as knowing the nature of Gods creator ad infinitum. The best we can truly hope for is to never stop being open to learning more and to be at peace with our own personal faith and interpretations. But to hope to know God's will or intentions....well thats just a bit silly I think.

We ask "Why are we here?" and we create God to give some explanation. But to ask "why God?" Interferes too insidiously into the comfort zone created by our answer to the first question. We like neat little comforting answers....even if they make little sense.

regards

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Thank you for your response!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The reason stated for it being an exercise in irrelevance was "But I fail to see the relevance to us in this here and now by speculating what might be way past our farthest guideposts." That assumes the first level is knowable? I have yet to see any evidence for that!!

There is subjective evidence about portions of the first level. If there weren't, there would be no encompassing need for religion. Encompassing in the sense of world-wide and across human time, even among prehistoric ice age hunter-gatherers.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

A generation ago the surface of Mars was unknown to us. Now we have a large part of it mapped down to a fairly high resolution. I reckon if we were to compile a list of facts on Mars and another on the contents of the Bible then the Martian one would be the most extensive.

Yet, if we were to compare notes on the surface of Mars and the surface of the Bible, we would find considerably more scholarship devoted to that we have had greater access to for far longer time. Perhaps my use of Mars was not a good one, I even considered that after I wrote. This avoids the point. Substitute Pluto, or some completely "useless" asteroid, or a planet revolving around a sun millions of light years away to which we can never hope to imagine stepping foot on. A creator of G-d is so far above and beyond where we could ever hope to enter, that time wasted entertaining such an idea is just that...time wasted.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

This may not be the right thread for this but as Dondi illustrated so well many many Christians have anthropomorphised God into a Santa Claus figure, (well Dondi saw them more as Beavis and Butthead). That is not where you are at I know but none the less it is the truth.

I am aware of this, which is the reason I brought this discussion to a board outside the comfort zone of Christianity proper. Again, if it works for "them" to view G-d in such a manner because of where they are at in their journey and it accomplishes the goal of providing the essential foundational elements, who am I to disagree?, for that person.

I think a lot of confusion erupts between religious disciplines due to doctrines of exclusivity. The foundational essentials are set aside and ignored (even trampled) in the rush to defend a doctrinal viewpoint that is subjective and relative at best. We end up with two set in opposition who fail to realize they are arguing the same things at each other, rather than finding points of agreement and acting with the essential foundational teachings towards each other.

Now, I realize I speak in optimistic "best case" terms, and there are always exceptions to be found, but this is my general experience when dealing across religious boundaries.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We cannot know God is my thought. And speculating on the nature of God is just as much an exercise in futility as knowing the nature of Gods creator ad infinitum. The best we can truly hope for is to never stop being open to learning more and to be at peace with our own personal faith and interpretations. But to hope to know God's will or intentions....well thats just a bit silly I think.

I agree with you, in a general sense. But to dismiss G-d by those same terms is not logical, and certainly not helpful. I realize I cannot know G-d, not in His completeness and fullness. Not in totality. I don't need to. I trust I will know what I need to know in a timely manner as appropriate. While I may not even be able to fully know the nature of G-d, I have seen enough to know G-d exists. Very much of G-d is still a mystery to me; I am content to allow that and still move forward by my hopes, dreams, faith, trust, love and consideration for my fellow humans. Yes, I am hedging my bet, but not without cause and reason.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We ask "Why are we here?" and we create God to give some explanation. But to ask "why God?" Interferes too insidiously into the comfort zone created by our answer to the first question. We like neat little comforting answers....even if they make little sense.

I understand this, and in a superstitious manner I agree. My experiences are not yours, my evidences are not yours. Neither do either of us fully share experiences (and evidences by extension) with any other person. Every one of our experiential evidences are unique. Sufficient experiential evidence supports this path, sufficient experiential evidence supports that path, sufficient experiential evidence supports each of the major paths. Because of the nature of this evidence (subjective and relative) no two are fully in agreement on all things. Even were I to participate in the proceedings of one specific Christian denomination or other (as I have in times past), I will find those things I agree with, those things I generally agree with, and those things that conflict with my experiences. Do I deny my experiences to endorse those things I disagree with? Or do I dispense with those things I agree with to better take up the cause of my experiences? Do I throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a minor point of contention? Or do I accept that humans are fallible, even if the word of G-d ostensibly is not?

The fault is not with G-d...it is with human interpretation. If a person can realize that no human speaks for G-d, then they can better appreciate that when a "preacher" says that "G-d said so," that may not in fact be the case. I would guess on the order of 99.999% of the time. A big part is translational difficulties going from Hebrew/Greek to English, a big part is interpretational issues that derive from politics and exclusivity rationale, a big part is human laziness.

Even so, the reverse of the coin, to dismiss G-d completely despite the experiential evidence, is equally fraught.

It all still boils back down to the foundational essentials: do unto others. That includes G-d *IMHO*.