God or G-d

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Thomas, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    for us, the Divine Name is accessed through the letters of the holy Torah, in particular the four of the Tetragrammaton (as some call it) - hence, the Names themselves have power and one should avoid casual or even direct use of them unless for a sanctified purpose. this leads people to write "G-d" which, as "god" is an english word, they don't really need to do, because the english word has no particular sanctity. however, tehy're just, as we put it, "putting a fence around the Law" or, if you prefer, being extra-specially careful. as for me, i do not use the hebrew names casually, but when i write G!D i am simply alluding to the fact that the Divine Name concerned is an interface to unimaginable, inexpressible infinity, which simply cannot be expressed by a simple word. i might as well write "!*!*!*!*!", but nobody would know what i meant.

    either way it shouldn't be a big deal for people.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  2. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not mixed up. If you believe in God as most people conceive of God then your delusional. And I was raised a Christian. I like Zoroastrianism, not because I believe in its tenants, not because I think its a better religion, but because its the source of the wests religious heritage. That is what makes it so intriguing.

    It would be narcissistic to say that I am the chosen one because I'm a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim. Why is it ok to say that the Greeks invented democracy, but not ok to say the Aryans invented God? And I never stated that the Native Americans were atheists or Aryans. All I was saying is that their cultural expressions are being protected, and so to should Aryan cultural expressions be protected.

    Just because the majority of human beings share a belief doesn't mean that their believe is sane. History can testify to that. The founding forefathers believed that the majority of human beings are ignorant, and its true. The "God is dead" ideology was never tried before. If you're referring to Hitler, in public he was a Christian not an atheist. And the fact that there are more and more non-religious people in the world today to me shows that the world is moving in the direction of atheism and not the other direction. The founding forefathers were deists, which means that they believed God played not role in our lives. They say that the founding forefathers lived today they would have been atheists. No one can hear God's spiritual voice because God doesn't exist. When they hear the so-called Word of God, a lot of what they're hearing is the spirit of a thousands of year old men known as the Zarathushtrians. If you think God is talking to you have the right to your delusion, just as long as he's not telling you to hurt anyone including yourself. Otherwise, you may need to see a shrink.
     
  3. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    My argument was not that "You are delusional. I am not" Its my God is real, he's God is fake. It's not the God of Zarathushtra is the true God and that all other God's are fake. It's the Zarathushtrians first conceived of God (was his conception divinely inspired we'll never know) so Zarathushtra and his spiritual heirs the Aryan people have a copyright on the expression God.
     
  4. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its hard to respect diversity when people are hijacking and profiting off your heritage and contributing to its demise. The only solution I see is to wait for society to recognize its own crimes, so that the right people are credited for their works. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have to recognize themselves that they're religions were heavily influenced by the Zarathushtrians, and take it from there.

    You may have your own interpretation of God, one that doesn't conform to the majority's, but the God that I'm talking about hasn't changed much since he was conceived by Zarathushtra "a single omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe, that sometimes appears anthropomorphically, and who fathered the human race." Most people's description of God I'm pretty sure would fall into this definition.
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    A Presence.
    But is it real? Is it true? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As for material things, they can tell us nothing more than their own materiality.
    How do you explain your viewpoint to the just man who suffers injustice? Do you expect or require a material response to prayer? If so, I'm not sure we're talking about the same God at all.
    Depends on the prayer.
    I think one you start 'measuring' God, you're on the wrong track.

    "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?" (Romans 11:34).

    The question of theodicy lies at the heart of all religions. "Peradventure thou wilt comprehend the steps of God, and wilt find out the Almighty perfectly? He is higher than heaven, and what wilt thou do? he is deeper than hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of him is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea" (Job 11:7-9).

    As soon as you have the measure of God, it seems to me, you're looking at an idol.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  6. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Thanks, BB. Makes sense to me.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  7. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure what your point is. Gravity exists. Its a proven fact. You can see its effects to believe in it. You may claim to be able to communicate with God, but you'll never be able to prove it to someone else. God is not provable. There's no reason to believe in God. Moreover there's so many problems with before even proving the existence of God. The first problem is defining what God is exactly. Is God just an abstract being or is he an old man with a beard that sits on a throne in a place called heaven, or is God an unintellegent chemical combination responsible for matter.
     
  8. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Er, excuse me, but from what you've said above, I cannot see it otherwise.

    No doubt one can bring up numerous references to illustrate that point, but I would argue they're ill-founded. It's not that the other's God is fake, but that the other is misguided.

    Well that's inaccurate on a number of points:
    The idea of God is as old as man. No-one has copyright — it's wired into human nature.
    There is evidence of migrations from the West to the East — with established theistic ideas — that predate the Aryan migrations Westward, which confuses the issue somewhat.
    You seem to forgotten about evolution.
    And Revelation.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  9. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lol, the first conceptions of GOD may have occurred within OUR Humanity about 18 million years ago {yes, I have an exact year, if it must be fetched} ~ yet for many, many millions of years there were DEVA lives here, active upon this planet ... what the Christian calls `Angels' of a certain Order.

    Those original ANGELS, DevaRajas or Builders, many of them, are likely long gone from our Planet, raised [as the Xian would term it] to more exalted Spheres ~ and now even further, more deeply Participants in the Beautific Vision. Meanwhile, however, many of them also still remain in our midst, either as landscape Devas {of the Earth's various climes ~ whether Earth, Water, Fire or Air may predominate in their particular environment} or even as co-Participants in some of the same Mysteries as pertain to Humanity, for at times the Devic Evolution criss-crosses with our own, involving either Devic incarnations as people, or the temporary - usually permanent - switching of tracks, such that a human being enters into the Devic line of advancement ... *forever*.

    I dare say the IDEA, and thus the IDEAL and IdealS of God, of the Divine and of becoming something BETTER than we ourselves already are ... originated long, long before the event I reference above, ~18mya. The Devas were already stewards of God's Plan, even prior to Humanity's advent on this particular Globe of Spiritual & Material evolution, in this particular cycle, in this particular configuration of 7 globes ... itself being the FOURTH such iteration in a series of Seven [as the moon itself bears direct, EYEwitness testimony to the corresponding *physical* globe, in the same position as OUR planet, from the prior chain of 7 globes, though the fact is lost on 99% of observers].

    For some insight, consider:
    • The Hermetic Axiom tells us that the more we understand about our HUMAN Order(s), the better we may understand the Heavens, or Heavenly Order(s).
    • Thus, for those who understand the chakra system, and network of nadis in the Human anatomy, a parallel can be observed in all of nature. Within the animal kingdom, not all creatures may exhibit the same psychic structure or constition as Humans, yet the parallels are there. Cats, for example, have a force-centre at the tip of the tail, yet they also maintain some of the same chakra points as human beings, obviously with differences of functionality or significance [for the evolving Soul, within the form, at this time ~ as compared with Human beings].
    • The advanced members of the vegetable kingdom will also, certainly, adhere to the rule, yet for trees it is quite possible that the chakras take on a different configuration or function altogether. After all, most members of this kingdom are non-motile, relative to animals, Humans, Devas, etc. Thus, I would speculate that perhaps a tree has chakras, or foci for its developing awareness, the LIFE within the form, at several locations ~ as within its upper branches, or points of contact with the Sun/rain/sky, plus at the level of the ground, or intersection of trunk and Earth ... then likely deep within, where root structure becomes deepest or most spread out/diverse. Alternately, the very leaves of the true, as the individual roots, may EACH serve as a tiny chakra, the various nodes of the tree [limbs, branches, twigs, etc.] being the nadis, and the more specialized chakras at leaftip or root-tip being minor in the individual sense, yet together constituting or serving as ONE great point of contact [doh!]. But again, as above, so below.
    • In the case of the Devas, many sketches of these Beings make it obvious, both intuitively and visually, that chakras exist corresponding with our Heart center, the various Head centers [one or two chakras] ... and also other major vortices, as the solar plexus, sacral and also root [or base of spine] chakras. Clearly the Devas would express a point in evolution where some of our earthly/earthbound limitations, as these express via the system of chakras & nadis, may no longer apply, or pertain ... yet there is much we can learn by studying the PARALLELs. As above, so below.
    • In the much Grander Scheme of what is nonetheless called `A Heavenly Man' [or an IMperfect God, by H.P. Blavatsky] ~ a Prajapati who is as yet of a different, lesser Order than the `Seven Spirits before the Throne,' nonetheless there are the same correspondences with the Seven Centers of the individual Human being. For instance, our Planetary Logos, in considering the PHYSICAL Body {etheric counterpart} *alone* ~ maintains the following Seven chakras:
    1. Base of Spine .... Mineral Kingdom
    2. Sacral Center .... Vegetable Kingdom
    3. Solar Plexus ...... Animal Kingdom
    4. Heart Center .... Spiritual Hierarchy/Kingdom of Heaven, or Souls
    5. Throat Center .... Humanity, at large
    6. Brow Center .... `NGWS' {New Group of World Servers}
    7. Crown Center .... Shambhala, the Father's House, or `Highest' Heaven
    • And further, there are Seven chakras, or cities of focus *strictly within the Human Kingdom, the 4th Kingdom* whereby the Energies of the Seven Sacred Planets focus into and become distributed to and through the Human Family. Five of these centers are presently active, being: London {Ray One} ~ Geneva {Ray Two} ~ New York {Ray Three} ~ Tokyo {Ray Five} ~ Darjeeling {Ray Seven}
    • Such that, finally, the parallels with our seven chakras start to apply on a truly Magnificent, tremendous scale {and GUESS which Order, or `Reality' came first!} ~ that is, Planetary/Solar, Solar/local Cosmic, then Galactic/Cosmic, etc.
    • For example, there is *our* Solar System, with the LOGOS in His physical expression, centrally focused {let's call Him HELIOS, or SOL, depending on our Greek-leaning, or Latin-leaning preferences ... and hey man, YOU pick the friggin' religion, *I* will tell you about how *those people* [Egyptians, Mayans, Druids, Vedists, Buddhists, etc.] either worshipped, or recognized the importance of the CENTRAL SUN/S*N}. The S*N of our System, which is a 2nd Ray, Love-Wisdom focused System {especially embodying, therefore the 2nd Aspect of the Trinity} has the same, corresponding set of 7 chakras as we do, finding embodiment or expression via the Seven Sacred Planets, as follows: Vulcan (1) ~ Jupiter (2) ~ Saturn (3, in two distinct contexts) ~ Mercury (4) ~ Venus (5) ~ Neptune (6) ~ Uranus (7)
    • The same set of correspondence will apply on a higher turn of the spiral, in which case our own Solar Logos, and other Logoi of a similar Order, are termed the `Grand Heavenly Men,' in contrast with their constituent, or subsidiary Planetary Logoi, the `Heavenly Men.' Thus while our OWN constellation of Sun/Planets forms the Heart Center of another, Grander Logos entirely, we know that this Grander Logos {OAWNMBS, the One About Whom Nought May Be Said} also has a constituent set of SEVEN Logoi whom/which form the major chakras of [His] physical/etheric expression. Helios/Sol becomes ONE of those seven centers, and apparently one of the stars of Ursa Major, along with the Pleiades and the Logos on Sirius, are all involved ~ presumably as additional chakras. Likewise, the Solar Logos in DRACO.
    • This same focus, study, and investigation into the Sevenfold nature of things ~ according to the chakras, the Rays and other factors ~ can be carried on, certainly, with respect to the mineral, and also the INvolutionary kingdoms. On the microscopic level, the Trinity of Nature, along with a Quaternary, and a Septenary, will become discernible, and one day objective, common knowledge to every physicist, chemist or biologist, just as today it is accepted by these and other scientific minds that ALL LIFE as we currently define it, consists of cells ... with basic cellular composition & structure being de facto ~ and verifiable. All that awaits, is the verification we EACH MUST BRING to a proper, honest, ongoing study of Life, the Universe and Everything. Turn away from the `guinea pigs' you've already got on hand for this Study, and good luck trying to assail the snippets of the Wisdom which I might be foolhardy and loose-lipped enough to let slip here, on the Intarwebs. If you don't "see it" yet, then go about whatever it is you feel you need in order to PROVE such things as this, to yourself, for yourself, even BY yourself. Ask me, or let me know, if I may be of Service.

    Namaskar ~*~
    {I salute the Divinity within thee!}

    Andrew
     
  10. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see the relationship between "My God is real. Your God is fake" and "Your delusional. I'm not" (or "you have no proof God is anything more than a concept. I've got proof that God is a concept, and and I can prove that this concept was first conceived by Zarathushtra, but I can't prove that God is real.)

    What your saying here is purely based on conjecture what I'm saying is based on documented evidence. If your going to tell me that the idea of many gods predated the Zarathushtra's idea of one God I would agree with you. I mean aside from theories the Indo-European corpus of mythology certainly points to this fact. But as far as the idea of one God goes Zarathushtra was the man who was responsible for that revelation. This has been well established. Everybody who knows something knows that Zarathushtra was the first straight up monotheist.
     
  11. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Qabalah is used to understand the spiritual process and the foundation of the Universe. It provides the blueprint for Apotheosis.

    In the beginning there was AIN, the eternal state of negation. Timeless, limitless, it is both light and darkness in one, consciousness and unconsciousness at once. Parallels can be drawn to our Higher Self as AIN. Within AIN a will to be self-aware was born, though nothing outside of AIN existed, nothing for AIN to reflect itself in.

    One aspect of AIN wanted to create a world in which it could reflect, called she-yesh bo mahshavah and is the RHP. The other side, she-ein bo mahshavah, wanted to remain in itself and opposed the plan of Creation. The True Adversary was being born.

    Both sides separated from one another and a void was created. The RHP created the Universe, it manifested through mathematical/geometrical structures, it is the Objective Universe, everything which is material and is held in place by the Laws of Physics. Those on the RHP perceive themselves as the only light and the right light, they call this light, God.

    The Shadow of the RHP is the LHP, the anti-Creation, the left light. They are called the Qliphoth, they reside in the Sitra Ahra (the other side). They oppose the plan of Creation by bringing Individuality and Self-Awareness to us. When the parts of Creation gain Self-Awareness, the right light is prevented from seeing only itself in its creation. The right light creates by separating itself from the left light and from the singularity (AIN).

    When the parts of Creation become Self-Aware they can separate themselves from the creator and begin individual acts of creation, they become separate from "God" and now have the possibility to become a god.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Is this the extent of your proof? All I have seen are indication that Zoroastrianism had the oldest written records of a one god, not the same as prof it was invented at that time. What the definition of 'one god' is has been a little blurry to my mind as well.

    When you come to an interfaith forum and state that people who believe in a god are delusional, you should expect some resistance to the idea. You don't seem to understand why people would take offence to being called delusional?
     
  13. Etu Malku

    Etu Malku Mercuræn

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    We do? I was almost certain it was Pharaoh Akhenaten and the worship of the Aten?
     
  14. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    Your initial premise is based on the assumptoion that anyone who holds a religious belief is delusional. Check your own posts. Abrahamic monotheism then comes in for special treatment on a completely different topic.

    Really, then that's a world first and you'll be rich and famous very soon!

    But I rather think you haven't, as there is no empirical proof either way; if there was, we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

    As for intellectual proofs, there are at least two dozen 'proofs' of God that I can think of that atheists accept as reasonable, rational and logical (and that's just the one's I know of), but they're not compelling to the degree that an atheist would be an idiot if he ignored it.

    So what you actually have is a thesis that you accept, but it is by no means the last word ... it's certainly not a proof.

    No you can't, because you'd have to trace the development of the religious instinct in man back into the mists of time, and we're largely guessing at what they believed way back then. Some versions of the Aboriginal Dreamtime are monotheist. What about belief in the Americas?

    What you assume is that if indeed the Zarathushtran concept of monotheism predates the Abrahamic Traditions, then Abrahamic monotheism is just a rehash of the older Zarathushtran thinking. It's not.

    Zarathushtrianism is dualist. The Abrahamic Traditions are not — that's a pretty radical distinction. The rejection of dualism is one of the markers that shows the Abrahamic Traditions signify a new and unique way of thinking about God. Certainly Abraham and his followers might have been aware of Zarathushtrianism, but they were aware of their own ideas, too, that aren't Zarathushtrian.

    But if you have proof, bring it on, your academic reputation will be made.

    No, what I'm saying is based on current scholarly thinking — what you're saying is making absolute and definitive statements that scholars do not make.

    No, I'm saying that the Christian idea of God is a long way from the Zarathushtrian monotheism.

    That's the bit you can't seem to get your head around.

    Let me explain: The Greek philosophers thought the atom was the smallest piece of substance you could reduce a substance to. Atomic theory today says something different, and whilst the ancient Greek would understand the term 'atom', he'd be gobsmacked at today's definitions.

    Same with 'God'. Because Zarathushtrians believe in one God, what I believe
    about one God is utterly different.

    Basically, we've moved on. Zarathushtrian just couldn't keep pace with contemporary ideas and knowledge. (Whereas Christians were the source of many of those ideas, such as the Big Bang, genetics, etc, etc ...)

    For their revelation, yes ... Zarathushtra was not responsible for, nor in any way aware of, what is revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the New Testament.

    Your mates, maybe ... I find that scholars are far from making absolutely definitive statements like this, because they've got more common sense and know the evidence is inconclusive.

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  15. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    The extent of the proof, in short, is that all the Indo-Europeans aside from the Irano-Afghans were polytheistic which means that the common ancestor or Proto-Indo-European religion was polytheistic, and therefore Zarathushtra's conception of one God was a revolutionary concept. It also might be worth mentioning that the Gathas themselves state that the sacred knowledge was a mystery to the world before Zarathushtra professed it.

    I understand that people might become offended when I'm basically telling them that they can not prove to me or anyone else that God is anything more than a concept. But I myself am vulnerable to being offended. But this is afterall an interfaith forum, full of people with various differing viewpoints, and not everyone is going to agree with each other. The most anyone can do, without, going against their own beliefs, is to try to be polite.
     
  16. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was under the impression that Atenism was the first monotheism too at one point. But I've come to understand some problems with that thesis. First of all Atenism was extremely short lived. It influenced no one. And it was dead for thousands of years until the last century or so when his inscriptions were dug up, recorded, and then destroyed. The second problem with Atenism is that, if Atenism was truly a one God, Aten was a solar disc, and that's not how we conceive of God today. Third problem: Aten was only worshipped by the Royal Family, meanwhile the rest of the Egyptians were worshipping other gods. He was a tribal or local god, just like Yahweh was a local god. If I understand what this means correctly he could not have been worshipped outside of the Royal Family or Egypt. This was really monolatry. Whereas Mazda Ahura and the God that most people are familiar with today is a universal. He could be worshipped by anyone, anywhere not just in Egypt or Jerusalem.
     
  17. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did check my own post the last time. And when what I was saying was that its a delusion to say you believe in God when God can't even be proven to exist. If the existence of God could really have been proven I would be the first one to accept it, but we wouldn't be having this discussion if God's existence was proveable.


    Are you joking. You mean that when someone says the word God he's not conveying a concept or idea?

    Please elaborate. They may have monotheistic elements but I doubt they conform to the popular conception of God which shares more traits with Zoroastrianism.

    According to Haug's interpretation original Zoroastrianism was the strictest form of monotheism. Angra Mainyu was an abstract concept that represented the negation of good. The scholars who are unaware of this fact don't call Zoroastrianism dualism. They call it monotheistic dualism. It's no different than the Christian or Muslim concept of God. If one is to accept Haug's interpretation then the post-exilic concept of Yahweh is not so revolutionary. Moreover before post-exilic times there is no clear indication that Yahweh was the sole God, nor was his worship universal. His worship was confined to Jerusalem. The idea that Mazda Ahura was a universal God most certainly contributed to the development of Yahweh as a universal God.

    No what I'm saying is based on current scholarly thinking and documented historical-linguistic evidence. What your saying is based on modern day anthropology, and theories that for the most part are drawn from conjecture. I've already explained that we know monotheism was introduced by Zarathushtra because the rest of the Indo-European family was polytheistic just like Judaism was polytheistic before the Jews made contact with the Zoroastrians.

    No its not. It's a reversion from the Judaic concept back to the Zarathushtrian concept after Angra Mainy was anthropomorphisized. There is both God and a Devil. God is at war with the Devil. God is all mighty. The Devil is not. In the end God will destroy the Devil.


    But I'm not talking about your personal esoteric interpretation of God I'm talking about the God that most people are familiar with "a single, all mighty all knowing creator of the universe that sometimes appears anthropomorphically who fathered mankind"

    It may have been Christians that were responsible for these great things, but it wasn't Christianity that led them to those discoveries. It was the fact that they were able to separate themselves from Christianity and explore alternate ways of looking at how nature works.

    Your wrong about that. If Zarathushtra never lived. The Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament would be totally different. We'd probably all be polytheists today. The word Pharisee means "Persian" or "Persianizer" and Paul was a Pharisee and Jesus was probably a Pharisee too. The Pharisees adopted several Zarathushtrian cultural expressions.

    I was just reading a random book about Bactrian Gold by National Geographic and the book states "Zoroastrianism was the first monotheism"

    What evidence is absolute?
     
  18. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    And yet, the problem here is not with the way God was conceived in antiquity ... or at least, not in this particular case. Nor was the difficulty present for the Mayans, who also understand the centrality and importance of the Sun ~ and with *what it veils*.

    See the Gayatri ~ which is among the most ancient prayers known to man.
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,125
    You over-estimate yourself, old chum.

    Anselm (1033-1109) said: "God is that of which nothing greater can be thought." a long time ago. You will find Anselm's argument makes light of your thesis.

    It's called 'Anselm's Ontological Argument', it's been around for quite a while, and it's still discussed by philosophers even today. They don't have to be believers, just lovers of philosophy.

    Another of my favourite arguments is "Kalam's Cosmological Argument".

    Then there are the 'Five Ways' of St Thomas Aquinas.

    If you can disprove any of those, then, as I said, your academic career will be sparkling. As I rather think you can't, I wouldn't be so cocksure about what you tell others.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  20. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    Although I certainly agree with you, I am of the mind that the *original* Zoroaster lived 10s of thousands of years ago, rather than later namesakes & individuals using honorifics, who were more recent. Further, I have enough reason to believe tentatively that it was Shakyamuni Buddha, Siddharta Gautama, who appeared to us earlier as Zoroaster, rather than another Great One (such as the Christ, Pythagoras, Plato or Moses/Solomon, all of whom were other Souls/Jivas, Pythagoras himself being the reincarnation of Akhenaton).

    So, the problem really does become one of discussing what is common in human nature and REINCARNATES, as this inches us *one* important step closer to God.

    For him or her who cannot at least begin to solve this minor Mystery, taught since BEFORE the days of Zoroaster, there will inevitably come an impasse on the Journey of Self-/Other-/God-Realization.

    And I do not say that we must adopt a belief artificially, or abandon our present Faith ... for every one of the Greats did teach us this Law, and I testify to you that Christ explained it adequately enough for the Apostles to accept, though clearly some were full of doubt & amazement, and did not quite get it right ~ just as St. Paul added his own emphasis and spin to what was the True Doctrine.

    exile, although I myself may not be Manichean or a current follower of Ormazd {Ahura Mazda} in *this* lifetime, I believe I was such a person about 2000 years ago. When one studies the Amshaspends, one finds the same Sacred Seven Lives as are central to Christian theology as the `Seven Spirits Before the Throne,' yet also a SEVEN which are far, far more ancient than the Judeo-Christian graft onto the Yggdrasil, the Bodhi & Baobab.

    Let NO person who cannot understand the CONTINUITY and the Perpetuity of the Tree of Wisdom and of Life presume to tell you about God, about the NEWEST of the religions which styles itself after the OLD, yet presents almost NOTHING that is truly NEW ... which steals all the THUNDER of these earlier, even EARLIEST of Mother, Mystery-Traditions ... then paints them up with nothing more than one more boring blood-sacrifice story after `Abraham,' thus sinking into a morass of unrescuable, prop-me-up theology.

    No, folks, these are the demagogues ... and these are the wiles of the Jesuits, working behind the scenes, to bang the same-old, same-old drum, which I hear even now, pounding in my ears. It reminds me of the scene from `King of Kings,' in which poor Barabbas has organized the rebels ... who have yet to realize that the Christ is the Messiah they've been waiting for.

    Once the cover is blown, the Roman soldiers arrange into a phalanx, the drum march begins, and every last one of the rebels (apparently save Barabbas) is gored through at spear-point ... precisely as the Sanctity and Authenticity of the doctrines that Mother Church [Catholic, Orthodox & Protestant alike] has destroyed, warped, bent, adjusted, reprinted, edited, amended, retracted, rearranged, conceded, and TRASHED.

    Nor is there a dead line of Inspiration in Christianity, save where spurious, untenable and indefensible absurdities are uttered against the true Nature of the Man, the Gentle Therapeute, who did walk with us in that 8th decade BCE, the true TEACHER of RIGHTEOUSNESS. Rather, anywhere that an earnest appeal is made `in His Holy Name,' precisely that purity of motive, combined with the degree to which the earnest supplicant makes Good on his Pledge of Service ... these and these alone determine whether, and how well a Prayer is "heard" in Heaven, and thus how effective & expedient may be the answer.

    Prayer, as Meditation, is part of the Science of Impression ... involving a technique of Invocation and Evocation long since forgotten by those within the Christian Churches who might ever, originally have once known something of the Occult Teaching. Yes, Mysticism may be practiced, but not Occultism, for it is difficult for the clergy to teach that which they themselves, do not know. As if THIS has ever stopped them!

    Discuss the Nature of GOD, on whatever thread, in whatever context ... and you will do well to include, at least as a passing consideration, all that may be posted on such a topic. If zealous or persistent individuals, such as myself, feel that volume, or quantity, can make up for QUALITY in such an instance, then they are mistaken. But neither is it efficacious to simply cut & paste all of our favorite authors ... essentially airing our OWN adopted, pet authors & their more eloquent expressions of something which we ourselves neither understand, nor can defend.

    For once you have pointed your nose down the dead-end-road of "my god is bigger, he is surely different and better and more fully revealed now that X Prophet, or Messenger, or Saviour has come" pathway ... you will never again speak an unbiased Truth until you re-ALIGN yourself *with Truth* and become her Agent, her Knight, her CHAMPION.

    Thus do I affirm SOL INVICTUS ~ the INVINCIBLE and Unconquered S*N ~ appearing within the Heavens, appearing in miniature within the Heart of every Human being (as even the Catholics will display, via their Sacred Heart, curiously FLAMING ... which I did not think was an indication that ol' Jesus was a pufta).

    Namaskar
     

Share This Page