God or G-d

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

  1. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some find and confess that beauty was really in their imagination. You say a person can tell you nothing more than their own materiality? You are certain of that?

    My viewpoint and recommendation is: forgive, rebuke, and don't respond in kind with another crime, to avenge, seek retribution or seek justice. Seek to be better, rather than equal. Seek to Do the golden rule instead of seeking 'just us'.

    Yes and no. Yes, I expect (presume) there will be a response. No, I don't expect (demand) a response.

    Based on your words, I am starting to agree.

    Yes, those who go to a church may be on the wrong track, headed in the wrong direction. If there is no measure of God there, then there is no measure of God there.

    So it is, "I can't see everything you could show me, or hear everything that you could say, so go away, show me nothing and say nothing." Interesting non-material relationship that Manti Te'o went for.

    John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that the light has come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; for every one who is Doing wicked things hates the light, and does not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected; but he who is Doing the truth does come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.
     
  2. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    Sometimes I think you might be a troll, just pranking us. If not, you should meditate on that sentence you wrote there.

    The logic that followed was pretty typical behaviour. It is often the way religious people are made out to think, but 'exile' is proof for me that it is simply people wanting something to be true, no matter religion is involved or not. Everything you wrote are circumstantial or, according to radar, incorrect. Some of the things COULD be the way you describe them, but could just as well be any other way as far as anyone here could tell. You seem to WANT the world to be this way for some reason, perhaps you have made Zoroastrianism your purpose in life, what do I know, but you can't see things from a different perspective.

    Just like this, you are taking a concept and take it to an extreme. And also using it for your own advantage, dismissing everyone who would argue against you. Be careful with these things, 'delusion' is a serious mental illness and not the same as "unable to prove their conviction empirically". There are many delusional people out there, but using the concept to carpet the majority of the worlds population would be missing the point.
     
  3. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Classic. You sound like a concept. What can a concept prove? Can a concept give birth to a concept all on its own?

    Crazy.
     
  4. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is another version: If two parents grow and feed everything that a child eats, feeding it from their own garden, all from their own work and toil, able to legally prove that they own every one of the atoms and molecules that went into it, their own child, then do they legally own that person in a court of law? No? What does the court rule? Well then you have a proof, or a counter-proof to your absolute certainty. If someone is above the matter, then someone is above the matter, and if that person is not owned by the parents, then that person is not owned by the parents. If in a court of law there is more than the matter and parenting that matters, then forgive me for saying the obvious: there is more than the matter and parenting that matters... in your so-called court of law. God is that potential hidden parent that the court inadvertently confesses to as the ruling is: the material parents don't own it.

    Now then, if a person is born in a country, does a government own a percentage of it?
     
  5. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do I do enjoy this debate, I'm not totally getting a kick out of this. It's not an easy argument to make. You try defending my point. What I meant is Zarathushtra is the one who saw the need for one god and he was the one who went through the creative processes to define that concept. He originally authored the concept God. The idea God was so isolated in the ancient world because its not part of our neural circuitry to belief in God. We're not born knowing that there is a God. What is innate our ability to learn a language.

    What does it matter if I'm taking the concept to an extreme. The point is its true, yet you seemed to have gotten upset about me telling the truth. Maybe this particular delusion won't lead to any harm. But I think history would point to the contrary. I mean just think of recent times, all this business about Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq.
     
  6. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your taking things out of context. Slavery is illegal. Protecting cultural expressions from exploitation is perfectly legal. All you have to do is read up on cultural heritage law to see that. God has no place in a courtroom.
     
  7. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure about that. From what I was able to see they don't even seem to acknowledge Haugs thesis. They seem to support the thesis of monotheistic dualism, which is not different than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The idea that God is not alone. He has an adversary. The Abrahamic people called him Satan and after he was anthropomorphosized the Zarathushtrians called him Angra Mainyu.

    The idea of a primal mover goes back to Anaximenes, who believed that air was a mental physiological phenomena like Mazda Ahura "Wise Lord" is a mental physiological phenomena. Anaxagoras was his student and he believed in a primal mover which he also defined as a mental physiological phenomena "Mind." Anaxagoras served in the Persian military and was affiliated with Themistocles who took refuge under Xerxes.

    Pherecydes and others regard the first source of creation as the highest principle. They are followed by the Magians [Magi] and also by some later philosophers, such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, who ascribed to love and to mind, respectively, the original creative impulse. - Aristotle, Metaphysics (ed. Christ) XIV, 4, 1091b. (C.24)

    He [Anaxagoras] was a pupil of some of the Magi and Chaldaeans, whom Xerxes had left with his father as teachers, when he had been hospitably received by him, as Herodotus informs us; and from these men, while still a boy, learned the principles of astronomy and theology. Afterwards, his father entrusted him to Leucippus, and to Anaxagoras, as some authors assert, who was forty years older than he. And Favorinus, in his Universal History, says that Democritus said of Anaxagoras, that his opinions about the sun and moon were not his own, but were old theories, and that he had stolen them. – Diogenes Laertius, Life of Democritus

    Anaxagoras set up a school at Lampsascus which Archelaus took over. Socrates was a student of Archelaus and ascribed to the concept of "Mind." His student was Plato and Aristotle was Plato's student. I highly doubt that the Greek conception of God was the product of an independent and original development.
     
  8. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is crazy exactly? The fact that its legal to protect cultural expressions from being exploited or that the Zarathushtrians believed in a God, a Devil, angels, demons, a Messiah, heaven, hell, and a judgment day before the Jews did. If its the latter would you think its crazy that the Jews believed in God, a Devil, angels, demons, a Messiah, heaven, hell and a judgment day before the Christians, and the Christians before the Muslims?
     
  9. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    To the contrary, the concept of a creator is prevalent in the court. Who owns intellectual property... the creator, or the concept? Who owns a person... the parents? You say that the owner of a person is a different context than the owner of a concept, but I merely established the difference between a creator and a concept. Ownership of a concept is legal. Ownership of a person, a creator, is not legal in your court.

    To you, 'God' is a concept. I believe you. A 'person' is also a concept. You describe the ownership of a concept, claiming that someone else owns the concept. Are you a slave to those parents? Are you a slave to the Aryan community? Nope, that would not be legal. The concept that you claim to be able to prove in a court of law, is yours, and not someone else's. You made a copy of the concept. If you can prove it is another's concept, then you have proven there is a creator. You have proven there is a God.

    A person has something that trumps matter, not given by the biological parents... recognized even in a human court. Per your words, it is not legal to own a creator.
     
  10. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    I don't feel that you have ever answered any of my arguments I have posted on this thread, so I'll just give up here and move on.
     
  11. exile

    exile Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2012
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I haven't proven is God in the sense "a single all mighty all knowing of the creator of the universe that fathered man" exists. What I'm confidant there is enough evidence to support is that there was a creator whether it was one person or a collective that authored the concept God and at that time this concept was exclusive to that author(s). I don't consider myself a slave to those creator(s). Rather I am inspired by the spirit of that creator(s), and I see myself as the artist or re-creator of this particular cultural heritage. I suppose you could call that creator(s) my own personal God, but only in a sense comparable to Cliff Burton of Metallica claiming that "Bach is God."
     
  12. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thomas, the reason it is easy for me to make sense of this issue is perhaps itself, key to the conundrum's answer. It is, at heart, a matter of `Guess who?' once we begin to ask the familiar questions:
    • Who am I?
    • Who are you?
    • Who is God?
    • Who was/is Christ/Jesus?
    • Who are the Children or `Sons' of God?
    • Who are the mind-born Sons of Brahma?
    • Who are the Agnishvattas, or Manasaputras {manasadevas in general, for that matter}?
    Alright, these may not all be familiar ... yet they are some of the questions we need to be asking, along with: "What is the nature of our human and spiritual constitution, i.e., what are its component principles, along with their respective `vehicles' or means of expression?"

    This thread has progressed, and now seems to be little more than an ongoing argument as to how Zarathustra was the first monotheist ... yet I am of the mind that the first conceptions of `God' ~ even along the lines we are discussing ~ trace back an easy 18 million years [gee, was Zoroaster alive then?] if we wish to be conservative. Or, if we look to the Logos on Sirius, we will be forced to admit that God may have come to our Solar System as a CONCEPT long, long before our present Humanity. Unless we are so blinded that we think we are the *only* or most ancient of the civilizations currently evolving within this System. We'd be wrong on both counts, at that.

    I noticed that one of the tabs open in my browser is a comparison, via the Ageless Wisdom teachings, between Atom, Man, Planetary Logos {Prajapati or Elohim} and Solar Logos {Helios/Sol in mythology, `the HIGHEST' in Christian theology} ~ so I'm including the url here just for kicks: A Fourfold Comparison of Atom, Man, Planetary Logos and Solar Logos

    And finally, I will probably begin posting links to brief audio files as my replies to various further discussions ... as I prefer speaking a response, rather than typing one. The first go of it is a 5-minute treatment of the question Thomas asked above, which at least scratches the surface, if little more. A 2nd part goes a little more in-depth, and I'll get around to posting that sooner or later, although I may begin a new thread, with proper intro, on `WHAT Reincarnates,' as this seems infinitely more practical and interesting to me than going back & forth about the Buddha's incarnation as Zoroaster.

    Audio @ Youtube: God or G-d - YouTube
     
  13. Ecumenist

    Ecumenist New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    1
    Perhaps we were `built' by one wave of life, and entities, acting under the instruction and guidance of yet a higher Order of Creative, Loving and adequately *emPowered* beings. I would argue that these latter, as well as the former, themselves come in several `classes' ... although admittedly, there are yet Higher Orders altogether, and these are the Custodians, or Keepers of the PLAN.

    Nor is this latter Divine Plan altogether Inscrutable, Unknowable or even particularly difficult for the Human Consciousness to access, for otherwise we must posit the likelihood or possibility that `God' is in fact a tyrant, being so unreasonable as to expect us to guess His Will, or otherwise make totally haphazard approximations as to what might be the correct course of action in a particular situation.

    Sure, it does make complete sense that it is altogether IMPOSSIBLE for us to know the Highest, or the Ultimate Will of Deity, even for our little System, or chain of planets, focusing at present upon the Earth ... even given the last few thousand years, projecting also several centuries into the future. True, it will be futile for us to imagine that we know the intended outcome of evolution in this Manvantara, yet this does not prevent us from imagining several stages better in a progressively better, more efficient, more Harmonious Society ~ in every way that can be conceived coming under the jurisdiction of what are called colloquially `God's Ways' as opposed to strictly, or predominantly our own.

    Now there are those who cannot imagine even with such capacity, or who find it difficult to shake themselves free of the illusion that things are always like this, that things have always been like this, and that in fact, there's nothing new under the sun ... such that in effect, there is NO change. Buddhism can cure even the most stalwart holdout of the illusion that there is ANY solid, permanent aspect or component within the physical world ... even including the physical universe as a whole. And where exoteric teaching leaves off, even the esoteric portions of Buddhist and Vedic instruction will remind you promptly that every *least* manvantaric period is followed by a pralaya of equal duration, then another manvantara, then a pralaya, and so on.

    After so many, we are done with a Mahamanvantara, and so we experience a Mahapralaya. The difficulty with reincarnation is that even the Rishis, the enlightened Sages, from Buddha to Bodhisattva, Mahatma to arhat, cannot remember across the MahaManvantaras, if even their memory could be said to span the Human Kingdom and enter the animal. While it is certainly possible to enter into the higher awareness whereby we may fathom the earlier phases of evolution of the Solar Logos and Sacred & non-Sacred Planetary Logoi, we cannot with equal facility, even as a Buddha, trace our every single incarnation AS A MONAD through the earlier kingdoms: Animal, Vegetable, Mineral ... then the involutionary descent through vast eons from the spiritual into the dense, material planes. Thus, every student among us may only TRY to see the picture complete, this being all the more difficult when very few who post at Interfaith are even aware of the nature, purpose, role and significance of the 5th Kingdom, the Kindom of `God,' `Heaven' or `Souls,' as it has variously been termed.

    What more can be suggested until we realize the unique position which Humanity holds, as the 4th Kingdom in Nature, both with relation to the three earlier Kingdoms, making us somewhat of a capstone in this tetrahedral solid {to invoke the imagery of geometry} - and also with relation to the 5th and higher Kingdoms, whereby immediately we become one side alone of THE Divine Pyramid ... the capstone now become the upright point of a Five-Pointed Star, as our own SOUL is a Fivefold Entity, contrasted with our own fourfold position within nature.

    Yes, I quite agree. To divorce Humanity from our overshadowing Souls is absurd. Just because technically we are the incarnation of an altogether HIGHER Triune Power, the MONAD {JIVATMA or Divine Pilgrim, allegorically described in Christ's Parable of the Prodigal SON} ~ which is also the case when we turn to EVERY other Kingdom [mineral, vegetal, animal, SOUL & beyond] ... does not mean that our SOUL is not where we should be turning our attention. Meditation, plus Study, plus SERVICE are described in the Ageless Wisdom Teachings as the threefold touchstone whereby the earnest disciple may literally *transmute and transform* the outer life, of the persona, into the Inner Life of the TRUE Individual.

    What the Soul essentially does, as the temporary [only a few thousand lifetimes, till darn close to the very `end'] stand-in for our own, UNdeveloped Spiritual Potential and innate Capacity, is to show us this same Capacity, as often and as fully as we will have it, or bear it, or be able to receive and benefit from it. Nor does this really even become possible until something like 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the Solar Lotus has been unfolded. And the order varies, yet typically the first petals to unfold are the Knowledge petals, as pertain to the physical and astral planes, then later the lower mental. As these unfold, gradually do the Love petals ... with the Sacrifice petals only coming along as we enter the path of discipleship and begin to Serve.

    Here are three tiers of three petals each, Knowledge, Love and Sacrifice, occurring on each of the three lower planes. Finally, as we tread the Path of Initiation proper, an inner tier of three concealed petals is unfolded, and the Arhat-Initiate {as became Christ Jesus, then Paul after him, others since, many hundred before any of these ...} altogether transcends the Higher Mental plane. His Causal [Soul] body is consumed, the Lotus itself is fully unfolded and thus no longer `needed' as an intermediary [having existed upon the Higher Mental plane all this time]. The arhat stands free from what is called trishna, or tanha [Sanskrit and Pali, respectively] and is able to move with facility upon the Buddhic plane {in his `Sambhogakaya'} and upon the Nirvanic/Atmic plane {in his `Dharmakaya'} as well as manifest in the higher mental and rupa worlds via the Nirmanakaya ... unless he enters into Nirvana completely, whereupon he loses the ability to contact us for the remainder of the present manvantara.

    God?

    Well. God might have been an ARHAT, once upon a time {in the Ageless Wisdom Teachings we learn that ALL beings in Cosmos either are, HAVE BEEN or will become[/b] human, at some point in their evolution ~ NO exceptions} yet that will have been long, long ago. For in time, every arhat [or equivalent in the Deva evolution, or other evolutions] must move on to become Asekha Adept [A-sekha, no-learner], then a Chohan [a `meditating Dharma-Lord' of 6th Degree] or its equivalent, then finally in some altogether different & higher order of evolution, a Bodhisattva, Buddha, Kumara and then a Planetary Logos. Technically these titles will not likely apply, as they are pertinent to our local evolution, and none of us is that versed on conditions of Sirius or the other Systems where we likely will be evolving once we are Initiates of these degrees. But we do know that we move through the stages of Planetary Logoi, eventually on up to Solar Logoi, and beyond.

    God isn't unknowable, or unknown, even if it is true that "the Tao that can be named ... is not the Eternal Tao." It just behooves us to admit that we do not really know or understand, and for most of us that stops pretty short, even if it does reach the level of the Earthly Hierarchy, the Christ and Masters, or perhaps Shambhala. To suggest that one is even VAGUELY familiar with the true PURPOSE of our own Planetary Logos, let alone the other Logoi of our System {and they are SACRED Logoi, in distinction} ~ much less the Solar Logos .... ha! Well that's just absurd! ;)

    Namaskar
     
  14. luecy7

    luecy7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    You say the beliefs held by a fellow human are not worth looking at? I question your wisdom and results.
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,605
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Hi exile —
    At the very least.

    By the same token, your thesis is a concept, and the definitive conclusions you draw are far from infallible ... and often contradicted by a broader scope of evidence.

    There is evidence of monotheism that predates Zoroasta — so one cannot honestly claim the 'concept' is his. The concept of God belongs to humanity, not one person ... it's like saying so-and-so invented 'love'.

    Whether or not the Greeks, Egyptians or Hebrews and so on were aware of Zoroastrianism, it is evident that the monotheism they adopted was different to the Zoroastrian model.

    Later traditions certainly would have rejected it on the grounds of its 'weak monotheism'.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,605
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    I'm sure. The question then is how reasonable does your sense of things seem to anyone else.

    I have to say, your sense of this is, I think, off the mark.

    What you claim to be 'the Ageless Wisdom teaching' seems to be a collection of facts and data accessible somewhere (presumably), as if one was searching a library, or on Google ... I think this is a rather exoteric notion.

    'Wisdom' is the fruit of human experience, it is derived from data, it is not the data itself. One man's wisdom is another man's folly, and what is wise in one set of circumstances might well be very unwise under another, so really wisdom is contingent upon circumstance, although certain expressions will come through as general guidelines.

    To me, the far more interesting idea is that by 'ageless wisdom', we mean 'the response to perennial questions'. The answer to these questions will be shaped by the time and culture in which they rise, thus the Abrahamic response to suffering is different to the Buddhist response.

    You see, this is wrong, and if you knew anything about Christian doctrine, you'd know that.

    ... which makes me wonder about your notion of reincarnation.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,605
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Sorry chum, but this really doesn't explain anything — it certainly doesn't address the questions I asked.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  18. AdvaitaZen

    AdvaitaZen New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    1
    The problem for you, Thomas, is that the only Gospel to speak of the Logos is John, whereas in Greece it was an established notion. Further, there is absolutely nothing in Judaism which points to it at all. We must ask who this John character is, whether he has simply applied Hellenistic ideas to Jesus.

    I really don't recommend that you - as a Christian - try arguing too much about the Logos. Yet it is certain that this is one of leading ideas within Christianity for what exactly Christ represented for the Gentiles. It is because the notion of Messiah was irrelevant to non-Jews, but some way had to be found to appeal to them. The Logos had been central to the Greek mysteries for as much as 800 years prior to Jesus, what better way to sell him to them?
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,605
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Here's the thing:
    In the system you offer, there always seems to be an infinite number of degrees and distinctions between me and God.

    And then it seems not all the necessary data is available anyway, until someone, somewhere, decides we're worthy of it.

    And then you say it'll take infinite lifetimes to get there.

    And even then, nothing is for certain.

    All I see are obstacles between me and God.

    What does not seem possible in your system is a dialogue with the Divine. An unmediated Knowing of God. A direct vision of the Infinite. A oneness with the One.

    Then I look at the Great Traditions: the Abrahamic, the Brahminic, the Buddhist, the Daoist, for example ... and they all have one thing in common: they all cut straight through all this 'stuff', and show the Straight Path that leads direct to its End — 'the one thing necessary' (Luke 10:22).

    And all you can offer me is more and more stuff ... like a fractal, the more you look at it, the more endlessly repatative it becomes.

    All you offer me are barriers. They might mask themselves with all manner of names, but really, barriers is what they are.

    And not all of them, I suggest, are necessarily reliable. You seem to be labouring under a number of false conclusions as far as Christianity is concerned, and I reckon it's a fair bet you've made erroneous assumptions about the other tradtions as well. There are always those ready to tell you what to do, that's why 'the discernment of spirits' is so necessary for those not under the cover of an authentic tradition.

    For those of us who do follow an established traditional path, the 'old straight track' leads from here to there, without all these unnecessary and sometimes frankly counter-traditional hindrances and divergences.

    The 'one thing necessary' is the focus on God, and the dialogue between God and man, which rather renders all these schemata redundant.

    But it is, you have to admit, fiendishly and unnecessarily complicated. Reality reveals itself to be far simpler than our imaginings, even when we try and put everything in order, and classify it taxonomically.

    The Way of it is to become like children (cf Matthew 18:3), not ancient academics with heads stuffed full of knowledge ...

    For that very reason.

    Again, is it really necessary?
    Rumi never gave a second thought to any of this stuff. Eckhart didn't... why should I?

    I know. Who would suggest that?

    Really? Then your position is worse than I thought, because whatever this 'HIGHER triune power' might be, it's patently hopelessly corrupted ...

    A stand-in soul?

    So 'my soul' is not my own, but some stand-in caretaker?

    This is another barrier, and now there's one between me and me!

    (Never mind the fact the question of how can my soul can profit by the virtues of another? None of the effort of the Caretaker belongs to me, so either you're utterly dependent on grace, something that seems to offend you, or you're up a creek without a paddle!)

    More problems, more barriers ...


    I think this frankly self-important anthropomorphism. For a start, only God can make a statement like that and whatever source you're working from, by the degree of its complexity and local outlook, it's patently not Divine.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  20. AdvaitaZen

    AdvaitaZen New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    1
    The degrees of distinction in Catholicism between God and man are far more than they are in Theosophy. You bring up Meister Eckhart, but the man was almost executed for discussing his experience. There was debate about whether it was heresy for hundreds of years, yet you point at him to show the peaks of your tradition, strange. He is perhaps the only genuine sage Christianity has produced, the first to climb to the peaks of Jesus within Christian history and the Christians almost killed him.

    Theosophy is very complicated, and I am not surprised Ecumenist has confused you in trying to express something of it, it truly is a bunch of heady nonsense, but at least it hasn't been used to justify any wars yet. What surprises me is you actually think it is less complicated than the nonsense you spew about Catholic tradition. I really don't see any difference, except that Jesus is more respected than Helena.
     

Share This Page