Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by BlackHeart, Sep 18, 2003.
it is different for every unique person.
I agree, Kim.
I have been listening in and I note that many here want to give God, or their concept of God, all power and super intelligence. But what if God is NOT intelligent at all and is acting out of instinct? Yes, instinct, as in nature and the natural order of things? Animals act out of instinct, and to a degree, we act out of instinct, so why not God? Why does God have to be so different? True we are speaking of an ethereal being (spiritual or metaphysical, whatever you wish) but it is an existing, living entity. If it has order and logic, if it creates (created) the 'laws of nature', would it not have to exist within those boundaries?
Shall we be simplistic? If a bird lays an egg out of natural instinct, why couldn't the Entity we call God, lay a universe? No, no, same difference. The egg is logical, in order in all its parts as well as being subject to that which surrounds it...outside influence (the natural world), circumstance, evolution, etc; why not the same with the universe? It is logical, in order in all its parts, as well as being subject to that which, in this case, is all of its parts interacting to create circumstance, environment... and evolution...
Just something to nibble on!
As always, Victor, you go the heart of the matter. Well said. There is abolutely no reason at all why God should be omnipotent or super intelligent.
It is more likely, as you say, to more often than not act from an affective base, and why should this not be true of a God?
Always my main point, exactly, in fact, in these discussions.
Only when we strive for the Affective domain and the Cognitive, objective and material domain to be in balance, do we find some enlightenment perhaps.
(Your erstwhile acquaintance, 'Soph')
Intuition from the soul is spot on accurate when human perception does not get in the way!
Beyond the self probably needs more context?
Love beyond measure
Thankyou for the response, SacredStar.
Beyond the self probably needs more context?
There is no other context than the domain beyond your physical self, your heart and mind... the material and objective domain. The clear demarcation is testable. You have your inner 'realities' and there are the external realities. Your body and its senses link you to the objective domain via you perceptions of the phenomena you observe with your senses.
You can respond to that material domain with your affective nature and nurture, your feelings and beliefs, with or without cognition... knowing materially what IS and IS NOT. The latter is always verifiable or not outside yourself.
Your inner world is dependent only upon whatever validations you happen to have when it comes to subjects like consideration of the 'soul' itself, spiritual and religious responses... Your heatfelt intuitions, your instincts are peculiarly your own and no one else's.
When we might argue that Intuitions have value, we generally mean 'successful' ones, in terms of what exists beyond yourself in the material world. Trouble is... they could just as easily be dangerous or completely misplaced/wrong, as 'right'.
Within oneself, we are free to intuit as much as we like and draw personal conclusions that we test and validate within our affective selves; sometimes, too often in my estimation, without recourse to rational and reasoned examination... cognitively.
We are so often, as Victor describes below, 'instinctive' in our actions and behaviours, reacting externally to our personal intuitions about matters. The thing is, the rational and reasoned, objective approach is far more reliable in all our daily lives.
How often have you felt something was right... and it turned out completely differently?
How often have you measured, reflected, cogitated and reasoned through a concern and made the best perhaps of a bad job with a degree of success?
On the whole, the latter produces the most efficacious of results.
Of course, a master at anything, say 'Snooker', will often play a quick shot intuitively (instinctively?), successful or not, but how often does the successful player measure and mentally compute the angles a little more slowly with a high degree of cognitve reflection? The latter is usually the most consistent winner.
Intuitive feelings concerning spirit and God concepts have no foundation other than the affective self either. They can claim relationships with observed phenomena which exists outside one's body and mind... like the very Universe itself, but that is not an objective claim. It is not dependent upon the nature of the Universe in any sense, other than one's feelings about it and its relevance to you as an individual.
(An after thought... those who claim there is no world beyond their affective perceptions and the external is dependent for its existence upon their perceptions of it, are, if I may say so talking nonsense.
The Eiffel Tower will, without some explainable calamity, be there tomorrow as it is today.)
Ok well the terms that I am thinking of is when a person gets clear warning from the intuition of the soul that they should not marry for instance. This includes the self and a person other then themself.
Ok so how do you reconcile remote viewing?
Well I agree to differ on this one I trust the divine self and the divine 100%
Rare, if it turns out differently it is usually because free will of other's got involved. (or I did not listen to my divine self or the divine guidance received) For no man is an island, we all hold a piece of the jigsaw puzzle all interelated and interdependent although unique in our own journey.
Love beyond measure
I just got back last night but still can't stay on the Internet at night for very long... telephone company problems!I've already been kicked off 4 times since I signed on! I am writing this off-line and will attempt to send it when I am done. I came back because of several e-mails concerning the Thesis.
Compassion, love, understanding; God's domain! We carry on about the lack of reason in the world, and God does nothing.... we say it is his will that evil happens in the world or we are justified in saying there is no God, or that the Entity just doesn't care... and we go on. Please, allow me to offer another view, and I do so as a believer!
God does not just care about US! We are insignificant in the total view. Example; History has recorded that during the Second World War, 50 million souls were lost due to a single individual. That number is an abomination to the intelligent mind. But when a Super Nova takes place in the distant Universe and for all we know, with a dozen or so planetary systems wiped out, 500 billion souls are destroyed! That is uncomprehensible!
I can tell you now that you can no more doubt the 500 billion than you can the 50 million!
Where is that caring, loving, reasoning, compassionate Deity? To me, the key-word here is, reasoning! Comments?
Commiserations about the LINE business, Victor. I have had problems with my cable connection, because young yobs and thugs keep sitting on and interfering with the cable connection main box in the street next to mine!
As to your post thoughts and comments, I don't think I can disagree with them.
We are both believers in our personal ways, and everything you say and question seems to me eminently reasonable.
You know I will say that there is no evidence for a kind and compassionate deity/entity.
Not even Professor Flew, (put his name into GOOGLE), recently in the news at the age of 81, doesn't say his newly affirmed change of heart in believing in an intelligence of the complexity he sees in genetics, doesn't extend it to say it is a caring and compassionate entity.
Take care this Christmas time, my friend. I hope the LINE gets sorted out.
Have you ever noticed how you or I may post a simple response to a debate
and suddenly find that it has come to a screeching halt? I wonder if I am using the proper deodorant..... I mentioned the same comparison in our last Sunday School class and everyone just stared at me as though I were an alien. I think that the vast majority of those 'churched' among us really do not comprehend the immensity of the nature of their Deity, or at least their concept of such. In fact, I think I may have opened my own eyes just a bit!
You and yours have a good one!
In the Living Christ, I am;
Blooming good to see Victor and Stan chatting here again - it's been too long.
Thanks, Brian. All good wishes for this Season to you and yours... as everyone says, but I sincerely mean. We must meet up again sometime and catch-up on everything. If you are ever heading down the A1, do turn off at the appropriate point. Tea and toys for the young at heart!
Re: the need for 'deoderant'! LOL ;-)
I think whenever anyone replies with a bit of clarity and the audience views it with some empathy, they often realise that they "can't argue with that".
Sustained rationality tends to be simply too hard-edged for some, and a bit of yet another mystery to others! LOL
"Compassionate human beings who care and who are selfless in their acts are rare indeed."
I don't think, in my own experience, they are that hard to find... Perhaps,deep down, I am ever the optimist... though I may simply be a bad judge. LOL
'Humans are only just becoming human beings'
TRUE, I feel! (If what you imply does indeed mean what I think it means! LOL)
In all fairness, some have no wish to argue at all. There is a point where there is no difference between this and that. It is acceptance of the view of other. Evidence of a kind and compassionate deity is in the living of life in the domaine of kindness and compassion. And it warms the heart to read your words when you say that in your experience compassionate humans who care and who are selfless in their acts are not that hard to find. I share your appreciation of optimism in this, and in that is a new dawn of elevated civilisation, without conflict. Peace be with the honoured equality of expression in kindness and understanding of one to another and all.
God is limitless. Why? If for no other reason, let us look at from a human perspective, as we often do. This observance is our best strength. If we propose that in our Universe, there must be a higher supreme being to create and run things, this being would have to have tremendous power. To assume God having limited power is absurd.
If we created a being in our mind called god, and assigned characteristics superior to us, a true god would possess the following:
4. Unique (one of being's kind)
The fact that some religions claim to be polytheistic, only proves that mankind is personifying human characteristics to specific gods for specific areas of control. This limited human thought is only paralleling themselves in a higher form. A true god would not have equals. A true god would have absolute power. Perfected in every way.
Next, why would this god allow things to happen without interfering. Just because one is all-powerful, does not mean that one has to use the power all the time. This highly intelligent being has a purpose. That purpose is to experience the consequences of our actions then learn from them. If choices or circumstances beyond our control affect us detrimently, the results are to teach the individual or society or group a lesson. If results are positive toward one or others, then rewards are placed for our actions.
Finally, the greatest being would not be foolish enough to create other species equal to one's own intellect, power, or essence. Hypothetically speaking, if I was a god, I would not want to create equal beings. I would have created beings on any level of slightly inferior to a greater level of inferiority. While doctrines mention gods creating species in perfection, we must remember that lesser perfection is not the same as imperfection. We all were perfected in the way we were created. Our imperfections arise when we defied the supreme being.
Some doctrines state that the supreme being wants to be the only one worshipped; in other words, a jealous deity. With this statement also supports why one deity would only be superior.
I believe as time moved forward, the idea of polytheism, while some minor societies may still worship them, have faded out as intellectual man progressed in history as well as other belief systems smothered others out; therefore, polytheistic religions collapse into mythology. Only stories remain to be passed down from generation to the next. I also believe that the concept of polytheism may be the one deity expressing self in different identities that different people can relate to that being comfortably and their talents associated with them.
The one deity is infinite and has a reason and purpose beyond our thinking. We can conjecture, but we must remind ourselves that our thinking is in boundaries of limitation. We can continue to experience God in different ways, but the only way to know God is to be in His PRESENCE, which this absolution will be beyond this lifetime. Meanwhile, we continue to practice being in His presence through physical representation either by study of doctrine, prayer, meditation, rituals, ceremonies, or rites.
doctrine, prayer, meditation, rituals, ceremonies, or rites.
(WELCOME by the way to this Community and Forum.)
The matters you describe appear to me to be rather confused and confusing.
It is stated at the end that "doctrine..." etc., are possible means to the ends you describe.
So far as I can see ALL those things are entirely dependent upon any particular spiritual and religious view... it could be Islamic, Christian... or whatever.
Patently doctrines, prayers, rites and rituals vary tremendously? Therefore I do not understand what you say.
You also speak of a personal concept going beyond your physical death. Again, that is fine -For you! But it actually has no logical and rational foundation beyond yourself. You are only making a rather supernatural affirmation on the basis of personal affective nature and nurture (Which is fine) and therefore you cannot speak of this as a generalised 'truth' beyond yourself.
Finally, if we join with you in affirming this omnipotent and all-powerful God... where is there any evidence in the real and objective domain?
I see no evidence of an omnipotent God responsible for creating us having EVER interfered at all in human affairs?
Perhaps you can offer some evidence for God having directed something in the real world?
You see, all I can appreciate in your detailed post is your strong personal beliefs and affirmations, which are admirable or not, according to any reader. There appearsto be no evidence for anything you say,beyond yourself. What do feel or think about that?
If this is so: "the only way to know God is to be in His PRESENCE" then how can you KNOW anything of his omniscience, or any other attributes you personally ascribe to this entity?
CIEL states in the post below yours that 'God' is invisible in fact- being 'spirit' and in all 'good' acts, and therefore opts out of the discussion... as if that concept is self-evident.
I would point out that if it is self-evident and beyond discussion, argument, etc., it must be 'irrational' in fact!
Why is there any necessity for a 'God' to be concerned in any consideration of a good act in human behaviour? Or an evil act?
Why should an omniscient entity be bothered at all?
The fact is no one 'knows'; some just assert and affirm that THEY personlly 'know'.
I see no purpose or relevance to hypothesise a God having anything to do with what are generally thought of as 'good' acts' as opposed to what is generally adjudge as 'evil' acts.
This is just an unneccessary human accretion pasted on top of what can be viewed as generally 'good' or 'bad'.
Why shouldn't a God be conceived as simply 'not-interested' in his creation and creations? His numinous presence might well be thought of as suffusing all aspects of nature and the universe... as CIEL seems to propose, but what does that achieve beyond facing the fact that we might very well live in Universe that just does not 'care' whether we are or are not?
Much of the religious motivation appears to me to spring from 'fear' that in fact we may be on our own... and no God is actually helping or concerned about us... and what is wrong with such a conception? It is as logical, perhaps more logical, than maintaining there is an 'interested' God for which there is no objective evidence at all.
FAITH is 'faith'... if we had proofs, there would be no necessity for the word! We would be dealing with objectivities amenable toinvestigations.
Therefore FAITH is personal, an affective response, labelled as 'spiritual'... because it cannot be objectively defined, and it indeed bears no necessity to be defined in any particular way.
No one can disprove a person's Faith....
All we can ask is that rationality and reason be recognised.
As another once wrote;
"God dances and sings to us from the spaces between electrons".
And a message for Traig;
Thank you for your luminosity, care to join the dance?
"God dances and sings to us from the spaces between electrons".
Exactly, Ciel.... though you can guess that I would put it this way:
"God dances and sings to us from the spaces between electrons" if that is how we wish to conceive of It, He, She, or They.
My old Greenhouse is now an aviary. The wood frame is all that exists and it
plays host to a myriad of birds, squirrels, and chipmunks. The Mourning Doves light on the frame, 15 or 20 at a time. We call them , The Breakfast Club. With them today there were 11 Bluejays, 7 male Cardinals, 4 females, a Redheaded Woodpecker, 9 squirrels and 3 Baltimore Orioles. They were all eating seed and peanuts that I leave for them, without quarreling among themselves. Then suddenly, they fled! I understood at once!
God came to visit me this morning.
She was dressed in a down of dark brown feathers from the top of her head all the way to her foot long tail feathers. As she rose from the ground to the frame of the aviary she spread her wings to a full 5 foot wing span, shook her body as she surveyed creation from her lofty throne, and settled down to comb her pure white chest with claws that are razor sharp. Her eyes are cold, hard as steel, but they give her a look of wisdom that surely exceeds the limits of human imagination.
Condescending enough to allow my favorite squirrel to return, the Deity watched him shell and eat a peanut only two feet away from her. She allowed him to live, unconcerned that her morning Communion Meal lay easily within striking distance. Later, she stretched to her full length and breadth as though to admire herself, self-aware of her omnipotent power, knowing that she had been seen and worshipped by those brave enough to linger in her presence, and then she sailed off into heaven's heights, to appear to some other unbelieving soul.
And so I spent this morning in the presence of the Living God, beyond being impressed, knowing that in whatever guise the Creator chooses to assume, I stand in awe in the Deity's presence.
I am as alway, your servant;
Victor, thank you,
An empowering story of natural balance and presence.
When the dove of peace is as one in the strengh of the eagle
peace reigns supreme. Here is wonder and awe indeed.
And yes the presence of a God that lives in both the reality
and the telling. A vision of wonderment, to inspire towards
a greater peace on earth.
Happy New Year's!
There were so many great pages on this topic I hope I am not reiterating any points people mentioned.
I saw a movie where they mentioned "To explain God is like being a fish trying to explain the ocean we swim in"
Also, if God is all powerful, can God create a rock too big for God to lift? This is a popular metaphor for the paradox surrounding God's power,
Also, Blue mentioned:
I believe one of the leading researcher's of consciousness (who is a strict atheist) brought up the point of "How do we know we are not brains in a vat being stimulated by electrical impulses?"
Sorry to disagree with you again but I think there is a whole lot of things we have no evidence for beyound ourself that we take for granted.
Here is an interesting link on Niels Bohr: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Niels-Bohr.htm
I noticed a lot of quotes of Einstein's, I like the person who said "For theory, I would go with Einstein, for physics, Bohr!"
Separate names with a comma.