In time, of time, space time, mountain time and does time exist, several past threads?
Also, the trick is to > understand that the meaning of the term "God" is..........JT The trick? is to understand.....that .....the term of "God".... is? I've never been really good at tricks, lol. So you are setting down a line of thought to which I should adhere to in order to facilitate understanding on my part as to what God is. It doesn't have to work for me for I stand on the line that doubts a creator in the first place. Perhaps God IS all that, but it doesn't establish creation. There are millions of microscopic living things that suggest something other than some simplistic creation by a supernatural being, especially when you consider millennial existence of the universe. IF scripture, as you point out, has other non contextual meaning then for sure, as I pointed out, it therefore is a more complex collection of Aesop's fables than the word of God. Look at Noah and the great flood story, the building of the Ark for two of each kind male and female etc. Why would a supernatural omni-all being have to save anything when all of it could just be re-created? It's just another story about punishment over man's wickedness. Now, If the definitive of God is all things in life and the supernatural, I could accept it as that and could refer back to previous posts in which I described it as such, further relaying some insights from my dream threads as well. Surely it is apparent that any and all reference to religious ideologies were in general terms and it is noted that there are passive religious groups as well as the fundamentalist extremism. I agree that power is usually the goal for many who claim to have some connection with God, this is the beginning of the end. I feel the bible is a book of metaphor and allegory written by common man in his time, with common means and understanding. There is nothing you can explain that can present it as the word of God even if it is necessary to have a word, which I doubt. But let's say for argument sake that God really wanted to say something, would it be a good idea to say it through the people he was trying to say it to or would it be better to say it in a supernatural way, like a giant glowing orb that talks? People for some reason are captivated by antiquity, archaeological digs are indicative of man's incessant search for answers to our origin, surely ancient scriptures are going to be placed high on the scale of pertinence. If it were not for humanity there would be no need for explanations, scriptures, gods and religion. Man wants to be God and so through scripture has become God. People don't worship God they worship Man who has created a scenario in which Man becomes God in the form of a human baby through a virgin birth. Anyone at the time could logically reason that if it weren't a virgin birth then the baby would just be another person. I have to admit the stories are very creative and do lend a great deal of understanding and guidance for those who otherwise would be left to wander about lackadaisically and without direction. I guess that's when the devil is gonna get you. Many cultures throughout history have conjured stories of God(s), Holy and Sacred trees, rocks, mountains and other superstitions. I find it, aside from boring, very amusing that modern day humanity still buys into these silly notions. The Jehovah Witness knocking on my door early on a Saturday morning because the book says to go out and spread the word, how would they like it if my book said to go out after midnight and let people know it's a new day? When you look at cultural myths pertaining to an eclipse you can see how scripture falls into the same category. Man seeks greatness and will attempt anything to achieve it. Animals die and lay on the ground and rot unless they are found and buried, man dies and its time for special treatment, monuments, massive tombs and pyramids. We actually think we are great, so wonderful and worthy of royal treatment that we bestow it upon ourselves. The only evidence of humanity's greatness comes from humanity itself. To think that wealth is a blessing is simply a religion of prosperity. The only difference between us and the animal kingdom is our ability to reason which we use to reason that there must be a God that created all this and hey while were at it, we are so great that we must have been created in God's image and let's also throw in that we are God's 'chosen people', that will secure us a good place amongst the rest, especially if we can get them to believe it all, gee we can make money on this too if we can get 10% of everyone's cash, well actually they're giving it to God, even though on the surface it looks like it is supporting us and making us rich, hey guess what, we can collect so much money that we can build new buildings to bring in all the new converts and we can multiply our earning, err oops, I mean tithing to the Lord. Okay, now let's re-write this to make it more plausible and easier to swallow. Religious Wars? While modern warfare and a direct link to religion is debatable there is substantial evidence that religion plays a part in the mentality of the participants involved in modern wars. Does Jihad rise up out of Islam or some hippie commune? Do terrorists yell Allah or what? Let's get real Justin. Regardless, history is strewn with religious warfare and the future most likely wont be exempt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war On Oct 1, 8:15 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well in that line of reasoning we could simply say that there must be > > a creator of God and of that creator as well, setting off an endless > > series of the creator's creators. > > Actually that does not work. The first thing is to see that creation > never occurs "in" time. It is "of" time. Also, the trick is to > understand that the meaning of the term "God" is such that what is > meant is not some thing that either can or can't be and would > therefore need some "other" principle to be. God is not one of his > creatures. Instead, when using the term, (or when translating it from > literature that was written pre-scientifically if you prefer) one must > understand that it is referring to the absence for a reason for being > in what is. It is pointing away from a description of nature toward > what is not natural, from what things are to the fact that they are. > That is why God is suprernatural. This fact, the superfluous of being, > properly experienced is at the foundation of the mystical traditions > of the religions. That experience gets sold sometimes, or used to > generate political power, but that is not the experience. That is the > political/economic institution that basically has the religion as its > "product" - that which it sells. Also that experience can be > "objectified" and the presence of God can be misinterpreted as being > "objective". When it is then the debates start to rage as to the > actual "existence" of this God with each side bringing evidence. > However this misses the whole point. If God means something that > either could or could not be, and if evidence is needed to establish > his existence, then that God is not God at all but some creature in > need of God for creation. So your infinite regress applies only to an > understanding of God that misses his nature. In fact, it is my belief, > that independent of evidence you can show that no creature, meaning no > objective God, could be responsible on principle for his own > existence, just by understanding metaphysics and ontology - again > without regard to any evidence. > > Look for example at the history of Molly's posts. Don't read the > detail so much as the overall attitude. Do you think she is someone > who is dispassionately looking at the data to determine what "in fact" > exists "objectively"? Or is she trying to get as something more? Look > at Vam's posts also. These are not scientists trying to analyze > nature. They are trying to convey much more. Something beyond nature. > Something as present as nature and evidenced by it but its not > just ... "what are the minimum assumptions we can make in order to > create and objective model to explains sensory circumstance". There is > more to it. There is much more going on in the subject than that and > to reduce it to a scientific debate on nature is to .... well.... de- > nature it! ;) > > We know of the universe, of vacuums > > > and phenomena. We see, utilize, experience and understand much of it > > and perhaps within the nothingness there is the consciousness that is > > all things. However, all things did not come with books to tell us > > that they are because they are simply there, before books. Lightning > > and thunder are there but it is the book that told people what the > > lightning and thunder were, not by science but by simple rationale, > > naive reasoning and superstitious fears. I can understand if the > > belief is that God is the essence of all things, of all life, but I > > just don't subscribe to books written by the ancients that conjure > > fear, promote discrimination, justify torture, and literally allow > > humanity to audaciously claim divinity and creation in the image of > > God . > > Ok, there are two things here. First these books were written prior to > science - meaning the emergence of the method around the time of > Galileo. So not just the religious literature but all literature was > lacking something. In a lot of the literature symbol and metaphor are > not distinguished from objective reality. Take the garden of eden. > There is certainly an interpretation that the bible actually describes > a place that was at some time and there was actually a tree there etc. > I would say many if not most still believe that that is what is being > claimed. Fundamentalism is rank and rampant even today and it is the > root of much evil. So I have no quarrel with that. > > Also this idea of justifying torture etc... Many ideas do that > including religious ones. The Bolsheviks or Pol Pot were not religious > but secular monsters. In fact there is some religious killing being > done but it is not even most of it. Its just that those kind of people > use ideas of any kind, including religious ones, to latch onto power. > The mechanism involves things like the Nuremburg rallies where true > religious symbolism is associated with the will to power and the > "Good" is associated with allowing your worst instincts out. "Free > yourself from tyranny" is the call. But it means really "Free yourself > from conscience." It is the desire for power that is at the core. You > can see it symbolically in the Bible in how the desire for power > arises and, instead of Eden, we have the mess we are in. There is also > a lot of stuff on how to get out of it and I submit that a lot of the > religious ideas have actually inspired abandoning personal power and > living in sympathy with the poor and disadvantaged. There is a reason > that Christ is born in a stable and the Sadu of India live on charity > in the woods. So although it is used to gain advantage by the > disingenuous, it is a case of the wolf in sheep's clothing. It is not > genuine. > > The stories and the history of it all is absurd and ludicrous. > > Not entirely. Look again, this time not literally, and see if there > isn't more to it. > > > Sure there is some insightful biblical content but Gibran's The > > Prophet and others are as well. We could read Aristotle, Plato, > > Ghandi and others and get some degree of enlightenment. You expect me > > to believe that only those desert/cave dwellers were capable of > > writing something that could be considered the word of God, what are > > we today a bunch of morons, or were they? > > First, do not underestimate the religious power of desert. It speaks. > > Do not belittle the motivations of a hermit. He is in the cave out of > choice in order to discipline his mind, in order to have the > simplicity required to think deeply. He cannot see the fine > distictions you might make and he cannot see the attraction of the > comfort of your armchair. He is fishing in much deeper waters for big > fish. You have missed him completely. > > As for us contemporaries: No, we have our saints too! Look at Ginsburg > crawling out on his balcony saying he has been visited by William > Blake! Read Thomas Merton. Look at Hozeman the great mountain of the > Dharma Bums. In fact our civilization was saved by the continuation of > mystical experience. Without the Beatific generation and the Hippies > (an the refuseniks and even a piece of Kruschef and certainly > Solzentsim) we would probably have been incinerated in a holocost by > now. Imagine what would have happened if the conservative world > "objectivizing" world had taken hold! Suicide is the choice. It is > this mystical tradition that has kept us from even worse violence. It > is the beauty and goodness of life that has stayed our hand (barely). > > To think that I can't have > > > a happy life full of richness and reward unless I believe in the bible > > is, to me, ridiculous. > > Of course it is, but you cannot escape certain principles if you want > to be happy. You cannot murder innocent people etc. and expect to be > happy. The impact of someone like a Hitler on himself is virtually > annihilative. He was anything but a victim but he was in a situation > where, becoming aware of who he was would have really been a difficult > experience for him. Forgiveness occurs but it is not as free and easy > as some think. Still... even him... You can see the problem in the > relationship between new and old testament systems. You can see it > play out in Desmund Tutu's commissions. > > Why people waste their time with it instead of > > > getting down to the business of living is beyond comprehension. > > That is a simple false dilemma. That is not an either or choice. You > simply do not understand. You have completely missed it. > > In my > > > view more time has be wasted and often progress stifled by the > > conflicts surrounding these beliefs. Look at all the countries that > > are polarized by all this religious nonsense. Religion may have > > served a purpose when the land was in chaos as it brought some sense > > of direction and a semblance of order, but then again the preachings > > of Peter of celibacy caused a great uproar among the aristocracy of > > the time and caused his crucifixion, upside down I might add, even > > then only if the story is true and maybe he should had remembered the > > commandment, "be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth". In today's > > world I find religion to be simply a huge nuisance and a barrier to > > humanity's progress. > > A nuisance?! a barrier?! If by religion you mean the transcendent > experience at its core... well... you are about as close to being 180 > degress from right as you can be! But if you mean fundamentalism or > the organized exploitation of religious instinct for economic or > political advantage.... Amen brother, amen! > > How many wars are currently in engagement on > > > account of religion? > > None. They are not on account of religion. Rather primate instinct for > subspeciation will latch onto any kind of difference. Remember Rawanda > was not religious, nor the killing fields, or the gulag. Ethnic, > national, racial, tribal, and yes also religious identity are cause > for subspeciation of human primates and it is a problem. But if there > is one message of genuine religion it is its universality. All > sentient creatures come under its ken. > > How much death, pain and suffering can we > > > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
