Hey OM. I guess we can say by message I mean scripture. What is holy scripture if not Gods message to humaity, encompassing teachings, Gods plans, what God requires of us etc...
The notion of life including a divine spark is included in this message, or where else would you have the idea from? I guess I am also talking about reveled truth, something that I certianly belive in. How can a theist not belive in such a thing? If the truth of God message is not reveled by God then the assumption is that it is made up by the minds of humans. Anybody could literaly say anything they liked, promote any idea they wanted about God and Gods plan, the ultimate authority on what God wants us to do, must come from God, otherwise, all manor of these 'truths' sping up, which of course makes it hard to choose wich one to belive. In every belife there must be a yardstick by which to measure the validity. Reveald truth is one of the ones that I use to measure religoin. In Sikhi the very first lines of Guru Granth Sahib are: 'Ikoncar, sat naam' Which translates literaly into '1 God, true name' But we know the problem with literal translations, and so I personaly translate it (wrongly or rightly I know not) as meaning, '1 God, whose name is true/truth' Delving further the idea is thus: '1 God, who is the only absolute truth' This is an example of such a message. Yet from just this little line, many ideas are formulated, God is the only truth must also mean that God is immenent throughout the creation, and thus your idea of a divine spark in humanity is also addressed. The problem I'm having curently is with dogma, and it's cultural bounderies. In the east it is rude and impolite to point your feet towards somebody. Hence show throwing or hiting somebody or somebodies effigy with your shoe is an insult, whilst washing sombodies feet is an act of supreame humility and respect. We have an example of this in the Bilbe, with the prostitue washing the feet of Jesus. This though is 100% cultural, and it's meaning is lost on those of a diffrant culture. Divine message, easpecialy if the intent is global should transcend culture, I think. Why do I say this? It is virtualy impossible for us humans to thing outside of our cultrual norms. If this its true then God surely knows this and so any message from God, I would expect to be cultural-less, and timeless. relevant to all soscity over all time. Again otherwise the assumption is the message come from the minds of man. On 23 Feb, 12:13, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Lee, if by ‘message’ you mean some linguistic directive or informative > event, the notion of such commentary by a deity transcending culture > is a strange one, no? Perhaps you mean things like “Don’t kill.” > “Treat others like you want to be treated” etc. I’m not sure. Perhaps > you could expand upon your premise here some, OK? > > Beyond revealed ‘truths’ (something I don’t embrace), perhaps we > should include the notion that life itself includes a divine spark… > shall we? If so, all sorts of results are possible. > > The issue here as I see it is inherent in the meaning of ‘theist’ > itself. . . one who believes in the existence of a god or gods. > Linguistically, the term ‘believes in’ has been interpreted in almost > countless different ways…each suited to support the sensibilities of > the interpreter. So, as interesting as analysis is, for such things, > few can find actual clarity. So, how does intuition fit into this? So > far, there seems to be a general consensus here that we all have this > ability. My guess is that even using intuition, core belief systems > can and do easily overshadow any direct application of such a rarefied > methodology. > > So, again, for me…it appears that one must clarify all core beliefs > first. Find out how/when/why they were formed…transcend any blind > beliefs with more informed ones…etc. How else do we have any hope for > knowing anything for sure? Yet, even here, difficulties abound as we > know. > > Returning to your theme here, your main issue seems to be “…how to > seperate the message of God from that of man.” A quick analysis here > may be of interest. What exactly is the difference? Do theists find > god something separate from themselves, thus requiring some sort of > objective qualifier of any ‘messages’ therefrom? One would have to > address the very nature of god here to have a chance at arriving at a > satisfactory answer it would seem. And, here again, we run into the > issue of confused beliefs that humans can come up with. So, what if we > assume that all thoughts…rational or not are to be considered? Is this > of any use? I’m sure not for some, yet it is an interesting question, > no? In such an epistemological pursuit, the subjective nature of all > concepts and language becomes readily apparent. So, back to your > question. Perhaps you wish to *know* on some deep level that which you > (or anyone) should follow as being divine will, is that more of the > issue for you? > > On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So you Atheists can of course get involded in this one, I really don't > > know why you should or what the interest for you would be, but do feel > > free. > > > I was thinking the other day about religion and culture. I'm somewhat > > worried about how to seperate the message of God from that of man. > > > So it suddenly struck me that any message that truely comes from God > > must trancend culture. > > > Thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
