“Why could one not be able to see any evidence of a God by what that god promises and what he delivers…” – pathfinder (em)
I don’t know…has someone suggested otherwise? “... Or if this god, using any form of communication, convey messages of what is going to occur in detail, then the things happen within your perception, would you reason it away or look for other experiments and evidences?...” – em Sorry, no idea what you are asking here Edward. Perhaps these are just rhetorical questions? “… Also, would you model your life by the message or by the messenger?” – em We have not determined either yet Edward…that is the reason for the topic at hand. Perhaps those questions would be best served in a new thread. On Feb 25, 11:18 pm, edward mason <[email protected]> wrote: > Why could one not be able to see any evidence of a God by what that > god promises and what he delivers. Or if this god, using any form of > communication, convey messages of what is going to occur in detail, > then the things happen within your perception, would you reason it > away or look for other experiments and evidences? Also, would you > model your life by the message or by the messenger? > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:56 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > “…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...” - Lee > > > Hey Lee...then this sort of thing is what I don’t embrace. Such > > anthropomorphism just doesn’t do it for me. It is in this light that I > > said I don’t embrace revelation…as being told by other people or words > > in a book…what some deity is supposed to think/want etc. > > > “…The notion of life including a divine spark is included in this > > message, or where else would you have the idea from?...” – Lee > > > Is this a rhetorical question Lee? I do understand that most people > > require such intermediaries and/or representatives and/or ‘revealed’ > > truths…I don’t. > > > “…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…” - Lee > > > Lee, this is all quite important when it comes to theism. You hit most > > of the points quite well. The main question that remains as I see it > > is, just how does one know what ‘message’ one is hearing, god’s or > > their own…or even both?!!! You use revelation as a standard. This is > > all well and good; however, exactly how does one know the source of > > such things for sure? I wouldn’t take it on ‘faith’. I wouldn’t just > > listen to what other people say. I haven’t heard words in my head that > > I would attribute to anything supernatural. So, exactly how do you > > approach such things? > > > “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 cpersonaly 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' “ – Lee > > > And presto chango, you may have created yet another religion Lee! Such > > things are problematic as I see it. > > > “This is an example of such a message.” – Lee > > > Which is Lee, the written words, which you assume are from god or your > > own interpretation? Which is the revealed word of god? Now, I hope you > > know me well enough to know that I push here for a reason and not just > > in an arbitrary way. Nor do I wish to insult you or your belief(s). I > > do want to understand how others can accept such ‘revealed’ things > > with, as far as I can tell, no objective standard to determine their > > authenticity. > > > “…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.” – Lee > > > Yes Lee, such quagmires do emerge when one assigns human > > characteristics and logic to a deity. Such projections can only cause > > more confusion as I see it. Your question may make a sort of sense if > > all of your underlying assumptions are in fact the cast. If any one of > > them isn’t that case, the entire thing can come tumbling down like a > > house of cards. > > > On Feb 23, 4:51 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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.
