|
Post by freethinker on Nov 22, 2011 18:02:38 GMT
Preconditional premise: There is one God, and He has communicated with humans on multiple occasions.
Given the premise, why those conflicting messages?
I have my own theory, but would prefer to state it 'within the flow' of discussion, if there is one.
If you don't 'buy' the premise, maybe you can treat it as the subject for formal debate - without all the protocols of formal debate (which I am ignorant of anyway).
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 23, 2011 4:29:56 GMT
Preconditional premise: There is one God, and He has communicated with humans on multiple occasions. Given the premise, why those conflicting messages? I have my own theory, but would prefer to state it 'within the flow' of discussion, if there is one. If you don't 'buy' the premise, maybe you can treat it as the subject for formal debate - without all the protocols of formal debate (which I am ignorant of anyway). My take: (1) The premise seems to imply that God is a person, roughly equivalent to humans as being a separate originator of communications. If that were the case, then the reasons for the messages appear mysterious to me. (2) In my pantheistic view, God = the universe. Seeing the universe as a single entity with a conscious spirit and purposes. And seeing humans, animals, plants, rocks etc as parts of this universe, with consciousnesses of different levels of complexity. In this view, we might regard all experiences of humans, appearing to them to be messages from God, as indeed being caused by the total universe (God), again for its own purposes. And again, on this view, the purposes of God remain opaque and mysterious to me. My only explanation for the conflicting messages is that God indeed intends us to go through conflicts, conflicts within ourselves as well as with other parts of the universe, such as other people. We could then go on to discuss the purposes of such conflicts. It seems to me that conflict plays a role in the evolution of ideas as well as of animals, plants etc. There is a chapter in I Ching on conflict, and in astrology the month of Scorpio is known as the battleground, where the "higher" self strives to overcome the "lower" self.
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 13:14:57 GMT
Preconditional premise: There is one God, and He has communicated with humans on multiple occasions. Given the premise, why those conflicting messages? I have my own theory, but would prefer to state it 'within the flow' of discussion, if there is one. If you don't 'buy' the premise, maybe you can treat it as the subject for formal debate - without all the protocols of formal debate (which I am ignorant of anyway). IMVHO..the premise is based on "beliefs" (thoughts=speculation) and not knowing=not knowing thus based on the premise it cannot be answered in truth or actuality=factuality. I take the point of view that the word "God" is formulated to describe the indescribable hence, the mystery of the origination for all of life i.e. the infinite intelligent conscious energy that is all of life. Thus I have a pantheistic view of God in that "it" not he, is not only the originator of it all but is the all as well and I base this on reductionism theory. I deduced this by removing everything in the world man has created, then remove man, remove plants, animals, the earth and so on add infinity and what is one left with? An extremely old man with a gray beard and a son named Jesus sitting next to him somewhere in outer space? I think not but what do I know? hehe but for fun and on a serious note also I will give my opinion on why the need for the conflicting messages...He "God" gives the messages to humanity with the intention of creating division and separation which cause suffering. It the same as Jesus said that he came not to bring peace but division? Why.....why would the creator and his son intentionally cause separation? Now could he (Jesus) have meant separation between darkness and light, good and bad; maybe right? But what is the essence of, the lesson learned from separation and division? Hmmmmm...has not humanity created death and destruction caused by the "belief" in separation? Then from this lesson of suffering it causes the human being to use its volition to turn toward its creator (to look within) and see that its own beliefs have been the only cause for its suffering thus it learns unity, forgiveness, kindness and compassion all of which originated out of separation, condemnation, hatred and judgment. Do you see this? Its like the creator gave humanity a noose called "free will" which humanity always has had the volition not to hang itself with it, but due to ignorance it does this very thing and just at the last second a loving hand comes and lifts you up and removes the noose (awakening) and the being is eternally grateful for the lesson of suffering which brought it out of suffering. This only happens if one uses its volition to turn toward its creator which will eventually happen its just a question of how many lifetimes. hehe but that is another topic. Also I subscribe to the idea of varying levels of consciousness within the human realm and to me this is self evident simply by listening to some of them speak. hehe me included haha as I can see so far into the forest that I forget I came only to see the trees.
|
|
|
Post by freethinker on Nov 23, 2011 13:30:52 GMT
My take is that God is an entity (provided that 'entity' has a very broad meaning), that he is willing to communicate, and has communicated with many individuals known as prophets, seers, Buddhas, Mormon converts, people determined by the state to be insane, maybe with beasties other than humans, and with me.
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 23, 2011 13:38:56 GMT
God is always speaking to us: while we do not listen, he cannot communicate; as soon as we listen, he can, and does. And we can answer. Everybody can do this, and most people do at some time.
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 13:42:24 GMT
My take is that God is an entity (provided that 'entity' has a very broad meaning), that he is willing to communicate, and has communicated with many individuals known as prophets, seers, Buddhas, Mormon converts, people determined by the state to be insane, maybe with beasties other than humans, and with me. you did not explain the reason for the conflicting messages?
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 13:43:23 GMT
how do you know that God is a he?
|
|
|
Post by freethinker on Nov 23, 2011 14:55:52 GMT
My take is that God is an entity (provided that 'entity' has a very broad meaning), that he is willing to communicate, and has communicated with many individuals known as prophets, seers, Buddhas, Mormon converts, people determined by the state to be insane, maybe with beasties other than humans, and with me. you did not explain the reason for the conflicting messages? I have an explanation. God 'speaks' very quietly, and directly to the mind (without language per se). The message is easily drowned out by the recipient, if he/she/it gets excited. What happens then is the recipient confuses God's message with his/her/its own thoughts. The target - the 'prize' - for some schools of meditation is to get the mind to shut up, so that God can be 'heard'. I have no personal info as to whether this has been achieved.
|
|
|
Post by freethinker on Nov 23, 2011 15:01:24 GMT
how do you know that God is a he? My guess is that God is not a sexed entity. Unfortunately, we don't have - in English anyway - a useful pronoun for that condition. "It" just doesn't have the right connotations. "S/he" is a pretty silly device. So I go with "He", which can be assumed to include the feminine as a subset.
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 23, 2011 16:27:50 GMT
I also go with "he". And I lament the corruption of my beloved home language with monstrosities such as "chairperson". A dog can be a dog, but it can also be a bitch.
As for the capital H, I do dislike seeing english for English, but I don't mind seeing "i" for "I", or "he" for "He".
Writing "he" for God is OK I think, and not disrespectful; it is purely a convention to think that a capital letter means reverence, a convention I don't feel compelled to accept.
I don't write "god" for "God" because the words have a different meaning altogether, so god would be confusing if I meant "God".
I suppose these things are more matters of personal taste.
|
|
|
Post by freethinker on Nov 23, 2011 16:41:45 GMT
I also go with "he". And I lament the corruption of my beloved home language with monstrosities such as "chairperson". A dog can be a dog, but it can also be a bitch. As for the capital H, I do dislike seeing english for English, but I don't mind seeing "i" for "I", or "he" for "He". Writing "he" for God is OK I think, and not disrespectful; it is purely a convention to think that a capital letter means reverence, a convention I don't feel compelled to accept. I don't write "god" for "God" because the words have a different meaning altogether, so god would be confusing if I meant "God". I suppose these things are more matters of personal taste. They are also matters of 'convention'. Following convention when doing so doesn't alter the message makes the message more likely to be understood as you intended. Because my brain is apparently not 'wired to standard', the mental process known as metaphor makes some obscure connections. Using conventional language damps down the confusion a little.
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 16:44:05 GMT
how do you know that God is a he? My guess is that God is not a sexed entity. Unfortunately, we don't have - in English anyway - a useful pronoun for that condition. "It" just doesn't have the right connotations. "S/he" is a pretty silly device. So I go with "He", which can be assumed to include the feminine as a subset. I prefer to use the female connotation her or she or woman as it includes both female and male instead of assuming that the reader will know that you are including the female when you speak or write the word he which literally does not include the female as the words her or she does include both. Also I try to use the words "it" or "one" to not cause separation. Further, all life enters existence with the woman thus maybe God should be Goddess since God denotes the masculine (ruler) and the suffix "ess" notes the feminine. I know this is all just speculation but I find it interesting. The power of words, amazing what they can make people do who believe they "are" the truth. Kinda like thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by popee on Nov 23, 2011 17:01:13 GMT
Whatever God ... the Tao ... the Source is, you are just causing yourself unnecessary hardship by trying to describe/understand it.
Words have been, are, and always will be, impotent and unsatisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 17:04:12 GMT
you did not explain the reason for the conflicting messages? I have an explanation. God 'speaks' very quietly, and directly to the mind (without language per se). The message is easily drowned out by the recipient, if he/she/it gets excited. What happens then is the recipient confuses God's message with his/her/its own thoughts. The target - the 'prize' - for some schools of meditation is to get the mind to shut up, so that God can be 'heard'. I have no personal info as to whether this has been achieved. IMVHO God's one and only voice is silence. If one looks deep within itself, it will become aware that all its inner thoughts, inner speaking, beliefs and ideas, are all heard/seen when not within inner silence. In other words there literally, in actuality is no verbal voice (sound) within them, within you but "you" attach a voice to them (usually yours) as though they were or it was speaking verbally to "you", as though someone is standing inside you speaking, but this is not the fact. I call the voice of God not a speaking too but an instant "knowing", a teaching, Epiphany, in other words in silent meditation truth or teachings just appear within and one can "see" them clearly, while it listens in silence, everything else is based in thought and thought is not listening or allowing but projecting or speaking.
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 17:32:24 GMT
The word "en-t-ity" literal definition denote something separate from itself but etymologically it is the combination of en+t +ity which en is a prefix that means "in" or "into" as in the word en-t-er and "ity which is a suffix that means "condition or quality of being" thus entity is that which is "within." Thus it is not separate from or is it?
|
|