Jump to content

Simple Acceptance


Guest end3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Today's thought......by contunually seeking God outside of some definition, doesn't this speak to selfishness Would you ever find God, (provided God existed), through these means, i.e. I tried religion X, I tried religion Y, etc?

 

If God exists, why would it be rational that the created define the Creator?

 

Have we ever considered that the key might be more in acceptance and less in the definition? And if you did that, what would it present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
If God exists, why would it be rational that the created define the Creator?

Exactly.

 

Yet, the only gods we have are defined by people. That's why some (who believe there MUST be a god) say god is the father, others say god is the creator and nothing more, others say god is the All, god is us, god is nature, yada yada yada.

 

Seeing that no god is evident, if you want a god you have to make him (or her) up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is there to accept but what even you, define as "god"?!

 

If a supreme creative power, superior to the limited mortal consciousness of humans, did exist how would our limited intellect comprehend infinite omnipotence?

 

And why would infinite omnipotent omniscience judge us for being less than itself, as mere mortal us? When given our lesser consciousness we contrive in near majority, by the example that omnipresent supreme being would be aware of when paying any kind of attention to this planets population, to at least comprehend something greater than ourselves as we attempt to codify and compartmentalize infinite omnipotence into dogma, rituals, books, anthropomorphic iconography, and temples erected so as to pay homage to that what is held in faith not only exists, but knows of our dedication and still stands to hold us up for his judgment as his created lesser beings.

 

Your god, by your profile, is Joshua.

 

But what is that but a name, attributed to a myth manufactured as a fable, a hope, a faith, created by mortals who imagine it is the stuff born of inspiration from the god the name frames to our understanding.

 

Have we ever considered that the key might be more in acceptance and less in the definition? And if you did that, what would it present?

 

If it is a matter of acceptance then faith does not need to exist. Because if god did exist it would hold faith in us and we would know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello End.

 

Seeing as you've started this thread, I suppose this means that you're no longer tired and busy, right?

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a supreme creative power, superior to the limited mortal consciousness of humans, did exist how would our limited intellect comprehend infinite omnipotence?

Through whatever means "He" chose, I would guess.

 

And why would infinite omnipotent omniscience judge us for being less than itself, as mere mortal us? When given our lesser consciousness we contrive in near majority, by the example that omnipresent supreme being would be aware of when paying any kind of attention to this planets population, to at least comprehend something greater than ourselves as we attempt to codify and compartmentalize infinite omnipotence into dogma, rituals, books, anthropomorphic iconography, and temples erected so as to pay homage to that what is held in faith not only exists, but knows of our dedication and still stands to hold us up for his judgment as his created lesser beings

 

If I am understanding you, wouldn't that be the point?.....that there IS no way to understand except through those means provided. And by not choosing mere acceptance, we are subjecting ourselves TO judgement?

 

If it is a matter of acceptance then faith does not need to exist. Because if god did exist it would hold faith in us and we would know it.

 

I don't see this as accurate. I think it is rational to state that God would be the one defining communication, no? What would define God otherwise?

 

My forte is not reading comprehension, and truthfully, I had difficulty with the second paragraph, so if I misunderstood, my apologies. Forth or fith grade level works better for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello End.

 

Seeing as you've started this thread, I suppose this means that you're no longer tired and busy, right?

 

BAA.

Not at the moment BAA.

 

If brevity is the soul of wit, then thou art indeed a witty one, End.

 

Now try thinking why I'm asking.

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we ever considered that the key might be more in acceptance and less in the definition?

That would be true if there was something to accept. "Acceptance" does not equal "acquiescing to wishful thinking and going with whatever godlike subjective experience first presents itself to one's awareness."

 

And if you did that, what would it present?

Well, I'd *hope* that if there were a real god on the other side of the transaction, people from myriad socioeconomic, cultural and philosophical backgrounds would find some common ground, at least enough to agree that they were all in communication with the same party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's thought......by contunually seeking God outside of some definition, doesn't this speak to selfishness Would you ever find God, (provided God existed), through these means, i.e. I tried religion X, I tried religion Y, etc?

 

If God exists, why would it be rational that the created define the Creator?

 

Have we ever considered that the key might be more in acceptance and less in the definition? And if you did that, what would it present?

 

You might be right that "the key might be more in acceptance and less in the definition " but that approach means you can never point out to another that they have not found "god" or that they have the wrong notions about "god." In so doing you presume to hold a definition of that god.

 

If you desire to explore that tract, you will discover what Lao Tzu said in the Tao Te Ching

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and

unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and

unchanging name.

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello End.

 

Seeing as you've started this thread, I suppose this means that you're no longer tired and busy, right?

 

BAA.

Not at the moment BAA.

 

If brevity is the soul of wit, then thou art indeed a witty one, End.

 

Now try thinking why I'm asking.

 

BAA.

 

...or just don't bother yourself, if it's too effort for you to go the distance and finish something you've started.

 

Just kid yourself about 'moving up to the next level' and thereby stay exactly where you are.

 

As always, the choice is yours.

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.