Personal Definition of God

[Ouroboros]

The answer to the question of how God could possibly be a just and good God is available, but to truly understand anything, many pieces of the puzzle must be assembled.  Learn of;

 

1) exactly what “Hell” truly meant

If Hell doesn't exist, why does it matter?

 

2) exactly what your “soul” is

If the soul is just an illusion of the meme machine, and really doesn't exist as its own entity, why does it matter?

 

3) from whence good and bad are defined

Since it's defined by humans, why does it matter?

 

4) exactly what Satan truly is

Again, since he doesn't exist...

 

5) exactly what God truly is

Which concludes that the God you put your faith in not necessarely exist either.

 

And then you will see the answer.  Today it is very easy to get all of the wrong understandings of each piece of that puzzle.  Everyone is willing to preach of their guess.  You can only know that you have assembled the right pieces when you can finally clearly see the answer to the question.

Are you aware that there were between 150-200 cults and variations of Christianity already the first centuries. The divided body of Christ existed already in the early Church, and that's why the Orthodox Church and the Catholicism came to be. It was the move to unify the divided Church. Now, I don't believe you're a Catholic, but you belong to one of the heretic cults, so your understanding of the puzzle is not valid!

 

If you don’t take the time to learn, but merely expect others to give you all of the answers, then have you not gotten out of your efforts as much as you have put into them?  Impatient searching only yields distortions.

107213[/snapback]

It's true, you need to take time to learn, and time to think also. And if you claim to have the one and only truth, I already know that you have not spent much time thinking about it.

[Amethyst]

If so you should look into something like the ancient Chinese religions (I think some Native American and Indian, like maybe Tantric, have this idea too).

 

I suspect Taoism is where Lucas got the idea from. It's got a similar concept.

[Amanda]

I consider myself spiritual while not believing in the supernatural.

106862[/snapback]

Hi Saviourmachine! I am curious as to how you can be spiritual while not believing in the supernatural? Is this more like the concept of pantheism that Mythra presented in this thread?

That's is called Pantheism, that everything is God.

106865[/snapback]

Hi HanSolo! I read much of the site on Pantheism that Mythra kindly provided, yet it seems it does not believe in a transcendent aspect to life. I also believe in a part of us that transcends the body, so that aspect seems to disqualify one from that label.

And what Tao says, is that you are making these limitations already when you are giving it a name, like "God". Because you immediately start thinking what "God" means, which you can't, since he's beyond what we can understand.

106883[/snapback]

Yet, we may not be able to say in totality of what God is, yet we can discuss what attributes he may have without limiting God to it, can’t we?

106985[/snapback]

Ssel, great posts! Quite meaningful to me.

[Cerise]

Yet, we may not be able to say in totality of what God is, yet we can discuss what attributes he may have without limiting God to it, can’t we?

 

 

Well actually, I don't think we can. Not if we're looking at God as an absolute being. Any attribute of an absolute being that we define will automatically and by definition limit God.

[Ouroboros]

But, we need to pay close attention to what we believe - because our beliefs impact the way we treat ourselves and other human beings. Daniel's ability to suggest that Amanda and others may go to hell because they do not see things the way he does stems directly from his belief in a "good God" that can somehow condemn people to an eternity of pain and torture. He needs to examine this belief closely, not because he can determine being right or wrong in a factual sense. But simply because this belief causes him to mistreat people. It goes against the only two commandments Jesus gave.

 

Love God (good) with all your heart.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Absolutely right. If Christians want to spread God's love to the world, they need to start acting like it. The ultimate commandments you mentioned, have clouded and disobeyed by every Christian I know. And yet, it's supposedly Jesus who commanded it! I see Christians rather follow Paul's teachings than Jesus'. Ain't that scary. If Jesus did exist, and if he was the son of God, and Paul was just a human, why do people pu more trust in what Paul said, than what Jesus said? Maybe they know deep down that Jesus never existed or said anything?

 

By the way, I'm glad to have you here Open_Minded, to give the Christian side a little balance. We've had a little too many literal-fundie-apologist Christians, and very few unversalists.

 

How can condemning others to eternal pain and torture be reconciled with the two greatest commandments, the commandments upon which all the law and the prophets depend?

 

And again, Jesus did NOT promise a bible to be canonized 100s of years after his death and resurrection. He promised a living spirit to dwell within our hearts as a Counselor. This is where we are to get our answers. The Bible - as sacred literature - is a guide. But it is the voice of the Counselor or God (good) that dwells within every human heart where the answers are to come from.

107258[/snapback]

Right again.

 

The Canonization was part of a movement in the early church; one version of Christians, that wanted to remove the personal interpretation of the scriptures, and create the orthodox church. They wanted everyone to believe the same thing.

 

The question is, why? Why did they have to create the "true" and only church, and not just accept faith as a personal experience? Because of political power and social stability! That's the reason, and not the real search for the truth of what the alleged Jesus said. They wanted control and power!

 

If any Christian spend some time reading the other gospels that were written at the same time, and not chosen into the canon, they will see a different Jesus and a different gospel. The canon was made by humans, and not by any God, so even if Jesus did exist, the Bible is not necessarely the complete and only truth about him.

[Ouroboros]

And what Tao says, is that you are making these limitations already when you are giving it a name, like "God". Because you immediately start thinking what "God" means, which you can't, since he's beyond what we can understand.

106883[/snapback]

Yet, we may not be able to say in totality of what God is, yet we can discuss what attributes he may have without limiting God to it, can’t we?

 

By giving attributes to anything, you are directly and immediately giving it limitations.

 

Say that I have found a new animal in a far djungle.

 

Let's say I have experience of many animals, and I for instance know how dogs look like and know how a poodle look like, and let's say you know this.

 

Anyway, I will call this new animal a Blorg.

 

Blorg doesn't have a meaning to you, but immediately you know that it is not a Poodle, since you know I have experience of Poodles, and I gave it a name different from Poodle.

 

So I have already started to set limits to what a Blorg can and can not be.

 

Next thing is, that I say the Blorg has 4 legs and no tail and no wings.

 

Now you know already that it can't fly, and can't wag the tail, since it doesn't have one. etc.etc.

 

You see Amanda? By giving specifics to the unknown, it is not unknown anymore, but become specific.

 

That's the teachings of Tao. The Unknown can not be named, because when you do, it become specific.

[Ssel]

I consider myself spiritual while not believing in the supernatural.

106862[/snapback]

Hi Saviourmachine! I am curious as to how you can be spiritual while not believing in the supernatural? Is this more like the concept of pantheism that Mythra presented in this thread?

 

 

...by believing that spirit is natural

 

I'v always had trouble accepting the word "supernatural". It implies there are natural things and then things "above" those in some sense. But spirit IS natural. The word seems to always lose consistency regardless of how it is connoted. At what point does something stop being natural? Just because it is uncommon or not the norm? Where would natural stop and supernatural begin?

 

I agree with SM, I can't equate spiritual with supernatural.

[Ssel]

Ssel,

 

You are right, no one knows the facts. And we will not know the facts until our own time comes.

 

 

I would recommend being more “open-minded”

 

For every one thing known by one person there must be at least 10,000 people who do not know it. When those 10,000 babble their presumptuous ignorance of the issue, it can be extremely difficult to find the one who knew the truth. And it is very easy to presume that none could know after years of hearing nothing but non-sense.

 

Just because a thousand people attempted to make an airplane and failed, doesn’t mean there wasn’t an answer to the challenge.

 

The answers ARE available and known.

 

But people of more serious understanding are seldom found online arguing with children. They tend to state their case for the very few who were wanting to know strongly enough to hear them, then they move on.

 

Some of us merely wait to see if there is even an ounce of sincere desire to know. And then make an attempt to communicate to that one. But the desire to know the truth has to be strong enough to over come all of the bedeviling of so many others. Although, in the end, even this weakness of man WILL be overcome and the passion to know will be in every person. This is a part of that famed “saving of Mankind” and isn’t as far away as you might think.

 

 

I whole heartedly agree that the condemning fundamental literalist is in "sin". The final test of ALL of mankind is a test of humility, not blind, obstinate faith or loyalty.

[Ssel]

By giving attributes to anything, you are directly and immediately giving it limitations.

 

 

This is very true.

 

But in the case of the pantheist as well as a few others. The only limitation from the attributes of their God is that He, in fact, be whatever exists (non-fantasy).

 

Define things in the right way, and they have no choice but to be true.

[Guest Guest]

By the way, I'm glad to have you here Open_Minded, to give the Christian side a little balance. We've had a little too many literal-fundie-apologist Christians, and very few unversalists.

 

Thanks HanSolo, but I feel concern for Daniel, that is why I am challenging him. His comments about not wanting Amanda and others to end up in a place they don't want to (hell) reveal a level of fear towards God. That is why he needs to really explore his beliefs in his own heart. Jesus promised not to leave him orphaned, but to send the counselor to reside within the human soul. This is where Daniel needs to search for answers. NOT in what those around him are telling him how he should read in the Bible.

 

The Canonization was part of a movement in the early church; one version of Christians, that wanted to remove the personal interpretation of the scriptures, and create the orthodox church. They wanted everyone to believe the same thing.

 

The question is, why? Why did they have to create the "true" and only church, and not just accept faith as a personal experience? Because of political power and social stability! That's the reason, and not the real search for the truth of what the alleged Jesus said. They wanted control and power!

 

If any Christian spend some time reading the other gospels that were written at the same time, and not chosen into the canon, they will see a different Jesus and a different gospel. The canon was made by humans, and not by any God, so even if Jesus did exist, the Bible is not necessarely the complete and only truth about him.

 

You, may or may not be aware of this. But there were a group of Christians less affected by the earrly canonization effort in Rome. They still exist today and are called Aramaic Christians. Their Bible is in the original language of Jesus (Aramaic). If you study english translations from the Aramaic Bible common sayings of Jesus take on whole new meanings. One example might be the Lord's Prayer. We have all been taught one version of the Lord's Prayer - beginning with the line: "Our Father who art in heaven".

 

Translated from Aramaic, the language Jesus would have spoken, the first line comes out: "Oh you, breathing life in all, origin of the gleaming sound, you shine in us and around us, even the darkness glows when we remember."

 

This is because the words Jesus would have had to use are non-gender in nature. Anyway if you want to know more you can go to: http://www.lichthaus-musik.de/tontraeger/c...'s%20Prayer.

 

Again thank you for your welcome - but I am still looking for a response from Daniel to my original request.

 

Please respond from your heart. Jesus did not promise His disciples a Bible to be canonized 100s of years after his death - he promised His disciples a Counselor, the Holy Spirit to reside within them. To guide them from within their own soul. So, search your soul Daniel and just answer the question.

 

How can a God that is good send people to hell?....

 

That is the whole point of this thread, "what does the word God mean to you". I am sincerely interested in how Daniel can reconcile - from his heart, NOT the Bible - a "good" God who would condemn people to eternal torture.

[Ouroboros]

By giving attributes to anything, you are directly and immediately giving it limitations.

 

 

This is very true.

 

But in the case of the pantheist as well as a few others. The only limitation from the attributes of their God is that He, in fact, be whatever exists (non-fantasy).

 

Define things in the right way, and they have no choice but to be true.

107388[/snapback]

Well, Taoism (Daoism) is not about if you find the true definition of the ultimate and unknowable. It's about that you can't find it, and you can't name it.

 

Let's say that there is a universe, parallel to ours, which some scientists are theorizing about right now in the brane theory.

 

And also let's say that the constants and properties are different than our universe.

 

Now, tell me, what would you find in that universe?

 

If you answer, you would be guessing, right? And what is the likelyhood that your right? Pretty slim.

 

We know we would be dreaming, fantasising and guessing only, and yet, we're only talking about a different universe, not a super-being that is infinite in time and space.

 

So let's start guessing about God, who is being (or maybe a robot), is infinite (or maybe not), and is omnipotent (or maybe not), and omniscient (or maybe not), and benevolent (or maybe not), and the creator of the universe (or maybe not)...

 

Which guess is the right one?

[Open_Minded]

OPPS

 

I forgot to log on before responding to the HanSolo post. Sorry.... The following post is from me (Open_Minded)

 

By the way, I'm glad to have you here Open_Minded, to give the Christian side a little balance. We've had a little too many literal-fundie-apologist Christians, and very few unversalists.

 

Thanks HanSolo, but I feel concern for Daniel, that is why I am challenging him. His comments about not wanting Amanda and others to end up in a place they don't want to (hell) reveal a level of fear towards God. That is why he needs to really explore his beliefs in his own heart. Jesus promised not to leave him orphaned, but to send the counselor to reside within the human soul. This is where Daniel needs to search for answers. NOT in what those around him are telling him how he should read in the Bible.

 

The Canonization was part of a movement in the early church; one version of Christians, that wanted to remove the personal interpretation of the scriptures, and create the orthodox church. They wanted everyone to believe the same thing.

 

The question is, why? Why did they have to create the "true" and only church, and not just accept faith as a personal experience? Because of political power and social stability! That's the reason, and not the real search for the truth of what the alleged Jesus said. They wanted control and power!

 

If any Christian spend some time reading the other gospels that were written at the same time, and not chosen into the canon, they will see a different Jesus and a different gospel. The canon was made by humans, and not by any God, so even if Jesus did exist, the Bible is not necessarely the complete and only truth about him.

 

You, may or may not be aware of this. But there were a group of Christians less affected by the earrly canonization effort in Rome. They still exist today and are called Aramaic Christians. Their Bible is in the original language of Jesus (Aramaic). If you study english translations from the Aramaic Bible common sayings of Jesus take on whole new meanings. One example might be the Lord's Prayer. We have all been taught one version of the Lord's Prayer - beginning with the line: "Our Father who art in heaven".

 

Translated from Aramaic, the language Jesus would have spoken, the first line comes out: "Oh you, breathing life in all, origin of the gleaming sound, you shine in us and around us, even the darkness glows when we remember."

 

This is because the words Jesus would have had to use are non-gender in nature. Anyway if you want to know more you can go to: http://www.lichthaus-musik.de/tontraeger/c...'s%20Prayer.

 

Again thank you for your welcome - but I am still looking for a response from Daniel to my original request.

 

Please respond from your heart. Jesus did not promise His disciples a Bible to be canonized 100s of years after his death - he promised His disciples a Counselor, the Holy Spirit to reside within them. To guide them from within their own soul. So, search your soul Daniel and just answer the question.

 

How can a God that is good send people to hell?....

 

That is the whole point of this thread, "what does the word God mean to you". I am sincerely interested in how Daniel can reconcile - from his heart, NOT the Bible - a "good" God who would condemn people to eternal torture.

107390[/snapback]

[Ouroboros]

By the way, I'm glad to have you here Open_Minded, to give the Christian side a little balance. We've had a little too many literal-fundie-apologist Christians, and very few unversalists.

 

Thanks HanSolo, but I feel concern for Daniel, that is why I am challenging him. His comments about not wanting Amanda and others to end up in a place they don't want to (hell) reveal a level of fear towards God. That is why he needs to really explore his beliefs in his own heart. Jesus promised not to leave him orphaned, but to send the counselor to reside within the human soul. This is where Daniel needs to search for answers. NOT in what those around him are telling him how he should read in the Bible.

Yes. I believe Daniels strongest driving force is fear of being wrong, rather than love to his fellow humans or his "God".

 

And I agree, he needs to research his own intentions and emotions.

 

The Canonization was part of a movement in the early church; one version of Christians, that wanted to remove the personal interpretation of the scriptures, and create the orthodox church. They wanted everyone to believe the same thing.

 

The question is, why? Why did they have to create the "true" and only church, and not just accept faith as a personal experience? Because of political power and social stability! That's the reason, and not the real search for the truth of what the alleged Jesus said. They wanted control and power!

 

If any Christian spend some time reading the other gospels that were written at the same time, and not chosen into the canon, they will see a different Jesus and a different gospel. The canon was made by humans, and not by any God, so even if Jesus did exist, the Bible is not necessarely the complete and only truth about him.

 

You, may or may not be aware of this. But there were a group of Christians less affected by the earrly canonization effort in Rome. They still exist today and are called Aramaic Christians. Their Bible is in the original language of Jesus (Aramaic). If you study english translations from the Aramaic Bible common sayings of Jesus take on whole new meanings. One example might be the Lord's Prayer. We have all been taught one version of the Lord's Prayer - beginning with the line: "Our Father who art in heaven".

I've heard about them.

 

Translated from Aramaic, the language Jesus would have spoken, the first line comes out: "Oh you, breathing life in all, origin of the gleaming sound, you shine in us and around us, even the darkness glows when we remember."

 

This is because the words Jesus would have had to use are non-gender in nature. Anyway if you want to know more you can go to: http://www.lichthaus-musik.de/tontraeger/c...'s%20Prayer.

I'm going to look into it.

 

Again thank you for your welcome - but I am still looking for a response from Daniel to my original request.

It might take time. First he is under surveilance from the moderators, and can't post without validation. Secondly, he tends to avoid answering questions that he doesn't have a spoon-fed answer for.

 

Please respond from your heart. Jesus did not promise His disciples a Bible to be canonized 100s of years after his death - he promised His disciples a Counselor, the Holy Spirit to reside within them. To guide them from within their own soul. So, search your soul Daniel and just answer the question.

 

How can a God that is good send people to hell?....

 

That is the whole point of this thread, "what does the word God mean to you". I am sincerely interested in how Daniel can reconcile - from his heart, NOT the Bible - a "good" God who would condemn people to eternal torture.

107390[/snapback]

[Ouroboros]

OPPS 

 

I forgot to log on before responding to the HanSolo post. Sorry.... The following post is from me (Open_Minded) 

 

107395[/snapback]

Heh, I figured that out, and responded already.

[Mythra]

Again thank you for your welcome - but I am still looking for a response from Daniel to my original request.

107390[/snapback]

 

The line forms to the right. We're thinking about instituting the "please take a number" system.

[Ouroboros]

Again thank you for your welcome - but I am still looking for a response from Daniel to my original request.

107390[/snapback]

 

The line forms to the right. We're thinking about instituting the "please take a number" system.

107400[/snapback]

 

Very good answer! And so very true!

[Mythra]

How bout this?

 

"Your question will be answered in the order it was received. Current waiting time:

seventeen freaking years..."

[Saviourmachine]

Hi Saviourmachine! I am curious as to how you can be spiritual while not believing in the supernatural? Is this more like the concept of pantheism that Mythra presented in this thread?

107291[/snapback]

Hi Amanda. No, it's not pantheism. But pantheism is a kind of that spirituality. It does neither equate god with the supernatural. However, what I consider as god, is a bit less defined. I sometimes even pray to god, while I don't believe in its existence as a supernatural being in a supernatural world. Although I don't feel comfortable with that every time. I allow myself to have all these spiritual experiences, while I don't actually believe that they have the existential basis that our ancestors thought they had. I think the experiences I have can be - or will be - very well explained by psychological theories. It's like enjoying a mushroom trip, and realizing that...

I consider as spiritual the things that are difficult to explain or seem to be doors to knowledge that isn't knowledge yet, but will become knowledge at some time. This is already paradoxical (on purpose). I consider paradoxes as a very beautiful part of spirituality. And the sudden apprehension of mathematical subjects seems like contact with god. The god named depth, profoundness, wonder. I consider the irrational part of human as spiritual. And the rational part too. It's difficult to express myself very clear, but I hope I gave you some insight in my inner musings.

[Amanda]

Yet, we may not be able to say in totality of what God is, yet we can discuss what attributes he may have without limiting God to it, can’t we?

Well actually, I don't think we can. Not if we're looking at God as an absolute being. Any attribute of an absolute being that we define will automatically and by definition limit God.

107300[/snapback]

Hi Cerise... I don't understand what you mean by this. It seems to me, that if we say the teacher has blond hair, that does not limit the teacher to being blond hair. If we say the teacher gives out lolly pops, that does not limit the teacher to only giving out lolly pops. If we say the teacher questions the students, that doesn't limit the teacher to only questioning students...

[Ssel]

Well, Taoism (Daoism) is not about if you find the true definition of the ultimate and unknowable. It's about that you can't find it, and you can't name it.

 

Taoism is a philosophy and religion concerning the "path" (the Tao) it explains that the destiny can not be known until the path is faithfully walked. It says nothing about it not being named as in labeled. 3000 years ago, a "name" was a descriptive label much like Mr. Carpenter being a carpenter. God was not allowed a name because such would be presumptuous as to truly knowing all about God. Yet God was given many temporary names as to display a particular reigning aspect at that time. At one point God was quoted as saying "My name is Jealousy". Man is learning just as every child learns, with temporary imagined concepts that are mostly true and fit the degree of his ability to comprehend. God being a old man is an image that suited the people who needed an image. Moses told the Jewry to never accept an image of God for the very reason you have pointed out. But in none of this has it been forbidden to give the destiny of that Taoist path a label. It is referred to as "enlightenment", "Heaven", "Destiny", and many other labels. It is the attempt to exactly describe that enlightenment that has led to great fallacy. But even in this great list of error, no where has it been forbidden that the knowledge can not be known by anyone, but rather merely by those who seek the path, fore if they already knew, then why would they be seeking? Like everything else, it is "unknowable", until you do. And even then, there are very few means to absolutely know that you are correct - "very few", not "none".

 

 

Let's say that there is a universe, parallel to ours, which some scientists are theorizing about right now in the brane theory.

 

REAL scientists do not study "parallel universes" in the way you are thinking. The "universe" is defined as, and means, ALL that exists. If anything is outside that, then it can't exist, the scientist could never demonstrate anything of it, and would be anything but a scientist while contemplating the non-sense of it. The idea of a "parallel universe" came from the idea that one can understand the SAME universe in 2 totally different ways (two complete axiomatic systems for the same universe). This is much like measuring things in feet and inches, or in meters. The two systems must be kept separate although neither is incorrect and both refer to the same object being measured.

So let's start guessing about God, who is being (or maybe a robot), is infinite (or maybe not), and is omnipotent (or maybe not), and omniscient (or maybe not), and benevolent (or maybe not), and the creator of the universe (or maybe not)...

 

Which guess is the right one?

 

The "right one" is the one which first defines the characteristics of "God" and then continues to point out something that really exists which meet those criteria.

If they continue to attempt to define every single detail, then they WILL be in error, but the basics are easy enough (omniscience, omnipotence and such)

 

Your assuming that such can not be done simply because you haven’t seen anyone do it. I can't really blame you, the hiding of the understanding was intentional and very effective.

If you really want to beat the "system", simply give a serious hard core definition. It won't be long before someone say's "Hey then THAT HAS to be what God has always been!!... WOW they were right...kewl!"

 

The real understanding is there. Hoping it is all a fantasy so that you will be free to do whatever you enjoy will NOT make it go away. Such is like thinking that the policemen never really use and abuse those cameras or that they aren’t really serious about their DWI laws. Hoping that something unseen or un-witnessed isn't there, doesn't make it go away. Preaching that it is only a con-game doesn't change the reality of it for long. Such things merely cause it to be that much more difficult for others to find the accuracy within the chaos.

 

As the Taoist would say, “The reality that you are lost is not the reality of there being no path”

[Amanda]

You see Amanda? By giving specifics to the unknown, it is not unknown anymore, but become specific.

 

That's the teachings of Tao. The Unknown can not be named, because when you do, it become specific.

107310[/snapback]

Hi HanSolo! How do you get so smart, and able to understand me, the place of my limited understandings?

 

Ahhh-ha! *light goes on in my head* I 'think' I see more of what you are saying now. I believe, that what you are saying… is that no words can describe it because no word can even begin to encompass its magnitude, therefore limits it by the definition of the word used to describe it. If God is beyond loving, then loving can not be used… because it therefore limit’s the scope or its real meaning.

 

Cerise, my apologies. I think I grasp more of what you were trying to impart to me too. Thanks!

I agree with SM, I can't equate spiritual with supernatural.

107330[/snapback]

Hi Ssel, then I suppose it would depend on the definition of spiritual? I believe in a ‘spirit’ that can transcend the body, not eternally bound to it. Spiritual beings having an earthly experience. So, wouldn’t that concept, therefore be ‘supernatural’?

107426[/snapback]

Ssel, another great perspective/post, IMO!

 

May I ask you, how can we know we are on the right path? Some people don't seek any more, they think they are on the right path, although it seems quite evident to the rest of us... it is NOT! So how can one be sure?

[Ouroboros]

Well, Taoism (Daoism) is not about if you find the true definition of the ultimate and unknowable. It's about that you can't find it, and you can't name it.

 

Taoism is a philosophy and religion concerning the "path" (the Tao) it explains that the destiny can not be known until the path is faithfully walked. It says nothing about it not being named as in labeled. 3000 years ago, a "name" was a descriptive label much like Mr. Carpenter being a carpenter. God was not allowed a name because such would be presumptuous as to truly knowing all about God. Yet God was given many temporary names as to display a particular reigning aspect at that time. At one point God was quoted as saying "My name is Jealousy". Man is learning just as every child learns, with temporary imagined concepts that are mostly true and fit the degree of his ability to comprehend. God being a old man is an image that suited the people who needed an image. Moses told the Jewry to never accept an image of God for the very reason you have pointed out. But in none of this has it been forbidden to give the destiny of that Taoist path a label. It is referred to as "enlightenment", "Heaven", "Destiny", and many other labels. It is the attempt to exactly describe that enlightenment that has led to great fallacy. But even in this great list of error, no where has it been forbidden that the knowledge can not be known by anyone, but rather merely by those who seek the path, fore if they already knew, then why would they be seeking? Like everything else, it is "unknowable", until you do. And even then, there are very few means to absolutely know that you are correct - "very few", not "none".

You're right that Tao is the way, it's about the walk or the journey more than about the belief.

 

But I think you're misunderstanding me here. It's not about not giving label to anything at all, but that you can't give a label to God, or to Tao.

 

From "Thoughts on the Tao", By Laura Campbell

It is not personified like the Judeo-Christian god. By putting the Tao in terms that humans can understand is to put boundaries on the Tao. The Tao has no boundary. The Tao is abstract and impersonal. It is not possessed of emotions. The Tao does not take sides. It is the balance between yin and yang. The Tao teaches harmony.

 

Let's say that there is a universe, parallel to ours, which some scientists are theorizing about right now in the brane theory.

 

REAL scientists do not study "parallel universes" in the way you are thinking. The "universe" is defined as, and means, ALL that exists. If anything is outside that, then it can't exist, the scientist could never demonstrate anything of it, and would be anything but a scientist while contemplating the non-sense of it. The idea of a "parallel universe" came from the idea that one can understand the SAME universe in 2 totally different ways (two complete axiomatic systems for the same universe). This is much like measuring things in feet and inches, or in meters. The two systems must be kept separate although neither is incorrect and both refer to the same object being measured.

Have you looked into the brane theory at all? I guess you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

So let's start guessing about God, who is being (or maybe a robot), is infinite (or maybe not), and is omnipotent (or maybe not), and omniscient (or maybe not), and benevolent (or maybe not), and the creator of the universe (or maybe not)...

 

Which guess is the right one?

 

The "right one" is the one which first defines the characteristics of "God" and then continues to point out something that really exists which meet those criteria.

That's where you go wrong. By defining the characteristics of God you claim authority to have the knowledge of who and what God is. And you already have made yourself equal to God. If he exists, you can't claim any knowledge of his characteristics.

 

If they continue to attempt to define every single detail, then they WILL be in error, but the basics are easy enough (omniscience, omnipotence and such)

He can't be those characteristics if they are paradoxical. Unless he is a pair of ducks.

 

Your assuming that such can not be done simply because you haven't seen anyone do it. I can't really blame you, the hiding of the understanding was intentional and very effective.

If you really want to beat the "system", simply give a serious hard core definition. It won't be long before someone say's "Hey then THAT HAS to be what God has always been!!... WOW they were right...kewl!"

So explain if God can be omniscient and have free-will at the same time. That is still a paradox no one can explain.

 

 

The real understanding is there. Hoping it is all a fantasy so that you will be free to do whatever you enjoy will NOT make it go away. Such is like thinking that the policemen never really use and abuse those cameras or that they aren't really serious about their DWI laws. Hoping that something unseen or un-witnessed isn't there, doesn't make it go away. Preaching that it is only a con-game doesn't change the reality of it for long. Such things merely cause it to be that much more difficult for others to find the accuracy within the chaos.

 

As the Taoist would say, “The reality that you are lost is not the reality of there being no path”

107426[/snapback]

 

The illustration of the Police officer is a very interesting topic, since a DUI (or DWI) will result in fine and at worst a limited time in prison, not eternal punishment. Justice is not served in a democratic and just society by death penalty for every misdemeanor.

 

And about your certainty about God's character: (source: http://www.taoism.net/html.html)

Chapter 71

 

 

To know that you do not know is highest

To not know but think you know is flawed

Only when one recognizes the fault as a fault

Can one be without fault

The sages are without fault

Because they recognize the fault as a fault

That is why they are without fault

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Interpretation

 

To know that you do not know - to recognize your own ignorance - is best, because it motivates you to continue seeking answers and keeps you from becoming presumptuous and arrogant.

 

The opposite of this is to be ignorant but assume that you possess knowledge. This is a flaw that many of us have. It even seems like the less you know, the more you think you know.

 

It is only when we see a problem clearly, and recognize that we need to do something about it, that we can begin taking steps to remove it and eventually be without it.

 

The sages are human too, and make mistakes just like everyone else. What makes them different is that they look at themselves with the clarity of detachment, whereas most of us are blind to our own faults.

 

Because they are naturally humble, sages do not automatically assume they must be correct. When they recognize that they have made a mistake or manifested a problem, they take active steps to address the issue.

 

People who know that they do not know and take steps to learn will eventually acquire the knowledge they need. Similarly, sages who monitor themselves, recognize their own faults and take steps to correct themselves will ultimately be free of the faults.

[Ouroboros]

You see Amanda? By giving specifics to the unknown, it is not unknown anymore, but become specific.

 

That's the teachings of Tao. The Unknown can not be named, because when you do, it become specific.

107310[/snapback]

Hi HanSolo! How do you get so smart, and able to understand me, the place of my limited understandings?

 

Ahhh-ha! *light goes on in my head* I 'think' I see more of what you are saying now. I believe, that what you are saying… is that no words can describe it because no word can even begin to encompass its magnitude, therefore limits it by the definition of the word used to describe it. If God is beyond loving, then loving can not be used… because it therefore limit’s the scope or its real meaning.

107454[/snapback]

You got it.

[Ssel]

... you can't give a label to God, or to Tao.

 

In this one statement, you have already given a label to both God and Tao. And in addition, you have proclaimed a characteristic of God that you KNOW, and thus by your own words you have proclaimed yourself equal to God.

 

Hans, you continually do EXACTLY what you keep saying is everyone else's error.

 

If knowing that you know nothing is your moto, then why are you professing to KNOW what CAN NOT be done?

[Bodhi-in-Training]

By giving specifics to the unknown, it is not unknown anymore, but become specific

 

Because nothing can exist outside of our own minds.

 

When we perceive an object, we automatically label it. As soon as our mind puts a label on an object, the label takes the place of the actual object in our mind. However, that being said a label can never represent all the different qualities of the object. So, for example my watch, some may see a woman's watch, some may see an ugly watch some may see a sports watch...etc... We know it's function by the name alone, but each on of us perceives it differently.... damn I forgot where I was going with this....