Personal Definition of God

[Ssel]

We know it's function by the name alone, but each one of us perceives it differently....  damn I forgot where I was going with this....

 

 

Haha... cute

 

You were correctly pointing out the danger in putting a label on something because of the temptation of others to make assumptions from the label.

 

I agree. It is an error of OTHERS to assume that the label defines an immediate image in their minds. A label is no more than a generalized pointer, without which no thought is possible and communication could not exist.

 

The error comes in by presuming that the label means more than it really meant.

But never label, is to still the mind and all of society into nothingness, great for the Buddhist, but not so great for national defenses or the economy.

[Bodhi-in-Training]

We know it's function by the name alone, but each one of us perceives it differently....  damn I forgot where I was going with this....

 

 

Haha... cute

 

You were correctly pointing out the danger in putting a label on something because of the temptation of others to make assumptions from the label.

 

 

But no never label, is to still the mind and all of society into nothingness, great for the Buddhist, but not so great for national defenses or the economy.

 

 

How true!

[Ssel]

The common problem with discussing God is that in our society there is a “knee-jerk” mental response to the word God which reflects some unseen ghostly, omniscient watcher, infinitely wise man and judge.  This idea is supported by the stories with which people are so familiar.  The word carries with it a connotation which instantly creeps into the discussion.  If someone is discussing what God is or isn’t, then the connotation tends to urge them to select the something that fits the connoted image even though the image will always be false regardless of reality. 

In a logical debate, it is important to avoid presumption.  If a preconceived idea of God dictates your ability to identify God, then you will argue forever about what God isn’t and never be able to find what God was all along.  Thus, in the debate, simply demand a definition.  There are two vital questions to be resolved so that any debate concerning God can be meaningful.

 

1) Exactly what specific characteristics determines God.

2) Is there anything that can be pointed to such as to say “THERE it IS”

 

It begins with the issue of definition.  If I had opened this debate with the statement “Ghod exists”, then the immediate demand would have been to define Ghod.  Everyone knows that you can’t debate something if you don’t know what it is.  But when I use the word God, everyone assumes they already have a definition, yet that definition is being determined by their imagination and is very unclear and varied. 

[Ouroboros]

... 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?

107471[/snapback]

That's the funny thing, I don't have a god. So I don't give it a name, and if I give it a name it doesn't represent anything that I believe exists. I'm not a Taoist either. So don't blame me for what Taoists believe. And I do agree, as soon as the Taoist use the word Tao, they also use a name for the unknown. For me, I rather say, "it is unknown." and there it ends.

 

Personally, I don't know if there is a God or not (knowledge/factual), but I don't believe there is a God (emotional).

 

The first line of Tao Te Ching, from its most ancient script, is literally translated "The Tao that can be Tao'd is not the true Tao."

 

You tell me what that means.

 

Tao is not my motto, but I challenge you to claim knowledge of the unknowable.

 

 

And talking about the parallel universes, here's the beginning of an article from New Scientists,

Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku

05 February 2005

Stephen Battersby

Magazine issue 2485

 

STRANGE as the idea of other universes is, it has become almost commonplace in physics. Parallel worlds are central to one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Inflation versions of the cosmological theory also imply that there is an infinite tree of branching universes. Cosmologists have even suggested that there could be parallel universes a millimetre away along some higher dimension.

 

...

 

So I'm not complete naive when mentioning this theories, because I have plenty more articles about the subject from several publications. But I'm not going to dispute, argue or theorize about this in this thread.

[Ssel]

[Ssel]

The first line of Tao Te Ching, from its most ancient script, is literally translated "The Tao that can be Tao'd is not the true Tao."

 

You tell me what that means.

 

 

since you asked...

What that meant was that the Tao is a path which leads into the same nothingness that the Buddhist speaks of. That "nothingness" of the mind can not be tread or traveled, yet must be journeyed.

 

The point in that void of mind is so as to still the mind enough for it to begin to correctly perceive reality. It is not to STAY there, but to be reborn into a clear enlightenment of what is and (mostly) what ISN'T important.

But once the mind is truly stilled, it can not know of it's doing nor think anything of it. The journey is taken, but never walked, felt, or seen.

 

 

 

and as far as the universe and this thread...

the universe in those articles is just as God in in this thread in that it is UNDIFINED

what THEY are calling the universe and what OTHERS call the universe are different

so they are free to speculate and make movies forever on the fun thought of what never actually made any sense.

This thread is about those deferences in defintion which cause endless argument

DEFINE it, and end the arguing

107487[/snapback]

[Ouroboros]

The first line of Tao Te Ching, from its most ancient script, is literally translated "The Tao that can be Tao'd is not the true Tao."

 

You tell me what that means.

 

 

since you asked...

What that meant was that the Tao is a path which leads into the same nothingness that the Buddhist speaks of. That "nothingness" of the mind can not be tread or traveled, yet must be journeyed.

 

The point in that void of mind is so as to still the mind enough for it to begin to correctly perceive reality. It is not to STAY there, but to be reborn into a clear enlightenment of what is and (mostly) what ISN'T important.

But once the mind is truly stilled, it can not know of it's doing nor think anything of it. The journey is taken, but never walked, felt, or seen.

 

 

 

and as far as the universe and this thread...

the universe in those articles is just as God in in this thread in that it is UNDIFINED

what THEY are calling the universe and what OTHERS call the universe are different

so they are free to speculate and make movies forever on the fun thought of what never actually made any sense.

This thread is about those deferences in defintion which cause endless argument

DEFINE it, and end the arguing

107487[/snapback]

107492[/snapback]

 

 

http://www.taoism.net/laotzu/taote/chap01.htm

[Checkmate]

...........

Pritishd, my point is NOT to get into a dueling match. You, and any other literalist (and you are writing as a literalist here) can take any one of the above Bible verses and turn it around to mean something entirely different. I stand by my original statement, playing "I know the Bible better than you" will get us no where. Like the author of If Grace is True, I feel no need to harmonize the conflicts of the Bible. I feel no need to defend a flawed theology. It is entirely possible for me, as a Christian, to look at certain Bible verses and given interpretations and simply say, "I disagree".

.............

107253[/snapback]

Open_Minded, why does it not surprise me that you've read and liked this book If Grace Is True? I bought that book last year while I was still a Christian, and I could not embrace the fallacy of the authors' thinking.

 

Such as their concept of "weighing scripture", discerning which scriptures accurately reflect God's character. They say that this concept allows them NOT to take an all or nothing approach to the Bible so prevalent in Christianity. (pp 51-53)

 

Using this dodge they manage to sweep aside all verses of scripture that they find distasteful. Like claiming that Joshua misunderstood God's instructions and killed whole nations on his own accord. That is ludicrous!

 

So, when the "word of God" is favorable to your cause, then the bible is correct. But when that same bible is shown to be horrible, you sheepishly sweep these verses under the rung and claim they "must have been a mistake by MAN"? Or even worse, "the bible characters MUST have got the message wrong"?

 

Talk about special pleading! What nonsense!

 

Not to mention that you run into the problem of not being able to tell anyone what to believe. If the bible cannot be trusted (and it cannot be if you cherry pick your way through the verses by "weighing scripture"), then it has no value to anyone. Anyone can make the words mean whatever they want them to. Ignore what offends or upsets you. (Christians do this anyway!) How in the world is this a "sure foundation"?

 

I'm sorry, but as much as I would like to defer to your more "liberal" and "user-friendly" approach to bible study, I must agree with Ssel and other fundamentalists regarding the bible. To have such a "fluid" and "personal" interpretation scheme in place renders the bible null and void. Either GOD's word has substance, value and IS inerrant, or it is NOT "God's word". And therefore, it MUST be ignored.

 

If the bible is THIS useless as a guide from "god", then what is the point in having it? Believe whatever the hell you want. Create your own NEW religion and just call it Christianity. YOUR head in the sand position, Open_Minded, IF correct, puts Christianity in the toilet as a valid faith system.

 

 

But not to worry, the opposing position is in no better shape!

 

 

P.S. - I would LOVE to see you and Ssel debate this issue. I can't rightly do it, because I'm no "Christian". The bible is just a book of fairy tales to me. But YOU two! Two well-edumacated, polarized Christians, debating the "inerrancy" (or not) of God's word, would, I think, bear much more fruit than any other. Think about it.

[Ssel]

   

 

..typical response of the 14 yearold mind

[Ssel]

P.S. - I would LOVE to see you and Ssel debate this issue.  I can't rightly do it, because I'm no "Christian".  The bible is just a book of fairy tales to me.  But YOU two!  Two well-edumacated, polarized Christians, debating the "inerrancy" (or not) of God's word, would, I think, bear much more fruit than any other.  Think about it.

107512[/snapback]

 

I appreciate that someone has read at least something of what I have posted, but Mr. Grinch, I suspect you have misunderstood me greatly.

I can hardly be categorized as a fundamentalist in that I am Hebrew and have an entirely different understanding of the scriptures than the entire Jewry and almost all of Christendom. I have expressed only a very slight touch of my beliefs because the difference is far too great to discuss in such a hostile medium.

 

I am not particularly impressed with what the Jewry nor Christendom has done in the name of God.

 

What I have seen of Open-Minded's post appear intelligent (an unusual quality online) and I have seen very little to disagree with. I know that He and I have an extremely different unde4rstanding, but not really debatable until FAR more common understanding is achieved.

 

The following might help get you and/or Open-Minded into understanding my position a better.

 

Evidence_its_all_about_evidence.doc

[Ouroboros]

   

 

..typical response of the 14 yearold mind

107517[/snapback]

You're absolutely right, Oh Great Master. You are too learned, and have received so much knowledge and insight of the mysteries of life and existence, that I can not let myself demanding Your Excellency to come down to my level of such a humble understanding.

 

Let your wisdom and knowledge be the light and guide for all of us, and let us know the Ultimate Truth of Everything, which have been given to you by the Spirit of Eternity. There can't be anything more to learn but the things that you have.

 

(Btw, it's not "yearold", but "year old")

[Checkmate]

I appreciate that someone has read at least something of what I have posted, but Mr. Grinch, I suspect you have misunderstood me greatly.

I can hardly be categorized as a fundamentalist in that I am Hebrew and have an entirely different understanding of the scriptures than the entire Jewry and almost all of Christendom.  I have expressed only a very slight touch of my beliefs because the difference is far too great to discuss in such a hostile medium.

 

I am not particularly impressed with what the Jewry nor Christendom has done in the name of God.

..........

107529[/snapback]

Humph. Okay. My bad.

 

Sheesh! Between you two guys and Amanda, I'm beginning to wonder if ANY Real Christians™ post on this site. Everyone is a "poser" for some "other" way. Makes it very difficult for me to argue "Christianity" when none of my opponents are what I recognize as "mainline Christians". Or even "Christian" at all. (*sigh!)

 

Oh well.

 

"Hostile medium"?

[Ssel]

..and as far as ME being a fundamentalist, you might consider the following before you make such an assessment..

 

 

I can argue the case for the Christian, the Atheist, the Scientist, the agnostic, the Gnostic, the Jew, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Hindu, and a certain amount for the Muslim and the Satanist.

 

as far as my OWN beliefs, "IT IS what IT IS" ...has always been and will always be.

 

I stand squarely within NO church, yet see grand wisdoms in them all.

 

The path is to keep your eyes and ears open and lust for nothing save to be accurate...prove me wrong.

Let_it_be.doc

[Ssel]

Hansolo, I apologize

 

I came to this site with an inappropriate attitude because I had thought it was a site for truly hard core logicians. Such people don't care about attitude, so politeness only gets in the way.

 

This site is really meant more for you than me.

I bow to correction.

 

[Eponymic]

Hansolo, I apologize

 

I came to this site with an inappropriate attitude because I had thought it was a site for truly hard core logicians.  Such people don't care about attitude, so politeness only gets in the way.

 

This site is really meant more for you than me.

I bow to correction.

 

107571[/snapback]

 

Good form.

 

Besides, you still have to use a modicum of tact when imparting true logic because no one is going to want to read your opinion if you're employing phrasing that makes you sound prickaliscious.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hansolo, I apologize

 

I came to this site with an inappropriate attitude because I had thought it was a site for truly hard core logicians.  Such people don't care about attitude, so politeness only gets in the way.

 

This site is really meant more for you than me.

I bow to correction.

 

107571[/snapback]

Okay. Apology accepted.

 

We're not hard core logicians, but we do dive into it and try to understand things with reason and logic. Most of us are probably laymen in the greater context, but our purpose it to understand and search. Just like you were referring to. Being open minded, trying to learn and move to new pastures. (But honestly, it's easier said than done. )

 

The sites purpose is for the person who has left Christianity, and we still invite and let Christians to come in a partake in the debates. Wouldn't you say that's a pretty nice thing of us to do?

 

-edit-

 

I have been trying to place you on the map of "beliefs" and you strike me as a deist or maybe an agnostic, rather than Christian. Is my assessment close or completely wrong?

[Ssel]

I have been trying to place you on the map of "beliefs" and you strike me as a deist or maybe an agnostic, rather than Christian. Is my assessment close or completely wrong?

107580[/snapback]

 

The only way I know how to describe me is as I have in my post #214, plus perhaps the knowledge that in the early '70s I was designing algorithms for mechanized thought processes. So when I say that definition is important, you can bank on it.

 

..and maybe being raised as a Texan has a bit to do with it as well

 

 

"Humility is the tightwire drawn between the great mountains of wisdom"

[Ouroboros]

I have been trying to place you on the map of "beliefs" and you strike me as a deist or maybe an agnostic, rather than Christian. Is my assessment close or completely wrong?

107580[/snapback]

 

The only way I know how to describe me is as I have in my post #214, plus perhaps the knowledge that in the early '70s I was designing algorithms for mechanized thought processes. So when I say that definition is important, you can bank on it.

 

..and maybe being raised as a Texan has a bit to do with it as well

 

 

"Humility is the tightwire drawn between the great mountains of wisdom"

107587[/snapback]

I'm going to read your document. I have a question, did you read, or at least look at the link I gave you about Tao?

 

Understand, I'm not refuting your view that Tao is about the way, but the word Tao and the meaning of the first chapter is a lot deeper than just the path. Tao is also translated the Ultimate or Universal Principle. In a sense the energy of life beyond context and meaning. It's also used as a synonym for the "Nameless Name".

 

Do you understand why I used Tao as the example of "God" can't be labeled and given properties? Because when you do, you claim knowledge of the things you don't know about. You might believe God is such and such, and even give God all the labels you want, but I think it's wrong, since you can't meet him and shake his hand and look at the colors of his socks and come back and tell everyone he has blue socks. For instance, if you believe God is omnipotent, then immediately it begs the question, "how can you know?"

 

And since you know something about algorithms, you know that if you have a black box that's going to do the magic, you have to define, analyze the problem and break it down in its components to solve and come up with the solution. But can that really be done with a black box, that we don't know exists, and we don't even know if it's black, or a box?

[Open_Minded]

Open_Minded, why does it not surprise me that you've read and liked this book If Grace Is True?  I bought that book last year while I was still a Christian, and I could not embrace the fallacy of the authors' thinking.

 

Such as their concept of "weighing scripture", discerning which scriptures accurately reflect God's character.  They say that this concept allows them NOT to take an all or nothing approach to the Bible so prevalent in Christianity.  (pp 51-53)

107512[/snapback]

 

Hello Mr. Grinch

 

Do you read every book with an "all or nothing" approach?

 

You're making an assumption that because I've read the book If Grace Is True I agree with every word the author wrote.

 

Yes, I remember the concept of "weighing scripture" well. It stood out to me because I thought to myself, "he's writing to people who have taken scripture literally, and he's trying to teach them how to look at it a different way."

 

I've never read the Bible literally, so the concept of "weighing scripture" just didn't have any impact on me.

 

Not to mention that you run into the problem of not being able to tell anyone what to believe. 

 

Why is it the responsibility of any religion, or any individual for that matter, to "tell anyone what to believe"? Isn't this one of the largest problems with religious dogma? "We have the truth and the rest of the world be damned".

 

If the bible cannot be trusted (and it cannot be if you cherry pick your way through the verses by "weighing scripture"), then it has no value to anyone.  Anyone can make the words mean whatever they want them to.  Ignore what offends or upsets you.  (Christians do this anyway!)  How in the world is this a "sure foundation"?

 

We are all in trouble if sacred literature of ANY faith is to serve as a "sure foundation". The "foundation" of my faith has nothing to do with the Bible. The "foundation" of my faith is within my own soul - it here that I experience the sacred. I do NOT need the Bible to serve as a foundation for my faith in something SACRED, infinite, full of Wisdom and the very essense of pure LOVE within all, through all and beyond all. I do NOT need the Bible to convince me that this SACRED ONE is worthy of my wonder and respect. My heart knows it, my heart has known this for as long as I can remember.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as I would like to defer to your more "liberal" and "user-friendly" approach to bible study, I must agree with Ssel and other fundamentalists regarding the bible.  To have such a "fluid" and "personal" interpretation scheme in place renders the bible null and void.  Either GOD's word has substance, value and IS inerrant, or it is NOT "God's word".  And therefore, it MUST be ignored.

 

Mr. Grinch - you are a literalist. I go back to my first question. Do you read every book with an "all or nothing" approach?

 

Your approach to reading the Bible is no less destructive than the same approach when applied by fundamentalists. It just causes damage on the opposite end of the spectrum, that is all.

 

Your approach of demanding that if the Bible is Not inerrant than "it MUST be ignored" would mean ignoring some of the most timeless wisdom ever put down in writing.

 

Just because the Bible was written in a different time and different culture and reflects the humanity of that time and culture does not render it useless as a source of sacred wisdom literature.

 

Just curious... would you ignore all the other sacred wisdom literature of this world? Do you think human violence, biased views of the Sacred and limited understanding of the natural world is limited to Christian literature?

 

And if you would toss out the sacred literature of other cultures... hmm.... that is letting go of much wisdom from the ancients. Do you think we have nothing to learn from those who have searched out the Sacred before we arrived on the scene? Sorry, Mr. Grinch, even letting go of the wisdom within the Bible (as well as other sacred literature) is just too much wisdom for me to pass on?

 

If the bible is THIS useless as a guide from "god", then what is the point in having it?  Believe whatever the hell you want.  Create your own NEW religion and just call it Christianity.  YOUR head in the sand position, Open_Minded, IF correct, puts Christianity in the toilet as a valid faith system.

 

People have been creating their own "NEW religion" for all of human history. Reading the Bible literally, or within the context of the time and place it was written in, will make no difference in that regard.

 

Christianity is not valid because of its sacred literature, it is valid because of the Christ (Wisdom made Flesh) experience. And no, I do NOT believe this makes any other religion invalid. That is a separate discussion.

 

P.S. - I would LOVE to see you and Ssel debate this issue.  I can't rightly do it, because I'm no "Christian".  The bible is just a book of fairy tales to me.  But YOU two!  Two well-edumacated, polarized Christians, debating the "inerrancy" (or not) of God's word, would, I think, bear much more fruit than any other.  Think about it.

 

Don't have to think long, Mr. Grinch. As I've said before, I'm not into dueling Bible verses. It's an exercise in futility. But thanks for the offer

[willybilly30]

I see god as the creator of all things

The universe is were all things come from

Therefore, the universe is the creator

Im not sure how to prove its god or define god

Ill meditate on that question and get back to you on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

quote=Ssel,Nov 14 2005, 10:58 PM]

Is their a god that is logically possible?

What makes it logically impossible?

 

If someone took you off and showed you something and said "THAT is God"

What characteristics would "That" have to have for you to believe that it was, in fact God?

 

1) Define what "God" means

2) Find what you can point to and say "That must be it"

 

Until then, you can neither say yea nor nay

107087[/snapback]

[Ssel]

Do you understand why I used Tao as the example of "God" can't be labeled and given properties? Because when you do, you claim knowledge of the things you don't know about. You might believe God is such and such, and even give God all the labels you want, but I think it's wrong, since you can't meet him and shake his hand and look at the colors of his socks and come back and tell everyone he has blue socks. For instance, if you believe God is omnipotent, then immediately it begs the question, "how can you know?"

 

Yes, I did read the web site.

 

I think our contention comes in to play regarding the specifics of a name or definition.

The pantheist, for example, gives his God a definition which is open ended (not specific enough to claim much detail). By him saying that his God is “the forces and laws” of the universe, but being no more specific than that. He has left himself open to learning any new aspects of his God. MANY do this, they do not proclaim much about their God, and thus have the opportunity to be exactly correct, even though their mental image may have been skewed a bit. The pantheist does not say what those forces and laws ARE, only that he accepts that they ARE his God and no other. In effect, this makes him almost a scientist, except that the scientist seeks more detail, whereas the pantheist simply waits to be informed of any new detail.

 

Common Christianity tends to throw much more detail into their definition of God. Doing this is dangerous in that it might be proven wrong at some time or at very least misunderstood more than a simple definition. The Jew takes a more defensive stance and refuses to speak the name (or description) of their God and thus they don’t need to worry of argument (which doesn’t mean they are right, but they can easily change without anyone noticing).

 

The Buddhist wasn’t really a religion but was made into one for sake of those too firm in insisting on “gods”. The word “Buddha” meant “the wise” and included ALL enlightened people. The man commonly known as Buddha was a major promoter of the effort to remove misery in one’s life by disavowing desire. He was correct although as with all of the religions, not entirely complete. So to define the God of the Buddhist is really a misunderstanding. The God of the true Buddhist is simply “wisdom”. Can he be wrong? …perhaps

 

What the common American is thinking of is the famed God of Abraham, Jacob, Jesus and the like. But this God, to be discussed intelligently, MUST be defined more carefully, else no discussion can ever make any sense.

 

I can prove, in a very serious logical forum that the God of the Jew and the Christian really points to something very real. But it does no good to even try such when no one even bothers to narrow a definition down. The discussion would wander into non-sense details of how old he might be, or what cloths he might wear and such. I am not interested in such prattle.

 

I agree with you in that if one attempts to exactly define any of the “God”s with serious detail, then they will err, just as the Taoist proclaimed. DON’T define DETAIL of God, else you violate every major prophet of ever religion in the world. But on the other hand, don’t simply say that God can have NO definition at ALL then argue if He exists.

 

The word “god” has an exact meaning and happens to refer to something real. I have yet to find a single Christian who can tell me what the word means. So discussing anything about THE God is pointless.

 

..and btw, I agree with Open-Minded that using very many Biblical quotes is futile.

There are those who understand and those who preach. These are the houses of Melkezedek (understanding) versus Aaron (passing the word). I am more the Melkezedek type.

[Ouroboros]

I can prove, in a very serious logical forum that the God of the Jew and the Christian really points to something very real.  But it does no good to even try such when no one even bothers to narrow a definition down.  The discussion would wander into non-sense details of how old he might be, or what cloths he might wear and such.  I am not interested in such prattle. 

Interesting. So what you need is a clear definition of what God's characteristics are and you will be able to prove he exists based on those characteristics?

 

I agree with you in that if one attempts to exactly define any of the “God”s with serious detail, then they will err, just as the Taoist proclaimed.  DON’T define DETAIL of God, else you violate every major prophet of ever religion in the world.  But on the other hand, don’t simply say that God can have NO definition at ALL then argue if He exists.

I think our misunderstanding grows out from this. Most of my arguments to the non-existence of God is based on specific definitions of God. And you're correct that if a God does indeed exist, he is likely to have some kind of characteristics. The problem I see we're having is that you can only prove God if and only if I can give you an example of how/what God must be. Is that correct?

 

The word “god” has an exact meaning and happens to refer to something real.  I have yet to find a single Christian who can tell me what the word means.  So discussing anything about THE God is pointless.

107604[/snapback]

So let's say the characteristics of God is that he is omniscient and he has free will.

 

Does he exist?

[willybilly30]

In my opinion god created us how it wanted us making it unnecessary to makes rules and stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bigger problem is that people like to assert that they have 100% absolute unquestionable truth and that if you aren't on board then "god" (their god) will do something to you or deny you something. What will *your* god do if you slip up or I don't buy into it? Does it matter to your god if anyone believes in it? Does it have something special for you (good or bad) after you die? Has your god revealed itself to anyone (including you)? Has your god setup rules that you are required (or highly encouraged) to follow? Does your god require/need anything from you or anyone else?

 

 

 

If the creator wants to show anything it will to each person personally I think.

 

 

 

 

Don't worry if you don't have all (or any) of the answers to the above questions. I sure don't. I just have what I like to think and that is *my* god hasn't revealed itself (I have no idea if it's one god, many gods, what form it takes or anything else...I do not personally know my god(s) but if it(they) want me to know then I will know and if you are to know they I won't be the one to tell you but you will be contacted directly and given the same info I was given so that there's no confusion). So I could try to describe what I think to you but it would take forever and ultimately it would be pointless since I'd just be guessing anyway.

 

 

That makes sense.

 

 

I also accept the real possibility that there is no god at all. Why not? After all if there isn't one and I die then it doesn't matter anyway (think back to 100 years before you were born...that nothingness you remember is exactly what you'll experience after you die if a god doesn't provide an afterlife). I just accept that I can neither prove nor disprove the existance of a god (or gods) but I like the idea for some reason. If a theology comes along that I can't poke holes into then it will definately get my attention. Until then I'm just agnostic (with my own personal slant).

 

However' date=' ill agree I cannot see anything saying there is

So all im left with is my ideas winch is based on others ideas I agree with

[/quote']

This isn't true. You may base your views on what you know but I doubt they're 100% identical. You've taken what you've liked from others and compiled them into your own thing. Everyone does this to different degrees. I see no problem with it since you're willing to admit it.

 

that sounds like a better way of saying what I was trying to say.

I agreed with so much of star wars especially yoda.

 

 

 

 

From what I've read of your posts it seems your god is like many others which, in the original Star Wars movies (numbers 1-3 sort of screwed the concept), was the Force. Just some "force" that held everything together. An universal "energy" that is contained in all things and that without this energy all things would simply cease or fall apart. God is so we are. Your god is somehow in all things but all things are not god nor are they manifestations of god. Does this sound like what you're trying to communicate? 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).

 

mwc

107276[/snapback]

[willybilly30]

Cause the soul is attached to the body while your alive

What happens to the body happens to it.

70 virgins where!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

So, is that what we should do?  Find the concept that appeals to us the most and believe that?  Cool.  I'm going with the 70 virgins afterlife.

 

Hey.  Has anybody figured out why anesthesia puts the soul to sleep?

107283[/snapback]

[Ouroboros]

Ssel,

 

Oh, btw, I read your document too.

 

I see, you're taking a standpoint of no interference when it comes to God's actions, and promoting a less intrusive Christian movement, very much like Jesus words about "don't worry about tomorrow."