Skankboy Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I'm sorry but it still seems an unnecessary equivication. What does assigning the quality of "god" to everything accomplish? A sense that all things are sacred? If so, I agree. But the term "god" carries with it far too many connentations for me to feel it appropriate to apply it in the manner which you seem to be describing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I'm sorry but it still seems an unnecessary equivication. What does assigning the quality of "god" to everything accomplish? A sense that all things are sacred? If so, I agree. But the term "god" carries with it far too many connentations for me to feel it appropriate to apply it in the manner which you seem to be describing... Well yes, the belief that everything is ultimately sacred would naturally come about with the belief that all things are god. This is an example of beliefs and mindsets which are inherent in the belief that all things are divine. There are many ideas which go hand-in-hand with this, one of which is the one you pointed out. That isn't really too subjective and its connotations are universal to those who accept the original belief. Another part of this is while I would disagree with someone else who said the same thing ("all things are god"), we agree on a far more important point. Many people may find differing connotations, but the main idea is what matters and that is not so subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 You say that if God is everything, then everything loses its identity (or something to that effect). Nothing could be more misled. Why? Because as I've said before (IIRC), something can have many aspects to its entire identity. Furthermore, let us look at a comparison: I think you only think that I am misled. I have also said before that things have many aspects to its entire identity. Take any person. For instance, take an Englishman. Now this is someone who was born in England and retains the identity of being English (among other things). However, this Englishman is ALSO a male, and this male is ALSO a human being. As we move from the specifics to the commonalities, we find that there are catagories which include just about everything and everyone. Could you say, "Look at that human being" and still talk about that specific Englishman, who is distinct from other Englishmen? Yes, you could. That this individual IS a human being does not contradict or render meaningless the more specific identities. In this way, you can look upon all things as "god" without losing sight of their specific, distinct and unique individual identities. Does that make sense? We keep saying the same thing but from different angles, I believe. It doesn't loose any part of its identity at all. If we understand that everything contains the God essense as a quality (that may sound better), then it is okay and necessary to establish specifically what we are refering to when we speak to each other. Thich Nhat Hahn speaks of this when he talks of oneness. He says it's okay to speak of yourself as me or I and others as you or them as long as you know that we are not separate from each other. You are coming at this from the opposite angle. You say, "you can look upon all things as "god" without losing sight of their specific, distinct and unique individual identities." I would say that you could look and speak about things as they are distinct from each other without losing sight of it's God essence. The language we use has a great deal to do with the idea of separateness, but we probably won't change our language anythime soon. We just have to understand that it is necessary for us to communicate with each other through our agreed upon language, but to understand that there is more to an item than can be described with words. Words are only symbols. If you agree, then you would be taking the position that the rose's true self goes beyond its physical qualities? Just looking for clarification. Yes, but I would say it like this: The true essence of the rose includes it's physcial and non-physical properties. There is no true separateness, IMO. They are one in the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 I made that post on Aug 10 and it keeps coming back up to the top with the current date on the Lion's Den's listings. I don't know why it's doing that, so I thought I would make another post and maybe it will fall off like it's supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted September 7, 2006 Author Share Posted September 7, 2006 Futurama God Video. This god is like the best God ever!!! Galaxy God http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhyj-nZgpgI...ted&search= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Everglaze Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I used to always think he was some old guy with nothing better to do with his life except make humans miserable. Or I used to think he was some kind of cloud that spat lightning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 My idea of what god (as portrayed in the bible) might look like if he were real... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts