Of all of the meanings that I've heard and not heard from those who consider themselves to know or not know the meaning of God, I've come up with a flippant idea with the help of some drugs.

My idea is that the "laws of the day (early Christian days)" reflected a sort of a pinnacle of balance between outward rule and total disorder.

Even (and maybe most especially), an athiest would not argue with many of the rules of morality contained within the bible.
Most, if not all, conjecture between athiests and theists pale in comparison to the real outward laws of which we live by.

In the context or "fair and reasonable" laws, most athiests would embrace the idea that Christians had the laws pretty much right at some stage of their entity.
Athiests obviously won't have a bar of believing in some "supernatural controller", but I think they will entertain the idea that the will of "God" exists within every being, and should be treated as such.

If we are allowed to vote democratically, then that's great. We aren't given that option IMO.i

An interesting topic for this sub forum.

God is a verb, not a noun. Atheists who oppose god as a thing are as far up the garden path as are the religious who worship a that is a 'thing'.

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 6:14pm:

God is a verb, not a noun.

I god
You god
he/she gods

we god
you god
they god

;D Does God god?

Amadd wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 6:50am:

;D Does God god?

Aye, he does indeed (apparently).... God gods all week and three times on a Sunday.

Yadda's post is removed because it is preaching and no debating or discussing. Refer to complaints thread to see the original post and my comments.

Quote:

Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

The wiseth man who writeth the above said text surely shalt have been be so very wiseth and so very gloriouseth in order to be able to heareth and interpret what us mereth mortals cannot...eth.

Wow! How could one even grace a commoner's pavement with one's smelly feet whilst being so unbelievably awestruck with ones self?

Amadd wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 1:18am:

My idea is that the "laws of the day (early Christian days)" reflected a sort of a pinnacle of balance between outward rule and total disorder.

Could you explain what you mean? For example, Christians can't create images in heaven or earth for the purposes of worship. How does that reflect a balance between outward rule and total disorder?


Quote:

Even (and maybe most especially), an athiest would not argue with many of the rules of morality contained within the bible. Most, if not all, conjecture between athiests and theists pale in comparison to the real outward laws of which we live by.

I would. I don't get marriage for example. I don't see why it is important to spend all of your life with only one person whilst desiring of other people. I can see that it was when men ruled the world and women were property... but now???? We are not naturally monogamous, so why pretend at it through the religous institution of marriage? I appreciate that there are exceptions, but they are not the rule, and the rule is clearly identified by the 20 somethings and 30 somethings who make it there business to partner hop.  


Quote:

In the context or "fair and reasonable" laws, most athiests would embrace the idea that Christians had the laws pretty much right at some stage of their entity.

Sometimes stealing is necessary for survival such as was the case during the convict days which saw the UK cleansing their population of petty crims who stole bread to eat and sending them on their way to the land of Oz.

"Let he who is without sin, caste the first stone" Hmmm.... how many Christian Judges are there?

Quote:

Amadd wrote on Jul 17th, 2011, 1:18am: My idea is that the "laws of the day (early Christian days)" reflected a sort of a pinnacle of balance between outward rule and total disorder.

Quote:

Could you explain what you mean? For example, Christians can't create images in heaven or earth for the purposes of worship. How does that reflect a balance between outward rule and total disorder?

Well, the law of the day (as told by Christian God) may have been seen to be restrictive, but in reality, people pretty much still did what they liked.
People weren't very trackable in those days, so there was still plenty of room to move and plenty of time to reflect upon moral writings (or repent to the words of the accepted Christian God if you like).


Fast forward to today's societies (especially western) and we see that once "advisory" suggestions are now punishable laws. There's no escaping them, your every move is now tracked.
Of course with a higher population, it seems obvious that more restrictions are necessary. But that's not what God said.

God gave us the rules to live by and trusted that we'd listen to these words and try our best to live by them. This being the basis of our legal system (most especially the ten commandments).

So what I am saying is that what was then a "realistic expectation" for a general balance between outward rule and disorder, has now been morphed into an "unrealistic expectation" which has become humanly impossible to follow without feeling restricted in everyday life, or without feeling that personal freedom has been sacrificed for something else that God didn't tell us about, or what the wise people of the day didn't want us to expect from ourselves.

In other words, I think that the bible is (and a lot of other religious texts are) a very good reference point to personal freedom.
Whether or not I think them to be the word of God/s or the word of wise people doesn't really matter.

Amadd wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 10:59am:

God gave us the rules to live by and trusted that we'd listen to these words and try our best to live by them. This being the basis of our legal system (most especially the ten commandments). So what I am saying is that what was then a "realistic expectation" for a general balance between outward rule and disorder, has now been morphed into an "unrealistic expectation" which has become humanly impossible to follow without feeling restricted in everyday life, or without feeling that personal freedom has been sacrificed for something else that God didn't tell us about, or what the wise people of the day didn't want us to expect from ourselves. In other words, I think that the bible is (and a lot of other religious texts are) a very good reference point to personal freedom. Whether or not I think them to be the word of God/s or the word of wise people doesn't really matter.

A system of laws [like those laws, that some of us suppose God gave to men, i.e. the ten commandments], will only have a beneficial affect upon a group of people, when that group of people all broadly agree, that they can all see some merit, in following such laws.

Ideally, such laws would have the effect, imo, of protecting the interests of every individual, within that group / society.

Whereas, if we ourselves [for example] would expect everyone else to obey a set of rules [laws], but decided that whenever no one saw us, we could break those laws, then there would be little beneficial effect for anyone, imo.

We need to be conscientious, in trying to do what we know is right [i.e. 'lawful'].

i.e.
Laws for the good of [for the protection of] the individual, only 'work' if all [or virtually all!] members of a group or society are willing to conscientiously obey those laws.


Dictionary;
conscientious = =
1 wishing to do what is right.
2 relating to a person’s conscience.



+++



Matthew 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Yadda wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

Ideally, such laws would have the effect, imo, of protecting the interests of every individual, within that group / society.

I can imagine that some may argue, that societal laws should protect the majority, and NOT specifically, the individual.

I disagree, strongly!!

If the detail of the law protects the rights of every individual, THEN AUTOMATICALLY, the interests of every person [of the majority], are also protected.

Whereas, lawmakers who make laws for the benefit of 'the majority' will invariably tend to trample upon the interests and rights of some individuals,
"in the interests of the majority."



IMO, the purpose of our laws should be, to protect the individual, every individual, rather than our laws being 'devoted' to protecting 'society'.




I am a student of the Bible.

How i view O.T. laws, is that those laws teach man how to approach righteousness.

I firmly believe that.

And imo, those O.T. laws do teach man ethical behaviour.

And, [i believe that] that was their intended purpose.

Amadd wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 1:18am:

Even (and maybe most especially), an athiest would not argue with many of the rules of morality contained within the bible. In the context or "fair and reasonable" laws, most athiests would embrace the idea that Christians had the laws pretty much right at some stage of their entity.

What about the morality in Leviticus?

Killing heretics was a part of christian morality once upon a time are you suggesting the christians were right to do this?

What about Galileo was locking him up for contradicting the bible an act of christian morality?

Atheist morality is superior to religious morality that calls for stoning to death for adultery!

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 25^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

What about the morality in Leviticus? Killing heretics was a part of christian morality once upon a time are you suggesting the christians were right to do this? What about Galileo was locking him up for contradicting the bible an act of christian morality? Atheist morality is superior to religious morality that calls for stoning to death for adultery!

My response to that argument, is that 'killing heretics as a part of Christian morality', is that yes,
1/ it happened, and yes,
2/ it was done by men claiming to be Christians.

They were men using religion as a 'vehicle', to rule over and oppress other men.

But, such actions [oppression] could never be scripturally justified, to be legitimate Christian doctrine.



"The Problem of Evil"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/93#93

Quote:

Further, regards organised religion; If you believe that the Book of Revelation, is the "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," then in that book.... Jesus said... "...thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." Revelation 2:6 Revelation 2:15 Nicolaitans??? What does that word, Nicolaitans, refer to ? 'Nicolaitan', refers to those who [Nico] 'rule over' or 'conquer', and [the laity] 'the people'. Jesus in Revelation, and, in the Gospels, said that he hated those hypocrites, who use the authority of 'religion' [turning religion into a 'beastly', false, worldly 'spirituality'], so as to rule over men. Almost every religion of man does this. Some religions [more than others] going to extreme lengths, to exert their authority over their adherents/devotees.

Regards those harsh OT laws, those OT laws [and their punishments] applied to a covenant people.

A people who themselves, entered into a covenant with their God.

"...And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do...."
Exodus 19:5-8




explored further here....

"more muslim daily madness"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1238715411/458#458


"The Problem of Evil"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/89#89


"The Problem of Evil"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/108#108

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 11:11pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2011 at 6:14pm: God is a verb, not a noun. I god You god he/she gods we god you god they god

You have to göd him, don't you?  :D

I think I understand what Soren is getting at though.

muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2011 at 8:58am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 17th, 2011 at 11:11pm: Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2011 at 6:14pm: God is a verb, not a noun. I god You god he/she gods we god you god they god You have to göd him, don't you?  :D

;D


muso wrote on Jul 26^th, 2011 at 8:58am:

I think I understand what Soren is getting at though.

Yeah, but I guess (notwithstanding that I'm an atheist), I agree with Meister Eckhart's notion that any attempt to define 'god' (whatever he/she/it is) is pointless as he/she/it is indefinable because 'he has none of the characteristics of finite existence'... i.e. "god is not good, for I am more good than 'he' " ... "God is not wise, for I am wiser than 'he' ".

These apparent contradictions (or at the very least departures from orthodox Christian thought) does not mean Eckhart was an atheist (or does it!), but that any attempt to define god will necessarily fail to define god.

So it is written that only the religious (esp. Christian God fearers) can have any innate feeling of what "God is".
Most athiests recommend that any exisiting interventionist God will probably be beyond human understanding/logic. ie: God is beyond our understanding, so we'd do just as well, or maybe even better, to imagine that God doesn't exist as an external controller.

Unfortunately, athiests haven't the advantage of "God's word" which was believed to be true thousands of years prior, but hardly ever since the word of science took over as being a "practical truth" that all humans regardless of sex, race, religion or creed could have faith in. And surprise, surprise, it works better than a million prayers to the ancient belief system.

Obviously, religious doctrines fell ass over tit by stating that this is the "ultimate truth".
Those people may have been pretty wise for their time, but history shows that the writers of scriptures knew not God's truth to any great extent...they were but mere mortals.
I say, thanks for the scriptures, they were/are great pieces of writings.
But they ain't God.

i

Amadd wrote on Aug 1^st, 2011 at 8:38am:

So it is written that only the religious (esp. Christian God fearers) can have any innate feeling of what "God is". Most athiests recommend that any exisiting interventionist God will probably be beyond human understanding/logic. ie: God is beyond our understanding, so we'd do just as well, or maybe even better, to imagine that God doesn't exist as an external controller. Unfortunately, athiests haven't the advantage of "God's word" which was believed to be true thousands of years prior, but hardly ever since the word of science took over as being a "practical truth" that all humans regardless of sex, race, religion or creed could have faith in. And surprise, surprise, it works better than a million prayers to the ancient belief system. Obviously, religious doctrines fell ass over tit by stating that this is the "ultimate truth". Those people may have been pretty wise for their time, but history shows that the writers of scriptures knew not God's truth to any great extent...they were but mere mortals. I say, thanks for the scriptures, they were/are great pieces of writings. But they ain't God.

'The' problem, which man faces, is that there is something wrong, with the 'wisdom' of men [and women, if you will].

However wise, men, from time to time, believe that they are, eventually all men, if they are honest, will admit, that our 'wisdom' is 90% vanity.

Look at mankind, today, and look at what we have 'achieved'.

Technology and science today has advanced 'out of sight' of where our technological knowledge was, even 100 years ago, even 50 years ago.

Yet, with all of our claimed 'wisdom', we have never even approached overcoming the 'human condition'.





About God....

In my experience, God is real.
And i believe that the group of documents we have come to call 'the Bible', was inspired by God.

Reading the bible, i believe, has 'changed my mind', in every sense of that expression!
And imo, reading the Bible, is a form of spiritual invocation.
IMO, the words and thoughts expressed within the Bible, express [to me] the mind of our God.
Reading those words and thoughts, exposes me to the spirit, which i want to be influenced by.
i.e.
The spirit of God!
It is that simple.

But i know that that, is difficult to comprehend.

If you want to know God, read and study the Bible.

Q.
What is in the Bible ???

Q.
What does the Bible contain ???

A.
The Bible contains ideas and concepts [about truth and justice and righteousness],
.....which men [and women] should seek to learn, and become familiar with!




Can any man know God ???

God, is a spirit.

Can any man know, or comprehend, a spirit ?

And what is, 'a spirit' ???

I would only be guessing.

But you should search for him, yourself.

Amadd wrote on Aug 1^st, 2011 at 8:38am:

So it is written that only the religious (esp. Christian God fearers) can have any innate feeling of what "God is". Most athiests recommend that any exisiting interventionist God will probably be beyond human understanding/logic. ie: God is beyond our understanding, so we'd do just as well, or maybe even better, to imagine that God doesn't exist as an external controller. Unfortunately, athiests haven't the advantage of "God's word" which was believed to be true thousands of years prior, but hardly ever since the word of science took over as being a "practical truth" that all humans regardless of sex, race, religion or creed could have faith in. And surprise, surprise, it works better than a million prayers to the ancient belief system. Obviously, religious doctrines fell ass over tit by stating that this is the "ultimate truth". Those people may have been pretty wise for their time, but history shows that the writers of scriptures knew not God's truth to any great extent...they were but mere mortals. I say, thanks for the scriptures, they were/are great pieces of writings. But they ain't God.

Could it be that some people experience exactly the same feelings, but just don't call it god?


Quote:

Tao literally means "way", but can also be interpreted as road, channel, path, doctrine, or line. Wing-tsit Chan stated that Tao meant a system of morality to Confucianists, but that it meant the natural, eternal, spontaneous, indescribable way things began and pursued their course to Taoists. Hansen disagrees that these were separate meanings and attributes. Cane asserts Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order, equating it with the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered. Martinson says that Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao. The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, is often compared to the universal order of Tao. Tao is compared to what it is not, which according to Keller is similar to the negative theology of Western scholars. It is often considered to be the source of both existence and non-existence. LaFargue asserts that Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma.

Yadda wrote on Aug 1^st, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Can any man know God ??? God, is a spirit. Can any man know, or comprehend, a spirit ? And what is, 'a spirit' ??? I would only be guessing. But you should search for him, yourself.

Adding some Eastern wisdom to your Christian wisdom:


Quote:

The Way that can be described is not the true Way. The Name that can be named is not the constant Name.

A Jewish businessman sent his son to Israel for a year to absorb the culture. When the son returned, he said, "Papa, I had a great time in Israel . By the way, I converted to Christianity."
"Oy vey," said the father. "What have I done?" He took his problem to his best friend, Irving.
"Irving," he said, "I sent my son to Israel, and he came home a Christian. What can I do?"
"Funny you should ask," said Irving . "I, too, sent my son to Israel, and he also came home a Christian. Perhaps we should go see the rabbi."
So they did, and they explained their problem to the rabbi. "Funny you should ask," said the rabbi. "I, too, sent my son to Israel, and he also came home a Christian. What is happening to our young people?"
And so they all prayed, telling the Lord about their sons. As they finished their prayer, a voice came from the Heavens: "Funny you should ask," said the Voice. "I, too, sent my Son to Israel ...."

:)   @  Soren.

muso wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2011 at 10:27am:

Amadd wrote on Aug 1st, 2011 at 8:38am: So it is written that only the religious (esp. Christian God fearers) can have any innate feeling of what "God is". Most athiests recommend that any exisiting interventionist God will probably be beyond human understanding/logic. ie: God is beyond our understanding, so we'd do just as well, or maybe even better, to imagine that God doesn't exist as an external controller. Unfortunately, athiests haven't the advantage of "God's word" which was believed to be true thousands of years prior, but hardly ever since the word of science took over as being a "practical truth" that all humans regardless of sex, race, religion or creed could have faith in. And surprise, surprise, it works better than a million prayers to the ancient belief system. Obviously, religious doctrines fell ass over tit by stating that this is the "ultimate truth". Those people may have been pretty wise for their time, but history shows that the writers of scriptures knew not God's truth to any great extent...they were but mere mortals. I say, thanks for the scriptures, they were/are great pieces of writings. But they ain't God. Could it be that some people experience exactly the same feelings, but just don't call it god? Quote: Tao literally means "way", but can also be interpreted as road, channel, path, doctrine, or line. Wing-tsit Chan stated that Tao meant a system of morality to Confucianists, but that it meant the natural, eternal, spontaneous, indescribable way things began and pursued their course to Taoists. Hansen disagrees that these were separate meanings and attributes. Cane asserts Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order, equating it with the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered. Martinson says that Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao. The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, is often compared to the universal order of Tao. Tao is compared to what it is not, which according to Keller is similar to the negative theology of Western scholars. It is often considered to be the source of both existence and non-existence. LaFargue asserts that Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma. Yadda wrote on Aug 1st, 2011 at 2:05pm: Can any man know God ??? God, is a spirit. Can any man know, or comprehend, a spirit ? And what is, 'a spirit' ??? I would only be guessing. But you should search for him, yourself. Adding some Eastern wisdom to your Christian wisdom: [quote]The Way that can be described is not the true Way. The Name that can be named is not the constant Name.

[/quote]

Well, I'm thinking that if any man cannot really know God, then wtf are we on about?
Wtf is this religion thingo when no man/woman can really know God?

Yadda says that God is a spirit.

The spirit of man?
Well, I think that's what religions (in general) attempt to encapsulate. But do they really?

Have they encapsualated your spirit? If not, then that God is probably false to you.

The door to dictatorship is left wide open.

Amadd wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 6:15am:

Well, I'm thinking that if any man cannot really know God, then - Wtf is this religion thingo when no man/woman can really know God?

Ah the deep questions -

- What is the meaning of life?
- Why are we here?
- What the hell is this? Life? I didn't order any of that!
- wtf are we on about?

Hallelujah brother  ;D

muso wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

Ah the deep questions - - What is the meaning of life? - Why are we here? - What the hell is this? Life? I didn't order any of that! - wtf are we on about? Hallelujah brother  ;D

I remember a saying, that;

"Life, is a search for meaning."

But, are we willing to undertake that search ???

Or will this world distract us ???


+++


Of the days of men's lives, here in this life, the Preacher says...

Ecclesiastes 3:10
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11  He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
12  I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.



What is this life about ???

Search it out....
....OR,
don't.

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.




Alternatively, you can do what the majority of mankind do, here....
....[try to] sate their desires.

The way of man.....

"If it feels good,  ...do it!"


James 4:4
.....know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.



It is easy to be seduced by the world.

It is, 'The easiest thing in the world.' !!

But that is not our purpose here.

Psalms 1:1
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.




Jesus said that we should;

"....seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;"

God, is NOT a 'killjoy'.

BUT, he [God] does insist that we [try to] act righteously, in all of the things which we do here.

See.... Romans 7:14-23





Throughout the bible, you see expressed, that God loves those who 'fear him'....

e.g.
Psalms 147:1
The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

Psalms 85:9
Surely his salvation is nigh them that fear him; that glory may dwell in our land.

Psalms 103:13
Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.


Those who 'fear' God ???

What does that mean ???



The term to 'Fear God', to me means;

To love God, and, to [try to] be guided by, and to love, God's righteousness.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 27^th, 2011 at 6:17am:

muso wrote on Jul 26th, 2011 at 8:58am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 17th, 2011 at 11:11pm: Soren wrote on Jul 17th, 2011 at 6:14pm: God is a verb, not a noun. I god You god he/she gods we god you god they god You have to göd him, don't you?  :D ;D muso wrote on Jul 26th, 2011 at 8:58am: I think I understand what Soren is getting at though. Yeah, but I guess (notwithstanding that I'm an atheist), I agree with Meister Eckhart's notion that any attempt to define 'god' (whatever he/she/it is) is pointless as he/she/it is indefinable because 'he has none of the characteristics of finite existence'... i.e. "god is not good, for I am more good than 'he' " ... "God is not wise, for I am wiser than 'he' ". These apparent contradictions (or at the very least departures from orthodox Christian thought) does not mean Eckhart was an atheist (or does it!), but that any attempt to define god will necessarily fail to define god.

"I am that I am." OT. The Law.

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." NT. God is Love, Agape, Charity, "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him", all that. I don't think this is particularly hard to understand. Very hard to live it but what's the point of setting low standards if you are god?
If fact, being hard to live up to it shows that it is not merely a worldy 'construct", this "love one another" commandment and standard and light. It's not something simply performative (like all of Islam's commandments, for example) but something you have to have in your heart.

The Church, the ecclesiastic stuff - that's an altogether worldly thing, the unfolding of how the profane, the worldy comes up short of the covenant, the law that is written in the heart, if you like.

Quote:

"He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him"

Well if that is a quote from the bible, and if god inspired/directed those words, then god must be a stoner, because he speaks jibberish.

Mozz, this remark of yours reveals the worst kind of narrow-minded parochialism - if it's not readily fathomable within the narrow horizons of the last 40 years then it's not worth stopping for. The compulsive forgetter's dreadful attitude.

muso wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

Amadd wrote on Aug 5th, 2011 at 6:15am: Well, I'm thinking that if any man cannot really know God, then - Wtf is this religion thingo when no man/woman can really know God? Ah the deep questions - - What is the meaning of life? - Why are we here? - What the hell is this? Life? I didn't order any of that! - wtf are we on about? Hallelujah brother  ;D

A reading from the Gospel of St David of Byrne.

1.      You may findeth thyself living in a shotgun shack

2. You may findeth thyself in another part of the world

3. You may findeth thyself behind the wheel of a large automobile

4. You may findeth thyself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful
wife

5. And you may asketh thyself-Well...How did I get here?

6. And you may asketh thyself, How do I work this?

7. And you may asketh thyself, Where is that large automobile?

8. And you may asketh thyself, This is not my beautiful house!

9. And you may telleth thyself, This is not my beautiful wife!

10. And you may asketh thyself, What is that beautiful house?

11. And you may asketh thyself, Where doth that highway leadeth?

12, And you may asketh thyself, Am I right?...Am I wrong?

13. And you may telleth  thyself, My God! What have I done?

14. For thou hast let the days go by and thou hast let the water holdeth thou down

15. Thou hast let the days go by with water flowing underground

16. Foundeth thyself in the blue again, in the silent water

17. Under the rocks and stones there is water underground.

;D Now I see the light!

It's all about wearing a big suit.

Same as it ever was,

Same as it ever was.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

Quote: "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him" Well if that is a quote from the bible, and if god inspired/directed those words, then god must be a stoner, because he speaks jibberish.

Or .. it could be that YOU simply failed to understand these words and/or the context within which they were written.  

Soren wrote on Aug 5^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

Mozz, this remark of yours reveals the worst kind of narrow-minded parochialism - if it's not readily fathomable within the narrow horizons of the last 40 years then it's not worth stopping for. The compulsive forgetter's dreadful attitude.

Ahhh .. well said my learned friend!

Ambiguity can sometimes be a very concise teacher, can it not?  ;D

Amadd wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:13am:

Ambiguity can sometimes be a very concise teacher, can it not?  ;D

Should this thread be about the quest for the meaning of god... Or the god of meaning? Or is that, the god in meaning... Or the meaning in god...
:D

I think we know who the Gods of meaning are  ::)

Amadd wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:20am:

I think we know who the Gods of meaning are  ::)

Meaning?

Meaning that the gods of interpretation (religions) are amazingly able to decifer the true meaning from biblical texts where most mere mortals cannot.
Is it they who are in fact our god?

Amadd wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:42am:

Meaning that the gods of interpretation (religions) are amazingly able to decifer the true meaning from biblical texts where most mere mortals cannot. Is it they who are in fact our god?

I see what you mean.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:15am:

Amadd wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 12:13am: Ambiguity can sometimes be a very concise teacher, can it not?  ;D Should this thread be about the quest for the meaning of god... Or the god of meaning? Or is that, the god in meaning... Or the meaning in god... :D

As the Buddha said, "Don't ask"
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Stories/Conditioning/Buddha_explaining_existence_of_God.htm


Quote:

Don't ask, there is no need to ask. It is not a question which can be answered. It is not an inquiry but a quest, a thirst. Be silent and know.

If it is true that the word "God" can be interchangable with the word
"Meaning", then the obvious sequitor reasoning would be to state it as it is, and not as the fairies dictate.

Religiousness away at your whim, but it ain't ever gonna get control over the true reality.

Amadd wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 11:05pm:

If it is true that the word "God" can be interchangable with the word "Meaning", then the obvious sequitor reasoning would be to state it as it is, and not as the fairies dictate. Religiousness away at your whim, but it ain't ever gonna get control over the true reality.

"True reality" is not any better understood or less controversial than "God".

Amadd wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:42am:

Meaning that the gods of interpretation (religions) are amazingly able to decifer the true meaning from biblical texts where most mere mortals cannot. Is it they who are in fact our god?

Think of a Bible in the same way as a crystal ball, or like shapes in the clouds . In a way, that seems to be the way it's used by the faithful. You see what you want to see, and if you "see" it, the message will be reinforced for next time. The next time you will see it clearer.  

Pareidolia.  (if you don't know it, Google it)

I have a device for seeing God.  It's made of plate glass, and it's coated with aluminium on the back. To see God, you look into it.

God is that which Groks

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Amadd wrote on Aug 14th, 2011 at 12:42am: Meaning that the gods of interpretation (religions) are amazingly able to decifer the true meaning from biblical texts where most mere mortals cannot. Is it they who are in fact our god? Think of a Bible in the same way as a crystal ball, or like shapes in the clouds . In a way, that seems to be the way it's used by the faithful. You see what you want to see, and if you "see" it, the message will be reinforced for next time. The next time you will see it clearer.

Reading the bible, can be a meditation.

That is the effect it sometimes has on me,   .....even hours or days later!

And its stories do excite my imagination, it is true.

But is that a bad thing ?



muso,

Haven't almost all of mankind's very greatest inventive [technological] breakthroughs come through those people with 'excited imaginations' ?     ;)

IMO, it would be such a small and dull existence, if none of us were able to escape this world, and travel to those 'places' where our imagination is able to take us.   ;)

Why is it 'wrong' to see what others 'cannot' see, and/or what others refuse to see ?

Luke 17:5      ;)








muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Pareidolia.  (if you don't know it, Google it) I have a device for seeing God.  It's made of plate glass, and it's coated with aluminium on the back. To see God, you look into it.

LOL

I didn't believe that you were that conceited muso.

muso wrote on Oct 1^st, 2011 at 8:36pm:

I have a device for seeing God.  It's made of plate glass, and it's coated with aluminium on the back. To see God, you look into it.

A plate of glass with a bit of Al foil on the back?

Sheeit, God must look like a friggin Picasso to you. ;D

http://www.paintinghere.com/artistPic/Pablo%20Picasso.jpg

Yadda wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2011 at 4:58am:

LOL I didn't believe that you were that conceited muso.

Note that I said "you" look into it. If I'd said "I" look into it, that would be conceited.  Besides, you don't have to take my word for it. Wise men have been saying it for years.  

- and unscrupulous men have been distorting or obscuring the message for years for various reason - mainly for control purposes.  


Quote:

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.

Luke:17:20-21
See also: Matthew:12:14; Mark:3:6


The Kingdom of God is within you. (Leon Tolstoy)


Quote:

The truth lies within each of us, not in the stars, nor in tradition, or in religious books, or in the opinions of the masses. Each of us has within, however hidden, the true principles of thinking and acting. In the end, therefore, no one can teach anyone else the truth about life. If that truth were not within you, you would never find it; but it is within you, and only relentless critical self-examination will reveal it to you.

Socrates



Quote:

The treasure of truth lies within the house of the mind

Buddha

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 10:19am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 2nd, 2011 at 4:58am: LOL I didn't believe that you were that conceited muso. Note that I said "you" look into it. If I'd said "I" look into it, that would be conceited.  Besides, you don't have to take my word for it. Wise men have been saying it for years.   - and unscrupulous men have been distorting or obscuring the message for years for various reason - mainly for control purposes.

You appeared to be speaking of yourself muso....


Quote:

"I have a device for seeing God.....To see God, you look into it."

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 10:19am:

Quote: Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you. Luke:17:20-21 See also: Matthew:12:14; Mark:3:6 The Kingdom of God is within you. (Leon Tolstoy) [quote]The truth lies within each of us, not in the stars, nor in tradition, or in religious books, or in the opinions of the masses. Each of us has within, however hidden, the true principles of thinking and acting. In the end, therefore, no one can teach anyone else the truth about life. If that truth were not within you, you would never find it; but it is within you, and only relentless critical self-examination will reveal it to you.

Socrates



Quote:

The treasure of truth lies within the house of the mind

Buddha[/quote]


Yes, its all good muso.

I particularly liked the Socrates quote, which i was not familiar with.


But Matthew:12:14  ???

"Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him."


and Mark:3:6 ???

"And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him."




p.s.

Regards the Socrates quote;

Yet, we [mankind] seem to be happily distracted by the world [i.e. there is a common a lack of inner 'exploration'] ?

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.