This thread does not question the existence of God's... rather it assumes that they exist and then asks which god or gods is/are the best god/s to follow.

Why opt to follow Jehovah for example, when Aphrodite seems a much more enticing option, or, why follow the impossibly moral, do gooder Jesus when Dionysus... the god of wine, parties and artistic merit sounds altogether and positively engaging?

Infact the Jehovah/ Jesus partnership is sooo restrictive and boring a way of life, that I'm not sure why anyone would choose such gods to believe... too stoic by halves.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with Christian culture... which compared to other religious cultures is quite free and delightfully amoral... But then, it must be understood that being a part of the christian culture is not the same thing as following Jesus.

And this thread is not about the cultures born of belief in god, but rather following the teachings of a god.

So which god is the right god for you to follow and why?

Completely the wrong question.

Dear Sappho,
Your question has already been answered by master Light on another thread today:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365731795/90#90




Quote:

lighted one, many energies and paradigms are separated by language yet the same object remains regardless of any interpretation it is so the search for your creator ends within you do not have to go anywhere exterior for this awareness to be self realized till then, keep guessing freewill, namaste - : )

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

Completely the wrong question.

Completely lacking any justification.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

Dear Sappho, Your question has already been answered by master Light on another thread today: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365731795/90#90 Quote: lighted one, many energies and paradigms are separated by language yet the same object remains regardless of any interpretation it is so the search for your creator ends within you do not have to go anywhere exterior for this awareness to be self realized till then, keep guessing freewill, namaste - : )

Well that is one answer amongst a myriad of potential answers.

If you already think that there are loads of answers then you are not standing on the fixed point from which the correct answer can be decided.

In other words, your question already frames the issue in a way that there cannot be a definitive, authoritative, universally accepted answer.

This is why it is the wrong question.

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:

If you already think that there are loads of answers then you are not standing on the fixed point from which the correct answer can be decided. In other words, your question already frames the issue in a way that there cannot be a definitive, authoritative, universally accepted answer. This is why it is the wrong question.

'Fixed points' which generate 'correctness'... what reality do you live in Soren?

How does one measure a 'fixed point' when all reality is in flux? And what is 'correctness' when all wisdom, knowledge, facts and data are derived from humanity and not some kind of objective other that exists beyond human experience? 

What is actually wrong with exploring options without the necessity of 'a definitive, authoritative, universally accepted answer.' Surely it would get us closer to understanding why the great many prefer Jesus to Baccus... which is the intent of this thread.

There is no truth Soren which is why this thread does not seek to find it.

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

This thread does not question the existence of God's... rather it assumes that they exist and then asks which god or gods is/are the best god/s to follow. Why opt to follow Jehovah for example, when Aphrodite seems a much more enticing option, or, why follow the impossibly moral, do gooder Jesus when Dionysus... the god of wine, parties and artistic merit sounds altogether and positively engaging? Infact the Jehovah/ Jesus partnership is sooo restrictive and boring a way of life, that I'm not sure why anyone would choose such gods to believe... too stoic by halves. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with Christian culture... which compared to other religious cultures is quite free and delightfully amoral... But then, it must be understood that being a part of the christian culture is not the same thing as following Jesus. And this thread is not about the cultures born of belief in god, but rather following the teachings of a god. So which god is the right god for you to follow and why?

That is easy to answer Sappho.        ;)

I desire, and wish to follow a God, that has determined that 2 + 2 = 4

i.e.
The Jehovah/ Jesus partnership, for me, determines that  2 + 2 = 4,
....AND [...here is the important bit!!!!] I WANT  2 + 2 TO EQUAL 4






I don't want to follow a philosophy [of life] which 'promises' that  2 + 2 could, under the most favourable circumstances = 18,665,555

<----- I could never believe such a 'promise'.




So, you see, the choice for me, is simple.       ;)








The mandatory quote from scripture....         ;)

"Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial:...."




And i promise you Sappho, that that quote from scripture, is very, very, relevant to the topic being discussed.

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:41pm: If you already think that there are loads of answers then you are not standing on the fixed point from which the correct answer can be decided. In other words, your question already frames the issue in a way that there cannot be a definitive, authoritative, universally accepted answer. This is why it is the wrong question. 'Fixed points' which generate 'correctness'... what reality do you live in Soren? How does one measure a 'fixed point' when all reality is in flux? And what is 'correctness' when all wisdom, knowledge, facts and data are derived from humanity and not some kind of objective other that exists beyond human experience?  What is actually wrong with exploring options without the necessity of 'a definitive, authoritative, universally accepted answer.' Surely it would get us closer to understanding why the great many prefer Jesus to Baccus... which is the intent of this thread. There is no truth Soren which is why this thread does not seek to find it.

The way you frame the question betrays your bias. But that bias is unquestioned by you (becasue you do not realise the bias in your opening gambit). Hence my question about the fixed point (the unquestioned stance) out of which you speak and pose the unexamined question.

Yadda wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:12pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:24pm: This thread does not question the existence of God's... rather it assumes that they exist and then asks which god or gods is/are the best god/s to follow. Why opt to follow Jehovah for example, when Aphrodite seems a much more enticing option, or, why follow the impossibly moral, do gooder Jesus when Dionysus... the god of wine, parties and artistic merit sounds altogether and positively engaging? Infact the Jehovah/ Jesus partnership is sooo restrictive and boring a way of life, that I'm not sure why anyone would choose such gods to believe... too stoic by halves. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with Christian culture... which compared to other religious cultures is quite free and delightfully amoral... But then, it must be understood that being a part of the christian culture is not the same thing as following Jesus. And this thread is not about the cultures born of belief in god, but rather following the teachings of a god. So which god is the right god for you to follow and why? That is easy to answer Sappho.        ;) I desire, and wish to follow a God, that has determined that 2 + 2 = 4 i.e. The Jehovah/ Jesus partnership, for me, determines that  2 + 2 = 4, ....AND [...here is the important bit!!!!] I WANT  2 + 2 TO EQUAL 4 I don't want to follow a philosophy [of life] which 'promises' that  2 + 2 could, under the most favourable circumstances = 18,665,555 <----- I could never believe such a 'promise'. So, you see, the choice for me, is simple.       ;)

That 2+2=4 is a human construct invented by humans, for humans. Proving that however has been a nightmare for the likes of Euclid, Godel and many others engaged in logical positivism.

Jehovah's knowledge has more to do with creating something from nothing... or in terms you appreciate... 0+0=4

So you've explained nothing that affords me an understanding of your preference for the Jehovah/ Jesus partnership.


Quote:

The mandatory quote from scripture....         ;) "Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial:...." And i promise you Sappho, that that quote from scripture, is very, very, relevant to the topic being discussed.

That quote is a reference to mistaken judgement... assuming the handmaid is wicked for being drunk, rather than righteous for having a whinge to Jehovah.

But what makes the drink evil is a matter of opinion within the heavens.... prophets and teachers of Jehovah say drink is bad and Bacchus says it's good!

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:27pm: Dear Sappho, Your question has already been answered by master Light on another thread today: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365731795/90#90 Quote: lighted one, many energies and paradigms are separated by language yet the same object remains regardless of any interpretation it is so the search for your creator ends within you do not have to go anywhere exterior for this awareness to be self realized till then, keep guessing freewill, namaste - : ) Well that is one answer amongst a myriad of potential answers.

Dear Sappho,

the search for your creator ends within

and so it is

according to the divine plan

set in stone by none other than Ozpolitic's master of spirituality - master Light

your search is over

namaste

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

The way you frame the question betrays your bias. But that bias is unquestioned by you (becasue you do not realise the bias in your opening gambit). Hence my question about the fixed point (the unquestioned stance) out of which you speak and pose the unexamined question.

My opening post betrays a bias, which I do not question, because I cannot see it. Yet you are at pains to avoid making this bias of mine explicit! You talk over, under and around it... but will not talk to it directly. Is that because you cannot see it either?

The Stoics are interesting.
Two reasons:
1. All phenomena is conceived in accordance with a rational and/or divine principle.
2. Life is seen as fated.

A re-emergence of both ideas would be interesting. Currently, liberal theory makes us out to all be atoms embodied with free will. Stoicism would see see us as fated to be where we are, who we are, and what we will do. If we conceive ourselves as fated, then existential angst (should) wither away. Liberal theory makes us all completely responsible, thus we become riddled with guilt when the wrong choice is made.

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 9:12pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 8:24pm: This thread does not question the existence of God's... rather it assumes that they exist and then asks which god or gods is/are the best god/s to follow. Why opt to follow Jehovah for example, when Aphrodite seems a much more enticing option, or, why follow the impossibly moral, do gooder Jesus when Dionysus... the god of wine, parties and artistic merit sounds altogether and positively engaging? Infact the Jehovah/ Jesus partnership is sooo restrictive and boring a way of life, that I'm not sure why anyone would choose such gods to believe... too stoic by halves. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with Christian culture... which compared to other religious cultures is quite free and delightfully amoral... But then, it must be understood that being a part of the christian culture is not the same thing as following Jesus. And this thread is not about the cultures born of belief in god, but rather following the teachings of a god. So which god is the right god for you to follow and why? That is easy to answer Sappho.        ;) I desire, and wish to follow a God, that has determined that 2 + 2 = 4 i.e. The Jehovah/ Jesus partnership, for me, determines that  2 + 2 = 4, ....AND [...here is the important bit!!!!] I WANT  2 + 2 TO EQUAL 4 I don't want to follow a philosophy [of life] which 'promises' that  2 + 2 could, under the most favourable circumstances = 18,665,555 <----- I could never believe such a 'promise'. So, you see, the choice for me, is simple.       ;) That 2+2=4 is a human construct invented by humans, for humans. Proving that however has been a nightmare for the likes of Euclid, Godel and many others engaged in logical positivism. Jehovah's knowledge has more to do with creating something from nothing... or in terms you appreciate... 0+0=4 So you've explained nothing that affords me an understanding of your preference for the Jehovah/ Jesus partnership.

Sappho,

It very well could be that 2+2=4 is a human construct invented by humans [i would not know that].

But what i'm saying is that, as a human being, living in the 21st cent., i 'perceive' that 2+2=4

That is, i don't find that 'structure' to be something which i would want to argue about.



#2,
Regards Jehovah being able to produce 0+0=4, it could be, perhaps a viable equation.      ;)

i.e.
I don't know anything about God - I know very little about the God that i believe in.

But, i believe, that the God that i believe in, wants me to believe that 2+2=4

And i do.

I didn't always.

But i've come to that place where, yes, i can believe that 2+2=4





So, why do i believe, that the God that i believe in, wants me to believe that 2+2=4 ???

Well, i study and read the bible, and, i have read the book of Proverbs, and after reading the book of Proverbs [and the other books of the bible], it just 'jumps out at me', that my God, the one that i believe in, wants me to believe that 2+2=4.

And as a happy coincidence, i can believe, that 2+2=4.i
Two scriptures which are totally in accord with 2+2=4, and the contents of book of Proverbs [imo]....


Isaiah 59:1
Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2  But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
3  For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.
4  None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 9:12pm: The mandatory quote from scripture....         ;) "Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial:...." And i promise you Sappho, that that quote from scripture, is very, very, relevant to the topic being discussed. That quote is a reference to mistaken judgement... assuming the handmaid is wicked for being drunk, rather than righteous for having a whinge to Jehovah. But what makes the drink evil is a matter of opinion within the heavens.... prophets and teachers of Jehovah say drink is bad and Bacchus says it's good!

Sappho,

Drinking [alcohol], is not evil.

I do not believe it is evil.


[But drunkenness [excess] is counted as evil.

Ecclesiastes 10:17
Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

Q. Why so ?           A. It comes back to that 2 + 2 thing, i believe. ]





Speaking about the days which man spends here, in this life....

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.
13  And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.



But, the preacher also commends us;

Ecclesiastes 7:2
It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3  Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4  The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
5  It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.



And;

Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.i


"Sorrow is better than laughter:"

Sappho,

That, it is definitely a 'hard sell', in this world!!!         ;D         ;D         ;D




Men [and women] tend to go for the 'excess', which is where the problems begin, imo.

But hey, i could be mistaken.

One that looks cool...

http://media1.santabanta.com/full1/Hinduism/Lord%20Ganesha/lor34h.jpg

Re the Op. I find it strange that ppl can choose what to believe in. How do you believe something that you know isnt true? If you are able to do that you can make up your own god or "follow" santa clause.

SOB

I believe & have read that there is a spiritual side to everyone due to the construction
of the human brain -  placed there by the principle of Darwin's theory of evolution -
giving a survival advantage.

Organized religion uses this spirituality to encourage people to believe in "their" chosen God.
In other words they hijack a persons spirituality for their own purposes -
which usually also involves the transfer of money - a tithe - in most cases -
hence we have over 2,500 possible Gods & many wealthy religious churches.

A person who can be spiritual without need of a God is far more modern & correct in my opinion.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 10:18pm:

The Stoics are interesting. Two reasons: 1. All phenomena is conceived in accordance with a rational and/or divine principle. 2. Life is seen as fated. A re-emergence of both ideas would be interesting. Currently, liberal theory makes us out to all be atoms embodied with free will. Stoicism would see see us as fated to be where we are, who we are, and what we will do. If we conceive ourselves as fated, then existential angst (should) wither away. Liberal theory makes us all completely responsible, thus we become riddled with guilt when the wrong choice is made.

I think you are mixing things up.
Stocism was never a free pass from responsibility. It was about taking full responsibility not being sufficient.

BIG difference.

What you are talking about is fatalism - where responsibility is irrelevant.

Not sufficient and irrelevant - BIG difference.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 5:32am:

Re the Op. I find it strange that .... SOB

I find you strange.

SOB

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 12:23am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 5:32am: Re the Op. I find it strange that .... SOB I find you strange. SOB

Says you - the epitome of strange

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 5:08am:

Soren wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 12:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 5:32am: Re the Op. I find it strange that .... SOB I find you strange. SOB Says you - the epitome of strange SOB

Awww, you are disagreeing with me because I make sense.
Go away troll.

SOB

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 5:08am: Soren wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 12:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 5:32am: Re the Op. I find it strange that .... SOB I find you strange. SOB Says you - the epitome of strange SOB Awww, you are disagreeing with me because I make sense. Go away troll. SOB

Go away troll

SOB

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 12:20am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 25th, 2013 at 10:18pm: The Stoics are interesting. Two reasons: 1. All phenomena is conceived in accordance with a rational and/or divine principle. 2. Life is seen as fated. A re-emergence of both ideas would be interesting. Currently, liberal theory makes us out to all be atoms embodied with free will. Stoicism would see see us as fated to be where we are, who we are, and what we will do. If we conceive ourselves as fated, then existential angst (should) wither away. Liberal theory makes us all completely responsible, thus we become riddled with guilt when the wrong choice is made. I think you are mixing things up. Stocism was never a free pass from responsibility. It was about taking full responsibility not being sufficient. BIG difference. What you are talking about is fatalism - where responsibility is irrelevant. Not sufficient and irrelevant - BIG difference.

I think you have misunderstood what I was trying to say; although I was brief.
Stoicism does entail self-responsibility, yes; a self-disciplining of the emotions. Doing this is to act in accordance with the rational and/or divine will of nature. The decision a stoic makes, though, determines his fate. So responsibility and fate are two sides of the same coin, and are therefore not antagonistic.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 5:32am:

Re the Op. I find it strange that ppl can choose what to believe in. How do you believe something that you know isnt true? SOB

People deny truths all the time Spot and it has a name... Self Denial. So, for example, Anorexics refuse to believe the reality of their body so as to starve it further and it is self denial that allows them to do that.

As to Gods however, who is to say what is true or false, when there is a lack of evidence for either position? And if we cannot know in ourselves that Bacchus, for example is false, then does the question you ask actually apply to the scenario? 

Perhaps the better question would be... How can people believe in something that they know can't be proven true?

That however is a very big question which has implications not only for Theology but for Science and Mathematics also... since all three human endeavours rely on truths that can't be proven. 

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 7:02am:

A person who can be spiritual without need of a God is far more modern & correct in my opinion.

How is Jainism and Buddhism more modern and correct?