gater
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Likes: 22
|
Post by gater on Aug 3, 2019 3:22:28 GMT
I was raised to believe in the traditional Christian God, but now im an atheist, so my idea of "God" has changed. Now my idea of "God" is the energy of the Sun that helped to created life on earth. We have Mother Earth - and "Father" Sun, and Man - this to me is the real trinity.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 9, 2019 0:11:51 GMT
Prometheus
Since intelligence, not just a passive consciousness, conquers nature, only intelligence is supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 9, 2019 0:23:59 GMT
PrometheusSince intelligence, not just a passive consciousness, conquers nature, only intelligence is supernatural. But what about our feelings? We feel warm, or cold, touch softly, or tender; there are plenty of ways how to feel. Why feeling doesn't important? Some feelings are not less complex, than intelligence, we know it since trying to format sight to digital, but we're poor with odor and tasty (an ability of smell, and an ability of taste). Computer can handle with many riddles, and they're able to unleash some tasks, but they still have no ability of feeling. Also, there's no way to avoid feeling in any of our inferences. If we would have done it, results would have been appeared empty; if there wouldn't have been no empiric facts* in our assumptions, we would have found ourselves constructing nothing, but something like lego. *empiric facts - any facts with no meaning that corresponds to anything outside these facts = analytic facts.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity Stooge on Aug 9, 2019 16:33:49 GMT
Elizabeth,
"A lesser being is more complex, and God becomes a god through a willful act of ignorance." Consider your own mind. Each thought in your mind excludes every other possible thought. The mechanism that accomplishes this is ignorance, and so it goes in the mind of God that the thought that "I am Elizabeth" ignores that I am Trinity Stooge, and that I am the horse he rode in on, and that I am everything else that Elizabeth is not. You can think any thought that you wish to think, but it means you have to ignore all the rest, and if it's not Elizabeth who ignores your thoughts, then who does? God's ignorance is Lucifer, and in the beginning, when God creates the Heavens and the Earth, His ignorance submits to His will. (Gen. 1:2,3) The Spirit of Truth is Doubt, but the Spirit of Error is Hubris, and your question has led me to revise the order of the following lines: That I am, is Logos, and God. What i am not, is Agnosis, and Lucifer. \ --- Image of Satan ===> Corrupted Man What i am, is Gnosis, and Adam. / --- Image of God That I am not, is Mythos, and Satan. recalling that "what I am not" separates God from Man. Consider the question "Am I, or am I not?" There are two possible answers, and each is the root of a logical tree. "I am" is the root of the Tree of Life, and "I am not" is the root of the Tree of Death. God warns Adam against eating the fruit of the latter because, on the day that he does, he will surely die. The world is the mirror and it reflects the image of the one who looks in it. The corrupted Man has knowledge of both trees, as has God, and depending on how he views the world, his image is either of God, or of Satan. Thanks for pointing out my error. I appreciate any thought you can give to this argument, and even if you don't reply, it helps me in other ways.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity Stooge on Aug 9, 2019 16:45:37 GMT
xxxxxxxxx,
"Point, line and circle...anyone who knows me here is saying silently to themselves: "shut the fuck up eodnhoj"." eodnhoj, you speak in tounges. (1 Ti 3:16) "If I can't make you understand what I'm saying, then I don't understand it myself."
Some guy on the Internet
"If I can't explain it to a five year old, then I'm probably lying."
Some other guy on the Internet or maybe a radio The point of Being is infinite and eternal. Infinity is singular, as is the point. The line opposes the point because it falsely implies a second point. The line is not a series of points, it is the true point, expressed through an ignorance. The circle is the line divorced from the point. The truth is ∞ and embodies the point, line, and circle. Contrast this with the lie; the twisted, pointless, and generally fukdup nature of 0. If knowledge is ignorable, then ignorance must be knowable. So, how does omniscience know ignorance? I can never understand what you're talking about in your posts, eodnhoj, but I like to look at the pictures. Here's one for you. It's of a stylized passage through ignorance: . I i ¿ 0 ? ! I . .) In the Beginning. I) God creates the World and the Man in it. i) The Man turns from the truth to the lie and is separated from God. ¿) The Man wanders in a desert. 0) And eventually loses sight of God altogether. ?) But God will not forsake the Man and sends help to guide him, even the Spirit of Truth, who will be with him always. !) And will lead him to Apocalypse and Revelation. I) And God will receive the Prodigal Son with open arms. .) And then, the End will come. Just some food for thought, ynnhoj. There's plenty if you want to share, but we should all remember that it's rude to chew with our mouth open, or to talk with our mouth full. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 9, 2019 17:11:31 GMT
Elizabeth,
"A lesser being is more complex, and God becomes a god through a willful act of ignorance." Consider your own mind. Each thought in your mind excludes every other possible thought. The mechanism that accomplishes this is ignorance, and so it goes in the mind of God that the thought that "I am Elizabeth" ignores that I am Trinity Stooge, and that I am the horse he rode in on, and that I am everything else that Elizabeth is not. You can think any thought that you wish to think, but it means you have to ignore all the rest, and if it's not Elizabeth who ignores your thoughts, then who does? God's ignorance is Lucifer, and in the beginning, when God creates the Heavens and the Earth, His ignorance submits to His will. (Gen. 1:2,3) The Spirit of Truth is Doubt, but the Spirit of Error is Hubris, and your question has led me to revise the order of the following lines: That I am, is Logos, and God. What i am not, is Agnosis, and Lucifer. \ --- Image of Satan ===> Corrupted Man What i am, is Gnosis, and Adam. / --- Image of God That I am not, is Mythos, and Satan. recalling that "what I am not" separates God from Man. Consider the question "Am I, or am I not?" There are two possible answers, and each is the root of a logical tree. "I am" is the root of the Tree of Life, and "I am not" is the root of the Tree of Death. God warns Adam against eating the fruit of the latter because, on the day that he does, he will surely die. The world is the mirror and it reflects the image of the one who looks in it. The corrupted Man has knowledge of both trees, as has God, and depending on how he views the world, his image is either of God, or of Satan. Thanks for pointing out my error. I appreciate any thought you can give to this argument, and even if you don't reply, it helps me in other ways. If you want to mention a member of the community, put a sign '@' before their original name (a sign name). Be careful, an original name might not be correspond to their name as you see. Alternatively, you can use an icon with a sign '@' on the panel above the messenger's window to mention a member. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 9, 2019 18:30:02 GMT
PrometheusSince intelligence, not just a passive consciousness, conquers nature, only intelligence is supernatural. But what about our feelings? We feel warm, or cold, touch softly, or tender; there are plenty of ways how to feel. Why feeling doesn't important? Some feelings are not less complex, than intelligence, we know it since trying to format sight to digital, but we're poor with odor and tasty (an ability of smell, and an ability of taste). Computer can handle with many riddles, and they're able to unleash some tasks, but they still have no ability of feeling. Also, there's no way to avoid feeling in any of our inferences. If we would have done it, results would have been appeared empty; if there wouldn't have been no empiric facts* in our assumptions, we would have found ourselves constructing nothing, but something like lego. *empiric facts - any facts with no meaning that corresponds to anything outside these facts = analytic facts. Under Corporate Patents, Science Is for SuckersFeelings don't conquer nature, unless you include the feeling of pride that comes with problem-solving, which won't happen if some Low IQ with undeserved power over you gets more benefit from your intelligence than you do.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 9, 2019 19:47:31 GMT
But what about our feelings? We feel warm, or cold, touch softly, or tender; there are plenty of ways how to feel. Why feeling doesn't important? Some feelings are not less complex, than intelligence, we know it since trying to format sight to digital, but we're poor with odor and tasty (an ability of smell, and an ability of taste). Computer can handle with many riddles, and they're able to unleash some tasks, but they still have no ability of feeling. Also, there's no way to avoid feeling in any of our inferences. If we would have done it, results would have been appeared empty; if there wouldn't have been no empiric facts* in our assumptions, we would have found ourselves constructing nothing, but something like lego. *empiric facts - any facts with no meaning that corresponds to anything outside these facts = analytic facts. Under Corporate Patents, Science Is for SuckersFeelings don't conquer nature, unless you include the feeling of pride that comes with problem-solving, which won't happen if some Low IQ with undeserved power over you gets more benefit from your intelligence than you do. Yes, I agree with you on it (low iq causes lots of troubles), but meanwhile I don't think we are robots. If I would give up and stop to evolve myself, I would need some basics feelings. The pleasures of this world are so magnificent! Why should we stop tasting it?
|
|
gater
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Likes: 22
|
Post by gater on Nov 30, 2019 15:30:55 GMT
The truth is time and space are infinite - there was no beginning of time, and there is no end of space. The Universe has always been here. Matter has been condensing and exploding, creating new galaxies over and over - forever. We really don't know how rare life is, and we wont until we know more about other planets with life. We do know that all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. God is the concept that Man came up with to explain all of the things he couldn't understand, like Earthquakes, thunder and lightning, and his own existence.
|
|
Amergin
New Member
Posts: 13
Likes: 6
|
Post by Amergin on Jan 3, 2020 18:10:21 GMT
A god, to me, would have to be several orders of magnitude more powerful than the most powerful human. As for a definition of the Christian God; more or less as he's described in the bible. I was raised Christian so I had a vague idea of an all powerful father figure that created the universe and who judged us and awaited us after death. It was mostly a feeling that an idea was built upon.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 17, 2020 22:25:56 GMT
I had always reckoned that Truth is God.
Then I realized that Truth must entail consciousness, and thus a True universe must be inherently conscious.
Aware of the Jungian concept of archetypes, I contemplated an essential realization that Poseidon, Neptune, and Aegir were all the same archetype as Jesus, upon which the fellow Himself visited me.
So yeah, Deism, mysticism, and psychology eventually
all lead to the old Christian essence.
Which was very strange for me, because most of the Christians I have met in my life were not authentic, quite often a nasty bunch.
So the realization was the antithesis of my psychological experience of religion.
But that itself, makes the whole experience all the more effective in terms of communicating this Reality.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Mar 17, 2020 23:34:26 GMT
My spiritual view: The source of all goodness and all good things
My non-spiritual view: A very powerful, uber-intelligent, and unique entity
|
|
Siluk
Junior Member
Posts: 76
Likes: 47
Ethnicity: Turk
Country: Turkey
Ancestry: Yörük Turkmen
Politics: Kemalist
Religion: Atheist
Hero: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Age: Getting Old
Philosophy: Kemalism
|
Post by Siluk on Mar 19, 2020 7:36:24 GMT
The first action that lead to everything else happening; the action that determined everything.
|
|
ajay0
Full Member
Posts: 162
Likes: 79
|
Post by ajay0 on Mar 20, 2020 9:44:46 GMT
Here is the Hindu perspective on the nature of God...
As per the ancient Rig Veda of Hinduism, Prajnanam Brahma. -- "Brahman is pure consciousness." (Aitareya Upanishad 3.1.3) Brahman is pure consciousness as the Vedas point out. Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman or soul in bondage due to karmic impurities. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises, loving service and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness. All the religious practices are designed to help the soul regain its original state as pure consciousness. Paramahamsa Yogananda also states in this regard, "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."Here Spirit stands for (impersonal) Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman (personal).
Nirguna Brahman being impersonal, does not confer grace upon the worshipper and this is why there is no temples for Nirguna Brahman in India while all temples are dedicated to Saguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman, being a personalised form of Brahman, confers grace on the worshipper.
In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalinga as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation. In ancient India ,the Shiva Lingam only was worshipped as Saguna Brahman in Hindu temples, and idol worship started later on emulating anthropomorphic Jain and Buddhist idols in their temples. The Shivalingam is considered as the greatest personification of Saguna Brahman, and was worshipped by the likes of the Avatars Parashurama, Rama and Krishna themselves. An oval shaped stone is worshipped as a symbol of God or Shivalingam in Shaivite temples. The Vedas and Shaivite scriptures consider the Shivalingam to a be a cosmic pillar or point of light. Another name for the Shivalingam is Jyotirlingam with 'Jyoti' meaning light. I had created a thread discussing the correlation between God and light in various world religions.... arktos.boards.net/thread/4358/correlation-light-major-world-religions The Prajapita Brahmakumaris is a monotheistic Dharmic sect which worships God Shiva as an incorporeal point of light and consider Him the same as Jehovah, Allah and Ahura Mazda of the other monotheistic religions.
|
|