The God is Real Thread

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu

I hate labels. You keep using the word, Gnostic. So I googled it.

Word Origin and History for gnostic Expand
Gnostic
n.
1580s, "believer in a mystical religious doctrine of spiritual knowledge," from Late Latin Gnosticus, from Late Greek Gnostikos, noun use of adj. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "knowable," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know ). Applied to various early Christian sects that claimed direct personal knowledge beyond the Gospel or the Church hierarchy.

How is what you understand different from that? If you would… (in simplest terms)

Gnosticism is quite a bit more involved than that simplistic definition, and there really isn't a simplest terms explanation of the differences. In simple terms that restrict themselves to that definition, I don't have any direct knowledge of the divinity that was not gained from It.

I don't "just know".

Gnosticism describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world.

Gnosis (knowledge, enlightenment, salvation) may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.

In Gnosticism, the world of the demiurge is represented by the lower world, which is associated with matter, flesh, time and, more particularly, an imperfect, ephemeral world. The world of God is represented by the upper world and is associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable and timeless.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, He knows what you need, but He still says we are to ask.

A baby doesn't know what it "needs" It cries because the poop in its diapers burns, not because it "needs a diaper change". In the Avatar YouTube analogy, the "Marine" is ignorant of everything, "like a baby".

And why use the world view of the writer of that script to make your point? That writer has a world view and that is it. You people take movies way too seriously.

He said ask, so that means just sit there not thinking about what you need? A baby is vocal, even if the baby can't articulate what he needs. If you want to make your point about spirituality, use the primary sources, because AVATAR isn't a primary source, it was the imagination of the writer, that is all.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Oh but the Word of God is in the physical.

And God said "Let there be light and there was light" And God said "Let the earth bring forth...". Every tree, blade of grass, cow are here because the Word of God said so.

If the word of God said for the earth to bring forth, that means that nature is more real than you, because you have more empty space that those sold objects. Imagine that. So if you are less real than nature, but you come from the earth, but mankind, "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness". Mankind has the quality that nature itself doesn't have and that is life that exists in both the natural and supernatural.

YOU have supernatural life with great energy in YOU, and yet YOU didn't come by way of your own creation, you exist because you were designed to exist, supernaturally. The trees are more real than us. But the trees are physically here because the Word of God caused it to be.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I agree God is real but I don't agree that any religion has any idea of what God is or wants.
No man ever has and If they tell you they know they are liars.

The oldest practiced religion in the world is Jainism. One of the main concepts of Jainism is anēkāntavāda. It refers to the multiplicity of viewpoints, since POVs are like assholes. Anēkāntavāda is the notion that truth, reality and God are perceived differently from diverse points of view, no single one of which is complete. Therefore no one knows the truth.

Jains study the views and beliefs of other religions and philosophies, reminding themselves that any of these—even Jainism—that hold on to dogmatic beliefs is committing an error based on its limited point of view.

So you see, 4000 years ago in India they figured out the smartest way to approach God, or whatever you want to put into your notion of belief.

Unless you think jealously claiming monopoly on God and his words and preach divine favoritism for those who do not question it is the way to go.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

. . . change the locks.

"Free will" for that was taken away by the legal system in this state, and I had to get an injunction (which I now have).

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

. . . change the locks.

"Free will" for that was taken away by the legal system in this state, and I had to get an injunction (which I now have).

Well I am glad to hear everything is going better for you!

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I don't think a combination is necessarily in order, but making allowances definitely is. Whether you believe someone else's god is THE god or even A god is immaterial - it's not your god, so let them be, to worship as they see fit. It's THEIR life to live, and THEIR belief on the line, not yours, so what is the problem? Not "yours" as in you personally, but a generic "yours" of those protesting someone else's religion.

Tolerance of their ability to make their own decisions would be key, in my estimation. Debating the finer points of a religion are one thing, trying to lop off heads of people who believe differently than you would seem to me to be quite another.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nenothtu

It appears that our experiences of teachers have been somewhat different.

Right, you are taught by men.

Okay, I'll bite. WHICH men are teaching me? Give me a name, or even a religious denomination, and you may have a leg to stand on. otherwise, not so much. There are plenty of Christians here who will 'splain to you that I'm not one, and why, so which "man" is teaching me?

Which spirit? When the real one reveals itself you will know. You mistrust them all because thats what you have been taught.

I've been taught no such thing, and really have to wonder what you pulled that notion out of.

The Bible is the only source of Gods word, right? Or other peoples interpretation?

Source? No. Interpretation? That's on the interpreter. I see no reason to try to pile that onto God.

The key is to find how they found the wisdom to know what to write down.

I'd have to agree on that.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
reply to: Ignatian
Um I think you got the story wrong bud. Jesus is the son he didn't create anything. Remember Father, Son, Holy Spirit? And there are thousands of Christians spouting hate every day of the year. Some of the most judgemental people on the planet claim to be Christian. Open your eyes.

There are actually two statements there in opposition to one another. the first is a definitive statement that "there are thousands of Christians spouting hate every day of the year", and the second, which appears to be connected but in reality is not is "Some of the most judgmental people on the planet claim to be Christian".

See the difference there?

From my experience, native Buddhists are among the least judgmental people. Their American counterparts, nearly all of whom are converts, not so much.

maybe the problem is in nationality, rather than religion.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
It's silly to assign gender to a force. But they call boats and cars she so? May as well call gravity he or electricity she. Or atomic fusion him. reply to: nenothtu

Yes, it IS silly to assign gender to a force - which is why it is all the more mystifying that you insist on doing so while decrying the same tendency in others.

Must be that PC thing I mentioned.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

I really wouldn't trust anyone who claims to be able to delineate the difference. However, in my mind, spirit is a thing that bodies and souls create, like an energy aura. For example: The In the "spirit" of charity; You can feel the "spirit" of Michelangelo when you see his work at the Sistene Chapel; The Doobie Brother's concert brought back memories of the "spirit" of the '70s; His hostility created a "spirit" of intimidation.

Ok. I see now what you think of as "spirit", although it does seem to be rather changeable at a whim. Still, it might be something we can work with, or work around. It seems you define "spirit" as what other people call "feelings" or "emotion", but try to embody it with something more substantive as an "energy aura".

Now then, I presume that we both see "body" as the physical corporeal being of an individual - feel free to correct me if you see it differently - but what then is your concept of "soul"?

Said every member of TPTB EVER! Keep those Crayola colors INSIDE the lines!

Yeah. I'm still waiting on the check from TPTB for that one. I guess it's in the mail or something, but the mail is so damned SLOW out here! I probably should have had them send it via Paypal, huh?

So by coloring all over the page in wide and random scrawls, how do you tell the difference between "having a dream, watching a movie, or reading a book and having a real live experience" per your original postulate? Or do you differentiate between them at all? It's entirely possible that you believe it's ALL an illusion, all a mere hallucination, and that there are no real experiences. IF that's the case, it begs the question of WHO is doing the hallucinating, and are they even "real"?

a reply to: nenothtu

Now then, I presume that we both see "body" as the physical corporeal being of an individual - feel free to correct me if you see it differently - but what then is your concept of "soul"?

It's kinda like this. YOU are representative of the soul. You have a car, that takes you where you drive it, that's representative of the body. The bumper stickers, beaded seat covers, fuzzy dice hanging off the rear view mirror, the dingle berries hanging off the back decal laden window and the music playing the 8 track, are representative of your spirit.

So by coloring all over the page in wide and random scrawls, how do you tell the difference between "having a dream, watching a movie, or reading a book and having a real live experience" per your original postulate?

I don't know how to explain to you, or anyone, how I know the difference between remembering an event, watching or reading about an event or dreaming about an event. I just do, I think. Can anyone really be sure? Where does the subconscious end and waking consciousness begin? I don't know.

a reply to: nenothtu

The feeling this being gave off that spoke volumes on what it was.
No name was needed, just to be in it's presence was plenty to identify it as something "divine".

It was a strange experience that answered a whole entire life's worth of questions in just a few seconds.
Bottom line was that yes, there is a God....

What that God is, I don't know, I just know it exists and it is aware of me,
and if it is aware of me,
then it most certainly is aware of everyone else because I am a no one.

What I see everyone doing is trying to put it into a box, and once people do that, once God is defined, you limit your experience with whatever the creator has us all here for.
But then, I don't know anything other than what I have experienced for myself,
and that experience ended what would of probably been an entire lifetime of questioning.
It is much easier once you know and it is no longer a belief,
so a name doesn't matter,
actually I am kind of glad I wasn't given one,
because that would of limited the experiences later on in life.

a reply to: jmdewey60
Sounds rough. Sorry.

By referring to God as It? You lost me somewhere.a reply to: nenothtu

a reply to: nenothtu
No I don't see the difference. I see you nit picking. What are you up to?

a reply to: WarminIndy

And why use the world view of the writer of that script to make your point?

Because so far you have hung on to the well worn beliefs and practices and I thought that an analogy would help you understand what I am talking about. Ive tried here comparing telephones, classrooms, architectures and movie scenes and still you cling to your ritual and tradition.

Se la ve…

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I see you nit picking.

I agree. Discredits every argument others bring and offers no alternative. Safe to argue from invulnerability.

a reply to: nenothtu

Hey, we agreed on something. Thanks for your time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: WarminIndy

And why use the world view of the writer of that script to make your point?

Because so far you have hung on to the well worn beliefs and practices and I thought that an analogy would help you understand what I am talking about. Ive tried here comparing telephones, classrooms, architectures and movie scenes and still you cling to your ritual and tradition.

Se la ve…

And that would be C'est la vie....

Some of us are practical and don't need analogies, especially someone who already writes stories. I disliked Avatar because it is merely another modern retelling of the same old same old gnostic schtick that some screenwriters read pop culture and decided to write something you would buy the tickets for.

All it is, is schtick....schlamiel, schlamazel, hassenpfeffer incorporated. You really think that writer truly thinks he was telling you something? No, he was writing to make money.