Religious Dogma is Speculation. Discuss

reply to post by sinohptik


I just LOVE your avatar. Absolutely incredible. To think that that's just one of billions, it blows the mind, and takes the breath away.

Thank you for being you whoever you are.

Perhaps in the end, in the final analysis, it really doesn't matter much what any one of us THINKS about these things, these issues of God or no God, of spirit vs. matter.

There is just life and love, nothing else.

I believe that any truly rational mind, willing ot plumb the depths over theee things, will find, when all is cleaved away, that ONLY faith in wonderful things unseen, at all levels, as entirely GOOD, and creative, even loving, is the only possible rational and logical conclusion which may be drawn!

The whole thing then, including the creation, "God" (whatever that means) even ourselves, isn't absurd, nor meaningless or purposeless.

And that it HAS a purpose of some kind, and that we do as HEB's (highly evolvled beings), and, that all indication is that we're fast catching up to the ground of being and consciousness, makes me just want to laugh and cry in appreciation.

This debate even, is absurd. Insane.

"God cannot be explained. He cannot be argued about. He cannot be theorized, nor can He be discussed and understood. God can only be lived...

To understand the infinite, eternal Reality (Godhead) is not the GOAL of individualized beings in the illusion of Creation, because the Reality can never be understood, it is to be realized by conscious experience.

Therefore, the GOAL is to realize the Reality and attain the "I am God" state (or condition) in human form."

~ Meher Baba

----

"I was with you, since before the very foundations of the earth."
"As as my father (first/last cause) sent me, even so send I you."

So if you are an atheist (any of you) and that's the "conclusion" you've drawn (no possibility of a God), then, if you're not without awareness and understanding, my question to you is, just how in the world did you find yourself HAVING this debate in the first place?!!!

Perhaps you either have more faith in God than you are aware, or, you have a rather unusual sense of humour, or, worse yet, just don't have the first clue of what you are talking about.

So if it's even remotely possible, that you might be mistaken, then I'd like to invite you to have a good natured laugh at your own presumptuousness.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


agnostic

dont believe in an anthropomorphised God

but how do we have consciousness?

why are ther spirits, ghosts, whatever...?

because of these factors I believe we did not 'evolve' into consiousness

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Couldn't you consider the possibility that there are no Gods, only infinity. It's your "belief" that it is a God. What happens if my belief was that the universe created itself out of infinity. It's not my belief because i can't claim to positively know this.

The only difference is that you are calling God "infinity". I believe infinity is God. God is infinity. God is the void that scientists think existed before the big bang. God is nothingness and everything.

What has happened is that you have been programmed to think of a bearded man when you hear the word "God". You have a hard time understanding how nothingness, infinity, a void, could be "God". You think "something" has to exist in order for God to exist. God is beyond that and is more than that.

You think God had to "think" and "plan" to create the universe, but God is so powerful and so graceful that God could create the entire universe effortlessly without even thinking or planning, and appears automatic to scientists.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
There seems to be a problem with causation, and the law of energy transfer, something can't be created out of nothing (or so we think), so who created your "God" and who created that creator and so on. Funnily enough this is known as an INFINITE regression.

Are you trying to use that as a reason to disbelieve God? If so, then you just created a reason to disbelieve the universe you are currently in.

What created this universe that you are in? If something can't be created out of nothing, then how do you exist right now?

Scientists believe there was a void before the big bang. How did the void get there? What created the void? Whatever you answer is, is the same answer about God.

God is the void, and God is the big bang and everything that stemmed from it.

The problem again is that you think "God" has to "think" and be "something" in order to exist. God is non-existence itself.

God is nothingness and everything. Literally.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
How can you put a belief in this unfounded assumption or pressumption without evidence? i thought you were a scientist? I thought you cared about reason and demonstration (EVIDENCE)

The universe itself is evidence. Literally... It's not unfounded because the Universe actually exists.

You just have a preprogrammed idea of what God is, and can't see how a void, nothingness, and everything can be God. You just think of a bearded man in an empty space waving his magic wand to create galaxies... It's not that... the void, the big bang, all the forces at play which created the universe, all of it, that is God.

With some of the logic you are using.... How can you believe the universe exists? The questions and position you hold are similar to someone trying to debate that the universe doesn't exist. Saying "something can't come from nothing" so God can't exist is faulty logic. With that logic you could argue that the universe doesn't exist.

Originally posted by open_eyeballs

because of these factors I believe we did not 'evolve' into consiousness

We'll get there yet, i'm sure of it. Some day.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
If so, then you just created a reason to disbelieve the universe you are currently in.

What created this universe that you are in? If something can't be created out of nothing, then how do you exist right now?

It's a miracle..?

OMG, this is just too much, why is this all so amuzing..? This debate is absurd I say!

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

I see your point, you're pantheist then?

A&A

Not pantheism but an ontological union as a dialectic relationship of spirit...
...our spirit does not become absorbed or merged into His Spirit...
...as in pantheism, panentheism or universalism.

It is actually more difficult to describe it than to be engaged in it...
...like sex the dynamic is much better than its contemplation.

God loves people but says that mans wisdom is foolishness unto him and laughs in the heavens . He created everything by talking and speaking things into existance from nothing.

Originally posted by mikethebike82
God loves people but says that mans wisdom is foolishness unto him and laughs in the heavens . He created everything by talking and speaking things into existance from nothing.

It is more than man's wisdom sees God's ways as follishness...

1 Corinthians 1:17-25 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The formula is pretty simple really...
...believe that Jesus died and was resurrected...
...and you have received the Spirit.

That is the equation but most people think it is foolishness and so never know the Spirit.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Oh right, never heard of it.

Peace

reply to post by mikethebike82


How do you know what "GOD" says? How does any other primate (homo-sapien) know what GOd is saying?

reply to post by awake_and_aware

...believe that Jesus died and was resurrected...

Even if you "BELIEVE" Jesus died and was resurrected it takes even more faith to believe he was the "SON" of "God"

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Thank you for your post. Very nicely written.

I think you're only playing with semantics. Universe, God, Being, etc.: you are substituting one term for the other. You are also jumping to a very "unscientific" conclusion in your presentation, but I let you figure out where.

The real question is, and the OP hinted at it as well, consciousness. According to your definition is your "universe" conscious? Aka aware of itself? At what point does "matter" become conscious? At what point does carbon, or all the other elements of the human body become conscious?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

Scientists believe there was a void before the big bang. How did the void get there? What created the void? Whatever you answer is, is the same answer about God.

Ah, what "science" do you talk about? Reputable scientists are agnostic about "the state of things" before the big bang because there is simply insufficient data.

Originally posted by mikethebike82
I know ive been born again and recived the holy spirit and can talk in tounges . God created man for relasionship with him . Adam the first man did know God and was very intelligent God brought all the animal life to Adam to see what he named them . God did use man to write the bible but they wrote and spake as the spirit of God moved or filled them kind of like tounqes and interpertations is the best way i can expain it . The bible story is the creation of man fall of man and redemption of man . I do belive God does intervine in human affairs and history. I belive he is now Even in the old testiment books like Danail Job revelations and others tell about the past and future kindoms on earth . The last is beginning to happin before are very eyes The Lord told us what sighns to look out for before Jesus second return false Christs and profits , famine and diseases plagues earthquakes people going to and fro knowladge would increase , and a one world order one religion and one currency which is all in the works right now . The anti christ will be ahead of the new world order when its complete . God is coming back and getting rid of it living in exciting times

We are what we believe ...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


For a bit more info on the actual picture in my avatar, click here. It still makes my jaw drop in full resolution (seriously, check out the desktop backgrounds). edit: also, thank you for your kind words, right back at ya its a wacky, wild, fun, and exciting place we are in!

You are probably right in your assessment of the "debate" being insane, as im not entirely sure how one can disprove/question All That Is without discrediting their own words. And that is exactly why i try to learn of others perspectives so i can learn and open my own mind to the sheer volume of different perspectives on the same thing, but the discussion is a blast!

awake, so we can continue, im very curious about something. given my aforementioned conceptualization of God, how exactly do you think im viewing it? I know thats a... relatively tough question to answer (at best), but i give you full creative license! I think you may not understand how i am seeing things on a base common level. does it change your perspective if i do not capatilize "all that is?" Also, please realize, i am not interested in you finding MY conceptualization of God. But i am definitely interested in spurring people on to maybe try to figure out what everyone is pointing to, without trying to willfully point away from all that is. Catch 22 anyway Please note, that does not mean "convert," but it does mean "explore." If one is to find it, it must be for themselves, and beyond the bounds of human mental limitations on the universe. We. Are. Stupid. i dont feel we can figure it out beyond the fact that we are part of all that is, as is all that is! It is beyond the box we try to put it in

Another way to say it is that might ring more accurately for you about my perspective specifically is, "Isnt it amazing what science is finding out about all that is (or God)?"

reply to post by sinohptik


Speaking for myself - it does somewhat change my perspective of what I think you mean when you capitalize "All That Is" versus not - and admittedly, I could be totally off base in making the assumptions I am making. The capitalization to me implies that you are referring to a deity or a consciousness that is separate from us. Which naturally brings with it a whole set of questions that I wouldn't necessarily ask if you just said "all that is".

Other than that, everything you've written seems rather pantheistic, which I can relate to.

reply to post by peacevic


Indeed, are they saying that God is a separate entity? Then what plain of existence does this God exist in? Who created him (it) and HIS reality (it's reality)?

To be pantheistic is to say that "GOD" IS the universe, is nature itself, we are a construct of the universe, and therefore God, and the conviction is merely the beauty that they percieve,

"THIS MUST BE GOD"

"There's too much order in the unvierse, for it NOT to be God"

I think these are still presumptions, but not as absurd a Presumption that say a Theist may present.

To be agnostic/atheist is to NOT pressume theories without critical evidence, what's wrong with this viewpoint, are we ignorant?

Originally posted by peacevic
reply to post by sinohptik

 

Speaking for myself - it does somewhat change my perspective of what I think you mean when you capitalize "All That Is" versus not - and admittedly, I could be totally off base in making the assumptions I am making. The capitalization to me implies that you are referring to a deity or a consciousness that is separate from us. Which naturally brings with it a whole set of questions that I wouldn't necessarily ask if you just said "all that is".

Other than that, everything you've written seems rather pantheistic, which I can relate to.

That is so interesting to me. the shift key shifts perspectives as well as capitalization!

How do others feel about this?

As im sure you have gathered, i do not view all that is as seperate from anything or anyone, unless they decide their individual perspective to be that way. As far as being pantheistic, you are most certainly correct, along with christian, buddhist, atheist, and more! these things all point to truth to me, because as parts of all that is, they all point to the same thing.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by peacevic

 

Indeed, are they saying that God is a separate entity? Then what plain of existence does this God exist in? Who created him (it) and HIS reality (it's reality)?

To be pantheistic is to say that "GOD" IS the universe, is nature itself, we are a construct of the universe, and therefore God, and the conviction is merely the beauty that they percieve,

"THIS MUST BE GOD"

"There's too much order in the unvierse, for it NOT to be God"

I think these are still presumptions, but not as absurd a Presumption that say a Theist may present.

To be agnostic/atheist is to NOT pressume theories without critical evidence, what's wrong with this viewpoint, are we ignorant?

edit on 19/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

First off, does anyone know if one can easily multiquote without manually entering in code? would make such things so much easier i am a lazy..er... efficient religionist after all

I would say my issue in not making any steps without critical evidence is that that presumes that we can actually understand what is going on here. I dont believe we are capable of that, as we are not omniscient individually. I also cant help but think of the quote "Not making a decision is still making a decision." What i personally experienced/experience is what i would consider, in my incredibly limited perspective, to be holy and divine. but that is subject to my perspective on what is holy and/or divine, which is undoubtedly wrong. Every single thing, all that is, is part of the same system though, and the only way i found to actually access this unity is through being (consciously and actively). I discovered that waiting for evidence on such things would leave me waiting a.. very, very, very long time (as in never!). I do not wait for evidence, or proof, to be. But, to truly "be," i needed to get out of the trappings of my mind, and arrogance (i only apply that to myself) in thinking i could actually understand what was going on universally from an individual perspective. This was achieved from simply being mindful of the continuous moment that is this ones life. Ridding my perspective of this seperation introduced me to what "everyone was talking about." I knew that unity was present before, but i didnt incorporate it into my very being.

Similar to an exercise i learned: Moving ones arm. If you only think about ones arm moving, nothing happens. You must actually move your arm to move your arm. The correlary is that one can think about being one with all that is, but nothing happens. You must actually be a part of all that is.

reply to post by sinohptik

...along with christian, buddhist, atheist, and more! these things all point to truth to me, because as parts of all that is, they all point to the same thing.

Interesting perspective in that they are one of a whole (all that is). But I don't think that followers of these different dogmas believe that they subscribe to the same truth.

It appears you take a philosophical or metaphysical view of these that allows you to see the similarities and leans you toward open-mindedness, whereas many believers take a more literal view that accentuates the differences, and tends to close their minds to alternate ideas.