If you know god, then what?

Mr. Ed said:
Did anybody take time to read this article? I would like to know what you think?
Click to expand...

I thought I had but I just checked and it goes further than I had read which was only what I quoted on my thread this morning. It looks good but all the flickering adverts that dance around text annoy me so I was happy to quit reading when I thought I’d finished. Do you know if a clean copy can found on the internet. Good article regardless.
 

Tazx said:
The crusades (1-9 million deaths ( a weirdly large range)) and other religious wars beg to differ. The death of tens of millions of people in the name of a god speaks volumes. Not to mention the extreme religious ones that kill in the name of a god.
Click to expand...
All true, but religion was a key element in the establishment of those ancient civilizations. We may disagree with their ancient values and beliefs, but they were largely a product of religions that brought elements of humanity together, whether for good, or for what we might consider evil.

“In ancient times, religion was indistinguishable from what is known as 'mythology' in the present day and consisted of regular rituals based on a belief in higher supernatural entities who created and continued to maintain the world and surrounding cosmos. These entities were anthropomorphic and behaved in ways which mirrored the values of the culture closely (as in Egypt) or sometimes engaged in acts antithetical to those values (as one sees with the gods of Greece).”
Religion in the Ancient World
 
ElCastor said:
As an agnostic I feel safe in saying that I believe that the existence or non-existence of God has absolutely no currently universally provable basis in fact. What is true is that belief in a God has been instrumental in the evolution of humanity and our concept of morality.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your statement, however... if you require religion or a god to be a good or moral person, then you are not likely a good or moral person. I'm pleased that religion serves that purpose but it doesn't say much for the human condition.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Ed said:
It is wrong to make a broad all inclusive statement such as "there is no god" True may believe there is no god, but that is your opinion, which does not make it true for everyone.
Click to expand...
Would the opposite not be true as well? Could one not also state that it is wrong to make a broad, all-inclusive statement such as "There is a god"? Many believe this, but that is their opinion, which does not make it true for everyone.
 
Mr. Ed said:
Did anybody take time to read this article? I would like to know what you think?
Click to expand...

Ok so just did a second time. I'm about to hit the road to The City.

What is God Consciousness? - Deep Psychology
snippets:

Let me be clear that I’m not talking about the mythic, biblical God, but the direct apprehension of the ultimate nature of ourselves and of life. In that context, God is just a placeholder word, and any number of other placeholders are equally valid...
True Believers and Vehement Deniers are somewhat right in their own way, but both also tend to miss out a core fact of the spiritual life: the deepest, fullest spiritual life is not built on belief, but upon practice and direct apprehension. Without those, you have a flaccid spiritual life.

A quite vague statement, but am reading on...

The greatest mystics and saints to have lived were fundamentally spiritual practitioners. They were not believers. They were, in a sense, great empiricists. Do as they did and use the practical methodologies of any Great Tradition, such as meditation, prayer, chanting, yoga, and so forth, and eventually you will come to directly apprehend God. That is, you will experience God consciousness.

OK, so that is his great revelation he's suggesting for the rest of us. It is true Eastern mystics go there, but yawn... most of us modern era mortals have little interest that is usually full of philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I'd rather eat a pizza and watch an NFL game and enjoy the amazing world including having fun like the skiing I'll soon be doing. In the Christian religion, eternal life is a far more valuable goal because one's existence does not end. However that is a huge unknown. If all that is is strumming a harp in the clouds, singing praise, again yawn. If it means the whole universe is one's pearl or even just our amazing Earth over eternity, I'm aboard.
 
Rich said:
I don't disagree with your statement, however... if you require religion or a god to be a good or moral person, then you are not likely a good or moral person. I'm pleased that religion serves the person but it doesn't say much for the human condition.
Click to expand...
From the standpoint of primitive developing humanity, religion provided an explanation of origin, and a definition of correct brotherhood and behavior. That was then, this is now. Religion still exists for some of us, but for most its social guidance has been superseded by an evolved definition of morality and an equally evolved political system. If you want to see conflict that is even to this day largely based on religion you need look no further than Israel and the Middle East.
 
Unless my "algorithm" is pulling a lot of new age religious videos my way, the internet is a flow with new age thinking. This thinking always involves the unity of all things. Love. Now truth has been added and is a good thing. There is rarely a dogmatic presentation. You really have to go out of your way to encounter a religious dogmatic presentation. They are there, just not popular. Pop culture is what makes the world live. Live culture. God is in everything, we had all better get on board fast, because the world is on fire! :)
 
Rich said:
I don't disagree with your statement, however... if you require religion or a god to be a good or moral person, then you are not likely a good or moral person. I'm pleased that religion serves that purpose but it doesn't say much for the human condition.
Click to expand...
Religion for some, particularly the elderly, has become a dominant social aspect of their life. I admit to a degree of envy when I see a line waiting at the church door on Sunday morning. Then there are those who believe that when they die they will be met by a deceased husband or wife. Who am I, or any member of this forum, to argue with that?
 
ElCastor said:
Religion for some, particularly the elderly, has become a dominant social aspect of their life. I admit to a degree of envy when I see a line waiting at the church door on Sunday morning. Then there are those who believe that when they die they will be met by a deceased husband or wife. Who am I, or any member of this forum, to argue with that?
Click to expand...
I too feel a bit of envy towards those involved in their church. There's often an active social life involved in the church, beyond the Sunday service. Generally speaking, I don't argue with believers. It comes down to science vs. the dogma. I've found that when hardcore believers are asked science-related questions, the answer is too often along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways" or "we're not here to question God's authority and power." It becomes a fruitless discussion. However, as much as I struggle to believe, I do sort of envy those that do.
 
Last edited:
Ann Patchett in an NPR interview:

"I still believe in God. And here's the thing, if I tried to tell you what that meant, I would be wrong. The only thing that I know for sure is that whatever I know is wrong. And it does not behoove me to spend a moment's time thinking about it.

We are alive and that's an astonishing gift. And it seems very possible to me that being alive is God and that the trick is whether or not we know it. The trick is whether or not we can keep our focus and remember that we are, for all of the suffering, the recipient of the most beautiful gift for a limited period of time, which is our life."
 
Rich said:
I don't argue with believers. It comes down to science vs. the dogma. I've found that when hardcore believers are asked science-related questions, the answer is too often along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways" or "we're not here to question God's authority and power." It becomes a fruitless discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about not arguing with believers. Like you I find them fortunate to get their needs met in a religious tradition which has stood the test of time.

But I don’t think the dogmatism is all on the side of believers. Many fans of science place overmuch faith in science to answer every question even in areas in which it couldn’t possibly apply. Often they’ll say things like “we/science don’t know that yet but inevitably we will”.

Science is very good at answering very specific, empirical questions but that is all. Humans are concerned with much more than that. Sometimes it seems its fan base think the bits science can answer can add up to true understanding but of course all it can do is compile information. That information can and should inform the questions we have where it applies. But it just isn’t true that knowing some science means you know everything or that you understand anything.
 
Mr. Ed said:
Love is the key, but love means many things to different people. It is like describing god.
Click to expand...
Maybe love is facing forward with gloves and an apron, a desire to be useful, never a taker but a giver --not wasting time and resources on the takers but giving to those in actual need through no fault of their own.
If we don't know how to do that, maybe start by copying someone who does or did, like Albert Schweitzer.
 
Rich said:
I too feel a bit of envy towards those involved in their church. There's often an active social life involved in the church, beyond the Sunday service. Generally speaking, I don't argue with believers. It comes down to science vs. the dogma. I've found that when hardcore believers are asked science-related questions, the answer is too often along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways" or "we're not here to question God's authority and power." It becomes a fruitless discussion. However, as much as I struggle to believe, I do sort of envy those that do.
Click to expand...

There are two, and only two, theories to human existence, Evolution and Creationism. If one adheres to evolution, it means that something as medically and scientifically complex as a human being was assembled by what was originally, more or less, bacteria. I can't upon information and belief accept that theory.
 
ohioboy said:
There are two, and only two, theories to human existence, Evolution and Creationism. If one adheres to evolution, it means that something as medically and scientifically complex as a human being was assembled by what was originally, more or less, bacteria. I can't upon information and belief accept that theory.
Click to expand...

I know many Evangelical Christians who believe in common descent and in the resurrection. I agree with them about the first but think the cross must have a less literal meaning. So, no, I’m not a Christian but I am friends with some.
 
ohioboy said:
There are two, and only two, theories to human existence, Evolution and Creationism. If one adheres to evolution, it means that something as medically and scientifically complex as a human being was assembled by what was originally, more or less, bacteria. I can't upon information and belief accept that theory.
Click to expand...
No more than I can accept that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.
 
ohioboy said:
There are two, and only two, theories to human existence, Evolution and Creationism. If one adheres to evolution, it means that something as medically and scientifically complex as a human being was assembled by what was originally, more or less, bacteria. I can't upon information and belief accept that theory.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not limited to humans. What about the endless varieties of fish, birds, insects, apes, the cat at my arm, bacteria, viruses, worms, snails, lions, tigers, butterflies, endless varieties of trees, grass, weeds, etc, etc. All of these living things sport their own DNA. If some superior being assembled all these living creatures, and their continuing and unending variations, then we must assume that he, she, or it was, and is, very busy indeed.
 
ohioboy said:
There are two, and only two, theories to human existence, Evolution and Creationism. If one adheres to evolution, it means that something as medically and scientifically complex as a human being was assembled by what was originally, more or less, bacteria. I can't upon information and belief accept that theory.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the spark, the pressure, the combining or potentiality of good and fortunate things or whatever caused life: what caused that? Not to mention what caused the universe! And more, what caused the Causer of the universe?

I made myself dizzy again, but the smooth answer, "Nothing 'caused' it; it's just there" is not good enough.

Einstein said we must ask the right questions. So, my question is, "Does infinity really exist outside of theory?"

(Just a thought: Maybe this "combining or potentiality of good and fortunate things" is The Will, or The Seeking which is God as we know Him.)
 
Last edited:
dilettante said:
Really?

How about Panspermia? It comes in different flavors, such as spread here by comet dust or introduced by ancient aliens or even mechanical intelligences.

Or the different forms of Abiogenesis?

I'm sure I've left out several others.
Click to expand...
Panspermia? Really? Through what media does this substance travel through? Abiogenesis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top