56 replies to this topic

[Jor-el]

libstaK, on 14 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Hi me-wonders and Jor-el,
I think God gives his authority to the humble.  The authority the church or any society takes is self evidently a "taken" thing not a "given" thing.  "Those that were first will be last" springs to mind when I think of this.

That is certainly true and could be used to define what is really of God and what is not.

God gives to those that follow him and others follow those that humble themselves before God. Yet when that humble attitude disappears eventually so does OGds authority on that person disappear.

The formal church on the other hand, along with the other human institutions, take for themselves an authority as if it is theirs by right. They have forgotten that as God gives, so can he also take away.

[libstaK]

Jor-el, on 14 February 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

That is certainly true and could be used to define what is really of God and what is not.

God gives to those that follow him and others follow those that humble themselves before God. Yet when that humble attitude disappears eventually so does OGds authority on that person disappear.

The formal church on the other hand, along with the other human institutions, take for themselves an authority as if it is theirs by right. They have forgotten that as God gives, so can he also take away.

Yes, argue as they may that they are servants of God's will it is clear that they apply reason to their machinations in establishing dogma that is entirely of the will of humanity or even their own will and not directly inspired of God - otherwise why would there be so many faiths, there should be only one if they were receiving their authority directly from God.

Of course each of them will argue that they are acting correctly and the others are the false teachings.  Only a penitent or humble soul can ever know what is true I think (hence my comment in my Avatar LOL)Oh and lets be clear, humility is something I strive for not something I feel anywhere near achieving in my own life.

Until a person is such a soul I think it makes sense to question everything and seek evidence rather than accept what is stated by any religion or person regarding God's will.

Of course if a person were graced with pure humility, there would be no need for questions or reason at all, what  "is" would be absolutely correct in every instant - do you think?

[Jor-el]

libstaK, on 15 February 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Yes, argue as they may that they are servants of God's will it is clear that they apply reason to their machinations in establishing dogma that is entirely of the will of humanity or even their own will and not directly inspired of God - otherwise why would there be so many faiths, there should be only one if they were receiving their authority directly from God.

Of course each of them will argue that they are acting correctly and the others are the false teachings.  Only a penitent or humble soul can ever know what is true I think (hence my comment in my Avatar LOL)Oh and lets be clear, humility is something I strive for not something I feel anywhere near achieving in my own life.

Until a person is such a soul I think it makes sense to question everything and seek evidence rather than accept what is stated by any religion or person regarding God's will.

Of course if a person were graced with pure humility, there would be no need for questions or reason at all, what  "is" would be absolutely correct in every instant - do you think?

I can't help but agree. When I loom to the path I travelled over the years, and how much I had to let go in terms of presuppostions that are held to be true by the church, it still astounds me. If anything I am thankful that I found UM a few years ago. I have learnt so much here. There is nothing like being confronted with your suppositions and coming to terms with them or verifying their validity.

I can honestly say that being humble is not one of my strengths, but I strive to be understanding, which helps us on the path to humility. Yet even Jesus himself said, "and I'm paraphrasing", Being humble is not the same as being stupid.

[Sherapy]

Mr Walker, on 14 January 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

No I am trying to explain to you that the english words tree, dog, and god, are ALL just labels used by one language group and then attached to certain agreed physical or constructed entities.
Without a specific clear and common understanding of all words, humans cannot communicate.  The word "God" has, and must have for the purposes of communication, a commonly held understanding of what  a god is. Of course you can have a different understanding and i can come to understand that understanding, without accepting it. You can call an apple a pear but that does not make it so.
One cannot (usefully or functionally) go around calling a tree a "bryx" or a dog a "ggrac." The labels attach to commonly agreed paramenters and descriptors for all these things. You cant just say a god can be anything/nothing, anymore than you can say a "tree" can be anything or a "dog" can be anything. They are all what we agree that they are.

A "god" must fit the commonly accepted paramenters for a god, just as a tree must, and a dog must.

Otherwise it simply is not a god in human terms, just as something would not be a tree or a dog. A label doesnt make something so; it attaches to the physical characteristics accepted as being that structural entity. It is irrelevant if this is a "real" entity like a tree or an "intellectually constructed entity" like a god. Our mind, language, and memory/thought process, does not distinguish  between these things in labelling, and attaching to, them.

We know a tree is a tree, first because of the visual image of the object, but second because of the attached label, plus ancillary data, which represents a tree to us in our mind. So it is with god. For some, god might have no clear visual image, although it will have some form of visual image, because thats how our neurons make first recognition. EG the image might be the very word "god", and nothing else.

But, on one neuron will be stored both the name, and the image of the name(or another image of god). Then, connected to that neuron, will be all the data we know about god. Because all human minds work identically alike, we can transfer and communicate shared understandings not just of a tree but of a god.

But if i satrt calling a tree a grxx then we all have a problem, until i can explain my terminology and own concpetual understandings. Then we comprehend each other,  but  you will have to translate my "grrxx" into tree  and re-attach all your understandings of tree to my new label, to be able to communicate with me.
And yes, of course, given the complexity of human thought and language we have compound constructs. So a tree can be a god, if it possesses, as well as the qualities of a tree, the qualities of a god (like a dryad) and a dog can be a god if it  posesses the qualities of a god, (like anubis) as well as those of a dog.

We (or at least I) would recognise both a dryad and anubis should we encounter them, in a book or in real life,  because of the accumulated and correlated data in our minds. we would see in them elements of a god and elements of a tree or a dog/jackal.

The g-d you speak of  fits the perimeters you have deemed 'g-d' like. With that being said I agree with  you  that there are models for various g-ds. It seems as if  you have  picked ethical monotheism as your standard based on the g-d that  fits your experiences  the closest. Correct?


IMO, in my interpretation, from inference, I think this is what  Leo is  suggesting.. (I could be wrong though.)

For you, IMU (in my understanding)  the  g-d you 'know' has certain attributes that you classify as g-d like, in other words according to you g-d is a certain way. IMO

IMO, this  doesn't take away from  your personal interpretation,  or lessen it or discredit it  for me what it does IMO is remind me  to consider  that  for every person there  can be a different interpretation of g-d  or lack of for that matter just as Leo suggests.

Jor el, very interesting thread.

I'd contribute by saying I think Leo brings in a great point, while yes, there are those that ascribe to one or the other and a great conversation can be harvested, (as outlined in your OP) again for me, I think it is personal preference on  what sticks based on ones own understanding more then it is a matter of what religion says or what  Philosophy says then concluding with picking the right one.

For me the point is the value that can be gleaned from the many perspectives and for me it's in the biggest picture  possible I find the greatest value .

[Jor-el]

Sherapy, on 15 February 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

The g-d you speak of  fits the perimeters you have deemed 'g-d' like. With that being said I agree with  you  that there are models for various g-ds. It seems as if  you have  picked ethical monotheism as your standard based on the g-d that  fits your experiences  the closest. Correct?


IMO, in my interpretation, from inference, I think this is what  Leo is  suggesting.. (I could be wrong though.)

For you, IMU (in my understanding)  the  g-d you 'know' has certain attributes that you classify as g-d like, in other words according to you g-d is a certain way. IMO

IMO, this  doesn't take away from  your personal interpretation,  or lessen it or discredit it  for me what it does IMO is remind me  to consider  that  for every person there  can be a different interpretation of g-d  or lack of for that matter just as Leo suggests.

Jor el, very interesting thread.

I'd contribute by saying I think Leo brings in a great point, while yes, there are those that ascribe to one or the other and a great conversation can be harvested, (as outlined in your OP) again for me, I think it is personal preference on  what sticks based on ones own understanding more then it is a matter of what religion says or what  Philosophy says then concluding with picking the right one.

For me the point is the value that can be gleaned from the many perspectives and for me it's in the biggest picture  possible I find the greatest value .

True, the accorded value is greatest when looking at the greater picture as you say, but it is not the greater picture that speaks most intimately to us, I think, it is that aspect of God that we can relate to, and for me that would be a God that operates on my level, since I cannot reach his.

To me that that would be the God of the bible, the one that appears to men and eats with them, who laughs with them and is sad with them, it is the ultimate picture of the personal God, or the human God as we see him.

[Mr Walker]

[quote] name='Sherapy' timestamp='1329342122' post='4205303']
The g-d you speak of  fits the perimeters you have deemed 'g-d' like. With that being said I agree with  you  that there are models for various g-ds. It seems as if  you have  picked ethical monotheism as your standard based on the g-d that  fits your experiences  the closest. Correct? [/quote] Just as humans agree that a tree has certain characteristics we agree that a god has certain parameters or characteristics. So, when i see a tree i know it is a tree. When i see a god i know it is a god. Same taxonomic process. You are correct that I perceive  "my" god as ethical, based on his words and actions, and also apparently singular, although this is an unknown. I have always been an ethical humanist and i have found 'my god to also be an ethical humanist. No suprise there.

[quote]IMO, in my interpretation, from inference, I think this is what  Leo is  suggesting.. (I could be wrong though.) [/quote] Maybe, but it seemed to me that he was advancing the old argument that, because we all percieve diferrent gods, they are individual constructs, and this is proof that no one singular entity exists. That is not so IMO. I maintain one individual, independent, real god exists, but that we all encounter and perceive it in differnt ways.

[quote]
For you, IMU (in my understanding)  the  g-d you 'know' has certain attributes that you classify as g-d like, in other words according to you g-d is a certain way. IMO[/quote]
In part, but it must also fit the universal human appelations of a god. There would be no point me claiming my dog was a god because it has no godly characteristics, and while my cat THINKS it is a god, it is not, either. I can't claim a cat is a dog either. We have linguistic /symbolic attachments to those labels which prevent me doing so.

[quote]IMO, this  doesn't take away from  your personal interpretation,  or lessen it or discredit it  for me what it does IMO is remind me  to consider  that  for every person there  can be a different interpretation of g-d  or lack of for that matter just as Leo suggests.[/quote] Of course That is almos tinevitable But I am taling percetions of a real and physicla god. I believe Leo is talking about how/why humans construct individual concepts of god, and have no real entity on which to make a comparative analysis.

[quote]Jor el, very interesting thread.

I'd contribute by saying I think Leo brings in a great point, while yes, there are those that ascribe to one or the other and a great conversation can be harvested, (as outlined in your OP) again for me, I think it is personal preference on  what sticks based on ones own understanding more then it is a matter of what religion says or what  Philosophy says then concluding with picking the right one.

For me the point is the value that can be gleaned from the many perspectives and for me it's in the biggest picture  possible I find the greatest value .[/quote]

[me-wonders]

Mr Walker, on 11 February 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Original christianity was all about a personal relationship between christ/god and a person. It still should be, and can be, because christ/ god is in us, and al around us, and remains as accesible to a person today as to moses or paul. It was never intended that a church or authority should take to itself the exclusive understandings and authority of christ. It is natural, given human nature , that this happened,  but a personal, real and physical god can only enhance individual resposnsiblity and ethics . One must do what god tells one to do if one is part of such a god, not what a church or priest or doctrine tells you to do. A person can find god in themselves, in the world around them, or in the words of wise men.

In christianity the word of god is distilled into the writings of the bible. But all one really needs to do to be a christian is listen to christ and live like him. And there are many other paths to god which work equally effectively.
God is the ultimate liberator of human beings, individually, and perhaps collectively.As the reformation discovered/demonstrated, no human authority can override the personal relationship between a person and god

I enjoy your explanation, but want to point a distinct difference in believing in the God of Abraham, or believing Cicero's understanding of God.  Cicero's understanding of God, is that the consequences of our actions are what they are, and we can not change them by sacrificing to the gods, burning candles or saying prayers.  

Incorporated in this concept of God, is if you want to help someone, you actually have to do something for them, rather than say a prayer for the person and leave it at that.  The Christian practice of saying prayers for people, and acting as though that is equal to actually giving someone help, really annoys me.  God stopped sending birds to feed people, a few years ago.  I am concerned that Christianity interferes with some people's ability to deal with reality effectively.

I think the important question to ask is not, what is God, but rather, how does God work?

Edited by me-wonders, 21 February 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Sherapy]

me-wonders, on 21 February 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

I enjoy your explanation, but want to point a distinct difference in believing in the God of Abraham, or believing Cicero's understanding of God.  Cicero's understanding of God, is that the consequences of our actions are what they are, and we can not change them by sacrificing to the gods, burning candles or saying prayers.  

Incorporated in this concept of God, is if you want to help someone, you actually have to do something for them, rather than say a prayer for the person and leave it at that. The Christian practice of saying prayers for people, and acting as though that is equal to actually giving someone help, really annoys me.  God stopped sending birds to feed people, a few years ago.  I am concerned that Christianity interferes with some people's ability to deal with reality effectively.

I think the important question to ask is not, what is God, but rather, how does God work?

Until recently I would of agreed with your post. In fact, I used to say prayer is the equivalent of doing nothing. All I  was saying was for me it was not my preferred method of help.
Nota bene:Not to  say I don't have any concerns,but  just that my concerns would be alerted if one had to be indoctrinated into  a specified belief system in order to receive  help or else couldn't get it.

  
A very good friend of mine who just lost her beloved sister to cancer told me after I asked her if she was okay,  i.e.  If I could be of help in any way with the grieving process.She told me she was fine she had her faith to get her through. It was as sincere as when I said many years ago, after losing my sister, that 'grief' therapy( in the form of psychoanalysis) was helping me. I literally discussed my dreams and learned to interpret them  in a way that helped me with the grieving process. Go figure.


I think we  have to use great care when we dismiss the idea that for some people  prayer may be their  way of helping or being helped. Just as keeping a dream journal and exploring it with an analyst helped me.. Just my 2 cents. Of course I could  be wrong.

Edited by Sherapy, 21 February 2012 - 10:01 PM.

[Mr Walker]

[quote] name='me-wonders' timestamp='1329858840' post='4210846']
I enjoy your explanation, but want to point a distinct difference in believing in the God of Abraham, or believing Cicero's understanding of God.  Cicero's understanding of God, is that the consequences of our actions are what they are, and we can not change them by sacrificing to the gods, burning candles or saying prayers.  [/quote]

Thank you. But i tend to differ with cicero, perhaps because of my own relationship with god. God IS an interventionist deity. If we can get him to change his mind, he can change his actions .   Yalking with god is all it requires He works the same way with us By talking to us he helps us make wider choices and do/live better.
[quote]Incorporated in this concept of God, is if you want to help someone, you actually have to do something for them, rather than say a prayer for the person and leave it at that.  The Christian practice of saying prayers for people, and acting as though that is equal to actually giving someone help, really annoys me. [/quote] While I absolutely agree with the first part of this and see it as a part of modrn christianity to BE a christian; to give, to help, to share etc.,  I know it can also be very helpful and beneficial for a person to be prayed for.

  When I had my heart  tripleby pass, I was helped by three things. The excellence of my physicians and nursing staff, the intercession of god in angelic form, and the prayers of many people. The latter comforted me as I lay in a hospital ward hundreds of miles form anyone I knew.

One should never pray for anyone without their permission, because the power of prayer is  so great and powerful. I have had it completely remove excruciating pain from my body, and heal damaged muscle tissue, for example. And it may not be emoguh JUST to pray. But prayer is a powerful physical and psychological force for many people on the recieving end of it.


[quote] God stopped sending birds to feed people, a few years ago.  I am concerned that Christianity interferes with some people's ability to deal with reality effectively.[/quote]

My reality ncludes a real physicla and powerful intercessionary god , so I must beg to differ with you. In my life god contines to provide power manna money and indeed life force. Nonetheless you have a point. I help peole practically as a first priority ,although with their permision I  may pray for them also. That may be a prayer for them to have courage or  peace. It might be for them to get well

God, existing in me and in others, and in the world around us, is linked; and so my 'life force' and prayers can work on others. (I must admit i dont pray much  myself because its power does scare me) I do prefer tp help physiclaly,  but it amazes me how knowing i care for another personn and love them as I love myself can heal them and help them .
[quote]I think the important question to ask is not, what is God, but rather, how does God work?[/quote] To me those questions are inseperable because, to me, god works as all real things do. Its function and its form are inseperable. Form follows function and function follows form.

[Mr Walker]

[quote] name='me-wonders' timestamp='1329858840' post='4210846']
I enjoy your explanation, but want to point a distinct difference in believing in the God of Abraham, or believing Cicero's understanding of God.  Cicero's understanding of God, is that the consequences of our actions are what they are, and we can not change them by sacrificing to the gods, burning candles or saying prayers.  [/quote]

Thank you. But i tend to differ with cicero, perhaps because of my own relationship with god. God IS an interventionist deity. If we can get him to change his mind, he can change his actions .   Yalking with god is all it requires He works the same way with us By talking to us he helps us make wider choices and do/live better.
[quote]Incorporated in this concept of God, is if you want to help someone, you actually have to do something for them, rather than say a prayer for the person and leave it at that.  The Christian practice of saying prayers for people, and acting as though that is equal to actually giving someone help, really annoys me. [/quote] While I absolutely agree with the first part of this and see it as a part of modrn christianity to BE a christian; to give, to help, to share etc.,  I know it can also be very helpful and beneficial for a person to be prayed for.

  When I had my heart  tripleby pass, I was helped by three things. The excellence of my physicians and nursing staff, the intercession of god in angelic form, and the prayers of many people. The latter comforted me as I lay in a hospital ward hundreds of miles form anyone I knew.

One should never pray for anyone without their permission, because the power of prayer is  so great and powerful. I have had it completely remove excruciating pain from my body, and heal damaged muscle tissue, for example. And it may not be emoguh JUST to pray. But prayer is a powerful physical and psychological force for many people on the recieving end of it.


[quote] God stopped sending birds to feed people, a few years ago.  I am concerned that Christianity interferes with some people's ability to deal with reality effectively.[/quote]

My reality ncludes a real physicla and powerful intercessionary god , so I must beg to differ with you. In my life god contines to provide power manna money and indeed life force. Nonetheless you have a point. I help peole practically as a first priority ,although with their permision I  may pray for them also. That may be a prayer for them to have courage or  peace. It might be for them to get well

God, existing in me and in others, and in the world around us, is linked; and so my 'life force' and prayers can work on others. (I must admit i dont pray much  myself because its power does scare me) I do prefer tp help physiclaly,  but it amazes me how knowing i care for another personn and love them as I love myself can heal them and help them .
[quote]I think the important question to ask is not, what is God, but rather, how does God work?[/quote] To me those questions are inseperable because, to me, god works as all real things do. Its function and its form are inseperable. Form follows function and function follows form.

[Mr Walker]

[quote] name='me-wonders' timestamp='1329858840' post='4210846']
I enjoy your explanation, but want to point a distinct difference in believing in the God of Abraham, or believing Cicero's understanding of God.  Cicero's understanding of God, is that the consequences of our actions are what they are, and we can not change them by sacrificing to the gods, burning candles or saying prayers.  [/quote]

Thank you. But i tend to differ with cicero, perhaps because of my own relationship with god. God IS an interventionist deity. If we can get him to change his mind, he can change his actions .   Yalking with god is all it requires He works the same way with us By talking to us he helps us make wider choices and do/live better.
[quote]Incorporated in this concept of God, is if you want to help someone, you actually have to do something for them, rather than say a prayer for the person and leave it at that.  The Christian practice of saying prayers for people, and acting as though that is equal to actually giving someone help, really annoys me. [/quote] While I absolutely agree with the first part of this and see it as a part of modrn christianity to BE a christian; to give, to help, to share etc.,  I know it can also be very helpful and beneficial for a person to be prayed for.

  When I had my heart  tripleby pass, I was helped by three things. The excellence of my physicians and nursing staff, the intercession of god in angelic form, and the prayers of many people. The latter comforted me as I lay in a hospital ward hundreds of miles form anyone I knew.

One should never pray for anyone without their permission, because the power of prayer is  so great and powerful. I have had it completely remove excruciating pain from my body, and heal damaged muscle tissue, for example. And it may not be emoguh JUST to pray. But prayer is a powerful physical and psychological force for many people on the recieving end of it.


[quote] God stopped sending birds to feed people, a few years ago.  I am concerned that Christianity interferes with some people's ability to deal with reality effectively.[/quote]

My reality ncludes a real physicla and powerful intercessionary god , so I must beg to differ with you. In my life god contines to provide power manna money and indeed life force. Nonetheless you have a point. I help peole practically as a first priority ,although with their permision I  may pray for them also. That may be a prayer for them to have courage or  peace. It might be for them to get well

God, existing in me and in others, and in the world around us, is linked; and so my 'life force' and prayers can work on others. (I must admit i dont pray much  myself because its power does scare me) I do prefer tp help physiclaly,  but it amazes me how knowing i care for another personn and love them as I love myself can heal them and help them .
[quote]I think the important question to ask is not, what is God, but rather, how does God work?[/quote] To me those questions are inseperable because, to me, god works as all real things do. Its function and its form are inseperable. Form follows function and function follows form.

[ZaraKitty]

Maybe more than one God exists? And everyone's right and can stop killing each other ^__^