hi,
there are thousands of verses in Noble Qur'an. whole text were given in 23 years. i guess it wouldnot be weird if i say 'it was downloaded into the heart of the Prophet"
verses were said usually after an incident that happened.
anyways
here i like to share certain verses given as a respond to the one who asks what's God (like) with friends who didnot hear it before.
one day, one of the followers of Prophet comes to see him in a rush. he asks Prophet what God is. Prophet tells these verses:
Say: He is Allah, the One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
this follower stands for a sec and then he says he understood and he leaves. but the rest of the people who's witness of this short conversation were a bit confused.
later on, they meet the owner of the question. they say "we heard what you asked and we listened to the answer. but we still donot know what Allah is. so, what did you understood?"
"i understood that Allah couldnot be fathomed." he says.
to me this is a logical fact. i cannot percieve God. it is actually absurd to try to. we cannot even perceive this planet entirely.
it is not possible to fathom God. we can know it as much as our capasity lets us but no creature could ever understand it completely. everyone has borders no matter what and after that it is unknowable, truely beyond our understandings. it should be accepted with respect.
i know there are people who wants a evidence of God. creation is good enough for me. because it is too perfect for an accident. every tiny detail is flawless and amazing. i can't deny it is created by superior intellect. since it is superior, how am i suppose to understand it? it would be like asking a question like "how many twos are there in one?" there are none, my friend. absolutely none, therefor they (or maybe U) say there is no evidence.
Full Version: what's God like?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs
God is slightly yellow, shaped like a donut and only answers prayers at Wednesdays.
Seriously though, if there is such a thing as a God, I assume it's impossible for humans to fathom what he/she/it is like.
Seriously though, if there is such a thing as a God, I assume it's impossible for humans to fathom what he/she/it is like.
Lava, you make such great posts. 
It's human nature to try and put a face on something. We'll always try to imagine what God may look like out of curiosity. But we are limiting him by worldy fashions by doings so.
It's human nature to try and put a face on something. We'll always try to imagine what God may look like out of curiosity. But we are limiting him by worldy fashions by doings so.
God is a comedian who performs for an audience too afraid to laugh.
Darn good comedian. May he rest in peace.
God is like the Father and Mother we all wished we had here on Earth. Loving us unconditionally For ever.
Father, and Mother The Holy Spirit God, are eternal spirits, whom have created our eternal spirits and all the rest of the spirits which make up Matter and everything we know as Physical. Because everything stayes stable out of Love for God and God's Love for them , Everything is God.s Love, or because of Gods love, shared by us .
Creation is made from this same love , down here as in Heaven, Our eternal birth place where our eternal spirits were createdout of love.
God can be described as Love unconditional, also as My , Our Heavenly parents, who love us dearly no matter what path , religion and or creed we be.
To say god only loves some of God's creations is to limit the infinate love of an infinate spirit. Or to try , at best .
Love Omnaka
Father, and Mother The Holy Spirit God, are eternal spirits, whom have created our eternal spirits and all the rest of the spirits which make up Matter and everything we know as Physical. Because everything stayes stable out of Love for God and God's Love for them , Everything is God.s Love, or because of Gods love, shared by us .
Creation is made from this same love , down here as in Heaven, Our eternal birth place where our eternal spirits were createdout of love.
God can be described as Love unconditional, also as My , Our Heavenly parents, who love us dearly no matter what path , religion and or creed we be.
To say god only loves some of God's creations is to limit the infinate love of an infinate spirit. Or to try , at best .
Love Omnaka
God is not.
1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement ever.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of a) its intrinsic quality and b ) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap/dissabilty of the creator the greater the achievment.
4) The greatest possible handicap to a would-be creator is non-existance.
5) If you assume the world was created by a powerful being its easy to imagine one even more powerful; one that doesnt exist!
6) Therefore an existing God would not be a greater being than a God which didnt exist, and as God is supposed to be the greatest being imaginable....
7)...God doesnt exist and the world came from nothing by nothing!
From God to Big Bang in 7 easy steps
1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement ever.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of a) its intrinsic quality and b ) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap/dissabilty of the creator the greater the achievment.
4) The greatest possible handicap to a would-be creator is non-existance.
5) If you assume the world was created by a powerful being its easy to imagine one even more powerful; one that doesnt exist!
6) Therefore an existing God would not be a greater being than a God which didnt exist, and as God is supposed to be the greatest being imaginable....
7)...God doesnt exist and the world came from nothing by nothing!
From God to Big Bang in 7 easy steps
he looks a lot like this. (i thought everyone knew what he looked like).
QUOTE (Spanky_ @ Nov 14 2007, 01:43 PM) 
he looks a lot like this. (i thought everyone knew what he looked like).
It's time he had an haircut and shave
fullywired
We know only what He has chosen to reveal...
QUOTE (lava @ Nov 14 2007, 03:15 AM)
hi,
there are thousands of verses in Noble Qur'an. whole text were given in 23 years. i guess it wouldnot be weird if i say 'it was downloaded into the heart of the Prophet"
verses were said usually after an incident that happened.
anyways
here i like to share certain verses given as a respond to the one who asks what's God (like) with friends who didnot hear it before.
one day, one of the followers of Prophet comes to see him in a rush. he asks Prophet what God is. Prophet tells these verses:
Say: He is Allah, the One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
this follower stands for a sec and then he says he understood and he leaves. but the rest of the people who's witness of this short conversation were a bit confused.
later on, they meet the owner of the question. they say "we heard what you asked and we listened to the answer. but we still donot know what Allah is. so, what did you understood?"
"i understood that Allah couldnot be fathomed." he says.
to me this is a logical fact. i cannot percieve God. it is actually absurd to try to. we cannot even perceive this planet entirely.
it is not possible to fathom God. we can know it as much as our capasity lets us but no creature could ever understand it completely. everyone has borders no matter what and after that it is unknowable, truely beyond our understandings. it should be accepted with respect.
i know there are people who wants a evidence of God. creation is good enough for me. because it is too perfect for an accident. every tiny detail is flawless and amazing. i can't deny it is created by superior intellect. since it is superior, how am i suppose to understand it? it would be like asking a question like "how many twos are there in one?" there are none, my friend. absolutely none, therefor they (or maybe U) say there is no evidence.
there are thousands of verses in Noble Qur'an. whole text were given in 23 years. i guess it wouldnot be weird if i say 'it was downloaded into the heart of the Prophet"
verses were said usually after an incident that happened.
anyways
here i like to share certain verses given as a respond to the one who asks what's God (like) with friends who didnot hear it before.
one day, one of the followers of Prophet comes to see him in a rush. he asks Prophet what God is. Prophet tells these verses:
Say: He is Allah, the One;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
this follower stands for a sec and then he says he understood and he leaves. but the rest of the people who's witness of this short conversation were a bit confused.
later on, they meet the owner of the question. they say "we heard what you asked and we listened to the answer. but we still donot know what Allah is. so, what did you understood?"
"i understood that Allah couldnot be fathomed." he says.
to me this is a logical fact. i cannot percieve God. it is actually absurd to try to. we cannot even perceive this planet entirely.
it is not possible to fathom God. we can know it as much as our capasity lets us but no creature could ever understand it completely. everyone has borders no matter what and after that it is unknowable, truely beyond our understandings. it should be accepted with respect.
i know there are people who wants a evidence of God. creation is good enough for me. because it is too perfect for an accident. every tiny detail is flawless and amazing. i can't deny it is created by superior intellect. since it is superior, how am i suppose to understand it? it would be like asking a question like "how many twos are there in one?" there are none, my friend. absolutely none, therefor they (or maybe U) say there is no evidence.
Perhaps one day GOD really will become GOD (LOVE), but when it happens, we will no longer be GOD, because our betters will take over and become our rulers.
THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS
SCENE 3: Judas recounts a vision and Jesus responds......
Judas said to him, “In the vision I saw myself as the twelve disciples were stoning me and [45] persecuting [me severely]. And I also came to the place where [...] after you. I saw [a house ...], and my eyes could not [comprehend] its size. Great people were surrounding it, and that house <had> a roof of greenery, and in the middle of the house was [a crowd—two lines missing—], saying, ‘Master, take me in along with these people.’”
[Jesus] answered and said, “Judas, your star has led you astray.” He continued, “No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom [46] and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and [...] send it [...] on the twelve aeons.”
All each of us can do is to construct our god in one of two ways. On faith, or logically, taking all the available personal, historical and other evidence.
My wife has a complete acceptance of god, based on faith, (she just absolutely and irrefutably knows he exists,) but I have never really asked her how she visualises him.
Because I do not, and never have been able to, "take things on faith" I have spent a long time trying to establish the nature of god, based on; the written accounts of "him" from all faiths and religions, personal accounts of contact with him, but most of all by the way he interacts with me and the physical universe around me. That is because i tend to be a "seeing is believing" person, and therefore consruct my image(s) of god on what I can see of his nature and his actions.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason god puts in so many personal apperances in my life, ( By comparison with the norm) is because he knows that i would never have accepted his existence without this evidence. I have put detailed descriptions of how I perceive god and his interaction with the physical universe into other posts, so I will not repeat them here.
My wife has a complete acceptance of god, based on faith, (she just absolutely and irrefutably knows he exists,) but I have never really asked her how she visualises him.
Because I do not, and never have been able to, "take things on faith" I have spent a long time trying to establish the nature of god, based on; the written accounts of "him" from all faiths and religions, personal accounts of contact with him, but most of all by the way he interacts with me and the physical universe around me. That is because i tend to be a "seeing is believing" person, and therefore consruct my image(s) of god on what I can see of his nature and his actions.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason god puts in so many personal apperances in my life, ( By comparison with the norm) is because he knows that i would never have accepted his existence without this evidence. I have put detailed descriptions of how I perceive god and his interaction with the physical universe into other posts, so I will not repeat them here.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 15 2007, 02:17 AM)
All each of us can do is to construct our god in one of two ways. On faith, or logically, taking all the available personal, historical and other evidence.
My wife has a complete acceptance of god, based on faith, (she just absolutely and irrefutably knows he exists,) but I have never really asked her how she visualises him.
Because I do not, and never have been able to, "take things on faith" I have spent a long time trying to establish the nature of god, based on; the written accounts of "him" from all faiths and religions, personal accounts of contact with him, but most of all by the way he interacts with me and the physical universe around me. That is because i tend to be a "seeing is believing" person, and therefore consruct my image(s) of god on what I can see of his nature and his actions.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason god puts in so many personal apperances in my life, ( By comparison with the norm) is because he knows that i would never have accepted his existence without this evidence. I have put detailed descriptions of how I perceive god and his interaction with the physical universe into other posts, so I will not repeat them here.
My wife has a complete acceptance of god, based on faith, (she just absolutely and irrefutably knows he exists,) but I have never really asked her how she visualises him.
Because I do not, and never have been able to, "take things on faith" I have spent a long time trying to establish the nature of god, based on; the written accounts of "him" from all faiths and religions, personal accounts of contact with him, but most of all by the way he interacts with me and the physical universe around me. That is because i tend to be a "seeing is believing" person, and therefore consruct my image(s) of god on what I can see of his nature and his actions.
Sometimes I wonder if the reason god puts in so many personal apperances in my life, ( By comparison with the norm) is because he knows that i would never have accepted his existence without this evidence. I have put detailed descriptions of how I perceive god and his interaction with the physical universe into other posts, so I will not repeat them here.
So GOD is exactly as we want GOD to be. Now isn't that a surprise?
QUOTE (libra II @ Nov 15 2007, 12:46 AM)
So GOD is exactly as we want GOD to be. Now isn't that a surprise?
lol
took words out of my mouth
its real funny how we are constantly told that we were created in gods image, when it wouldnt take a 5 year old to figure out from even the posts here on this web site that, god is created from our image, the images and ideals we are farmiliar with, what we would expect of a omnipresent baby sitter, what WE WANT from a god as a mortal.
hey, what ever gets you thru the night.
He's like me... Only I'm better and far wiser.
QUOTE (Primeval @ Nov 15 2007, 02:53 AM)
He's like me... Only I'm better and far wiser.
I'm a believer now
QUOTE (libra II @ Nov 14 2007, 04:58 PM)
I'm a believer now
And it only took my 9 words, beat that jesus!!!
QUOTE (Primeval @ Nov 15 2007, 02:59 AM)
And it only took my 9 words, beat that jesus!!!
Amen
What's God like? Hm, i dunno. Coors Light and a hot blonde maybe?
QUOTE (libra II @ Nov 15 2007, 10:16 AM)
So GOD is exactly as we want GOD to be. Now isn't that a surprise?
I am not quite sure how you got that impression from my post. Possibly the limitations of trying to express a complex concept in just a few words. To use an earlier analogy with gravity, what I was trying to say is that it is quite evident that god exists from the effects he creates, the physical disturbances/interactions he has with the world.(like gravity).
However, we cannot see either god or gravity, so the scientific approach is to try to construct the best picture/description based on the effects. So, if I ignore the angels, visions and oral conversations when I construct my image of god, (for reasons outlined below, these may be limited cultural perspectives of god) I am left with a being who, from the evidence; Encompasses all space and time (exists simultaneously through out the time space continuum.) Is able to interact physically with the known elements of the universe to; create, manipulate and alter matter, energy space and time. Has a direct interest in sentient beings to the point where, throughout our history, it has attempted to communicate with them. Sees itself as a model, and a teacher, for humnanity, and as part of this provides rules for a way of life which offers great physical, mental/emotional and spiritual benefits.
I could go on, but these attributes are fairly universal in the human cultural definition of a god. From the evidence, my personal belief is that there is only one such entity, but that because humans are limited in their ability to perceive, let alone understand the nature and motivations of"god" throughout histor,y we have all only comprehended a part of the total picture, and even then, only through the cultural/ technical eyes available to us at that time in history.
GOD IS AS GOD IS.
It is our perceptions of "him" which may be limited or flawed. That is why I was suggesting that the best/ most logical approach is to study "him" through scientific/cultural/psychological and other perspectives, using all the available evidence. After all, this is the approach we use for other phenomenum such as gravity, when we know they exist, through the force they exert; but do not understand how they operate or the "laws" and interconnections through which they operate.
For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that god has a gender. He seems to have many attributes which we associate with a father, but the christian image of god was undoubtedly (as with all the abrahamic avatars) constructed through a society which was intensely patriachal. Thus we have to be careful to separate his observed nature from his unobservable form.
I need to be aware that just because god mostly speaks, and appears to me, in a masculine form, this is not necessarily his nature; just my perception of him. Similarly, where i see an angel 2 metres tall, glowing with a brilliant light, and speaking in a masculine and authoritative voice, some one from a different religious/cultural back ground may receive a different form of messenger.
It is interesting that within cultures, the avatars/messengers of god are remarkably consistent and coherent (thus creating common religious images within each faith, which are quite different from those of other faiths.) The angels I have seen were almost identical to the descriptions written in the bible, although I might use descriptive adjectives like "glowing with an intense flourescent light", because modern readers would understand this, and identify the type of light I was talking about.
I had never (as far as i can remember) read this description of an angel before I experienced my first, but later saw that it was one of the common biblical forms of angels which have appeared within our religious culture for several thousand years. Another was indistinguishable from an ordinary man (except that after depositing a bible in my hospital cupboard, he disappeared off a fifth floor balcony in the cardiac unit.)
I guess, to see it the way i am explaining it, you do have to accept, and believe, that many people, over the ages, have actually seen/experienced such physical avatars of god, They are not simply pschological/literary constructs. They exist, and are one of the strongest singular pieces of evidence that god exists.
Okay, Walker, but what's that got to do with Doris Day?
QUOTE (libra II @ Nov 16 2007, 06:48 AM)
Okay, Walker, but what's that got to do with Doris Day?
Well, his reruns have been going on for even longer, and he does have a similar sense of humour, otherwise i am not sure.
(Sorry I got confused with Lucille Ball)
I dont know. Is it that they both only consented to appear in G rated movies.
Otherwise you have caught me out with a cultural/age specific reference that I am either too old, or too white, to appreciate.
Never mind, If i ask one of my students they can probably let me know.
(Time passes)
Not even a google search gives me a clue.
(More time passes)
Australian teenagers aren't much help so far either.(maybe the movie hasn't come out here yet)
If you are simply trying to say you don't see how my post responds to your point, then i will try to simplify the difference in perspective, later. I have to go and teach some English to year nines.
My earlier point is that there is a big difference betwen the concept that "GOD IS EXACTLY AS WE WANT GOD TO BE." ( Your interpretation of what I was saying), and "WE OFTEN SEE GOD AS WE WANT/EXPECT HIM TO BE" (What I was saying).
I believe god is a real being with one physical shape and form, but that we often interpret his manifestations to us, through eyes and brains which are filtered through our cultural and technological limitations at the time.
I believe god is a real being with one physical shape and form, but that we often interpret his manifestations to us, through eyes and brains which are filtered through our cultural and technological limitations at the time.
Hes your normal guy (or gal) with exception abilites. He had good intentions but he turned into a really condesending and stuck up guy..so his friends left and he tried to fill the void by having a child..that kid was really picked on by the other kids becuase he thought he was "special" (since his mom/dad told him that since birth).
Because I don’t believe in god, when ever I see a question like this I always look at god as a fictional character. And I find that Richard Dawkins gets his character dead-on :
Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
QUOTE (Odin11 @ Nov 16 2007, 06:22 AM)
Because I don’t believe in god, when ever I see a question like this I always look at god as a fictional character. And I find that Richard Dawkins gets his character dead-on :
Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
You missed one of his main attributes: non-existance.
God looks like this...
I am personally a believer of the traditional image of god, wearing a multi coloured, flowing robe, long white beard...But of course, god needs a few extra threads, for the "cooler, more hipper Christians".... and here he is...
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 16 2007, 02:26 AM)
Well, his reruns have been going on for even longer, and he does have a similar sense of humour, otherwise i am not sure.
(Sorry I got confused with Lucille Ball)
I dont know. Is it that they both only consented to appear in G rated movies.
Otherwise you have caught me out with a cultural/age specific reference that I am either too old, or too white, to appreciate.
Never mind, If i ask one of my students they can probably let me know.
(Time passes)
Not even a google search gives me a clue.
(More time passes)
Australian teenagers aren't much help so far either.(maybe the movie hasn't come out here yet)
If you are simply trying to say you don't see how my post responds to your point, then i will try to simplify the difference in perspective, later. I have to go and teach some English to year nines.
(Sorry I got confused with Lucille Ball)
I dont know. Is it that they both only consented to appear in G rated movies.
Otherwise you have caught me out with a cultural/age specific reference that I am either too old, or too white, to appreciate.
Never mind, If i ask one of my students they can probably let me know.
(Time passes)
Not even a google search gives me a clue.
(More time passes)
Australian teenagers aren't much help so far either.(maybe the movie hasn't come out here yet)
If you are simply trying to say you don't see how my post responds to your point, then i will try to simplify the difference in perspective, later. I have to go and teach some English to year nines.
Terrible what Doris Day can do to some people. Some of them even start glowing in the dark like Noah
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 16 2007, 05:51 AM)
My earlier point is that there is a big difference betwen the concept that "GOD IS EXACTLY AS WE WANT GOD TO BE." ( Your interpretation of what I was saying), and "WE OFTEN SEE GOD AS WE WANT/EXPECT HIM TO BE" (What I was saying).
I believe god is a real being with one physical shape and form, but that we often interpret his manifestations to us, through eyes and brains which are filtered through our cultural and technological limitations at the time.
I believe god is a real being with one physical shape and form, but that we often interpret his manifestations to us, through eyes and brains which are filtered through our cultural and technological limitations at the time.
What do you think of this theory of mine (and remember I'm agnostic) ? It may explain the confusion. I 'm copying this from from an old post of mine on another thread.
i have a theory that if "something" really does exist in our presence that we physically can't see/understand our brains will make something up (which is a side effect of our beliefs/enviroment) to envision it. This is why so many people possibly have similar/different visions experiences according to their cultures/beliefs/fears etc.
It's like when they (in neuroscience) stimulate the part of your brain for laughter your brain will invent a reason why you laughed after the fact. Read about this ? Innerspace (forum member may know something about this-it's her field of work/study. Actually the results of these experiments is where I got this idea from> something went "AHA "in my head >
Our brains are different in minute ways (bio/chemically) from each other. Shy people have an overactive amygdala for instance. Deeply religious or truly intuitive/phsychic people may pick up on other forces/dimensions more readily and their brains may create a vision/voice (not necessarliy in it's actual form/look).
But this explains the skepticism from others when it's appearant everyone sees/hears something else> be it a god/demons/angels or whatever
Some people may not have the ability to pick up on certain things because of their brain structures
Your brain continually generates electrical impulses. Maybe some people are "tuned in" accurately like a radio ?
Yet their brain may not fully be able to comprehend on what/who they are picking up on and so maybe the brain is "partly" filling in the blanks. Anyone know what I mean ?
Physically, i think your explanation is pretty close, or maybe even completely correct. It would explain much.
Personally, I also see another aspect in that; if an intelligent entity is involved, many questions are raised as to, not just its physical abilities, but also it motivations, reasoning etc. This is also hard to work out, but can be inferred through the many consistent "messages" received by people of all faiths since the beginning of human record keeping.
Personally, I also see another aspect in that; if an intelligent entity is involved, many questions are raised as to, not just its physical abilities, but also it motivations, reasoning etc. This is also hard to work out, but can be inferred through the many consistent "messages" received by people of all faiths since the beginning of human record keeping.
The pictuer on page 1 that Spanky posted is vreey close to what I saw in my near death experience.
The only difference is that God did not have a beard and his eyes where radiating pure light, like beams.
The only difference is that God did not have a beard and his eyes where radiating pure light, like beams.
What's God like ?
for me it's simple ---- unconditional love.
I think once we die we'll understand the reason for it all , and by then all we fought over , hated , hurt , loved , wanted , all that happened to us and by us won't matter.
unless you believe in a God like Jerry Falwell's God --- funny video - this guy is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
for me it's simple ---- unconditional love.
I think once we die we'll understand the reason for it all , and by then all we fought over , hated , hurt , loved , wanted , all that happened to us and by us won't matter.
unless you believe in a God like Jerry Falwell's God --- funny video - this guy is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
Well I’m not too sure what exactly god would look like, but he does like to contradict himself and don’t forget he always judges so I’m guessing that he would sit at a dock and he might also wear a wig and long robs. 
QUOTE (lava @ Nov 13 2007, 07:15 PM)
i know there are people who wants a evidence of God. creation is good enough for me. because it is too perfect for an accident. every tiny detail is flawless and amazing. i can't deny it is created by superior intellect. since it is superior, how am i suppose to understand it? it would be like asking a question like "how many twos are there in one?" there are none, my friend. absolutely none, therefor they (or maybe U) say there is no evidence.
See there in lies one of the problems people of faith have. you say , "every tiny detail is flawless and amazing" " too perfect for accident" " you can't deny its superior intillect"
If this is true then please try and deny this inferior intillect. Several several details of existence are flawed. I have nipples I'm a male and they serve no purpose. We endure suffering when plainess could suffice for reminding us of greatness. Free will, explain free will with a moral mind. Instead of enjoying existence you have a choice to suffer instead. I see those things as flaws.
So lets talk accidents.
Did we make several spiecies of life extinct on purpose. If it was gods will then why bother in the first place? Wasn't the pain and suffering created because of opposing beliefs and accident on the havles that failed to be on the winning belief?
Okay the best one intillect. Are you smart because you believe what you rare told? or are you smart because you believe what you innovate on your own? I believe I could create a less painful world to exist in then your god has if I was given the the 13 billion plus years that our universe has been around for. Maybe I'm wrong but hell I bet you could to. 13 billion years is a long time to figure out how to diminish suffering.
Now on the other side of all this. Forget what I think about gods and slaves or whatever. Do you think god is justified by allowing torture and suffering? maybe its your willingness to justify it that allows it to exist in all of our lives here on earth?
QUOTE (lava @ Nov 14 2007, 01:15 AM)
what's God like?
"One step at a time," for me at least. Fulfill all my hopes and dreams, only then, perhaps, I would be ready to surrender to God's will completely, providing of course that God will give me the grace to surrender to Its will, to know God completely, absolutely, without a doubt in my mind. Grace is the key here. I'm not ready to let go of my "free choice." And I have no doubt in my mind that God knows where I'm at, and I feel deep down that "it is okay" for me to be where I'm at. God loves me, regardless, unconditionally. God created me, after all, and It never makes any mistakes. God is perfect, beyond word, beyond our mind's comprehension, unless God gives us that grace to know what God is all about. Besides, God has infinity on Its side. God has infinite patience to wait. And time is relative... Besides, everything we do is geared towards the ultimate surrender.
QUOTE (too_animalistic @ Nov 19 2007, 10:40 AM)
Several several details of existence are flawed. I have nipples I'm a male and they serve no purpose.
You just don't know how to work 'em. Man, I get tremendous sexual pleasure out of my nipples.
QUOTE (too_animalistic @ Nov 19 2007, 10:40 AM)
Free will, explain free will with a moral mind. Instead of enjoying existence you have a choice to suffer instead. I see those things as flaws.
So lets talk accidents.
So lets talk accidents.
There is a big difference between Free Will versus Freedom of Choice. Check out my previous posts as regards to these topics. And the older I get, I tend to believe that "there are no accidents." As the cliche goes: "We just can't see the whole picture." And it's not out of imperfection, it's about lessons to be learned at a particular level -- even this statement is limiting it, but it is what it is.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 15 2007, 02:40 PM)
I am not quite sure how you got that impression from my post. Possibly the limitations of trying to express a complex concept in just a few words. To use an earlier analogy with gravity, what I was trying to say is that it is quite evident that god exists from the effects he creates, the physical disturbances/interactions he has with the world.(like gravity).
However, we cannot see either god or gravity, so the scientific approach is to try to construct the best picture/description based on the effects. So, if I ignore the angels, visions and oral conversations when I construct my image of god, (for reasons outlined below, these may be limited cultural perspectives of god) I am left with a being who, from the evidence; Encompasses all space and time (exists simultaneously through out the time space continuum.) Is able to interact physically with the known elements of the universe to; create, manipulate and alter matter, energy space and time. Has a direct interest in sentient beings to the point where, throughout our history, it has attempted to communicate with them. Sees itself as a model, and a teacher, for humnanity, and as part of this provides rules for a way of life which offers great physical, mental/emotional and spiritual benefits.
I could go on, but these attributes are fairly universal in the human cultural definition of a god. From the evidence, my personal belief is that there is only one such entity, but that because humans are limited in their ability to perceive, let alone understand the nature and motivations of"god" throughout histor,y we have all only comprehended a part of the total picture, and even then, only through the cultural/ technical eyes available to us at that time in history.
GOD IS AS GOD IS.
It is our perceptions of "him" which may be limited or flawed. That is why I was suggesting that the best/ most logical approach is to study "him" through scientific/cultural/psychological and other perspectives, using all the available evidence. After all, this is the approach we use for other phenomenum such as gravity, when we know they exist, through the force they exert; but do not understand how they operate or the "laws" and interconnections through which they operate.
For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that god has a gender. He seems to have many attributes which we associate with a father, but the christian image of god was undoubtedly (as with all the abrahamic avatars) constructed through a society which was intensely patriachal. Thus we have to be careful to separate his observed nature from his unobservable form.
I need to be aware that just because god mostly speaks, and appears to me, in a masculine form, this is not necessarily his nature; just my perception of him. Similarly, where i see an angel 2 metres tall, glowing with a brilliant light, and speaking in a masculine and authoritative voice, some one from a different religious/cultural back ground may receive a different form of messenger.
It is interesting that within cultures, the avatars/messengers of god are remarkably consistent and coherent (thus creating common religious images within each faith, which are quite different from those of other faiths.) The angels I have seen were almost identical to the descriptions written in the bible, although I might use descriptive adjectives like "glowing with an intense flourescent light", because modern readers would understand this, and identify the type of light I was talking about.
I had never (as far as i can remember) read this description of an angel before I experienced my first, but later saw that it was one of the common biblical forms of angels which have appeared within our religious culture for several thousand years. Another was indistinguishable from an ordinary man (except that after depositing a bible in my hospital cupboard, he disappeared off a fifth floor balcony in the cardiac unit.)
I guess, to see it the way i am explaining it, you do have to accept, and believe, that many people, over the ages, have actually seen/experienced such physical avatars of god, They are not simply pschological/literary constructs. They exist, and are one of the strongest singular pieces of evidence that god exists.
However, we cannot see either god or gravity, so the scientific approach is to try to construct the best picture/description based on the effects. So, if I ignore the angels, visions and oral conversations when I construct my image of god, (for reasons outlined below, these may be limited cultural perspectives of god) I am left with a being who, from the evidence; Encompasses all space and time (exists simultaneously through out the time space continuum.) Is able to interact physically with the known elements of the universe to; create, manipulate and alter matter, energy space and time. Has a direct interest in sentient beings to the point where, throughout our history, it has attempted to communicate with them. Sees itself as a model, and a teacher, for humnanity, and as part of this provides rules for a way of life which offers great physical, mental/emotional and spiritual benefits.
I could go on, but these attributes are fairly universal in the human cultural definition of a god. From the evidence, my personal belief is that there is only one such entity, but that because humans are limited in their ability to perceive, let alone understand the nature and motivations of"god" throughout histor,y we have all only comprehended a part of the total picture, and even then, only through the cultural/ technical eyes available to us at that time in history.
GOD IS AS GOD IS.
It is our perceptions of "him" which may be limited or flawed. That is why I was suggesting that the best/ most logical approach is to study "him" through scientific/cultural/psychological and other perspectives, using all the available evidence. After all, this is the approach we use for other phenomenum such as gravity, when we know they exist, through the force they exert; but do not understand how they operate or the "laws" and interconnections through which they operate.
For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that god has a gender. He seems to have many attributes which we associate with a father, but the christian image of god was undoubtedly (as with all the abrahamic avatars) constructed through a society which was intensely patriachal. Thus we have to be careful to separate his observed nature from his unobservable form.
I need to be aware that just because god mostly speaks, and appears to me, in a masculine form, this is not necessarily his nature; just my perception of him. Similarly, where i see an angel 2 metres tall, glowing with a brilliant light, and speaking in a masculine and authoritative voice, some one from a different religious/cultural back ground may receive a different form of messenger.
It is interesting that within cultures, the avatars/messengers of god are remarkably consistent and coherent (thus creating common religious images within each faith, which are quite different from those of other faiths.) The angels I have seen were almost identical to the descriptions written in the bible, although I might use descriptive adjectives like "glowing with an intense flourescent light", because modern readers would understand this, and identify the type of light I was talking about.
I had never (as far as i can remember) read this description of an angel before I experienced my first, but later saw that it was one of the common biblical forms of angels which have appeared within our religious culture for several thousand years. Another was indistinguishable from an ordinary man (except that after depositing a bible in my hospital cupboard, he disappeared off a fifth floor balcony in the cardiac unit.)
I guess, to see it the way i am explaining it, you do have to accept, and believe, that many people, over the ages, have actually seen/experienced such physical avatars of god, They are not simply pschological/literary constructs. They exist, and are one of the strongest singular pieces of evidence that god exists.
If you accept that Yahweh of the Bible is actually "God", then He apparently has a male gender because He has a female consort called Asheroth, just as he did when he was called Enki and his girlfriend was called Ishtar, which some scholars believe are the same entities, as the Bible also confirms, by near-identical accounts of Eden, great flood, Adam, Tower of Babel, etc. and also the fact that this very ungodlike creature, by both behavior and physical description, is not actually the Creator God, but in Mesopotamian, Cannanite, and even early Hebrews beliefs, was an assistant/"son" to a far greater Creator in heaven that we really know almost nothing about. This is why there are two different Creation stories in Genesis, one attributed to El the creator and one attributed to Yahweh the Bene Elohim. There are dozens of threads here that document Yahweh's very ungodlike behavior and we even seem to have Jesus' own testimony that the "God" worshipped by the Pharisees (Yahweh) was not the true God, but "a murderer from the beginning". If this is true, we really have no idea what the real Biblical God is like, save for the words of Jesus describing Him. But as to what Yahweh, and not God, is like, refer to my thread comparing him with the popular ancient conception, demeanor, and physical description of a "dragon" based on the words in the Bible.
QUOTE (Torchwood @ Nov 14 2007, 01:39 PM)
God is not.
1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement ever.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of a) its intrinsic quality and b ) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap/dissabilty of the creator the greater the achievment.
4) The greatest possible handicap to a would-be creator is non-existance.
5) If you assume the world was created by a powerful being its easy to imagine one even more powerful; one that doesnt exist!
6) Therefore an existing God would not be a greater being than a God which didnt exist, and as God is supposed to be the greatest being imaginable....
7)...God doesnt exist and the world came from nothing by nothing!
From God to Big Bang in 7 easy steps
1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement ever.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of a) its intrinsic quality and b ) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap/dissabilty of the creator the greater the achievment.
4) The greatest possible handicap to a would-be creator is non-existance.
5) If you assume the world was created by a powerful being its easy to imagine one even more powerful; one that doesnt exist!
6) Therefore an existing God would not be a greater being than a God which didnt exist, and as God is supposed to be the greatest being imaginable....
7)...God doesnt exist and the world came from nothing by nothing!
From God to Big Bang in 7 easy steps
Heres your big bang....God snapped his fingers and said...BANG. God is the way, the truth, and the life. But thats right, you think you're more intelligent than that. THERE MUST BE A SCIENTIFIC REASON FOR EVVVVVVERYTHING. Give me a break. God created everything by his image and how he wanted. I will be praying for you.
QUOTE (candyreddime @ Nov 21 2007, 02:43 AM)
Heres your big bang....God snapped his fingers and said...BANG. God is the way, the truth, and the life. But thats right, you think you're more intelligent than that. THERE MUST BE A SCIENTIFIC REASON FOR EVVVVVVERYTHING. Give me a break. God created everything by his image and how he wanted. I will be praying for you.
On yer knees !!
Is this the christian way of saying "go to hell" because one doesn't believe in your god ? Oh I think it is
We will be "thinking for you " while you pray for us. Amen
Two hard working hands can accomplish much more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer.
Hopefully this fact doesn't disturb you enough to pray again for me. Wouldn't want you to waste your energy.
Prayer is such "hard work", isn't it ?
God looks like........me?
Especially enhanced when I listen to Koyaanisqatsi 3:32 Michael Riesman & Western Wind Koyaanisqatsi (Original Soundtrack from the Film) Soundtrack 9 21/11/2007 18:54
I think God is exactly as Morgan Freeman portrays him in Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty....
QUOTE (AstRalZoMbie @ Nov 26 2007, 10:39 PM)
I think God is exactly as Morgan Freeman portrays him in Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty....He is that cool , but even cooler. with more love, but much as is portrayed in that movie. Father and mother , the holy Spirit care sooooo much about us, and love us unconditionally. Morgan did a good job, I'm surec Father is proud of him!
Love Omnaka
QUOTE (Carcharoth @ Nov 13 2007, 11:28 PM)
God is slightly yellow, shaped like a donut and only answers prayers at Wednesdays.
Seriously though, if there is such a thing as a God, I assume it's impossible for humans to fathom what he/she/it is like.
Seriously though, if there is such a thing as a God, I assume it's impossible for humans to fathom what he/she/it is like.
Well you've got the first part of Shahada (declaration of faith) down. "La ilaha" (There is no god/deity)
I am like God. He said so Himself . "His Image...." remember ???
God is Divine Love, the source of all creation. He goes in form, through form, and out of form. He can never be created or destroyed. He is what is.
He holds no Evil, and does not have an enemy. There is no Satan in his universe, and no Evil. Sins are only an illusion man has brought upon himself.
God is the deep happy, warm fuzzy feeling you get. Happiness is god.
He holds no Evil, and does not have an enemy. There is no Satan in his universe, and no Evil. Sins are only an illusion man has brought upon himself.
God is the deep happy, warm fuzzy feeling you get. Happiness is god.
He is like a lion! Arrogant, way-selfish, demanding, punishing, jealous and capricious maker of this corrubtible material world. He is actually the true Satan. According to Jesus, Yahweh and Satan is one and same. He is Yaldabaoth according to himself but the perfect call him Ariael because of his fearful lionlike appearance. "I am the God, and apart from me there is none other" he claims. An aborted fetus he is without spirit, made by darkmatter and not of antimateria.
No wonder that I am not reading the Old Testament.
What about Allah, Shiva and others alike? Yes, they could make some creating and wonders but they do have their limits even so. Even their nature is like their father does by being of one and same nature as him. The very androgynous demiurg Yahweh. No wonder that all of the major religions on this Earth are so violent, allowing war, rape, slavery, sacrifices, oppression, incestophobia and so on. Does that have to do with their exoterian nature perhaps? The ancient religion of zoroastrianism became corrupt because of its exoterian nature whereby it fell as it's the case with mainstream orthodox christianity today.
I do not believe in any gods that makes man suffer.
The Good Father on the other hand is all good! He does not interfere with the matters of this world, neither does He demand sacrifices or any evil whatsoever. Good thoughts, good words and good deeds are all importand virtues for Him. He has a female counterpart, Pistis Sophia, the Great Daughter of the Good Father. Their Son is Jesus or Yesseus-Mazareus-Yessedekeus as we gnostics know him. Long live Shahanshah, our Saoshyant!
No wonder that I am not reading the Old Testament.
What about Allah, Shiva and others alike? Yes, they could make some creating and wonders but they do have their limits even so. Even their nature is like their father does by being of one and same nature as him. The very androgynous demiurg Yahweh. No wonder that all of the major religions on this Earth are so violent, allowing war, rape, slavery, sacrifices, oppression, incestophobia and so on. Does that have to do with their exoterian nature perhaps? The ancient religion of zoroastrianism became corrupt because of its exoterian nature whereby it fell as it's the case with mainstream orthodox christianity today.
I do not believe in any gods that makes man suffer.
The Good Father on the other hand is all good! He does not interfere with the matters of this world, neither does He demand sacrifices or any evil whatsoever. Good thoughts, good words and good deeds are all importand virtues for Him. He has a female counterpart, Pistis Sophia, the Great Daughter of the Good Father. Their Son is Jesus or Yesseus-Mazareus-Yessedekeus as we gnostics know him. Long live Shahanshah, our Saoshyant!
Everyone sees god differently, some don't even believe in it. I feel it is up to ones self to think what god is like.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.