an absurd comment. my life without a god is not in the least dark.

If you are an atheist or agnostic how would you know that your life is without God?

Has anyone, atheist or believer proven the existence or non-existence of God?

Replace that statement with "a life without love would be very dark."

Define God as Love.

Then, we can all agree.

Love is Love.

I absolutely agree with you on that point Jeannie, if we define God as Love then life without love would indeed be very dark.

However, if we define God as Love then most people who currently consider themselves to be "atheists" would no longer take that stance since they most certainly believe in Love.

So if we allow that God is Love, then there probably aren't too many "atheists" by that definition of "God".

Well Christians must agree because after all the Bible says so.

"God is Love"

God is love, I'll agree with that. But we don't "have" to believe because the bible says so. The belief we possess comes from within. From within ourselves, our choice, our decision. Your statement doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense actually. The bible is merely the knowledge, that starting great. It possess no emotion. The faith comes from ones own self, not from the bible. It's not a must, how can one believe what is in the bible but not believe God loves them? Or how can one believe God loves them, but not believe what's in the scriptures? Both knowledges go hand in hand.

I understand what you are saying here.

These kinds of philosophies are extremely difficult to put a finger on, from Pantheism to Panentheism to Animism to Mysticism and so forth. So many words that people have come up with try to put a finger on something so illusive.

I personally prefer the term "Mysticism" because from my point of view that's the best description. Life is indeed a Mystery, and this why the Mystics call their philosophy "Mysticism". They hold that the true nature of the ultimate source of our consciousness is indeed unknowable in terms of rational explanations that we as mortal creatures lust to have.

I've come to grips with all of this.

There are a few fundamental principles that I simple accept, you might say that I accept them on pure 'faith'.

1. First and foremost, life is but a dream.

IMHO, it's a totally naive to expect that reality as we know it can be reduced to a physical substance. That may sound strange to someone who's entire life's career has been as a physicist, but this has never bothered me. What we call physics is nothing more than the laws that govern the dream. Clearly the dream is coherent and is restrained so that it does indeed make sense. If the dream were nothing but total random chaos it would be a totally uninteresting dream. So I expect that the dream would have restraints. And we experience those restrains in the form of a fairly dependable physical dream.

Why should we based our spiritual or "mystical" philosophies solely on the apparent physical limitations of what we perceive to be "physical"?

I could understand such a view in the days of Classical Physics when everyone was convinced that the entire universe is made up of tiny billiard balls, and that everything just runs like a giant predetermined clockwork. Even that view was quite naive and could be philosophically overridden even had those atomic billiard balls turned out to actually exist.

But in the 20th century scientists lost their balls. Our current understanding of what we call "physical" has become far more elusive and abstract. In fact, no scientist today has a clue how it can even be like that. It totally defies anything that we consider to be rational or logical. It's mystical (i.e. a mystery)

Richard Feynman - Noble Prize Winner in Quantum Physics:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will go "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Our understanding of the physical nature of reality has itself become "Mysticism".

Why restrict our spiritual philosophies to the idea that everything must obey that so-called "laws of physics" when we in fact have no such laws. We have no clue what they are at the fundamental level, or if there is any "reality" to the physical world at all, other than being projected as some sort of dream by who knows what?

2. The Mystics simply ask, "Who is the dreamer?"

Well duh? The dreamer is the entity who is having the dream! It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure that on out.

We are the Dreamer. Thus we must also necessarily be the creator of the dream. This is why the Mystic says, "Tat tvam asi", You are it. You are that which you seek. You are the dreamer.

You are the "computer entity" that you have referred to. You are the cosmic mind. You are the dreamer.

A higher power?

Higher than what? What else exists other than the dreamer?

If you are experiencing the dream, then when the dream is over you will awaken from the dream to know the true nature of the dreamer which is you.

Why think of yourself in terms of "physics" as nothing but a collection of empty dead bits and pieces of "energy" that have come together to create your current form of consciousness? And that when you die that unconscious energy will just dissipate to become unconscious again?

What was it that was "Conscious" at any point during that process?

The energy?

What was it that actually EXPERIENCED this energy taking form as your physical body? Did your brain experience it? What could the brain itself be other than this energy that you speak of?

If your consciousness is this energy, and your true nature is this energy, then surely this is ALWAYS true. Not only when it comes together to form a lump of matter that we call a human.

Is this comprehensible to our current way of thinking within the manifestation of the physical world?

No it's not. The mystic would say:

3. The true spiritual nature of our essences is unknowable.

Don't even try to comprehend it in terms of "physics", logic, or rational thought, or anything like that. It's beyond all of that.

With "God" (i.e. our true essence) all things are possible. There are no limitations, and thus there is nothing to comprehend. There are no "restrictions" to comprehend.

And after all isn't that what our sense of "comprehension" is all about?

We believe that we have "Comprehended" something when we understand what it can do, and what it can't do. And perhaps why it has the limitations and laws that govern it's limitations.

Only then can we say that we rationally "comprehend" something.

But "God" (i.e. our true essence) is unlimited. There is nothing to "Comprehend" about it. There are no limitations to understand. It can't be put into a box. It can't be defined, because it defies anything that we would consider to be a definition. A definition is nothing more than a state of limitations. When we define something we define it in terms of what it can do, and what it can't do, etc. Those limitations are precisely what DEFINES it.

"God" (our true spiritual essence) is undefinable because it has no limitations. There is nothing you can say about it that would define it because any definition would be nothing more than a statement that tries to differentiate the thing from what it is not.

But "God" (our true spiritual essence), is everything without bound or limitation. Therefore it cannot be defined as it has no limiting definition.

Tat T'vam Asi. "You are That"

That's the mystical view. It can't be reduced to "bits and pieces" on energy. That's a DEFINITION. In fact, that's a definitions that implies that energy can even exist in some sort of separated states such as "bits and pieces". God is all. There is nothing that is not God.

Unlike what the Christians preach, it's impossible to be separated from God. That very notion implies that you could exist OUTSIDE of God and that you would somehow be a valid entity in your OWN RIGHT.

That defies the very essence of a God that is unlimited. For if you could be separated from God, then you would be placing a LIMIT on God. You would become something that God is NOT. And thus you would be DEFINITION what God is. God would become that which isn't you.

But then WHO would you be at that point?

No, that's absurd.

God is everything. No one can ever be separated from God because God is not an individual egotistical Zeus-like individual being. God is EVERYTHING without bound.

God is not a separate egotistical "deity" chomping at the bit to condemn you should you displease him. God is the essence of your being. Tat T'vam Asi, You are it. You are the dreamer.

You are unknowable even unto yourself, because there is no way to define you. You are unlimited, and therefore you defy any restrictive definition. You are the eternal mystery.

That's easy Cowboy. Just recognize that the scripture that you are referring to have nothing to do with God. Or at the very best they have been extremely contaminated by the superstitions and arrogance of men.

It's only important to you because you have decided to view those scriptures as the infallible word of God.

But there are many people who simply view them as fables that have no more merit that the Greek Scriptures.

They have absolutely nothing to do with "God" at all as far as I'm concerned.

And that is your choice, your decision. That is what you have placed your faith into as being true. Can't be proven as absolute fact any more then it can be proven that God is true and real. That's the funny thing about faith. It can't be "proven" either way. And that is all you have, faith that God is not there. Or at least not the "Christian" God.

I agree that you don't "have" to believe anything because the Bible says so. In fact, you can cherry pick whatever you want from the Bible and believe it or not.

Now if you can succeed in getting all Christians to agree to that, then they can cease and desist beating people over the head with scripture as if it were the "word of God."

Thank you Cowboy.



I haven't said a thing about an entity called "God" loving me or anyone else. I have simply quoted the Bible that states GOD IS LOVE.

Either you believe that or you don't.

"God is Love" does not say, "God loves you."

It says what God is. God is Love.

That's exactly right Cowboy.

But you asked a question:

"Or how can one believe God loves them, but not believe what's in the scriptures?"

All I did was answer the question that you asked.

Now doing that wouldn't make much sense. Believe these verses, but don't believe those verses. Doesn't work that way. You can either believe the entire scriptures, or none at all. Anything other then that, wouldn't make much sense. And would allow your own personal ego, wants, and desires to interfere with your reading and learning.



No one's beating anything over anyone's head. Christians believe the bible is the word of God and will profess it as such. Merely sharing and expressing their own beliefs, just as atheists do, just as other beliefs do. Only difference is atheists have no doctrine or anything to base their beliefs off of. Atheism isn't a belief, it is the lack there of.



It doesn't?
John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Truly,


John 4:

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.


Looks like Jeanniebean knows her Bible!

This becomes somewhat algebraic.

Love equals Love. There doesn't need to be anything else tossed in. I can say Dog equals Love and that's true. Aphrodite equals Love. But those all become something else entirely, and one starts making things more detailed then it really needs to be.

Love equals Love and there's no outside sentient deity needed.

Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.


Any Christian who wants to argue with that will get no sympathy from me. It comes straight from their Holy Doctrine from the book of John. To renounce it is to renounce their very own doctrine.

There is love in this world because of God, with out God there would be no love. So if one truly loves, one knows God. One doesn't truly love till they know God.

I agree.

But once we recognize that God is Love and Love is God, then we realize that God is not a 'deity" at all. God is simply love.

Period amen.

Obviously Fables that claim that God is a Zeus-like jealous male-chauvinist that requires blood sacrifices be made before he's willing to love anyone, are clearly false.

So there are no "deities" required if God is Love.

If you love then you are in a state of being "God".

God is a state of being. Not a separate egotistical deity that's lusting to be worshiped lest he become angry and violent. That would hardly be "love".

There can be no wrath in a God that is LOVE.

Cowboy,

Now you are making a personal judgement to say that "one doesn't truly love till they know God."

Where in scripture is that actually written? Or is that just your own opinion?

If God is love, the you can reword that to say:

One doesn't truly love til they know love.

Kind of redundant.

If God is Love, (as the Bible clearly says God is,) then to know love is to know God.

That is something that can be known and felt only by the person knowing and feeling it. So you are only capable of judging your own relationship with Love and God. You cannot judge anyone else's.

It is a personal relationship. Do not judge others.

Now we're just playing a word-game. You call Love God, and I call Love Love.

God has a mostly negative connotation, IMO, therefore using the term makes Love a negative connotation.

I prefer to drop the whole "God" part, and just go with Love.

I agree.

Any religion that is based on a jealous godhead is clearly a false religion because there is no love in jealously.

Therefore we can dismiss all religions that are based on fictional "jealous gods" and know that they cannot have possibly been divine or true.

If we're going to focus on God as Love we must seek out loving portraits of of God and dismiss all of the false pictures of gods that contain derogatory and unloving concepts, such a requiring blood sacrifices for the atonement of "sin" etc.

Those kinds of concepts clearly have nothing to do with love, and therefore they cannot have anything to do with God, because God is love.

We're finally making progress.

Perhaps MG is right. Viewing God as LOVE is the best possible approach. Let's stick with that theme!

You are right on Jeannie.

Contrary to Cowboy's personal judgmental views, John of the Bible says otherwise.

John says,


Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.


Period.

Is sounds to me like Cowboy has a problem accepting the words of the very doctrine that he claims to support.

John says:

EVERY ONE that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.


It's only Cowboy who is trying to EXCLUDE people.

So who are we to believe?

John? Or Cowboy?

Obviously Cowboy is in gross disagreement with the Bible!