Exactly!

Precisely!

Square on!

"Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum", from Latin:
"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am".

René Descartes, 17th century, coined our quintessential condition from a 'cartesian', pragmatic and rational standpoint.

We are nothing other than 'thinking machine', or as you started questioning in another fascinating thread 'red', symbols fabricating machines, or yet again, pure 'meaning making machines'. We give things meaning, eventhough in the scheme of things, it is all 'meaning less'.

I don't think 'stars' need to know that they are 'stars' to ... 'star'! WE, on the other hand, seem to need to know what is around US, in reference to US above all : self-awareness through semiotics, symbols, and their logical relations to 'I'.

The question of "... Reason/intent/purpose...", as you raised above, points to the 'mother' of all 'reason, intent and purpose' for man.
I offer you, 'self-awareness'! Nothing else.
Unconcsiously OBSESSIVE about ... 'self-awareness'!!!

If it were simople and straight forward 'awareness' (no self required), there would be no need for human 'reason, intent, and purpose' t be at the service of 'self-awereness'.
No need for 'human meaning'.
No need for 'material, logical, rational concept of 'god'.

Our 'self-aware' dedicated 'reason, intent and purpose', is profoundly 'incestuous', banal, and self-serving.

All that thinking and meaning which we generate, as though we're breathing, serves nothing other than our primitive brain (reptilian) instinct for survival.

All of what this 'self-awareness' (neo cortex) distinction from other living creatures, serves for humans, is to delusionally push this PRIMITIVE INSTINCT TO SURVIVE (designed for the time we are on this planet), and which we share with every other 'living' thing,
... way beyond 'death' on this planet.;

It only serves a self-deceiveing purpose of eternal survival of 'self', of 'I'. If you ask me, a defect more than a marvel, this neo cortex.

Survival of 'I', because like all other living thing our job is to survive.

But unlike all other 'survival' programmed living things, WE are 'self-aware' of our instinct to survive (fear), and we have given it all sorts of 'useless' meaning. Trying to eliminate 'fear' altogether, is one of the stupid idea we've come up with.
We call it 'security', and we have built the most 'destructive' and 'divisive' armies and weapons, all with the intent to replace fear here on earth, with 'security'.

Amazingly paradoxical this neo cortex, wouldn't say?!?!?

And that's not all. We extend this insane 'false' sense of 'security' (our denial that it is impossible for the 'I' to survive termination) into this image/conviction of 'eternal' security, or survival.

Ain't that insane?!?!?

That is the 'I' sourced 'meaning' of this material image of 'eternal life' in this 'eternal place', which is 'run' by this conveniently 'self-serving' image of an 'eternal god', ... waiting for our 'I' to land in nirvana.

'WE' simply couldn't have thought of place (somewhere), and time (eternal), without someone knowing about it (convenient image of god), since 'we' don't have a clue of this place and this 'eternal notion of time. Right?!?!?

All of this 'space and time' eternal survival of the 'I' stuff, is so very much primitive instinct, very much primitive HUMAN. No spirit, no essence, no 'god' there.

Maybe the neo cortex (self-awareness) can be put to better use than JUST serving the primitive instincts of 'reptilian' brain obsessive 'fight or flight'.

Thinking one's thinking!!! Being aware of our self-awareness, as Socrates intuitively observed more than 3000 years ago, and that contemporaries such as Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, to only name those, pushed much further.

BECOME AWARE of this automatic self-awareness, generating automatic "... Reason/intent/purpose...", which only serves primitive reasons/intents/purposes.

Recognize the obsessive/compulsive instinct based impulses, and SIMPLY refrain from indulging in them.

That's it!!!

That alone. This temporary, moment by moment 'free-choice' to disconnect from 'I', will leave room for something 'other' than 'I' sourced instinctive reflexes TO MANIFEST!!!

Something the 'I' has no idea, or meaning (yet) about, and can't (yet) control!!!

The end of the road for the "... how come this keeps happening to me..." syndrome.

Anyway, I am doubtless that my self-aware 'I' will be of absolutely no use to anyone the day 'me' dies!

'ME' ceases to 'exist' as an 'I', as a 'self-aware' exclusive, as an illusory separate and therefore material, or physically separate entity. That I am sure about.

As for the rest, THE 'I' OBVIOUSLY HAS NO CLUE!!!

Yet, I trust totally, that 'spirit', essence' 'whole', 'everything/nothing', etc., 'IS', 'has always been' , and 'will forever be'. I trust it, intuitively. 'I' DON'T KNOW IT.

Ironically our obsessive attachment to the self-awareness, 'exclusive' survival of our 'I's, whether selfish (fear of death), or projected selfishness (salvation through proselitizing), shortcircuits and obliterates simple 'awareness' to essence and spirit NOW!

Let's keep this ball in play. Not one 'I' knows what might come of it!!!

:)

Agreed. In as much as "defining" God remains a difficult task, we certainly agree on this as an established premise to any definition of attributes.



The relevance is in our understanding of something created. It naturally follows that there must be a reference to time if something comes into being that never was.



Here's where the premise established is not sound without further explination of the attributes of "God". In Christianity, there is the Triune God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All separate entities (if you will) existing singularly in essense. And limiting the ability to emit sounds or hear things to a physical existance is not necessarily true. We hear the wind blow, and the crashing of the waves. To assume the wind does not "hear" - is merely a subjective premise (albiet a logical one - however, still subjective.)



For the time being - I find no argument against this. But I'm trying to tie this in with the OP concerning where created things eminate from - and I'm not convinced there isn't some sort of contradiction here. Just not sure what your point is.

With all due respect Di, the "fairy-tale" God that you claim to understand is not the God that we as believers have faith in. You view God through the limited expectations of human understanding - and therefore are correct in claiming it to be a fairy-tale. However the storybook exists only for you, as you have not even begun to understand the God I have faith in through what you attribute Him to be. To put it simply - the God you claim that I have put my faith in does not exist - but that does not mean that the God I have faith in doesn't. You just haven't experienced Him yet.

With all the respect that I have for you Eljay, when you refer to THE GOD YOU have faith in, this particular 'god' cannot exist for all, it is clearly your own personal experience of 'god', and therefore not 'god' IMO.

Having faith period, might be 'god'!!! Whatever image or experience you come up with to generate faith for yourself, is of material impoortanc to you , but remains totally immaterial to the essence and spirit that 'god' might be.

Eljay

How would you know?

True - but Di's reference is to the "fairy-tale God of creation"
Which I take to mean as an understanding of the God of scripture, (which I'm sure I don't have to explain as the God I have faith in) - it is to that reference I spoke of. Because I happen to have a personal faith in this God - does not conclude that this God is unique to only me.

CreativeSoul,

I was very reluctant to write a response to Dragoness's post, because I expected the sort of response as you wrote. You consistantly misunderstand what I'm saying and attack strawmen. It's very difficult to communicate with someone who is simply looking for a way to attack your belief system.



NO! Read what I posted. "Before God created Satan, God couldn't know that Satan would rebel." If God hadn't created Satan, God couldn't know what Satan would do. If God knew what Satan would do if God created Satan, then God would know something that would never happen. The meaning of what I posted is clear, it's your desire to find holes that prevents you from understanding.



The Jews are a wonderful people. They understand that God couldn't sin and that God didn't tempt. God cannot do all things. When Jesus said "...With God, all things are possible" in Matthew 19:26, a Jew would know that "all things" means "all good things". I have posted this before, the accepted meaning of God's omnipotence for Jews is not the same as the meaning you would find in Webster's dictionary. God's power is limited, but only by God's character and paradox. So you believe that God knows all things, right? Then why are we living? Why are we here? What is our purpose in existance if God already knows every single thought we will think and every single action we will perform?



Um...I already covered that. God knows all things which have, is or will happen. I can't break it down any more simple than that.



I'm talking about Christianity, not your beliefs. Christians accept that there was a war in heaven, between Satan and his demons and they fought the angels.



Oh SNAP! You burned me! But actually, yes, the Bible describes a God who is limited in power by His character and by paradox.



Yes, that's one evidence we have that God doesn't know all things. God knows (gosh, I feel like a broken record) all things which have, is or will happen. The Bible makes it clear that life tests us. There is a reward for passing and a punishment for failing. Once again, why are we here? What is your belief on that subject? Why do we live lives? Your god can't learn anything, because you say your god knows all things.

There are many things wrong with this picture Eljay.

First, it’s perfectly clear that all so-called ‘believers’ don’t view God in the same way. There can be no doubt about that. We see the difference between how believers view God everyday just on these forums alone. But even if we didn’t see the difference here, it’s all around us in the many different sects and denominations of the religion. Even members of a single congregation within a church will almost always view the God they worship differently.

You tell Di, “You view God through the limited expectations of human understanding”. But how can you claim not to? Are you not also human?

The main reason that I do not believe in the biblical picture of God has nothing to do with logical reason associated with reality even though there are ton of reasons for that. My main reason for not believing in this picture is because the persona of the entity itself makes absolutely no sense whatsoever considering the properties this personified God is supposed to have. It’s the behavior of this God that makes no sense to me. Moreover, if this God actually does exist we’re all in big trouble because it’s not a nice God. Just read the damn book!



If you understand a God that is different from the persona described in the Bible then you are talking about a differnet God. It’s as simple as that Eljay. You just made up your own God and then somehow blind yourself to what the book actually says.

You do realize that the God of the bible did, at one point in the book, tell people to stone sinners to death?

How do you accept such a persona as the God of the universe?

From my point of view, there are just better pictures of God to be had. And how could that be? How could mere mortal men come up with pictures of a God that is superior to the God depicted in the Bible. How is it possible that I can imagine something better than God?

If I can imagine something better than God then God can’t be ‘perfect’. And therefore the whole story falls apart. Well, I can imagine a God better than the Biblical God. MUCH BETTER. And so, as far as I’m concerned, then this other picture must be more likely to be true. Unless I am to consider that God is flawed. But why would I want to do that?

Though I will agree with you that the "methodology" within the "church" (and by that I mean the beleviers independent of congregation or denomination) may differ - the "message" does not.
To claim to be a believer - yet have differing opinions of the gospel message is an indication that one should question the claim of being a believer.



Yes I am - but my understanding of the God of scripture comes through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - which, having been a Christian yourself through self assertion - you know that without the Holy spirit, spiritual matters are but foolishness.
So how can Di - a self proclaimed Atheist - understand the God of Christianity without guidance from the Holy Spirit? She can only do so through her observations indipendent of the Holy Spirit - who by definition leads one to the understanding of the gospel message.



I'm not in disagreement with the God of the bible that you object to - nor do I find exception with what you object to.
I've never claimed that you have misrepresented the facts of scripture that you take issue with - I actually appreciate the fact that you support your objections with the examples that drew you to your conclusions. You and Di are pretty much the only one who does so - (and before you get excited Voile - you've been know to do so as well.) But I don't view the actions of God in the scripture through my own sense of morality. I'm not insensed by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and other examples of "violence" in the bible. (Rabbit's already posted them all - so there's no need for me to) I don't pass judgements on the actions of God, I just seek to understand them. Agreeing with them just isn't an option for me. And I don't deny you that right if you so chose to.
So I don't see a different God in scripture - but I do tend to believe that scripture is consistant with itself, and that it is inspired. Therefore I will always disagree with those who's perception of it is "fairy-tales".




Of course I realize it. How do I accept it? Because I understand the nature of sin and how destructive it is. What puzzles me is why you attribute blame to God for the consequesnces of the actions of man? If it is understood that there are consequesnces to actions - isn't it more appropriate to look towards the actions of those who are deemed "victims of God's wrath" to determine who is to blame?



So my question to you - is the God of the scripture flawed, or yoiur perception of Him? I realize that you've discoverd the God of Pantheism as being closer to your perspective of acceptability, and I follow the reasoning you've drawn this conclusion from as you explain it. I'm not as clear as how she would react to the circumstance that brought about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah any differently than the God of scripture - other than to dismiss it as a fairy-tale, but I would be curious as to how that should have been handled as she would have. Or is it not a fact that what happened at S & G was a result of what she did?

Oh but I don’t. I can’t blame the biblical God for anything. I don’t believe in the picture to begin with. However, if I were to believe in the picture, of course it would be God’s responsibility. Everything would ultimately be the responsibility of a God who judges.



No, because God is the dictator in this situation, and therefore God is ultimately responsible for what he dictates.



In the pantheist picture humans are responsible for everything that happens. God does not intervene other than to give humans what they ask for.

God is completely non-judgmental. She gives you whatever you ask for without any judgment whatsoever. She is like the genie of the universe. Your wish is her command. She answers your every prayer without the slightest judgment.

Your only job is to learn how to pray. You can’t intellectually bow your head and ask for one thing, and then go off dwelling on something else. God will give you what you dwell on. Not what you instantaneously ask for in a conscious and deliberate prayer. You must live what you want God to manifest for you. And you can’t control the lives of others. That’s not your job. You job is to live your life. As everyone else’s job is to live theirs.

The doesn’t mean that you can’t help other people. It simply means that you can’t live their lives for them.

The pantheistic God would never ask you to stone someone else for not living a certain way. Whatever they do is between them and God. Not between them and you. You are only responsible for you own actions. And God has no responsibility for anything because all she does is allow you to do what you want with no judgment at all concerned with what you do.

In short,… The biblical God of the Old Testament is entirely based on being a judgmental dictator with specific rules that are quite literally carved in stone.

The pantheistic God is entirely based on being non-judgmental and there is no rule book. You must judge yourself. You will be judged as you judge, the measure with which you mete judgment is the measure that will be mete unto you.

Sound familiar?

I believe that Jesus was the God of pantheism. He certainly preached the pantheistic view in everything he said. He never claimed to be the God of Abraham. And for someone who supposedly came, not to change the law, but to fulfill them, he should changed the RULES.

Perhaps the law has nothing to do with the rules? He changed the rules, but not the law. The law is that what you sow, so shall you reap. This is the LAW of the universe.

The ‘rule’ was to stone sinners, Jesus CHANGED the RULE. The rule was an eye-for-an-eye and a tooth-for-a-tooth. Jesus said, no, turn the other cheek instead. Jesus changed all the RULES, but he didn’t change the LAW.

The LAW is the law of the universe. Whatever you sow, so shall you reap. That is the law of the universe.

Christians confuse the RULES of the old testament with the LAWS of the universe.

The LAWS are non-judgmental. Gravity holds everyone on the planet. Non judgment required.

The LAW that you reap what you sow is the same kind of law. It’s not a rule that requires judgment. It’ s law of the universe. You just reap what you sow. Period.

That’s the way it works. There’s no one to ‘blame’. No need to blame. You reap what you sow. It's simple.

funches:
...

Not true funches, I assure you of this... all I have said thus far is that 'God' is indivisible. One must use some type of common ground to communicate with another. Although it may seem as though my 'thinking' is limited to the physical world, it truly is not.



I have no argument with your statements... I am just attempting to set an accepted premise... 'God' must be indivisible.

Thank you for your contribution(s)... a shared perspective.




Di:



None...


Eljay:



Any premise of 'God' being 'first' makes 'God' indivisible, by nature. 'God' used 'God'.

Here you have said separate, yet singularly in essence.

I completely agree with this notion.





Everything humanly understood is subjective in the truest of senses Eljay. Using that term to disregard sound logic is to apply a blindfold to one's self.

Without the necessary material components contained within a biological system, hearing would be mute, and speech... deaf.

Combine this with the accepted premise of indivisiblity, and there is no reason that a 'God' would or could 'speak'. 'Gods' capability to create would only require the ability to self-manipulate. 'God' used 'God'...


spider:

Strawman?

I do not wish to discern the differences between your understandings and mine. I have started threads on Christianity, you should have spoken your pieces in there. This one is not on Christianity.

However, should you wish to begin your own thread on that topic, I would join, if invited.

According to your statements regarding what you believe that I believe, you must read minds, because I have never told you what I believe. You have no idea what I believe. I have been using the premise of 'Gods' existance being prior to all things. It would be most helpful if we stayed on topic, which is not the personification of 'God', according to spider.

The established logical premises(concerning 'God' being a creator of all things) are as follows...

1.) 'God' existed prior to all things.
2.) 'God' used 'God' to create, therefore it follows that 'God' is indivisible.

Should you care to extrapolate or expand these notions in any way... logically for or against... you are welcome to join in.

My apologies for misunderstanding your interpretation of omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.



Voile and Di:

Why would reason, intent, and purpose have to be included in a concept of an a priori 'God'?



Hiya James...

By golly I think he's got it.

I was thinking about The Government founding fathers and all this today. Lets think about this

Originally In america i believe most are from here =), The founding fathers had a vision for america and based this vision on for the most parts pure good intentions. Today alot of people wonder how disapointed the Founding Fathers would be if they saw how corrupt the government is mostly because of money and politics =). Now this is man corrupting a good vision.

"Upon this rock i shall build my church". This to me is the start of a great vision and still maintains its integrity in most places, however alot of people have corrupted such a pure idead, NEW religions, false prophets and mostly People trying to get rich off of "God". Mans corruption in religion is just this way.

It seems alot of folks on here attend a couple churchs and found the corruptions than man has called and blamed God for thier lack of belief, but really should be blaming man.

how do these compare? Dont we blame Government for its problems when we are the ones, who corrupted the Government. who know the saying "The Love of Money Is The Root of All Evil"? Interesting how the bible applies many things in our daily lifestlyle, yet people becasue of a personal/EMOTIONAL hate against Religion more specifically Christianity on things they dont understand.

Just my 2 Cents thought it post again =)

Like the duracell bunny (bang, bang bang.... ) it keeps on going. Very interesting thread, and some very philosophical ideals.

Only by the Faith we are given, I believe that is why Jesus said those who have ears let him hear.

Take Care, I appreciate everyone comments I think God when he made Satan that he was going to use him to build character, or visa versa.

Night.

Why would anyone put limits on God, with all is possible? Biblical understand is usually left for Bible scholars, but one of my favorite things is Jesus walking through walls, and being completely in body. Or a mule talking, via angel or spirit. It seems to all be possible even in the most simplistic writings, how God works through man.

TAB

For Christian the best thing about OMNIpresence or OMNIPOTENT is that we are already in heaven and we are hoping those who don't believe are there with us. The Word of God tells us that.

We are already there. Its a big thought, but it gets me through some really bad days, and tough nights.

Thanks again.

Cue 'Dreamer' - Supertramp.....

And how was I supposed to know that? I think all threads should be used by all people, with the only exception being when someone asks a question to a specific religion. (ie What do Muslims believe the ultimate purpose of life is?) If someone wants an answer from people of a specific belief system, I wouldn't intrude unless my belief system were run through the mud (as often happens here). (As an aside: I feel a need to defend Christianity, because attacks that go unresponded to might lead non-Christians to believe that Christianity doesn't have an answer to a particular question or a defense for a certain allegation.) If my beliefs aren't previously brought up or attacked in the question thread, then I feel it would be unbecoming for me to make a post about my beliefs.



I agree, I don't. I thought this thread was you discussing your beliefs, but perhaps you were simply playing Devil's advocate. No offense was intended, I assumed you were arguing from the perspective from which you believed. People make the same mistake about me all the time.



I don't understand point 2. God created everything, therefore God is indivisible? I'm not sure how that logic follows.



It's not my defintion, it's the defintion accepted by many Christians and also most Jews. I made a post about this defintion a few weeks ago on Crosswalk and nobody disagreed with the definition. Some asked for clarification, but for anyone who has read the Bible, I feel they would be forced to admit that the defintion I gave is far more accurate than the one in Webster's. That said, I only offered a definition on God's omnisciences, not omnipotent or omnibenevolence.

Ahhh... Semantics. We agree totally on this statement. Or - it would appear so. To me, I agree because scripturally, "God" the father said "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
and let them...."

So God the son made man.

"He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."

Are we speaking the same language here?