I’m only going to respond to this part because it has the essence of our division. You believe you are a fluke of the universe. I believe flukes are little fish that lay on the bottom of the bay who have both of their eyes on one side of their head.
God is not external, nor internal. God is intrinsic. All things emanate from God. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Erek
You are posting on an American messageboard, to a primarily American/Western European audience. If you are using the reference frame of nomadic Mongolian sheepherders to define God, you should say so up front.
Which school of mysticism are you refering to? And why is your school of mysticism superior to any other school of mysticism, or to the rejection of mysticism entirely? This is where we come back around to proof: like so many other theists, you’re arguing that you have a world view that is inherently superior to any other world view. Why should I take you at your word? What evidence can you offer that you’ve got a better grasp of reality than I do? I’m not going to dispute that you’ve had personal, non-replicable experiences that prove this to your own satisfaction, but why should I take your word for what you experienced? You could very well be a charlatan, a lunatic, or an idiot.
The problem isn’t understanding your conception of God. Like most dorm-room theology, that’s relativly easy. The problem is explaining why I should accept your conception of God.
And now, for a little levity:
I’m only going to respond to this part because it has the essence of our division. You believe you are a fluke of the universe. I believe flukes are little fish that lay on the bottom of the bay who have both of their eyes on one side of their head.
God is not external, nor internal. God is intrinsic. All things emanate from God. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
It is not the believer’s responsibility to define God. Definition of God is idolatry, as once God has been defined the perspective has changed due to spacial and temporal shift.
Erek
To continue in my previous vein: Pigs With Wings are not external, nor internal. Pigs With Wings are intrinsic. All things emanate from Pigs With Wings. The proof is in the Pigs With Wings, so to speak.
This is fun!
I’m not using Mongolian definition of God. I am using a Qabbalistic definition actually, which would be the foundation for the “western conception” btw.
Mystery schools tend to be pretty ecumenical. The truth is the truth is the truth and all that. There’s a story I always liked about how the Qabbalists allowed Alexander into their temple because an initiate to the great mysteries is an initiate to the great mysteries. I never argued for superiority, I argued that people who are arguing for rationalism, are not being internally consistent, which is an essential component of rationalism. I’m not asking people to believe what I believe. I am asking them to actually commit to what they profess to believe or switch tactics.
Ahh trying to cajole me into your line of thinking. Which scientific axiom is about guilting someone into shutting up again?
[/quote]
It’s amazing how many different forms “culture” takes on isn’t it?
Erek
Who’s that trip trapping over my bridge!?!?!
Isn’t it the troll who says that?
To continue:
Psalm 23 (A Psalm of King Soylent Green)
The Pigs With Wings are my sheperds;
I shall not want.
They maketh me lie down in cool mud-wallows.
They lead me beside my own rivulets of urine;
They restoreth my soul.
They lead me in the paths of piggishness
For their names’ sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no slaughterhouse;
For They art with me;
Their moist snouts and their oinks,
They comfort me.
They prepare a table for me in the presence of mine Farmer Green;
They anointest my head with a distinctive but subtly flavored marinade,
My slop trough runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of life;
And I shall dwell in the sty of the Pigs With Wings
For ever.
Amen
Well alrighty then. If everything is as it is because you have willed it to be so, why are you bitching about these ‘faux skeptics?’ Why not just will them to be the way you want?
Whichever. The point is, your conception of God is at odds with the vast majority of Judeo-Christian belief. You’re using your faith to rebut arguments crafted in response to entirely different theological approaches, and then acting like you’ve just proved something. It’s like responding to a critical essay about Moby Dick by pointing out that there aren’t any whales in The Great Gatsby.
Yeah, or they figured it was wiser to kiss up to the guy with the gigantic army who had conquered the entire known world. Sure, Alexander was an initiate into the “great mysteries.” And Elvis was really a black belt.
They’re only lacking internal consistency if your conception of reality is the correct one. If you’re wrong, and there’s nothing that shows otherwise, then the rationalist attitude that you are railing against is entirely flawless. Since you’ve admitted that you can’t objectively prove your faith, there’s no reason for anyone to switch tactics.
Well, that’s a pretty random response. I don’t know how to respond to that, because I have absolutely no idea what any of it means.
Missing the point is your forte isn’t it?
Erek
I disagree that my conception is at odds with the vast majority of Judeo-Christian belief. Ironically, it is only atheists who are claiming this. Every theist who has weighed in has had a fairly similar conception that God is beyond artificial limits. So perhaps my conception of God is only at odds with the common atheist on the straightdope’s conecption of God.
You don’t know anything about the history of Alexander the Great at all do you?
No they are only lacking internal consistency, if they conflate lack of proof with a negative. I am not railing against a rationalist attitude. I am pointing out when folks such as yourself are not adhering to the rationalist attitude they espouse.
Long and short of it, I am calling you a blind hypocrite, but trying to cast a wide net so that I don’t break the rules of GD, but I figured you needed that point of clarification.
I’m all for rational consistency, and I’d love to see more of it.
You attempted to pigeonhole my beliefs into “Dorm room theology”. At least your ability to grasp what I am saying is fairly consistent.
Erek
Humor me. Explain the point to me as if I were a child.
Unfortunately I just did, and that’s where you missed the point.
I’ll try again.
We are all manifestations of God. There is no such thing as “individual consciousness” that we are all part of one big consciousness, and each of us is a manifestation of that ‘consciousness’, seeing itself from a different perspective. That I referred to two seperate ideas of “myself”. Myself as ‘Erek’ and myself as ‘God’. The myself as ‘Erek’ would refer to the perspective that emanates from this body that is currently typing to you. The myself as ‘God’ includes, you, the Golden Gate Bridge, Lick-em frogs, Lick-em-aid, Atoms, Nebulae, Galaxies, primordial ooze, thought, words, emotions, the internet, etc… All as part of one infinitely large infinitely complex being, that happens to the an indivisible singularity.
To tell you the truth, explaining this to a child would be far easier. I would say “Everything is alive, has feelings and is part of the same thing, from that (point at something) over there to that (point at something else) over there, to you, to me.”
Erek
This is an explanation?
Well let me restate my question because I am still unclear on the concept. If we are all manifestations of God, how can it be that you would object to what any of the other manifestations of God say or do? You have complained that some of us are hypocrites, others false skeptiks, etc. Are these acts of ‘hypocrisy’ not the act of a manifestation of God, and above reproach? Or to put it another way, why would any one manifestation of God have a better handle on things than any other manifestation of God?
Well let me restate my question because I am still unclear on the concept. If we are all manifestations of God, how can it be that you would object to what any of the other manifestations of God say or do? You have complained that some of us are hypocrites, others false skeptiks, etc. Are these acts of ‘hypocrisy’ not the act of a manifestation of God, and above reproach? Or to put it another way, why would any one manifestation of God have a better handle on things than any other manifestation of God?
I’m trying to follow this thread, but it seems like people are discussing at cross purposes. I’m pretty clear what some of the people are using as a working definition when they use the word “God”, but mswas I’m not so sure.
Can I make a request that you pin down your definition, so that I understand your language when you use the word “God?” Like, if I were to associate the word “airplane” with a man-made, heavier-than-air, winged, flying craft propelled by jet engines or propellers that could carry people and/or cargo aloft, then you would follow me in a discussion of airplanes. Thanks.
Really? You think that mainstream Christian and Jewish belief holds that God wants us to “fuck all the time, do lots of drugs, drive fast cars, colonize every celestial body [we] are capable of colonizing, talk to Saturn, walk on Neptune, and … deflower Athena”? Where exactly is that, in the catechism of the Catholic Church? Or is that from the Torah?
I don’t have time to go back to every single post in the thread right now, but I don’t recall seeing anyone substantially agree with you in this thread. But, I might have missed it. Help a guy out, here.
Try me.
How am I a hypocrite, precisely? Remember: simply disagreeing with you does not make me a hypocrite. And no fair saying pointing to stuff you’ve already posted in this thread! I’ve read all of it, and none of it applies to me or to anybody I’ve ever met. Start by describing what I believe, and then point out where my actions have contradicted my beliefs.
Sorry if you took offence, but your philosophy is entirely to facile and simplistic to be taken seriously. It sounds great when you’ve got a bong in your hand, but as a working belief system, it’s pretty much useless. Your definition of God is so uselessly vague that you’ve essentially defined him into non-exsistence, and as most theists tend to do, you’ve ascribed him motives and goals that are suspiciously similar to your own. When your concept of God is nothing more than a rubber stamp for your own impulses, you’ve transformed a deity into a rubber stamp.
So you think this (below) isn’t at odds with the vast majority of Judeo-Christian belief?
The Judeo-Christian texts are pretty clear the universe is Gods creation, and as such is separate from God.
Your description of God sounds like Buddhism to my ears, and all good Christians know Buddhists worship the devil!
Never mind. I should have re-checked the thread - I see that you have given your definition of the word “God.” (I’m not sure what “indivisible singularity” means, but that’s OK.) Thanks.
God == everything
I’ve been tough on pigs (with or without wings). Pigs are too noble to be compared with any human conception of god. For the purposes of explaining such concepts to a child, let’s try a Teddy Bear. Not that Teddy Bears deserve that hit, but I’m just feeling bad about my previous use of an actual, living creature.
“We are all manifestations of a Teddy Bear. There is no such thing as “individual Teddy Bear” that we are all part of one big Teddy Bear, and each of us is a manifestation of that Teddy Bear, seeing itself from a different perspective. That I referred to two seperate ideas of “myself”. Myself as ‘Erek’ and myself as ‘Teddy Bear’. The myself as ‘Erek’ would refer to the perspective that emanates from this body that is currently typing to you. The myself as ‘Teddy Bear’ includes, you, the Golden Gate Bridge, Lick-em frogs, Lick-em-aid, Atoms, Nebulae, Galaxies, primordial ooze, thought, words, emotions, the internet, and all the other little Teddy Bears, etc… All as part of one infinitely large infinitely complex Teddy Bear, that happens to be an indivisible singularity, a Teddy Bear.“
Moving on:
“Everything is alive, has feelings and is part of the same thing, from that (point at something) over there to that (point at something else) over there, to you, to me.”
Now that I would agree with. It’s just that when you start calling that “same thing,” of which all things are a part, “god,” or a Teddy Bear, you open the door to all manner of misconceptions about what it actually is.
