My acid is fine, thank you very much-You need to find a typeface that doesn’t glow in the dark.
Well, he that loveth his god shall lose it; but he that hateth his god in this world…
Always loved the “God is just a state of mind” argument.
Vishnu had the entirety of the universe in his mouth.
I don’t care what you say anymore, this is my God
Go ahead with your own God, leave me alone
Spit it out, Vishnu, you don’t know where that universe has been!
God. Don’t talk to me about God.
It feels to me like that’s sort of the intent of the argument - to handwave the arguability of God away with a ‘yes, but what if…’
Which I think it just another way of saying “Except for all the objections you have, what’s your objection?”
I sort of subscribe to aspects of God=Life, though That is more of Love (God) creates the matrix for life. We are alive not because of our biological nature, but because we are patterned on the alive Mother Earth, which so on is patterned after the universe, also a living being. Mother Earth is not just the planet, but the planet is akin to just one of her chakras, the being Mother Earth is to us the solar system.
Some faiths consider the Universe as God, or a God figure. The reason that we have biologic life is because of the life ‘energy’ of our mother (Earth). Her life energy causes, to use new age terms, vibrational patterns which organize matter into patterns, which it is the vibrational energy that groups around matter and sometimes arranges it it to what we consider a biological lifeform is the concentration of this life energy around matter which has grouped itself in a way to create what we consider a life. It is just a energy node of Mother Earth’s life energy and pattern. Her pattern is based on, perhaps the galaxy’s pattern who would be her parent.
In this different star systems would have slightly different life patterns, as it was from a different child of the common parent.
In this it sort of leads to after our biologic death we return to the source life pattern, never lost but the energy which made and sustain us gets mixed up and redistributed. However it also leads open that this energy in our current state (biological) is not the end point but just one phase and can evolve. This leaves open the possibility of refining. Those who evolve take that energy and go on to a higher form, those who don’t fall back into the Mother, reprocessed and are the basis for more life to evolve.
It’s too early in the morning to deal with so many mis-defined words used to describe an idea that doesn’t have a shred of evidence supporting it.
Go ahead and define God as Life if that makes sense to you. But you will be unable to have a meaningful conversation with the rest of society that has a different (although not completely consistent) definition.
Who decides what constitutes “Love” or “Femur” or “Wankel Rotary Engine” anyway? As it turns out, most people are OK with whatever Mr Webster says.
I can’t see how the idea is anything other than complete gibberish. I’m glad the Wankel analogy has some traction, it makes just as much sense.
Behold, I have succeeded in turning lead into gold!
That is very good, Percy, except, the thing about gold is, well, it’s gold. What you appear to have created here is “green”.
Life existed long before sex did, and there is life that has no sexual ancestors.
Witty!
Many years ago, I read Walsch’s first Conversations with God book, or at least tried to—I don’t remember whether I made it all the way through, and I was left with absolutely no desire to read any of his other books.
My impression, near as I can remember, was that some of the things he said when he was speaking for and about himself, in his own voice, might actually have been worth reading, and I wished he had just stuck with that. But when he claimed to speak for God, and went all “God said this to me”—the “God” he presented wasn’t one that I or any other traditional theist (Christian, Jew, Muslim) would recognize, and from their perspective, what he was doing might be considered blasphemy, idolatry (making up his own god to worship), or false prophecy (claiming to speak for God).
“In Green we trust!”
See, that’s the thing. Any “word of God” written anywhere was filtered through a human being at some point. Why shouldn’t he be allowed to give his take on that process was what I was thinking about at the time. I see where you’re coming from, and I did have my misgivings reading some of his conversations, but the upshot of it all—God being a much more reasonable being than we give Him credit for—gave me reason to believe Walsch was on to something here. Or on something, take your pick.
That’s an awful large assumption you are asking us to swallow, because I think the default position is that any “word of God” written anywhere originated with a human being at some point, because that is where all the evidence points to so far.