Agnostic finds God...

[one_raven]

Again…

I see this as a pragmatic view of "God".
Does something with the traits and attributes of "God" exist?
I think so.

Does that thing affect my life on a regular, even constant basis?
I think so.

Does that thing react to my actions, therefore, in effect, acknowledge my existence?
I think so.

Does that thing have an immense power over people’s lives all around the globe, whether or not they acknowledge its existence?
I think so.

Does this thing deserve to be respected and even praised for its power?
I think so.

Do I benefit from acknowledging this thing as an integral part of my life?
Yes, I think so.

If this thing, in effect –pragmatically speaking-, is equivalent to common depictions of the “Universal God”, why not call it God?


(Whenever my second post in a row ends up on the top of the next page, I always think someone will miss my prior post. So I decided to make a note here that I have a post at the bottom of the previous page. )

 

[wesmorris]

IMO, there is no such thing as the supernatural. It's a superfluous term. All that is, must be by definition of it being of the universe, part of nature. There is a lot about nature that is unknown, and some I suspect to be unknowable.

Oh and please note, I did not state or intend to imply that what you're doing is hurting anyone. I don't have a problem with your right to state your frame of mind. I'm just reflecting on it and stating the issues in my own mind that dont' jive with it. The way your mind is organized is your current status and this works for you, that's smooth man. You go.

To me, our personalities... our thoughts, our wants, blah blah, every smidge of our essence is a perfect part of nature, unyielding in its flawless execution of itself. Both of our opinions are part of that. Rocks forming, stars, gravity, blah blah. All part of that. That is nature. IMO, I can't look at it as a deity, or allow it a name like "god". It's as superfluous as "the supernatural" which basically means "shit we don't understand and might never understand". I don't like the term "spiritual" much either, as it implies something separate from the whole IMO, as if part of nature could be un-natural or somehow "better than natural".

Obviously you're entitled to your own opinion of the issue, and I'll consider it if you offer it and offer what I can see in its reflection.

 

[one_raven]

IMO, there is no such thing as the supernatural. It's a superfluous term. All that is, must be by definition of it being of the universe, part of nature. There is a lot about nature that is unknown, and some I suspect to be unknowable.

Exactly.

Therfore, if "God" does exist, he/she/it/whatever would be a "natural force", no?
Then why try and draw a distinction here?
Why discount something by referring to it as a "Force of Nature"?

 

[cole grey]

maybe I am just being an ass but i can't revere this thing you describe here if it has any sort of persona or entity at all -
He crept through the Deep South many years ago and convinced people that they were justified in lynching human beings based on the color of their skin.

If you are talking about time, or energy transfer, or undifferentiated power, I can be in awe of it, but will never call it God.


P.S. are you the agnostic that found God? You sound more focused.

 

[one_raven]

maybe I am just being an ass but i can't revere this thing you describe here if it has any sort of persona or entity at all -
...
If you are talking about time, or energy transfer, or undifferentiated power, I can be in awe of it, but will never call it God.

So, it is just the personification you object to?
Let me ask you, if I replaced all the places where I said "He" with "It", would you feel differently?
In other words, putting my method of explaining it aside, do you think what I have said rings true?

Did you read what I said about Æsop's Fables? Do you have a similar problem with them due to the personification of animals?
If not, is it that this is not talking about animals, rather an inanimate "force"?
Is it simply the word "God"?

P.S. are you the agnostic that found God? You sound more focused.

Thanks.
Yes and no.
I was working on developing a character from a book I have been writing, and had to figure out what his "faith" was.
He is a bit of a stoic, apathetic man, who values pragmatism, yet is somehow spiritual, though he never believed in "God" per se.
In trying to understand what makes him tick, I realized that I was very much explaining my outlook on life and karma, and I agreed more and more with what he said.

The reason I used "God" is because, like I said in my last few posts, pragmatically speaking, there is no difference between this "force" and the "God" that many people describe and believe in.

If Mr Smith says he believes in God, and I say I believe in this "force" and both of the things that we believe in are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent, then, to a perpetual pragmatist, what is the difference between Mr Smith's God and mine?
I can't see any difference, EXCEPT, that my God has abundant evidence to support all my claims, and is therefore REAL.
Mr Smith's God, pragmatically speaking, is little more than a fantasy.

 

[one_raven]

As for the whole "crept through the Deep South" thing...
I suppose I have a penchant for the dramatic.
I can't help it, I'm a writer.
I was trying to draw similarities with the popular depiction of Satan whispering over your shoulder.

 

[cole grey]

As for the whole "crept through the Deep South" thing...
I suppose I have a penchant for the dramatic.
I can't help it, I'm a writer.
I was trying to draw similarities with the popular depiction of Satan whispering over your shoulder.

Well, no the personification is so common that it doesn't matter to me what you call "it", "him", "her", "thou". I guess martin Buber said he had a hard time speaking of God in the third person, but i don't know enough about him to tell you why he had a problem.
It is the idea that God is a completely non-moral being with no concern for humans and is the cause, by coercion, of all the wrongs mankind should take responsibility for, that strikes me as off. I will admit that a God which is the first cause of the universe would have to take some responsibility for any creations. But is God synonymous with the devil? Why revere the devil? Understand it as necessary, perhaps, but lump it in with God and revere the devil as the fourth person of the trinity? No.
If this god you speak of is like the undifferentiated consciousness and the law of the dao or something - then satan is that which goes against the way, or proper order. So a man doing good could be working for satan if at that moment in time more evil needs to be created to create a balance. And then you have to figure our if satan is just a proper force of nature and there is no judgement... good to unravel this mystery, inside you it will be done, and you can continue to create your character, yes.

 

[one_raven]

I see what you are saying.

The difference here, is that "God" is not a being with his own distinct consciousness and intention.
Satan, as well, is not a being of distinct consciousness and intention.
There is a Trinity of sorts, but not the Christian Father, Son & Holy Ghost, nor the Hindu Brahma, Shiva & Vishnu ideal.
The "Trinity", if it can be called that, would be God, Mankind & the Goddess (which I haven't gotten to yet).

The intention of God, is the collective intention of mankind.
Mankind, collectivelty, is responsible for all his own woes, because he is responsible for all of God's will.

It is somewhat similar to the concept of the Tao you brought up, but there is no "proper order" so to speak. Although I believe balance is key, there is no authority who will smack humans down if they step over the line and transgress past a certain balance point. There is no old man in the sky, watching us and sending Satan down to strighten things out.
God, although He has power over men, is subject to mankind.
The only "good" God can do, is borne within mankind.
The only "evil" God can do, is borne within mankind.
Mankind is God's will and intention.

The Goddess, on the other hand DOES ensure, insist upon, enforce and inflict balance upon mankind, but in an entirely different scope. Her impetus is purely self-defense. But we are not there yet.

 

[c7ityi_]

I was trying to draw similarities with the popular depiction of Satan whispering over your shoulder.

god, your "higher" self, horus, also whispers over your shoulder.

the voice of satan is the voice of the body/person, the egoistic voice. the voice of god is the voice of your true self.

in hinduism, they say that god, brahman, can't be described or understood. but it is explained in two ways: nothing and everything. that's why hindu's can pray to anything, and they'll always just pray to brahman.

when you learn more about yourself, you'll see that you are god. that's why buddhism says that there are no gods, and instead it concentrates on "know thyself".

people understand god differently, according to how aware they are about themselves (god). for instance, in christianity, god is (usually..) a person, and perhaps also has a body, because people identify themselves with their body and person, instead of their true self.

people have a hard time to pray and worship the real god which has no attributes (all attributes), so they give him human attributes. people also used to pray to statues. i have no personality, because i have them all, i am the creator of all masks.

if someone has found christ, he has found himself.
if someone is forgiven by god, he has forgiven himself.

help comes from within, not outside, that's why people pray to god.

 

[Mythbuster]

Believers are peoples who feel soo weak of them selves, so they created millions of skydaddies & skymamas.

 

[one_raven]

Believers are peoples who feel soo weak of them selves, so they created millions of skydaddies & skymamas.

Is that a fact?

Tell me, what is it about what I said that gives you that impression?
Do you think that people are not, in fact, affected by the actions of those around them?
Do you think that I am deluding myself by believing that by not living a virtuous life I would be contributing to the negative aspects of the world around me?
Perhaps you think I am weak and foolish because I think there are consequences for all actions.
Maybe you think, by acknowledging the power of social influence, I am trying to create a scapegoat for people's actions that harm others?

Or did you not bother reading what I had to say at all, and rather offered up a quick judgement of me based on the title of the thread, and perhaps a few snippets you may have glanced over?

Please elaborate, and join in on the discussion, rather than simply discounting all that has been discussed with a simple-minded off-the-cuff remark that fails miserably at its intended effect of being funny.

 

[one_raven]

c7ityi_ ,

Regarding your comment that God is self...

God is an immense mirror, large enough to reflect all of humanity - organized religion, wielded by human self-absorption and fear, is the hammer that humankind took to this mirror.

When the pieces fell, hordes of people ran up to it, stepping over one another, clamoring for a tiny piece of God they can possess and call their very own.

Everyone now has a tiny piece of this huge shattered mirror, and they think they own God.

They look deep into their little, personal sliver of truth, searching for God and find him in a reflection of their own selves looking back at them.

This convinces them that their beliefs are correct, and everyone else's must be wrong.

If people were willing to just put all their pieces back together and reform the mirror, when they looked into it they would see the whole of humanity looking back at them.

However, people would rather own a piece of God, than give up their piece in search of the whole. They are scared that someone will run off with their precious piece. They would rather die than face the insecurity they fear will descend upon them if they would give up their piece of God. They would rather kill than give up their piece. Killing in the name of God – how utterly debased and disgusting humans have become in their quest to protect their measly, little piece that really doesn’t even make much of a difference to the whole.

I also suspect they will fear what they see looking back at them when they take a good look at themselves.

I often hear people say "I am God", or "God is within me" what they should be saying is "We are God" or "God is within us".

 

[wesmorris]

Exactly.

Okay then.

Therfore, if "God" does exist, he/she/it/whatever would be a "natural force", no?

Well, not "a" natural force, but "the" natural force, so to speak.

Then why try and draw a distinction here?

IMO, you are drawing a distinction. I'm saying your distinction is superfluous to me. You are separating "god" from "nature". You are making statements about something as if it is, when it is not established as being so.

Why discount something by referring to it as a "Force of Nature"?

Why belittle nature, as if to call something "a force of it" (even were we to accept that "god" would be something to be considered sepearate from it enough to label independently) was to somehow demean it?

"god" by the classical definition, would be "that which created nature". But IMO, that cannot be, because "god" is nature - if we accept "what is" and "what led 'is', to be" as "natural". So "god" cannot be something other than nature itself, were we to agree on this usage of 'natural', which I believe we have. And as such, there is no "it" in "itself". There is just nature, functioning, and as far as we can establish unquestionably, US, observing some aspect of it.

 

[one_raven]

wes,
So we agree, then.

I am just trying to recognize and acknowledge this immense power.
I'm trying to give it an identity, so to speak, to make it something that others can recognize, acknowledge, and -above all- learn to respect.
I think if people do not do that, it gets abused, and that has negative results.
Kind of like ignoring the pwer we have over nature and out ability to negatively impact it on a rapid and wide scale.
The power that this dynamic, force, natural cause & effect inter-relationship, whatever you want to call it, carries with it a grave responsibility to be the custodians of said power, not abusers.

 

[Red Devil]

Who said consciousness exists after death? That you *exist* after death may be, in some way, but that the *existance* is what we know as consciousness is not something to be sure about.

The mind/soul carries on after death I THINK! Because I have not actually been there, as far as I know, I have no basis in fact but, although a devout Athiest, I think that soul/mind carries on, what would be the point of our existence otherwise?

I have had "messages" from "beyond", extremely accurate too, so believe in the hereafter although its neither heaven nor hell as they are religious concepts alien to my thought.

 

[wesmorris]

wes,
So we agree, then.

I am just trying to recognize and acknowledge this immense power.
I'm trying to give it an identity, so to speak, to make it something that others can recognize, acknowledge, and -above all- learn to respect.
I think if people do not do that, it gets abused, and that has negative results.
Kind of like ignoring the pwer we have over nature and out ability to negatively impact it on a rapid and wide scale.
The power that this dynamic, force, natural cause & effect inter-relationship, whatever you want to call it, carries with it a grave responsibility to be the custodians of said power, not abusers.

Hehe.. yes I do understand, but when you consider that we are indeed part of this system, functioning, that people may not seem to respect is as much as you deem it worthy shouldn't come as a surprise. Nature is awe inspiring for many people. For those to whom it is not, it is their loss. It's a loss they allowed in favor of whatever else it is they valued. We each have our part in the play.

Blah blah, I can appreciate what you mean though.

I'm often torn on the issue in one particular aspect.

As I expressed, the term "god" is well, I expressed it.

The issue is however, this is how people relate to what we refer to as nature.

Not all people of course, but it, as a concept, is quite utilitarian in its breadth of scope. It is a common denominator. Since people come in alllllllll kinds of conceptual packages (in their minds), and many, many of them cannot relate to such awe without some form of personification, we must recognize the term as the best we can do in the public arena. A national leader for instance, must forgoe their personal opinion on the matter in order to effectively communicate to people ... ah screw this. I'm tired and having a hard time squeezing this crap into efficient words. It's not working so blah.

I just mean to say that it can be, in the context of leadership, more important to believe in the notion of god, even knowing it to be wrong, as a sacrifice to bind populations in purpose.

It's a sacrifice that I can't make.

 

[one_raven]

Hehe.. yes I do understand, but when you consider that we are indeed part of this system, functioning, that people may not seem to respect is as much as you deem it worthy shouldn't come as a surprise. Nature is awe inspiring for many people. For those to whom it is not, it is their loss. It's a loss they allowed in favor of whatever else it is they valued. We each have our part in the play.

Well, it's a loss for all, but I hear you.

The issue is however, this is how people relate to what we refer to as nature.

Exactly.

A few posts back I said something like (I don't feel like looking for the words to quote myself) "Life is the conduit through which the immaterial interracts with the material."

Going furrther with my personification which you are so offended by, nature would be the goddess in the equation and animal life would be the children of God.
Now, taking it out of the personification, for your benefit...

I view Lovelock's Gaia concept of earth as applicable in scpoe to life without self determination (or at least without the appearance of such) -or plantlife- and Earth's interraction with that life as one "force".
The material part of the triune concept of nature.

I see life with (or with the appearance of self-determination) -or animal (animated) life- as the second part of the triune.

The third part, the one I have been referring to as God -because it contains the traits and attributes of common depictions of God- as the third part.

Perhaps you are more comfortable, or recpetive to the Trinity of Nature? I personally think if there is anything that qualifies to be deemed or termed "divine" it is nature.

Anyway...
What it all comes down to is this...
The direct impact on humankind, strikes a chord with self-absorbed humans (I think) but that's only part of the equation.

What truly distinguishes man from the rest of the animals is, very simply, his ability to drastically alter his environment intentionally on a rapid and wide scale. In the selfish, this immense power instills a sense of arrogance and dominion over the world - in the wise it instills a sense of awed humility and custodianship of the world.

How we, as a collective, wield the power of (see, this is where names come in handy) the synergistic cause & effect relationship we have with each other and the world around us (or God) will directly impact the other two parts of the Divine Trinity of Nature - Mother Earth (do you object to the use of that term as well?) and Animal life (including humans).

The "properties" of synergistic cause & effect relationship we have with each other and the world around us will determine (or at least have an immense effect on) the future of humankind, the rest of the animal kingdom, all plantlife, weather patterns...

Back to the personification (just because it is easier than dealing with "having a hard time squeezing this crap into efficient words") We can use the power of God to kill the Goddess and ourselves, but without the Goddess, we would not exist, so the God would not exist. Although we can kill either the God or the Goddess, we can not exist without either, therfore we would have to kill ourselves.
The power we have over God and the Goddess, however, if abused will turn on us.
On the other hand, if we treat all three aspects of Nature with the due and proper respect, all three will be in balance and we will benefit as a result.

Is any of this making sense?

 

[one_raven]

wes,
Do me a favor, please.
Try to forget you ever read this, and take a look at this thread with a fresh mind.
Then let me know what you think.

Thanks

 

[cole grey]

one raven -

I think God is more than and greater than the sum of human and natural parts, but other than that aspect of it, I really liked the analogy of the mirror - and your description of people fighting and dying for their little piece is fantastic.
I suppose I would say the only thing missing from the mirror in your scenario could be described like this - humanity and nature are looking into the mirror and the mirror is God, but when we look at our reflection there are other things in the mirror there with us that wouldn't be there if we looked in an actual mirror instead of looking into the "God mirror" you describe, I don't know exactly what the other things are yet, the mirror looks cloudy now, but I think they are there just the same.
Just a thought.

 

[wesmorris]

Maybe I already said this?

Assuming I exist, I only have authority to assert my perception.

My perception lends to my personal model of the universe.

The concept of god has no utility to me personally, but does serve utility in how I model society, as it apparently works for many, many people as some sort of "answer" or however it is they relate to it.

I will go take a look per your request now.