Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion
FAQ Calendar Arcade Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-17-2003, 08:18 PM   #181
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Well, my questions weren't leading anywhere particular really. Chewing on the theoretical nature of God, I am perplexed by the idea that God (in the monotheistic sense) can be considered infinite, and yet not be considered everywhere.
right. so, in particular, the notion that God is infinte but that man isnt part of God. i never thought about it that way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
A line of belief in the pantheist's realm is that the Infinite Universe Mind Force Awareness is all made of more or less the same stuff- Energy ('mental' energy to be exact). The realm of matter is not distinctly seperate from the rest of the Universal Mind Force Awareness, but is simply of that same energy, but vibrating at a certain level we percieve as physical or matter.
i dont mean to oversimplify or belittle, but it sounds something like that old philosophical chestnut that the universe is just a group hallucination. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
I also wrote this a while back but didn't post it, but I will offer it now to (hopefully) somewhat satisfy your curiosity [img]smile.gif[/img]
thanks for that. [img]smile.gif[/img] with this context, that's making more sense to me than when i read something like it you posted previously .

Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Let me know if you have any specific questions Sultan, or if you would like some book recomendations on my variety of pantheistic beleif. This is a kinda new expirience, describing my beleifs (in writing) in any detail, particularly by such a transitory medium like a forum. I'm digging it! [img]smile.gif[/img]
me too. it's fascinating to discover that there's so much similarity to things i've come across through other fields, and still follows the common threads of other beliefs i've looked into. i want to know more, but i'm not sure what i want to know, you know? perhaps a book or web reference will get me started? thanks. [img]smile.gif[/img]
 
Old 11-19-2003, 12:38 AM   #182
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:

Yorick,

I would appreciate if you expounded upon God as a revelation. I personally cannot see any evidence that God would be a revelation. A revelation is not required to attempt to explain an unanswered question. Humans have always created conceptual theories in order to explain our existence and the existence of things around us. Were these revelations from a higher power also? Sometimes they hold true and other times they are greatly errant. Where does one draw the line between those who had hallucinogenic revelations incurred to mental illness and those who had revelations by “divine right”?
I refer back to the thinking that one must know of perfect to be cogniscant of imperfection. One must know of purpose and meaning to know it is lacking.

If so, then why would humans be seeking an answer to such a question as "what created existence" and "what is the meaning of life".

The theories of the universes inception are based on discoveries and revelation not fiction. Creation myths included. Is the scientist looking through telescopes at light emanating from stars seperated from us by time and space really that removed from a person looking inward or listening for a voice seperated from us by time and space?

People did not concoct the big bang theory from human imagination. They looked at the available information and made an educated guess. So too with creation theory. Looking at the world, recognising art, looking at ones own artistic creations and then drawing conclusions made from making comparative scope-expanding analogies.

In any case, the revelation I am speaking about comes from knowing God as a person, not simply speculating on him as an idea.

Knowing God is an interactive experience. Knowing God shapes ones ideas. It changes perspective. You are looking at the picture from the wrong angle. I don't force God into my predetermined idea of who he is. That would indeed be me creating God. Rather I let him guide me as to how I should see him. Who he is is revealed over time. Like how who a friend is, gets revealed over time. I will ask him if I am uncertain of something. The answer - if forthcoming - gets revealed. If none is forthcoming, I am happy living in a state of not knowing. Trusting that an answer will at worst, come when I die.

The idea that humans invented God as an answer to a question, presupposes that they had knowledge that an answer existed in the first place. The notion of humans creating God falls in on itself. One does not search for something one doesn't know exists.

Think about it. Every question presupposes an answer.

Think about every human culture we know of, every one, having a creation myth and a flood myth. Even the Australian Aboriginal Culture, purportedly isolated for 40,000 years (under evolution theory) has the myth of the dreamtime, where the Rainbow Serpent created the world.

Think about the scientific knowledge contained in the bible. Knowledge of the movement and future seperation of stars - in a future further than now - revealed before the scientific instruments that have confirmed these revelations existed.

Think about the nature of music. All taste, all musical taste is association. We hear music in the mother womb, sense the feelings of the mother. Music that is alien to us, requires repeated listenings to be "understood". Familiarity must be attained to have a point of association reference.

Yet within that language of association, three notes... three simple patterns of wavelike disturbances in the air, can cause a human to weep.

I work within that language. I use it. I understand it. I can manipulate it and communicate truth and I can also lie with music. Yet do I understand why a collection of notes written by a man seperated by 500 years, language, culture, and experiences, can move me to emotions words cannot describe?

No.

I understand the how, but not the why.

The more I work with music, the more convinced I am of God.The more I learn and know of it, the more it points me to God. To a creator who began the initial "language of the soul" and gave it to us. My knowledge of God is based on discovery and understanding, not a result of a lack of knowledge.

Without knowing the how, I would not seek the why. But the question itself, presupposes an answer exists.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Old 11-19-2003, 01:19 AM   #183
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
it never ceases to amaze me, yorick.

when we agree on the evidence, we disagree on the conclusion. and, as in this case, when we agree on the conclusion, we disagree on the reasoning! [img]smile.gif[/img]

i read what you wrote to say "humans could not create a concept for something they dont understand". yet, just by creating a bucket called things we dont understand, you just did! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

cheekiness aside, i'd split the hair this way: humans are quite capable of inventing a concept called "god". the creation of a god/gods is a whole other matter - and one that can only be resolved with faith.

with that nomenclature in mind, i suspect that those people who say humans invented god are actually referring to the former - creating the concept of god (ie there is no god), not the latter (there is a god(s) and we put him/her/them there.)
[img]smile.gif[/img]

We humans cannot conceive of a colour we have not seen. We can experiment. Discover new shades and gradients within the spectrum. But not visualise a new colour as yet unseen.

The Greek gods, the pantheon, were little more than super-humans. They bickered, They were the product of births. They loved, hated, were jealous, waged war on each other.

Importantly though, they all had a beginning. Zeus (Jupiters) father was Kronus (Saturn) the Titan. However, even Kronus was born from sexual union between Uranus and Gaia. Earth and sky.

Uranus (Ouranos) and Gaia, were Protogoni. Elements of the universe given personality by the Greeks. No more than taking a table and pretending it has a personality and awareness, that get's offended when you hit it for example.

Quote:
NAMES OF THE PROTOGONOI

AITHER The Protogonos of the Mists of Light. His bright shining element separated from Erebos the Dark and rose to the highest places of the sky as the shining firmament.

ANANKE The Protogonos of Inevitability, Compulsion and Necessity. She was the mate of Khronos (Time) andlike him was an incorporeal, serpentine being who encircled the entire universe.

EREBOS The Protogonos of the Mists of Darkness. His dark airy element separated from Khaos the Air and sunk into the caverns of the earth and the dark underworld beyond.

EROS The Protogonos of Generation. He was also called Phanes or Protogonos to distinguish him from Eros son of Aphrodite. He was one of the very first gods to emerge at creation.

GAIA The Protogenos of the Earth itself. "Mother Earth" emerged at the very beginning of creation. Her anthropomorphic form (which could never fully separate itself from the earth) was that of a matronly woman.

HEMERA The Protogonos of the Day - a mantle of Bright Mist that spread itself across the sky and pushed back Night (from whom she was sprung). Her anthropomorphic form was that of a woman clothed in sky-blue.

KHAOS The Protogonos who was the Air which filled the gap between heaven and earth. She emerged at the very beginning of creation.

KHRONOS The Protogonos of Time who was the very first being to emerge self-formed. He was a three-headed, incorporeal being with serpentine tail who circled the entire breadth of the universe.

NESOI, THE The Protogonoi of the Islands. Theire rocky forms broke off from Gaia and sunk into the seas.

NYX The Protogenos of Night - a mantle of Dark Mists that spreads itself across the sky. She was sprung from Khaos the Air. Her anthropomorphic form was that of a woman clothed in a star-spangled mantle.

OKEANOS The Protogonos of the great earth-encircling Fresh-Water Stream from which sprung every river, spring and cloud. He was the first born son of fiery Ouranos and heavy Gaia. His anthropomorphic form was that of a man with the tail of a serpentine fish in place of legs.

OURANOS The Protogonos of the solid dome of the Sky. He emerged from Gaia the Earth, as his light, fiery element separated from the earthy compounds.

OUREA, THE The Protogonoi of the Mountains. Their rocky forms arose out of Gaia the Earth.

PHANES The Protogonos of Generation. He was born from the silver egg of the universe at the beginning of time and set in order the universe. Phanes was also called the first-born Eros or Protogonos (First Born). According to some Zeus swallowed this god with the help of Nyx to absorb through him sovereignty and control of the universe.

PHUSIS The Protogonos of Nature. "Mother Nature" was one of the first beings to emerge at creation.

PONTOS The Protogonos of the Sea. He emerged Gaia the Earth, as the liquids of the sea separated from theearthy compounds.

TARTAROS The Protogonos of the great stormy Hell-Pit beneath the earth. He took shape at the very beginning of creation.

TETHYS The Protogonos of the Fresh-Water flowing within the caverns of the earth (or Mud). She was born of Ouranos the Sky and Gaia the Earth.

THALASSA The Protogonos of the Sea-Surface. She was sprung from Aither (the Upper Air) and Hemera (Mists of Day).

THESIS The Protogonos of Creation. She was also known as the primeval Tethys, a mud-like mixture of elements that existed at the beginning of time.
However, the Protagonoi still had BEGINNINGS. They sprang forth from nothing at the dawn of time itself. The answer of what created them was left unanswered.

Stepping over to Hindu theology contained in Shatapatha writing, Brahman conceived Brahma - the creator - by placing a seed in water he/it created.

However, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, known and followed by a majority of humans alive today (3.44 billion) identified himself as "I AM" as ever existing, not needing a beginning. Eternal. Ever. He simply "is".

This is outside human experience - which of course has a beginning. The pantheons certainly, by ascribing human qualities to physical parts of existence were working within their experience. Conceiving of an awareness with no begginning is outside human experience.

Proven time and again, by the human question "what or who created God". The concept of a being with no origin is for all intents and purposes, impossible to grasp. (Hence the pantheons explainations of the births of the gods as perhaps an attempt to answer that question from within our experience.)

Therefore, if, as has been suggested, humans invented God as a means of explaining the unexplainable, why wasn't the creator given an origin as was the case in Hindu, Greek and Norse worldviews? If God is a constructed attempt to explain the uncomprehendable, why was the single biggest incomprehendable idea about God - his eternality - left unexplained?

[ 11-19-2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Old 11-19-2003, 04:09 AM   #184
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
so, in particular, the notion that God is infinte but that man isnt part of God. i never thought about it that way.
That is a concept ( man isn't part of God, or seperate from God) that troubles me. Taken further the old "God/Divinity is somehow seperate from humans and humans must jump through certain hoops or suffer being seperate from God forever" concept. I know certainly, as well as personally, that I Am part of God, and God is part of me. Inseperatable.

Learning to percieve the loving benevelence of God, or inherent spiritual nature, in myself, in everything and in everyone continues to be one of those daily miraculaous revelations in my life.

It doesn't matter to me if someone else doesn't see it this way or even if they choose to consciously disagree. That is just a signal to me that they are finding their own way, perception, and destiny. I am happy for them, though I do still percieve God to be of them as well as within them. They don't have to beleive it or even know it and it doesn't hurt them what-so-ever that is how I silently percieve things, eh?

Being part of God is simply a birthright for everyone as well as everything in my book. No need to know it, have faith in it or believe it. No hoops to jump through what-so-ever and certainly no eternal punishment of seperatness or any sort for not-knowing or disbelief.


Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
i dont mean to oversimplify or belittle, but it sounds something like that old philosophical chestnut that the universe is just a group hallucination. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Sure, why not. Though, semanticly speaking I would not choose the word hallucination, because it implies a sort of non-reality akin to drug abuse or mental illness. A few examples:
In psycology, Jung refered to an underlying mental connectiveness as the collective unconscious.

The first axiom of hermetic philosphy also sums it up quite well: The universe is mental.

also for consideration the old saying:
I think therefore I Am.

Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
me too. it's fascinating to discover that there's so much similarity to things i've come across through other fields, and still follows the common threads of other beliefs i've looked into. i want to know more, but i'm not sure what i want to know, you know? perhaps a book or web reference will get me started? thanks. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Well I highly re-reccomend that book I mentioned earlier on the holographic universe! Also, Hermetic philosophy via a book titled "The Kyballion".

Some of the writings of Carl Jung, like 'Syncronicity' and 'Archtypes of the Collective Unconscious', though I have just began to get deep into his works myself.
Oh yeah, for fiction I highly recomend "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Heinlein. It is one of those books, although fiction, that has definitley helped 'mold' my thinking as well as inspired me to think!

I am un-sure what else to reccomend though. Do you want to learn more about the panthiestic philosophies and practices of modern/ancient Spiritualists, Witches and/or Shamans? I can point you in several directions with regards to those areas.

Feel free to provide any reading recomendations you might have on philosophy, relgion,spirituality, science, schools of thought, ect. that you have come across. I'm always seeking new knowledge and insight into other people's veiwpoints myself.
Cheers! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-19-2003, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]
Chewbacca is offline  
Old 11-19-2003, 11:45 PM   #185
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Proven time and again, by the human question "what or who created God". The concept of a being with no origin is for all intents and purposes, impossible to grasp. (Hence the pantheons explainations of the births of the gods as perhaps an attempt to answer that question from within our experience.)

Therefore, if, as has been suggested, humans invented God as a means of explaining the unexplainable, why wasn't the creator given an origin as was the case in Hindu, Greek and Norse worldviews? If God is a constructed attempt to explain the uncomprehendable, why was the single biggest incomprehendable idea about God - his eternality - left unexplained?
that's excellent. [img]smile.gif[/img] i've always wondered about that part of greek/roman/hindu systems but never put it together. and i guess i didnt listen well enough in sunday school, because i always had the same sense about God in those classes - ie what came before?

having said that, though, i might take a contrary position just for the thought exercise... bear with me [img]smile.gif[/img]

i might suggest that god, the concept, went through a number of iterations - an evolution, if you will. along the way it failed certain tests and challenges. similarly, it assimilated names and parts of other belief systems as it moved into new geographic locations. (erin - you still with us? )

with that in mind, when God, the concept, acquired the mutation of "i am", the concept, truly come into it's own. in other words, by giving Him no beginning, the creators of God (the concept) made the centrepiece of their belief system unassailable.

just an alternate way of looking at it... [img]smile.gif[/img]
 
Old 11-20-2003, 12:24 AM   #186
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
That is just a signal to me that they are finding their own way, perception, and destiny. I am happy for them...
well that's really what it's all about, isnt it?

i play chess, and there's a saying that "having a bad strategy is better than having no strategy". with that in mind, i like to hear that people are exploring their spiritual side, whether that's via zen, christianity, wicca, or a personally developed philosophy for living.

i'd happily share my discoveries, and as i listen to theirs, put my own spin on their experiences, to help me understand it and perhaps change my thinking as well.

the important thing, tho, is that they're (we're) searching.

excellent explanation, btw. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Well I highly re-reccomend that book I mentioned earlier on the holographic universe! Also, Hermetic philosophy via a book titled "The Kyballion".
cool - my christmas list is getting longer

for anyone else looking for it The Kybalion


Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
I am un-sure what else to reccomend though. Do you want to learn more about the panthiestic philosophies and practices of modern/ancient Spiritualists, Witches and/or Shamans? I can point you in several directions with regards to those areas.
yes, please [img]smile.gif[/img]

after your previous post, i did a little surfing and found two sites with some overview material i was pretty comfortable with.

http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/
http://www.pantheism.net/why.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Feel free to provide any reading recomendations you might have on philosophy, relgion,spirituality, science, schools of thought, ect. that you have come across. I'm always seeking new knowledge and insight into other people's veiwpoints myself.
Cheers! [img]smile.gif[/img]
after the the tao of pooh, i'd add zen flesh, zen bones to my must read list.

and, along with tao and zen, native american teachings lie close to my heart. black elk speaks is the foundational work

fool's crow is perhaps the greatest native american shaman to ever live. and this work is truly beautiful. Fools Crow: wisdom and power

and, finally, ed mcgaa is my favourite writer about beliefs and ceremonies. his two best, imo are native wisdom and mother earth spirituality

cheers yourself
 
Old 11-20-2003, 01:03 AM   #187
sultan
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
for both yorick and chewbacca - i came across a reprint of something einstein wrote. chewbacca, you may find the pantheistic thread underlying it to be interesting. yorick - the opening discussion by einstein refers to the kind of "evolution" of religious concepts i referred to in my post - clearly different in content, but interesting in observation by both this writer (einstein!) and in an analgous use.

it's the first article on this page:
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/6072/1einstein.html

edit: it's not long, i'll cut and paste it below
---------------------
Religion and Science

The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death.

Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion.

A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries.

Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

[ 11-20-2003, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: sultan ]
 
Old 11-20-2003, 08:24 AM   #188
Stratos
Vampire
 

Join Date: January 29, 2003
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 3,888
I haven't actively participated in the religious/philosophical discussions we've had the last couples of weeks, but I had read them all. They have added quite alot of new links in my 'Favourite' section as well as several books I've taken interrest in. I hope discussions like these continues here at Ironworksforum and perhaps I will take a part of them in the future as well.

One, or rather two, final question(s): The ISBN number on books the same worldwide, right? And if so, do translations have the same ISBN? This might help a bit if I'm gonna look for Swedish translations on some of the books.

Thanks.
__________________
Nothing is impossible, it's just a matter of probability.
Stratos is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 10:31 AM   #189
Maelakin
Drow Warrior
 

Join Date: September 16, 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 48
Posts: 257
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

Therefore, if, as has been suggested, humans invented God as a means of explaining the unexplainable, why wasn't the creator given an origin as was the case in Hindu, Greek and Norse worldviews? If God is a constructed attempt to explain the uncomprehendable, why was the single biggest incomprehendable idea about God - his eternality - left unexplained?
You present a valid question. I do have a valid answer, although, I’m almost positive you will immediately disregard my answer.

Through my logic it has been proposed that we came to look for an answer to our existence. While exploring this option someone had to have come to the possible conclusion that we are the first sentient beings that existed. If that was the case, why then do we exist? The simple answer comes from the same explanation used to explain God’s existence. We exist because we do; however, this provides another question without an acceptable answer to many.

If we only exist because we do, what then happens when we pass on? The logical conclusion is that nothing happens. The end of a life is the termination of that existence. This conclusion sums up life as nothing more than a short lived consciousness that will eventually become part of oblivion. This then brings us to bear another truth that many would not accept; if our time is limited than in truth we serve no purpose except for the legacy we leave for those who will come after us. This is unacceptable by many various societies standards.

Humans tend to believe they are more important than they are. Our egos are huge, and as a result, we must validate our existence as having some higher meaning. While it is true that meaning may exist that we cannot yet prove, the simplest answer is often the correct. In face of this, it is easy to say that in the creation of the conceptual God, humanity allowed itself to provide a purpose and meaning to a life beyond the scope of the simple. In doing so, humanity now had a purpose beyond the scope of their lives, allowing them to believe that they would carry on in existence after death. At the same time, the unexplainable was projected onto an external.

When one really looks at the existence of God, you can see just how many facets of the human ego exist. For all intents and purposes, God exists for no reason other than to love/destroy (depending on your beliefs) humanity. God’s existence resides solely in the belief of man. God equals the Ego’s of a collective human society.
Maelakin is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 03:59 PM   #190
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 53
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by sultan:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Proven time and again, by the human question "what or who created God". The concept of a being with no origin is for all intents and purposes, impossible to grasp. (Hence the pantheons explainations of the births of the gods as perhaps an attempt to answer that question from within our experience.)

Therefore, if, as has been suggested, humans invented God as a means of explaining the unexplainable, why wasn't the creator given an origin as was the case in Hindu, Greek and Norse worldviews? If God is a constructed attempt to explain the uncomprehendable, why was the single biggest incomprehendable idea about God - his eternality - left unexplained?
that's excellent. [img]smile.gif[/img] i've always wondered about that part of greek/roman/hindu systems but never put it together. and i guess i didnt listen well enough in sunday school, because i always had the same sense about God in those classes - ie what came before?

having said that, though, i might take a contrary position just for the thought exercise... bear with me [img]smile.gif[/img]

i might suggest that god, the concept, went through a number of iterations - an evolution, if you will. along the way it failed certain tests and challenges. similarly, it assimilated names and parts of other belief systems as it moved into new geographic locations. (erin - you still with us? )

with that in mind, when God, the concept, acquired the mutation of "i am", the concept, truly come into it's own. in other words, by giving Him no beginning, the creators of God (the concept) made the centrepiece of their belief system unassailable.

just an alternate way of looking at it... [img]smile.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]Thanks Sultan. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The problems I have with the evolution of God idea is that knowledge of the Judeo-Christian idea of God predates Buddhism and the Greek pantheon.Judaism arguably predates Hinduism as well.

In any case, it is clear that these contrasting theologies have existed side by side for thousands of years, rather than one evolving into the other. Monotheistic Israel was surrounded by Polytheistic cultures. Indeed, I have read educated opinions that suggest the Patriachal slant of the old testament is a marked intent to mark Israel as different from the matriachal religions surrounding it. Much as male circumcision marked Jews apart from non-Jews (though it contained health benefits at the time as well).

So, the ideas of who or what God is have remained constant within each ideology, The only evolution within monotheism came with awareness of the Trinity. One God - three aspects. That, in Christian theology, is the result of Jesus Christ - who enabled the Spirit of God to dwell within us.

[ 11-20-2003, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My Beliefs Part II Memnoch General Discussion 8 11-26-2003 12:36 AM
Paranormal Beliefs Matt359 General Discussion 17 01-09-2002 07:23 AM
Our beliefs construct our world - true or false? Silver Cheetah General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 20 10-06-2001 04:19 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved