# What is God?



## moneymajix (19 December 2007)

There is a thread with the question:
"Is there a God?"

For someone who does believe in God, a much more interesting question is, 
"What is God?"

I personally find that an exciting and empowering question.  Maybe a life changing one.

How do you learn about God?

One important way is through ones experience of God. 

And that experience of God may have infinite expressions based on the individuals having the experience. 

Yet, I am guessing there are some basic truths about God. One core truth, I would imagine, is that God is love.

Many people seem to have beliefs based on what the religion and culture they were born into. Although, this is changing.

One suggested approach to knowing God better, is to view the your relationship with God as a partnership. Rather than, seeing God as some kind of superior being. 

God bless.


----------



## prawn_86 (19 December 2007)

Personally I believe that God is a being that exists on a higher plane than human conscious can actually percieve.

Scientists know, and can prove mathematically, that more than just 3 dimensions exist, so i believe God exists in a greater dimension than we can see, touch, hear etc


----------



## sparc (19 December 2007)

You cant even protect yourself from a mosqito bite, and here you are talking of partnership.

God can only be one, otherwise the concept has no meaning.


----------



## Sean K (19 December 2007)

The History of God, by Karen Armstrong paints a pretty detailed picture. Concentrates mainly on the Cults of Abraham, but covers other superstitions such as the Enuma Elish and Greek Mythology. The best book I have found on the subject.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2007)

"inventing the inventor" 
For a start, I think we should call God "it" rather than "he" or "she" - obviously doesn't have sex - unless there's two of em I spose .

then again , someone fathered JC


----------



## moneymajix (19 December 2007)

From Prawn



> Personally I believe that God is a being that exists on a higher plane than human conscious can actually percieve.
> 
> Scientists know, and can prove mathematically, that more than just 3 dimensions exist, so i believe God exists in a greater dimension than we can see, touch, hear etc





I think humans are multidimensional and it is possible to access other dimensions.

Some seem to be able to go "beyond the veil" and experience other dimensions.

And where do we go when we dream?


----------



## Sean K (19 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> then again , someone fathered JC



It was one of Joseph's mates having an affair with Mary. She had to explain it somehow...


----------



## Nyden (19 December 2007)

kennas said:


> It was one of Joseph's mates having an affair with Mary. She had to explain it somehow...




Ha, too true - if something of that sort happened these days she'd be called a harlet


----------



## jtb (19 December 2007)

kennas said:


> It was one of Joseph's mates having an affair with Mary. She had to explain it somehow...




No need to.
Theres a lot of documentation pointing to his brother James being older.......

The catholicised (is that a word) version of christ shouldn't obscure any good work that the man may have done (imo). 

Remember history is written by the victor.


----------



## Happy (19 December 2007)

Roughly here in Australia are about 140 religions registered.

So on ground level in Australia, something that allows some organisations to have tax relief including no need for tax return, have freehold land plus other assistance.


----------



## moneymajix (19 December 2007)

What has God got to do with man-made, organised religion?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> What has God got to do with man-made, organised religion?




and as for that ....
What has Religion got to do with a man-made, organised (or disorganised) God?
Is God organised?
What shape is he?  capable of being seen? heard? smelt? touched? 
or just capable of being imagined?  

Does he speak to us?
Can we speak to him?
Does he listen to us?
Could he give a shinbone about us as individuals?  
about man collectively -  in preference to other animals
about Earth - in preference to the 123 million million million (plus) other planets  (or NASA's 1000 million million million whatever) 
etc 

incidentally m8 - my God is a very disorganised God - and no pressure - other than to be honest I guess, be at peace with my own conscience I guess


----------



## Aussie2Aussie (19 December 2007)

God is the person who bought CNP within the first half hour of trading over the last two days!


----------



## mayk (19 December 2007)

He Is God, the One!
God, the eternally besought of all,
He Begetteth not nor was begotten,
And there is none comparable unto him.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> What has Religion got to do with a man-made, organised (or disorganised) God?



maybe that's an easy one when I think about it lol - IMO anyways 
Religion has a lot to do with an organised God
and
very little to do with a disorganised God.

as for being organised to the point of being 100% consistent with his interventionism ?  - sounds like BS to me.  

I mean, he'd have to be listening to everything everyone said every moment - plus what they are thinking every etc etc

and presumably that goes for all the other planets with life as well .

and keep score on the chimps  etc - the ones who do nasty things versus the ones who are kind etc etc


----------



## imajica (19 December 2007)

GOD is essentially the underlying 'fabric' of the ideological, cultural and philosophical simulacra that constitutes human reality. It is impossible to define 'GOD' as something that can be quantified or rationalised as that would bring this idealised notion back to the mundane, human level - essentially robbing it of its mystique, its spiritual, hypnotic signifying power. 

wasnt it French socio-theorist Jean baudrillartd who said:

The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none.

The simulacrum is true

The ethereal fabric which forms the basis of human belief is the part which is quintessential to the 'true' nature of what it is to be human. 

GOD is a paradox that we ourselves have created to instil meaning within our cultural reality.


----------



## weird (20 December 2007)

Mere replication of a cell or a more complex organism, does not require the 'concept' of a God ... we could replicate or spawn all day without it, without the need of knowing why ... but why do we feel the need , or more importantly feel we need to have a need  to be alive ... there appears to be some grating us, an itch we just can't scratch by ourselves.

The original question was 'what is god' ... from Catholicism, what we know of God is what has been revealed to us by Revelation ...


----------



## dumpty (20 December 2007)

what a pile of stabbing in the dark.........ponder these words.....when asked who he was and what his name was God said "I AM".........dont reply for 3 minutes just ponder the words....... 

It seems a simpler answer than all the preceeding dribbe and theory being postulated here.........I is a clearer andswer than whether to go long or short on BHP tomorrow


Now ponder two more things that i find hard to get clear in my simple little egg head.......If we had a big bang what actually went bang and how did it get there? 


Actually I will leave the third .......Just answer my bang question.


----------



## moneymajix (20 December 2007)

Does God want to be worshipped?

Is God controlling?


----------



## Dukey (20 December 2007)

God!!??....

..... you're standing in it!!!
=====================


... on it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2007)

Dukey said:


> God!!??.... .... you're standing in it!!!  .. on it?



walking / swimming / running through it ?
Lol  - like it 



dumpty said:


> what a pile of stabbing in the dark.........ponder these words.....when asked who he was and what his name was God said "I AM".........dont reply for 3 minutes just ponder the words.......
> 
> ......
> Actually I will leave the third .......Just answer my bang question.




so dumpty .. is that "I AM , THEREFORE I THINK"?
or is it "I AM , THEREFORE YOU CAN STOP THINKING / ASKING FOR DETAILS / CONFIRMATION etc "?

PS as for the big bang - there's a heap of science behind it , some of which has been touched on  - most of it would go over the heads of most of us here - maybe refer to the thread on that topic.  

But as Carl Sagan would say "where did god come from?"

"If we decide that this is unanswerable - or "god always existed" why not jump a step .... ( or two) and conclude that the universe always existed" etc 

 Then where did the big bang come from? 


> You can always ask "well then what happened before that?" The god hypothesis explains absolutely nothing; it gets us no closer to an answer. It's just a continuation of the same infinitely regressing line of questions


----------



## 2BAD4U (20 December 2007)

For me God is just a "belief" that gives a sense of hope for people.  I grew up a catholic, went to the catholic school, church on weekends, etc but ditched it all a long time ago for various reasons.  I once read (possibly in the other thread) that if 999 people die in an earthquake and 1 lives then it must have been a miracle and god saved them (stuff the other 999). How do you explain this to your kids when they ask why God didn't save the rest?

But, each to their own and if it (God, Allah, etc) gives people hope and creates a better life for them, good luck to them, just don't push it on other people or take it to extremes. Achmed-the-terrorist

Me, I would rather rub Buddah's belly before each trade.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> But as Carl Sagan would say "where did god come from?"
> 
> "If we decide that this is unanswerable - or "god always existed" why not jump a step .... ( or two) and conclude that the universe always existed" etc
> 
> _You can always ask "well then what happened before that?" The god hypothesis explains absolutely nothing; it gets us no closer to an answer. It's just a continuation of the same infinitely regressing line of questions_




The problem with sound bites is they appeal in their simplicity but they generally assert, rather than investigate or explain. So for those who like to think a bit more deeply:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/morriston.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/God_as_Causal.html

Or for a materialistic perspective:

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_with_a_timeless_point.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/varghese.html
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/infpast.html


----------



## gimme some (21 December 2007)

Personaly, I dont believe.
But I do believe this. Anyone who believes so strongly that it is right and just to murder innocent people in the name of your God, I guarantee you I will be admitted to heaven long before you will. In fact, you wont.


Here is a different perspective.
What have you got to lose by believing.
Whereas if you dont believe and you are wrong, well this is the ultimate mistake. Damned for eternity.
Is it really worth being so pigheaded about it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

pffft 

hey gimme, you covering all the bases m8 lol

PS certainly your "different perspective" would be how a lot of old folks near their deathbed would reason I guess )


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> pffft
> 
> hey gimme, you covering all the bases m8 lol




Agree

It presumes God *needs* to be believed in and worshipped. He mightn't give a toss about that. Is He even a he? He could be a she, or neither, or both?


----------



## moneymajix (21 December 2007)

Heaven and hell. That's probably another topic.

I don't personally think there is a heaven or hell.


----------



## mayk (21 December 2007)

I am a believer, and I reckon that the concept of GOD is so huge and incomprehensible by humans that prophets among ( humans) were sent to let the masses know about GOD.


What, why, where are some of the questions I guess we will find out in heaven ( or worse in HELL!!). I guess no one, except texts of religion can answer these questions as they only concern believers..

So next question in succession will be What is GOD according to Christians, Jews and Muslims among othe minor religions(like Hinduism, budism etc. )


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 December 2007)

What is god?

God is whatever small mind can imagine.

The reference to a god is completely unnecessary and if we just stick to human characters then there would be less control and confusion of millions of humans (in the name of a god).I do respect those that believe willingly. 

What most intrigues me is the forces of nature and  particularly the ^programmed actions of animals.


^for want of a better word.


----------



## refined silver (21 December 2007)

"God, contracted to a span,
Incomprehensably, made man."  John Wesley.

Merry Christmas all.


----------



## treefrog (21 December 2007)

god is what gets the thanks but not the blame
thank god for that marvellous result - common
thank god for that wonderful sunami/cyclone/bushfire/war that killed thousands etc etc - not common but should be if u truly believe
when younger it was mostly "act of god" when some bad event occured - today it is "act of nature" - a rose by any other name....


----------



## treefrog (21 December 2007)

for those who really want to know, do a search for "god spot" - recent research on why we believe - turns out we are born with a part in our brains very ready to be programmed by whatever nonsense it is fed for the first time - some have bigger god spots than others and therefore are more ardent believers
hey - don't believe me though - check out the research results


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> for those who really want to know, do a search for "god spot" - recent research on why we believe - turns out we are born with a part in our brains very ready to be programmed by whatever nonsense it is fed for the first time - some have bigger god spots than others and therefore are more ardent believers
> hey - don't believe me though - check out the research results



treefrog, do you know if people with bigger "god spots" (lol - as against G spots ok?) - if they are more easily hypnotised? 

then there's the question ...
act of god ,  =  act of nature,  (yep - rose titles, agreed) 
=  act of human nature? 

no reference to GW here, just a question thrown into the ether, since god allegedly "designed" humans in his image.   

-   or in his mirage perhaps?


----------



## chops_a_must (22 December 2007)

prawn_86 said:


> Personally I believe that God is a being that exists on a higher plane than human conscious can actually percieve.
> 
> Scientists know, and can prove mathematically, that more than just 3 dimensions exist, so i believe God exists in a greater dimension than we can see, touch, hear etc




They can't actually prove more than 2 dimensions exist. Husserl demonstrated this. Hence the cubist movement.

I think Epicurus gives the most effective description/ explanation of what God is (and one of my favourite quotes of all time):


> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


----------



## Sean K (22 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I think Epicurus gives the most effective description/ explanation of what God is (and one of my favourite quotes of all time):






> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?




I hadn't seen that quote before and it's gold! Cheers!!

I'm sure the God fearers will have a response along the lines of choice or something.....


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

TreeFrog

I am more inclined to go for there being a divinity in human DNA which recognises on some level, the existence of God.


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

From Kenny



> Originally Posted by chops_a_must
> I think Epicurus gives the most effective description/ explanation of what God is (and one of my favourite quotes of all time):
> 
> Quote:
> ...





Maybe in some people's outlook there is no good or bad - only what is. 
Good and bad are perceptions, after all.

God, the universe and humans are continually expanding. Various experiences contribute to that. 

And to fear God would be like fearing your own caring and loving parents (use your imagination if you didn't have that experience).

Do loving parents control?  Or do they provide you with opportunities to make your own choices, from which one learns and grows?

If you create something you do not like, do you blame your parents?


Those that limit themselves to a 3D reality will find it challenging to believe in other dimensions.


God bless.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> And to fear God would be like fearing your own caring and loving parents.
> God bless.



mmx  howdy

get's a bit tricky when you can't remember what "caring and loving parents" are ? ( were?) 


> There was a big poster at the end of the dining room and it used to be pointed out to us all the time when religious instruction was going on in the afternoon. They had these Aborigine people sitting at the end of this big wide road and they were playing cards, gambling and drinking. And it had this slogan which they used to read to us and point to us while they're saving us from ourselves and giving our souls to the Lord. It had, `Wide is the road that leads us into destruction', which lead up into hell. The other side they had these white people, all nicely dressed, leading on this narrow road, and *`Narrow is the road that leads us into the kingdom of life or the Kingdom of God'*............
> 
> Confidential evidence 613, New South Wales: woman removed to Bomaderry Children's Home *as a baby *in the 1940s; *foster placement *organised from Cootamundra *broke down after 17 months *and she was then placed in various work situations.


----------



## ne0h (22 December 2007)

If god is real he owes me a lot of cash.And im strapped


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

*Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?*

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well.
by Tim Folger, Photography by Dan Winters



Our observations, he suggests, might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality. To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe. 


http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: *that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well*.
> by Tim Folger, Photography by Dan Winters
> 
> Our observations, he suggests, might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality. To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe.




mmx, so we are the doers and shapers.

Can our consciousness shape where the market ended last Friday? - now you're talking. !

(I don't suppose he lets on what he was smoking  at the time  )


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

20/20




> Masaru Emoto, a scientist in Japan, conducted experiments with water. Positively and empirically, it showed that Human consciousness is not only measurable, but it changes matter... we've got the pictures!
> 
> 
> We may have more power over matter and reality than we ever thought. See John Wheeler's article, 90 year-old physicist, and colleague of Albert Einstein, gives us the most unusual premise of all: This researcher asks, "Does matter exist if the Human isn't looking?" He is one of the first to postulate that Human consciousness might be a huge energy player in physics (and it's about time). All this is to say that you and I are far more than blobs of accidental walking biology. We might actually have interdimensional power that postures what happens in what we call reality... the earth, the solar system, and our own personal paths. This then, starts to circle the wagons around the word intent...


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> "Does matter exist if the Human isn't looking?"



I love the concept - 
 but wouldn't that mean that my "reality" would be different to yours?   - 
(Maybe I wasn't looking when you were - or vice versa ) 
then again - maybe it is lol.  
ava good xmas 

PS like a speech to an young adolescent ...

son / daughter ..this is reality 
hope it doesn't dissapoint
hope it doesn't mess up your mind 

(you're right . "reality" has gotta be a really subjective thing )
gotta think about whether matter exists etc - tree falling in the forest etc 

I know a bloke who insists if he passes wind - and no one (else) hears - then it didn't happen !! lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

My son was learning to ride a bike in a public park - had a bad habit of looking at things that he was supposed to miss. - and then running into them ( as is the way of these things) 

When I told him for the nth time to look at the path he wanted to go , rather than the things he wanted to miss..

he got defensive, and, with bike wrapped round yet another tree,  insisted ... "JESUS made me do it!! "  - lol - kids can be hilarious.


----------



## chops_a_must (22 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> This then, starts to circle the wagons around the word intent...



This is nothing new. It was an idea first posited by Franz Brentano in the late 19th century. But the idea of intentionality became a force under Edmund Husserl and the phenomenological movement, who I've already mentioned.

I've never found an answer adequate to the statement of Epicurus, including yours mm.



			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I love the concept -
> but wouldn't that mean that my "reality" would be different to yours? -
> (Maybe I wasn't looking when you were - or vice versa )
> then again - maybe it is lol.



Yep you pretty much got it in one. It explains how we can have different views of the exact same "facts" (I can't think of the correct term ATM) or external Objects, because of the different weight each of us puts on them. It also explains actions of schizophrenics etc.


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

20/20

Adults do that too, I think it is called abrogating responsiblity.


----------



## treefrog (22 December 2007)

agrees wif da *"have a good xmas" *(wif or wifout the religous trimmings)

but can't help meself mentioning this little gem I heard awhile back:

while i really like u, afraid I'll have to kill u because my imaginary friend doesn't agree with your imaginary friend

and >90% of wars have occured because these imaginary friends don't agree - I feel well able to get by without an imaginary friend


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

Chops

Cool. Not attempting to convince. 

As it seems possible we can change the past in the present or future, what does it matter?



*May you all manifest something truly wonderful this holiday season.*


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

mmx
transference of guilt - the most natural phsychological process of all 

chops,  
thanks man - so if I see three sides to reality, does that make me a tritsophrenic?
ava good xmas y'self.  Trust you are exchanging cards with Jimmy Carter as usual, lol.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

reality ?


----------



## moneymajix (22 December 2007)

Hi 20/20

Enjoy your illusion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> agrees wif da *"have a good xmas" *(wif or wifout the religous trimmings)
> 
> but can't help meself mentioning this little gem I heard awhile back:
> 
> ...



tf, that is a gem, you're right


----------



## dumpty (29 December 2007)

waffle waffle waffle......i thought i was a deep thinker with lots of random thoughts.......man I am glad I simply believe in God!


----------



## treefrog (30 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> TreeFrog
> 
> I am more inclined to go for there being a divinity in human DNA which recognises on some level, the existence of God.




any research to support that longshot money??


----------



## weird (30 December 2007)

From, http://www.catholic.com/library/God_Has_No_Body.asp



> The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple ("incomposite") nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.






> *Clement of Alexandria*
> 
> "What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself".


----------



## ithatheekret (30 December 2007)

Miscellanies I noted in the quote , Isn't that a latin form ie. miscellanea

Which means something along the lines of a group of writings or a volume of writings . 

Where did you find that text ?

I vaguely remember a Brother clipping my ear over this text in my school days , not that it wouldn't have been warranted .

Like the Greek definition quoted in King James Version , Rev. 1  if I remember rightly .

Based on the same Alexandria text I think , where the Alpha & Omega translations got lost ..... deleted .... or whatever they did back then .


----------



## refined silver (30 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> agrees wif da *"have a good xmas" *(wif or wifout the religous trimmings)
> 
> but can't help meself mentioning this little gem I heard awhile back:
> 
> ...




I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote. 

Wars are caused by what's in the human heart - envy, greed, jealousy, hate, and love of power and control. Sometimes religion is used as a excuse for these, and some religions use them more often than others, and some sections of certain religions more so than other sectors. 

However, the 20th Century put paid forever to the idea that religion is the root cause of war. Secularistic humanism in its different guises killed more people under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and others than all the religious wars put together.


----------



## refined silver (30 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> They can't actually prove more than 2 dimensions exist. Husserl demonstrated this. Hence the cubist movement.
> 
> I think Epicurus gives the most effective description/ explanation of what God is (and one of my favourite quotes of all time):





I knew Bertrand Russell had used it, and that it used by many others as a supposed proof against the existence of God. To me it actually demonstrates the poverty of thought and foolishness of supposedly intelligent people.

The problem of the existence of evil and the goodness and omnipotence of God has a very simple logical solution. Assuming God exists and He is both good and powerful, then why does evil exist? The simple answer is, that God must consider that creation of the world/universe even with its current sin, evil and suffering, will ultimately result in a higher good than had Creation not occurred. 

He has said that the evil and suffering are not indefinite, (and in the light of eternity less than a drop in the ocean). By giving us (and angels) a free will, the possibility of sin, evil and suffering became real, but God obviously considers that the end result will be a higher good, than without the free will.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> Assuming God exists



Why on Earth would I think a thing like that?

But yes, the rest of your post there is along the lines of perhaps the most reasonable arguments for god's existence. Which is akin to the "Best of all possible worlds" theory, coined by Leibniz - which was then famously ridiculed by Voltaire in Candide (you can find out the literal translatin of that in French pretty easily). Leibniz has one of the only 2 arguments for god's existence that I think is in any way remotely possible, and although I hate to disappoint, are in absolutely no way congruent with any western religion.

But if you want to get into arguments needing the assumption of god, check out Berkeley. "To be is to be perceived" and all that jazz, really awesome stuff. Had some pretty big ding dong battles with Newton as well...


----------



## treefrog (30 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote.
> 
> Wars are caused by *what's in the human heart *- envy, greed, jealousy, hate, and love of power and control. Sometimes religion is used as a excuse for these, and some religions use them more often than others, and some sections of certain religions more so than other sectors.
> 
> However, the 20th Century put paid forever to the idea that religion is the root cause of war. Secularistic humanism in its different guises killed more people under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and others than all the religious wars put together.




couldn't possibly go along with that bit RS - I know for a fact the human heart is a pump and just wouldn't work with all that junk in it


----------



## treefrog (30 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote.
> 
> Wars are caused by what's in the human heart - envy, greed, jealousy, hate, and love of power and control. Sometimes religion is used as a excuse for these, and some religions use them more often than others, and some sections of certain religions more so than other sectors.
> 
> However, the 20th Century put paid forever to the idea that religion is the root cause of war. Secularistic humanism in its different guises killed more people under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and others than all the religious wars put together.




needs refocussing methinks as its getting a little distortion in there already - original stated wars not secularistic humanism


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote. .



re the causes of war - (many exchanges on this with Rafa - who agrees with you) 
 yep - I concede 90% is a bit high - 
would you believe  50% 

(but I'd never heard the term "imaginary friend" for someone's "god" until freefrog mentioned it )


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 December 2007)

HEY 20/20 Happy 2008


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> needs refocussing methinks as its getting a little distortion in there already - original stated wars not secularistic humanism




Hi Treefrog,

Not sure I quite understand what you are saying. 

I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'. 

Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'.
> 
> Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.



It's a bit too simplistic to class everyone secular as a humanist. It's just blatantly incorrect. Hedonists wouldn't be humanists in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't class Stalin or Hitler as humanists, because they were only interested in the certain advancement of specific groups, not human kind as a whole.

And because of that, most religions at their core, are humanistic in nature...


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Happy 2008



ditto wys , lol
here's to you mate in 2008?

may God open the gate to 2008? 

riches await in 2008? 
whatever 


PS keep that bat straight in 2008?
don't f*** with fate in 2008??


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> Hi Treefrog,
> 
> Not sure I quite understand what you are saying.
> 
> ...




re-reading my original post i see my omission of quotation marks and just use of return to start my own comment needs clarification
the orignal should have been
"while i really like u, afraid I'll have to kill u because my imaginary friend doesn't agree with your imaginary friend"

my comment on this is .....and >90% of wars have occured because these imaginary friends don't agree - I feel well able to get by without an imaginary friend

Your definition of religion is much narrower than mine (and that of the Macq concise) that being, (ensures quotes this time),
"1. The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

I still find it hard to cite a war, terrorist event, or political atrocity (if we are into separating them) that doesn't fit in there, including stalin, hitler, bush and co


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> re-reading my original post i see my omission of quotation marks and just use of return to start my own comment needs clarification
> the orignal should have been
> "while i really like u, afraid I'll have to kill u because my imaginary friend doesn't agree with your imaginary friend"
> 
> ...




If you are going to call Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot religious, when they were all as atheistic and anti-religious as possible, persecuting followers of all religions, then you are being a bit disingenous. Likewise Hitler with his perfectability of the Aryan race, hated Christianity and persecuted any church or individual that didn't roll over and give him absolute support. These people were not Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, etc, so to claim their atrocities, and killings as part of the religious total is plainly incorrect and misleading.


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's a bit too simplistic to class everyone secular as a humanist. It's just blatantly incorrect. Hedonists wouldn't be humanists in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't class Stalin or Hitler as humanists, because they were only interested in the certain advancement of specific groups, not human kind as a whole.
> 
> And because of that, most religions at their core, are humanistic in nature...




The point is Stalin and Hitler and co were not religious, they were secular, if you prefer not to use humanist. I used humanist not as meaning interested in humanity as well, but as its whole impetus, source, ideas and meaning coming from the human sphere as opposed to outside of it.

If you classify Stalin and Mao as religious, then you lose the meaning of the word and everybody is religious, including the hedonist.


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> If you are going to call Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot religious, when they were all as atheistic and anti-religious as possible, persecuting followers of all religions, then you are being a bit disingenous. Likewise Hitler with his perfectability of the Aryan race, hated Christianity and persecuted any church or individual that didn't roll over and give him absolute support. These people were not Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, etc, so to claim their atrocities, and killings as part of the religious total is plainly incorrect and misleading.




refined
I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.


----------



## gavank (31 December 2007)

What is god.....good question but what has it got to do with trading...... as we all know , market action/ market depth is god on the equity matket.... not meaning to be sacriligeous ...... lol

go go go fdl


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

gavank said:


> What is god.....good question but what has it got to do with trading...... as we all know , market action/ market depth is god on the equity matket.... not meaning to be sacriligeous ...... lol
> 
> go go go fdl




geez gav, it should be obvious, sort out the gods and then know which one controls the shares, get on the right side etc etc

'avva good new year


----------



## Rafa (31 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> refined
> I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
> To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.




Yes, i would tend to agree... there is a case that whatever crazy beliefs that Hitler, Mao, and co beleived in can also be classified as a religion... Atheism is actually a religion, and Dawkins followers, even tho some fail to realise this, are actually part of a religious movement.

So, the above have nothing to do with God or Christianity. To a Christian, GOD is made visible to us in the form of Jesus.... and hence, to be like GOD means one SHOULD (and i empasise the word SHOULD) follow the teaching of Christ, as stated in the 4 books that were written on what Christ actually said and did (i.e. the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)... commonly reffered to as the Gospels.

Note, the rest of the bible is writings of religious people containing interpretations of God, not GOD's words directly to us. The only place that God's word is recorded directly is in the 4 books of the bible mentioned above...

Jesus, as lived in the Gospels, to a Christian, is GOD.


ps: apologies if i don't respond much after this... it is NYE after all... heading out soon...Happy New Year to you all... Cheers.


----------



## Julia (31 December 2007)

This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> refined
> I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
> To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.




Ok I have no problem with calling them religious, if you like. But using this definition everyone becomes religious, including the hedonist. Tell me your beliefs and I will tell you your religion. 

Hence to use this definition and and then say 90% of all wars are started by religions is firstly meaningless, as under this definition everyone is religious, and secondly it is purposely misleading, as most people reading the statement, associate religion with the major organised religions, usually to do with God (hence your "imaginary friend" comment). So, read in context, you take a swipe at religion and "imaginary friends" which to all readers the meaning is plain, and then you claim a different definition of religion, which is not what most reasonable people would use on reading your comments.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2007)

Rafa said:


> Atheism is actually a religion, and Dawkins followers, even tho some fail to realise this, are actually part of a religious movement.




What is not a religion then?

And Julia, thanks for the secular humanism definition, most welcome.

My answer to "what is God?" is:
Short around 6850, but covered half just below 6150.


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

Julia said:


> This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:
> 
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what §ion=main




Thanks Julia,

This pretty much shows I was using the term correctly. Secular humanists follow a worldview of Naturalism and refer to themselves as non-religious or non-theist.


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

Julia said:


> This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:
> 
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what §ion=main




yep, fits the dictionary definition of religion for mine


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Why on Earth would I think a thing like that?
> 
> But yes, the rest of your post there is along the lines of perhaps the most reasonable arguments for god's existence. Which is akin to the "Best of all possible worlds" theory, coined by Leibniz - which was then famously ridiculed by Voltaire in Candide (you can find out the literal translatin of that in French pretty easily). Leibniz has one of the only 2 arguments for god's existence that I think is in any way remotely possible, and although I hate to disappoint, are in absolutely no way congruent with any western religion.
> 
> But if you want to get into arguments needing the assumption of god, check out Berkeley. "To be is to be perceived" and all that jazz, really awesome stuff. Had some pretty big ding dong battles with Newton as well...





I think God answered Voltaire Himself. Voltaire at one time famously held up a Bible and said in 100 years time this book will be extinct and and only be able to be found in a museum. 100 years later The Geneva Bible Society moved into Voltaires former house and set up a Bible printing/distribution shop there.


----------



## Rafa (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> Ok I have no problem with calling them religious, if you like. But using this definition everyone becomes religious, including the hedonist. Tell me your beliefs and I will tell you your religion.
> 
> Hence to use this definition and and then say 90% of all wars are started by religions is firstly meaningless, as under this definition everyone is religious, and secondly it is purposely misleading, as most people reading the statement, associate religion with the major organised religions, usually to do with God .




Yes, well said...


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> Ok I have no problem with calling them religious, if you like. But using this definition everyone becomes religious, including the hedonist. Tell me your beliefs and I will tell you your religion.
> 
> Hence to use this definition and and then say 90% of all wars are started by religions is firstly meaningless, as under this definition everyone is religious, and secondly it is purposely misleading, as most people reading the statement, associate religion with the major organised religions, usually to do with God (hence your "imaginary friend" comment). So, read in context, you take a swipe at religion and "imaginary friends" which to all readers the meaning is plain, and then you claim a different definition of religion, which is not what most reasonable people would use on reading your comments.




silv

can honestly say being born without a "god spot" must be hereditary as dad was not into it either whereas mum was (but hated church based religions with a passion) - one brother turned catholic the other no god spot nor altruistic tendencies like me - but into Ayn Rand philosophy like I was for awhile

I did not mean to change tack as you infer - I attempted to refocus on my comment (that most wars are caused by religion) because I saw this as being misunderstood: but you took issue with this so I referred to the McQ dictionary definition which you appeared either unwilling or unable to accept

I don't claim to be into any sort of religion; god based or not hence my earlier comment that I can get by without an imaginary friend

I do agree that this implies congruence with the 'includes god' in religion but I was happy with that as that has been the general thrust of thread

have a look at the "god spot" research, its quite fascinating and explains a lot. In fact I would go so far as to say if the many different religions understood that info, there would be little to argue about knowing that it is impossible for any two people to envisage an identical god

cheerz


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> Thanks Julia,
> 
> This pretty much shows I was using the term correctly. Secular humanists follow a worldview of Naturalism and refer to themselves as non-religious or non-theist.




Yes, but that doesn't mean it encompasses anything else you have assigned to them. Especially when you want to say Hitler was a secular humanist, when in actual fact, the nazis did not believe in any form of morality or ethical conduct ala Nietzsche, where morality and ethics is a key component of humanism, even stated above. There is no way the Nazis or Communists were secular humanists. You can't tell me that these movements were accepted on anything other than faith.

But... this thread is just proving you can't have a rational argument based on reason when _faith_ is involved. Back to Kant you go I say!

And God speaking to Voltaire. Who does god speak to exactly? And in which mental hospital are they located in?


----------



## explod (31 December 2007)

Read a book years ago called "The golden bough"  The life's work of an Oxford scholar (cant think of his name any more).  But he researched all of the religions and other spiritual customs that he could track down.

One great point comes through, and that is that its success lies in teaching it to the children.   I call it brainwashing, Jung would say, 'sub-conscious imprinting.

I was raised a Catholic (I do not believe now)  As youngsters our parents would have us kneel together and recite the Rosary, this consisted of one prayer 50 times over and after every ten the Our Farther (at the end of each one of those we prayed for the conversion of Russia).  Of course this was reinforced at school and at Church each Sunday.  And the whole deal 365 days a year is very powerful imprinting.

I have witnessed within my own family huge damage done by this type of coercive brain washing.   I respect the beliefs and ways of others but believe there will be no proper solution till everyone has the opportunity to have a well ballanced and complete university education.

My immortality is in the good I can do to others.  So to me God is in all of us but can only come out if we are given the opportunity to know ourselves as the creative individuals that we are.  The icon of a God is created because some people are unable to conceptualise in a philosophical way.  It takes the correct education to get to that point.  I think it is why the church cling to thier own education systems.   Keep them away from the heathens =  the truth.

Religions do not like the individual thinker, I did not do well at school and my youngest Son ran into similar problems at 4th year so got him straight out into a State run school where he did well .   They do not like the deep questions. 

They burned individuals  at the stake even.


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

Rafa said:


> Yes, well said...




I think one would do well to seperate wars based on reason, and those fought on faith, rather than religion. How many wars can you say in history were fought in the name of rational thought? The allied part of WW2 is really the only one I could possibly think of.


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

treefrog said:


> silv
> 
> so I referred to the McQ dictionary definition which you appeared either unwilling or unable to accept




I have no problem with the definition as I've stated a few times. My problem is that it renders the comment about wars being started by religions as meaningless as everyone has this "religion", and since it was used in the same sentence as imaginary friends, it is seems obvious from the context to be talking about God/god religions. Surely you can concede this?


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> in actual fact, the nazis did not believe in any form of morality or ethical conduct ala Nietzsche, where morality and ethics is a key component of humanism, even stated above. There is no way the Nazis or Communists were secular humanists. You can't tell me that these movements were accepted on anything other than faith.




The Nazis and communists were absolutely consistent in their ethics and morality based on their worldview. 

Communists are secular humanists, they totally subscribe to the Naturalistic worldview.

True, there is faith involved, but this is true in every philosophy. Humans, being finite, starting with only themselves have no absolute or point of reference, hence nothing can ever be known absolutely and hence is held by faith. Your beliefs are just as much (I would argue far more) a position of faith, than say the Christian worldview.


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

explod said:


> Religions do not like the individual thinker. hey do not like the deep questions.
> 
> They burned individuals  at the stake even.




If a religion/church/faith can't accept or answer deep questions, it doesn't deserve to be followed.

Forced religion is totalitarian and is horrid.

The Bible calls us to search for, and to love truth. Not a system of beliefs, but truth. The real problem is that many violate their own values and do not live up to the truth they alreayd understand.


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> The Nazis and communists were absolutely consistent in their ethics and morality based on their worldview.
> 
> Communists are secular humanists, they totally subscribe to the Naturalistic worldview.
> 
> True, there is faith involved, but this is true in every philosophy. Humans, being finite, starting with only themselves have no absolute or point of reference, hence nothing can ever be known absolutely and hence is held by faith. Your beliefs are just as much (I would argue far more) a position of faith, than say the Christian worldview.




I'll just leave it at bahahahahahahaha.

Because there is no point in arguing with religious types when it gets to this point. I can sit here and say you are blatantly incorrect, but you know, religion creates delusion, and that's where this argument is currently.


----------



## treefrog (31 December 2007)

refined silver said:


> I have no problem with the definition as I've stated a few times. My problem is that it renders the comment about wars being started by religions as meaningless as everyone has this "religion", and since it was used in the same sentence as imaginary friends, it is seems obvious from the context to be talking about God/god religions. *Surely you can concede this*?




I thought I did but will repost:
"I don't claim to be into any sort of religion; god based or not hence my earlier comment that I can get by without an imaginary friend

*I do agree *that this implies congruence with the 'includes god' in religion but I was happy with that as that has been the general thrust of this thread"

and that concludes frog's input to this thread - he will not revisit until he is reincarnated as a righteous god fearing christian, jew or muslim with much narrower views


----------



## refined silver (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I'll just leave it at bahahahahahahaha.
> 
> Because there is no point in arguing with religious types when it gets to this point. I can sit here and say you are blatantly incorrect, but you know, religion creates delusion, and that's where this argument is currently.




Fair enough, I'll leave it too, but with one last comment.

The Bible says, "The fool says in his HEART, there is no God" (Ps 14:1). The root of your beliefs are in your heart, not your head. 

You may construct a mental refuge hut out of justifications, excuses, lies, and other philosophical driftwood, but underneath it all is a heart problem not a head problem.  It could be:

1. Hurt or Bitterness - life threw you a curve ball and you got angry and blamed God. You or somebody close was hurt by the church or someone claiming to represent or be a follower of God.    

2. Immorality - you do not live according to Bible standards of morality, eg dishonesty, adultery, sex outside or marriage, or whatever, and so to accept belief in God while living like this is to condemn yourself. 

3. Pride - You believe you are the fount of all truth and refuse to bow or submit to any God.

You can prove if its really a head problem by asking what is the biggest intellectual objection you have to Christianity, if that was answered would you become a believer? You may answer yes, but if deep down you know the answer is no, and that you would not accept any answer to your objection, then you know its a heart issue not a head issue.

Regards,


----------



## dalek (1 January 2008)

[QUOTE=refined silver;239689
The Bible calls us to search for, and to love truth. Not a system of beliefs, but truth.

You are correct, but surely you would also have to agree that to find truth we must accept that what we currently believe could just be wrong.

I should be astonished at the intractability and dogmatism in some of the posts, but sadly I'm not.

Personally I do not feel a need to follow formal religion, but it has given comfort to people I care about and that can't be a bad thing.
Again, personally,  prefer chocolate for comfort ...or vodka when I need to be really comfy.


----------



## moneymajix (24 March 2008)

*Re: Why do we believe in God?*

From The Times

February 19, 2008

*Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer*

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent 

Researchers at the University of Oxford will spend £1.9 million investigating why people believe in God. Academics have been given a grant to try to find out whether belief in a deity is a matter of nature or nurture.

They will not attempt to solve the question of whether God exists but they will examine evidence to try to prove whether belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind. They will also consider the possibility that faith developed as a byproduct of other human characteristics, such as sociability.

Researchers at the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion and the Centre for Anthropology and Mind in Oxford will use the cognitive science disciplines to develop “a scientific approach to why we believe in God and other issues around the nature and origin of religious belief”.

The cognitive sciences, or the science of mind and intelligence, combine disciplines such as evolutionary biology, neuroscience, linguistics and computer sciences to examine human behaviour.

Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath, a Christian theologian, said: “We are interested in exploring exactly in what sense belief in God is natural. We think there is more on the nature side than a lot of people suppose.”

He compared believers to three-year-olds who “assume that other people know almost everything there is to be known”. Dr Barrett, who is a Christian, is the editor of the Journal of Cognition and Cultureand author of the book Why Would Anyone Believe in God? He said that the childish tendency to believe in the omniscience of others was pared down by experience as people grew up. But this tendency, necessary to allow human beings to socialise and cooperate with each other in a productive way, continued when it came to belief in God. 

“It usually does continue into adult life,” he said. “It is easy, it is intuitive, it is natural. It fits our default assumptions about things.”

The research will feed into other areas, such as whether the conflicts associated with religion are a product of human nature. The project will also examine whether belief in the afterlife is something that needs to be taught or is a product of natural selection.

Dr Barrett said: “The next step therefore is to look at some of the detailed questions � which religious beliefs are most common and most natural for the human mind to grasp?” The most exciting questions were in areas such as the different responses to polytheism and monotheism, for example, and relationships between religion and evolutionary biology.

He and his colleague Roger Trigg will be investigating whether religion is a part of the selection process that has helped humans survive or merely a byproduct of evolution.

The three-year study is being funded by a £1.9 million grant to the Ian Ramsey Centre from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into religion, science and spirituality. There will be seminars and workshops, while £800,000 will go towards a small grant competition, with 41 grants for different projects.

Professor Trigg, a senior research Fellow at Oxford and author of Religion in Public Life: Must Faith be Privatised?, said: “Religion has played an important role in public life over the past few years and the debate about the origin of religion, and how it fits into the human mind, has intensified. This study will not prove or disprove any aspectof religion.”


----------



## breakeven (24 March 2008)

I think George Lucas got it right in Starwars!  God is the force ...  God is everywhere and in everything.  It is that which binds us.  By Gods presence and absence there is a good side and a bad side to God.  As Karen Armstrong points out in 'History of God' man has reinvented God according to man's needs at the time.  God is so pervasive and all encompassing as to be incomprehensible by man other than for each man to define God according to man's cultural needs and personal needs at the time.


----------



## metric (24 March 2008)

the jewish kabbalah is a good spiritual/supernatural guide to 'what is god'. 

here is a quote i found on a kabbalistic web site..



> God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.




i also believe the relationship between man and god, does not need a middleman... $


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 March 2008)

In this excerpt it is showing the strength of belief in something.In this case, and on thread, an example of belief in a god.



> The deeper the hellish love that comes out in the temptation experience, the more we are shocked and challenged to approve or disapprove, and to go along or to fight like hell to resist it. This is a subjective experience. In fact, as revealed in the Writings, we have zero power to oppose the furious hells attacking us, grabbing hold of us, wanting desperately to make us part of them.
> 
> They succeed if we give in, stop resisting, and let ourselves enjoy the evil, and finally loving it so that we look for it again, anticipate it, and are willing to abuse self and others in order to keep getting it. But when we resist in the Name of God, we are given as-if our own power to resist, and desist, and finally to hold the experience in aversion and disgust.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 March 2008)

One more and you don`t have to read it if you choose so.I will give some thoughts on a few of the statements.  




> The Writings confirm the fact that mental traits are inherited as well as learned. All inherited mental traits can be changed by self-modification. The earliest generations on this earth inherited heavenly or altruistic traits until aberrant individuals introduced negative loves by inverting their inherited positive traits.
> 
> When they passed into the world of spirits they were segregated from the others in their heavenly mental states. The hells were thus created. After many generations and succeeding civilizations the negative traits became so predominant that a life of hell on earth was established--crimes, wars, sicknesses, famines, abuse of women and children, deception, discrimination, injustice, and so on, all of which are familiar to us today



.



> The Writings confirm the fact that mental traits are inherited as well as learned.



This is true by observation and experience and most definately a fact.Very good.


> All inherited mental traits can be changed by self-modification.



The key word here being can.Once again by observation and experience it is known that mental traits are not changed and many of us are habitual and repetitive with a deep seated personality that wants to change but can`t.The tracks to the source are cut deep. 


> The earliest generations on this earth inherited heavenly or altruistic traits until aberrant individuals introduced negative loves by inverting their inherited positive traits.



Now to the bit that leaps ahead of itself in one unfounded sentence.At some point in history man started thinking differently according to these words above.Where did these negative loves come from and more to the point how were the positive ones inverted.Man is as animal in survival traits (indeed all life) so i can say that these "earliest generations" also were aberrant and thus there was no change. 


> When they passed into the world of spirits they were segregated from the others in their heavenly mental states. The hells were thus created.



Again here this is imagining.A thought that evokes fear and can be used for control and powerand effectively perpetuating the negative aberrations.


> After many generations and succeeding civilizations the negative traits became so predominant that a life of hell on earth was established--crimes, wars, sicknesses, famines, abuse of women and children, deception, discrimination, injustice, and so on, all of which are familiar to us today.



And here we have the present situation.Not unlike the past situation except there are more people on the Earth now.There were no aberrant individuals as the cause.It has always been.Good day.


----------



## moneymajix (24 March 2008)

*Re: Mother and Father God*

In my reading today came across some Gnostic ideas.

God is knowledge and love.

That there has always been a Mother and Father God. 

Father God is about intellect and Mother God about emotion.


----------



## moneymajix (26 April 2008)

*Re: The Abbey*

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/theabbey/

Yesterday I watched The Abbey, a three episode program from ABC TV, 
on DVD.

Five women who go an live in an monastic community which is largely closed off from the rest of the world.

No TV, mobiles, chocolate, alcohol for 33 days.

The women get up at 4am each day and pray seven times a day.

Worth a watch to find out what these different women find in the silence when they listened.



> You must come away to some lonely place all by yourselves and rest awhile.’ Mark 6.31
> 
> The Abbey, a Compass special presentation, puts monastic life to the test in this extraordinary three-part series to air on ABC TV from Sunday, October 14 at 9.30pm.
> 
> ...





Reminded me a bit of silent Buddhist meditation retreats.

Silence and reducing distraction being the key.


.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (4 September 2008)

*sigh*

Just once I'd like to visit a web forum and *NOT* see pages of drivel devoted to this topic.

Can't you people ever grow out of having an invisible friend?

@ Admin - is there an ignore function on threads?


----------



## Sean K (4 September 2008)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Just once I'd like to visit a web forum and *NOT* see pages of drivel devoted to this topic.
> 
> ...



The last post was in April.

You must have searched for it.


----------



## wayneL (4 September 2008)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Just once I'd like to visit a web forum and *NOT* see pages of drivel devoted to this topic.
> 
> ...






kennas said:


> The last post was in April.
> 
> You must have searched for it.














	

		
			
		

		
	
 Kennas

Ahhhhh, we see hypocrisy is not confined to the religious.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 October 2012)

dalek said:


> refined silver;239689
> The Bible calls us to search for said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------

