In your opinion, who/what is God ?

[Randall]

My Dear Ufology......heh?!... Not quite sure what you're talking about, but it would behoove you to read before you speak! Where are these topics of UFO's, USO's Blah, Blah, Blah and the like mentioned in the section of the Secret Doctrine I quoted, maybe take a second glance so the conversation will actually be interesting!!! referring to comment #117 Au Revoir! D

Oh the "Secret Doctrine" rambly rant. What shall I say about it? Well ... I think the whole thing is an exaggeration that downplays the ability of the human mind to grasp abstract concepts ( like that of God ). To answer a specific question:

Q. "GOD I think is a VERY big concept to chew on...don't you think?!"
A. No I don't think God is a very big concept at all. I think it's a really simple tiny little concept. You take something or someone or some character ( real, mythological or fictional ), and deify it ... and presto! There's your God.

I think the process of putting on all the trappings afterwards is a bigger and more complex task ... consider Chartres Cathedral:


Here is an interesting piece that gives you some perspective of the scal of the place:


j.r.

 

[dendraw]

Ufology....why so snippy?! The only rambly rant I've read so far is yours. And again, not quite sure what book you're reading or have read, but from what I've read in its contents is the opposite of downplaying the ability of the human mind to grasp abstract concepts. These teachings are not hers (Blavatsky) which she states herself but a culling of the ancient wisdom schools of antiquity.....so you might want to yell at them. From what I've gathered thus far, and believe me when I say, I realize that I'm no mental giant (I'm sure you'll agree with me at least on this point...right?!) But these teachings seem to be built on the shoulders of all who have attempted to test and prove for themselves what is true from what is false. Also to turn the "tables" back to the individual in accepting responsibility for their own actions and not to defer them to some exterior "Deity". Like what's going on here....I LOVE it! So I'm not really getting what your beef is. Let's help each other instead of constantly tearing each other down. Peace?

 

[tyder001]

This is not an attack on anybody. So, I am not trying to offend. With that said:
dendraw, you will find that often here people will find a flaw or a weak spot and attack that instead of dealing with the issue at hand. It's much eaiser to say "Well, I saw so and so on a panel with (insert controverstial name here) and therefore you can't beleive anything they ever say." Or somebody will pick out a sentence in a long and thought out post and zero in on that. Also, some people here have a knee jerk reaction to any kind of spirituality. You can talk about spaceman spiff and as long as you throw in a quote from a pop scientist you are legitimate. The person doing that doens't have to have much more sceintific knowledge themselves than a high school diploma. No, there is nothing wrong and much that is right, with having your high school education. I'm just trying to make a point here. I think we spend so much time trying to "debunk" or attack an idea that we don't seriously entertain the whole spectrum of the human experience. Especially if it threatens our world view. With that said I hasten to add. I don't share your worldview nor do I read or consider Blavatsky very much. Still, it's something that you have found worth pursuing and I don't see the need to deflate somebody everytime they make a statement about something as important to the human experience as a persons inner life.

Peace.

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

By the way there is a wonderful podcast you can find on itunes and other places on the net called "On Being." I think it's done by NPR but I'm not sure. I hope I have the name right. Anyway, I have heard from Christians and Muslims and Atheist and Agnostics and Scientist and Clergy. They have very legitimate and honest talks with the host. It's a great way to find where others are coming from without the yelling and debunking and tearing down that you find so much on forums. There is a place for debunking and for challenge and I like this forum. But, just to let people know for a nice change of pace there are other good ways of discussing things in addition to what we do here.

 

[Michael Allen]

Hello All! I like how you think Michael Allen....sounds like you're using your "God-given" brain (sorry...couldn't help that one!), you sound like a natural philosopher to me! A few years back I came across the Secret Doctrine by H.P. Blavatsky and in it (you can go online to Theosophy Co. and under links then Theosophical texts online link to Blavatsky.net and you can view for free many of the published texts)Whew!!! ANYWAY....on p.14 she outlines what she refers to as the three fundamental propositions...btw, I like the use of the word propositions, which infers that one merely consider or contemplate on their own and decide whether or not what is being proposed sounds sensible or not! She starts off by stating
"The Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental propositions: —

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought — in the words of Mandukya, 'unthinkable and unspeakable.' " Which in my opinion sets the tone for something a little different than say a more literal interpretation which we here in the West are accustomed. This first proposal, at least for me, is VERY important because putting an idea in the realm of the "abstract" already strips away any and all human qualities and attributes we tend to impose on this idea of GOD....the creator and knower of ALL things, the archetype of perfection and all that exists. She then goes on to show how the Law of Cycles comes to play which then connects to the ancient idea of Karma and Reincarnation and finally how the purpose of the previously mentioned is to help and guide us through the process of evolution. Not Darwin's evolution, but Spiritual evolution....and so on. Sorry for being LONG winded here, but my experience has been that when considering an idea like "What is God?", you start to see the importance of making and maintaining links and a cohesiveness as opposed to trying to compartmentalize and separate. I would say in short, WE are all an expression of GOD individually and together (humanity and Nature combined). You also start to see paradoxes...hence the abstractions testing the limits and barriers of the human linear mind. One of the abstract concepts I love to consider is "space"....what is it? How far does it extend? Is there an ending to space or a beginning? Or is it truely an example of ETERNITY? GOD I think is a VERY big concept to chew on...don't you think?! Cheers all, D

Thanks Dendraw....(I think)

I think we get confused about the "God question" due to the fact that we aren't really sure about the content of the question. A question is like a wind moving forward from the questioner and circling a void -- once the void is identified, the answer to the question takes the void for granted. If this void is large enough, anything can "fit." Same thing happens when we ask questions about the "nature of the entire universe," or the nature of that which supposedly "created" the entire universe. The problem is that we assume the universe is "created" as an artifact. But humans create things from other things--the act of creation when applied to the universe is really our own paradigm of rearranging the existing world of things for our own purposes. We assume that since we've brought objects into being for our own design, the universe itself must be a "designed thing" and therefore must have a "designer."

Our universe is not a creation -- it simply is. And some of us have a horrible time accepting that notion, because it is we who bring purpose and therefore the entire meaning behind the world "creation" For no one speaks of a "creation" without a purpose, since the notion of "purpose" and "design" is built into the notion of "creation" and also includes the "creator" and the "knower" along with the rest of the baggage of these human terms. No one says a tree "creates" fruit...the fruit is the continuation of the tree inasmuch the tree is a continuation of the ground and the ground the continuation of the earth and the earth the continuation of the solar system...the stars...the galaxies...the supergalactic clusters....the universe and all that exists. It is all just one thing. Your best experience of this entire colossal existence occurred in the days before you were born.

 

[trainedobserver]

Our universe is not a creation -- it simply is. And some of us have a horrible time accepting that notion, because it is we who bring purpose and therefore the entire meaning behind the world "creation" For no one speaks of a "creation" without a purpose, since the notion of "purpose" and "design" is built into the notion of "creation" and also includes the "creator" and the "knower" along with the rest of the baggage of these human terms. No one says a tree "creates" fruit...the fruit is the continuation of the tree inasmuch the tree is a continuation of the ground and the ground the continuation of the earth and the earth the continuation of the solar system...the stars...the galaxies...the supergalactic clusters....the universe and all that exists. It is all just one thing. Your best experience of this entire colossal existence occurred in the days before you were born.

Well said.

 

[Randall]

Ufology....why so snippy?!

I usually snip out the redundant fill from the original posts because it wastes screen space and viewers can always click the link-back to the original post if they really need to review it in its entirety. For those ( if any ) who don't know what I mean by the "link-back", it's the little arrow in the quote box next to where it says "Originally Posted by Whomever". You can trace conversations back with those links, and it's easier than plastering a whole screen full of a big quote that is mostly irrrelevant to the point being made at the time.

j.r.

 

[tyder001]

it is we who bring purpose and therefore the entire meaning behind the world "creation"


I have said something like this for the past several years. I am. The moment you ask who or what is God, that's God! I believe that the first "purpose" for lack of a better word was indeed and is over and through all. So, yes the universe is indeed a "creation." But, not in the six day 6000 year old Genisis myth. However, that myth has more truth in it than it's given credit for. Truly, we can only speculate about why and how and when and what was here before. Many folks here parade out their science heros. So, I'll parade out one of mine. Rodger Penrose has some marvelous thoughts and seminars that you can find on youtube concerning the Big Bang and what was before the Big Bang. Truth is we don't really and truly know. But, the journey and the search is still going on. I have my own way of looking at life. I am (as I've said before so I hope I'm not being to boorish.) a Christian Agnostic. I freely admit that I "hope" there is purpose to this wonderful, agonizing, unfair, tragic, stupid, spectacular existence. I enjoy civil discusson of the subject. However, dogmatic statements be they religious or even clothed in science are indeed dead ends. I think that existence and being is something that doesn't need or require a Degree or a seminary. I am absolutey positive that Spirit is real. Dogmatic? Well, I don't say your an idiot if you disagree or your illogical or you are going to hell. So, no I'm not dogmatic. I would have to re-write my senior thesis to really explain my thoughts. Don't worry, I'm not gonna do that. But, yeah I think God is who and where I come from. I understand that I could be wrong. I understand that there may be nothing there. I don't think it's anymore reasonable to say there is nothing or there is something. I am heartened by OBE's and NDE's and yet I also keep myself grounded by aquainting myself with the folks who give the mundane skeptical arguments. I'm not one who can choose sides and never look at the other side of a question. I made a lousy fundi Chrisitan and I"d make a lousy secular humanist. Actually, I'm proud of that.

 

[Randall]

I would have to re-write my senior thesis to really explain my thoughts. Don't worry, I'm not gonna do that. But, yeah I think God is who and where I come from.

So ... it sounds like you've deified your parents? I mean seriously, do we not all come from our parents?

j.r.

 

[tyder001]

So ... it sounds like you've deified your parents? I mean seriously, do we not all come from our parents?


Seriously, Are you that afraid of conversation that you have to make trite smart ass comments? It's like I said in an earlier post. Folks will pull one sentence or one thing from a entire stream of thought in order to not have to deal with the "meat" of a matter.

 

[dendraw]

Hey guys these are some great comments. But I gotta ask how do you get them all down without getting timed out? I just spent some time replying to a couple of you who responded to me and was not able to post....said I wasn't logged in and I was. Is this system on a timer? Frustrating and probably funny to some...whatever! Peace!

 

[Randall]

Hey guys these are some great comments. But I gotta ask how do you get them all down without getting timed out? I just spent some time replying to a couple of you who responded to me and was not able to post....said I wasn't logged in and I was. Is this system on a timer? Frustrating and probably funny to some...whatever! Peace!

I had the same thing happen to me a couple of times. It caused me to lose posts that I had spent some time and effort on. So until I got it sorted out, I started highlighting, right-clicking and saving, just before submitting. Then I noticed a little check box when you log in that says something like "remember me" or "keep me logged in". I haven't had the problem since.

j.r.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Seriously, Are you that afraid of conversation that you have to make trite smart ass comments? It's like I said in an earlier post. Folks will pull one sentence or one thing from a entire stream of thought in order to not have to deal with the "meat" of a matter.

Sorry, but that sentence was just begging for a wise crack ... I really didn't mean any harm by it. Sometimes I'm the only one in the room who appreciates my sense of humor.

j.r.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I feel your pain. That's why I don't tell jokes.

 

[Michael Allen]

Write your responses in a text editor - cut and paste when ready.

 

[tyder001]

Sorry, but that sentence was just begging for a wise crack ... I really didn't mean any harm by it. Sometimes I'm the only one in the room who appreciates my sense of humor.

Happens to me a lot. I should have been a little lighter myself.

 

[dendraw]

Hey guys, thanks for your help with my posting problem! I'm entering the age of the dinosaurs and am reminding myself of my grandparents when VCR's came out...they couldn't grasp how to run it! I think I hear some of my bones fossilizing as I speak! Again, thanks! D

 

[Randall]

Morgan freeman

Morgan Freeman eh? Which role? The one where he actually plays God? I think George Burns might take issue with that one ... unless that really was God playing the part of George burns who made himself look like Morgan Freeman just to confuse us like he did with the dinosaur bones ...

j.r.

 

[trainedobserver]

Didn't Timothy Leary think that the Van Allen Belts were god? God is the resonant frequency of the Universe for which Dan Rather was severely beaten in October of 1986. "What is the frequency Kenneth?" The question that has plagued mystics and occasional drunks since the dawn of time. The great central jiggly thang from which all other things spring. [stumbles away mumbling something about "pearls before swine"]

 

[Roro]

I see, in your estimation any sect or denomination that has views other than your own concerning the trinity, is by definition a cult. This is of course the same line of thinking used by people who call themselves Chrisitans that don't believe in the trinity as well. Probably much more so. To me it's no more relevant than having some differing opinion concerning Zeus, but it is interesting that while people freely throw the word God around like there is some universal use or understanding of the word, that is far from the truth.

I would agree that most mainstream Christians do claim to believe in the paradoxical multiple-personality/person presented as one god regardless of the fact that it is completely ancillary to the Bible itself.

I provided a dictionary definition of the work 'cult' because I think it is very important that words mean something, because it isn't just me, it's many millions who consider themselves christian who think of God as a trinity of personalities, and have no idea how that is possible, but we are talking about God. Of coarse I don't agree that it is completely ancillary to the Bible itself, both old and new testaments speak of God in three forms.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

If one of these parallel universes generates sentient life forms.... would we be gods then ?

No, we would not.

 

[trainedobserver]

I provided a dictionary definition of the work 'cult' because I think it is very important that words mean something, because it isn't just me, it's many millions who consider themselves christian who think of God as a trinity of personalities, and have no idea how that is possible, but we are talking about God. Of coarse I don't agree that it is completely ancillary to the Bible itself, both old and new testaments speak of God in three forms.

Of course, majority rules in these matters. (ah-hem) I forget, it is always THEY who are in the cult and not US.

I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong about the teaching of the trinity. It is entirely outside of the Jewish tradition for example. It's part of that Christian cult you see. You'd get stoned for it for Pete's sake. The trinity is most certainly a controversial subject. There has been plenty written on it already by real Biblical scholars who care about such things that neither of us is going to add anything to it here. Anyone with half an interest can quickly find numerous works discussing the pros and cons of the teaching from any number of viewpoints.

What denomination do you belong to Roro?

Any way you shake it the trinity is sold as a single god comprised of multiple personalities. 9 out 10 Christians only have a very rudimentary understanding of it and the problems it presents to their monotheistic beliefs. My experience has been that you are expected to believe it on faith firstly, but then you are given some of the most bizarre and unrelated examples imaginable, "to help you understand it."

Of course bizarrely configured godheads are par for the course. I think one fellows observation that we are reading the equivalent of ancient comic books to be pretty astute. When viewed in that light, the gods and their peculiar natures make more sense.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I know all about the Trinity - ask me anything.