God - and you!

[PrinceMyshkin]

May I ask you to describe as concretely as you can

1) Your concept of God;

2) Whether that concept is derived from the OT, NT, the Quran or some other source;

3) Were you taught that or did it come to you at some significant moment in your life;

4) Whether it has changed or evolved in some way;

5) Are you most comfortable with those who share your belief, and

6) What is your attitude to non-believers?

Thank you.

[ShadowFire]

I'll go first.

1) God is the almighty creator. The Great I Am. And the loving Heavenly Father.

2)Both the OT and NT

3)I was taught it my whole life, but there are times when things clicked and made more sense at certain points of my life.

4)As hinted above, the only thing is the evolution of getting more knowledge and growing closer to God.

5)I am comfortable with anyone.

6)My view is that I respect their choice. And that I wish I could let them know my perspective to have a better understanding.

You're Welcome!

[NikolaiI]

Nice thread, Prince.

1) God is infinite energy. Infinite peace, bliss, power, and knowledge. God is not somewhere outside of us. As the Tao Te Ching says about the Tao, God is the source of infinite worlds. And yet that source is within every living being, every form, beneath all, it is the ocean upon which we are all waves.

As Emerson wrote in "The Over-Soul," "From within or from behind, a light shines through us upon things, and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all."

This quote is a different perspective with similar terms to something I have thought of for some weeks now, that "All is light."

2) Not in any particular order, (the writings of) Swami Vivekananda, Alan Watts, Sri Aurobindo, Emerson; Srimad Bhagavatam, the Tao Te Ching, The Prajna Paramitam Heart Sutra, and many others.

3) I was not taught this and was an atheist for most of my life, and there were many significant moments.

4) Yes in a deep way.

But I have to go now.

[Dark Muse]

1) God is actually the Goddess, Gaia ( as I choose to personify her) Mother Nature personified, she is the Earth Goddess, and creator of all life but she is also one of many deities. She has a dual consort of the Sky God. I have a polytheistic view.


2) My concepts are derived from my study of Paganism and various pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures.

3) My parents did not believing in raising their children with a pre-determined religious belief, me and my sister were raised in a secular way (though my mom at least is not an atheist) to allow us to discover our own path without being brainwashed into believing in something. I came about my beliefs in my struggles to understand my spirituality and what made sense to me, so I was always interested in various different cultures and religious beliefs. It was my draw to nature that helped inspire my Pagan belief system and worship of the Goddess.

4) I think it has steadily evolved from my days in high school when I began to truly walk down my spiritual path up until just as myself and my perspective has changed in different ways, though the core of my belief has remained the same.

5) It depends upon the individual.

6) They have just as much right to thier non-beleif as I have to my beleifs, as long as they are resepectful in thier opinions, then I have no problem whatsoever with thier own choosen path. Everyone has to do what feels right for themselves as long as they resepct that right in other people as well.

[Buh4Bee]

I was wondering why one may want to know all this personal information about people or friends?

[blazeofglory]

God and myself?

I do not know at all. I do not know how to answer this.

Water and liquidity.

I am water and God is liquidity. Is there any difference?

[Pensive]

Water and liquidity.

I am water and God is liquidity. Is there any difference?

Now you have me curious about what you are exactly trying to say over here. :)

[Scheherazade]

Will the OP himself answer the questions himself too?

;)

[crystalmoonshin]

God, for me, is the Prime Mover (from Aristotle), the Infinite (got the idea from Kepler while reading a little about his life), the Creator (OT), the only omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Being. Above all, I think of God as our Loving Father (obviously from the NT).

We never discuss religion much at home. I used to attend a Christian school, but left when I was 7 and from thereon, studied in a secular school. I read a lot and got those ideas which to me seemed rational and fit to describe God, though of course, God is not limited to these concepts and is always more than these. Before, I used to think of God as a frightening Being who is SUPER strict (from the Old Testament) whose laws should be followed or else. Upon reaching the NT, I began thinking of Him as a loving Father. (But I still don't understand why the God in OT is different from the God in NT.)

As regards non-believers, I respect their views. Perhaps they're not yet prepared to believe in One who is unperceivable, but I hope everyone believes in God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Will the OP himself answer the questions himself too?

;)

The short answer is as Einstein gave it: "I am a deeply religious non-believer..."

I am religious in the sense that I am aware and in awe of the mysteries of consciousness, the origins and nature of the universe, Quantum Dynamics. I'm a non-believer since I see no evidence of "God's" existence, at least not in any anthropomorphic, benign, intentional form. Rather, I think that if such a God exists, then we are in worse trouble than might otherwise appear to be the case, in view of His tolerance of Malaria, HIV, genocide, child abuse, the abuse of our common environment &c.

I am passionately against dogma, including that of atheists.

[DarkStormyNight]

1) God is the personification of love, which created and sustains the universe. He is present in a Trinity of the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, and is a personal, benevolent, eternal being.

2) The core of my belief in God stems from the Bible, though I believe the fact that all people strive for the "greater good" is evidence enough that the divine is at work.

3) I was raised Christian but have examined and tested my faith as I grew up.

4) I had a lot of childish habits to grow out of, along with my own prejudices.

5) I like discussing my faith with other Christians

6) But at the same time, I also like talking with non-Christians about my faith. I think everyone has something important to say about faith and what is righteous. At the same time, I want to express the beliefs that have changed me, and those I feel are of great importance to the whole world.

[PrinceMyshkin]

1) God is the personification of love, which created and sustains the universe.

My problem is that if He or She is "the personification of love" on what basis is that love withheld from the victims of the many instances of genocide, the starving poor, the abused, the cruelly ill? The various rationalizations that all of the foregoing are the result of man's free will, strike me as so much legalistic word-twisting; and the "free will" with which God supposedly endowed mankind was apparently withdrawn the first time people - i.e. Adam & Eve - made use of it.


He is present in a Trinity of the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, and is a personal, benevolent, eternal being.

2) The core of my belief in God stems from the Bible, though I believe the fact that all people strive for the "greater good" is evidence enough that the divine is at work.

But the conclusions of many Biblical scholars is that both Testaments are the work of various men (and one of them alleges at least one woman) and their representations of God's nature are internally inconsistent.




3) I was raised Christian but have examined and tested my faith as I grew up.

4) I had a lot of childish habits to grow out of, along with my own prejudices.

5) I like discussing my faith with other Christians

6) But at the same time, I also like talking with non-Christians about my faith. I think everyone has something important to say about faith and what is righteous. At the same time, I want to express the beliefs that have changed me, and those I feel are of great importance to the whole world.

When I observe the good and loving nature of my children and grand-children, I don't need faith in anything more than that (or less than that).

But it has been my experience that an absolutely open-minded discussion is impossible between believers and non- or dis-believers: that each needsthe position that he or she holds to.

[The Atheist]

...that each needs the position that he or she holds to.

That's an odd statement, because I cannot fathom how one can need to not believe.

The idea of a heaven or afterlife, or even Buddhist reincarnation is immensely attractive. I have no need to not believe any of it - my rational mind just won't allow me to.

[NikolaiI]

To PM: The existence of God is not dependent on whatever happens here on Earth. It's also not dependent on what we can understand. If God exists, then God exists, if not, then not. The problem of evil... that is not a good argument against anything. It is used as an argument against God, but just see, if you use it as an argument against anything else, you can't really. Who would? "There is evil, so let us give up on love." Who would say that but an utterly miserable, nihilistc pessimist?

But I am not wishing to argue, but have an absolutely open-minded discussion.

To Atheist: I agree with you and I have had many positive discussions.

The thing is, there are many levels of existence. There is the one that we all run on in the modern society, which everyone always reinforces when they get on TV or the radio. Then there is the one in the video games, movies, role-playing games, books - the fantasy world. You can play a video game and it can seem real, but it is not real.

Likewise, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, which are nearly identical, but I will speak of Hindu as I know more of it, says that this life is also an illusion. There's more levels of existence which we haven't picked up on. In Hindu philosophy it's understood that all of this is a play, a drama. We're not who we think we are - the ego, with all its frailties and causes for anxiety - any more than an actor on a stage is the part he is playing.

Buddhism and Hinduism are merely science - they are just trying to understand the nature of consciousness, reality, and the rest of it. The goal of an immortality... does immortality exist? It does, because you and I are each everything. I am not just contained within my skin, I am a continuous part of the universe. I am within my skin, but I am also you, I am fire, I am plants, the earth, the rest of it. All is one. That is one idea. How can I be less than the universe? How can you? All is light. That is an ancient philosophy, thousands of years before the Western world came with its guilt and anxiety.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The first question in my post was "what is your concept of God?" Since you don't provide yours, it's hard for me to respond to you.


To PM: The existence of God is not dependent on whatever happens here on Earth. It's also not dependent on what we can understand. If God exists, then God exists, if not, then not. The problem of evil... that is not a good argument against anything. It is used as an argument against God, but just see, if you use it as an argument against anything else, you can't really. Who would? "There is evil, so let us give up on love." Who would say that but an utterly miserable, nihilistc pessimist?

Again, my answer would depend on what is your concept of God. My offer of evil as a proof of his non-existence is more properly directed at those for whom the concept is of an Omni-benevolent force or energy.


But I am not wishing to argue, but have an absolutely open-minded discussion.

Thank you for your beautiful, illuminating exposition of Buddhism & Hinduism.

[NikolaiI]

I answered your first question in my first post. It may not have been very helpful so I'll try to explain a bit more.

My understanding is always changing, naturally I presume - I wouldn't write now the same thing I wrote before. Even though I still agree that God is infinite energy, it's just not what I would say now.

What is the Divine? God is both with forms and without form. In Hinduism the main divide is between those who say God has form and those who say God is formless. Some, like Sri Ramakrishna paramahamsa, say that God is both formless and with form, and I accede to this idea.

My concept of God is that God is the original source of everything. God has unlimited forms, and so people worship the Divine as Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, etc., all of which are valid. A cake tastes just as good if you eat it from the front or the side.

But what is the nature of the Divine? It is beyond our horizons, yet it's possible to know in this life, but incredibly rare. The Divine body, the Divine soul, or essence, or entity, or force, whatever name you will call it, is the source of life, the source of all energy. It does have a Personal presence, and it does have a plan. It is super-conscious.

Consider this, Alan Watts gave this example which was very illuminating...


... Only we've got this little partial view. We've got the idea that 'No, I'm something IN this body.' The ego. That's a joke. The ego is nothing other than the focus of conscious attention. It's like the radar on a ship. The radar on a ship is a troubleshooter. Is there anything in the way? And conscious attention is a designed function of the brain to scan the environment, like a radar does, and note for any troublemaking changes. But if you identify yourself with your troubleshooter, then naturally you define yourself as being in a perpetual state of anxiety. And the moment we cease to identify with the ego and become aware that we are the whole organism, we realize first thing how harmonious it all is. Because your organism is a miracle of harmony. All these things functioning together. Even those creatures that are fighting each other in the blood stream and eating each other up. If they weren't doing that, you wouldn't be healthy.

So what is discord at one level of your being is harmony at another level. And you begin to realize that, and you begin to be aware too, that the discords of your life and the discords of people's lives, which are a discord at one level, at a higher level of the universe are healthy and harmonious. And you suddenly realize that everything you are and do is at that level as magnificent and as free of any blemish as the patterns in waves.

http://deoxy.org/w_nature.htm

So what seems like discord may be harmony at another level of being. We think it's discord. But if we look at the example from our very own body, we can see another possibility.

Just a thought. :)

[PrinceMyshkin]

May I first thank you again for your patient, non-combative responses to my questions. One of my beefs against "believers" of any stripe is that so many of them appear (to me) to be arrogant or dogmatic and their explanations of or assertions about the divine often seem very convenient to who or what they are.


I answered your first question in my first post. It may not have been very helpful so I'll try to explain a bit more.

My understanding is always changing, naturally I presume - I wouldn't write now the same thing I wrote before. Even though I still agree that God is infinite energy, it's just not what I would say now.

What is the Divine? God is both with forms and without form. In Hinduism the main divide is between those who say God has form and those who say God is formless. Some, like Sri Ramakrishna paramahamsa, say that God is both formless and with form, and I accede to this idea.

My concept of God is that God is the original source of everything. God has unlimited forms, and so people worship the Divine as Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, etc., all of which are valid. A cake tastes just as good if you eat it from the front or the side.

But what is the nature of the Divine? It is beyond our horizons, yet it's possible to know in this life, but incredibly rare. The Divine body, the Divine soul, or essence, or entity, or force, whatever name you will call it, is the source of life, the source of all energy. It does have a Personal presence, and it does have a plan. It is super-conscious.

Consider this, Alan Watts gave this example which was very illuminating...



http://deoxy.org/w_nature.htm

So what seems like discord may be harmony at another level of being. We think it's discord. But if we look at the example from our very own body, we can see another possibility.

Just a thought. :)

I apologize for not addressing myself to the particulars of your response. I feel now that I should have framed my inquiry somewhat differently, i.e.:

1) What is the basis for your belief in the "divine"? What evidence for the existence of it, if any, do you see in the material world?

2) What purpose does it serve you (or do you think it serves others) to believe in it? That is, would you conduct your life differently if you did not believe in the/a "divine"?

Personally, I follow Einstein's declaration vis a vis his religion: "I am a deeply religious non-believer..."

I understand "religious" here to mean a deep feeling of humiliation and awe in the face of my own existence and that of the incomprehensible complexity of both the origin and the nature of the cosmos. And I composed these mantras for myself:

a) A map will only get you to where others have already been.

b) Nothing to prove; everything to discover.

[NikolaiI]

The only evidence I have is my own experience of what I can best describe as divine consciousness. My understanding is similar to Alan Watts' descriptions, and Swami Vivekananda's, that the divine is within us, not somewhere external.

Evidence... it is hard to say. It is a different way of perception. It's not that there's some evidence one needs to see - rather, when everything one has ever perceived comes together... when all perspectives are seen simultaneously, then one realizes what the divine is.

Would reply more but I have to go. What did you think of Alan Watts' example of the creatures in the blood stream? :)

[PrinceMyshkin]

The only evidence I have is my own experience of what I can best describe as divine consciousness. My understanding is similar to Alan Watts' descriptions, and Swami Vivekananda's, that the divine is within us, not somewhere external.

Evidence... it is hard to say. It is a different way of perception. It's not that there's some evidence one needs to see - rather, when everything one has ever perceived comes together... when all perspectives are seen simultaneously, then one realizes what the divine is.

Would reply more but I have to go. What did you think of Alan Watts' example of the creatures in the blood stream? :)


.. Only we've got this little partial view. We've got the idea that 'No, I'm something IN this body.' The ego. That's a joke. The ego is nothing other than the focus of conscious attention. It's like the radar on a ship. The radar on a ship is a troubleshooter. Is there anything in the way? And conscious attention is a designed function of the brain to scan the environment, like a radar does, and note for any troublemaking changes. But if you identify yourself with your troubleshooter, then naturally you define yourself as being in a perpetual state of anxiety. And the moment we cease to identify with the ego and become aware that we are the whole organism, we realize first thing how harmonious it all is. Because your organism is a miracle of harmony. All these things functioning together. Even those creatures that are fighting each other in the blood stream and eating each other up. If they weren't doing that, you wouldn't be healthy.

So what is discord at one level of your being is harmony at another level. And you begin to realize that, and you begin to be aware too, that the discords of your life and the discords of people's lives, which are a discord at one level, at a higher level of the universe are healthy and harmonious. And you suddenly realize that everything you are and do is at that level as magnificent and as free of any blemish as the patterns in waves.

I'll try, belatedly, to respond to the Alan Watts quote, but in effect I'll be side-stepping it because, like so much of metaphysical contemplation, it seems to me to come from or belong in the realm of poetry: where truth is a matter of how beautifully or persuasively the thing is constructed rather than whether it sets out and proves a proposition. And perhaps the entire notion of "truth" or "proof" have no place in a discussion of what nourishes one's soul. You, Nikolai, I assume are a happier person in consequence of your beliefs. You experience that happiness in your awareness-state and physically, in your breathing &c. That makes it true in one sense; and as you set out in an earlier post, no evidence is necessary: you are either happier because of these beliefs or you are not.

Imagine if you can setting down on a clean slate how people ought to behave... and then ask whether the existence of a Divine makes them more, less or equally likely to behave that way.

[NikolaiI]

I'll try, belatedly, to respond to the Alan Watts quote, but in effect I'll be side-stepping it because, like so much of metaphysical contemplation, it seems to me to come from or belong in the realm of poetry: where truth is a matter of how beautifully or persuasively the thing is constructed rather than whether it sets out and proves a proposition. And perhaps the entire notion of "truth" or "proof" have no place in a discussion of what nourishes one's soul. You, Nikolai, I assume are a happier person in consequence of your beliefs. You experience that happiness in your awareness-state and physically, in your breathing &c. That makes it true in one sense; and as you set out in an earlier post, no evidence is necessary: you are either happier because of these beliefs or you are not.

Imagine if you can setting down on a clean slate how people ought to behave... and then ask whether the existence of a Divine makes them more, less or equally likely to behave that way.

Well, a couple of things...

About Watts' ideas, please try to consider them. I view them not at all in the realm of poetry. His idea is very good and also true. The ego is just the focus of attention. But it is not the whole of our being. This isn't poetry at all but philosophy. For instance, part of my being grows my hair, beats my heart, and grows my bones. That is part of the range of me. We have a subconscious or unconscious as well as the conscious mind. These are vital ideas to gaining sanity, and even Western philosophers have been cracking at them for a little over a hundred years now.

Secondly, I wanted to go back, or answer again, sort of your question. Yes, evidence is all-necessary. The thing is, the evidence is not the type which can be measured or quantified. The evidence is in experience, realization.

My reason for my current understanding is because of what I can only call, not for poetry's sake, believe me, a vision of the divine. I can call only this because it was nothing else.

It lasted for several hours - the beginning of which was a complete reversal of my world. I realized all my life had been a type of illusion, in that I didn't know where my feet were, where my roots were, where my source was. In the beginning stage of my experience, my world reversed because then I suddenly felt my source, completely.

I know the idea of revelation is not one you may appreciate. You think, "you are happy with your beliefs, and that is fine." But it isn't like that. What I experienced was true, it was the first time in my entire life I had experienced what is true. I cannot begin to describe what this was like. It was like the illusions of thousands of lifetimes being shed from me. And upon my life I am not making this up, elaborating, or saying anything for poetry's sake but this is what I realized.

It was like everything coming together. It was peace beyond anything, all my fears and anxiety were dissolved. There is basically nothing we don't know. But yet we still don't fully realize who and what we are.

I apologize for going for too long; but I also wanted to get back to your main question.

The divine for me is similar to Buddha-nature, which in Buddhism is said to be our real nature. Why I say Hinduism is nearly identical is because in Hinduism it's said that the real self is the divine soul, the Atman.

Perhaps the Divine exists somewhere outside us, but I think it does not. For me it is within. It is everyone. It feels like something outside of us, because we are not fully aware that it is within - and it is also often talked about in that way, as something without. So in the beginning, we think it is without. We pray to God as something apart from us. But God is within - our source. Beneath everything, God exists, and we are not separate from that Divine.

Your question is a difficult one. We ought to act in such a way to bring our own happiness and that of others. But our own happiness shouldn't be our only concern. Sometimes safety is the main concern, sometimes well-being. Does the divine help in this? I cannot answer, I do not know.

My understanding is that we are all the divine. Meher Baba said, there are infinite questions, and there is only one true answer, which is "I am God." Meher defines God as the Over-Soul, infinite power, peace, bliss, and knowledge. There is a Hindu proverb, which Meher also explains, which is, "God alone is real. All else is nothing." This means, Maya, or the material world, and everything within it, power, position, fame, and every other appearance, is merely appearance, illusion, insubstantial. The infinite Over-Soul alone is real. The rest is imagination.

I know this is already too long and again I apologize. But one last thing I wanted to say, and not the least important, is the idea of God as infinity. In mathematics, the concept of infinity is accepted as fact. The same reasoning can be used to understand that God exists.

Mathematics is a sort of world of ideas. It doesn't have a physical reality, rather it is metaphyiscal as we go into higher levels of mathematics like algebra. And in the idea-world of mathematics, infinity exists. None of mathematics has a physical world - not "One," "Two," or anything else. The mathematical numbers, they are all ideas. And in the fundamental mathematics, all you have are whole numbers. Then you discover negative numbers. Then you discover fractions, and zero. You still haven't thought of infinity. But then when you get into Algebra and then Trigonometry, you encounter infinity - in quadratic equations, and so on.

So the same is true in our world. The self doesn't exist physically either - it is part of another idea-world. But in that idea-world God is the infinity. But it doesn't mean God is sitting somewhere an infinite distance from you, separated by that distance, including heaven of course. No, God is not distant, God is the source within us.

We cannot really comprehend the mathematical idea of ininfinity. Yet we can see its existence. But can it be proven? I am not sure but I don't think so. It can't be proven, still if one studies math one knows just as certain as if it could be proven that it is real.

The other idea-world is more vague, it appears less-scientific at first, less concrete, than mathematics. But that's only because there are so many more variables. Still it can be conquered. :)

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well, a couple of things...

About Watts' ideas, please try to consider them. I view them not at all in the realm of poetry. His idea is very good and also true. The ego is just the focus of attention. But it is not the whole of our being. This isn't poetry at all but philosophy. For instance, part of my being grows my hair, beats my heart, and grows my bones. That is part of the range of me. We have a subconscious or unconscious as well as the conscious mind. These are vital ideas to gaining sanity, and even Western philosophers have been cracking at them for a little over a hundred years now.

Secondly, I wanted to go back, or answer again, sort of your question. Yes, evidence is all-necessary. The thing is, the evidence is not the type which can be measured or quantified. The evidence is in experience, realization.

My reason for my current understanding is because of what I can only call, not for poetry's sake, believe me, a vision of the divine. I can call only this because it was nothing else.

It lasted for several hours - the beginning of which was a complete reversal of my world. I realized all my life had been a type of illusion, in that I didn't know where my feet were, where my roots were, where my source was. In the beginning stage of my experience, my world reversed because then I suddenly felt my source, completely.

I know the idea of revelation is not one you may appreciate. You think, "you are happy with your beliefs, and that is fine." But it isn't like that. What I experienced was true, it was the first time in my entire life I had experienced what is true. I cannot begin to describe what this was like. It was like the illusions of thousands of lifetimes being shed from me. And upon my life I am not making this up, elaborating, or saying anything for poetry's sake but this is what I realized.

It was like everything coming together. It was peace beyond anything, all my fears and anxiety were dissolved. There is basically nothing we don't know. But yet we still don't fully realize who and what we are.

I apologize for going for too long; but I also wanted to get back to your main question.

The divine for me is similar to Buddha-nature, which in Buddhism is said to be our real nature. Why I say Hinduism is nearly identical is because in Hinduism it's said that the real self is the divine soul, the Atman.

Perhaps the Divine exists somewhere outside us, but I think it does not. For me it is within. It is everyone. It feels like something outside of us, because we are not fully aware that it is within - and it is also often talked about in that way, as something without. So in the beginning, we think it is without. We pray to God as something apart from us. But God is within - our source. Beneath everything, God exists, and we are not separate from that Divine.

Your question is a difficult one. We ought to act in such a way to bring our own happiness and that of others. But our own happiness shouldn't be our only concern. Sometimes safety is the main concern, sometimes well-being. Does the divine help in this? I cannot answer, I do not know.

My understanding is that we are all the divine. Meher Baba said, there are infinite questions, and there is only one true answer, which is "I am God." Meher defines God as the Over-Soul, infinite power, peace, bliss, and knowledge. There is a Hindu proverb, which Meher also explains, which is, "God alone is real. All else is nothing." This means, Maya, or the material world, and everything within it, power, position, fame, and every other appearance, is merely appearance, illusion, insubstantial. The infinite Over-Soul alone is real. The rest is imagination.

I know this is already too long and again I apologize. But one last thing I wanted to say, and not the least important, is the idea of God as infinity. In mathematics, the concept of infinity is accepted as fact. The same reasoning can be used to understand that God exists.

Mathematics is a sort of world of ideas. It doesn't have a physical reality, rather it is metaphyiscal as we go into higher levels of mathematics like algebra. And in the idea-world of mathematics, infinity exists. None of mathematics has a physical world - not "One," "Two," or anything else. The mathematical numbers, they are all ideas. And in the fundamental mathematics, all you have are whole numbers. Then you discover negative numbers. Then you discover fractions, and zero. You still haven't thought of infinity. But then when you get into Algebra and then Trigonometry, you encounter infinity - in quadratic equations, and so on.

So the same is true in our world. The self doesn't exist physically either - it is part of another idea-world. But in that idea-world God is the infinity. But it doesn't mean God is sitting somewhere an infinite distance from you, separated by that distance, including heaven of course. No, God is not distant, God is the source within us.

We cannot really comprehend the mathematical idea of ininfinity. Yet we can see its existence. But can it be proven? I am not sure but I don't think so. It can't be proven, still if one studies math one knows just as certain as if it could be proven that it is real.

The other idea-world is more vague, it appears less-scientific at first, less concrete, than mathematics. But that's only because there are so many more variables. Still it can be conquered. :)

I don't think you went on too long. Not at all. In fact, although I am about to end my participation in this discussion, I have thoroughly enjoyed being in contact with such an intelligent, articulate and courteous soul. My only reason for not continuing is that I am not open to having my mind changed nor do I think I have any right to challenge what was obviously such a deep and transformative experience as you describe above. If I may speak for you as well as myself, I feel we have reached a point of mutual respect, which I believe is an objective we share. So we are, in a sense, in the same place. I will be keeping an eye out for further posts by you on this and other threads - and though I am refraining from posting most of my new poems because of our resident plagiarist, I might send you by PM a poem I've been working on that expresses my views on this subject, but from another point of view.

[NikolaiI]

Well, I am a bit shy on this website for a couple of reasons, yet I still brave the religious texts section. :) Yes we are in the same place about respect. I think probably on many other topics as well. Regardless of conclusions, my position is that the search for knowledge is very important. We should try and find out what is our full potential, and live as purely, strongly, and happily as possible. Many people try and succeed to live complicated lives, I am currently working on bringing my meditation to more simple outlooks. You are more than welcome to send me any PMs.

[blazeofglory]

May I ask you to describe as concretely as you can

1) Your concept of God;

2) Whether that concept is derived from the OT, NT, the Quran or some other source;

3) Were you taught that or did it come to you at some significant moment in your life;

4) Whether it has changed or evolved in some way;

5) Are you most comfortable with those who share your belief, and

6) What is your attitude to non-believers?

Thank you.

Nothing in point of fact has occupied my mind so deeply and profoundly more than the idea of god.

The idea or imagination about God is not God, and the idea is just an idea. The image of God or the word of god is not God.

And it is really difficult to really say or fix the idea of God.

I am speechless. I do not say God does exist or does not. I am not the authority on this nor anybody is in essence.

We make surmises a thousand and one endlessly.

The place where God really exists as we know is in our idea only.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nothing in point of fact has occupied my mind so deeply and profoundly more than the idea of god.

The idea or imagination about God is not God, and the idea is just an idea. The image of God or the word of god is not God.

And it is really difficult to really say or fix the idea of God.

I am speechless. I do not say God does exist or does not. I am not the authority on this nor anybody is in essence.

We make surmises a thousand and one endlessly.

The place where God really exists as we know is in our idea only.

May I suggest that your conjectures and questions re "God" are in fact short-hand for these eternal questions:

Is there a purpose to life in general and to my life in particular beyond the cycle of birth, growth, death?

If there is no definitive answer to the foregoing, how do you choose to live your life - according to your hopes and fears?

[DarkStormyNight]

My problem is that if He or She is "the personification of love" on what basis is that love withheld from the victims of the many instances of genocide, the starving poor, the abused, the cruelly ill? The various rationalizations that all of the foregoing are the result of man's free will, strike me as so much legalistic word-twisting; and the "free will" with which God supposedly endowed mankind was apparently withdrawn the first time people - i.e. Adam & Eve - made use of it.

Legalistic word-twisting? Obviously mankind has a free will, and misuse it all the time. Anyone who can observe this world as it is will realize that.

Is not the option of humbling oneself and loving others always present? Yet we do not let allow love to guide us, and instead people act selfishly. That is the root of evil: not God turning his back on us, but people turning their backs on the love of God still present in the world.


But the conclusions of many Biblical scholars is that both Testaments are the work of various men (and one of them alleges at least one woman) and their representations of God's nature are internally inconsistent.

The Bible is surprisingly consistent for a text of such importance. The message has remained intact for thousands of years, with contemporary manuscripts to verify against.


When I observe the good and loving nature of my children and grand-children, I don't need faith in anything more than that (or less than that).

You have said yourself that this world is rife with examples of "genocide, the starving poor, the abused, the cruelly ill". When you see the goodness in people, do you not see the contrast between that nature and the behaviors of human evil? How is it we can percieve this contrast? Where does this sense of right and wrong come from?
These are questions of faith that beg to be pursued.


But it has been my experience that an absolutely open-minded discussion is impossible between believers and non- or dis-believers: that each needsthe position that he or she holds to.

How do we define "open-minded"? That's the real question.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Legalistic word-twisting? Obviously mankind has a free will, and misuse it all the time. Anyone who can observe this world as it is will realize that.

If it is so obvious, why don't we all see it as you do? And who is to say that God does not compel us to do evil and that only those who exercise their free will resist Him and act lovingly?


Is not the option of humbling oneself and loving others always present? Yet we do not let allow love to guide us, and instead people act selfishly. That is the root of evil: not God turning his back on us, but people turning their backs on the love of God still present in the world.


The Bible is surprisingly consistent for a text of such importance. The message has remained intact for thousands of years, with contemporary manuscripts to verify against.

You have said yourself that this world is rife with examples of "genocide, the starving poor, the abused, the cruelly ill". When you see the goodness in people, do you not see the contrast between that nature and the behaviors of human evil? How is it we can percieve this contrast? Where does this sense of right and wrong come from?

It comes, I assume, from our developing capacity for empathy, for feeling in ourselves the pain that others feel.


These are questions of faith that beg to be pursued.

How do we define "open-minded"? That's the real question.

Agreed. That is indeed the real question. We may be genetically disposed to confuse our need to survive with the opinions or beliefs that we hold.

[blazeofglory]

May I suggest that your conjectures and questions re "God" are in fact short-hand for these eternal questions:

Is there a purpose to life in general and to my life in particular beyond the cycle of birth, growth, death?

If there is no definitive answer to the foregoing, how do you choose to live your life - according to your hopes and fears?

In fact all I want at times is do away with all these questions and live innocently wondering st everything around us.
Seeking over millenniums we do not know a bit knowledge of what this cosmos is, and I hope we can never know.

Re the question of God I have nothing to say, and all I have about God is learned ideas, bookish and stores of memories.

I kind of have no desires to tell lies or pass on the idea in which I have no firsthand experience at all.