Win My Soul!

God would either have to have been created from the Big Bang in our universe, or hypothetically another universe...

 

i enjoy playing both sides of the fence...

if God always existed, coulndt the universe have always existed along with Him, or without Him?

if we are useing the numberline analogy, if God always existed, He wouldnt be 1, but infinity [positive and negative because He always existed]...and the entire numberline then holding everything, so out of Him comes 1 [the universe] along with everything else

 

quite ture.

As for our universe.....It could just be a a small speck of somthing bigger.God is the Ultimate Reality he is infinate.I just used the numberline anolowgy to not get to complex at once.

 

I think that about sums it up Art.

Whether there ever was a time (assuming that the concept of time even applies) when there was nothing or whether what is always was you have to admit what is is.

given our limited imaginations questions like where, when, why and how are meaningless unless you can explain the "what" (or even the concept there-of) that they're refering to.

What is this God thing that you believe or don't believe exists?

Nobody can give a comprehensive definition of the word let alone what it applies to.

 

Some apply their own definitions which makes this "deity" subjective, not good criterion for objective truths.

 

What is an "ultimate reality" ?--such a vague, incomprehensible term.

And further, reality includes what Christians consider "evil" as well as "good", thus god would be a self-contradiction.

*poof* "God" just vanished into non-existence...

 

an amont of faith is needed
dont mistake faith for blind faith though

 

What is the difference, Art?

Give me an example of not-blind faith.

 

Exactly! I think anybody who presumes to define God (as a being, as a concept, whatever), let alone push their definition on someone else is probably a little farther away from reality than someone who doesn't even try.


Defining anything puts limits on it.

 

God is the Reality that gos beyond preception and The human thought.Again see my "My Finds" thread for more on this...

 

ah ok faith based on exprence and your own logical resoning.Like trusting it based on the fact that it seems ture and you have seen that all other altrunives are false with a reson.

Blind faith is more like..."This is what my mom and dad taught me and all esle is worng because I say so."

 

If "god" goes beyond perception, how do you perceive such an entity? How do you comprehend on something incomprehensible? That would seem to be quite absurd.

And how do you know such much information about an unperceivable, incomprehensible being?

 

That's called making a reasonable assessment. We think a chair will hold us up when we sit in it or a light will come on when we flick the switch out of prior experience. So, it becomes habitual.

You also make reasonable assessments on things people say based on prior experience and/or evidence.

I highly doubt you would believe me if I told that I would drive you to the moon tonight, but you may be more prone to believe I'd drive you to Atlanta.

That's "reason", rather than faith.

And Biblical faith is simply believing without evidence--using the belief as "evidence" itself. So, it is essentially, "blind faith".

 

like I said faith is nessary
god has chosen to reval things to us via the bible and other things like that.I cant really claim to know I am after all a human.But you must have faith.Basicly as I said I am a bit lacking in the faith department for the reson that you said. my probelm has much more detail on "My finds" bla bla bla.But you can have faith but if you want its your choice.

 

Well, I guess you could say that I, too, am "a bit lacking in faith".

Be good, man. Peace

 

I can understand your frustration and curiousity as far as this is concerned. Back when I was in Junior-High School because I was innundated with so much of the type of crap that fundamentalists and those of a (for lack of a better term) orthodox persuasion were trying to "push." I developed a great deal of animosity toward established religion at that time that I turned to athieism (or at least agnosticism) and wanted nothing to do with religion. Despite this, I was willing to listen to those who didn't have a dogmatic, 'literalist' point of view and were more what I'll call enlightened as far as spiritual matters were concerned.

I loooooove these intimidation tactics-NOT! Fundamentalists and other 'conservatives' are notorious foir using this to denigrate people who don't agree with them. Let's also not forget that once the church was 'legitimized' in the 4th century, there were efforts to manipulate scripture so as to be 'acceptable' to the authorities.

Well, I'll confess that I've used both of these, for better or worse. I'll also admit that I come from a liberal perspective on spiritual matters. Also, many times what will happen in many of the Bible studies groups is that they are not necessarily trying to promote spiritual intergrity but rather a 'political' agenda.

..Otherwise known as blind faith. I think that you have to understand what spirituality and spiritual integrity really mean and understand that what people call religion today is really a perversion of the origional message.

I don't claim to have all or even most of the answers, but I can direct you to some websites that may shed some light on some of your concerns.
http://www.americanunitarian.org/
http://www.christian-universalism.com/
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/uc/wuf.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm
Below are websites concerned with christainity, spirituality and sex!
http://www.libchrist.com/
http://www.extatica.com/
http://www.extatica.com/articles/Errico_R_GodSexualityBible_3.htm
I hope some of this helps.

FTR, I've read some of your other posts. Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, I respect and admire your intelligence.

 

thanks. I have always kind of liked unitarianism-- IF I were to have to choose a church to attend, it would be a unitarian church.

 

As I understand it, the most common and most formidable hindrance to realizing the nature of God is, paradoxically, one's belief in God, or rather, one's belief in what God must be.



It seems that too many people (Atheists included) believe "God" refers to some kind of cosmic super ego, an anthropomorphized, supreme authority figure, a universal chief of police, spiritual accountant and infinitely poly-dimensional life critic all rolled up into a bearded, robed CEO who, (again, paradoxically) despite his omnipresence, is somehow separate from all existence. I wouldn't blame anyone for not believing in that and I find it absolutely astonishing that so many do.



The other great hindrance is the seemingly inescapable paradigm of physical existence. It is the all-too-commonly held belief that a thing exists if and only if its reality is physical. Obviously, it must be real if you can rap your knuckles on it, hear it, taste it, smell it . . . seeing is believing, right?



But any reasonable person would agree that there are non-physical realities that actually do exist. There are recurring phenomena, perennial patterns of nature and universally recognizable relationships between individuals and between things. It is arguable that the most vitally important things, the things without which life either ceases to exist or, at least, is diminished beyond recognition, are non-physical. These things are love, truth, consciousness, creativity, compassion, mystery and unity (There are more, of course, but these are the big ones).



Look at consciousness, for example. There is a whole spectrum of widely varying states of consciousness, each a manifestation of consciousness itself. Of course, there are many “explanations” for the phenomenon of consciousness. It can be seen as the product of genetics, of the structure and chemistry of the brain, of personal temperament, experience, history and culture. But none of these explain what consciousness is. None convey its primal essence. At some point you just have to accept (or face a self-negating paradox), consciousness itself exists.



So what does all of this have to do with God? I am quite sure that there is something each of these has in common with the others that is primal, essential, and divine. There is something at the core of love that is identical with the core of truth, consciousness, creativity, compassion, mystery and unity, and so on. This is what I refer to when I think or speak of God.



Now, please just consider the idea that the real geniuses of the world's traditions (you know, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Lao Tsu, Valmiki, Aquinas, Gandhi, Krishnamurti, da Vinci, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and countless others) may have been referring to this mysterious something, and that it actually does exist. Of course, that certainly doesn't mean that you, or anyone, should take their faith as "proof" of anything, especially if, in so doing, you bypass the primal, essential experience of the reality before you.


And, for better or worse, your soul is yours. Regardless of whether or not my arguments make enough sense for you to accept.

 

Love is not an objective reality. It is subjective and a result of certain emotions, which are stimulated in the mind, not the "heart" (which is just an organ that pumps blood more or less). Truth is relative to what the subject is--there is evidence of some "ultimate" truth. Consciousness is dependent upon the faculties of the brain. Creativity, compassion, etc. are all results of the subjective stimulation of the brain.

Your brain is god. You create your own religion, your own universe coloring reality with your perceptions.

Using subjective emotions, (love, compassion, etc.) as if they are independent (in and of themselves), is fallacious.

And I disagree with some of your list of "geniuses". I see folks such as Leonardo da Vinci (inventor, philosopher, scientist, artist), Timothy Leary (philosopher, psychologist) and those which have contributed to the progress of the mind as true geniuses.

Not taking away from Buddha or Gandhi, but they embraced a certain wing of progress without expanding into other realms.

Leary, for instance, gave credence to the "spiritual" as well as the scientific, but realized that with the existence (natural state) there would be no "spirit". But, not something objective, but depended upon the perception of the being.

 

libertine whats that thing around yer neck .........curious man,