i believe this unsuitable for it can apply to "gravity" for the most part when personal qualifiers are ignored. obviously this statement is imprecise but perhaps it transmits my intentionOriginally Posted by MysticSonic
i believe this unsuitable for it can apply to "gravity" for the most part when personal qualifiers are ignored. obviously this statement is imprecise but perhaps it transmits my intention
It is also worth mentioning as an interesting aside that a great deal of the religious language on this thread would suggest a masculine nature of God. Even when the rest of the description is that of a genderless entity or idea, God is still almost entirely referred to as a "he" and not as either a "she" or an "it."
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
"i believe this unsuitable for it can apply to "gravity" for the most part when personal qualifiers are ignored. obviously this statement is imprecise but perhaps it transmits my intention"
I'm using the term will to imply intentionality, that is, sentience to the omnipotence of the character I outlined---God, which is why omnipotence is such a simplistic way to characterize the essential aspect of God proper.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
i guess i just view "setting a sequence of actions into motion" as a possible manifestation of "intention." however i am somewhat like slava in that i do not believe in inanimate.
God is probably genderless. For God to have a gender, wouldn't it require (at least from my perspective) another being to set up gender???
God is nothing like what we've been told. And, perhaps we will be told when we meet God that God could care less whether we believe in God or not or whether we been good or bad. One thing for sure, we matter far less in God's eyes than we would like.
Yes, but the use of the pronoun "he" in the discourse of God is very suggestive as to the subconscious nature of how society (or at least Western) views God on some level as a masculine being. There is some really interesting feminist philosophy of religion out there worth reading which talks greatly about such issues.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
@ logos. I get what you mean. I've never read the kind of philosophy you talked about but yeah, I agree that God is a HE mostly because of sex discrimination. Not all religions think God is male, but yes, all mainstream ones think so.
I could be wrong, but I think way back, females had higher social status. And then for some reason, males took the lead and everything became male oriented???
Btw, ever wonder this.... That God is playing a joke on humans. God gives us intelligence and consciousness so that we suffer, do all sorts of things like killing each other in God's name and see how we think we are the blessed ones (when in fact we are cursed). And all this while, God is watching this "comedy" from some corner of the universe.
It's really a cultural thing as to whether women or men had more "power," but it tends a bit towards men, I think, because of sexual behaviors. As for mythologies regarding various deities, it probably depends upon the character of that particular god. Men are typically more aggressive, so a war god would most likely be male, whereas a god of love or childbirth would likely be female. In polytheistic structures, it's easier to have feminine deities due to the relations between the gods usually being familial. In monotheistic structures, the god is seen as more of a ruler, and the primary characteristic is power, something which most cultures associated with men.
Note: I pulled the above from my own memory and thoughts, so it's entirely possible, and maybe even likely, that I'm wrong in some or all aspects. However, I'd like to think it's pretty good.
As for what is a god, I see a god as a construct of human society as method of control over nature. It's pretty clear to most humans they aren't in control of nature, but if there's a guy who is, maybe you can gain his favor and bend things to work out how you wish. Of course, there's also a great deal of subjective validation, weak logic, magical thinking, and other forms of misleading thought to convince man that it's tapped into something effective, though such effectiveness truly exists only in its imagination.
Of course, from a pure logic point-of-view, I'm willing to entertain the concept of a deistic God. But I figure if it was a big deal to God for us to know about it, it would have mentioned something conclusive by now. There's also the possibility God's a jerk and finds lots of entertainment in tricking us and making us suffer. But I'm gonna go with "no gods" for now until credible evidence comes along to suggest otherwise.
Edit: I just read sara's second paragraph. So, yes, you aren't alone in wondering that.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
i think i lean toward slava and dj, and love and holiness. I think Ann said that, but i am uncomfortable giving descriptions of God as an entity.
I also find it odd that God could be explained to be anthropomorphized due to a theory or rather two theories. Maybe Logos meant that a theory explains why God would be anthropomorphized (even though God Himself already is)?
I do feel more comfortable pointing to what I feel "God" describes by giving examples. For example "God is love". The aspects of being above oneself and yet including oneself can be applied here too. But already that is overstating. I just wanted to comment on similar views.
Yes. I unfortunately cannot remember who said it, but to paraphrase a relatively famous saying: If horses had gods, they too would look like horses. It is a similar idea of sorts. God looks human, because God is essentially a projected ideal version of ourselves. God is the individual, and God is the society.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Some cultures were more patriarchal than others, but there is no evidence, as far as I know, of any culture being clearly matriarchal. So there was never "some reason" to change it as you say. It never happened.
What did happen, though, at least in Europe, is that women had a relatively higher status under the classical polytheism of the Roman Empire.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Interesting view. Though I'm not sure if it is meaningful at all to attach attributes like "gender" to God as gender seems to be very much tied to our biology here on earth (our roles in reproduction) and probably doesn't mean anything to a supernatural being. However in Christian view God "became a man" in Jesus and chose a male figure. It was probably just a practical choice though which doesn't imply much about his supernatural existence. Well, I'm not going to discuss here what is the relationship of God and Jesus as it is an eternity question.
Well you are seemingly trying to start a new religion here (or perhaps quoting some religion which I'm not aware of). According to Bible (old and new parts) and I would think even Quran one of the big points is that despite we are lesser than ants to God powerwise he has unconditional love for all of us. And as a more Christian view we always have a choice to get in touch with God whenever we want to and start from an empty table. There is a direct "telephone line" available at all moments for all people. This is one of the bottom lines of God's character which is very different from how humans typically relate to each other (hard for a beggar to get a phone call to president etc).
This implies that we probably mean a lot more to him than we would think (as it is not typical for a human to think that an infinity times mightier being would really care for us as individuals). Also whatever we do or don't do doesn't change the fundamentals of his (heh) love. You can't buy or sell God's love. To understand that you really do matter to God as yourself is one of the major steps in "accepting" faith to biblical God.
Expat, i think you're right. I just googled ''matriarchy", it seems that there really isn't much evidence to suppose that many cultures were once matriarchial. I picked this notion up from movies and documentaries.
So do you believe in God or not? Most of you don't???
I am a lukewarm Roman Catholic. There was once when I thought I would study theology before I die so that if I should meet God after I died, I coudl tell God why my not believing in God was justisfied. A very arrogant and naive thought of course, but I was in my teens.
I'm in my mid-twenties now and am more mature . My current take on religion is, I accept that there is God. I go to church in Christmas and Easter but I don't care much about Church's teachings. The Church is run by humans only after all. I just think God should understand that I am just not like an INFj who's very very spiritual.
This is probably a bit contradictory. On the one hand, I doubt if God exists and on the other hand, I cannot help but want to believe that God exists.
I do not believe in God nor in anything else supernatural either.
There is something very strange about the nature of religous experience that I have never been able to understand.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
same thought here but my sister and her friend want me to attend church every weekend. they said they aren't forcing me but i know what they want. since they are so concerned about my salvation to the point of being worried, and i dislike seeing them in that sort of state, i just thought i'd go along. besides, i figure that i could take it as an experience and see what would come out of it. i can also listen to other people's views on God and christianity as there are different speakers every sunday. finally, i'm also reluctant to outright reject stuff that don't readily "fit" into my existing worldviews.
omg listen to their opinion? I used to go to church as a kid and I was able to ignore all the bullshit, but now when i go and get out of it at the end i'm blowing of steam and cursing after the sermon of the fucking priestsame thought here but my sister and her friend want me to attend church every weekend. they said they aren't forcing me but i know what they want
curch=police=shit
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
listening does not mean accepting it as some truth. it's after all their own interpretation of God and the christian religion. don't get me wrong. i'm not easily brainwashed. there are times i get pissed at their preachings and vent it to my sister once we step out of the church. i also don't blankly accept her friend's opinions at those cell group meetings (and i think it was obvious because she told me later to be more polite to him).
Once I was looking at a map of Hungary and found a town called "God." I thought, "Now that's funny! I've found God!" But when I did a google search, I landed on this page:
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/...cast?query=God
i've been told numerous times that i'm a god! (seriously)
IEI - the nasty kind...
I've been called a sod, never a god --
God is the same as everything in the universe that we worship or value: a way to take away pain. Or give comfort, depending on your chosen perspective.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
theists can provide psychological reasons for the atheists unbelief, too
(this doesn't tell us whether or not God exists though)
THE BEARD HEARD HIS MOVEMENT AND MADE AN ATTACK RUN BUT DID NOT ACTUALLY ATTACK HIM
viva palestina
...except they have no strictly rational standpoint from which to presuppose the existence of the kind of God that most people reference. I have nothing against anyone who wants to believe in God, and I say that they're probably better off than an atheist in terms of general quality of life, so more power to them. However, you have to step outside a system of belief to analyze it; an atheist can disprove a theistic standpoint from an atheist perspective, but a theist cannot disprove an atheistic perspective from a theistic perspective. It simply can't be done.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
god is i am
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
My answer to you is that there are two notions of God, the "father" god which Jesus spoke of, and is the collective invocation of the 7th function (and when I speak of a collective invocation, I mean a simultaneous experience of the 7th by many people), and the "I AM" god of general religion, which is expressed as the observance of the 8 different father gods as a general precept of common religious feeling. Consider, if you march along the function chain in concert with others as you think, then you will share the outlook of those others. (in large part) Even though the use of different functions may rephrase the shared outlook between people, you will understand that what is being discussed by your peers, in this sense, is 7th function content. ...That's all I know to say now, I will need to think some more on this....Yes I have considered it, but I consider that to be a unattractive answer as that does not leave much room for further inquiry. You merely define that the 7th function is the inhibitory link to God. And from there you stop. But that still leaves the question as what is God? To what are we linked? In which case, my thesis that God is merely the projection of societal self-alienation would still be a viable option that would involve far less supernatural speculation and a greater room for psychoanalytic reasoning. Freudian and Jungian psychology would have a field day by connecting their theories with the Feuerbach-Durkheim postulate.Have you ever considered that we simply do not allow by a form of psychic aggreement that we can never violate, on burden of inability to conceive of ourselves and therefore annihiliation, the ability to commit these acts of defiance against reason? Furthermore, how can we say that personal knowledge 7th function operation cannot make these things happen from a subjective vantagepoint? Is not the 7th function the link to God?
.
.
i can think of three possible reasons
1. because deep down their hoping someone proves to them of the existence
2. because they don't want their god to have compete (you know...the god known as science/logic)
3. because they believe they see some negative aspects to belief of a one true God and seek to strive to minimize those aspects
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Well, the burden of proof isn't on a person who doesn't believe in something, it's on the person who makes the claim of existence.
You could probably blame a lot of the more prominent evangelicals for the popularity of debunking "proofs" of God's existence. There's a push to convert non-believers and turn the US (and maybe some other countries) into a sort-of theocracy, but a lack of accompanying evidence to support the beliefs they wish to spread. And yet somehow, it's the non-believers fault for pointing out the flaws in the believer's argument. No "proof for God's non-existence" to my knowledge stems from nothing. All that I've seen have started by taking a "proof" for God's existence, and showing how it isn't a valid or strong argument.
Personally, I don't care what other people believe, as long as it's not causing harm to others. However, I'm not gonna hold back my own beliefs and arguments, especially if someone seeks to convert me.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
God is my Copilot.
Doesn't that mean you're supposed to switch seats?God is my Copilot.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
God is my autopilot.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
A disdain for irrational beliefs which are seemingly contradicted by the properties of existence itself.
Maybe for some, but if they want to be proven the existence of a god, then they can hardly be called atheists to begin with, but a type of warped pessimistic theist. But from your later points, you seem to believe yourself that all people are "pessimistic theists."
You mean the people who do not want supernatural speculation to compete with science, truth, or logic? Such concepts are hardly worth being considered as god, even by most theistic standards. But that is an interesting assertion of sorts. While the principles of reason, logic, and science may be attributed to a theistic god or its universe, they are never considered to be gods themselves. Wow, thinking really is dangerous. No wonder such of science and learning has been suppressed by religious thought.2. because they don't want their god to have compete (you know...the god known as science/logic)
I suppose that this is part of the explanation but one written in an obviously lopsided perspective that already presupposes the said existence "of a one true God."3. because they believe they see some negative aspects to belief of a one true God and seek to strive to minimize those aspects
I think it is funny that you find these two unrelated concepts and ideas to somehow be ironically related and then use this weak assertion as a means to try and undercut the point of the oppositional voice. Well the moment that Socionics theorists start describing the creation of the universe by the Supreme LII and its heavenly host of ESE, then we will talk.I think it is funny that people who subscribe to the concept of archetypes would be dissing people's gods.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I don't care in the slightest if people think god exists. The only things I don't like are:
a) when people preach to my kid.
b) when people try to base laws on their religious beliefs.
Your right to practice your religion ends where my right to not practice your religion begins.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
.
Logos:
logic is a manmade language that man uses to help him keep order in his communications, reasonings, and interactions.
God may or may not be a manmade concept that man uses to help him keep order in his communications, reasonings, and interactions.
logic is often treated as "the Ultimate Truth"; "the Light"; and "the Way"
God is often called "the Ultimate Truth"; "the Light" and "the Way"
God is used to explain the underlying structure of all of creation
Logic is used to explain the underlying structure of all of creation
Promoters of God say that God represents Ultimate Good, and logic represents Ultimate Evil
Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents Ultimate Good, and god represents Ultimate Evil
and regarding archetypes:
"God" is an archetype for various concepts and activities
"gods and goddesses" are archetypes for various concepts and activities
"science" is an archetype for various concepts and activities
personality types are archetypes for various concepts and activities
whether or not someone personifies the archetypes is perhaps the only difference between worshipers of a diety vs worshipers of a concept
but it doesn't change that they are both worshipers
nor does it change that each group has it's "knights"
nor does it change that they are in competition
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't think any of that is true, Ann, but particularly this part:
reads more like some kind of a forwarded chain email than anything I've ever heard anyone who doesn't believe in god say.Promoters of Logic say that Logic represents Ultimate Good, and god represents Ultimate Evil
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
notice Logo's attitude towards the concept of belief in God. Elsewhere Phaedrus has responded harsher.
Logic pushers would never state that god represents the Ultimate Evil, but many Logic pushers push that the belief in God has lead to a downfall of mankind, (kind of like how many God believers push the concept of the Devil), and that it prevents the growth of their own belief system aka "Logic" or "science". These are the same arguments various religious pushers have used to encourage the growth and support of their own institution.
I am not suggesting that ALL Logic pushers do this, nor that ALL God pushers do the other. Merely that their actions and majority of their words are extremely similar.
btw, i do not consider myself either
though i do get pushy for clearer communications
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Right but consider:notice Logo's attitude towards the concept of belief in God. Elsewhere Phaedrus has responded harsher.
Logic pushers would never state that god represents the Ultimate Evil, but many Logic pushers push that the belief in God has lead to a downfall of mankind, (kind of like how many God believers push the concept of the Devil), and that it prevents the growth of their own belief system aka "Logic" or "science". These are the same arguments various religious pushers have used to encourage the growth and support of their own institution.
I am not suggesting that ALL Logic pushers do this, nor that ALL God pushers do the other. Merely that their actions and majority of their words are extremely similar.
btw, i do not consider myself either
though i do get pushy for clearer communications: eternal winner;
: eternal shared beliefs;
: feelings that run forever;
: unshakable belief in a possibility;
: your eternal allegiance to a belief.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
