Do you believe in God and why

[canuckamuck]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If duality comes from the singularity, where/when can you draw a line between the 2 and the 1? I find it impossible to separate them, so for me if 1 is eternal, 2 is too by association.

Perhaps the singularity (God) is the resolution of duality. Man is dualistic until he is resolved and added to the singularity.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I hear what you are saying, but I don't get how you are connecting the verses you quoted to your statement.

It is possible for there to be a God that does not reveal Himself just as it is possible that God has revealed Himself, and has created ways to make Himself known.

The verses you chose are taken to be God's revelation of himself through inspired writing.

 

Okay! I'll explain.

 

The verses I quoted imply that God, as described in the Bible, has revealed Himself as an extremely flawed entity. He is subject to jealousy, and as all true Buddhists understand, 'jealousy' is a deeply troublesome characteristic that should be got rid of.

 

He has also revealed that He has created man in the image of Himself, and as we should all know, the Homo Sapiens species, although cleverer than other animals, is horribly flawed in terms of its history of wars, mass killings, and disgusting torture of its own citizens who have even been deliberately and slowly burned alive in the past.

 

Such a God is clearly incompetent and must be an anthropomorphic creation.

[canuckamuck]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll explain.

 

The verses I quoted imply that God, as described in the Bible, has revealed Himself as an extremely flawed entity. He is subject to jealousy, and as all true Buddhists understand, 'jealousy' is a deeply troublesome characteristic that should be got rid of.

 

He has also revealed that He has created man in the image of Himself, and as we should all know, the Homo Sapiens species, although cleverer than other animals, is horribly flawed in terms of its history of wars, mass killings, and disgusting torture of its own citizens who have even been deliberately and slowly burned alive in the past.

 

Such a God is clearly incompetent and must be an anthropomorphic creation.

I can see how you could see it like that. The word jealous was originally qanna in Hebrew it means: to not bear a rival.

Which makes sense in a paragraph where God is saying you shall have no other gods.

I does not mean the same as the human character flaw of being unable to trust and to be suspicious.

It means God is making a clear statement that you shall worship only Him.

The being made in God's image is widely understood to mean having a body mind and spirit. A triune being. And you do not become the thing you have made. Just because God made man in his image it doesn't cause God to be human.

 

So God is not describing himself as flawed.

 

 

[Elad]

16 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

And here is where we go our separate ways. In my estimation the only thing which can be preexisting and eternal is a singularity

Would that be a singularity, as in, a place where the laws of physics break down?

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Elad said:

Would that be a singularity, as in, a place where the laws of physics break down?

it would have to be a place of unity or a consciousness with no conflicting elements. Something that would be a root of truths, like mathematical truths, or evidential truths. Something that would be the reason that truths are true. Something that has always existed because it cannot be created it simply is.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll explain.

 

The verses I quoted imply that God, as described in the Bible, has revealed Himself as an extremely flawed entity. He is subject to jealousy, and as all true Buddhists understand, 'jealousy' is a deeply troublesome characteristic that should be got rid of.

 

He has also revealed that He has created man in the image of Himself, and as we should all know, the Homo Sapiens species, although cleverer than other animals, is horribly flawed in terms of its history of wars, mass killings, and disgusting torture of its own citizens who have even been deliberately and slowly burned alive in the past.

 

Such a God is clearly incompetent and must be an anthropomorphic creation.

Oh dear, you are taking examples of what MEN wrote to explain things to a primitive people, and ascribing it to the divine.

I am sure you realise that it wasn't written in English at the time, and understand that things get lost in translation.

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh dear, you are taking examples of what MEN wrote to explain things to a primitive people, and ascribing it to the divine.

I am sure you realise that it wasn't written in English at the time, and understand that things get lost in translation.

...And our vocabulary, while being accurate enough to describe the physical world, is most probably unfit to describe spiritual worlds.

[mauGR1]

20 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I am not saying that God cannot be referred to by different groups in different ways. However if two groups contradict each other in foundational ways. Then it must be that one or both groups are wrong.

A God that is fine with promiscuity is not going to be the same as one instituting marriage and fidelity.

Tbh i don't know if, and which God "instituted" marriage, i'd rather see marriage institution as common sense, coming from men and not from God. ..Social engineering to protect the offspring.

Also, given that conflict has always been a constant in human existence, how we can determine that God is against conflicts ?

 

[canuckamuck]

18 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Tbh i don't know if, and which God "instituted" marriage, i'd rather see marriage institution as common sense, coming from men and not from God. ..Social engineering to protect the offspring.

Also, given that conflict has always been a constant in human existence, how we can determine that God is against conflicts ?

 

I don't think it is difficult to find cultures that invoke divine blessings in the marriage ritual. So when you say you don't know which god instituted marriage, I would have to say, speaking from outside of my monotheism, that many gods have done so. At least in the eyes of those cultures.

From a naturalist perspective one could also perceive that for humans, a monogamist relationship with a covenant bond which is respected by both sides, tends to create the best environment for well adjusted and socially integrated offspring. So one could infer that a creator of this species would approve and promote marital contracts.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I don't think it is difficult to find cultures that invoke divine blessings in the marriage ritual. So when you say you don't know which god instituted marriage, I would have to say, speaking from outside of my monotheism, that many gods have done so. At least in the eyes of those cultures.

From a naturalist perspective one could also perceive that for humans, a monogamist relationship with a covenant bond which is respected by both sides, tends to create the best environment for well adjusted and socially integrated offspring. So one could infer that a creator of this species would approve and promote marital contracts.

Well, i was answering to your post, where you were talking about.. " A God that is fine with promiscuity is not going to be the same as one instituting marriage and fidelity"... My opinion is that God, or gods, may suggest marriage for the reasons you suggest, (which of course i agree with) but in the same time, given human's propensity to infidelity, He may be not "against" infidelity.

[canuckamuck]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i was answering to your post, where you were talking about.. " A God that is fine with promiscuity is not going to be the same as one instituting marriage and fidelity"... My opinion is that God, or gods, may suggest marriage for the reasons you suggest, (which of course i agree with) but in the same time, given human's propensity to infidelity, He may be not "against" infidelity.

So you are suggesting that because infidelity is in their nature, that god would accept it. 

But I would counter that a creator god would be aware of both the harmful and the beneficial parts of human nature and advocate the path of less harm.

Violence is part of human nature. But outside of the role of justice, violence is unlikely to be beneficial in a larger sense.

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

So you are suggesting that because infidelity is in their nature, that god would accept it. 

But I would counter that a creator god would be aware of both the harmful and the beneficial parts of human nature and advocate the path of less harm.

Violence is part of human nature. But outside of the role of justice, violence is unlikely to be beneficial in a larger sense.

I have the impression that we are pretty much in agreement on the principles, yet somehow we are getting a bit lost in semantics.

" God suggests" or "God advocates the path of less harm" may have quite the same meaning imho.

[geronimo]

This thread has been nominated for the longest thread ever, alongside "I'm going out with a bar girl, but she's different from the others"

[canuckamuck]

39 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I have the impression that we are pretty much in agreement on the principles, yet somehow we are getting a bit lost in semantics.

" God suggests" or "God advocates the path of less harm" may have quite the same meaning imho.

I hope I am not giving the impression that I disagree with you in principle, I think we have a lot of common ground. I just am trying to clarify my own position. Our argument is philosophical, so it is easy to get lost in vaguery.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I hope I am not giving the impression that I disagree with you in principle, I think we have a lot of common ground. I just am trying to clarify my own position. Our argument is philosophical, so it is easy to get lost in vaguery.

Agree, actually having a different mother language, a different background and having read different books, i am kind of surprised on how your position is similar to mine.

As some wise man once said, "There are different paths to climb a mountain, but the mountain is the same".

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

...And our vocabulary, while being accurate enough to describe the physical world, is most probably unfit to describe spiritual worlds.

Please give an example of a non-physical world. It's not a lauguage problem. If it exists in reality, our vocabulary is more than adequate & well-fit to describe it. 

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Please give an example of a non-physical world. It's not a lauguage problem. If it exists in reality, our vocabulary is more than adequate & well-fit to describe it. 

 

Imagination.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh dear, you are taking examples of what MEN wrote to explain things to a primitive people, and ascribing it to the divine.

I am sure you realise that it wasn't written in English at the time, and understand that things get lost in translation.

I am certainly not ascribing it to the divine. The people who believe in that written text are those who are ascribing it to the divine.

 

As I've mentioned before, everything we know, experience and can think of is an interpretation, without exception.

 

Interpreting an ancient text into modern English is an interpretation by the scholars involved. Anyone who reads that English interpretation, no matter how fluent in English the reader may be, has to interpret what he reads. Common words can have a multitude of subtle differences in meaning, depending on the context and depending on the readers' individual experiences, understanding and education.

 

Even the most advanced scientific observations have to be interpreted, and those interpretations can differ among scientists. The hypothesis that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is an invisible entity we've named Dark Matter and Dark Energy, is based on an interpretation of the scientific observations (through the Hubble telescope) that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. That interpretation might eventually be proved to be wrong. Who knows!
 

[canuckamuck]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I am certainly not ascribing it to the divine. The people who believe in that written text are those who are ascribing it to the divine.

 

As I've mentioned before, everything we know, experience and can think of is an interpretation, without exception.

 

Interpreting an ancient text into modern English is an interpretation by the scholars involved. Anyone who reads that English interpretation, no matter how fluent in English the reader may be, has to interpret what he reads. Common words can have a multitude of subtle differences in meaning, depending on the context and depending on the readers' individual experiences, understanding and education.

 

Even the most advanced scientific observations have to be interpreted, and those interpretations can differ among scientists. The hypothesis that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is an invisible entity we've named Dark Matter and Dark Energy, is based on an interpretation of the scientific observations (through the Hubble telescope) that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. That interpretation might eventually be proved to be wrong. Who knows!
 

For one thing, when we are speaking about the Bible. It can be read in it's original languages by language experts. Then you also have context, volumes of corroborating text, historical discoveries, cultural anthropology, and writings of ancient secular observers. All of which give a better lens to investigate the meaning.

And it has been a hot topic for thousands of years. So it is not quite the same as dark matter.

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I am certainly not ascribing it to the divine. The people who believe in that written text are those who are ascribing it to the divine.

 

As I've mentioned before, everything we know, experience and can think of is an interpretation, without exception.

 

Interpreting an ancient text into modern English is an interpretation by the scholars involved. Anyone who reads that English interpretation, no matter how fluent in English the reader may be, has to interpret what he reads. Common words can have a multitude of subtle differences in meaning, depending on the context and depending on the readers' individual experiences, understanding and education.

 

Even the most advanced scientific observations have to be interpreted, and those interpretations can differ among scientists. The hypothesis that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is an invisible entity we've named Dark Matter and Dark Energy, is based on an interpretation of the scientific observations (through the Hubble telescope) that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. That interpretation might eventually be proved to be wrong. Who knows!
 

Muslims have an institution in Riyadh which is dedicated to "interpreting" the word of god. I guess the Koran isn't clear enough.

The religious elders believed that radio, tv etc were  banned, but when it was pointed out they could be used to spread Islam, they were able to re "interpret" the Koran to accept them. All religions are BS IMO.

 

PS, for a long time they managed to stop women driving in Saudi based on something or other. They have now managed to re "interpret" something or other to allow woman drivers.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

So you are suggesting that because infidelity is in their nature, that god would accept it. 

But I would counter that a creator god would be aware of both the harmful and the beneficial parts of human nature and advocate the path of less harm.

Violence is part of human nature. But outside of the role of justice, violence is unlikely to be beneficial in a larger sense.

Where you and I part ways is that you believe God cares about humans and I do not. To me God created everything and allowed life to get on with it as best it can. God created dinosaurs too, but we know what happened to them- not much caring about that species, was there?

BTW violence was how humans survived in a hostile world with a stick against tigers and such like. Without the violence gene we'd have been wiped out before we even got started. Same as the gene to procreate with as many woman as possible. Horses, elephant seals, and many other species rely on males fornicating with as many females as possible, and some have the females, eg bees, procreating with as many males as possible. We are, after all, just animals that happened to develop a big brain.

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Imagination.

Good answer (tho not a world) ...and precisely where your "spiritual worlds" are found. 

[canuckamuck]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where you and I part ways is that you believe God cares about humans and I do not. To me God created everything and allowed life to get on with it as best it can. God created dinosaurs too, but we know what happened to them- not much caring about that species, was there?

BTW violence was how humans survived in a hostile world with a stick against tigers and such like. Without the violence gene we'd have been wiped out before we even got started. Same as the gene to procreate with as many woman as possible. Horses, elephant seals, and many other species rely on males fornicating with as many females as possible, and some have the females, eg bees, procreating with as many males as possible. We are, after all, just animals that happened to develop a big brain.

It is a big difference though. I suppose my question would be, why would a creator bother to create, if not to do something with the creation? From the Christian perspective, the goal of creation was relational.

 

I don't consider hunting as violence in the same way as human to human violence. Human vs human violence is not usually for food, but for emotional or sociological constructs. There nothing wrong with killing and eating outside your species though.

There is something wrong with kicking a dog that just wanted a pat on the head.

[Mike Teavee]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree, actually having a different mother language, a different background and having read different books, i am kind of surprised on how your position is similar to mine.

As some wise man once said, "There are different paths to climb a mountain, but the mountain is the same".

And to paraphrase Heraclitus... No man can climb a mountain by the same path twice as it's not the same mountain & it's not the same path... 

 

[mauGR1]

39 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

And to paraphrase Heraclitus... No man can climb a mountain by the same path twice as it's not the same mountain & it's not the same path... 

 

Not sure how you can compare a mountain to a river, although i can admit that my metaphor is not flawless.

A mountain can exist millions of years, but is not eternal.

If i see God as the ultimate truth, that truth is eternally existing, while all the rest is transitory.

[geronimo]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I am certainly not ascribing it to the divine. The people who believe in that written text are those who are ascribing it to the divine.

 

As I've mentioned before, everything we know, experience and can think of is an interpretation, without exception.

 

Interpreting an ancient text into modern English is an interpretation by the scholars involved. Anyone who reads that English interpretation, no matter how fluent in English the reader may be, has to interpret what he reads. Common words can have a multitude of subtle differences in meaning, depending on the context and depending on the readers' individual experiences, understanding and education.

 

Even the most advanced scientific observations have to be interpreted, and those interpretations can differ among scientists. The hypothesis that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is an invisible entity we've named Dark Matter and Dark Energy, is based on an interpretation of the scientific observations (through the Hubble telescope) that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. That interpretation might eventually be proved to be wrong. Who knows!
 

You are obviously an intelligent chap, have you ever thought of entering the POTY?

[Mike Teavee]

11 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Not sure how you can compare a mountain to a river, although i can admit that my metaphor is not flawless.

A mountain can exist millions of years, but is not eternal.

If i see God as the ultimate truth, that truth is eternally existing, while all the rest is transitory.

Sorry, it was a nod to the duality conversation earlier whereby 2 people can say opposing things that can both be true... 

 

You say a man can take a different path up the same mountain & I say a man cannot even take the same path again up the same mountain as none of the 3 (Man, Path, Mountain) are the same... I used to walk the "Mountains" of the UK every weekend and even using a path i'd used dozens of time before, it was never the same path, nor was it the same mountain & (on reflection) I wasn't the same man.

 

 

[geronimo]

so, after 243 pages, is there or is there not an old man with a beard whose mother was a virgin up there looking down on us?

[Mike Teavee]

2 minutes ago, geronimo said:

so, after 243 pages, is there or is there not an old man with a beard whose mother was a virgin up there looking down on us?

Wrong thread, this is a thread about whether you believe in God, not Santa Clause....  

 

But yes, Morgan Freeman does exist 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Sorry, it was a nod to the duality conversation earlier whereby 2 people can say opposing things that can both be true... 

 

You say a man can take a different path up the same mountain & I say a man cannot even take the same path again up the same mountain as none of the 3 (Man, Path, Mountain) are the same... I used to walk the "Mountains" of the UK every weekend and even using a path i'd used dozens of time before, it was never the same path, nor was it the same mountain & (on reflection) I wasn't the same man.

 

 

Oh, then we have something in common, although "my" mountains are more famous than yours (Dolomites) ???? i used to climb mountains every weekend too, until i got too old and lazy.

Yes, in theory you are right, but i guess you understand the meaning of the metaphor, although that metaphor is not flawless.

In the specific, i was referring to the countless names of God, and the various religions, which are supposed to bring a human into the heights through different paths and in different ways.