Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

30 minutes ago, Tagged said:

The question is: Why is it so important to know a god, that really do not want to be found, even people claim to know many variants of a god, power or a source? But most people will never know what the other is talking about, or understand each other even they warship the same god, spirit or force. Why not embrace and warship what this god or creator created for us all? It is everywhere around us, right here right in front of all if us? Everybody can see, feel, touch, smell and taste it everyday!

 

So much energy of egoistic narsistic reasons to find something there id not to be find exept intheir own mind only and personal reasons. A perfect example to run away and escape life diving in to religion and spiritualisn and warshipping in something of no other value than keeping themdelves focused, busy and in the end trying to convince everyone else they know and they found it.

 

Btw I did find it, and I know and I already told you. Simplicity,,,,,,,,,,, 

 

Right here right now!

 

 

There are a lot of valid questions and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.

 

First of all, I would separate intellectual knowledge of God from actual "lived" knowledge. The former comes from studying a book or following a set of pre-packed beliefs in the hope they will provide answers to fundamental questions. This can be useful to give basic moral guidelines such as helping navigate the hardships of life and give a direction towards something bigger than oneself. It is predominantly an external knowledge. I would guess this defines the majority of religious people and probably the ones most materialists have a problem with.

 

Then there is the knowledge that doesn't require you to read any books or blindly accept a set of beliefs. It is an internal process and more dynamic. The acquisition of knowledge comes from practice, and if there are moral and spiritual guidelines, they are formed as a natural result of said practice, not externally imposed.

The former tends to be exclusive (My God/religion is the only right one), the second tends to be inclusive (Whichever way you choose to get closer to the Source, is alright in my book). Note that the second doesn't require you to believe in a God at all, just the honest need to improve yourself and let go of selfish mindsets.

 

Of course it's not all black and white, but I think this distinction is very important when discussing religion and spirituality. It is also the cause of a lot of misunderstandings. Just look at how often @thaibeachlovers had to make this distinction in the course of this thread.

 

47 minutes ago, Tagged said:

warshipping in something of no other value than keeping themdelves focused, busy and in the end trying to convince everyone else they know and they found it.

 

If the worship of a God or the regular practice of meditation adds focus in one's life, then I would argue it is of great value indeed. Even if it's "only in their minds".
The "convincing" depends of which of the above groups one is part of.

Group 1 (exclusive) will indeed try to convince you that there is a God, and that their God is the only true God. (Jehova's Witnesses, evangelical Christians etc)
The second group (inclusive) will have no need to convince anyone, but they will always try to point in the direction of the light to those living in the darkness. (Remember Plato's allegory of the cave.) This is done out of compassion. The highest example here are the Boddhishattvas who pledge to return and incarnate until the last of the beings has reached enlightenment, even though they already overcame the wheel of reincarnation.

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Easy.  I simply typed in 'meaning of reason' in Google > and this is the first that came up:

Thanks! The first definition is an excellent example of a sloppy definition. Dictionaries, of course, do not just provide the correct meaning of the word, but also the way it is often used by the general public. It seems that you and mauGR1 are not the only people using the word 'reason' in such a sloppy manner. ????

 

Considering the first definition, "A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event", I would rephrase it, for the sake of clarity, as follows. "An explanation, or justification for an action or event and their cause or causes."

 

As I've mentioned before, when discussing issues one considers to be profound and significant, it is necessary to precisely define the major words that are used, such as 'God', 'Chance', 'Reasoning', 'Logic', 'Scientific methodology', and so on.

[mauGR1]

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks! The first definition is an excellent example of a sloppy definition. Dictionaries, of course, do not just provide the correct meaning of the word, but also the way it is often used by the general public. It seems that you and mauGR1 are not the only people using the word 'reason' in such a sloppy manner. ????

 

Considering the first definition, "A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event", I would rephrase it, for the sake of clarity, as follows. "An explanation, or justification for an action or event and their cause or causes."

 

As I've mentioned before, when discussing issues one considers to be profound and significant, it is necessary to precisely define the major words that are used, such as 'God', 'Chance', 'Reasoning', 'Logic', 'Scientific methodology', and so on.

Climbing mirrors, are we ?

For your information, I was, rather obviously , using the word "reason" in the 2nd definition provided by @Peter Denis, but what is better than a personal attack to hide the lack of arguments?

But I agree on the final part of your post, it's important to agree on the meaning of the words we use.

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

...

It seems that you and mauGR1 are not the only people using the word 'reason' in such a sloppy manner. ????

...

Yes, and you can join the club as our Honorary Sloppy Member, as it was you that confused the noun 'reason' with the verb 'reasoning' by stating that it is obvious that 'reason' exists only in the human mind. ????

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

...

As I've mentioned before, when discussing issues one considers to be profound and significant, it is necessary to precisely define the major words that are used, such as 'God', 'Chance', 'Reasoning', 'Logic', 'Scientific methodology', and so on.

Thanks, Captain Obvious Strikes Again! ????

[VincentRJ]

24 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Climbing mirrors, are we ?

For your information, I was, rather obviously , using the word "reason" in the 2nd definition provided by @Peter Denis, but what is better than a personal attack to hide the lack of arguments?

But I agree on the final part of your post, it's important to agree on the meaning of the words we use.

 

Really! Then you'd better explain that to Peter Denis, because I was responding to the following comment from him, a while back:

 

"mauGR1 in his post stated 'There is a reason for everything, ...' (in the sense that there is a CAUSE for everything) and that led you then to claim that 'reason exists only in the human mind'.
Looks like you are failing to understand the actual meaning of some of the words you use." 

 

I accept that everything in the universe is subject to a 'cause and effect' process. We try to understand and explain those 'causes and effects' by employing our unique capacity for reasoning, which takes place in our mind. The causes and effects we analyze, through the process of reasoning, do not necessarily occur in the mind, unless we are neuroscientists examining mental processes, but all reasoning does take place in the mind. That's my point. 

 

[jvs]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I accept that everything in the universe is subject to a 'cause and effect' process. We try to understand and explain those 'causes and effects' by employing our unique capacity for reasoning, which takes place in our mind. The causes and effects we analyze, through the process of reasoning, do not necessarily occur in the mind, unless we are neuroscientists examining mental processes, but all reasoning does take place in the mind. That's my point.

another good point,but then again what some call a good reason others will call it  something totally different.

Seems like it is very difficult to get away from your roots(opbringing and environment)lots of examples there!

One of the reasons topics like this get so much traffic.

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

our unique capacity for reasoning, which takes place in our mind.

This is exactly the point where we disagree.

I believe that the architect of the universe has more reason, in the sense of reasoning abilities,  than all the whole humankind.

[sirineou]

12 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

So, as you say, there is a reason for the existence of life, ergo reason doesn't need humans to exist.

 

I think you are using the word Reason , not as a thought process but as:

" a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event"

If so then indeed all these exist outside the human mind, since the would still exist after humans cease to exist.

But putting labels on them  such as "reason" , is a human construct depending on Reasoning , and since it involves thinking  it  could not posible exist outside the human mind. 

It is a chicken and egg question.

And the answer is the egg, (idea,) the chicken is simply the egg's idea as  how to make another egg. 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by sirineou

[mauGR1]

52 minutes ago, sirineou said:

and since it involves thinking  it  could not posible exist outside the human mind. 

Really? Do you think that God cannot think ?

Oh, I forgot to tell you that I believe in God. ????

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

This is exactly the point where we disagree.

I believe that the architect of the universe has more reason, in the sense of reasoning abilities,  than all the whole humankind.

If there is a being or entity that is the architect of the universe, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that such an entity, or God, would have a far, far, greater capacity for reasoning than the combined total of all of humankind, including all the numerous scientific disciplines. So there's no disagreement there.

 

As I've mentioned before, the more we know, through the application of the 'Methodology of Science', the more we become aware of how little we know, compared with the 'potential' of what we could know in the future as our knowledge and the sophistication of our technological devices progress.

 

Sir Isaac Newton created a very sound theory of gravity that demonstrated that all objects exert a force of gravitational attraction upon each other, and that the force of that attraction was dependent upon both the mass of the objects and the distance between the objects.
However, the great puzzle with his theory, as applied to the universe at large, is why all the stars did not seem to be collapsing upon themselves. An apple falls to the ground because the mass of the Earth exerts a significant gravitational force of attraction. Surely billions of massive stars would exert a much more significant gravitational attraction upon each other, and would therefore all collapse upon themselves, as an apple falls to the ground.

 

There was no evidence that the universe was collapsing upon itself, and this appeared to be contravening Newton's theory of gravity. So what was the explanation? I studied Newtonian Mechanics and his Gravitational theories in High School, but it was never mentioned that Newton was very religious, although in a rather heretical way, so he didn't talk about it.

 

It seems that Newton believed that the universe should have been collapsing upon itself, according to his theory of gravity, but God was preventing it, and keeping the stars static in their ordained space.

 

Years later, even Albert Einstein believed the universe was static, despite the fact that his first 'theory of relativity' indicated the universe was expanding. He introduced a constant into his equations to counteract this apparent expansion, which he later described as his 'greatest mistake', after Edwin Hubble provided data showing that the universe was in fact expanding.

 

For many decades it was assumed that such expansion,  resulting from the hypothesis of the Big Bang, was gradually slowing down, as a result of the effects of gravity. Both Einstein and Stephen Hawking, believed this was the case. Then, more recently, as the technological sophistication of the Hubble Telescope increased, it became apparent that the most distant galaxies that could be observed, were travelling away, or expanding, at an accelerating rate. We don't know why. But we have a hypothesis of the existence of huge amounts of invisible and undetectable matter and energy, which we call 'Dark'. This Dark Matter and Dark Energy exerts an opposite force on conventional gravity, resulting in an accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

But that's just an Hypothesis. We don't know. We're still working on it, trying to validate the hypothesis.

[mauGR1]

25 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If there is a being or entity that is the architect of the universe, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that such an entity, or God, would have a far, far, greater capacity for reasoning than the combined total of all of humankind, including all the numerous scientific disciplines. So there's no disagreement there.

 

As I've mentioned before, the more we know, through the application of the 'Methodology of Science', the more we become aware of how little we know, compared with the 'potential' of what we could know in the future as our knowledge and the sophistication of our technological devices progress.

 

Sir Isaac Newton created a very sound theory of gravity that demonstrated that all objects exert a force of gravitational attraction upon each other, and that the force of that attraction was dependent upon both the mass of the objects and the distance between the objects.
However, the great puzzle with his theory, as applied to the universe at large, is why all the stars did not seem to be collapsing upon themselves. An apple falls to the ground because the mass of the Earth exerts a significant gravitational force of attraction. Surely billions of massive stars would exert a much more significant gravitational attraction upon each other, and would therefore all collapse upon themselves, as an apple falls to the ground.

 

There was no evidence that the universe was collapsing upon itself, and this appeared to be contravening Newton's theory of gravity. So what was the explanation? I studied Newtonian Mechanics and his Gravitational theories in High School, but it was never mentioned that Newton was very religious, although in a rather heretical way, so he didn't talk about it.

 

It seems that Newton believed that the universe should have been collapsing upon itself, according to his theory of gravity, but God was preventing it, and keeping the stars static in their ordained space.

 

Years later, even Albert Einstein believed the universe was static, despite the fact that his first 'theory of relativity' indicated the universe was expanding. He introduced a constant into his equations to counteract this apparent expansion, which he later described as his 'greatest mistake', after Edwin Hubble provided data showing that the universe was in fact expanding.

 

For many decades it was assumed that such expansion,  resulting from the hypothesis of the Big Bang, was gradually slowing down, as a result of the effects of gravity. Both Einstein and Stephen Hawking, believed this was the case. Then, more recently, as the technological sophistication of the Hubble Telescope increased, it became apparent that the most distant galaxies that could be observed, were travelling away, or expanding, at an accelerating rate. We don't know why. But we have a hypothesis of the existence of huge amounts of invisible and undetectable matter and energy, which we call 'Dark'. This Dark Matter and Dark Energy exerts an opposite force on conventional gravity, resulting in an accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

But that's just an Hypothesis. We don't know. We're still working on it, trying to validate the hypothesis.

Good post, thanks.

Love for science is indeed one of the best qualities of humans, provided that's not driven by greed.

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Really? Do you think that God cannot think ?

Oh, I forgot to tell you that I believe in God. ????

Can something that does not exist think? I don't know you tell me.

Edited February 8, 2021 by sirineou

[Sunmaster]

Thinking is a mental process that needs a linear timeframe to work, with a beginning and an end of the thought. I think that for something that is beyond time, we can not classify it as thinking. 
We need to be careful not to ascribe human traits to All-There-Is.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Thinking is a mental process that needs a linear timeframe to work, with a beginning and an end of the thought. I think that for something that is beyond time, we can not classify it as thinking. 
We need to be careful not to ascribe human traits to All-There-Is.

True, but wouldn't it be as much as foolish to deny any possibility?

[jvs]

13 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Oh, I forgot to tell you that I believe in God.

Can you define which God and why you believe in him/her?

[Peter Denis]

16 minutes ago, jvs said:

Can you define which God and why you believe in him/her?

An impossible question or was it meant rhetorically?

You might as well ask 'Can you define yourself and why believe/disbelieve in a God?'

Which is not as nonsensical as it sounds, because only by knowing yourself you will be able to get to know God.

[Peter Denis]

24 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

True, but wouldn't it be as much as foolish to deny any possibility?

A fool can ask more questions than a 1000 wise men will be able to answer.

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, jvs said:

Can you define which God and why you believe in him/her?

Well, as I stated many times on this thread, surely I believe that thoughts are as real as fire and water,  and rocks and air, so while I would define myself a moderate animist,  I respect every god image,  being it ugly,  or beautiful.. if those gods were existing before the humans, or are just creation of humans ' imagination,  it's of secondary importance,  and can be discussed. 

If we imagine "consciousness " as a stream,  it's logical to think that there must be a source. I can call it God, even if i prefer "the absolute " or "intelligent design ", but that's also unimportant. 

I believe that observing the atom,  which has striking similarities with the solar system on a different scale, could be an interesting way to understand how this "consciousness " works.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

A fool can ask more questions than a 1000 wise men will be able to answer.

That sounds a bit cryptic to me at the moment,  but I promise to think about it,  as soon as the brain switches into gear.

Well, it may turn out that my question was more foolish than I thought ????

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That sounds a bit cryptic to me at the moment,  but I promise to think about it,  as soon as the brain switches into gear.

Well, it may turn out that my question was more foolish than I thought ????

Just to avoid any misunderstanding > I was not suggesting or implying that you are a fool by asking that question.

And from the perspective that everything that exists has meaning (otherwise it wouldn't exist), also the Fool has unmistakable qualities, just like the wise men he can baffle.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Just to avoid any misunderstanding > I was not suggesting or implying that you are a fool by asking that question.

And from the perspective that everything that exists has meaning (otherwise it wouldn't exist), also the Fool has unmistakable qualities, just like the wise men he can baffle.

Thanks for clarifying but I haven't seen yet any offensive posts from you, and even if you'd happen to call me a fool,  I'd have to admit that you're at least partially right. 

I heard that fools should get some respect though, or at least the benefit of the doubt ????

[Rancid]

A couple of views on God you may not have encountered:

 

“I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. Is not man ever ready to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime?; voluntary victim of an illusionary God, the abject slave of his crafty ministers. The Irish, Italian and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see his family starving and naked to feed and clothe his padre and pope. For two thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmins alone feeding on the fat of the land, and to-day the followers of Christ and those of Mahomet are cutting each other’s throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths. Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods.”

- Master K.H.

 

“We reject the idea of a personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is but the gigantic shadow of man, and not of man at his best, either. The God of theology, we say – and prove it – is a bundle of contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with him. . . . if infinite – i.e., limitless – and especially if absolute, how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE be supposed to think – i.e., to have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a philosophical, and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala rejects such an idea, and therefore, makes of the one and the Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph. In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an indirect way . . . It is an eternal and periodical law which causes an active and creative force (the logos) to emanate from the ever-concealed and incomprehensible one principle at the beginning of every maha-manvantara, or new cycle of life.”

- HP Blavatsky.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:38 AM, VincentRJ said:

You're falling into the duality trap of 'either/or'. There's a wide spectrum of different shades or degrees of reasoning complexity. Even those whom you think are rather stupid will probably be able to offer a 'reason' why it is not a good idea to stick their hand in a fire. ????

Even lower animals than humans can "reason" that it's not a good idea to run into a fire, so I find your claim to be pointless. I said "I'd be more convinced by your argument re "reason" if more humans used it. Most I know are quite unreasonable"

Obviously I was using "reasonable" as a description and not as a process. If more people used reason, wars and poverty would not, IMO, exist.

 

Even related to this thread, if some posters used reason, they might conclude that if they can't prove God does not exist, and IMO they can't prove that simply because humans don't know much about the universe beyond what they can actually see and measure with such primitive tools as humans currently possess, they might acknowledge that if they can't prove the non existence of God, that ergo God might exist, rather than dogmatically stating that as a fact God does not exist.

 

It is my opinion that in the capability of understanding such matters as love and faith, humans have advanced not an iota from the cave.

We live in a world still riven by tribalism and war- IMO the only real advances we have made in 50,000 years is in how to kill each other more efficiently. It is somewhat significant IMO that we spend more on weapons to kill each other than we do on helping the most desperate humans live better lives. Reason might inform us that having an enormous underclass that has to be suppressed by vast numbers of police is not a good idea. Perhaps not surprisingly if one looks at who possesses most of the wealth and treasure in humanity we humans still think lots and lots of weapons are a better option than co operation and love for each other. It's not as though God has not informed us as to the correct path to follow- the Christ often mentioned "love" as the way forward, along with forgiveness, and charity. It's not God's fault that such advice is ignored.

 

In my opinion, if God ever was invested in what happens to the human race, God would have abandoned us to our fate, as we would appear, IMO, to be a lost cause.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks for clarifying but I haven't seen yet any offensive posts from you, and even if you'd happen to call me a fool,  I'd have to admit that you're at least partially right. 

I heard that fools should get some respect though, or at least the benefit of the doubt ????

Fools might even be described as better human beings than clever men as they don't spend their working lives exploiting the less clever masses.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Rancid said:

A couple of views on God you may not have encountered:

 

“I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. Is not man ever ready to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime?; voluntary victim of an illusionary God, the abject slave of his crafty ministers. The Irish, Italian and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see his family starving and naked to feed and clothe his padre and pope. For two thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmins alone feeding on the fat of the land, and to-day the followers of Christ and those of Mahomet are cutting each other’s throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths. Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods.”

- Master K.H.

 

“We reject the idea of a personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is but the gigantic shadow of man, and not of man at his best, either. The God of theology, we say – and prove it – is a bundle of contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with him. . . . if infinite – i.e., limitless – and especially if absolute, how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE be supposed to think – i.e., to have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a philosophical, and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala rejects such an idea, and therefore, makes of the one and the Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph. In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an indirect way . . . It is an eternal and periodical law which causes an active and creative force (the logos) to emanate from the ever-concealed and incomprehensible one principle at the beginning of every maha-manvantara, or new cycle of life.”

- HP Blavatsky.

 

 

IMO you mistake the use of religion by evil men to exploit the masses for wealth and power with religion per se. I accept some "religions" are in themselves evil, but the 3 big ones, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam are not by definition evil. Just because some men use the teachings of better men to become rich and powerful does not mean that those three at heart are bad. What do you think the Christ would say if he were to visit the Vatican today? Obviously he wouldn't be praising the men that work in it. He had something to say about money changers, and they were little fish compared to the leadership in the Vatican as it is now. Nowhere in the New Testament does the Christ say that his followers should build huge physical palaces filled with treasure, while exploiting poor people. That's all on humans.

 

One has to see the difference between man made religion and faith in a higher being to even begin to understand the creator of life, the universe and everything.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/9/2021 at 12:41 AM, mauGR1 said:

Climbing mirrors, are we ?

For your information, I was, rather obviously , using the word "reason" in the 2nd definition provided by @Peter Denis, but what is better than a personal attack to hide the lack of arguments?

But I agree on the final part of your post, it's important to agree on the meaning of the words we use.

When one is claiming that a word has to be used pedantically as given in a dictionary, one tends to lose sight of the fact that a living language ( as opposed to a dead one such as Latin ) adapts to new inputs. Take the word "gay". It used to mean light-hearted and carefree, till it was usurped by the homosexual community. IMO no one these days would announce to others that they were feeling "gay" if they meant a state of mind, rather than sexuality.

 

Personally, if I understand how a word was intended, I'll accept that meaning rather than trying to sidetrack the discussion by challenging it on the basis of the dictionary definition.

 

Anyway, I though grammar policing was not accepted on TVF as not just native English speakers post on it.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Thinking is a mental process that needs a linear timeframe to work, with a beginning and an end of the thought. I think that for something that is beyond time, we can not classify it as thinking. 
We need to be careful not to ascribe human traits to All-There-Is.

Your excellent post explains why there is such a divide between believers and non believers. IMO non believers think "God" describes an old man sitting on a throne in the sky interfering in the affairs of mankind , when any believer would accept that God is not at all human.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, jvs said:

Can you define which God and why you believe in him/her?

Many man made gods, only one creator.

Believing in God is no more unreasonable than believing in romantic love and most of humanity believes in that.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When one is claiming that a word has to be used pedantically as given in a dictionary, one tends to lose sight of the fact that a living language ( as opposed to a dead one such as Latin ) adapts to new inputs. Take the word "gay". It used to mean light-hearted and carefree, till it was usurped by the homosexual community. IMO no one these days would announce to others that they were feeling "gay" if they meant a state of mind, rather than sexuality.

 

Personally, if I understand how a word was intended, I'll accept that meaning rather than trying to sidetrack the discussion by challenging it on the basis of the dictionary definition.

 

Anyway, I though grammar policing was not accepted on TVF as not just native English speakers post on it.

I agree with your reasonable points,  but also @VincentRJ is right in demanding a proper use of the words.

Rudolph Steiner, one of my favourite spiritual masters, would edit a word from a book, sometimes years later, after realizing that a concept could be misunderstood by the public. 

I would also like to reiterate my opinion that, while is obviously wrong to think that God has a human form, or a limited form, it would be as much as wrong to think that he's not able to take a human form.

According to the Hindus, Krishna, Buddha,  Jesus are all "Avatars" of Vishnu, which is another name for the power of conservation,  or attraction, which together with the powers of creation ( Brahma) and distruction/creation,  (Shiva) form the trinity of the basic forces of the universe. 

While I'm not really enthusiastic about people fanatically adoring idols, and even ask them favours, an image , or a symbol,  can be useful to focus one's meditation. 

Sorry for the long post,  I'll try not to do that again ????

[Sunmaster]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I would also like to reiterate my opinion that, while is obviously wrong to think that God has a human form, or a limited form, it would be as much as wrong to think that he's not able to take a human form.

Most definitely. 

I'm fact, you just have to look in a mirror to see God in a human form. We're all God in a human form.

????