A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[aretood2]

I have 2 options left to me dude
Either or, it does not matter *to me* personally, you know I care not about the path.

So it is not the journey that matters but the destination? See what I did there?

What exactly does thou mean by "I have 2 options left?"

[Gatefan1976]

So it is not the journey that matters but the destination? See what I did there?

Not exactly.
The journey certainly does matter, I just don't see the destination as "truth", just understanding. As understanding never ends, neither does the journey.

What exactly does thou mean by "I have 2 options left?"

I have settled on 2 options for your belief structure, but as you have expressed a desire to not make it open, I am respecting your choice.

[aretood2]

Not exactly.
The journey certainly does matter, I just don't see the destination as "truth", just understanding. As understanding never ends, neither does the journey.

Are you implying an after life there? Because death would certainly be an end.

I have settled on 2 options for your belief structure, but as you have expressed a desire to not make it open, I am respecting your choice.

I'm curious about what your options are, PM me if you wish.

[Gatefan1976]

Are you implying an after life there? Because death would certainly be an end.

Death may be the end of the journey, then again, it may not. The better question *to my mind* is, does it really matter? Will you be the "best you can be" because of some kind of "carrot" of a "good afterlife", or just because your understanding leads to to want to do it regardless?
This is why I have so many issues with "organised religion", they want to "sell" truth, not faith.

I'm curious about what your options are, PM me if you wish.

Will do, just got sidetracked by a mate.

[Seastallion]

I do believe you explained part of your belief structure in the politics thread, but for the sake of continuity, could you do that once more on this thread?

Sure. Monpantheism is a sort of combination of Monotheism and Pantheism. Not Polytheism which Gatefan1976 seems to be getting it confused with. I think Monotheism is generally understood, but to define it simply, it is the belief in a single deity. Pantheism comes from the root word Pan, which means 'All'. In other words, it is the belief that EVERYTHING (or ALL things) is a deity. The union of the ideals comes from the notion that everything in existence is a 'part' of God. The Earth, Rocks, Furniture, the Sky, People, Stars, Galaxies, the fabric of Space itself, everything.

Some phrases I personally use to help describe it are; "I am the water drop, God is the Ocean", or "I am the brick, God is the House". In other words, I am part of God, but I am NOT God. Or put another way, as a part of God, I too have a spark of the divine. This ideal also helps to explain the concept that if a sparrow falls, God would know it. Why? Because if the Sparrow is part of God, then God will 'know' it. It is not dissimilar to an ant biting your toe, and you are aware of it despite your head being so far away from it. Why? Because the toe is part of the whole 'You'.

I believe that prayer works for scientific reasons other than simple blind faith. It has been proven that people can alter reality to varying degrees when they focus an intent of will. This has been done with various tests of conscious intent to alter the outcomes of random number generating devices. Left alone, those devices trend a 50/50 ratio between even and odd numbers. However, it has been proven that if someone focuses on a specific outcome, that ratio CAN be bent to favor either even or odd numbers, depending on the focus of the one involved. It has also been proven to work with groups of people as well, working even more strongly still. As an aside, those doing the studies placed random number generator devices around the country and began recording outcomes based on the attention given to national events. They found that the ratios did indeed get skewed when noteworthy things happened. Finally, they decided to try it with a national event they COULD predict the timing of. During the OJ Simpson trial verdict, the devices did indeed spike, showing that the national consciousness was indeed focused on it, and managed to alter the outcome of the random number generator devices. An interesting side note, on 9-11, not only did the devices spike very strongly, they did it a few hours BEFORE the 9-11 events occurred.

That last part can be loosely related to another experiment that was done with neural responses based on a series of pictures shown to those participating. The pictures were done in a random order, showing normal things for a while, and then suddenly showing a disturbing image. Those watching the pictures were attached to devices monitoring their neural responses. One would expect that when suddenly confronted with a disturbing image, that a person would respond strongly, and indeed, that was the case. However, it was proven (strangely enough) that the neural responses were occurring BEFORE the images actually showed up on the screen. This study is also related to a study done with Sports (Baseball in particular) and Response times. It was shown that a batter SHOULDN'T be able to respond in time to fast balls of over 90 MPH, given signal speeds within the nervous system of the human body. Yet, batters do it all the time. Not just Baseball players either. One might point out a Japanese man, descended from a long line of Samurai, who is capable of using his sword to cut bullets in half, fired from a gun. (I've seen this on a documentary TV program, and he CAN do it. Amazing.) Clearly there are more things at work, than can be easily explained. However, if all things are connected, it might begin to explain it.

Then we come back to Prayer, and its effects. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't, and it has much to do with the multitude of variables involved. It is sort of like a scale. If an event is not weighted too strongly, than a sufficient desire to alter the event MAY be enough to tip the scale in alternate direction from which it might have gone otherwise.

I also believe that any valid spiritual faith would by definition be applicable to "E.T" as well. This is part of the reason I am a Monopantheist, but certainly not the only reason. A big part of it also has to do with the idea that matter and energy are all the same stuff, simply in different states. Matter, is essentially frozen energy. I do believe in spirits, and I have witnessed what I believe to be a valid possession event. This left a strong mark on me, and caused me to consider how such a thing could be possible. I eventually decided that if spirits were indeed non-corporeal beings composed of some sort of energy, then that WOULD give them an avenue to interact with the material world. This would also be true of God as well. How can God interact with a world (or universe) he isn't actually a part of? I felt there HAD to be a common medium, and everything science told me was that the answer was ENERGY.

So, to me, the Universe is the 'body' of God, and God, is essentially the soul, mind, or consciousness of that body. So we that are all part of the universe, are therefore also part of God, both in body and mind (soul). Things like Heaven, Hell, Angels, or Demons may or may not exist, but that is immaterial. I don't claim to know the specifics of how the spirit realm and the physical realm interact, or to know what factions may exist within. I do believe there are good, bad, and indifferent spirits, but I don't claim to understand their precise natures. I believe in the possibility of Ghosts (the traditional understanding of them), but can't confirm it. Reincarnation may also be possible, but again, I can't confirm it. My faith has little theology, as I can't claim to have an inside knowledge of the politics or geography of the spirit realm.

[Gatefan1976]

Sure. Monpantheism is a sort of combination of Monotheism and Pantheism. Not Polytheism which Gatefan1976 seems to be getting it confused with.

No, I'm not.
As I said above, you are considering different facets of the one god, or overarching power as opposed to having the power spread over different "beings"

In truth we disagree less than than you may imagine.

[Seastallion]

No, I'm not.
As I said above, you are considering different facets of the one god, or overarching power as opposed to having the power spread over different "beings"

In truth we disagree less than than you may imagine.

Okay. After some thought, I'll concede to your point, with qualifications. There may indeed be beings of power that might be considered a 'facet' of the One God, but I wouldn't define them as gods. Or at least not in the true sense of it. However, they are no more, or less, 'facets' of God, than any other being. The only difference might be how much influence they wield over the universe. Most of us have very little influence, but collectively we can increase that influence.

[Gatefan1976]

Okay. After some thought, I'll concede to your point, with qualifications. There may indeed be beings of power that might be considered a 'facet' of the One God, but I wouldn't define them as gods.

Why?

Or at least not in the true sense of it.

Your path is laid out already, you have "truth"
I have no truth, I have Ideas.

However, they are no more, or less, 'facets' of God, than any other being. The only difference might be how much influence they wield over the universe. Most of us have very little influence, but collectively we can increase that influence.

You are talking about "coercion" and coercing the "will of god"

[Seastallion]

Why?

This is because I would define 'God' (as a concept) as being too big to be placed alongside narrow definitions of godhood. I am open to alternate ideals, but as of right now, I strictly define 'God' as necessarily being singular in nature as God would be (in my mind) connected to ALL aspects of the Universe. There may be beings of immense power that might be 'confused' with God, and called 'gods', but I wouldn't be inclined to categorize them as actual gods.

Your path is laid out already, you have "truth"
I have no truth, I have Ideas.

I have certain things that I DO believe to be true, but I am open to alternate interpretations if those ideas have enough backing them up to trump what I already currently believe. I do strictly define 'God' in terms of scope, but not in terms of the minutiae of framework. Said, 'gods' are limited in scope by definition, and to ME, don't fit the definition of a 'true' God.

You are talking about "coercion" and coercing the "will of god"

Only if you can consider one brain cell to be able to "coerce" twenty other brain cells. Coercion has a negative connotation which I don't proscribe to. I DO believe that people can "influence" the will of God, but if there isn't enough weight on the scale of probable outcome to alter the course, no amount of influence will change the "will of God". Coercion implies that one group has something to hold over another to force an outcome. I don't believe that in terms of the overall course that events occur. I believe in the scale of probability and the influence of will to alter the variables in the course of events.

[Gatefan1976]

This is because I would define 'God' (as a concept) as being too big to be placed alongside narrow definitions of godhood.

So, "god" can only exist as an overarching power?
If so, why denote human constructs such as "good" or "evil" to it? Such a god would merely just "be". An "all in-inclusive being" is just as evil as it is good. (which is a fine concept IMHO)

I am open to alternate ideals, but as of right now, I strictly define 'God' as necessarily being singular in nature as God would be (in my mind) connected to ALL aspects of the Universe.

So, more akin to a "primal urge" as opposed to any one definition of god?

There may be beings of immense power that might be 'confused' with God, and called 'gods', but I wouldn't be inclined to categorize them as actual gods.

How would *we* at our current level of understanding know the difference? Geez, we understand the effects of gravity, yet we have no control over it as a force, and that understanding is hundreds of years old!!!

I have certain things that I DO believe to be true, but I am open to alternate interpretations if those ideas have enough backing them up to trump what I already currently believe.

What kind of "backing" do you need?

I do strictly define 'God' in terms of scope, but not in terms of the minutiae of framework. Said, 'gods' are limited in scope by definition, and to ME, don't fit the definition of a 'true' God.

Thats a fair comment. If that is true however, does god really *care* about "you the individual", or are you no more than a cell within "gods body"?

Only if you can consider one brain cell to be able to "coerce" twenty other brain cells. Coercion has a negative connotation which I don't proscribe to.

Not my problem, Coercion is the ability to convince others of your cause, be that "good" or "bad"

I DO believe that people can "influence" the will of God, but if there isn't enough weight on the scale of probable outcome to alter the course, no amount of influence will change the "will of God". Coercion implies that one group has something to hold over another to force an outcome. I don't believe that in terms of the overall course that events occur. I believe in the scale of probability and the influence of will to alter the variables in the course of events.

You *are* talking about coersion, just not with the negative connotations.

[Seastallion]

So, "god" can only exist as an overarching power?
If so, why denote human constructs such as "good" or "evil" to it? Such a god would merely just "be". An "all in-inclusive being" is just as evil as it is good. (which is a fine concept IMHO)

That is a reasonable way to look at it. Although, I do think that God is aligned with 'Order' which is generally considered to be aligned with 'good'. On the other hand, (theologically speaking) God DID create the Devil. Some would argue that the Devil isn't exactly 'evil' as much as he is a catalyst for change. This is the core ideal behind Loki of Norse mythology. Yes, he makes mischief, but he is also a force to bring about change. Change can be either good or evil, but isn't relegated to one or the other. That is just a 'notion' though. I DO believe that there are indeed 'evil' spirits. There role in the larger scheme of things is arguable.

So, more akin to a "primal urge" as opposed to any one definition of god?

This falls into the minutiae of the framework of what God may be, and precisely how his 'body' would operate. The singular nature of God I mentioned is in terms of said 'soul' of God being in tune with the full scope of the universe, rather than only certain parts. One could argue the conscious awareness of God in relation to that universal scope. We could also argue that God may only be aware of things in a subconscious manner too. That is again, a part of the minutiae of the framework of God, and is always arguable. Scope is the 'keyword' here in defining God. Or at least it is for ME.

How would *we* at our current level of understanding know the difference? Geez, we understand the effects of gravity, yet we have no control over it as a force, and that understanding is hundreds of years old!!!

Who says we would? I'm going by relatively abstract definitions, that is virtually impossible to pin down in concrete terms. Like the old saying goes, "does God carry an ID?" If he did, how would we know if it was valid? I would however, be skeptical of any being that came along and said he/she/it was God. Proof of Power, isn't necessarily proof of Godhood.

What kind of "backing" do you need?

It would depend on the specific idea that I was being confronted with. Some ideas are virtually impossible to prove or disprove (such as God), and must simply be taken on faith. With sufficient anecdotal evidence, I MIGHT be persuaded, but again it would just depend. I'd take things on a case by case basis.

Thats a fair comment. If that is true however, does god really *care* about "you the individual", or are you no more than a cell within "gods body"?

I personally think the latter is more generally true, but that isn't to say that God can't be concerned with specific areas of his 'body'. A person generally wants the best for their body, but they will give special attention to or 'favor' troubled areas. Just as an injured person would treat the injured part with care, until it healed. One might argue the same is true of God. The Bible is full of stories where God was more concerned with those in trouble than he was with those that had their act together. As Jesus said, he came to 'save those which were lost', but those who were already doing what they were supposed to didn't really get his attention. I don't find this idea to be invalid.

Not my problem, Coercion is the ability to convince others of your cause, be that "good" or "bad"

You *are* talking about coersion, just not with the negative connotations.

Coercion by definition involves FORCE. I suppose by a clinical view of force, one could be said to 'coerce' God, but only if your looking at it with the neutrality of 'influence'. A sort of 'Action' vs 'Reaction' kind of ideal.

[Gatefan1976]

That is a reasonable way to look at it. Although, I do think that God is aligned with 'Order' which is generally considered to be aligned with 'good'.

Order does not permit Chaos, no matter if it is "good" or "bad", how can you say it is good?
Order has *no* stance on good or evil. Please don't make me get all "Nazi" on you

On the other hand, (theologically speaking) God DID create the Devil. Some would argue that the Devil isn't exactly 'evil' as much as he is a catalyst for change. This is the core ideal behind Loki of Norse mythology. Yes, he makes mischief, but he is also a force to bring about change.

Anyone who has even the most nominal understanding of Norse mythology knows this. The "DEVIL" however has been painted as the destroyer of man, hardly an "agent of change".

Change can be either good or evil, but isn't relegated to one or the other. That is just a 'notion' though. I DO believe that there are indeed 'evil' spirits. There role in the larger scheme of things is arguable.

Some DO only want "what is best for them", and they will use any avenue to get there.

This falls into the minutiae of the framework of what God may be, and precisely how his 'body' would operate.

OK

The singular nature of God I mentioned is in terms of said 'soul' of God being in tune with the full scope of the universe, rather than only certain parts. One could argue the conscious awareness of God in relation to that universal scope. We could also argue that God may only be aware of things in a subconscious manner too. That is again, a part of the minutiae of the framework of God, and is always arguable. Scope is the 'keyword' here in defining God. Or at least it is for ME.

Again, this is why I have issues with organized religion. They pedal "fact", not understanding. The "journey" NEVER ends.

Who says we would? I'm going by relatively abstract definitions, that is virtually impossible to pin down in concrete terms. Like the old saying goes, "does God carry an ID?" If he did, how would we know if it was valid? I would however, be skeptical of any being that came along and said he/she/it was God. Proof of Power, isn't necessarily proof of Godhood.

So why do you, at least in part accept "Gods ID"?

It would depend on the specific idea that I was being confronted with. Some ideas are virtually impossible to prove or disprove (such as God), and must simply be taken on faith. With sufficient anecdotal evidence, I MIGHT be persuaded, but again it would just depend. I'd take things on a case by case basis.

I don't want to convince you of anything, If anything, I want people to THINK for themselves.

I personally think the latter is more generally true, but that isn't to say that God can't be concerned with specific areas of his 'body'. A person generally wants the best for their body, but they will give special attention to or 'favor' troubled areas. Just as an injured person would treat the injured part with care, until it healed.

Yup, we take penecillin to KILL the infection.

One might argue the same is true of God. The Bible is full of stories where God was more concerned with those in trouble than he was with those that had their act together. As Jesus said, he came to 'save those which were lost', but those who were already doing what they were supposed to didn't really get his attention. I don't find this idea to be invalid.

Not at all, Jesus wanted to help, but Jesus was, by birth a Human.

Coercion by definition involves FORCE. I suppose by a clinical view of force, one could be said to 'coerce' God, but only if your looking at it with the neutrality of 'influence'. A sort of 'Action' vs 'Reaction' kind of ideal.

No, nonononono
Coersion, at it's core is the abillity to convince others, not "brainwash" them.

[aretood2]

Death may be the end of the journey, then again, it may not. The better question *to my mind* is, does it really matter? Will you be the "best you can be" because of some kind of "carrot" of a "good afterlife", or just because your understanding leads to to want to do it regardless?
This is why I have so many issues with "organised religion", they want to "sell" truth, not faith.

I asked you about the finality of death, not about your views on "organised religion." Wouldn't death be the end to a journey thus making any journey finite? This has an impact to your philosophy because it affects the implications of life itself. If life is finite, if our existence is finite, then there is finite "truth" to be found in it. Truth is "what is" and lies are "What is not." You either know something that is true or you don't. I don't prescribe to any other definition of truth, so when you speak of "truth" in your own way, I fail to understand what you are saying.

[SGalisa]

So, what say you who will have a nativity scene under their christmas tree (which is a pagan symbol to begin with)? Will you have an oxen and a donkey in there or not?

Seeing that I don't celebrate Christmas and never subscribed to the Pope's (past and present) beliefs....it's all Greek to me (Get it? Pagan greeks? Eh? Eh? Eh?)

Guess that whole Christmas stuff also rules out Native American (tribal Indian) beliefs and totem poles, too, since a totem pole is sort of a decorative Asherah tree/pole (as noted in the Bible, Deuteronomy 16:21).

Spoiler:

Deuteronomy 16:21-22, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21) "You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God, which you shall make for yourself.
22) You shall not set up for yourself a sacred pillar which the Lord your God hates."

a form of "Christmas tree"..? I have often wondered about that, and exactly what the original Asherah trees/poles looked like.
"O Tannenbaum, O Tannenbaum, How sturdy God hath made thee!"
(blend of the German song, with another version of one of the song's verses, based on a traditional folk song, "Oh Christmas Tree")

Dude, what holidays DO you celebrate?
If you cut out all the "Pagan ones" You're not left with much left

If I'm right, and no birthday celebrations too. If yes, that saves tons of money on gifts and cards.

I'll give you a hint. I am not Catholic. Though I did sort of give it away to you once...

ok, I found the whole rest of that (entire) conversation quite intriguing. If my guess is correct, then "R2" (aretood2--you) might want to change the info under your name ID. If it's not a movie/fictional story ref, it is the other (theological) ref.---and it's been there every day for many moon-tides now, not just almost once.


It would also explain why I sometimes have difficulty following your (aretood2) postings on philosophical matters. Not that the next spoiler quote means much either. *sigh*

Spoiler:

(New World Translation) John 1:1 The WORD = "a god" vs. "was God"

John 1:1, New International Version (NIV)
1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

In other words, Jesus is not equal to God the Father, but is of lesser value, thus, "a god". More or less is in sync with an international world POV from other religions, too.

Also, the NIV version doesn't mess up Michael Card's "In the Beginning" trilogy song (which is an *awesome* song--part of MC's beautiful "The Life" musical collection series), but the NWT version would alter/mess up that particular song and its intended meaning...

Anywho, doesn't matter. I prefer not to argue out semantics, anyway--those are too time consuming.

I was sort of against going brain to brain with "end times" stuff on the tracking earth's future topic. But I do think it would help having more than just "messianic" viewpoint in that topic, so that all sides can be presented, regardless of which "theory" is correct or not. =)
Whoever is right, only time will tell. And that includes the world-view of atheism and other "religions" around the globe, as well.

[Seastallion]

Order does not permit Chaos, no matter if it is "good" or "bad", how can you say it is good?
Order has *no* stance on good or evil. Please don't make me get all "Nazi" on you

Order on a Grand Scale DOES permit Chaos. If you know anything about Chaos Theory, you would know this. If you're unaware of Chaos Theory, it basically states that what appears to be Chaos is actually just an incredibly complex system that ultimately leads to Order. If you're looking at it from a Historical place, one could argue that without the Nazi's we wouldn't recognize the evil of Fascism, and therefore, it would be worse threat now, in an age with more dangerous weapons. Personally, I think Fascism is STILL here, in an even worse form, but I won't get into that since it is more of a political discussion, and doesn't belong here.

Anyone who has even the most nominal understanding of Norse mythology knows this. The "DEVIL" however has been painted as the destroyer of man, hardly an "agent of change".

It depends on your point of view. Even in the old Testament the Devil always joined the "sons of God" during their meetings to report their goings on to God. The Devil himself reported his own findings. Check out the book of Job. Yes, the Devil is a destroyer, but that in and of itself doesn't prevent him from being an agent of change. Fire often destroys things, but it also can leave new life in its wake. Fire is the ultimate representation of that ideal. Controlled, Fire gives us power and life, but uncontrolled it brings chaos and death. However, Fire can also be cleansing. It is why it is used to purify or sterilize things. It really is a fascinating duality to fire.

Some DO only want "what is best for them", and they will use any avenue to get there.

Agreed. The problem is when people unwittingly get involved with those sorts of spirits. I honestly don't know what such beings feel they would get from the living, but I DO know they can be incredibly dangerous. I've seen it first hand, and what I saw was relatively tame compared to other stories I know of. Still, it was enough.

Again, this is why I have issues with organized religion. They pedal "fact", not understanding. The "journey" NEVER ends.

I share your distrust of Religious Organizations. They are all about Power. In this case, the ability to influence the minds of people. They aren't necessarily always led by evil men, but I think many of them are run by selfish men. I'll avoid naming names here, so as not to offend anyone.

So why do you, at least in part accept "Gods ID"?

Who says I have? I haven't had anyone come up to me with an ID in hand, and say, "I'm God". If you're referring to the Bible, I'm not like some people that claim infallibility for the Bible. I recognize the Bible was written by men. It 'might' have been divinely inspired, but it was still written by mortal hands. I also don't believe the Bible is the 'be all, end all' of truth. I agree with the verse in the Bible that states that if the full glory of God were to be written, the Earth itself could not contain all the books that would be written. I also agree with the Bible that the glory of God is written in nature and the universe itself. This is another reason I look to science to help fill in some of the blanks.

I don't want to convince you of anything, If anything, I want people to THINK for themselves.

I never said you did. However, you DID ask what sort of "backing" I needed to change my mind about something. So I answered.

Yup, we take penecillin to KILL the infection.

There are various ways to treat injuries. Some are less harmful to the body than others. Sometimes it IS necessary to kill things for the greater good. However, sometimes there are ways to treat things that aren't necessarily so harmful. I think it is a mistake to always assume that the only way to heal, is to kill something. It may sometimes be true, but not always.

Not at all, Jesus wanted to help, but Jesus was, by birth a Human.

I believe Jesus was special. To what degree he was God I'll leave for others to debate. I know the theology I was taught, which determines that Jesus was/IS God. I don't want to argue the point on this post anyhow.

No, nonononono
Coersion, at it's core is the abillity to convince others, not "brainwash" them.

co·er·cion [koh-ur-shuhn]
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of FORCE or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
FORCE or the power to use FORCE in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.