How we can never know how God thinks...

Don't forget, because FGM entails sewing the labia virtually shut except for a tiny hole, when the woman gets married and has sex for the first time, her husband's penis literally rips her open. That would also greatly traumatize a woman's emotional capabilities as she'll remember that horrifying first time every time she has sex.

Charles, you said that:-

WE CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND GOD! so to say that He has no reason to intervene or communicate assumes that you know His motivations, needs desires etc etc.
---------------------

firstly, I can tell that you've thought a lot about this, and I find it a little sad that you continue to refer to God as male.

I'm sure you don't really consider God to be male and are just using the term for convenience, but I think it is worth the effort to refrain from using 'He' in connection with God as it sustains a centuries old tradition that has been very damaging to women.

You have also repeatedly said that it is impossible for us to understand the nature of God, yet you then talk about God as having plans for humanity and guiding us.

Whilst I agree with you that it is practically impossible to know what God is, I would say that it is perfectly feasable to know what God isn't.

i.e. we can say with no doubt, that God is not a white bearded vengeful being.

I believe we can also know that God is not male, that God does not have desires, thoughts (these are human attributes) or any kind of plan for humanity.

The circumcision issue is one concerning hygene and the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about what happens to their bodies; it would be shoddy to suggest that God has an opinion on the matter.

So many people are at present completly turned off by talk of God because of the nonsense perpetuated by various churches over the centuries, and the immense amount of harm inflicted on peoples by institutions that claimed to know Gods will whilst maintaining that no human could know the will of God.

Onewheeldave.

Yes, I am using He and Him for convenience.

How on earth can using He and Him to discuss God be damaging to women? If religious or otherwise people choose to discriminate against women, then they will do it regardless of how I use the terms in my daily speech or discussions.

Those people and their actions, are, in my opinion wrong and sinful.

There is no excuse for their actions, they are the ones who have chosen to interpret their texts or other info sources in a way to allow them to discriminate. I'm sure they can use any information they like to justify their actions, even though their actions are compltelty unjustified.

Although, now I think about it, it is an interesting point. Would you like to start a new thread focussing on this? I'd be keen to see where it goes...

quote:

---

You have also repeatedly said that it is impossible for us to understand the nature of God, yet you then talk about God as having plans for humanity and guiding us.

---

Um..I must have missed that, at what point have I said God has plans and is guiding us? I don't belive i have?

quote:

---

it would be shoddy to suggest that God has an opinion on the matter.

---

Once again, to assume that God has an opinion or does not have an opinion on any subject at all, is assuming you understand His (sorry) motivations or thought processes etc etc. Which, in my opnion, no humanbeing can ever claim.

I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm simply saying you have no way of knowing if you are correct.

quote:

---

immense amount of harm inflicted on peoples by institutions that claimed to know Gods will whilst maintaining that no human could know the will of God.

---

In my experience, most of these institutions NEVER maintained that noone could nknow the will of God. In fact, it was usually the exact opposite. They would state what God's will was, openly, and usually accompanied by fire and brimstone threats.

My take on their actions is that they were completely and utterly full of sh*t!

Could you please point me to some historical information where a powerful church or religious group maintained that noone can understand God? As far as i have looked into it, they tended to claim that THEY understood God and that everyone else should do as they say...

------------------------
Charles

How on earth can using He and Him to discuss God be damaging to women? If religious or otherwise people choose to discriminate against women, then they will do it regardless of how I use the terms in my daily speech or discussions.
----------------------------

Because if God is considered to be male, that makes men more god like than women. Most churches have taken it is given that women are further from God than men, that they are unsuitable to be priests etc- the language they use helps to maintain that position.

In recent years there has been controversy over aspects of language such as the general overuse of 'he' rather than 'she' in written articles.

Many dismiss this as 'pc nonsense', but I've come to the conclusion that our unconscious use of language traditions is far more influential than it at first appearsto be.

If this applies in general language then how much more important it is when talking about God.

God is about perfection, finding peace in the chaos of our lives, seeing our being is ultimately good despite the insanity of the world around. To call God 'He' is to imply that God is male, and that is not only an insult to women but an insult to the intelligence of the listener.

-------------------
Charles
Um..I must have missed that, at what point have I said God has plans and is guiding us? I don't belive i have?
-------------------------

Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

---------------------
Charles
Once again, to assume that God has an opinion or does not have an opinion on any subject at all, is assuming you understand His (sorry) motivations or thought processes etc etc. Which, in my opnion, no humanbeing can ever claim.
-----------------------------------

I'm a bit confused here- are you of the opinion that God does actually have thought processes and motivations?

--------------------
Charles

Could you please point me to some historical information where a powerful church or religious group maintained that noone can understand God? As far as i have looked into it, they tended to claim that THEY understood God and that everyone else should do as they say
------------------------

I can't give you specific quotes, but I am under the impression that most churches have maintained that God is unknowable whilst maintaining the contradictory aspect that God communicates via the church.

Having read the entire post- I get the feeling it has gone fairly astray, turning into the previous thread... but that's just my opinion.

Here's a different view altogether:

I disagree with you Charles...

who is to say that we can never know how god thinks? (under the gross assumption that there is a god or supreme being in the first place)
you? (nb. you is referring to anyone reading this post not just charles)

People said that we would never be able to fly- but with the help of our creations we managed it.
Everyones post seems to lack faith in humans as a species and underestimate our potential.

Using our limited capabilities as human beings in order to claim we cannot understand a "non-linear entity" seems to me like a dangerous form of complacency.
Using the "we are too flawed to understand" to explain away inconsitencies with the way we think/believe our God is, is a way of going "I can't be bothered to question it because it will give me too many headaches and clash with my beliefs on how things should happen and make me lose faith".

That is exactly the train of thought that leads people to be ignorant and pontificate to others that they should learn not to question God and why things happen (thus the branding of all great pioneers and their discoveries as heresy).


-From my point of view as an agnostic (heading towards atheism), the reason one can never know how god thinks is because the concept of god is only in people's minds, and is thus subjective -merely a figment of people's imagination created by dogma and a need for purpose. Thus it seldom conforms to reality. I would say we can never know how "God" thinks because it doesn't exist and thus it is impossible and fairly pointless. From reading this post I think it is safe to say I would rather be alone than form part of a herd I didn't understand.

If God does exist, knowing how it thinks would be akin to knowing the meaning of life, perhaps we will never know, but I feel we should definitely try, with a little help from our friends and standing on the shoulders of giants (eg people like descartes and his "cogito ergo sum").

go on, rip my head off!

To call God 'He' is to imply that God is male, and that is not only an insult to women but an insult to the intelligence of the listener.

How is that an insult to women? Ok well I could see it through a few womens eyes, but I believe it doesn't matter how we refer to God.If you believe that God exists then that's the idea you are entitled to. Each person forms their own ideas of God, either through their religion or other factors. If you believe God is female then that's fine.I believe God is whatever you think God is. God can be any race in my mind, any sex, or no sex whatsoever.People see God through their eyes only.Different cultures see different appearances of God. Some don't think God is a human but is something that has no matter.

On the rare occassions that I attend church I usually will sit there and listen to the sermon and form my own ideas of what is being read.I am not one religion. I take different things from different religions and form it into something I believe in.That is the same thing I do with God in regards to appearance and sex.I believe (and this is my own oppinion) that God is male, but can appear as something different to another fellow human. God conforms to different things for different people and different reasons.

REMEMBER: THIS IS MY OWN OPPINIONS. THIS WAS NOT TYPED TO PERSUADE PEOPLE INTO MY IDEAS, BUT TO LET THEM KNOW MY FEELINGS AND OPPINIONS ON THE SUBJECTS.

Mistress Aurora

How is that an insult to women? Ok well I could see it through a few womens eyes, but I believe it doesn't matter how we refer to God.
-------------------------

Maybe 'insult to women' wasn't the best way to phrase it.
What I'm getting at is that in many cultures of the past men were seen as being the decision makers and as being superior to women. This position would have been difficult to maintain if their God was considered to be female.
Is it a coincidence that most male dominated cultures have worshipped a male God?

My opinion is that gender can in no way be applied to any meaningful concept of God.

You seem to be saying that God could be male or female; I would be interested if to see if you, or anyone else, could explain what characteristics God could possess that would count as gender.

I agree completely with OneWheeledDave, that God is unlikely to have a specific gender.

But I disagree that int his day and age, in western countries, and, on this bulletin board with the people who are likely to read a thread with the above title (stacking things in my favour a litte aren’t I?), almost everyone reading it will NOT have their ideas of God affected by a gender biased description.

Certainly in the past, it may have been used deliberately or unconsciously to discriminate against women, but there was (and is) a lot of non-religious discrimination going on too.

I blame the people who discriminate for discrimination, regardless of the reasons they or other people give for that discrimination.

There are men in parts of Pakistan, where wife-burning is a culturally accepted practise (…shudder…).

But in the midst of this, there are men who treat their wives with complete respect, and there are whole households run by a dominant matriarch. Not many, but enough to show that it is what people are like inside that makes more difference than subtle cues from language and literature…

This is awesome debate!

Dom, I really like your idea that supreme beings would never have to require anything of another being. That's a neat one, and it makes a lot of sense...

------

First to explain the two quotes Charles pointed out.

quote:

---

- "I think that the God of 2000-some years ago was a construct of the human mind."
- "I believe that we ARE the mind of God."

---

By those statements, I mean that the God of 2000 years ago (the vengeful white bearded guy sitting in the clouds) was an excellent model of the divine to guide people's behavior and philosophy in the age of emergine civilivation. In this age of computerization and global interaction, we have outlived that model and need to find a new model of the divine based on what we now know. (More on this later.) The idea that we are the mind of God could be one such new model.

-------

Charles, you are right. Given my wording, I did seem to be speaking for God's intentions in some parts.

However, I don't pretend to to *know* God's will. I simply extrapolate certain properties of God that would hold true given other things that I believe, which are based on my observations of the world. I think that's what most people do, and I think that most people would realize that if they thought about it for a bit.

As finite beings, all we can do is abstractly guess at the will of God (I.E. create a model). These guesses will be a far cry from the real thing...indeed, we will never reach that goal. But, based on what we do know, and we can extrapolate what God's will would be if those abstractions were true. There's nothing wrong with that. The trouble comes when one thinks (as you rightly say, Charles) that one absolutely has things figured out, and that those abstractions are ready to be set in stone. I have been rasied Catholic, and that is the main problem I have with the Chruch.

Charles, you mentioned that I seem to think that I have grasped the situation completely. Based on what I know, I like to think that have come as close as can be allowed. I do a lot of thinking on the subject, and to me, my personal philosophy fits very in very well with what I know of my religion, other religions, physics, history and technology.

However, I don't pretend to think that I am by any means correct. I don't pretend to know the will or capabilites of God. I simply extrapolate from what I know. And my ideas will change as I discover more about the universe that God has created.

Indeed, the only danger in philosophizing about God is to think that you will ever finish doing so.

I hope I have explained myself a bit better now...

-------

As for the Mr./Mrs God debate, everyone, please continue that in another thread. It's a great topic but its entirely detracting from the excellent debate we have going on here.

// Edit: I left some words out of sentences (typingtoofastagain!)

I agree with Charles on this, he believes a form of agnosticism with is nicely wrapped up in an example that we humans can see.

A goldifsh in a bowl understands it's little World to a certain degree, but never quite conquers and understands it all. A human is no different. What surrounds our 'bowl' is so complex for us to be told what it is would be like us trying to teach a goldfish nuclear physics!

Religions cause boundaries, one different to another, they are pointful but harmful. Let's be the first goldfish to accept we are all in the same bowl!

For Paddy & Salinger and everyone else too,

PAddy. I think I get most of it by now. And I thank you for such an insightful glimpse into the way you think about these issues.

One thing that is still alittle niggling (but, not so bad that I can’t deal with it  ).

You mentioned that the God of 2000 years ago was a construct of the human mind at that time. You were correct in as far as anything a human sees or perceives is a construct their mind. But, that construct has no bearing whatsoever on the actual thing that prompted the construct to be formed in the first place.

So while a human’s construct of a tree might be something that grows in the ground, drops fruit and is good for burning, that doesn’t change the nature of the tree itself, which is infinitely more complex and incongruous.

Perhaps, with this logic, you feel that God does not actually exist except in people’s minds? If this is the case, then the whole discussion become moot. It turns from a theological, sociological them to a purely psychological and sociological one.

I must admit to having some very indepth talks with people about God, and realising that, subconsciously, they do not believe in God at all. All of their points and issues surround religion and people, rather than God himself. But they keep referring to God as a separate entity, except when a point is being made.

(but of course, I may well have misunderstood you as well.)

Salinger…I thank you for your agreement, however, I am definitely not an agnostic

I do believe in God, and I believe most of the scriptures as well.

So, does this mean you still agree with me?

How did this ger bumped? Nothing new was added...

Charles, I have been meaning to get back to you on your last post but haven't had the time...will see if I can before I go to sleep tonight.

Well, I can't say as to what train of thought I fall under on this topic. I have studied many religions, from Christianity, to Gnostics, Buddhism, Taosim, Zen, Islam, and all sorts of philosophy, basically to clear up this question for myself. So here is my take on the religious question I spose.

If everything sprung from one being, why even think of that being in the terms we seem to? Why does God have to be concious? I think of God more as the One if you will. I think of it in one of two ways...

God is the universe, and as such we are truly created in his image, as everything is. I could go into superstring quantum physics and symetries and stuff here to explain it from a scientific point of view as well, but I'll skip that. If that is true, then we are God (David, I believe "Know ye not that ye are God?"), and God's conciousness is our own. There is no duality, we are all one and connected and it is only our seperate ego sense of "ourself" that is our seperation from God. Several Buddhist schools believe along this line.

Another way to think of it is an analogy to dreaming. If we did spring from God's conciousness, then you could think of it in terms of your dreams. If this is all God's ultimate dream, then we are all still God (Are ones thoughts not part of ones self?), and therefore the only laws that bind us are those that we as a group believe in. So as for the original post, your beliefs are your own. If you truly believe that this or that ritual or act needs to be done, then it does for your belief system. It exists as law because of your belief in it.

I am more of the mind that as we are all one and connected, we are free to do anything we wish regardless of writ or law. It is only those things that we agree to abide to that we are bound to obey. Much of what I am allowed and not allowed to do I never agreed to, I was just born into because of my location. Religious orthodoxy just seems to do the same thing, only extended across national bounderies. I prefer to think that I am born free. Also under my view point, it's stupid for me to attack someone, as I would just be harming myself, so "law" is obsolete, and "morality" of a slightly religious sort is my guiding light.

I think the more important question is whether it is right to force your own beliefs on someone else (a young child). I mention this only in passing because I was raised a Christian and turned away from it because of my being forced into it, but I am weird in many ways so.... hehe However many, many other people around the world partake in these same basic rituals without causing overt harm, and their intentions are good (which contemporary ethics tells us is the main point), so it is a matter of choice. If you must fullfill your own perceived religious obligations through the minor discomfort of another, because of your well intentions, the whole of you should come out ahead from the experience.

Selah selah my friend! And congratulations on this important day in your childs life!

charles people who grow up in a religious family can have spiritual parents. to be religous or be in a religion doesn't mean one is not spiritual, so a person within a relion is able to pass on spirituality to children, although it can seem to be as you put it.

the good book tgb says we can know the secerts of the SPIRIT gods mind only though the holy spirit. this suggests the spirit we like to call god does have some sort of conciousness? the holy spirit is our guide to all matters relating to the christain SPIRIT.