Forums > Social Chat > How we can never know how God thinks...
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
Ok, this is likely to be a very touchy subject for many, however it has come up in the below thread what happened to my baby today
I'd like to put forward my (rather strong) opinion on comments that I hear constantly from non-believers and believers alike...
My beef is with people who think they understand the reasons why God does things...And then explain away why that reason is now defunct, and so they don't have to do it any longer.
There is no way any of us could ever understand the motivations of a being as different o us as God is.
Sure, he can communicate with us on our level if he chooses, but there is now way we could ever hope to understand an omnipresent being.
A human, as a linear entity, could never know what how or why a non-linear entity thinks. It just defys explanation to our causal view of the universe.
Do you agree? Disagree? don't know what the h*ll I'm talking about?
Ok, this is likely to be a very touchy subject for many, however it has come up in the below thread what happened to my baby today
I'd like to put forward my (rather strong) opinion on comments that I hear constantly from non-believers and believers alike...
My beef is with people who think they understand the reasons why God does things...And then explain away why that reason is now defunct, and so they don't have to do it any longer.
There is no way any of us could ever understand the motivations of a being as different o us as God is.
Sure, he can communicate with us on our level if he chooses, but there is now way we could ever hope to understand an omnipresent being.
A human, as a linear entity, could never know what how or why a non-linear entity thinks. It just defys explanation to our causal view of the universe.
Do you agree? Disagree? don't know what the h*ll I'm talking about?
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
SILVER Member
remember
433 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia, Earth, Milky Way, Universe
remember
433 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia, Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Posted:
Indeed - how could we ever possibly hope to understand how any diety thinks, when we can't even understand how we think ourselves? As much as we like to ignore the fact, we're all ignorant beings.. In honesty, none of us know why we're here, what we're doing, or what the purpose of all this is. Sure, some choose to believe that they know the answers, but it is simply a choice, no more - which is fine. But the problems come when people believe that they 'know' the truth, rather than accept that they are merely making a choice.
I see life like our brain. We will never understand it, because we are using the very thing to attempt to understand itself - which is impossible. If it were easy to understand, we wouldn't have the capacity to understand it. we're always one step behind, so to speak.
Life will never be understood whilst you are alive.
(i think i detoured a bit, but i hope that still adds something to the discussion)
Indeed - how could we ever possibly hope to understand how any diety thinks, when we can't even understand how we think ourselves? As much as we like to ignore the fact, we're all ignorant beings.. In honesty, none of us know why we're here, what we're doing, or what the purpose of all this is. Sure, some choose to believe that they know the answers, but it is simply a choice, no more - which is fine. But the problems come when people believe that they 'know' the truth, rather than accept that they are merely making a choice.
I see life like our brain. We will never understand it, because we are using the very thing to attempt to understand itself - which is impossible. If it were easy to understand, we wouldn't have the capacity to understand it. we're always one step behind, so to speak.
Life will never be understood whilst you are alive.
(i think i detoured a bit, but i hope that still adds something to the discussion)
-As angels debate chance and fate-
i was riding through melbourne on a midget giraffe, things were peachy.
member
340 posts
Location: Australia
340 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
The assumption u are making is that God is a separate being to us.
All we know is that our thoughts exists. Decarte: "I think therefore I am".
No assumptions are needed for us to conclude this.
We can continue reasoning beyond this but as soon as we make an assumption the idea becomes flawed, BUT NOT INVALID AS AN ASSUMPTION IS NOT NECESSARILY FALSE.
I cant recall which philosopher came up with this reasoning but...
All people are capable of having the idea of a perfect entity/being/energy/god, ie perfection. An imperfect being can not come up with the idea of perfection (or even an imperfect being cannot be imperfect without perfection) therefore perfection must exist.
It is debatable wether this is a conclusion that can be made without any assumptions but its an idea I thought I'll put forward for the proof that god exists through pure rational reasoning.
We can include our experiences in life as proof to our reasoning but by doing so we are assuming that our experiences are an accurate description of what reality really is. By making this assumption our reasoning is then flawed but not invalid.
I have experienced "god" in many forms in my life but I do not know wether these experiences reflect what god actually is. This doesnt mean I disregard these perceptions of god, or invalidate other peoples perceptions. I suppose that this means that I believe that its ok for people to think they believe how god's "mind" works, their belief may be logically flawed but it is not invalid, all they are doing is making an assumption.
My personal "logically flawed" experiences of "god" is that god is infinate perfection ie infinate unconditional love, joy and creativity. My mind has a lot of trouble comprehending such a entity.
Peace, love and joy to you all
The assumption u are making is that God is a separate being to us.
All we know is that our thoughts exists. Decarte: "I think therefore I am".
No assumptions are needed for us to conclude this.
We can continue reasoning beyond this but as soon as we make an assumption the idea becomes flawed, BUT NOT INVALID AS AN ASSUMPTION IS NOT NECESSARILY FALSE.
I cant recall which philosopher came up with this reasoning but...
All people are capable of having the idea of a perfect entity/being/energy/god, ie perfection. An imperfect being can not come up with the idea of perfection (or even an imperfect being cannot be imperfect without perfection) therefore perfection must exist.
It is debatable wether this is a conclusion that can be made without any assumptions but its an idea I thought I'll put forward for the proof that god exists through pure rational reasoning.
We can include our experiences in life as proof to our reasoning but by doing so we are assuming that our experiences are an accurate description of what reality really is. By making this assumption our reasoning is then flawed but not invalid.
I have experienced "god" in many forms in my life but I do not know wether these experiences reflect what god actually is. This doesnt mean I disregard these perceptions of god, or invalidate other peoples perceptions. I suppose that this means that I believe that its ok for people to think they believe how god's "mind" works, their belief may be logically flawed but it is not invalid, all they are doing is making an assumption.
My personal "logically flawed" experiences of "god" is that god is infinate perfection ie infinate unconditional love, joy and creativity. My mind has a lot of trouble comprehending such a entity.
Peace, love and joy to you all
HOW TO FLY 101:
step 1. Throw your self at the ground.
step 2. Miss.
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
througout the ages, religion and God(s) have explained the unexplained - the weather, sickness, healing, which have not been fully understood, and explained as the caused by apsects of god(s)
im uncertain to the true existance/non-existance/omnipotent/entirely-internal-spiritual perspective of God, as i dont believe it is possible to ever prove/disprove one version...but im not your typical fencesitter.
my studies of religous history seem to indicate that religion and beliefs needed will change with the culture, and it is those religions who do not change and adapt with the dynamic culture, who will gradually die out.
i dont think God is the unchanging permanent concrete figure the mainstreams religions believe, rather 'God' can fulfills our own needs for something to beleive in in the current day,age, and society. this is not the exactly the same God that fulfilled the lives of the early Jews, or Muslims in 600AD during Mohammed, or the spirits called by the Shaman in Papau New Guinea even today, or the Roman Catholic God, because we have different needs and values from the people of those ages and cultures.
if that multipurpose diety is the one and the same - it is beyond our logical comprension! but hey - the entire basis of faith isnt logical! im not convinced we can argue and justify a subjective matter as faith rationally!
although i seem to have started from a different perspective, i would have to say i agree with Charles.
however there is the risk that i have made no sense, and completely confused myself and everyone else and drifted off topic. my apologies if so.
take care all.
througout the ages, religion and God(s) have explained the unexplained - the weather, sickness, healing, which have not been fully understood, and explained as the caused by apsects of god(s)
quote:are you refering to aspects of the bible which many in current society beleive are irrelevant? - such as exorcism to cure epilepsy?
My beef is with people who think they understand the reasons why God does things...And then explain away why that reason is now defunct, and so they don't have to do it any longer.
im uncertain to the true existance/non-existance/omnipotent/entirely-internal-spiritual perspective of God, as i dont believe it is possible to ever prove/disprove one version...but im not your typical fencesitter.
my studies of religous history seem to indicate that religion and beliefs needed will change with the culture, and it is those religions who do not change and adapt with the dynamic culture, who will gradually die out.
i dont think God is the unchanging permanent concrete figure the mainstreams religions believe, rather 'God' can fulfills our own needs for something to beleive in in the current day,age, and society. this is not the exactly the same God that fulfilled the lives of the early Jews, or Muslims in 600AD during Mohammed, or the spirits called by the Shaman in Papau New Guinea even today, or the Roman Catholic God, because we have different needs and values from the people of those ages and cultures.
if that multipurpose diety is the one and the same - it is beyond our logical comprension! but hey - the entire basis of faith isnt logical! im not convinced we can argue and justify a subjective matter as faith rationally!
although i seem to have started from a different perspective, i would have to say i agree with Charles.
however there is the risk that i have made no sense, and completely confused myself and everyone else and drifted off topic. my apologies if so.
take care all.
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
addict
522 posts
Location: Sheffield
522 posts
Location: Sheffield
Posted:
I was brought up in christian family and went to church as a child for many years as that was what my parents had done.
As soon as I was old enough to intelligently question what it was I was attending every week, I was allowed to make my own decision on attending.
This is what it ultimatley comes down to, a persons' beliefs which they arrive at through their personal journey through life. The thought that one persons' belief tha God is an all encompassing being just dosent sit with me, does this make everyone elses beliefs wrong or were you just not quite right about your own.
The questions and answers are endless and will continue to be - for me it comes down to one simple thing - faith, either you have it or you don't. To have faith in anything, first it must be shown to me and proved to be valid/correct.
So far, no person or organisation had been able to prove to me the the bible or christianity is anything but fiction or at least mostly and outdated at that.
I do respect anyone who has strong beliefs in anything, especially religion as it can be such a powerfull and touchey subject but this comes down to faith - [U] strong belief in God or a particular religion:
Even in the bad times she never lost her faith.
Her faith in God was shattered when her baby died.
It's my faith that keeps me going.
This is belief and total unconditional unwavering faith of a without proof or rational scientific understanding.
Charles, in the circumcision thread you wrote:
"I could come up with hundreds of other reasons why God would want us to circumcise our sons. BUT, God is God, a being who is omnipresent and non-linear. He exists at all points of the universe and at all points of time in the same state.
I really don't think any human should pretend to be understand the motivations and logic used by a being like that."
Charles and anyone who can give me their opinions please -
If you don't understand the motivations of such a god, and can't prove religeous text to be true, how do you have this 'faith' and moreover, how do you continue to keep it?
I have spoken to a few people who have had 'moments' where they say to have been spoken to or been connected to God and even devout Christians who claim they speak to him everyday.
Am I just not responsive to these moments of contact or do you have to believe and have complete faith before this happens?
My appologies if this has taken the thread off topic or not answered you questions Charles but it is very rare that I get the chance to ask the opinion of so many culturally different people.
Lastly, I would like to state that I consider myself to be extremely open minded, I am not anti chritian or religious by any means - there just seems to be too many aspects that I am just expected to believe.
Liam
I was brought up in christian family and went to church as a child for many years as that was what my parents had done.
As soon as I was old enough to intelligently question what it was I was attending every week, I was allowed to make my own decision on attending.
This is what it ultimatley comes down to, a persons' beliefs which they arrive at through their personal journey through life. The thought that one persons' belief tha God is an all encompassing being just dosent sit with me, does this make everyone elses beliefs wrong or were you just not quite right about your own.
The questions and answers are endless and will continue to be - for me it comes down to one simple thing - faith, either you have it or you don't. To have faith in anything, first it must be shown to me and proved to be valid/correct.
So far, no person or organisation had been able to prove to me the the bible or christianity is anything but fiction or at least mostly and outdated at that.
I do respect anyone who has strong beliefs in anything, especially religion as it can be such a powerfull and touchey subject but this comes down to faith - [U] strong belief in God or a particular religion:
Even in the bad times she never lost her faith.
Her faith in God was shattered when her baby died.
It's my faith that keeps me going.
This is belief and total unconditional unwavering faith of a without proof or rational scientific understanding.
Charles, in the circumcision thread you wrote:
"I could come up with hundreds of other reasons why God would want us to circumcise our sons. BUT, God is God, a being who is omnipresent and non-linear. He exists at all points of the universe and at all points of time in the same state.
I really don't think any human should pretend to be understand the motivations and logic used by a being like that."
Charles and anyone who can give me their opinions please -
If you don't understand the motivations of such a god, and can't prove religeous text to be true, how do you have this 'faith' and moreover, how do you continue to keep it?
I have spoken to a few people who have had 'moments' where they say to have been spoken to or been connected to God and even devout Christians who claim they speak to him everyday.
Am I just not responsive to these moments of contact or do you have to believe and have complete faith before this happens?
My appologies if this has taken the thread off topic or not answered you questions Charles but it is very rare that I get the chance to ask the opinion of so many culturally different people.
Lastly, I would like to state that I consider myself to be extremely open minded, I am not anti chritian or religious by any means - there just seems to be too many aspects that I am just expected to believe.
Liam
Quantum Theorist
564 posts
Location: Vansterdam
564 posts
Location: Vansterdam
Posted:
Charles what I find ineresting with your opinion (aside from you making the asuption of what god is as I am a firm believer in the group oriented deamon (group mind theory)) is this:
What makes you beleive that humans are linear? That is to say we have no soul...
To quote master yoda:
A bit of Wiccan Belief:
And Ye Harm None, Do As Thou Will
This applies to all beings.
Charles what I find ineresting with your opinion (aside from you making the asuption of what god is as I am a firm believer in the group oriented deamon (group mind theory)) is this:
What makes you beleive that humans are linear? That is to say we have no soul...
To quote master yoda:
quote:is this what you meant to say? maybe I'm simply biased be reading texts of my religion but doesn't the soul ive on after the body dies?
Luminus beings we are, not this crude matter...
A bit of Wiccan Belief:
quote:Anyways to the point I believe the God and Goddess are simply manifestations of all living energy. And work for neither good nor evil, and both at the same time. For all things have to sides: Light and dark, Male and Female, Positive Negitive, Good Evil, etc... Giving the dieties a will or another simply can't be done. And you can work with them for many goals, but in the end they will do as they will. As we all have an idea that trancendes all religions and in Wicca is put as 8 simple words (Wiccan Rede):
I am a witch. I am a keeper of the shadows and the old ways. I am older than my body, where in my soul resides. I have walked the line between light and dark, and found life is not but light and dark, but somewhere in between. I have kneeled before deities and found them to be not unkind. I have cast a magick circle, and chanted magick rhymes. And when I die, I will live again a witch - reincarnate.
And Ye Harm None, Do As Thou Will
This applies to all beings.
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird, now the world is weird and they take prozac to make it normal again.
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
DJ Dimples...
The linear versus non-linear is what made me realise the opnion i have which opened this thread.
God, apparently, though i do belive it, exists at every point in time in the same state. In the sam eway that he is omnipresent (existing at all points of the universe simultaneously) he also exists at every point of time as well.
The god of ten years ago has no new experiences or insights to the god of today, because his consciousness spans all periods of time.
Most of these terms are probably defunct and not accurate to describe his existence, but they are th eclosest we have to compare his existence with ours.
When i say the word non-linear, i don't mean he lives forever, I mean does he does not progress through life the way humans do.
does thta clarify things a little?
DJ Dimples...
The linear versus non-linear is what made me realise the opnion i have which opened this thread.
God, apparently, though i do belive it, exists at every point in time in the same state. In the sam eway that he is omnipresent (existing at all points of the universe simultaneously) he also exists at every point of time as well.
The god of ten years ago has no new experiences or insights to the god of today, because his consciousness spans all periods of time.
Most of these terms are probably defunct and not accurate to describe his existence, but they are th eclosest we have to compare his existence with ours.
When i say the word non-linear, i don't mean he lives forever, I mean does he does not progress through life the way humans do.
does thta clarify things a little?
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
addict
522 posts
Location: Sheffield
522 posts
Location: Sheffield
Posted:
not for me, no
not for me, no
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
ditto.
ditto.
member
279 posts
Location: Bath, UK
279 posts
Location: Bath, UK
Posted:
Charles, do you REALLY think that God told people to cut off their foreskins?
If you do then why bother with all that research you said you did. From your post it sounds like you accept the Word of God as absolute truth...
Personally I wouldn't disagree with that. The Word of God is, by definition, about as absolute a truth as you are ever going to get.
However, show me a human being who can communicate that Word to another, without diluting it or twisting it or misunderstanding it. Again by definition, humans are flawed, there is no such person.
So I don't believe you will hear the Word of God in a church, or read it in a book. It is something we must all find for ourselves and along the way we will probably get it very wrong.
Dentrassi makes a good point about the Bible containing twaddle like curing epilepsy with exorcism. However he's wrong that God is changing. As you say, God is infinite and unchanging. It is people's understanding of God that changes, from culture to culture and throughout history.
Human Beings were put on this Earth to do the one thing God can't do. Experience pain, suffering, and separation from God. Only then can we experience the joy of finding God.
That is all.
Charles, do you REALLY think that God told people to cut off their foreskins?
If you do then why bother with all that research you said you did. From your post it sounds like you accept the Word of God as absolute truth...
Personally I wouldn't disagree with that. The Word of God is, by definition, about as absolute a truth as you are ever going to get.
However, show me a human being who can communicate that Word to another, without diluting it or twisting it or misunderstanding it. Again by definition, humans are flawed, there is no such person.
So I don't believe you will hear the Word of God in a church, or read it in a book. It is something we must all find for ourselves and along the way we will probably get it very wrong.
Dentrassi makes a good point about the Bible containing twaddle like curing epilepsy with exorcism. However he's wrong that God is changing. As you say, God is infinite and unchanging. It is people's understanding of God that changes, from culture to culture and throughout history.
Human Beings were put on this Earth to do the one thing God can't do. Experience pain, suffering, and separation from God. Only then can we experience the joy of finding God.
That is all.
Magnus... pay it forward
back from the dead...sort of
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
Posted:
*Completely agrees with Magnus*
Will elaborate on my views when I'm home from work.
*Completely agrees with Magnus*
Will elaborate on my views when I'm home from work.
member
55 posts
55 posts
Posted:
I agree that it is not the divine that changes, but peoples perception of it.
That is why religion has changed so much over the years. Even Charles’ Judaism has changed. Judaism of today is not the Judaism of 2000 years ago. And, even then, Judaism grew out of Mithraism and the teachings of Zoroaster – it did not just happen.
Religion is ever changing, as people and their culture change continually.
The problem in this is when people try to take it in a fundamentalist manor and claim that the laws of 2000 years ago still apply today. There is no way they could.
Do you think that a God that exists in all points in time, at the same time, would not understand societal changes of mankind – even better than we do?
The fact is the Torah was written over 2000 years ago. Most of its laws do not apply today.
If you think they do I would like to ask the last time your town got together to stone your neighbor to death because they did not keep the Sabbath holey? When was the last time you gave a bull as a burnt offering to God because smell makes him happy?
When the Torah was written there was good reason for a circumcision. Simply put people did not bath as they do today. The lack of personal hygiene led to nasty infections under the foreskin. This is not the case in most counties today. The continuation of the practice is nothing less than barbaric genital mutilation of males that have no choice.
Before I get jumped on for expressing that opinion let me give you (a bit too much) personal information about me. My father is a Cantor. There is no way as a baby that I could have escaped a circumcision. However, it was done wrong. I still have half of my foreskin. It still covers the part where I would get an infection.
Guess what… never got one, not once in 34 years. Why? Personal hygiene.
Claiming that a male child should be circumcised because of the possibility of infection in akin to claiming a woman should be sewed shut at birth because she might get pregnant.
The only argument left for circumcision would be the religious one. I personally would not mutilate my child because of a 2000 year old law based on the poor hygiene practices of the time, but then that’s me.
I agree that it is not the divine that changes, but peoples perception of it.
That is why religion has changed so much over the years. Even Charles’ Judaism has changed. Judaism of today is not the Judaism of 2000 years ago. And, even then, Judaism grew out of Mithraism and the teachings of Zoroaster – it did not just happen.
Religion is ever changing, as people and their culture change continually.
The problem in this is when people try to take it in a fundamentalist manor and claim that the laws of 2000 years ago still apply today. There is no way they could.
Do you think that a God that exists in all points in time, at the same time, would not understand societal changes of mankind – even better than we do?
The fact is the Torah was written over 2000 years ago. Most of its laws do not apply today.
If you think they do I would like to ask the last time your town got together to stone your neighbor to death because they did not keep the Sabbath holey? When was the last time you gave a bull as a burnt offering to God because smell makes him happy?
When the Torah was written there was good reason for a circumcision. Simply put people did not bath as they do today. The lack of personal hygiene led to nasty infections under the foreskin. This is not the case in most counties today. The continuation of the practice is nothing less than barbaric genital mutilation of males that have no choice.
Before I get jumped on for expressing that opinion let me give you (a bit too much) personal information about me. My father is a Cantor. There is no way as a baby that I could have escaped a circumcision. However, it was done wrong. I still have half of my foreskin. It still covers the part where I would get an infection.
Guess what… never got one, not once in 34 years. Why? Personal hygiene.
Claiming that a male child should be circumcised because of the possibility of infection in akin to claiming a woman should be sewed shut at birth because she might get pregnant.
The only argument left for circumcision would be the religious one. I personally would not mutilate my child because of a 2000 year old law based on the poor hygiene practices of the time, but then that’s me.
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
Tempest & Jon & Latex
Latex...I'm not an orthodox Jew... There is at least one other major religon that believes God wishes all men to be circumcised whenever possible...
But an argument using one human beings personal medical history as a basis for a species-wide statement is not one I can accept.
Theres a good possibility that without ANY personal hygiene in that area, you may never have got an infection either.
We all have different skin types, different bodies, different tap water, different soaps and even, different amount of time available for hygiene.
Using the same logic structure, if you had never had a brain tumour, you could also say it was becuase you washed yourself downstairs properly for all of your life.
but, this thread regresses back to the topic of the one linked to on the first post.
This thread is about how some people seem to think they can understand the reasons why god does things, and then base an argument on their assumption as if it was fact...
Tempest & Jon - Your confusion is exactly the reason i say no human on earth can understand god's thought processes (if they can be called such anyway).
You and I exist in the present, we experience things which change us. We are not the same person we were yesterday, but a progression (or regression) of that person with new experiences.
Do you agree with that?
If you do, or at least understand my meaning, then I'm trying to say that God is not supposed to exist in that way at all.
He is the same being He was in the past, and is the same being he will be in the future. In fact, he doesn't progress along a timeline in the way we do at all.
He actually exists in the same state at every point of time, past, future and present.
It's easier to understand the gulf between us and him with this concept than it is to understand the concept itself...
Tempest & Jon & Latex
Latex...I'm not an orthodox Jew... There is at least one other major religon that believes God wishes all men to be circumcised whenever possible...
quote:In your case, Latex, then no, for someone whose body, environment, clothes, social grooming and general situation, then personal hygiene may well prevent an infection.
Guess what… never got one, not once in 34 years. Why? Personal hygiene.
But an argument using one human beings personal medical history as a basis for a species-wide statement is not one I can accept.
Theres a good possibility that without ANY personal hygiene in that area, you may never have got an infection either.
We all have different skin types, different bodies, different tap water, different soaps and even, different amount of time available for hygiene.
Using the same logic structure, if you had never had a brain tumour, you could also say it was becuase you washed yourself downstairs properly for all of your life.
but, this thread regresses back to the topic of the one linked to on the first post.
This thread is about how some people seem to think they can understand the reasons why god does things, and then base an argument on their assumption as if it was fact...
Tempest & Jon - Your confusion is exactly the reason i say no human on earth can understand god's thought processes (if they can be called such anyway).
You and I exist in the present, we experience things which change us. We are not the same person we were yesterday, but a progression (or regression) of that person with new experiences.
Do you agree with that?
If you do, or at least understand my meaning, then I'm trying to say that God is not supposed to exist in that way at all.
He is the same being He was in the past, and is the same being he will be in the future. In fact, he doesn't progress along a timeline in the way we do at all.
He actually exists in the same state at every point of time, past, future and present.
It's easier to understand the gulf between us and him with this concept than it is to understand the concept itself...
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
member
47 posts
Location: Notts
47 posts
Location: Notts
Posted:
we dont understand ourselves yet, dont you think its a bit arrogant to assume that we can figure out something that we dont even know exists?
we dont understand ourselves yet, dont you think its a bit arrogant to assume that we can figure out something that we dont even know exists?
They call 'em fingers, but i aint never seen 'em fing!Otto man
back from the dead...sort of
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
884 posts
Location: 43°41'N 79°38'W
Posted:
Okay, here's my own personal philosophy, and my views on this topic that stems from the philosophy. (please note: "Him" can be unsed interchangibly with "Her" or "It's"...whatever you prefer.)
MY PHILOSOPHY
I believe that God is the entity or force that created the laws and relations of energy that allowed our universe to spring forth from the big bang. These rules were created in such a manner that God knew they would give rise to matter, atoms, the process of evolution, and conscious systems.
I don't believe that He now has the power to break His own rules and randomly changes the universe. He is an entity that exists outside of time and could see the consequenses of his laws before they were put into place. Thus, what happens is meant to happen. There is no reason for Him to intervene or communicate with the contents of the universe.
I don't believe in a soul. The human brain is so complex and beautiful that there is no reason to make up something intangible to define us as separate from nonliving things. The brain simply doesn't have the same mystical appeal that a soul has because it is possible to hold a brain in your hand.
Thus, everything exists because of God and God is in everything, as lots of religions argue. And, as mentioned by Charles, God exists at all points in the same state...His laws are universal everywhere, at everytime.
SO, CAN WE KNOW THE MIND OF GOD?
No. I believe that we ARE the mind of God. We are probablistic, deterministic phsycial entities that operate according to the relations of matter and energy that God has set. We are all like neurons in a brain...no neuron is capable of understanding what the brain is doing. But by doing the best job it can under whatever circumstances it may find itself, it can help the brain achieve its goal, despite the fact that it does not know what that goal is.
Thus, by doing the best we can to further life, consciousness, and the sharing of information, we will help God acheive His plan...whatever it might be.
EXAMPLE
I will now relate this to circumsicion. (Sorry to take my points back to circumscision when another thread exists for that discussion, but it can serve as a concrete example of what I mean by my former statements).
I completely agree with Magnus that God did not tell mankind to cut off foreskins. I think that the God of 2000-some years ago was a construct of the human mind. It served its purpose by uniting humans into cooperative bands, helping ensure survival, and creating goodwill between humans in a given band. In parallel, I think that God's "command" to circumsise was a useful, human-imposed practice that helped people survive a dry, hot climate. It served its purpose by ensuring more conscious entities survived to further the development of the universe.
Nowadays, we have outlived the need for that practice. *However*, continuing to do it does not do anything to affect the consciouness of the beings invloved...as Lightning mentioned in the other thread, the benefits/drawbacks are 50/50. Thus, I think that in the grand scheme of universal order, consciousness development and information flow, the matter is entriely irrelevant.
(Female circumcision differs because the act reduces the emotional cabilities of a conscious being, and is performed for the purpose of making that being more docile, thus stopping the consciousness from contributing all it can to the universe.)
Humanity has only been around for some 30,000 (or was is 300,000?) years, and will likely only be around for 200-300 years more before our minds escape our bodies into more abstract physical realities. I find it hard to believe that one of the eternal, timeless commands of God is that male humans cut skin from their penises.
Anyways, that's plenty for now...I will post more if anyone has any comments on my views.
Okay, here's my own personal philosophy, and my views on this topic that stems from the philosophy. (please note: "Him" can be unsed interchangibly with "Her" or "It's"...whatever you prefer.)
MY PHILOSOPHY
I believe that God is the entity or force that created the laws and relations of energy that allowed our universe to spring forth from the big bang. These rules were created in such a manner that God knew they would give rise to matter, atoms, the process of evolution, and conscious systems.
I don't believe that He now has the power to break His own rules and randomly changes the universe. He is an entity that exists outside of time and could see the consequenses of his laws before they were put into place. Thus, what happens is meant to happen. There is no reason for Him to intervene or communicate with the contents of the universe.
I don't believe in a soul. The human brain is so complex and beautiful that there is no reason to make up something intangible to define us as separate from nonliving things. The brain simply doesn't have the same mystical appeal that a soul has because it is possible to hold a brain in your hand.
Thus, everything exists because of God and God is in everything, as lots of religions argue. And, as mentioned by Charles, God exists at all points in the same state...His laws are universal everywhere, at everytime.
SO, CAN WE KNOW THE MIND OF GOD?
No. I believe that we ARE the mind of God. We are probablistic, deterministic phsycial entities that operate according to the relations of matter and energy that God has set. We are all like neurons in a brain...no neuron is capable of understanding what the brain is doing. But by doing the best job it can under whatever circumstances it may find itself, it can help the brain achieve its goal, despite the fact that it does not know what that goal is.
Thus, by doing the best we can to further life, consciousness, and the sharing of information, we will help God acheive His plan...whatever it might be.
EXAMPLE
I will now relate this to circumsicion. (Sorry to take my points back to circumscision when another thread exists for that discussion, but it can serve as a concrete example of what I mean by my former statements).
I completely agree with Magnus that God did not tell mankind to cut off foreskins. I think that the God of 2000-some years ago was a construct of the human mind. It served its purpose by uniting humans into cooperative bands, helping ensure survival, and creating goodwill between humans in a given band. In parallel, I think that God's "command" to circumsise was a useful, human-imposed practice that helped people survive a dry, hot climate. It served its purpose by ensuring more conscious entities survived to further the development of the universe.
Nowadays, we have outlived the need for that practice. *However*, continuing to do it does not do anything to affect the consciouness of the beings invloved...as Lightning mentioned in the other thread, the benefits/drawbacks are 50/50. Thus, I think that in the grand scheme of universal order, consciousness development and information flow, the matter is entriely irrelevant.
(Female circumcision differs because the act reduces the emotional cabilities of a conscious being, and is performed for the purpose of making that being more docile, thus stopping the consciousness from contributing all it can to the universe.)
Humanity has only been around for some 30,000 (or was is 300,000?) years, and will likely only be around for 200-300 years more before our minds escape our bodies into more abstract physical realities. I find it hard to believe that one of the eternal, timeless commands of God is that male humans cut skin from their penises.
Anyways, that's plenty for now...I will post more if anyone has any comments on my views.
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
As humans every perception about how anything from a cat to a diety thinks is intrinsically based on how we think. Even from human to human how we think other people think is never completely accurate. So for anyone to believe they know the 'thoughts' of God is naive at best and arrogant at worst. However, I'm arrogant, so I'll tell you how I think he thinks.
Religious texts claim to be the word of gods, but they were written, updated and edited by humans at various times in history when what they wrote was relevant to how they thought people should be living at that time. And often written to control people. So even if a religious text is channeled through a god who's opinion and knowledge is timeless, the mechanism of transfer has only a certain reference. Therefore all religious texts are dated and no longer relevant.
If God exists then it is an immense being, and is above all the petty human emotions that we daily attribute to them. Religious texts are full of tales of a vengeful God, a demanding God, a God who reeks of low self esteem and petty jealously. A God that requires you to fulfill a covenant generation after generation because he's scared you'll lose faith. This is how most religious people see God, a God so afraid of the beings he created and gave free will to that he then decided to impose bizarre laws upon them? A god of fear, not a god of Love?
I believe that any supreme being would have no reason or desire to ask or require anything from another being. I simply cannot see how God would ever require you to do anything like circumcision or even pray to them. Not unless they are selfish, jealous and domineering, in which case I wouldn't consider that being supreme or godlike.
A supreme being would look upon us, their creation, with Love. So, make every decision based on the Love, Truth and Joy you feel from within, not from those thoughts planted by books and preachers, and maybe then you'll begin to think how God thinks.
As humans every perception about how anything from a cat to a diety thinks is intrinsically based on how we think. Even from human to human how we think other people think is never completely accurate. So for anyone to believe they know the 'thoughts' of God is naive at best and arrogant at worst. However, I'm arrogant, so I'll tell you how I think he thinks.
Religious texts claim to be the word of gods, but they were written, updated and edited by humans at various times in history when what they wrote was relevant to how they thought people should be living at that time. And often written to control people. So even if a religious text is channeled through a god who's opinion and knowledge is timeless, the mechanism of transfer has only a certain reference. Therefore all religious texts are dated and no longer relevant.
If God exists then it is an immense being, and is above all the petty human emotions that we daily attribute to them. Religious texts are full of tales of a vengeful God, a demanding God, a God who reeks of low self esteem and petty jealously. A God that requires you to fulfill a covenant generation after generation because he's scared you'll lose faith. This is how most religious people see God, a God so afraid of the beings he created and gave free will to that he then decided to impose bizarre laws upon them? A god of fear, not a god of Love?
I believe that any supreme being would have no reason or desire to ask or require anything from another being. I simply cannot see how God would ever require you to do anything like circumcision or even pray to them. Not unless they are selfish, jealous and domineering, in which case I wouldn't consider that being supreme or godlike.
A supreme being would look upon us, their creation, with Love. So, make every decision based on the Love, Truth and Joy you feel from within, not from those thoughts planted by books and preachers, and maybe then you'll begin to think how God thinks.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
My only response is a quote:
"I mistrust those who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice how it always coincides with their own desires."
--Susan B. Anthony responding to an argument that women should be denied anesthetics during childbirth because the Bible says that women should bear their children with pain.
My only response is a quote:
"I mistrust those who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice how it always coincides with their own desires."
--Susan B. Anthony responding to an argument that women should be denied anesthetics during childbirth because the Bible says that women should bear their children with pain.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
55 posts
55 posts
Posted:
I think I should point out here that I am NOT trying to tell you that you should not do what your faith compels you to do. I may disagree with it, but you would also probably disagree with many things I feel.
My faith is just different, and I find discussions of faith interesting, as long as they do not fall into the bitter stuff that they usually do. I hope we can avoid that.
If I post a different view it is my own alone, and would never tell you that what I believe should dictate what you do.
And, I was raised in conservative Judaism.
quote:Yes, that would be Muslim. As I understand it they also say that women should shave their pubic hair - which is cool with me
Originally posted by Charles:
[BQ]
Latex...I'm not an orthodox Jew... There is at least one other major religon that believes God wishes all men to be circumcised whenever possible...[/QB]
I think I should point out here that I am NOT trying to tell you that you should not do what your faith compels you to do. I may disagree with it, but you would also probably disagree with many things I feel.
My faith is just different, and I find discussions of faith interesting, as long as they do not fall into the bitter stuff that they usually do. I hope we can avoid that.
If I post a different view it is my own alone, and would never tell you that what I believe should dictate what you do.
And, I was raised in conservative Judaism.
member
55 posts
55 posts
Posted:
I can see how it would reduce the physical abilities of both, but not how it would reduce the emotional capabilities of the female – but not the male.
quote:How does it reduce the emotional capabilities of a female, but not a male?
Female circumcision differs because the act reduces the emotional cabilities of a conscious being
I can see how it would reduce the physical abilities of both, but not how it would reduce the emotional capabilities of the female – but not the male.
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
The process of circumcision is the removal of excess skin tissue on a male, that while having nerve endings as in any other area of the skin, is more akin to lopping off excess elbow skin (give it a tug and see!) than to sexually desensitizing a male's penis.
FGM is the complete removal of the clitoris (the MAJOR nerve center for sexual response in a woman) and typically also involves the sewing shut of the vagina, only allowing enough of a gap for blood to flow out menstrually. The removal of the clitoris is the female equivalent of the removal of the entire penis on a man. It handicaps the woman emotionally in that sexual intercourse will no longer provide any sort of pleasure for her.
But it goes even deeper than that. The philosophy behind FGM is that a woman who can experience pleasure will seek that pleasure uncontrollably - in either the form of premarital sex, or extramarital sex. Essentially, you're brutally chopping off (this is typically not performed under any kind of anesthesia or sterilization) the parts that make sex enjoyable so your woman will be a) only yours sexually, regardless of your own sexual history, and b) unwilling to stray from the relationship once you have her.
The practice is in place for the sole purpose of degrading and humiliating women into submission as second-class citizens. The procedure itself often results in deadly infections due to unsanitary methods, and traumatizes the girl (who is held down by several men while the "surgeon" attacks with his dirty knife). Would that fall under "Reduced emotional capabilities?"
Not to stray too far off-topic, my beliefs revolve around similar notions as this one - I cannot accept that a God, ANY God, would expect me to put another human being beneath me socially. I also do not believe God would expect me to kill or injure someone else in His name simply because they believe differently.
Essentially, my model for God could be distilled (very generally speaking) into a cross between my parents and Jiminy Cricket, from Pinocchio. You're probably all thinking " " but let me elaborate.
I think the way God communicates with us is via our conscience - that little voice we always say we should have listened to in retrospect. Hence, the notion that God is within all of us - He guides us with a gentle hand, can be disobeyed like a small noisy bug but eventually we realize He was right all along. I try to listen to that little voice and my life has been much better ever since then - except for a short while I was bitter and resentful, thinking I had gotten shafted and was going to "take my destiny into my own hands." That just led to more depression and I eventually came out of it wiser and happier.
The parental analogy comes to me in that I believe we are, in fact, children of God. What does a parent do for their children? They nurture them, provide discipline and education, and eventually the children move on to become parents of their own. Human evolution sees us more and more each day "playing God" - just look at science, in particular cloning. While right now we lack the experience and discipline to do so correctly, I believe that one day we might, as a species, ascend to a level where we DO begin to understand the nature and motivations of deities.
For a little bit of a glimpse into my way of thinking, check out the movies Stargate and Dogma - two great films that may not agree with me on every point, but they did inspire me to think a lot about the nature of existence.
Thanks for reading!
quote:"Female circumcision" is a completely idiotic misnomer. It's a sterilized label they put on what is more commonly known as FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) because it sounds less offensive. But this argument isn't about semantics, so I'll give everyone the lowdown on this.
I can see how it would reduce the physical abilities of both, but not how it would reduce the emotional capabilities of the female – but not the male.
The process of circumcision is the removal of excess skin tissue on a male, that while having nerve endings as in any other area of the skin, is more akin to lopping off excess elbow skin (give it a tug and see!) than to sexually desensitizing a male's penis.
FGM is the complete removal of the clitoris (the MAJOR nerve center for sexual response in a woman) and typically also involves the sewing shut of the vagina, only allowing enough of a gap for blood to flow out menstrually. The removal of the clitoris is the female equivalent of the removal of the entire penis on a man. It handicaps the woman emotionally in that sexual intercourse will no longer provide any sort of pleasure for her.
But it goes even deeper than that. The philosophy behind FGM is that a woman who can experience pleasure will seek that pleasure uncontrollably - in either the form of premarital sex, or extramarital sex. Essentially, you're brutally chopping off (this is typically not performed under any kind of anesthesia or sterilization) the parts that make sex enjoyable so your woman will be a) only yours sexually, regardless of your own sexual history, and b) unwilling to stray from the relationship once you have her.
The practice is in place for the sole purpose of degrading and humiliating women into submission as second-class citizens. The procedure itself often results in deadly infections due to unsanitary methods, and traumatizes the girl (who is held down by several men while the "surgeon" attacks with his dirty knife). Would that fall under "Reduced emotional capabilities?"
Not to stray too far off-topic, my beliefs revolve around similar notions as this one - I cannot accept that a God, ANY God, would expect me to put another human being beneath me socially. I also do not believe God would expect me to kill or injure someone else in His name simply because they believe differently.
Essentially, my model for God could be distilled (very generally speaking) into a cross between my parents and Jiminy Cricket, from Pinocchio. You're probably all thinking " " but let me elaborate.
I think the way God communicates with us is via our conscience - that little voice we always say we should have listened to in retrospect. Hence, the notion that God is within all of us - He guides us with a gentle hand, can be disobeyed like a small noisy bug but eventually we realize He was right all along. I try to listen to that little voice and my life has been much better ever since then - except for a short while I was bitter and resentful, thinking I had gotten shafted and was going to "take my destiny into my own hands." That just led to more depression and I eventually came out of it wiser and happier.
The parental analogy comes to me in that I believe we are, in fact, children of God. What does a parent do for their children? They nurture them, provide discipline and education, and eventually the children move on to become parents of their own. Human evolution sees us more and more each day "playing God" - just look at science, in particular cloning. While right now we lack the experience and discipline to do so correctly, I believe that one day we might, as a species, ascend to a level where we DO begin to understand the nature and motivations of deities.
For a little bit of a glimpse into my way of thinking, check out the movies Stargate and Dogma - two great films that may not agree with me on every point, but they did inspire me to think a lot about the nature of existence.
Thanks for reading!
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
member
103 posts
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
103 posts
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Posted:
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.
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.
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
To accept the possibility of God setting everything in motion and knowing the entire outcome is refreshing to hear.
But to deny the existence of something similar to a soul and to feel you you have grasped the entire situation so completely (something no human on earth will ever be able to do) that you feel you can say this
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.
YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT. Once again, even one of the most rational posts in this thread goes back to an assumption about reasons or processes that cannot be understood.
It took me several years for this realisation to impact on my brain, and I have no doubt Paddy did not intend to implement my "beef" into his arguement.
It is just so easy to do!
quote:and...
I think that the God of 2000-some years ago was a construct of the human mind.
quote:Paddy, I appreciate your candidness and reasoned approach, but I find the two statements above (taken in context, not on there own) a bit confusing.
I believe that we ARE the mind of God.
To accept the possibility of God setting everything in motion and knowing the entire outcome is refreshing to hear.
But to deny the existence of something similar to a soul and to feel you you have grasped the entire situation so completely (something no human on earth will ever be able to do) that you feel you can say this
quote:"There is no reason for Him to intervene..." Um...Once again, my point in the first post comes up again.
He is an entity that exists outside of time and could see the consequenses of his laws before they were put into place. Thus, what happens is meant to happen. There is no reason for Him to intervene or communicate with the contents of the universe.
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.
YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT. Once again, even one of the most rational posts in this thread goes back to an assumption about reasons or processes that cannot be understood.
It took me several years for this realisation to impact on my brain, and I have no doubt Paddy did not intend to implement my "beef" into his arguement.
It is just so easy to do!
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
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.
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.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
member
55 posts
55 posts
Posted:
quote:OK, I thought by female circumcision the referance was to removing the clitoral hood - which is akin to male circumsision.
the complete removal of the clitoris
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
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...
I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm simply saying you have no way of knowing if you are correct.
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...
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: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?
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.
quote: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.
it would be shoddy to suggest that God has an opinion on the matter.
I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm simply saying you have no way of knowing if you are correct.
quote: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.
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.
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...
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
------------------------
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.
------------------------
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.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
addict
522 posts
Location: Berlin
522 posts
Location: Berlin
Posted:
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!
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!
Your life is ending one minute at a time...
So live it.
Hot Schtuff
1,032 posts
Location: Stillwater,OK/Wichita Falls,TX
1,032 posts
Location: Stillwater,OK/Wichita Falls,TX
Posted:
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.
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.
RISK: Do not follow the common path; Go where there is no path and leave a trail.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
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.
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.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
3,989 posts
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted:
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…
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…
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
Hot Schtuff
1,032 posts
Location: Stillwater,OK/Wichita Falls,TX
1,032 posts
Location: Stillwater,OK/Wichita Falls,TX
Posted:
In my reply to this thread I was referring to your previous statement of referring to God as 'He'.I was stating that some people YES feel it degrading. Some people believe God is male. Others have formed different oppinions of THEIR own depiction of God whether it be a non-sex God/male/female God forms,or a human-like/non-human-like being.Some people make God into something that has material.
There may not be something specific in Holy texts that show God as having human qualities.I was just expressing a point of view some people out there have.Most people's depictions of God are formed through life experiences.People will make something comprehendible(sp) in order to either understand it better or to feel a closer connection.
That is what I feel about God. I believe it is that tiny lil voice in the back of your head that lets you know what is what.My intention of replying was just to give another perspective on the subject...Sorry if it happened to stray away from the main theme on here. I was just contributing another view of God that people hold.
[ 07. July 2003, 14:55: Message edited by: Mistress Aurora ]
quote:I'm glad to hear of your oppinion on the concept of God.I just have a different oppinion of God and of what I think Him to look like because I materialize things.
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.
In my reply to this thread I was referring to your previous statement of referring to God as 'He'.I was stating that some people YES feel it degrading. Some people believe God is male. Others have formed different oppinions of THEIR own depiction of God whether it be a non-sex God/male/female God forms,or a human-like/non-human-like being.Some people make God into something that has material.
There may not be something specific in Holy texts that show God as having human qualities.I was just expressing a point of view some people out there have.Most people's depictions of God are formed through life experiences.People will make something comprehendible(sp) in order to either understand it better or to feel a closer connection.
That is what I feel about God. I believe it is that tiny lil voice in the back of your head that lets you know what is what.My intention of replying was just to give another perspective on the subject...Sorry if it happened to stray away from the main theme on here. I was just contributing another view of God that people hold.
[ 07. July 2003, 14:55: Message edited by: Mistress Aurora ]
RISK: Do not follow the common path; Go where there is no path and leave a trail.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com