The word God is nothing but a mirror of our perceptions. True False?

Comment by Jeff H on November 28, 2009 at 12:41pm

False

God existed before us. Created us. God is completely beyond our comprehension, let alone our whims or fancies.

Comment by david thurman on November 28, 2009 at 3:56pm

"God is completely beyond our comprehension"
If that were true Jeff we would have no redefine God, no bible and we would have no concept or idea of a beyond comprehension, we can comprehend a beyond and in and of itself is very interesting. We ascribe or project onto that our perception and that too is interesting to me as well.

Jim,
yes, yes , and yes, LOL.....We attempt to wrap around so to speak our perceptions I think out of that gives us a sense of control. So if to see the limitations of our perceptions in and of itself rather than ascribing a being above that, makes much more sense to me. I have to bring my own unique experiential nature which we both share a commonality of, into alignment in some healthy way on my analytical side so as to not have a sense of self divided or a psyche divided. That's where the term God as a real independent from me I feel out of wack and religon analytically is incorrect but it contains a great emotional richness in particular for me the NT. The concept of no God, is as equally absurd if God is understood as a projection of our perceptions and it's emotionally bankrupt as pure logic always is and is thus illogical in and of it's self in absence of emotion. I had a big row with James on that in talking about post biological Transhumanism, I asked 'where's the love, it's all logic so it's illogical in and of itself'...That is pure self referencing so No God is absurd as it's describe here. And I am very surprised that Jung knew that. I know little of Jung so I'm a bit shocked that he picked up on that or I picked up on it separate from Jung. I think I am saying the same thing here.

Comment by Jeff H on November 28, 2009 at 5:05pm

Except the God reveals Himself to those who seek, and enables them to see and understand more. Every time I learn more about God, I have "redefined" Him. I learn more about God everyday, so the defining of God is an on going process.

If you want to say what Jesus said or felt, read His teachings. It's probably better then making them up.

Comment by david thurman on November 28, 2009 at 6:26pm

NOW you are beginning to catch on what I've been attempting (Oh so weakly) the duality breaks down and yet, you never lose sight of the groundness of the now of who we are singular, biological, as we experience the undefinable infinite. It's easy to see that as a separate from us it's not. we carry into that experience our sense of duality and in that experience all kinds of wackiness occurs, and I am as equally familiar with that wackiness as you are. We percieve the Concrete and abstract as separate or a separate from us but that is an illusion we are not we exist on the edge or the point of the two at the same time. So in a sense to deny our biology is to deny the infinite, To accept the infinite as true is to accept our biology The concrete as being true undivided one in relationship to the other. Then we begin to see life as a process rather than a simplistically definable object thing reality of actions reactions. Roman said something that was very insightful he enfolded inaction as an equal to action as well, which I find very harmonious. It's in understanding this Jim where you cannot deny your experience where you can allow both biological nature and our abstractive nature to harmonize into a singular fashion and treating divisions as simple constructs of our brain function that allow us to function but ultimately are illusionary at deep levels is I think the only really healthy way that people such as you and I can function in a balanced way. again I never leave what has been said for thousands of years for good reason, it's very harmonious with Buddha and the concepts in Zen and I would say it reaches directly into the NT and to the present time of rational thinking and empirical evidence. Consistency is very important to me and allowing or emotions to be true, or analytical side to be true, one not dominating each other but both coming together as equals in the middle is the Middle path and is the only path for me to be balanced. I"m like a wrestler, in finding my sense of balance I now can walk and move.

Comment by david thurman on November 28, 2009 at 6:35pm

But Jeff you just contradicted yourself from the earlier statement didn't you? Maybe I'm wrong but God being completely beyond our comprehension and saying God is continuously revealing himself/herself ( I keep it balanced here unless you think God really is just a he then you can explain THAT) is a contradiction isn't it? You know me Jeff I almost don't like disagreeing with you in that I"m not attacking you I'm attacking the religious construct that is set forth and a deep contradiction between doctrine and philosophical structure in Christianity it's simply an absurd contradiction that gets painted over by one needing to believe more, when believing means NOTHING in and of itself in resolving this contradiction. I find the concept of belief pulled out of the texts and used as an excuse by extremely smart theologians as their excuse for their personal stupidity. More than a few PHD's that I learned under BTW.

Comment by david thurman on November 28, 2009 at 6:36pm

I might add that Belief is used in any number of ways and it's like the great pandora's box of Christianity.

Comment by Jeff H on November 28, 2009 at 9:25pm

I didn't contradict, but I perhaps wasn't clear. We can't figure out God. God can reveal Himself to us. My faith starts where the pebble hit the water so to speak. My personal experience. You can play that off. Its mine, its true, and if you want to argue theology fine, but my experience is solid. In the words of the immortal MC Hammer..."Can't touch that"

From there it ripples outward into the historical verifiable facts, and the truths in the text. The profound depth of the teaching of Christ. The evidence of the resurrection. The uniformity within the text over thousands of years 66 books and a veritable plethora of contributing writers.

Finally there is the evidence I see in creation, and its magnificence. Its perfection.

My faith isn't a whim. It isn't herd or groupthink. Its tangible, real and vibrant. Its not hypothetical. Its not a theory. Its not my imaginings. It is what has come by experience, study, and revelation.

Comment by James S Saint on November 28, 2009 at 9:48pm

Jeff's method is Science.

He observed something that many others observed. To deny it would be denying the very foundation of Science - repeated, independent observation of the hypothesis in question.

He can't play with the variables any more than any astronomer can play with changing the stars around or an archeologist can move the historical evidence around.

What else could he do but believe what he has scientifically verified?

If you don't like his observation, then why do you believe astronomers or archeologists?

Comment by Jeff H on November 28, 2009 at 11:24pm

Thank you James... I appreciate the thoughtful comment.

Comment by Jim G on November 29, 2009 at 12:23am

"We can't figure out God. God can reveal Himself to us."

I think it can be both Jeff, because God could reveal himself to an ape if you aren't prejudiced against apes, but the ape can't figure out God because the ape does not think like we do. I just "gave up" trying to figure out God. But the question may always be floating around. So long as we don't spend inordinate amounts of time perhaps it's OK to guestimate I guess.

Anyhow, if there is any truth to "it's a hall of mirrors" and any truth to God being "an ultimate chess player," then it's a hall of chess sets perhaps. So while we are busy emulating God by trying to get the pieces of our lives in the right places, seeking perfection, since we are also a part of God's cosmos, God would naturally be pulling for us. So a lot of folks believe in the Law of Attraction. That is mentally wishing a piece will fall into place on our chess board. So God would naturally consider putting your wish into place as long as it doesn't mess with other probabilities. When I was taking the first seminar at that place I took them, I remember saying "were puppets, and the question is who's pulling the strings?" Well that could be perfection coming from consciousness, whatever consciousness/mind is. It might have used string theory, although I am no physicist. At any rate, even though we think we are in complete control in life, perhaps we really are not. Or perhaps we are not in control if we are living in the ideal manner which I would presume is in touch with reality or God or the present moment or what have you. Or perhaps not thinking, with a meditative emptiness to our thinking, leaving room for God to pull our strings. Just some more poking around -- I haven't thought of this a whole lot and I have no attachment to the outcome of what I am saying either. And I certainly won't obsess over it. Because it's theoretical and doesn't ever seem to stick with me. Now if I were to get back to meditating maybe it would stick without thinking about it.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page