There is no "god"

[kallipolis]

Willful ignorance as a reverential tribute.

There was I anticipating more, much more......I'm disappointed....well, not so much.

 

[palbert]

While not a believer, I am reminded of Queen Elizabeth I speaking of the Catholic/Protestant divide:

There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles.

I have no desire to make windows into mens (sic) souls.

http://www.elizabethi.org/us/quotes/

If one substitutes "god" for "Christ, Jesus, one faith" the statement may have some validity. It certainly has a more universal appeal.

 

[kallipolis]

While not a believer, I am reminded of Queen Elizabeth I speaking of the Catholic/Protestant divide:





http://www.elizabethi.org/us/quotes/

If one substitutes "god" for "Christ, Jesus, one faith" the statement may have some validity. It certainly has a more universal appeal.

Queen Elizabeth's attempts to unite her nation under one church - The Church of England - failed simply because true English men, and women demanded their rights under God to make their own choices, and not have them imposed by their monarch....the same arguments proposed by the (mostly, Puritan) New England colonists who were demanding their rights as English men, and women to exercise their rights to self determination leading to the creation of a new nation...the rights of man that began the democratic process in the English speaking world evolving out of The Magna Carta....all very political.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Zoltan do you really think that objections to religious opinion come from a failure to understand the parts of speech?

I think I would say something like...at the heart of our most difficult philosophical questions there remains silence, darkness and mystery and if that were not so, our most difficult philosophical questions would not be difficult.

(I'm off to the rainy woods for a few hours to seek some much needed peace, but I'm looking forward to rejoining you all later this evening. ).

 

[ludolfo]

the whole sense of 'god' comes from feeling

comes from a felt sense of expanded consciousness where you feel a merging with your surroundings

IF you have this experience what would you call it? Our ancestors have called it a 'god'. being possessed by a god--spirit of the fungus, the plant, the sacred brew etc

when that is forgotten and/or suppressed all that is left is the word 'god' or 'God'

 

[Telstra]

I believe that the focus on "proof" for God is ultimately a futile one... for God can only be "known" through ones relationship with God.

The "God" we might argue "is" will be the God of our imagination, which by definition will be less, and of a limiting order than God actually is.

In fact all talk of or about God must necessarily fall short in the very instant of expression.

The point to God is not how, and why God "is", rather how we relate to our fellow man. That is, how we act in relationship to God, our neighbour, and all things including our pets, and our stewardship of the environment an imperative.

At some point we try to put the foundation of all this in words because that is the human thing to do, but it seems to me that the instant we make a definitive definition of God, or Truth we may fail to embrace God, as God preferring to make a god in our own image.

Not sure if you have seen this, but "god" is about feelings in ones brain.

 

[cockbrain]

WTF ?

Perception is everything....even your attempt at defining logic....as you perceive your environment...what a shrill!

I think of argument as an exercise, a form of discussion that is based in logic and reason. There is no arguing with you.

 

[cockbrain]

I believe that the focus on "proof" for God is ultimately a futile one... for God can only be "known" through ones relationship with God.

The "God" we might argue "is" will be the God of our imagination, which by definition will be less, and of a limiting order than God actually is.

In fact all talk of or about God must necessarily fall short in the very instant of expression.

The point to God is not how, and why God "is", rather how we relate to our fellow man. That is, how we act in relationship to God, our neighbour, and all things including our pets, and our stewardship of the environment an imperative.

At some point we try to put the foundation of all this in words because that is the human thing to do, but it seems to me that the instant we make a definitive definition of God, or Truth we may fail to embrace God, as God preferring to make a god in our own image.

It is futile to try to prove god's existence since we can't prove anything or anyone exists. And so saying god can only be known through one's relationship with it/him/her is silly.

 

[bankside]

I think I would say something like...at the heart of our most difficult philosophical questions there remains silence, darkness and mystery and if that were not so, our most difficult philosophical questions would not be difficult.

(I'm off to the rainy woods for a few hours to seek some much needed peace, but I'm looking forward to rejoining you all later this evening. ).

Okay. (I love rainy trees, btw, enjoy!)
I should point out that you and kallipolis are speaking very differently about metaphor, it seems. You seem to be arguing that metaphor is a beautiful way of understanding the natural world, and that discarding metaphor would make our understanding, if not incomplete, unnecessarily ugly.

Kallipolis's position comes across as metaphore being the main way we can understand, within the limits of our feeble human faculties, a reality which is not of the natural world, not the product of human creation, insight or imagination, not abstract but concrete if you allow that concrete must mean something different in that reality, and in every way beyond our capacity to understand or even imagine, and that we are to understand this is a fact, in the same way that water is h2o, or gold does not corrode, or, say, that Regis Philbin is good at math. Metaphor shields us, hides us, and hides this reality: it is a dust cover for an uncomfortable reality. It's a condescension to our supposed limitations.

But always we are to be assured that this reality exists. After all, there is a metaphor for it!

 

[mightbe]

I confess, I came here seeing only the the title and the original poster.

[anthropomorphism]

I was unaware that any intelligent human still considered this principle. It's such a petty notion. I don't know why this is one of the major points of your post.

[metaphors]

Why are you so adamant that metaphor is the only meaningful method of understanding? Your understanding of metaphor is unorthodox at best. Metaphor is merely an evolutionary tool that paves over deeper thought. They're easy. No one disputes that. But easy does not mean best. You have presupposed that metaphors are the be-all-end-all way of understanding.

To be precise, you have presupposed a lot of things that I don't care to list off.

I believe that the focus on "proof" for God is ultimately a futile one... for God can only be "known" through ones relationship with God.

Is this not overtly circular--One must believe to believe? Indefensible fallacy. You go on to say that doing good deeds and acting with deference are imperatives from God (the latter part being implied). I won't say that anything goes, but why must it be God? Shouldn't one be all that with or without your god?

Then you evade. "Oh, bother! We MUSTN'T define God, or else we'll lose sight!" Irrefutable, yes. Very bad argument, also yes. You can't just go around declaring everything that's difficult as 'beyond human comprehension'. While it would ultimately have to be for 'god' to 'work', it in no way supports your argument (or lack of one).

 

[zoltanspawn]

My issue lies in how believers determine whether something is taken metaphorically or literally. Are all verses open to this type of interpretation or just the ones that support slavery and women marrying their rapist.

There are many replies to this question, including right here on JUB. My own personal, non-Christian take on it is this: that it is not so much a question of which verses are to be understood literally or metaphorically, but a question of when verses are to be understood literally or metaphorically. Given a ritual setting, understanding that the resurrection of christ actually and really happened is an appropriate reflection (regarding metaphors as facts). Given a circumstance of factual review, there is probably little hard evidence that christ returned from the dead (regarding facts as facts). Given a circumstance somewhere in between, we may speak of the resurrection of christ as a metaphor engaging all the ineffable mysteries Jesus' story implies (regarding metaphors as metaphors.)

It's more like saying your dog is a cuisinart and we know you've never had a dog. When we ask how your dog is doing, you show us a drawing of a cuisinart and say he's doing fine.

Ha! My dogs are cuisinarts.

Perhaps a better example of a nonsensical metaphor would be something like this: god is a mean-spirited caterpillar. There are very few people who would say such a thing, because it doesn't capture any real sense of truth. On the other hand, there is recognition of truth in metaphors like, god is a devoted mother, or the world was made from mischief, or avalokiteshvara has one thousand arms to soothe the pains of the world.

I also don't think that claims of fact are necessarily built into metaphors, contrary to appearances. Though we speak of deities, creators or bodhisattvas, we may only be describing, as best we can, the nature of things.

Okay. (I love rainy trees, btw, enjoy!)
I should point out that you and kallipolis are speaking very differently about metaphor, it seems. You seem to be arguing that metaphor is a beautiful way of understanding the natural world, and that discarding metaphor would make our understanding, if not incomplete, unnecessarily ugly.

Kallipolis's position comes across as metaphore being the main way we can understand, within the limits of our feeble human faculties, a reality which is not of the natural world, not the product of human creation, insight or imagination, not abstract but concrete if you allow that concrete must mean something different in that reality, and in every way beyond our capacity to understand or even imagine, and that we are to understand this is a fact, in the same way that water is h2o, or gold does not corrode, or, say, that Regis Philbin is good at math. Metaphor shields us, hides us, and hides this reality: it is a dust cover for an uncomfortable reality. It's a condescension to our supposed limitations.

But always we are to be assured that this reality exists. After all, there is a metaphor for it!

I think Kallipolis and I share a similar regard for the mysteries of our world; I see those as such things as being, consciousness and suffering. That Kallipolis sometimes discusses these mysteries differently than I do has always seemed (to me) of the least possible importance.

 

[bankside]

Perhaps a better example of a nonsensical metaphor would be something like this: god is a mean-spirited caterpillar. There are very few people who would say such a thing, because it doesn't capture any real sense of truth. On the other hand, there is recognition of truth in metaphors like, god is a devoted mother, or the world was made from mischief, or avalokiteshvara has one thousand arms to soothe the pains of the world.

I also don't think that claims of fact are necessarily built into metaphors, contrary to appearances. Though we speak of deities, creators or bodhisattvas, we may only be describing, as best we can, the nature of things.

I think this is an eccentric understanding, though not entirely unique to yourself, very alien to the way these concepts are perceived and advocated by most people who would call themselves believers.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I think this is an eccentric understanding, though not entirely unique to yourself, very alien to the way these concepts are perceived and advocated by most people who would call themselves believers.

I think it's a very common understanding in many parts of hindu and buddhist thought. I agree it's alien to much of contemporary christianity which seems to mostly assume literalism.

 

[kallipolis]

I think it's a very common understanding in many parts of hindu and buddhist thought. I agree it's alien to much of contemporary christianity which seems to mostly assume literalism.

In my experience Evangelical Christians are much more inclined to embrace literalist understandings of Holy Scripture whereas, traditional Christianity - Orthodox, Catholic, Anglicans et al - particularly when speaking of the Jewish scriptures, value the wisdom of the mythos rather than reading scripture as a history book.

 

[ludolfo]

In my experience Evangelical Christians are much more inclined to embrace literalist understandings of Holy Scripture whereas, traditional Christianity - Orthodox, Catholic, Anglicans et al - particularly when speaking of the Jewish scriptures, value the wisdom of the mythos rather than reading scripture as a history book.

so its not true they demand you believe that Jesus Christ was an actual Son of God who was Crucified, and was Resurrected and sits at the right hand of His Father...?

 

[kallipolis]

so its not true they demand you believe that Jesus Christ was an actual Son of God who was Crucified, and was Resurrected and sits at the right hand of His Father...?

You may well have failed to understand my reference to the Jewish Scriptures, when I was speaking to the matter of traditional Christianity preferring to value the wisdom of the mythos in the stories of the "Old Testament."

Your reference to The Nicene Creed (The Council of Nicea AD 325) fails to appreciate that it is not part of Holy Scripture, the topic that I am addressing.

 

[Love me 2]

so its not true they demand you believe that Jesus Christ was an actual Son of God who was Crucified, and was Resurrected and sits at the right hand of His Father...?

http://www.divinesacredheart.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192

 

[ludolfo]

You may well have failed to understand my reference to the Jewish Scriptures, when I was speaking to the matter of traditional Christianity preferring to value the wisdom of the mythos in the stories of the "Old Testament."

Your reference to The Nicene Creed (The Council of Nicea AD 325) fails to appreciate that it is not part of Holy Scripture, the topic that I am addressing.

So, if what you say is true, you mean that they can read the OT as mythology but not the NT...?

 

[kallipolis]

So, if what you say is true, you mean that they can read the OT as mythology but not the NT...?

What I have said is fact....that The Nicene Creed was agreed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

I am saying that the issue is not whether the stories in both the Old, and New Testament are historical fact rather, that it is the wisdom being conveyed through the stories that is the essential ingredient of Holy Scripture....in other words, Holy Scripture is not a history book...rather a book(s) of wisdom inspired to assist people live a rewarding, and fulfilling life in relationship with the creator of our life...despite which Biblical mythos may well be based upon factual events which have been altered, and embellished over many centuries..... as do all stories that have been passed from generation, to generation by word of mouth spoken around camp fires enlightening communities with special events such as battles won, or lost and great men who have led their community centuries earlier....The New Testament is much more recent history therefore can be much more easily accepted as historical fact....while appreciating that the predictable anti religion hawks here will disagree with my assertion.

 

[bankside]

What I have said is fact....that The Nicene Creed was agreed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

I am saying that the issue is not whether the stories in both the Old, and New Testament are historical fact rather, that it is the wisdom being conveyed through the stories that is the essential ingredient of Holy Scripture....in other words, Holy Scripture is not a history book...rather a book(s) of wisdom inspired to assist people live a rewarding, and fulfilling life in relationship with the creator of our life...despite which Biblical mythos may well be based upon factual events which have been altered, and embellished over many centuries..... as do all stories that have been passed from generation, to generation by word of mouth spoken around camp fires enlightening communities with special events such as battles won, or lost and great men who have led their community centuries earlier....The New Testament is much more recent history therefore can be much more easily accepted as historical fact....while appreciating that the predictable anti religion hawks here will disagree with my assertion.

If you had called it a book of wisdom invented by wise people to assist people in living a rewarding and fulfilling life in relationship with each other, you'd have my agreement. If you could point to an editorial committee that had just published Version 7 based on the last few hundred years of scholarship, with a forward mentioning how much it had improved since the earliest days, I'd say it was even still worth consulting.

For Zoltanspawn's sake, who is probably wincing at the idea of an editorial committee: if there were even a custom of adding a new book each century, based on the greatest work of the greatest poets as selected by the congregants once in each hundred years of community life, I'd sign up.

But it isn't any of those things. It is a moribund and corrupt vessel of inanity that informs us only how to be obedient to a fictitious creator, or by the sheerest coincidence I'm sure, his earthly proxy, the priests. And of course, how to be complacent in the face of human misery.