GENIUS FORUMS

It wasn't intended to be funny, my Wanker-Prince.

Universal History

It was a quote, and an idea, of Jorge Luis Borges which could be relevant to the things we are discussing.
_______________________________________________________

False metaphors? Almost by definition a metaphor is false isn't it? To avoid all that, y'all avail yourselves of a modified naturalism, funnelled through a strict rationalistic screen, where any dastardly metaphor is squelched. For y'all there are no metaphors, there is only 'absolute reality' arrived at by an intense, mental activity. Well, that is what you say of course. We who read here know that no one of you accomplishes that, nor is any one of you 'enlightened'. It's all game.

'Image management'.

Obviously, when it comes to a proof or definition of God (except as you rehearse it as the sum-total of All, which is in fact meaningless)---and you asked this of Anna---one can only present metaphors, allusions. It has been said that the intellect can carry us to the portal where a conception of God is presented, but could the intellect ever enter through that portal? They say the answer is 'no'. One passes that portal using other 'tools' of consciousness. All the people y'all refer to have approached God, or passed that 'portal' with a leap of faith, in ways radically different from what y'all recommend. My sole purpose is to point this out. My sole purpose is to 'defend a conceptual pathway to the possibility of the existence of a personal God'.

It is very, very true that the territory of 'knowing of God', that interior sense that one has some fellowship with the Divine, is completely problematic. Yet, it is not a good idea to abandon the whole question, the whole pursuit, because it is a trouble-territory and because, from the look of it, so many people get it wrong, resort to superstition, etc. Your 'solution' is to regard all of this effort as pathology, and to veer away from it. But, I suggest, this leaves a sort of dried-up shell of a person, not a complete person. That is probably my core position as I have been 'meditating' on y'all. It is the missing piece that concerns and intrigues me, or that part that seems to have been carved out of you.

I hope that I am making myself clear.

Alex,

Your 'solution' is to regard all of this effort as pathology, and to veer away from it. But, I suggest, this leaves a sort of dried-up shell of a person, not a complete person.

Are you saying that those of us who do not have a relationship with God are not complete persons?

I hope that I am making myself clear.

No.

.


-Kelly-
Anna, your entire argument rests on the premise that there even is such a thing as a God.

-tomas-
God's House ... The House of God.




-Kelly-
You don't even bother proving it.

-tomas-
So, what's the hurry?




-Kelly-
Seriously, what is the point of your long discussion with Alex?

-tomas-
Hey, you know, some of us gotta work, too.

PS - Carry on, Anna and Alex.
I'm enjoying (and learning).

Happy Trails..



.

Shahrazad,

In my view, the notion of God is not at all simple, and has very little to do with average conceptions, the comic-book versions. I would likely resort to an existential sense of God---in this sense I am similar perhaps to the QRS---and would describe a relationship with God as my being's relationship with Being, our existence here, the sphere of life, the platform of life. Insofar as I would say---I do say---that our being interacts with Being, and Being interacts with us in a conscious way, I suggest a mysterious relationship that cannot be precisely defined, only alluded to, suggested, hinted at. From what (little) I know of you, you reject the plebeian version of God as provided by a course Catholicism, so what you reject, I understand. More about your beliefs, I just don't know.

So, to answer your question, to reject the stupid, comic-book versions is a necessary thing. But to reject a 'living relationship' with that-which-provides-life, with Life, with the higher dimensions in our own consciousness, in the context of our relationships, our struggles, our hard-to-define interior life, our coming into existence and our going out of existence, and to remain within a dry rationalism, as my dear but misguided colleagues extol---that is, in my meek and humble opinion, to live incompletely.

Alex Jacob wrote:Shahrazad,

In my view, the notion of God is not at all simple, and has very little to do with average conceptions, the comic-book versions. I would likely resort to an existential sense of God---in this sense I am similar perhaps to the QRS---and would describe a relationship with God as my being's relationship with Being, our existence here, the sphere of life, the platform of life. Insofar as I would say---I do say---that our being interacts with Being, and Being interacts with us in a conscious way, I suggest a mysterious relationship that cannot be precisely defined, only alluded to, suggested, hinted at. From what (little) I know of you, you reject the plebeian version of God as provided by a course Catholicism, so what you reject, I understand. More about your beliefs, I just don't know.

So, to answer your question, to reject the stupid, comic-book versions is a necessary thing. But to reject a 'living relationship' with that-which-provides-life, with Life, with the higher dimensions in our own consciousness, in the context of our relationships, our struggles, our hard-to-define interior life, our coming into existence and our going out of existence, and to remain within a dry rationalism, as my dear but misguided colleagues extol---that is, in my meek and humble opinion, to live incompletely.

See, everyone? Alex can do it when he tries!

Alex, this is precisely the way I feel, only at a level of simple eloquence I have my usual difficulty in maintaining. I wish everyone could just for a second appreciate the beauty of what Alex is saying here.

It's as if having outgrown comic books, people decide that all reading is a waste of time. Wouldn't making such a decision be to live incompletely?

Simply put, I have trouble with the "Men of the Infinite" idea, when I believe that what we in reality are is Children of the Infinite, having vastly more to learn than to impart.

Alex Jacob wrote:But to reject a 'living relationship' with that-which-provides-life, with Life, with the higher dimensions in our own consciousness, in the context of our relationships, our struggles, our hard-to-define interior life, our coming into existence and our going out of existence, and to remain within a dry rationalism, as my dear but misguided colleagues extol---that is, in my meek and humble opinion, to live incompletely.

They work on the hypothesis that reasoning carried to its limits would reveal the mysterious "that-which-provides-life" (god) and our inner life (the mind), and "our coming out and going into existence" (life and death). Their supposition is virtually identical to Jnana yoga that reason carried to extreme leaves nothing mysterious. That is it either shows the question as nonsensical, or provides the answer.

Kelly,

First, there is a difference between the expression 'a god' meaning any old thing, versus The God, meaning something more universally understood. If you read the context, you'll see that my phrasing was not redundant.

Anna, your entire argument rests on the premise that there even is such a thing as a God. You don't even bother proving it. Seriously, what is the point of your long discussion with Alex?

Of course it does, because Alex believes in God.
It would be like you and me proving the existence or value of logic. Why bother. We agree.

But for you, existence is the proof of God.

Anna wrote:Anna, your entire argument rests on the premise that there even is such a thing as a God. You don't even bother proving it. Seriously, what is the point of your long discussion with Alex?

Anna: Of course it does, because Alex believes in God.

You meant 'of course I don't bother proving it...'? That's whacko. One doesn't accept something to be true merely because others believe it is true. I think you are passing the buck in a very blatant manner.

It would be like you and me proving the existence or value of logic. Why bother. We agree.

It is not agreement that negates need for proof, but a concept's definitional or pragmatic accuracy. And you have neglected this point utterly.

But for you, existence is the proof of God.

Excuse me, but it all depends what 'God' is defined as. If God = the Infinite, then there is no proof possible. If anything else, then firstly that definition needs to be examined for internal coherence, and if it is coherent, then for the possibility of delusional psychological elements creeping in, and if these are absent, then for scientific evidence in the environment.


Just trying to redeem a noble thread, which has strayed into worldly temptations....

Alex,

Can't you see that reason gave you the method of defining Life, and is therefore hardly a path of incompletion?

Or is it, your definition is not rational, and you are afraid of examining it closely?

Kelly you must be bored.

You meant 'of course I don't bother proving it...'? That's whacko. One doesn't accept something to be true merely because others believe it is true. I think you are passing the buck in a very blatant manner.

You're being downright silly. Neither Alex nor I accept God because of the other one's belief. There are any number of things that people who already know one another can begin to talk about, and which someone else might think ought to be proved.

You just want to say that you don't believe in God.

It is not agreement that negates need for proof, but a concept's definitional or pragmatic accuracy. And you have neglected this point utterly.

I never said it did. I never said that because Alex and I believe in God, it is proven for all time.

Excuse me, but it all depends what 'God' is defined as. If God = the Infinite, then there is no proof possible. If anything else, then firstly that definition needs to be examined for internal coherence, and if it is coherent, then for the possibility of delusional psychological elements creeping in, and if these are absent, then for scientific evidence in the environment.

God = existence.

Just trying to redeem a noble thread, which has strayed into worldly temptations....

How funny. The thread starts off with a trite and worldly discussion of home ownership, and now we talk about the true versus false God and you say we have fallen into worldly temptation.

If, as you say, you have been using God to mean Existence itself, then why did you say:

The god of this universe does not single out a particular people and tell them that they must worship by force.

as this implies that there is such a thing as a god of this universe that lets people choose how it should be worshipped.

[edited to add last sentence]

Understanding God necessitates rejection of falsehoods, specifically, that things inherently exist.

The house-holder mentality thrives on such falsehoods, and so is steeped in worldiness.

Kelly Jones wrote:Understanding God necessitates rejection of falsehoods, specifically, that things inherently exist.

The house-holder mentality thrives on such falsehoods, and so is steeped in worldiness.

What is this "house-holder mentality" of which you speak? How would it be defined in specific terms? May one own a house without acquiring also the mentality?

Kelly Jones wrote:If, as you say, you have been using God to mean Existence itself, then why did you say:

The god of this universe does not single out a particular people and tell them that they must worship by force.

as this implies that there is such a thing as a god of this universe that lets people choose how it should be worshipped.

[edited to add last sentence]

Whom are you addressing. I like to follow along, but can't easily place this quote.

It's quoting Anna, from the previous page, Carl. I referred to it in my first response to Anna (9th September, towards the end of the previous page).

Carl G wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Understanding God necessitates rejection of falsehoods, specifically, that things inherently exist.

The house-holder mentality thrives on such falsehoods, and so is steeped in worldiness.

What is this "house-holder mentality" of which you speak?

It's the one with strong emotional connections to having its own dwelling. It's the home-body's mentality. The home is a special sanctuary all it's own, decorated and furnished with treasured possessions that reflect a specific personality and specific values (like Ikea's), and somewhere protected where the rest of the world is pushed out of consciousness.

It's animal consciousness. Take any of the animals from Wind in the Willows, even the Weasels, and you have a basic house-holder.

May one own a house without acquiring also the mentality?

Yes, but people generally only desire to have their own house in the first place because they still have a heart.

And the heart is animal.

Kelly,

If, as you say, you have been using God to mean Existence itself, then why did you say:

The god of this universe does not single out a particular people and tell them that they must worship by force.

as this implies that there is such a thing as a god of this universe that lets people choose how it should be worshipped.

You had asked for a proof of God. The proof of God is existence itself. The nature of God is more speculative.
You are sure there is no mind or consciousness, I am not. There are levels and layers of God. We may contact at different layers. I think there is a personal aspect, but I don't quite understand it.
Your belief system is dependent upon Darwinian evolution being true. That is one of the most unfounded faiths humans have ever fallen for, and it is falling quickly. Once it becomes more and more known and acknowledged that this life and this universe require a mind, what will you do then?

I certainly do think God lets people worship however they want. God lets everyone do what they want and couldn't possibly care less how they worship. But everyone worships. There are no exceptions and there is no escape.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Carl G wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Understanding God necessitates rejection of falsehoods, specifically, that things inherently exist.

The house-holder mentality thrives on such falsehoods, and so is steeped in worldiness.

What is this "house-holder mentality" of which you speak?

It's the one with strong emotional connections to having its own dwelling.

Right, strong emotional connections to anything are not beneficial, from an enlightened point of view.

It's the home-body's mentality.

Hmm, here in the U.S. a homebody is defined as someone who prefers to stay home as much as possible. I don't think a homebody necessarily correlates to a householder mentality. For instance, a person may enjoy reading or gardening to travel and shopping whether or not they rent or own, or have a particular emotional attachment to the home itself.

The home is a special sanctuary all it's own,

As well it should be, and certainly can be, I think, apart from any emotional attachment, and apart from ownership or tenant status.

decorated and furnished with treasured possessions

The loaded word there is "treasured," which indicates emotional attachment. Of course something may be treasured for it's practical applications, such as a computer for disseminating truth.

that reflect a specific personality and specific values (like Ikea's),

True, all too often our possessions become status symbols, as well as fillers of our emotional needs, and just plain mindless accumulations. And so many homes become storage shelters for this effluvia and repositories or museums of our emotional hopes and dreams, our sentimental ideals for how life should be.

and somewhere protected where the rest of the world is pushed out of consciousness.

Well, this can be true in a pathological way, or it can be true in a healthy sane way. This is why I believe householder is not provably a negative state of being. I do not believe householder and enlightened need be mutually exclusive. It is all in how one goes about it. Another word for householder can be homesteader. Another word could be farmer, or in the German, bauer, or builder.

It's animal consciousness. Take any of the animals from Wind in the Willows, even the Weasels, and you have a basic house-holder.

Yes, the negative (unconscious) variety, I agree. And yet that is all most beings can aspire to. And in a way there is even honor in that, if done well.

May one own a house without acquiring also the mentality?

Yes, but people generally only desire to have their own house in the first place because they still have a heart.

And the heart is animal.

Generally, yes.

I'm moving the topic 'Understanding God' to a new thread, as things are a bit too unwieldy.

Carl,

Have another look at the Dhammapada quote, which mentions the house-builder.

Fourth post in this thread.

does owning a house make you "enlightend" or whatever crap you losers believe?

I think Tony Barber, of Sale of the Century, was the leading light of that school of thought. "Let's Go Shopping!" - lights, music, new realms, the final solution to all suffering.

woohoo ive becom enlightened

I guess you realised that meant 'no'.

no why