How to meet God ?

Paladin said:
From your perspective, no it doesn't.
But if you begin from the perspective that there is a certain facet of life unreachable through normal rational means, a "post rational" approach would be a necessary injunction to understanding IT.
Every religion has within it a certain practice of pre-rational or magical thinking aspect to it, and those with that level of understanding will give you a hard time in defending their perspective. Note here that a well constructed argument will not dissuade them because of their "hard wiring" so to speak.

Still, there is that certain something you have alluded to in past posts, a mystery that the world religions have not satisfied for you. All you have seen thus far is a magic/mythic approach which offends your rational sensibilities.

Is it possible that you throw out the baby with the bath water here? I don't mean that you should buy into the popular view, but perhaps the old stories and poems pointed to something that those who experienced it had no choice but to explain it in view of their own understanding. Perhaps that certain something, call IT what you will is still awaiting recognition, awareness?
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is just philosophy and linguistics, Paladin. How about some quick, easy steps for how to meet G-d?
 
Netti-Netti said:
Sorry, this is just philosophy and linguistics, Paladin. How about some quick, easy steps for how to meet G-d?
Click to expand...
How about a myriad of different methods and pathways, a unique one for every being alive?

Why try to boil it down to a formula?

If it were that easy, it would have been discovered by now.

Sorry Netti... I probably missed the intended humor.
 
Netti-Netti said:
Sorry, this is just philosophy and linguistics, Paladin. How about some quick, easy steps for how to meet G-d?
Click to expand...

Here it is dude:

The Mini-Manual for Meeting God

Tools you will need:

One bullet +
One Firearm

Instructions:

(For your own safety please read caref... wait...
scratch that... never mind.... Carry on.)


  1. Place cartridge in firearm
  2. Point firearm towards temple
  3. Gently squeeze till loud bang is heard
  4. Wait...
  5. Prepare to meet angry Maker who is mad at you for barging in on Him in such an ill advised way.

DISCLAIMER:

death-permanent-demotivational-poster.jpg
 
god-and-facebook.gif



Remind me to ask SG for better Internet search strategies...
I must be using the wrong search terms.
 
wil said:
Can you define worship and down?
Click to expand...

yes I can, can you ?

I don't see where any supreme being of any value needs/requires worship...no ego needing feeding. And down to me references a coming from up. Both seem to me archaic/elementary references to source. References which handcuff spirit.
Click to expand...

whatever wil, I'm just saying what works for me ;)

John 4:23-24
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Click to expand...

and BTW

1 Corinthians 3:19-20 (New International Version)

19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
Click to expand...
 
GlorytoGod said:
yes I can, can you ?
Click to expand...
I have the dictionary definition, I am asking what it means to you so I may understand.

Down, as in reference to up? You see that aspect of G!d above the clouds in some celestial heaven was lost with the advent of the telescope, and then our first cosmonaut was able to say 'I don't see G!d up here!' or some such nonsense because we held onto this belief that G!d was not omnipresent, but 'up' at some location. ie if G!d were up, for us in the northern hemisphere, where would heaven be for aussies? They'd have to look down, thru the earth, in the direction we are looking up? That is why I have issues with references of G!d coming 'down' here and why I asked you what you meant.

Love the lord thy G!d with all your faith, all your strength, all your heart...I can buy that...but that to me isn't worship...I love my kids, my brothers, my fellow man...I don't worship them, this is why I need definitions.

I don't see G!d as needing or worrying about such petty things, do you? "You didn't worship me today, so I'll smite you, well maybe not smite, but maybe I'll just toss my blessings over here on Tampa/St. Pete, and let that hurricane hit New Orleans since you guys haven't been worshipping lately"

I don't buy that G!d that needs worship, this is why I asked you.

I'm looking forward to your meanings of these words so I can understand your posts more.
 
wil said:
Love the lord thy G!d with all your faith, all your strength, all your heart...I can buy that...but that to me isn't worship...I love my kids, my brothers, my fellow man...I don't worship them, this is why I need definitions.

Same with worship, I don't see G!d as needing or worrying about such petty things, do you? "You didn't worship me today, so I'll smite you, well maybe not smite, but maybe I'll just toss my blessings over here on Tampa/St. Pete, and let that hurricane hit New Orleans since you guys haven't been worshipping lately"

I don't buy that G!d that needs worship, this is why I asked you.

I'm looking forward to your meanings of these words so I can understand your posts more.
Click to expand...

i hear what you are saying wil,

but as I quoted earlier

1 Corinthians 3:19-20 (New International Version)

19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
Click to expand...
as for the post you are banging on about, its very simple and uses plain english and requires no more explanation than that, OK.
 
GlorytoGod said:
as for the post you are banging on about, its very simple and uses plain english and requires no more explanation than that, OK.
Click to expand...
Evidently I am dense, because it doesn't make sense to me, and that is the reason I asked you to expound.

Jesus tells me to look neither high nor low for the kingdom is in my midst. Therefore to me, G!d does not have to come 'down' from anywhere, it is me that needs to be with G!d as G!d is already here with me...it is me that needs to open my eyes...My prayers, my contemplations don't change/move G!d they move me.

So you have a definition that suits you for 'down' and 'worship' I've told you my understanding yet you don't wish to tell me yours?
 
Paladin said:
From your perspective, no it doesn't.
But if you begin from the perspective that there is a certain facet of life unreachable through normal rational means, a "post rational" approach would be a necessary injunction to understanding IT.
Every religion has within it a certain practice of pre-rational or magical thinking aspect to it, and those with that level of understanding will give you a hard time in defending their perspective. Note here that a well constructed argument will not dissuade them because of their "hard wiring" so to speak.

Still, there is that certain something you have alluded to in past posts, a mystery that the world religions have not satisfied for you. All you have seen thus far is a magic/mythic approach which offends your rational sensibilities.

Is it possible that you throw out the baby with the bath water here? I don't mean that you should buy into the popular view, but perhaps the old stories and poems pointed to something that those who experienced it had no choice but to explain it in view of their own understanding. Perhaps that certain something, call IT what you will is still awaiting recognition, awareness?
Click to expand...
There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

And please note these conventions have nothing to do with the common ideas that a rational person is a well thought out person and an irrational one is a chaotic maniac. These are philosophical conventions, nothing more.

Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of knowledge.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge.

Both arguments have to assume their "bottom plank" cause exists in the first place in order to "prove" they exist in the first place. This is unacceptable circular reasoning for both, and both are equally victimized by it. Therefore, ultimately, neither side can appeal to their bottom plank in any true rational sense to support their claims.

However, we do live in a reality of some kind-- so in order to decipher what that reality is, we agree to put aside the ultimate paradox and work from that point upwards (though there is a third worldview which says we may be brains in a jar or the thoughts of an author and not actually exist at all, but even still the same agreement would apply). Therefore, the collective use of perception and the sciences can be harnessed to make sense of our environment, and as humans continue they show a clear trend towards doing precisely that. The sticky wicket here is that those tools may work in both a naturally-caused and a supernaturally-caused realm.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of the penultimate-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, no human spirit or otherwise could attain godhood according to the fundamental Judeo-Christian paradigm).

Furthermore, I see no practical way to come from a rational perspective and assert an irrational one as the foundation. What happened "before existence existed" may be forever beyond us but that doesn't make it irrational as a concept -- it may be the "normal" state of affairs (just like the moment of time I just passed through may be completely beyond my ability to reclaim, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen in a natural way). God, however, is not only described by theists as irrational (outside of reason), but even as a concept is outside of reason (and I know theists will disagree with me vociferously on that point).

I conclude atheism simply because the paradigms offered by theists do not hold together for me (it really isn't any more complicated or diabolical than that)-- they are fatally flawed for one reason or another. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

Pray to your gods, worship them, hallelujah down the street if you want, teach your children about flying winged men in nightgowns, fat naked babies playing harps, chariots of fire cruising through the clouds, that seas part and books predict the end of the world, teach them all of these things if you want to, believe in them all if you must, but I find absolutely no reason to believe any of it.

 
Resigned said:
There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

And please note these conventions have nothing to do with the common ideas that a rational person is a well thought out person and an irrational one is a chaotic maniac. These are philosophical conventions, nothing more.

Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of knowledge.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge.

Both arguments have to assume their "bottom plank" cause exists in the first place in order to "prove" they exist in the first place. This is unacceptable circular reasoning for both, and both are equally victimized by it. Therefore, ultimately, neither side can appeal to their bottom plank in any true rational sense to support their claims.

However, we do live in a reality of some kind-- so in order to decipher what that reality is, we agree to put aside the ultimate paradox and work from that point upwards (though there is a third worldview which says we may be brains in a jar or the thoughts of an author and not actually exist at all, but even still the same agreement would apply). Therefore, the collective use of perception and the sciences can be harnessed to make sense of our environment, and as humans continue they show a clear trend towards doing precisely that. The sticky wicket here is that those tools may work in both a naturally-caused and a supernaturally-caused realm.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions of the penultimate-- in fact, it only adds an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). Materialists don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind (other than the self-asserted supernatural one, but even then, no human spirit or otherwise could attain godhood according to the fundamental Judeo-Christian paradigm).

Furthermore, I see no practical way to come from a rational perspective and assert an irrational one as the foundation. What happened "before existence existed" may be forever beyond us but that doesn't make it irrational as a concept -- it may be the "normal" state of affairs (just like the moment of time I just passed through may be completely beyond my ability to reclaim, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen in a natural way). God, however, is not only described by theists as irrational (outside of reason), but even as a concept is outside of reason (and I know theists will disagree with me vociferously on that point).

I conclude atheism simply because the paradigms offered by theists do not hold together for me (it really isn't any more complicated or diabolical than that)-- they are fatally flawed for one reason or another. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

Pray to your gods, worship them, hallelujah down the street if you want, teach your children about flying winged men in nightgowns, fat naked babies playing harps, chariots of fire cruising through the clouds, that seas part and books predict the end of the world, teach them all of these things if you want to, believe in them all if you must, but I find absolutely no reason to believe any of it.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I don't hold either view you mention and do agree with you up to a point, but that point is one of departure for us. I submit what I do because I believe in the spirit of enquiry, though I'm not trying to say anything is wrong with those who do not.

There is so much out there written by people who don't share the first cause idea but have seen more than a material world.
Truly an integral view might be needed but that again might intimate a mystery you would rather avoid.
 
Resigned said:
There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

And please note these conventions have nothing to do with the common ideas that a rational person is a well thought out person and an irrational one is a chaotic maniac. These are philosophical conventions, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I'd say that this is a rather limited paradigm. Ask the wrong question within this paradigm, and you'll probably come up with some irrational reactions from one who is trapped within this paradigm.
 
Dream said:
I am such a stud. I cannot believe my posts are getting ignored!
Click to expand...
Don't feel bad, Dream. If your messages are so easy to ignore when you are right here posting on the thread, just imagine how easy it would be to ignore the more subtle messages from God. :eek:
 
Resigned said:
There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.
Click to expand...

I always love when somebody tries to make everything so simple.

Two views. That's it.

Nothing more to see here. Move along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top