Worship God, Not Religion

[Persona]

It dawned on me this morning as I was going to church... that religion is a good thing when it is of God.
God is love, light & truth.
Of course, we're all clumsily searching for God constantly - through trial & error (active faith). But if our goal is living up to our religion, we are subject to the changes & evil in it. Only God is GOoD. God is no respector of persons. God, our Creator, created us all - no matter what religion or nonreligion. Only God (pure love & truth) will never fail - all else will fail.

So, while it's good to have symbolic metaphores or rituals to connect with God, through religious groups, they are tools, not the end in themselves.

What do you think this world would be like if everyone - with courage or serenity (whichever the occasion calls for) - searched for GOoD & worshiped GOoD above all?

 

[Etu Malku]

It dawned on me this morning as I was going to church... that religion is a good thing when it is of God.
God is love, light & truth.
Of course, we're all clumsily searching for God constantly - through trial & error (active faith). But if our goal is living up to our religion, we are subject to the changes & evil in it. Only God is GOoD. God is no respector of persons. God, our Creator, created us all - no matter what religion or nonreligion. Only God (pure love & truth) will never fail - all else will fail.

So, while it's good to have symbolic metaphores or rituals to connect with God, through religious groups, they are tools, not the end in themselves.

What do you think this world would be like if everyone - with courage or serenity (whichever the occasion calls for) - searched for GOoD & worshiped GOoD above all?

Since you posted in "Comparative Studies" I guess I can address this, if not gingerly.

Religion is just what it is, Mankind's need for Comfort and Community. Whether that is good for you, only you will know.

God is what is known as the Objective Universe (RHP) (all things that adhere to the Laws of Physics), it is what has separated from the Singularity (Ain) through the desire to reflect upon itself and thus enabled the LHP which opposes this. What is called God is merely the reflection of the True Self. It is the Dance of Maya.

Not all religions, faiths, beliefs are "clumsily searching for God", for some of us it is quite the opposite, those who believe in this false premise God are clamoring to find answers to which there are none to be found within their belief system, only more questions.

 

[bananabrain]

Religion is just what it is, Mankind's need for Comfort and Community.

in your opinion.

Whether that is good for you, only you will know.

and, certainly, a beneficial religious system will prominently include the active answering of this question through constant self-challenge.

God is what is known as the Objective Universe (RHP) (all things that adhere to the Laws of Physics)

the Divine cannot "adhere" to the laws of physics without being subject to them. clearly, this is not what i (and most others) understand as being G!D, convenient though it may be for your views.

it is what has separated from the Singularity (Ain) through the desire to reflect upon itself and thus enabled the LHP which opposes this.

that sounds like another iteration of the gnostic myth of the demiurge and, frankly, this formulation appears to serve merely to justify the self-satisfaction typically evinced by the "lhp".

What is called God is merely the reflection of the True Self.

again, clearly if it is nothing more than a reflection of ourselves, it cannot be what i understand as being G!D. G!D Would Be G!D even without my existence, ie in the absence of a "true self" to reflect.

It is the Dance of Maya.

i'm not familiar with that, i don't think.

Not all religions, faiths, beliefs are "clumsily searching for God", for some of us it is quite the opposite

and, in fact, the opposite, as you put it, is also very much part of our search for meaning and the Divine. i'm not sure where that leaves your argument.

those who believe in this false premise God are clamoring to find answers to which there are none to be found within their belief system, only more questions.

my belief system doesn't really give me answers but, rather, a robust way of formulating meaningful questions - and your picture here appears to be a straw man; a false premise indeed.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Ah, but does physiccs cover the whole world? Not really. Is the objective universe only material? Not really.

Here are two examples: in arthimatic (the Formal Mathematics thereof) there exists the concept of two... irregardless of the material universe. And that "two" as a thought about and experience thing, is not of the material universe. The Godelian universe (with naturally occuring time lops and time travel) is "real" by the standard of physics and the theory of physics. But notice it does not exist (we do not wanke up like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day or Michael Sacks in Slaughter House Five).

So, not everything is explained by physics ("two"), nor is everything in physics "real" in terms of the world.

 

[Etu Malku]

in your opinion.

Well, my opinion is also many others opinion as well, these are not 'my' conclusions.

the Divine cannot "adhere" to the laws of physics without being subject to them. clearly, this is not what i (and most others) understand as being G!D, convenient though it may be for your views.

Exactly why there is nothing Divine outside of your Self.

that sounds like another iteration of the gnostic myth of the demiurge and, frankly, this formulation appears to serve merely to justify the self-satisfaction typically evinced by the "lhp".

Actually, all of these concepts come from Judaism and the Qabalah.

again, clearly if it is nothing more than a reflection of ourselves, it cannot be what i understand as being G!D. G!D Would Be G!D even without my existence, ie in the absence of a "true self" to reflect.

Simply, the notion of god is inaccurate and false.

my belief system doesn't really give me answers but, rather, a robust way of formulating meaningful questions - and your picture here appears to be a straw man; a false premise indeed.

you're entitled to your opinions no matter how unsubstantiated they may be

 

[Etu Malku]

Ah, but does physiccs cover the whole world? Not really. Is the objective universe only material? Not really.

Here are two examples: in arthimatic (the Formal Mathematics thereof) there exists the concept of two... irregardless of the material universe. And that "two" as a thought about and experience thing, is not of the material universe. The Godelian universe (with naturally occuring time lops and time travel) is "real" by the standard of physics and the theory of physics. But notice it does not exist (we do not wanke up like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day or Michael Sacks in Slaughter House Five).

So, not everything is explained by physics ("two"), nor is everything in physics "real" in terms of the world.

But doesn't physics attempt to explain the objective universe and what you are talking about would be the subjective universe, or am I confused (which is easy these days )

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

why would anyone want to worship ?

surely its a degrading experience ?

 

[taijasi]

why would anyone want to worship ?

surely its a degrading experience ?

Taking a walk on a beautiful day, admiring the flowers, children and even (some) modern art ... contemplating our place in the Universe, or even pausing for a moment to smell the pleasant fragrances of some of those flowers ... all of this (and so much more) is considered Worship by some of us.

NCoT, I can think of nothing more fulfilling, in certain states of mind, or on certain occasions, than what I have just described.

Similarly, if I am in the right company, properly composed (in thought, emotion and body) and spiritually attuned, and if it is one of the major Festivals of the year ... attending a Temple (of whatever tradition) or visiting a Sanctuary can also be entirely fulfilling.

The other form of Worship which I call to mind is making Love with a person with whom you are in Love. This last, perhaps, will most readily bring the average person far closer to the Divine (witting or otherwise), in terms of a truly moving experience, than for the majority of professed church-goers and religious nuts or zealots to spend all year on bended knee parroting off the mantrams and chants of lip service. [Consider Matt 21:31]

So, it depends greatly on what you mean by "worship," doesn't it!

One ounce of humility, NCoT, experienced even in one such moment as I have just described can be enough to dispel several years of vain ego-swelling ... or cynicism, doubt, fear and judgment.

Try it someday, this worship phenomenon. You just never know ...

{As to Whom, or what, however ... now THAT is something which we must each come to decide for ourselves.
Contemplating the object/s of our Worship, interwoven with Worship itself ... THIS is a Path worth treading!
Along these lines, serving in a soup kitchen for the Joy of it and purely to be of SERVICE ... THIS too is Worship!}

 

[radarmark]

But doesn't physics attempt to explain the objective universe and what you are talking about would be the subjective universe, or am I confused (which is easy these days )

Well, physics (I disagree with you) does try to explain the objective universe (what is "out there"). And physics predicts that "out there" can (should at least contain) a Godelian universe. It doesn't. So physics does not explain the material "objective universe".

The example of "two" is not a part of the "subjective universe" it can be communicated and taught and explained (hence it is objective, empirical, testible). But it is not physical or material. So the objective universe contains things physics (or material science of any sort) cannot explain.

 

[Etu Malku]

Well, physics (I disagree with you) does try to explain the objective universe (what is "out there"). And physics predicts that "out there" can (should at least contain) a Godelian universe. It doesn't. So physics does not explain the material "objective universe".

The example of "two" is not a part of the "subjective universe" it can be communicated and taught and explained (hence it is objective, empirical, testible). But it is not physical or material. So the objective universe contains things physics (or material science of any sort) cannot explain.

I get that, but for me this is backwards. That the objective/physical/material universe is a part of the subjective universe, not the other way around, which is why physics breaks down when it attempts to explain the subjective universe. (what did I just say?)

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Taking a walk on a beautiful day, admiring the flowers, children and even (some) modern art ... contemplating our place in the Universe, or even pausing for a moment to smell the pleasant fragrances of some of those flowers ... all of this (and so much more) is considered Worship by some of us.

NCoT, I can think of nothing more fulfilling, in certain states of mind, or on certain occasions, than what I have just described.

Similarly, if I am in the right company, properly composed (in thought, emotion and body) and spiritually attuned, and if it is one of the major Festivals of the year ... attending a Temple (of whatever tradition) or visiting a Sanctuary can also be entirely fulfilling.

The other form of Worship which I call to mind is making Love with a person with whom you are in Love. This last, perhaps, will most readily bring the average person far closer to the Divine (witting or otherwise), in terms of a truly moving experience, than for the majority of professed church-goers and religious nuts or zealots to spend all year on bended knee parroting off the mantrams and chants of lip service. [Consider Matt 21:31]

So, it depends greatly on what you mean by "worship," doesn't it!

One ounce of humility, NCoT, experienced even in one such moment as I have just described can be enough to dispel several years of vain ego-swelling ... or cynicism, doubt, fear and judgment.

Try it someday, this worship phenomenon. You just never know ...

{As to Whom, or what, however ... now THAT is something which we must each come to decide for ourselves.
Contemplating the object/s of our Worship, interwoven with Worship itself ... THIS is a Path worth treading!
Along these lines, serving in a soup kitchen for the Joy of it and purely to be of SERVICE ... THIS too is Worship!}

most of what you describe is not worship IMO, its appreciation. I'm talking about worship as in grovelling to some mythical being.

 

[Thomas]

It dawned on me this morning as I was going to church... that religion is a good thing when it is of God.

I agree, but I would say that doesn't really address what religion is?

But if our goal is living up to our religion, we are subject to the changes & evil in it.

Religions are 'limited' because man's comprehension is limited.

God is no respector of persons.

I disagree. If that were true, then God would be, and there could not be, religion.

Only God (pure love & truth) will never fail - all else will fail.

But think a moment, where does this statement about God come from? From religion. Now, if religion will fail, then perhaps it has already failed, in which case you statement about God might well be wrong ...

So, while it's good to have symbolic metaphores or rituals to connect with God, through religious groups, they are tools, not the end in themselves.

I would dispute that. Prayer is a tool, but it is also an end in that it is a dialogue and a dwelling with the Divine. I suggest people see such things as 'tools' because they have yet to realised their inner dimension.

The traditional understanding of the term 'symbol' is that the essence of the thing symbolised is accessible in and through the symbol, whereas a sign, for example, points in the direction of.

In traditional Christianity, for example, Christ is present in the Liturgy in a very real and utterly unique way.

What do you think this world would be like if everyone - with courage or serenity (whichever the occasion calls for) - searched for GOoD & worshiped GOoD above all?

A better place.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Why would a creator demand its creations 'worship' 'him'?

While I'm not for anthropomorphising principle, 's/he' must have a pretty low self esteem....

 

[radarmark]

The D!vine must have our worship (in the sense of meeting with it) to continue and to reap its rewards for Creation. This is a particularly restricted sense of worship.

In the broader sense of worship (a bunch of words or postures or humanly created stuff), like wil, it just makes no sense to me.

 

[bananabrain]

Well, my opinion is also many others opinion as well, these are not 'my' conclusions.

a lot of people are of the opinion that so-called "creation science" or homeopathy are plausible. clearly, the number of people that hold an opinion is not necessarily an overwhelming argument.

Exactly why there is nothing Divine outside of your Self.

perhaps i'm being a bit thick, but that seems remarkably solipsistic to me.

Actually, all of these concepts [the gnostic myth of the demiurge] come from Judaism and the Qabalah.

i think you've been giving too much credence to gershom scholem's opinion. if you want to make that as an argument, you'd really better produce some sources that back you up and, in my experience of judaism and kabbalah, i don't think you're on a winner.

Simply, the notion of god is inaccurate and false.

actually, i may well agree with you but only on the principle that any human notion of G!D is by definition inaccurate and false, whilst at the same time we must proceed on the best notion of G!D available, which is not that there is isn't One.

you're entitled to your opinions no matter how unsubstantiated they may be

i'm aware of that. similarly, it is the easiest thing in the world to give self-serving and tendentious reasons why X (to which you object) is wrong, but that doesn't excuse you from using self-serving and tendentious reasoning in the first place.

doesn't physics attempt to explain the objective universe?

doesn't kabbalah?

I'm talking about worship as in grovelling to some mythical being.

well, if that was what we were doing, then you'd be right. it isn't, so you you're not. same response as to etu malku, really.

Why would a creator demand its creations 'worship' 'him'?

the hebrew word for "worship" is 'ABODhaH - literally, "service" in the sense of work. G!D Commands us to serve the Divine Purpose, insofar as we understand it, which isn't that far, hence....

Religions are 'limited' because man's comprehension is limited.

precisely.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

well, if that was what we were doing, then you'd be right. it isn't, so you you're not. same response as to etu malku, really.

i have been to church and mosque and seen people grovel to their mythical god.

the hebrew word for "worship" is 'ABODhaH - literally, "service" in the sense of work. G!D Commands us to serve the Divine Purpose, insofar as we understand it, which isn't that far, hence....

thanks for that.

 

[bananabrain]

i have been to church and mosque and seen people grovel to their mythical god.

yes, but how do you actually *know*? you can't access their private experience. look up the word "kenosis" - this is most important as a concept. nullification of the self is achieved in a number of different ways, but all are critical for the inner journey. i'm not saying that some people don't grovel, but i don't think you're taking a very healthy attitude to the debate.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

yes, but how do you actually *know*? you can't access their private experience.

well no, but probably better than you can especially if I know them.

look up the word "kenosis" - this is most important as a concept. nullification of the self is achieved in a number of different ways, but all are critical for the inner journey.

i'm not saying that some people don't grovel, but i don't think you're taking a very healthy attitude to the debate.

b'shalom

bananabrain

i'm sorry you feel that way,

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Why would a creator demand its creations 'worship' 'him'?

While I'm not for anthropomorphising principle, 's/he' must have a pretty low self esteem....

thanks for that Wil,

Genesis 1:27
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

if God is anything like us then maybe yeah ?

 

[Etu Malku]

a lot of people are of the opinion that so-called "creation science" or homeopathy are plausible. clearly, the number of people that hold an opinion is not necessarily an overwhelming argument.

Safety in numbers?

perhaps i'm being a bit thick, but that seems remarkably solipsistic to me.

It could be viewed as Solipsism, but I recognize other minds and a world. Like sees like.

i think you've been giving too much credence to gershom scholem's opinion. if you want to make that as an argument, you'd really better produce some sources that back you up and, in my experience of judaism and kabbalah, i don't think you're on a winner.

Scholem and Luria certainly have veiws about Qabalah that I embrace, but Judaic Qabalah is not the whole of my studies. As for "winning", since I don't believe any of this stuff to be anything more than paradigms of the unconsciousness, I'm free to choose whatever aspects of whichever system resonates with me . . . dude, it's ALL MAKE-BELIEVE, have Chaotic fun with it!

actually, i may well agree with you but only on the principle that any human notion of G!D is by definition inaccurate and false, whilst at the same time we must proceed on the best notion of G!D available, which is not that there is isn't One.

Sounds like a plan, or rather an un-plan?

doesn't physics attempt to explain the objective universe?

doesn't kabbalah?

I was under the impression the Qabalah is a spiritual map that shows us the foundation of the objective universe and how we separated from our singularity (AIN) into duality, caused by the Self's desire to reflect upon itself, it's gradual decent into the material plane (Malkuth) and thus creating a RHP and LHP?