More Contradictions in Religion...

[kai wren]

I'll give it a shot, but I could be totally wrong.

I think the problem is that your perceptions of what would limit god are.

Gdo clearly believes that it is not limiting at all for God to be part of his creation, accepting that he is part of everything inside it, because clearly if God created everything, he would have to be inside his creation to create that.

The problem comes when you consider what was there before God created... anything, because from our standpoint there must have been a place for him to be before he created this place. Therefore, God must be outside his creation, because he was around before it was created.

I believe that Christianity gets around this problem quite well with the Trinity- the Father is outside this universe, The Son is inside the world, and the Holy Ghost is everywhere. Thus they can represent one overall deity as being in three places at once simply and easily.


(note: Him was used in this post for ease, and is not meant to oppress your own beliefs as to the gender of your deity.)

[gdo]

LOL!!

OK.  It is not really to complicated.

Imagine for a moment that EVERYTHING that can exist and has ever existed is the physical manifest ion of the creator.  

There is no possibility of anything being outside of god or the creator at all.  It is not a person.  It is not a humanoid image.  It can have no name.  There is no name that would suffice in any language.  Even the word god is insufficient.  The ONE Wholeness of all of that exists is beyond the grasp of  what words can convey.

That does not mean that this concept is beyond a human experience.

A good example of this is that you cannot talk to a dead person and ask them what death or the afterlife is like.  But, neither of the two experiences rely on BELIEF alone.  

There are persons who have had experiences that are beyond the common uses of most languages.   You cannot see an electron or electricity but you can observe  their cumulative effects.  The normal and average human can only perceive that which is available to the limited capabilities of the eyeball and the parts of the brain that really 'see'.  
You only SEE the visual band vibrations that are referred to as 'light'.
You and all of us do not SEE infrared or  ultraviolet but we can sense its effects.  
Now, multiply that.  There are forms of existence that the average persons cannot perceive.  They are not common experiences and there are not common word for them in most languages.  Hence, each culture utilized what IS common to convey a concept based on what is important to that culture.  

The word 'god' is, in effect, a normalization.  It represents the totality of what science and religion and art and culture can imply and then goes on infinitely.

It is elegantly expressed in the 'Shema'.  But that is by no means a definition.  

No one religion on earth can encompass the reality of what 'god' is.  But, all things on earth and all that are on earth are encompassed by 'god'.

Otherwise, 'god' would not be god, but only a regional Deity invented by a small group of mankind isolated in history, and eventually destroyed by invention and the inventive.

[Beth]

gdo wrote:

OK. It is not really to complicated.
Imagine for a moment that EVERYTHING that can exist and has ever existed is the physical manifest ion of the creator. There is no possibility of anything being outside of god or the creator at all... All things on earth and all that are on earth are encompassed by 'god'.

You mean "pantheism" then???

Various Definitions of Pantheism:

1) An understanding which identifies God and the world as one, either without qualification, or with the world as a divine emanation, body, development, appearance, or modality.
2) Belief that God equates to the universe, and vice versa.
3) The doctrine that God is in all things.
4) The belief that God and the Universe are identical.
5) The philosophical form of monism that identifies mind and matter, finite and infinite, as manifestations of One Universal or Absolute Being, the doctrine which holds that the self-existent universe, conceived as a whole, is God.

and so on, and so on...

On one level of understanding, this is equivalent to the Greek idea of the Cosmic Logos which I mentioned earlier. That is why I said that sometimes I think we agree, and then you say something that contradicts your previously stated position...:confused:

~Beth

p.s. The "Shema" recitation tells us very little about "God." The Shema is more about "Humanity." The Shema is about Judaism's belief in the "relationship between them and God."  And "hashema" or "THE NAME" tells us even less...

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth

I have a few observations if you don't mind. I think that often the issue is not so much in a difference of belief but rather definition. It seems to me that you as a scholar are used to defining things very strictly. "If this is what you believe you go in that box, if that then that box" etc Much like earth science separating living things into groups mammals amphibians etc. This is apparently the only way you feel that a logic argument can be made, and maybe what we all miss..............but maybe not.

On this board as you well know it seems however that folks do not always know what they know so to speak, they have ideas and inspirations yet do not know the terms and definitions of said ideas, and you then spend long posts telling them "what they believe" so to speak.

I have tried to follow your arguments many times but often fail to relate to your points. Your intelligence and knowledge in your field is unquestionable and very inspiring, yet I find that with all your learning you sometimes miss a few things here and there. This is not said as a criticism of you but seems to be the by product of being a learned person.

In some ways Robert Bruce in his books, and also here on the net made a great break through in this area. He somehow was able to transcend established structures and discuss the issues themselves. He stayed away from "boxes" and definitions like Chakras Karma etc and just discussed the content of the box.

I don't know if I make myself clear it is just an observation, but it seem that in your area of expertise you have created a belief system or rather a non belief system with a very rigid support grid.

The idea that God can be in a box and even that he can be explained is IMO ludicrous in the first place. I think we all agree that there is a guiding force and we are all concerned with tapping into it, like a giant reservoir, but it seems that you often get into "how it will not work" or "what is not true" instead of what is and what will, making you the "judge or referee" in various discussions, rather than a player.

This emphasis on the more negative aspect of beliefs, seem a common pitfall to academics. It is not a big deal and is not said to minimize all you have to share but just a observation.

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

Well, your post is an interesting turn of topics. Instead of giving your opinion about the discussion underway, you have, for some reason, tried to make "me" the issue. That is not what this thread, or this forum is all about. You have done this before...what makes you want to do that?

The only reason that I can think of, is that you disagree with my posts, but you cannot refute the points that I am making, so you try to "refute me personally" instead.

This just makes you look bad in the end, even though you try really hard to prevent this from happening when you say repeatedly that you don't wish to "offend me."

When you say something that is offending to someone and then say that "you don't mean to offend" you are psychologically trying to manipulate the situation in an attempt to excuse you from your own insulting behavior.

In other words, you are trying to diminish me personally with your negative points, e.g, that my academic background and level of intelligence is a negative influence to this forum, while at the same time you are trying to make yourself "a positive influence" by assuring me you do not wish "to offend me" while you are doing just that!

Religious Conservatives use this abnormal psychological tactic all the time to defend their irrational and hate-filled doctrines and dogmas. Like when they tell gay people that they are an abomination in the eyes of God, and that they will surely burn in hell for it, but that "as Christians" they "will love them anyway."    

Compassionate Conservative Christians: Hateful Judges wrapped in Loving Robes.

As to the issue currently being discussed on this thread, I am not the one trying to put God into a box. In fact, I am doing my level best -- not just here on the AP, but in all the work that I am doing -- to liberate God from all the boxes that humanity has built.  My most recent posts are pointing out why we cannot define God without building such a box.

"Language" in general and "certain religions" in specific are the "very rigid" structures that prohibit us in our understanding of, and our ability to discuss "God" and our astral experiences--not me. Further, we are not limited by the academic training or intelligent thinking that teaches us that our systems are not adequate to address the totality of the human experience.

In fact, I wish we did have the language capability that would make all of this easier, and moreover, I wish that our "religions" would encourage the exploration of God, instead of mandating prohibitions for doing so.  

And finally, I am a referee Mustardseed.  If you will remember, I was asked to be a moderator in the religion section because of my education--not in spite of it. Trust me when I say that as a moderator, I am not allowed to say a lot of things that I would really like to say sometimes...so "my personal opinions" are actually quite rare on this forum...

~Beth

p.s. If you think that it is in the best interest of this forum that I no longer remain in a referee capacity, please feel free to PM Adrian and ask for my termination.

[kai wren]

For my part... I enjoy Beth's posts. I'm actually quite interested in how Mustardseed would rather have things defined... it seems there is some kind of stigma attached to trying to pin things down with words, personally, I don't believe there is anything in this universe which is beyond words, words are how we communicate ideas, ideas are how we perceive this universe. Therefore words should be able to describe pretty much anything. If it doesn't, then more words need to be made.

The point Beth made was that your ideas seem to fit into the "box category" of Pantheism, how is this a negative thing? Please, explain how your views are different from this category, that doesn't make your views any less valid, being defined does not serve as a limitation, because those definitions can be altered.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth

So sorry that you take it that way it was not intended. I will be quiet.  I think that what you have to give is way more important than then points I brought out, just thought I could help. My apologies.

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

Now you are showing definate signs of passive-aggressive disorder:

Definition:
Passive-aggressive personality disorder is a chronic condition in which a person seems to passively comply with the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them, becoming increasingly hostile and angry.

Cut it out Mustard...

~Beth

It's time to MOVE ON...Let's get back to the topic of Contradictions in Religions...

~b

[gdo]

I do hope that there that good people who post here will keep an open mind and also take some things stated with a grain of salt.  I do enjoy most of the posting although I do not always agree with what has been stated.  I do hope that mustardseed was not intending to impugn Beth but
trying to add a perspective of his/her own.

Beth is very knowledgeable.


Beth, yes we might be stating the same thing.  If I have misunderstood what you have posted before, then I apologize for misconstruing.

In my earlier post I mentioned the Shema and I was meaning the first statement as an example not the whole of the text.   Hear oh Israel the Lord is One.   That seeming simple statement has had allot of meanings put to it, and I have seen much debate over it.  LOL.

From what I understand of the Pantheistic movement, it leaves somethings out.  

Here is another link to some definitions of the concept.
http://www.harrison.dircon.co.uk/definits.htm

Perhaps I am missing perhaps not.  

Perhaps if the definition was more specific in what it referred to as THE UN IVERSE,  and that as such it is a LIVING SOMETHING that creates withing itself.

Pantheism as discussed in that link and others is a relatively new and western concept.  

We, each of us, live within our own limitations of time and culture and personal abilities.  If you share some knowledge that someone else does not have or is not able to understand that 'someone else' will either be uncomfortable or ignore the the message or defend a pre-existing idea and dismiss yours, even thought you are correct.  

An uneducated but devout person may reach a point of inspiration and understanding that an educated person may not have reached by reason alone.  Each may end up disagreeing or dismissing each other out of hand.

I  think that this happens quite often.  

I have seen and read of people stating that the first statement of Shema means not to have other gods or idols.  Which is somewhat of a fundamentalist attitude toward the statement.  I think that is fine if that is what your BEST effort can bring you.  If some one else ponders the same words and come up with the meaning that I mentioned earlier that is fine also.  (To me a better situation to be sure)  


One of the definitions of Pantheism also included reference to the old idea of a pantheon of many gods.  

CU later as time allows

[Mustardseed]

Well ........that is very interesting maybe I do have a bit of that whatever it was. (after all I have been married for 30 years)  So let me get back to being openly hostile then.  

Let me restate my point and explain how I see it being on subject. It is my opinion that very "rigid" folks (such as yourself) often find contradictions where there are none. Even getting to a point where they get aggressive and hostile and extremely sensitive if others challenge their beliefs. (as in fundamentalist )

They define things very rigidly and subsequently, if they do not understand something, they often throw it on the "contradiction" pile and as a result end up quite negative and doubtful about many things. Since they consider their very dogmatic views the absolute TRUTH, against which they measure everything they also get involved in many mind battles and arguments, instead of debates and sharing observations.

Like I said, often this is very intelligent people such as yourself Beth and they often resort to very unkind cutting remarks to put down folks they consider misinformed or ignorant or misguided.

This attitude is shared by not only religious people but also academics, and only tend to further cloud up the real issues...... The actual contradictions, or what appears to be contradictions. I guess it is a common ailment of man........pride.

So all though my post is not on contradiction in religion as per se, I find it is still on subject. I find it very interesting and yet disheartening that you get so off keel by my post, that you start to question my mental health.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Incidentally I seem to find this attitude very strong in the USA, it permeates society to a much larger degree than in other parts of the world. It seems that the by product or the other side of the coin, of the American aggressive and innovative spirit is a very hostile attitude to people they consider in opposition to. themselves.

It is my opinion that you define things too rigidly and judge too fast, and often miss out on the points others are trying to make. Like Ann Oakley was that her name.........she was pretty trigger happy and could match any man or woman, yet could never see the real issues in life. I loved that old movie, saw it as a kid.

Ahh what will the future bring, what insults cutting remarks and slights you will be sending my way

As I said I do appreciate your input I have learned a lot from you but you do come across a bit dogmatic and at times quite high on the hog.

Regards Mustardseed

PS as I said in my PM it would be fun to meat you maybe at a venue somewhere. Don't go freaking out about that now

[Beth]

An uneducated but devout person may reach a point of inspiration and understanding that an educated person may not have reached by reason alone.  Each may end up disagreeing or dismissing each other out of hand.

I  think that this happens quite often.

This is so very true gdo. I was one of these uneducated but devout persons for many years. I had an inspired understanding from childhood of what the NT message was--but it didn't agree with the other followers of my faith.

I did not go to college until late in life: I was a 35 year old college freshman. I had struggled with the religion of my upbringing all of my life. I made the decision and the committment to study the bible, to learn the languages of the bible, so I could ascertain for myself whether or not "my inspired understanding" was indeed true or not.

I am now 47 years old and I have, since my initial entrance into college, learned more than I could have possibly imagined back then.

In essense, my inspiration came first and my application of academic knowledge followed much later.

I know that going to college is not something that everyone can do--and even those that do go to college cannot justify majoring in religion alone. Usually college is for preparing one for a "practical profession"!!! I had to, however, use the opportunity to address something that had bothered me since I was a little girl.

I did use the opportunity to do so and now I attempt to share with others here--and elsewhere--all the many things that I have learned.

I feel that this is the best that I can do.

~Beth

[Beth]

Ahh what will the future bring, what insults cutting remarks and slights you will be sending my way

I said: "Cut it out Mustardseed."  We have been doing this same dance for years now.

You know that I only send you cutting remarks after you have attacked my person first.

You attack my academic knowledge when I post something that you disagree with or do not understand, and then I counter-attack your bull-headedness and intellectual laziness. (You have only recently added this whole passive-aggressive thing to your biography.)

We have a long history of such nonsense, of which we are both guilty and which I tire of it much quicker these days.

Again...Let's get back to the topic at hand...Contradictions in Religions...

~Beth

[Ryuji]

beth + mustertardseed. in all honesty it might be good for you both
to take a deep breather, step back and carefully read

the manner of your posts
what you have post
and the way it reads towards others

regardless who is right or wrong.

one of greatest victory is when one is conquered oneself and for example doesn't needlessly fall into quick to this and that when something was done/happen that would normally be different to your point of view or believe system.

at one stage we all were noobs, ignorant and or narrow minded. feeling towards that in anger/rage/discontent etc etc unfortunately wont change it - live with it !

it is however good to have a informative discussion about things, its always good practice to question everything and anything. without reasoning - the need to know more we might just as well lie in a corner and die.

when i first started the topic before this one on contradictions in religions i
wanted to have 'power' or 'ammo' to get those who were still locked into their believe which i deemed false because there was some contradictions. mainly also because of this forced-into-christianity which one should never do onto another - force anyone into any religion or believe.

But don't feel the need now to know all 100000000 contradictions about christianity or islam or whatever is out there. One may feel the need to removed those 'stupid' people out of this or that religion but it is not your decision its there choice and they must walk there own path on their own time by them and not you.

good example of force full religion conquering is: 'taking the gospel to the bushmen' mandate by one religious group in my town. what for do they need the 'gospel' according to that group ?

they live and respect the land and each other. What more must they do ?
(think it was caveman and jesus talkin, very similar saw it somewhere on the board)

and even if there is contradictions HECK the stuff is ooooolllllddddddd and may contain some. I would be surprised if there weren't any at all. There is little point in proving/disproving religion/god - nothing really gained out of it at all.

god ??
.a human word
.human's understanding of something he couldn't grasp totally

religion ??
.a human word
.a human's interpritation of some divinity
.a human created order/cult/sect

jesus, muhammid, budda, god... etc
.a human word for a god/deity


and if i am wrong somewhere or in all maters Excellent then i can learn

Kind blessings,
Ryuji

[Beth]

Ryuji, et al,

Please accept my apology for the nonsense between me and Mustardseed.  We have being doing this off and on for several years. I know I should just ignore him, but sometimes I take the bait he dangles...

As always, I take full responsibility for my posts, and with that comes the full knowledge that the "absurd dance with Mustardseed" doesn't look very good on me and most importantly, is not fair to other members...!!  Again, my sincere apologies...

~Beth

[Beth]

Since this thread is up to 6 pages, it is a good time to lock it down for future reference and start another one for new or renewed discussions.

~Beth