Is God alive and all around us?

i think the main part that people start to argue about this topic is respect, i have no problem in not believing in any particalar religion, but i don't force to anyone my views, like telling people going to church and stuff is stupid or anything.
i just wish the same thing would be applyed on the othe way, i don't understand why it's sutch a big deal for the radical religious people to force their views on other people who have different oppinions.
 
jesterjay
jesterjay
mire - you said it way better than i did
I like this "game".

First: God is not "alive", unless we redefine the concept of "life" for it to apply. Whatever God is is all-that-is and its own theoretical qualities, besides being practically ineffable if you ever get around to getting them, mean he trascends the purely physical concept of life.

Also, man didn't really create God in his image, that was later. You see, if you study comparative religion or religions in general (it's been a topic of interest to me), you realize that "mystical" experiences are cross-cultural and similar in their qualities (what I mean is Yoga levels are similar to what some Christian mystics talk about, Samadhi is pretty much the same as Nirvana which is pretty much the same as "God Union" in Christianity) . Religion most likely came as a way to explain those experiences. Whether they are biological illusions or legitimate trascendent experiences is a rather meaningless and unanswerable question. Those who have them don't deny them, those who don't sometimes do.

Now, someone mentioned "duality", but if there is such thing we call God, it likely is non-dual, as many traditions mention, which mean that it's quite a paradox, both everything and nothing, both observer and subject.

On the topic of faith, I'm of those that hold that doubt is faith and dogma is lack of faith, because the dogmatic is sure, just like the scientist is sure until disproven. Doubt is what creates and puts Faith in motion, Faith is fueled by Doubt.

Now, to those who say that "religion" can be proved, well here's how I feel: First, religion is an interpretaiton of spiritual practices, it is the metaphor you use to explain the underlying wordless reality, the ineffable Truth. Think of it as love, depending on your level of growth as a person, you use different ways of relating and explaining the feeling, the Cupid metaphor, the Heart metaphors, whatever, all are "factually" "wrong", but all are "right" in the intuitive sense.
As for proving the spiritual experiences, well, you have to partake in them. In order words, unless you pick up a telescope and watch the galaxies or you pick of a microscope and see the cells, you are pretty much having "faith" on science, taking their word for it. Unless you make an effort to experience spiritual realities, you are pretty much taking the word of countless mystics over something which can't be "proven".
But don't forget that in science, nothing is proven, it's just viable 'till it's disproven: perhaps one day we'll realize cells are something different than what we think with out limited current judgement. So science really isn't as reliable. It has a great method which on the long run gives better understanding, but it still needs a long way to go, let's not forget it's only been like 300 years of real science compared to thousands of religious knowledge. I'm not ready to invalidate generation upon generation of men just because some men in white robes said their proof said otherwise just as I'm not ready to invalidate scientists because their studies contradict religious "truths".

Also and in another topic, the old white long haired man is a leftover from a Proto-European religion, the thunder God. If you read the bible, you will find a contradiction which really isn't so much one but it also is, God's qualities, the ones always granted by Christianity are not those of a physical entity so the "made us in his image" falls through, but are we sure that lines refers to physical image or the conscious aspect of ourselves. Also, I think we should be careful with the "made us" argument, I sort of believe the process was more organic than that, less of a decision and something more than happened when this massive consciousness became aware.
 
R
Randy Giles
Maybe "made us in his image" means both. But I find the idea of God being something that's "everywhere and nowhere" retarded. Because it's impossible.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom