What are your thoughts on god? Part 2
POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 14:34
VIEWED: 17958
PAGE 4 of 7
I think the universe is very efficient in its design. Energy becomes matter, returns to a state of energy, on and on. I think energy is a way we see what might also be called information. I think that the information we create in our lives in the form of experience and emotion (as does a plant, a squirrel, or a cloud) is not lost when we are no more. I'm not saying that there is a me who gets to continue being me once my bones turn to dust, but rather, the information that was gathered and reflected on, played with, laughed about, cried over, is not lost. Within the freedom to act as we choose is the balance that must, I believe, eventually be achieved. To that end, I suspect that we are all bound to this creation, forever, and that ultimately we are one with everything.
I suspect the universe supports reincarnation as a path of growth of consciousness, but the ideas of 'planner' or 'plan' don't fit into my way of thinking about this, because those concepts would imply something having control over choice, and I see that as antithetical to the idea of an infinite universe. I see the whole of everything (the infinite) as all there is of plan: rules of structure and growth, and the need for ultimate equilibrium as with any successful system, but no ruler. Fractals appeal to me as a simple yet elegant system of support; additions of information are based on a firm and identical layer of support that came before. So, as a plant grows, putting out a single leaf, then again, then adding together what it already knows how to do, it puts out three leaves, then five, eight, and so on, learning from itself as it grows to make a unique variation of a basic idea. I suspect the whole may work in this sort of way. In a larger sense, because I think all information/experience is retained, I may not remember being me, but at some larger level, I will/do.
Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!
Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not really. My hunger dictates that I eat. My exhaustion at the end of the day dictates that I sleep.
I can choose to follow God's plan or not of my own accord, just the same as I can choose not to eat or sleep.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
Not really. My hunger dictates that I eat. My exhaustion at the end of the day dictates that I sleep.
I can choose to follow God's plan or not of my own accord, just the same as I can choose not to eat or sleep.
Yes, but you compared being a slave under our "mortal desires" to following God. And as you say, we can decide for ourselves if we want to eat or not but the fact that we are compelled to eat, or to have sex and so on isn't a negative as opposed to the positive of following God. You choose to follow an authority, I say we don't need that authority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Gravy:Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
Not really. My hunger dictates that I eat. My exhaustion at the end of the day dictates that I sleep.
I can choose to follow God's plan or not of my own accord, just the same as I can choose not to eat or sleep.
the fact that we are compelled to eat, or to have sex and so on isn't a negative as opposed to the positive of following God.B]
huh? Something's positive and something's negative? What?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:Quote:
Originally posted by Gravy:Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
Not really. My hunger dictates that I eat. My exhaustion at the end of the day dictates that I sleep.
I can choose to follow God's plan or not of my own accord, just the same as I can choose not to eat or sleep.
the fact that we are compelled to eat, or to have sex and so on isn't a negative as opposed to the positive of following God.B]
huh? Something's positive and something's negative? What?
You said you served God instead of "serving" other "mortal desires". And what I meant was that we do not serve our desires instead of serving God. Our desires are an essential part of us (not an outside force) and we do not need to serve an authority such as God, who is separated from the human experience you and I and everyone else share.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Gravy:Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:Quote:
Originally posted by Gravy:Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
Not really. My hunger dictates that I eat. My exhaustion at the end of the day dictates that I sleep.
I can choose to follow God's plan or not of my own accord, just the same as I can choose not to eat or sleep.
the fact that we are compelled to eat, or to have sex and so on isn't a negative as opposed to the positive of following God.B]
huh? Something's positive and something's negative? What?
You said you served God instead of "serving" other "mortal desires". And what I meant was that we do not serve our desires instead of serving God. Our desires are an essential part of us (not an outside force) and we do not need to serve an authority such as God, who is separated from the human experience you and I and everyone else share.
And that is where we disagree. I firmly believe that God IS an essential part of the human experience. In fact, I believe that every piece of human experience besides God is unimportant by comparison.
I despise authority and desire control over my own life as much as the next guy/gal. I think of God as more of a partner than as an authority figure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:Quote:
Originally posted by Gravy:Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:Quote:
Originally posted by Gravy:Quote:
Originally posted by PrincessRohannen:
Not really. My hunger dictates that I eat. My exhaustion at the end of the day dictates that I sleep.
I can choose to follow God's plan or not of my own accord, just the same as I can choose not to eat or sleep.
the fact that we are compelled to eat, or to have sex and so on isn't a negative as opposed to the positive of following God.B]
huh? Something's positive and something's negative? What?
You said you served God instead of "serving" other "mortal desires". And what I meant was that we do not serve our desires instead of serving God. Our desires are an essential part of us (not an outside force) and we do not need to serve an authority such as God, who is separated from the human experience you and I and everyone else share.
And that is where we disagree. I firmly believe that God IS an essential part of the human experience. In fact, I believe that every piece of human experience besides God is unimportant by comparison.
I despise authority and desire control over my own life as much as the next guy/gal. I think of God as more of a partner than as an authority figure.
God may be a part of your subjective experience or what you feel is something everyone SHOULD experience but the fact of the matter is; I've never "experienced" God (felt his presence, whatever - it's subjective) and you can't vouch for others having done so either. But we do know, you and I, that both of us experience hunger, thirst, desire, the ability of cognition, the ability to communicate with other human beings - those are the fundamental and unquestionable components we inhabit.
And you can't deny the fact that "God", if he were to exist, is an authority. Even if you see him as your partner, he couldn't be. The very fact that your God gave you life and has the power to take it away from you makes you stand on seperate ground, you're not equal, he has an "advantage" - which is a suitable term when talking about partners, as it were. God can judge you as if he's above you, as if his standards are above ours - how is that equal? or partner-like?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I think we've made it clear that I won't convince you to think the way that I do. And I'm certainly not going to come around to your way of thinking.
I'm starting to feel a little under personal attack here, so I'm going to back away from this conversation for the time being.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am an atheist. I was raised in a Christian culture, but was not practicing. Through my own curiosity and search for truth, I too came to the conclusion that the “Bible is broken”. That being said I do recognize the place that religion and faith plays in our culture and I would not want to deprive that from anyone. ‘nuff said.
Now for a couple quotes:
Belief in God? An afterlife? I believe in rock: this apodictic rock beneath my feet.
E.A.
I always write with my .357 magnum handy. Why? Well, you never know when God may try to interfere.
E.A.
There has got to be a God; the world could not have become so f***ed up by chance alone.
E.A.
I hope this offended no one. The first reflects generally how I feel. The second is a commentary on Devine guidance versus free will. The last one can be interpreted many ways so take your pick …
Only the half mad are wholly alive!
E.A. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
There is no God or anything "supernatural".
I find it interesting that you group two things so different together. The idea of god as supernatural is sort of like calling gravity supernatural isn't it? I mean religions say that God shapes the universe, gravity shapes the universe too, yet it is hardly supernatural. (Pretend that gravity is real, curvature of space-time is just to wordy for that particular sentance.)
Quote:
Everything is within the natural world.
So says the Pope, I know (even though I am not Catholic.)
Quote:
Of course, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But considering the complete dearth of verifiable evidence when considering God, there's really no more reason to act as if he exists than leprechauns.
Dearth, fun word, thanks for introducing it to me. There is evidence against leprechauns. Not so for god.
-
If this seemed sarcastic sorry, you seemed to need to be set straight on some things. God as supernatural is just so ... odd.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME