Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,488 comments
- 1,140,468 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
@Imari @TenEightyOne
The following snippets come from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe,
Johannes Scotus Eriugena was among the first to propose that God became the universe, and did so to learn something about itself.
Eriugena depicts God as an evolving being, developing through the four stages that he outlines. The second and third classes together compose the created universe, which is the manifestation of God, God in process, Theophania; the second being the world of Platonic ideas or forms. The third is the physical manifestation of God, having evolved through the realm of ideas and made those ideas seem to be matter, and may be pantheistic or pandeistic, depending on the interference attributed to God in the universe:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicist Bernard Haisch has published two books expressing such a model of our universe. The first was the 2006 book entitled The God Theory, in which he writes:
Haisch published a followup in 2010, "The Purpose-Driven Universe." Both books reject both atheism and traditional theistic viewpoints, favoring instead a model wherein the deity has become the universe, to share in the actualized experiences therein manifested. Haisch provides as proof of his views a combination of fine tuning and mystical experiences arguments. Haisch additionally points to the peculiar capabilities of persons with autism and like defects of the brain experiencing savant syndrome, and especially having the ability to perform complex mathematical calculations. Haisch contends that this is consistent with humans being fragments of a supreme power, with our minds acting as filters to reduce that power to a comprehensible experience, and with the savantic mind having a broken filter which allows access to the use of greater capacities.
Alan Dawe's 2011 book The God Franchise, likewise proposes the human experience as being a temporarily segregated sliver of the experience of God.[3][self-published source]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: Lila (Hinduism)
Warren Sharpe wrote: {{quote|To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.[30][self-published source]
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, as well, had previously observed this:
The following snippets come from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe,
The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe. Historically, for versions of this theory where God has ceased to exist or to act as a separate and conscious entity, some have used the term pandeism, which combines aspects of pantheism and deism, to refer to such a theology.
Johannes Scotus Eriugena was among the first to propose that God became the universe, and did so to learn something about itself.Creation is a kind of divine effort by God to understand himself, to see himself in a mirror."[9]
Eriugena depicts God as an evolving being, developing through the four stages that he outlines. The second and third classes together compose the created universe, which is the manifestation of God, God in process, Theophania; the second being the world of Platonic ideas or forms. The third is the physical manifestation of God, having evolved through the realm of ideas and made those ideas seem to be matter, and may be pantheistic or pandeistic, depending on the interference attributed to God in the universe:
[God] enters... the realm of space and time, where the ideas become subject to multiplicity, change, imperfection, and decay. In this last stage they are no longer pure ideas but only the appearances of reality, that is phenomena. ... In the realm of space and time the ideas take on the burden of matter, which is the source of suffering, sickness, and sin. The material world, therefore, of our experience is composed of ideas clothed in matter — here Eriugena attempts a reconciliation of Platonism with Aristotelean notions. Man, too, is composed of idea and matter, soul and body. He is the culmination of the process of things from God, and with him, as we shall see, begins the process of return of all things to God.[8]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physicist Bernard Haisch has published two books expressing such a model of our universe. The first was the 2006 book entitled The God Theory, in which he writes:
I offer a genuine insight into how you can, and should, be a rational, science-believing human being and at the same time know that you are also an immortal spiritual being, a spark of God. I propose a worldview that offers a way out of the hate and fear-driven violence engulfing the planet.[29]
Haisch published a followup in 2010, "The Purpose-Driven Universe." Both books reject both atheism and traditional theistic viewpoints, favoring instead a model wherein the deity has become the universe, to share in the actualized experiences therein manifested. Haisch provides as proof of his views a combination of fine tuning and mystical experiences arguments. Haisch additionally points to the peculiar capabilities of persons with autism and like defects of the brain experiencing savant syndrome, and especially having the ability to perform complex mathematical calculations. Haisch contends that this is consistent with humans being fragments of a supreme power, with our minds acting as filters to reduce that power to a comprehensible experience, and with the savantic mind having a broken filter which allows access to the use of greater capacities.
Alan Dawe's 2011 book The God Franchise, likewise proposes the human experience as being a temporarily segregated sliver of the experience of God.[3][self-published source]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: Lila (Hinduism)
Warren Sharpe wrote: {{quote|To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around.[30][self-published source]
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, as well, had previously observed this:
- 24,002
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Well that's Sid Meirer's fate sealed then.
- 3,783
- Hoboken, New Jersey
- 30,006
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
wut
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
God or no god, it seems to me that "sin" - or other choices we make such as love - is because of freedom, or free will. IMO, we are the origin and cause of our own actions. God or no god. Long ago I cast my vote for "maybe", and never saw fit to change it.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Sin too often used as an excuse to take away people's freedoms. Who decides that pro-choice is a sin, druguse, etc. ? Is it the law that decides something is illegal and then it becomes a sin or does reigious sin influence lawmaking too much? Obviously killing, stealing etc. are more obvious, but how about atheist not being allowed to hold office in arkansas, abortion, euthanesia etc.
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
I think TexRex was pointing at the idea that if a God has the power to create everything that exists, why make it so free will (which is the excuse people use) leads to choosing, more often than not, the sinful path.
We have 3 options, at least. Either:
- God's creation is flawed - makes God imperfect.
- God wants people to sin - makes god either sadistic or a nice lad/lass, depending on you view of the world.
- Everything is just a story people tell themselves / each other to justify human behaviour.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Perhaps the better question is "What is the right or best way to live?"
Probably there's no one best or easy answer; hundreds of very different cultures out there are looking for it. But (very) optimistically we can lay a foundation. I'll make the proposition that we must bear responsibility for our actions and choices. There's no refuge in predestination. victimhood identity or postmodernism. It's better not to succumb to temptation and seek only short term pleasures. There should be positive meaning and purpose in life, goals. There should be normative rules. Even though there may be no god, we probably should live as though there is.
- 24,002
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,412
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
What if you're a sado-masochist?
- 30,006
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Abso-frickin-lutely. However, @PocketZeven also touched on my thoughts in the post above yours.
The notion of sin--and what is actually deemed sinful--is often...like...really arbitrary. It comes off as "I don't like what you're doing, so God says it's a sin and you'll go to Hell if you keep doing it, OoºOoºOoºOoºHh!¡" The example that I like to use is that of premarital sex, or frankly any sexual act to which all involved parties have consented; I suspect it originates with a nobleman or wealthy landowner in antiquity whose daughter (or perhaps his significant other, or even a "side piece"... yeah, that last one seems awfully likely) was out whoring around--perhaps it was even known that she liked to be porked in the pooter--and so this individual appealed to his spiritual leader to make a declaration that "fornication" (How sad is it that there's actually a unique word for it?) is a sinful act.
Sin!What if you're a sado-masochist?
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Correct. Treat everyone like they matter. When everyone matters, you have a functional society.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
What if you're a sado-masochist?
Wouldnt that be exactly the same? You treat others (abuse) like you like to be treaten (abuse)?
But I guess in a world were everyone would treat people like they want to be treated, a sadist and masochist would easily find eachother. Like in practice most marriages are
- 24,002
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Narcissists and sociopaths would be difficult though. They lack empathy and are egotistical.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
No.
I don't know of any holy book that espouses solid morals. I don't know of a just god, and when people live for the next world instead of this one they make, at best, uniformed choices, and at worst, commit horrible misdeeds against others.
We should definitely live as if there is no god, because there isn't.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Danoff
Premium
- 34,044
- Mile High City
I have literally had a parent tell me that it is important that their child have some level of fear of them because fear is an important element in any loving relationship. This person is a devout Christian, I can put two and two together here.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Agreed.
I assume this is an extension of things there are “no refuge” in? What does “no refuge in victimhood identity” mean exactly?
Why? If one’s short term pleasures don’t hurt anybody, what’s the problem?
Is simply being alive and appreciative of that fact sufficiently positive meaning? If not, then can you expand a bit on what exactly you mean here?
Why? Again, if one isn’t hurting other people, why should they care one iota if they fit other people’s idea of normal? Why do you view individuality as the enemy of good?
Hard disagree.
- 30,006
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I'm going to do my dangedest to keep it on topic here, specifically "sin", and not discuss too much the subject that leads me to this thought process.
I have a great appreciation for food--not only consumption of but also preparation of--as I regularly demonstrate, and so the notion of gluttony as a sin is something that I find both interesting and peculiar. Now...I firmly believe (insofar as it applies to me) that food I thoroughly enjoy (which is often--but not exclusively--considered unhealthy) satisfies more than food that I don't enjoy as much, and so I'm able to consume smaller quantities without feeling deprived of that which I enjoy.
However, Pope Gregory I defined the five ways in which one can commit the sin of gluttony:
Eating too soon, before the time of meals, to satisfy the palate.
Eating too much, more than is necessary for sustenance.
Eating too daintily, of overly and/or elaborately prepared foods (such as with sauces and/or seasonings).
Eating too expensively, of delicacies and food of better quality to satisfy "the vile sense of taste".
And probably the most hilarious, which "Saint Gregory the Great" said is the gravest of all, eating too eagerly, even at the appropriate time and in only necessary quantity.
What?!
I have a great appreciation for food--not only consumption of but also preparation of--as I regularly demonstrate, and so the notion of gluttony as a sin is something that I find both interesting and peculiar. Now...I firmly believe (insofar as it applies to me) that food I thoroughly enjoy (which is often--but not exclusively--considered unhealthy) satisfies more than food that I don't enjoy as much, and so I'm able to consume smaller quantities without feeling deprived of that which I enjoy.
However, Pope Gregory I defined the five ways in which one can commit the sin of gluttony:
Eating too soon, before the time of meals, to satisfy the palate.
Eating too much, more than is necessary for sustenance.
Eating too daintily, of overly and/or elaborately prepared foods (such as with sauces and/or seasonings).
Eating too expensively, of delicacies and food of better quality to satisfy "the vile sense of taste".
And probably the most hilarious, which "Saint Gregory the Great" said is the gravest of all, eating too eagerly, even at the appropriate time and in only necessary quantity.
What?!
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,412
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I wonder whether gluttony evolved to be a sin in limited nomadic societies where there wasn't enough food to go around, but can't help thinking that along with lust it was outlawed by people who didn't like to see other people enjoying themselves too much as it would take their minds off ascetically suffering as their Lord supposedly did.
Last edited:
- 30,006
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I can absolutely get behind frowning upon eating excessive quantities to the point that it deprives others of what they need, but beyond that, it's ridiculous.
Edit: Jerry Falwell sure looked the sort to commit the sin of gluttony several times daily. Probably thought he was exempt too.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,412
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
From the photo it looks like he would have great difficulty passing through the eye of a needle in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.I can absolutely get behind frowning upon eating excessive quantities to the point that it deprives others of what they need, but beyond that, it's ridiculous.
Edit: Jerry Falwell sure looked the sort to commit the sin of gluttony several times daily. Probably thought he was exempt too.
- 13,909
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I don't know about you, but I'm quite capable of bearing responsibility for my own actions and choices independently of the existence of God. I don't even need to be threatened with eternal damnation or anything. I do it because I think both my community and humanity at large work best when I behave in such a way. I do it because I want my community and humanity to be the best they can be, and this is me doing my part.
Clearly, there are plenty of people who don't share this opinion. But what other people do is their choice, and what I do is mine. I do what I think is best because that's the person I want to be, not because I talked myself into believing it's somehow better that I pretend that there's a vengeful Sky Daddy waiting to take me to task for not behaving right.
What if you're a sado-masochist?
Well, the actual Golden Rule is treat people as they wish to be treated. But humans somehow managed to convince themselves that slaves were happier as slaves and other insanity like that, and so the generic formulation ended up being treat others and you want to be treated to avoid the whole "keep the under-classes in their place" thinking.
No problem. God is generally depicted as giant sized, to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore, his clothes are also giant. Therefore, the tools used to make his clothes are also giant, like the needles. Therefore, the eye of a needle in heaven is very large.
Based on some rough back-of-the-napkin math, I would estimate that humans could walk into heaven through the eye of the needle three abreast, as long as they were not too sturdily proportioned.
Similar threads
