posted October 31, 2007 05:31 PM         

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

I think this is an ambiguous topic.

We cant even seem to agree upon what we are discussing.

So, no, I dont think anything here is obvious.

posted October 31, 2007 05:48 PM         

But the gist of it is you seem to think I have some strange archaic view of God and hate God..or...
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
geez....I am not sure what you are getting at there.
But I sure do set you off.

posted October 31, 2007 06:09 PM         

quote:

---

----------------------------------------
When speaking of what is God there is at this time no way to prove God's existence except by faith, hope and theory.
-------------------------------------

That is true of YOUR definition of God.
You do not listen to other people's definitions.
Like a Pharisee, you wont redefine it for yourself
and you wont allow others to redefine it for themselves.

You could dispense with the word "God", and substitute a variety of terms in its place. There are indeed some things which may be infered about the Infinite from the nature of the Finite. We may not be able to prove the existence of whatever it is you have in mind when you say "God", but we can prove by reason that the inference of certain propositions regarding the nature of the All is incontrovertible; at least as incontrovertible as many of the most firmly established laws of dynamics we observe in the physical world.

----------------------------------------
Why should we be sorry if our knowledge/understanding is only hypothetical at this time?
--------------------------------------------

In the words of Andre Gide,
"We should always remain dissatisfied,
so as to always be changing and growing."
And Schopenhauer,
"A little suffering is always necessary.
A ship without ballast cannot go straight."
We mustnt be so self-satisfied
that we rest on our hypothesis,
and do not proceed to the frontiers
of analysis and experimentation.

------------------------------------------
Do you have proof? Does anyone yet?
------------------------------------------

No.
Not of the sort of God to which you are referring.
On this matter, Fayte,
we will remain in total agreement,
no matter how much you persist.
Those visions of God, those glittering idols,
are precisely what I want to see subject to the flame,
that we may test, what is fool's dross,
and what is proper gold.

--------------------------------------------
I do not see a reason for shame or to be sorry about it.
Are you ashamed?
--------------------------------------------

Who said anything about shame?

Oh, right, you did;
there you go again,
exaggerating in the direction of the negative.

Please, dont put words in my mouth.

--------------------------------------------
Since we are discussing a subject that is one of faith, belief, and theory.....
---------------------------------------------

No, Fayte.
We are not discussing a subject of faith, belief, and theory...
You are insisting on discussing that subject.
I am trying to rescue Christianity from the Dark Ages here,
and you can't take your eyes off the past.
Maybe you want to dwell on the Dark Ages,
and on that time when you were 8 years old?
The first time I heard that story,
I was impressed with your precosciousness.
After the fifth time of hear it,
I'm only impressed with your obsessive dwelling on this dark incident
which apparently contains some degree of nostalgia for you.
The same with alot of the other "loops" you post,
and post, and post, ad naseum.
First I'm impressed with your scholarship or something,
and then, pretty soon,
I'm just impressed with your repetition of things
which people did not even remotely refer to,
but which you seem to feel the need to bring
every conversation around to,
I guess, because you have nothing much else to say.
Why are you bringing your own sh-- into this discussion, seriously?
It is not about the "God" you cant stop hating;
the one you dont even believe in.
Its not about rejecting the word with all the other definitions,
Its about redefining God for yourself!
I've said this a dozen times now, for your benefit,
but will you insist on talking about all that other bull,
which you constantly talk about not wanting to talk about?
Maybe you want to promote this view of
"Faye, The Heathen Rebel"
I dont know. But its pretty tired.
Time to put it out to pasture, waddaya say?
Most of us are rebels here, kiddo.
And, evidently, some of us are putting ideas out there
too radical for even you to get your head around.
Contrary to your personal philosophy,
we are not sheep, or chimps, or shemps,
or whatever the heck you like to call people
to make yourself feel bigger than them (I forget).
You are a small, scary woman sometimes, Fayte.
I got nothin' but tough love for you.

-----------------------------------------
There are no absolutes...no empirical evidence that can be tested to validate the truth.
So by that token if we must give proof...
then this thread is already dead.
---------------------------------------------

This thread is a magnificent Dragon of the East.
You want to turn it into a snarling dragon of the West,
so you can ride in here like Saint George,
skewer it for the easy target that it is,
and pronounce it dead.

But it is not that easy target you suppose.

------------------------------------------
...just how does one test the hypothesis concerning God?
What analysis and experimentation do we use to arrive at that point of "certainty", of absolute empirical evidence?
-------------------------------------------

Now we are back on track...

Good question.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
that your mind is open, and you really want an answer to this.

First, we redefine the word "God".
We do not postulate something "out there".
We gather the precepts of philosophy,
those gems gathered over time,
which catch our eye time and time again.
We arrange them in order according to
the self-same Reason out of which they arose.
This our jewel-encrusted temple, built to the Most High.
Does this process end?
What is it to prove a thing,
when every thing directs you
to some new thing beyond itself?
In this case, proving is an ongoing process,
but because progress is made,
it is indeed a process of proving.
You see, in a sense, the very fact that we are proceeding,
that our view leads to other perceptions,
that it does not choke and die in the lab,
but integrates organically with the universe, -
not leading to a closed system,
on which we may slap the label "proof",
but, leading to ever more frontiers of discovery;
this is how we know that we are on the right track.
Everything confirms the principles of true wisdom,
we see them reflected everywhere,
and as we increase our understanding,
there are more and more of them,
all reflecting off of one another.
This is how we "prove" them.

"The proof is in the pudding," as they say.

---

posted November 01, 2007 12:25 AM         

I am not angry so don't take my words that way. The words are direct but there is no anger as I write them.

I will be very honest here. Your assessment of my post is wrong, HSC. I had no ulterior motives. I rarely, if ever, have any ulterior motive here at LL outside of expressing my thoughts and views. I am pretty much an open book. Give or take a few pages.

I only read your post on this thread, HSC. For that reason I did not know that Fayte first used the term "rehashing" and if I had something to say to Fayte I would address her directly. I don't play the type of mind games you implied in your post. I leave those games to the less mature and less honest. I leave those games to the violent sheep. And I did read all of your thread. I only replied to the "rehashing" statement because that was the only thing you said that I held a differing view about. So now that I know that Fayte said it too, I differ in thought with her as well. Okay?

I was only using questioning form to give my view that truth endures and repeating what one holds to be true or believes to be true is not "rehashing" old stuff. In fact I said this before so I AM rehashing that point again here. I also said at that time that there are some truths that I feel are worth dying for. I don't feel that a person has truly lived life unless there is some truth they would die for.

My point was that there is no more or no less value in old truths than there are in new thoughts and new theories. Both should be examined. Just because a thought or idea or notion or theory is "New" does not necessarily make it truth or true. But it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true either. Just because truths or notions or theories of the past are "Old" does not make then outdated and untrue. Some truths are worth repeating and repeating often.

Consider it flattering that yours is the only post I read here at the time I replied, HSC. That should tell you that I hold some value in your words and the way you present your thoughts. Not that I don't value what others say. But I like reading your posts because you speak in your own words which tells me that you have not only read the books or links but that you absorbed what you read. Beyond that I feel that you gave it much thought and formed your own views.

I am really not interested in pouring through links that people post in order to have someone else that agrees with their views express it for them. Because I am not really interested in what the author Jim John wrote about God. When it comes to God I want to hear in the person's own words what they have experienced in their heart. I want to hear how they translated that experience with God within their minds and what thoughts they formed because they have actually experienced God in their lives. Not because Jim John said this or that in a book about God.

If anyone truly wants to know what God is all they have to do is look into and meditate on their own life experiences. Somehow I just perceive that you do that, HSC.

For that reason when you talk on this subject, though I may not agree with all you say according to my own experiences and how I translated those experiences, I truly want to read what you are saying about God, HSC. Because I feel you do the homework.

posted November 01, 2007 09:41 AM         

Fayte and HSC, I'm sure you will learn to understand each other to some degree in time (give or take a few decades).

Mannu, I feel your understanding of what SattvicMoon said is unwarranted, and the ensuing argument unfounded, but I can accept them on the grounds of miscommunication.

IMHO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comment:

quote:

---

Satvic said >>>>Well, basically for some of the people who considers God as a "person" might be having the biggest difficulty in comprehending this discussion.

---

You said (with thumbs down)

quote:

---

Sorry Sattvic I hate it when some people use adjectives to humilate others.

---

Adjectives are describing words - of what words do you refer? Hate is a strong word and should probably be used minimally in reference to someone's post as it could mean you hate that person. Also, where is the humiliation? I do not find the ensuing arguments constructive. I get the impression you are being defensive for people who believe God is like a person, that they are stupid, but this is not what was said.

This discussion (as far as I can tell, for I am stupid) about what is God does not discuss sex or the fact that its like a person. It seems to try to disregard people's opinion's and look for the "true facts". In any case, I just hope you guys can hug and move on.

Now, HSC, there are quite a few things that I would like to question you on. First of all, I thought Unmoved's questions were great ie:

quote:

---

1) God does not intrinsically have a purpose.
2)We are the body of God, a part of a whole.
3)We have a purpose to learn Universal Laws.

---

Could you please address this conundrum, preferably in this thread as I do not want to cross contaminate too much, but would like to discuss these things somewhere, and here feels as good as any.

Other things you've said here (to list a couple, for I have a few questions)

quote:

---

We should all strive to test those hypothesis
by analysis and experimentation,
in order to arrive at a point of certainty.

---

I find this contradictory as the striving includes the process of hypothesis, yes? If so, then why is it such a bad thing to have a hypothetical belief system? (I do not mean, "Now, if I had a belief system...") When do you ever reach certainty? Isn't it based on the hypothesis? The thesis statement of why you wished to ask the question in the first place? If you did not ask question, how will you know when you have the answer? I actually find it a very difficult process to step away from hypothesis into testing as I'm unsure what the question is. If your mind was completely blank, maybe it would enter, and you can start, and perhaps end in the same breath. In any case, as a mere immortal, I think I am not there yet.

quote:

---

We may not be able to prove the existence of whatever it is you have in mind when you say "God", but we can prove by reason that the inference of certain propositions regarding the nature of the All is incontrovertible; at least as incontrovertible as many of the most firmly established laws of dynamics we observe in the physical world.

---

To me, this is without a doubt true, however, this is my truth (too). To me, God is Energy, and hence, mass, and hence, all things, and yet, this isn't enough to live with as the most important species on this planet (I am being facetious), the most intelligent (sorry dolphins), enlightened beings, etc, etc, therefore, we have to personalize God and make it a He as Da Man! Not just that, but we make God into everything, look at the number of Gods in Rome or Egypt, or the ones that loved sacrifices and still think people are lowly because that don't believe certain things, or "understand certain" facts. I'm sure you are not refferring to texts, but if not, then what would you use to back up your understanding of God, unless you do believe it is the "All". If it is the all, then what good can we do from understanding that? Sometimes I envy the atheists that say "We live because we were born". I love the Spiritual more than anything as they say "I am because I have inner being", whereas the religious seem to say "I have the words, and therefore, the proof". Granted, if we never created words, then there would never be religion - only spirituality, It is my belief that religion was created to make man superior - to create a hierarchy where God is the CEO. The lowliest give a ten percent tithe, and the highest reap the harvests. However, there is a massive BUT. It was also created as a means to understanding ourselves. All manner of religions say the same thing. They all want us to respect one another and live in peace, but we can't rest with that. As the benevolent beings we are, we have to say We are the Best! We created these religions because our God is behind us and is more powerful. Our savior is directly related, or was given visions, or wrote such a great book, you should read it! See, it says this right here!? Humans are my issue with religions, not religions themselves. We have to realize that All people have their own views on everything. Religions are belief systems that could also be highly spiritual, and extremely social, which cannot be a bad thing, unless the "leaders" start saying "Hmm, this other group is threatening our numbers, we better stamp them out". If only we could understand that the uniqueness of everyone's view is EVERYTHING. The TRUE all. Our perspectives all point at God. Think of God as looking through every pair of eyes from every ant on Earth. Every angel that is seen is from God. And yet, how can God see if it doesn't have eyes? How can Energy have consciousness or real intelligence? Anyone seen an inconvenient truth? What will our discussions be about in one hundred years? I feel they will be more stressed as our environment continues to scare us, but that's life. Where is God's plan? For me, living today, I saw God in the clouds, the green grass, the friendly people who said hi and tried to mean it. They were convenient hi's. In any case, God is everything, but our perceptions of how we view the World and Life creates our own life, which in turn may procreate into other life, and so on. The more we try to understand how to better ourselves and involve ourselves in ways that benefit mankind, the more mankind will benefit, but it all comes from us - each as individuals. I do not really wish to debate who is right, I'd like to continue with what is God, but feel it may never go anywhere. They're all angels / angles.

Sorry if this was blunt in parts, but I'm getting tired, and just needed to express myself before hitting the sack.

Heaps of Love,
Dean.

------------------
I realized it for the first time in my life:
there is nothing but mystery in the world,
how it hides behind the fabric of our poor,
browbeat days, shining brightly, and we don't even know it.

Sue Monk Kidd, "The Secret Life of Bees", p79

posted November 01, 2007 09:51 AM         

quote:

---

We'll do it all
Everything
On our own

We don't need
Anything
Or anyone

If I lay here
If I just lay here
Would you lie with me and just forget the world?

I don't quite know
How to say
How I feel

Those three words
Are said too much
They're not enough

If I lay here
If I just lay here
Would you lie with me and just forget the world?

Forget what we're told
Before we get too old
Show me a garden that's bursting into life

Let's waste time
Chasing cars
Around our heads

I need your grace
To remind me
To find my own

If I lay here
If I just lay here
Would you lie with me and just forget the world?

Forget what we're told
Before we get too old
Show me a garden that's bursting into life

All that I am
All that I ever was
Is here in your perfect eyes, they're all I can see

I don't know where
Confused about how as well
Just know that these things will never change for us at all

If I lay here
If I just lay here
Would you lie with me and just forget the world?

---

posted November 01, 2007 12:23 PM         

Perhaps I must have used "I find it funny when...."

If words can have so much impact. How much generic statements can hurt other readers here coming from a person who says he is innocent. All I asked of SM was not to be judgemental. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

"Many are invited few are chosen" - quote attributed to Jesus.

Please say "Truly, Truly" to that.

posted November 01, 2007 12:41 PM         

quote:

---

All I asked of SM was not to be judgemental.

---

That is fine Mannu, no hard feelings. As Sesame rightly pointed out, I believe it was/is a case of miscommunication.

Online communication can be very challenging in most cases.

posted November 01, 2007 04:43 PM         

quote:

---

I will be very honest here. Your assessment of my post is wrong, HSC. I had no ulterior motives.... So now that I know that Fayte said it too, I differ in thought with her as well. Okay?

---

I dont think my assessment was wrong,
and I think you've misunderstood again.
I was not attributing any ulterior motives,
and I dont think I even specualted any thing like that.
I was actually just saying that you read carelessly.
And still, you think you are disagreeing with me and Fayte.
The truth is you and I are disagreeing with Fayte.
You were mistaken to think you disagreed with me in the first place.
You disagreed with what Fayte said,
although you thought it was said by me.
Then you went on to repeat all the points I had made
(i.e. you were agreeing with me).
Thats what happened here.

Thanks for the nice things you wrote.
Yes, I believe they are honest,
and I think you are right about me there.

Sesame,

quote:

---

Now, HSC, there are quite a few things that I would like to question you on. First of all, I thought Unmoved's questions were great ie:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) God does not intrinsically have a purpose.
2)We are the body of God, a part of a whole.
3)We have a purpose to learn Universal Laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please address this conundrum

---

Those are not questions,
and they are not from Unmoved.
Those were my answers to her questions.
What conundrum?

I do not understand the next point you make either.
You seem to be agreeing with me,
that hypothesis has its place,
and that we must go beyond hypothesis.

quote:

---

what would you use to back up your understanding of God,
unless you do believe it is the "All".
If it is the all,
then what good can we do from understanding that?

---

Basically, when we begin to really understand what it means that God is the All, we begin to perceive he connections between things. This gets crucial when we observe it from a sociological and psychologial perspective. Free will is refuted, along with the notion upon which it depends; that anything in the finite world, including human thoughts, feelings, choices, and actions may exist in a vacuum, independent of the whole. We begin to see that all these things are necessary and natural expressions of the Universe; and, by extention, of God; which is the abstract idea/entity repressenting both this entirety and the force which keeps it going. We come to see that this force is also One, that it (and, by extention, God) is responsible for everything, and that, consequently, everything is innocent; people are innocent. Some are victims and some are beneficiaries of this force (which I often call "grace"). The good that can come from this (to answer your question) is an untold increase in understanding, tolerance, forgiveness, acceptance, as well as a redirecting of our attention toward the actual causes of human behavior, so that, instead of just dealing with people after they have made an unethical choice, we come to concern ourselves with what makes people the way they are in the first place. Civilization would make an evolutionary leap at this point. We would care more about the education and raising of children, realizing that antisocial behavior has its origin in a foundation of negative reinforcement. We would see how things like poverty, most drugs, and even the belief in free will, which permeate our present society, all cut people off from feelings of community and concern for others. Attending to the roots of these problems, the crime rate would take a nose dive. We would understand that people are different, and that these differences determine their abilities and disabilities, and we would no longer hold people to a single standard, as we tend to do when we are hooked on this notion of free will. Captialism would have limits, or would disappear entirely; the notion of rewarding some and punishing others would vanish, except as a control. In other words, so-called rewards and punishments would continue to exist only as incentives; we would not longer suffer from the delusion that people deserve what they get, one way or the other. The ability and drive to work hard, and to be motivated by the fruits of hard work, are all God-given, and not free choices. They are talents, gifts, not personal acquisitions. Hence, it would make little sense to shower a hard worker or an otherwise talented person with luxuries and a life of ease, while condemning more passive and otherwise untalented people in a position where they have to bust their buts just to make a decent living wage. This would be seen as ridiculous and cruel. Moreover, it would make the demonization of our enemies unthinkable. We would seek to understand our differences, to listen to other perspectives, to make greater use of discussion and compromise. We would seek to understand the hostile reactions directed against us, and to address their causes, rather than just reacting with equal or greater violence. Our enemies would feel that we had their wellfare in our hearts and minds. They would have to admire us, and would be hard-pressed to justify any violence against us. War would never again be entered into lightly. These are just some of the implications for individuals and for civilization as a whole, when we really begin to grasp the deeper meanings of Oneness; of the All; of God.

posted November 01, 2007 05:07 PM         

*sigh*
blink blink

posted November 01, 2007 09:06 PM         

I apologise, I did not want to post too much of what Unmoved said, but as you wish, these are the questions:

quote:

---

Q1: If God has no purpose, why would we have a purpose, since we are his body? If God just IS, would not he be composed of What just IS too?

The above statement is reminiscent of Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 27, which says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

It is echoes Aristotle's theory of the Unmoved Mover, the Created Creator, and the Divine Dichotomy.

Q2: Anything that "has to be done" like learning laws in order to fulfilled something like enlightenment, goes against freedom, and/or free will. It also sounds like a 'conditional' state of being. Therefore, is it correct to assume that, if we have a purpose, then we have no free-will?

I ask because, once an entity has a purpose, such as "learning", it means that it was created for a reason, hence it can no longer 'just BE'.

If that is the case, then it means that we are not created in Gods image, for reasons mentioned above (God has no purpose. Humans have a purpose).

Also, it means that we have no free-will, if we are not created in Gods image (if we have a purpose for existing) because we are the way we are by design, therefore our actions happen by default, not by choice; just the same way a car can not fly unless it was designed to fly.

Q3: So, is it not more logical to assume that we humans have no purpose, just like our God, because...

i) If we have a purpose, and God doesn't, then what is the point of us having a purpose?

ii) If we have a purpose then we are not free souls but tools designed for a certain reason, that only God knows.

iii) And if our purpose was to "learn..." to harmonize with the system, then why don't we?

Couldn't there be a more logical purpose than learning? I mean, if we had something to know and learn, why were we not created knowing that thing?

---

The conundrum is that God has no purpose, we are God, we have purpose. So either God has no purpose, we are not God, or we have no purpose.

The hypothesis thing came from you saying `I'm sorry if your "knowledge" is hypothetical.` I just don't see why this could be a bad thing as it may lead into other ideas, so why are you apologising? Because the beliefs haven't stood up to rigorous testing? I still don't understand why we must go beyond it, if we are still trying to understand what we are hypothesizing. I think you are talking about growth, but you can still grow without changing your belief system.

Your understanding of Free Will is always a strange one for me. I get what you say (I think) that we have limits and exist within laws, etc, but our everyday thoughts and actions are our will. I believe, like chaos theory, that all things relate to much larger things through their smallest manifestations and movements. If you ignore the butterfly, you may never be able to see the cyclone until it's too late. By having a Holistic view of the Whole and every molecule within, we could perhaps understand how each choice at each level not only changes higher levels, but is a result of the lower. The choices of the lower created us as our souls chose, and our parents, and so on, right back to the amoeba that started growing organelles. We are all created as one and interrelated through energy, etc, but our choices are a major part of this - the energy we impact on others and the future generations we create all come from our choices. Your understanding of Free Will for me is of so high a scope that it does not seem applicable to "mere immortals".

You know, it's funny, but I actually disagree with you on a lot of things which I thought I had agreed with. I think I believe in the anarchist philosophy that all people who live independently will understand their own needs and permeate that throughout society and the world instead of trying to believe what everyone else does, which is almost like communism. I admit I am pretty ignorant of politics, and do also admit that in our current evolutionary state, we probably do need leaders, but too often this seems to end in wars, etc. And yet, how would Utopia be formed through independent thought? Well, I believe all people would see what they are here for and assist others with their own vision. This sounds incredibly similar to Conversations with God, but so be it. I believe in utmost free will.

I guess my biggest question, for maybe we are saying the same thing, is what do you think people think free will is, and why is it so bad for them? I know you have had other threads on the subject, but let's start from scratch. To me, free will is th ability to determine which thoughts will lead me in any given direction. This direction hopefully leads to some goal, but could also lead to adventure. Sure, the adventure was not requested through my will, but perhaps, on a deeper level I did request it, and in this case, my will was "overruled" by higher powers such as guiding spirits, divine spirits, my soul, etc. Still always trying to understand how these all fit, but the "Divine Spirit of my higher self" mantra still helps me find things. In any case, free will has levels and limits, but so does everything. You could probably even call it a law unto itself that has rules for when to impose and when not to. The basic law is one I read from the Dalai Lama, which basically stated that the path to happiness is through all thoughts which you act on with the understanding that they will lead you to happiness. The problem here is one of foresight - what makes one happy? Is this long-term or short? Will it change tomorrow, cause others to be miserable, or have other negative side-effects? Sometimes it would be easier to be a snail who only knows the leaf it is eating will suffer, but that the tree will continue to grow, unless there is a plague, etc. All life has this impact and must make choices with their own history as to the path they will take - this I call free will.

"The ability and drive to work hard, and to be motivated by the fruits of hard work, are all God-given, and not free choices." - How does God do this? What is God that has this ability to make these decisions to all unique people? Perhaps you are talking about the world as a whole, and Lord is contained within the word World, but the choice to go out and strive to be better is ours, you cannot expect a higher power to hand you something on a platter, unless you've requested that in previous lifetimes, etc, which I find difficult to contemplate as this road is rocky. We live now and choose what we can now. Everything that you said I feel could be also said of free will.

Anyhow, that's enough from me for now.

posted November 02, 2007 12:53 AM         

I don't agree completely on all of them but that's okay. It's as you say, it's the way of the world so it's great the way you speak from your heart and mind without worry about the world and what it thinks. I do too. I think you graduated from the "Lobby," Dean.

posted November 02, 2007 08:51 AM         

quote:

---

Smile an ever-lasting smile
A smile can bring you near to me
Don't ever let me find you gone
'Cause that would bring a tear to me
This world has lost its glory
Let's start a brand new story
Now my love
You think that
I don't even mean
A single word I say

It's only words
And words are all I have
To take your heart away

Talk in ever lasting words
And dedicate them all to me
And I will give you all my life
I'm here if you should call to me
You think that I don't even mean
A single word I say

It's only words
And words are all I have
To take your heart away

It's only words
And words are all I have
To take your heart away

This world has lost its glory
Let's start a brand new story
Now my love
You think that I don't even mean
A single word I say

It's only words
And words are all I have
To take your heart away (Repeat twice)

---

(Words by the Bee Gees)

posted November 02, 2007 12:45 PM         

I think it fits very well because words are all we have, especially on the internet.

I understand the feeling you expressed about baring your soul. I also think it's a bit risky to do that because if your words are dissed or misunderstood or twisted and distorted to mean something other than what you actually intended it makes you wonder why you even tried. Attempting to communicate with words can be frustrating that way.

However, I still feel, for whatever it is worth, we should take that risk with words. Just throw them out there and realize whoever was meant to hear it will and those that weren't meant to hear it at this time, won't. Also understand that none of us can be agreed with all the time.

Our words and actions create ripples in the world. Either good or bad ripples. Kowing that should make us all more cautious of what we say and do. But being human it's not always the way it is going to be.

I agree that those who are here at LL and involved in the discussions at least do think about things like God. They do care.

It doesn't matter what our image of God may be as long as we are seeking to know and understand more. But it's important to remember that those who would teach are also here to learn. When it comes to a topic like God or spirituality there is no monopoly on who knows more or who is more enlightened.

When it comes to God, while it is said that God created humankind in his own image, it is also the case that humankind creates God in their image of what God is and is not. But I think that somewhere in the middle of sharing our concepts of God everyone may have a piece of the great puzzle or a piece of truth to add.

If the history of revelation is any indication it is often those who are not esteemed very highly by their fellow human beings and not those who would profess to have great intellect and knowledge that God has selected to speak through the loudest and most profoundly.

For that reason we should be open to everyone who wants to share their thoughts about God. Because no one has the upperhand when it comes to God. When it comes to God we are all the same. No one is special.

It sometimes may appear that way but I feel it is due to the fact that some people are more open to God and those people allow God to work through them more than others. I guess that is why humility is said to be a virtue. Although in our world society today humility is seen as a bad thing. I just keep in mind that what society tells me is right is most often going to be contrary to what actually is right.

posted November 02, 2007 01:35 PM         

quote:

---

I understand the feeling you expressed about baring your soul. I also think it's a bit risky to do that because if your words are dissed or misunderstood or twisted and distorted to mean something other than what you actually intended it makes you wonder why you even tried. Attempting to communicate with words can be frustrating that way.

---