and he's saying we can't have any shared understandings of any word...so communication is out. sorry, Sane. lock this thread...lock down the whole messageboard. i'm working on phone lines and the US postal service. i'll let you know if i make progress.
It depends on what level you want to communicate. Why do Monks take a vow of silence? One zen master, when he heard a student speak reverently of the Buddha, washed out the student's mouth with soap!
clearly we're not communicating. i spoke of God as a being. you can disagree with my assertion. but don't pretend as if we can't come to a common definition of the word being with the help of a friend named Webster. that's an obtuse way out of a real discussion.
A real discussion about what God is? How about we have a real discussion about what God is not? Is god not greater than your or mine concepts? You want me to agree on a definition of god? That's an obtuse way out of a real understanding.
Meowgi, please understand that inherent in your assertion, above, is a statement of faith every bit as great as my own. And again...i'm not asking you to agree on my definition of God. I specifically said you can disagree with my assertion about who God is. I took issue with saying that we couldn't come to some common understanding of the word being, because it's just a label. Sure it's a label...as is every other noun in every language spoken around the planet. But the word being has a very clear and definite definition which you and I can clearly agree to undestand together, even if it requires the help of a dictionary to do so. But there's zero sense in having any discussion if every noun we choose to use (like tree, as you mentioned) is so subjective that we can never pin down the meaning of the other person's words.
We don't have to conceptualize God because in Christianity and Islam, God explained exactly what and whom he is. Now, his amount of power, knowledge, etc may be up for debate. But his role and identity are not, as long as we're talking about Christianity, Juddaism, Islam, etc...
Dude, the explaination is a concept. You know exactly what "God" is? Wow! Do you know exactly what you are too? How many blood cells do you have? How many hairs on your head? When will you die? You are deluding yourself. I thought images of god are forbidden in Islam for this reason? Because all are false. (I could be completely off base on that) MM, I'll try to reply to you later, when I'm home.
My point in saying that "'Being' is just a label, an idea", was to say that the true reality of anything surpasses the label given to it. I wasn't really trying negate the definition, I was just saying you can not label god anything, even a being. We can have the definition of being, but I think it can be false in relation to the ultimate reality. Nothing can exist independently. Everything is empty. What one calls something, I see as everything. Maybe there is zero sense in discussing such things, that's kind of what I have been saying. As soon as you conceptualize you can not reach understanding.
No, it's not a concept, that's what I'm trying to get you to understand. It clearly states that he is a being with powers beyond imagination, he created the universe, he created humans, humans should obey his word, and his word is the book (whicever book it is that you follow). He wants things done his way, and he will reward you with heaven if you deserve it. As for images, like I said, some things are up for debate. We don't know his image, but his role and identity are set in stone.
Well, I didn't mind that the classes were compulsory really. I mean, all of my lessons were mandatory, and I disliked biology a lot more than RE. There wasn't a point at which I thought "I don't believe it." I don't recall ever believing in a god, just as I have no recollection of ever believing in Santa Claus. If there was a point that I did believe, I was so young as to not remember. It would be more pertinent to say that nothing in my lessons, my life experience, or in church services convinced me of a god or gods.
come on. this is getting ridiculous, meowgi. seriously. do you have to know how many blood cells i have to know me? my wife and i have a deep, intimate relationship...she doesn't have the first clue of number of atoms that make up my structure...or the number of blood cells in my body. that's not her concern. and i don't need to know the number of bones in her body, even if it is a knowable number, to know who she is...and to love her for who she is. things exist. they just do. read einstein. you can use words to image them deeper than they are...and i'm not saying there's not a deeper level....but for a base-line, human understanding, you can not rule out, with any sense of real truthful logic, the POSSIBILITY that: 1. there is a Creator of all things; 2. that Creator sought to make himself known to man; 3. and did so through the person of Jesus Christ. You can say you don't think that's what happened....you can attack it like crazy. But you absolutely can not say with 100% certainty that it did not happen. So you and I ultimately rest on the same foundation....FAITH in our positions based on evidence as we perceive it. And if we wish to discuss our "faiths" we must do so with some sense of shared understanding of the very terms we use to conceptualize our understanding....even if, admittedly, that understanding is limited by our finite minds in trying to explain an infinite God. And if this God did seek to make himself known through Jesus Christ...or through the Koran...than it's not good enough to just say, "you know what, he didn't." Again...all a question of faith. You really should have gone to law school. There are lots of lawyers out there who like to hide behind the meaning of words. "Depends on your definition of the word 'is.'" But for our purposes...on this board...when you read my language, just go ahead and assume it has the common English usage meaning that you might find in a Webster's dictionary...unless I explain, otherwise.
One more time...It clearly states a concept of God. God, like all things, is bigger than all concepts. You can try your best to define it but all falls short in relation to the ultimate reality. I'm not into obeying. I'm into thinking. If there are absolutes, you might as well get a labotomy.
Yes, and much, much more in order to have a complete understanding. I'm sure you do, but to see anyone very deeply is to see that they contain the whole cosmos. The blood cell count is just an goofy example of that knowledge. Of course it is nuts, but it doesn't make it any less true. Ideas of things exist. On a deeper level, I am not separate from the rest of the universe. I do and don't exist. I think what we call god manifests itself through all things. We discriminate and say where god is and where god is not. Words fall short. Then again we do have different ideas of God. Judeo-Christians and western civilization do not have a monoply of a definition, even though it is in a dictionary.
meowgi -- your entire argument invades itself. you're having a discussion on a topic you're claiming is impossible to have a discussion about. i know what your concept of God is, whether or not I understand it fully. I'm not sure I can ever understand anything fully...but that doesn't prevent me from becoming acquainted with it...or, in the instance of my wife, son, God, or friends...prevent me from growing close to them...or even loving them...even if it is only love as I understand it. so no use going forward....frankly, on any subject. how in the world could we discuss the rockets....your definition of field goal percentage or turnover may be entirely different from mine. so no use discussing it. go rockets, nonetheless....of course, you probably don't fully understand what i mean by the word, "go."
MR. MEOWGI You seem to be saying the following (The 1st few phrases in Tao Te Ching) : The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The unnameable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. If I don't know any better, I would have thought that you are a taoist!
quite simply the Christian God is an entity/concept that is supposed to be at once omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, spanning all time and space (the alpha and the omega) and responsible for all things save our own free will. clearly, there are going to be difficulties in comprehending, not to mention expressing in words, what God is when faced with such daunting parameters. I think God himself said it best: "I am".
completely agreed. maybe in some ways this is why Jews would never use the actual name, Yahweh...that you were putting parameters on God merely by assigning a name. but for the purpose of discussion, I think you can talk about characteristics you believe God has. or the lack thereof.
Man, I'm so glad I haven't participated in this thread (... until now ). It seems to me that in this thread, as in the world at large, and especially with Mr. Meowgi (though he isn't the only offender), no one makes any sincere effort to really put themselves in someone else's shoes when talking about religion. You can't evaluate one person's argument on someone else's axioms. Sane and Madmax are saying God is a being and Mr. Meowgi is saying God is a concept. These are axioms. If you can't agree on what God is, there is no point to further conversation because everything is based on these axioms. Sane saying God is a being and Meowgi retorting that God being a being is just a concept, is just a convoluted Yes-No argument. Asserting your position repeatedly is not an effective method of debate. And, making arguments based on a challenged axiom is a waste of time and will fall on deaf ears. Though I'm some kind of agnostic or athiest or something, I live a double-life as a Bible-studying church-goer. Though I don't believe in Orginal Sin, I can make a compelling argument based on Original Sin. Try it out. Pretend the other side is right and see what you can conclude. It's a lot more interesting. Or, if you can't manage that, at least argue what is at the heart of the argument: the nature of God.
I love this post, Max. You don't pass judgement on anyone and leave the belief or disbelief in a god/supreme being... whatever, to the individual. You have strong beliefs yourself, and don't shy away from them, far from it, but you don't stuff them down someone else's throat, call them names, ridicule... you repect what others think. Kudos, Max. I enjoy reading these threads, especially when they are on a high level of discourse, of course. It's not my party, but it's fun and informative, nevertheless.
