|
Post by leonardo on Feb 14, 2008 18:03:02 GMT
So, if the G.A.O.T.U. is dependant on the individual perspective one could say there are potentially 6 billion definitions.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Feb 14, 2008 18:52:05 GMT
The answer is very simple The G.A.O.T.U. is you and me.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 14, 2008 20:09:21 GMT
And every one else.
Ah, yes, that 1 Corinthians 12-31 thing:
Ah but I love a good Bible study ;D
|
|
FireMist
Member
Then rally boys, and hasten on.To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon.
Posts: 293
|
Post by FireMist on Mar 20, 2008 14:29:51 GMT
Nomore says; 1- “The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ and Him alone, is the Creator of all things (Great Architect of the Universe): 2- Colossians 1:15-19
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”
And someone indicated in reply; 3- Jesus said "The things that I do, you can do also, even Greater things that I do, IF you believe in me.”
Both are correct, but misinterpreted. Even my interpretation is viewed through the rose colored glasses of my human experience, and the limitations of materials available.
IMMHO I present; Statement 1 is a misinterpretation of the text given. Refer to most any other translation. I most translations; Christ is the image of God...just as humankind was made in the image of God as presented in Genesis. This is not saying Jesus IS God, quite the contrary. 16-correct translation For by Him…= for by God all things were created etc.
In one of the replies quote 3 is given. The statement is differently translated to modern English from traditional texts but means both that we can do better things and more things than what he has done. I could not perform as a paramedic without that faith, nor that reality. It is in God’s grace that we do occasionally make a difference.
Yes, Jesus brought us the final commandment to love one another. Yet, according to the texts Jesus is not God but brought us the light of truth and love. God by any name is still God and no other will be placed before Him, or instead of Him.
As an engineer by education, I think Great Architect of the Universe is a fantastic hyponym. I do recognize others see it as a hypernym or as you do, as an anotnym.
We, in our many parts,(every human in the world) are now the body of Christ. As such we must attempt in all we do to honor God and his teachings. The primary teaching of which is to love each other.
May the Love and the Light be with you always.
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Mar 21, 2008 1:22:10 GMT
i think there is a GAOTU instead of a god specificly to take those 6 billion definitions in under 1 roof. its the very fact that he has no name that makes this possible.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 21, 2008 4:13:08 GMT
It seems to me:
- Creation has many levels/mansions - There are intelligences within the various levels - The higher levels and intelligences are analogous to the lower (as above so below)
Hence the process of design (architecture) exists at various levels even the human.
Thus the principle expressed by the term GAOTU exists on a various levels of existence
An analogy is the proposition is that man is made in the image and likeness of god(s). A primitive intelligence, having never seen god(s) might then believe that a man was actually a god.
In Masonry the concept of the GAOTU is not localised to a particular level of existence. This allows the brethren to have their own conceptualisation and avoids the trap of improper comparisons between intelligences on different levels of existence.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
FireMist
Member
Then rally boys, and hasten on.To meet our Chiefs at the Green Dragon.
Posts: 293
|
Post by FireMist on Mar 21, 2008 11:50:41 GMT
It seems to me:................... Cheers Russell Very well said in it's entirity. I notice our friend has not posted in a while.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Mar 21, 2008 13:50:22 GMT
when the nature was mysterious it was god, when men became deist, pantheist, humanist the GAotU was a polysemic word to avoid discussion on the essence of god, leaving enough space for doubt, reason, science... this may explain why masonic lodges were places where one could study astronomy and astrology, geography and ancient religion... when it was sometimes dangerous outside.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 22, 2008 12:30:11 GMT
Dear Brother Fred, It can still be dangerous outside depending on where one lives. In some places, one has to undergo a de facto religious test in order to serve in high public office. There are things that I don't talk about with many people. Mostly because there are far too many people that will get quite upset because I am even looking into a subject that they don't like or agree with. Two examples of why discretion is good and a lodge can still be a place of intellectual refuge.
1. When I lived in Omaha, Nebraska I resided in a quiet neighborhood. Everyone was nice and would pick up your newspaper when you were on vacation. Then a Mormon family moved in. I was the only person in the neighborhood that would even talk to them. Yes, intolerance of their religion did not get them killed, it did get the ostracized.
2. I was a reading a book on the history of the Nazi party at a café. One of the other patrons asked "why are you reading that, are you a Nazi?"
Brandt
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Mar 23, 2008 17:09:12 GMT
The answer is very simple The G.A.O.T.U. is you and me. Whistler you beat me to it. I was going to say "have you ever really contemplated long and hard that Oneself could be that GAOTU or Supreme being that we believe in. Serious thought for discussion !
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Mar 23, 2008 18:06:28 GMT
The answer is very simple The G.A.O.T.U. is you and me. Whistler you beat me to it. I was going to say "have you ever really contemplated long and hard that Oneself could be that GAOTU or Supreme being that we believe in. Serious thought for discussion ! We are certainly a part of TGAOTU. For me we are all part of the One and no-one of us is any lesser or greater than the other, each of us being inextricably linked in some way.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Mar 28, 2008 23:06:07 GMT
It is interesting to comtemplate That Attila the Hun the Dali Lama Leo Hitler Winston Churchill Osama Ben Laden Moses Jesus The Man who Delivers the Milk Whistler Whistler's Mother In Law Helen Duncan George Brown Staffs George Bush are all Manifestations of T.G.A.O.T.U
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Mar 31, 2008 9:50:13 GMT
It is interesting to comtemplate That Attila the Hun the Dali Lama Leo Hitler Winston Churchill Osama Ben Laden Moses Jesus The Man who Delivers the Milk Whistler Whistler's Mother In Law Helen Duncan George Brown Staffs George Bush are all Manifestations of T.G.A.O.T.U Hasn't "freewill" much to answer for
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Apr 1, 2008 17:29:53 GMT
Leo even "Freewill" is a bit of a woolly concept. The G.A.O.T.U. created everything within each sentient being he is there. He wrote the rule book - therefore everything that happens contains the GAOTU . He doesn't make mistakes, he doesn't make accidents. That is why when you look at the random names I listed, the only judgement that can be made about those lives are that they were/ are perfect. The next task is to seek and understand why the behaved like they did/do.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Apr 1, 2008 17:36:14 GMT
The next task is to seek and understand why the behaved like they did/do. Are you saying then that "behaviour" is not of God's making?
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Apr 1, 2008 17:45:35 GMT
The next task is to seek and understand why the behaved like they did/do. Are you saying then that "behaviour" is not of God's making? Certainly not. The understanding of the reason for Gods behaviour in his manifestations as Attila the Hun, and Leo, is for us to learn to understand. Yes I Know the answer because I to am God, but when I as you and all others were born a veil was drawn over most of our knowledge so we would manifest and experience as we do.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Apr 1, 2008 18:54:18 GMT
So, if you - and all of us, for that matter, are a manifestation of God's will - then there is surely a collective responsibility towards behaviour. We are in effect all responsible. Attila the Hun is merely another manifestation of the One, which is a part of us all.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Apr 3, 2008 10:41:04 GMT
So, if you - and all of us, for that matter, are a manifestation of God's will - then there is surely a collective responsibility towards behavior. We are in effect all responsible. Attila the Hun is merely another manifestation of the One, which is a part of us all. Leo - who sets the rules of behaviour - We are responsible for our own behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Apr 3, 2008 15:23:07 GMT
Agreed.
If Freewill is independent, and comes with personal responsibility: are we not experiencing a separation from the One when we exercise it?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Apr 3, 2008 16:15:24 GMT
This is the conundrum we reach when ascribing our behaviour to a supernatural agency. The question always arises: "What of evil. why would a benevolent Creator allow evil to exist?" To which, there is no real answer. We set up an outside entity, and ascribe unlimited power to this entity, and then attempt to justify the evil acts of men to some unfathomable plan that this entity has for it's creation.
We even question the reality of our own ability to direct our own destiny. We question our own mind, our reason, our capacity to act as an independant entity with the capacity to direct our actions for good or ill through our own choice.
The random list of names that Bro. Whistler posted directed thier actions through the application of choice, which presupposes the ability to think, which implies the exercise of free-will. They could have chosen to act otherwise. That they did not need not be ascribed to the will of an outside agency.
|
|