|
Post by cosmicthought on Aug 9, 2008 5:22:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 9, 2008 8:45:50 GMT
If that is what the people of Hay House Publishing and those who's books its publishes think then good luck to them.
I notice that one of the books refers to "The Name of God". My own take on this is that NOBODY knows it, at least nobody living, and that all names assigned to the Deity are but human constructs. However there are religions bodies which do claim that pronouncing God's name or at least their version of it, can release tremendous powers. After all was this not what the High Priest of the Jews had the duty to perform once a Year in the Holy of Holies? (T.H. of the Third Degree and explanation of the Third Degree Tracing Board)
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 9, 2008 17:24:00 GMT
Which is why I have never had any problem typing GOD rather than G-D as this is but a generic and "twee" term invented by man and not by any stretch the real name of the Deity which in life we are unlikely ever to know.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Aug 9, 2008 17:37:31 GMT
If you wish to know how I think, all you have to do is ask.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Aug 9, 2008 23:11:00 GMT
I think everyone has to do what they feel comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by cosmicthought on Aug 10, 2008 5:47:44 GMT
I agree, everyone has there own level of consciousness which i respect...why would God have a name anyway? The ancient's called the divine "Amen" which means hidden, "The All" from the Kybalion, if it is just One Universe God would not need to have a name, in my opinion! but the question was why do people look for a higher power outside of themselves?"Man Know thy self and you shall know the god's!"
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 10, 2008 23:17:41 GMT
Why do people join Freemasonry? Or more to the point, why do people remain in Freemasonry once they discover that God is within? Probably because 'outside' there are some who are able to give clearer indications of the Way to connect with the Great One 'inside'.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 13, 2008 23:45:59 GMT
I think....
God
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 14, 2008 1:19:58 GMT
Sometimes I wonder if the concept of the Mind of God is rather anthropomorphic.
Perhaps God has (developed?) functions that are higher than mind although perhaps analogous
For example, perhaps the relevant divinity uses a network of cooperative consciousnesses to propagate its intent through adaptive experience without a specific conceptual plan
If so, one of the human aspirations might be to be a part of that organic collective
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Aug 14, 2008 7:54:17 GMT
I thunk therefore I was.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 15, 2008 0:29:11 GMT
For example, perhaps the relevant divinity uses a network of cooperative consciousnesses to propagate its intent through adaptive experience without a specific conceptual plan For Goodness sake.. Russell, I think you've got it!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 15, 2008 12:47:42 GMT
If so, one of the human aspirations might be to be a part of that organic collective Each "I" already IS! I am that I am. There is already the Mystic Tie, uniting all that is: The one Soul, the One Life is expressed through each sentient being. This is the ultimate reality.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Aug 15, 2008 22:21:50 GMT
>Each "I" already IS! I am that I am. There is already the Mystic Tie, uniting all that is: The one Soul, the One Life is expressed through each sentient being. This is the ultimate reality.
The ultimate reality is hard to see on the TV news.
Perhaps humans have to do something to express the reality
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 16, 2008 0:03:51 GMT
>Each "I" already IS! I am that I am. There is already the Mystic Tie, uniting all that is: The one Soul, the One Life is expressed through each sentient being. This is the ultimate reality. The ultimate reality is hard to see on the TV news. Perhaps humans have to do something to express the reality As with any aspect of reality, it simply IS: This is only a problem if one perversely insists on the dogma of God's perfection, despite the selective evidence to which you refer. Each "I" / "eye" may well want and strive to become more than it presently is and this too is a "holographic" expression of God's ongoing growth, as also expressed through the expansion of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by thegunnersdream on May 1, 2009 2:05:30 GMT
I think that the most accurate statement was made by Mr Holland in his observation that God is often anthropomorphicised. The notion however that God would develop any mental state as Mr Holland correctly bracketed, is a flawed proposition. The supreme entity would exist outside of time and space because the ultimate cannot be contained by any of its subordinate dimensions by definition. If it is outside of time then it does not develop.
Therefore that we could conceive of, let alone speak the true name of a supreme being based on the predicate that such a being is infinite, is itself an impossibility. That would require the assumption that an advanced entity restricted its description to what is tenable to humanity.
Mr Holland pertained to an interesting development of his idea in mentioning functions higher than mind. Human perception is limited to three dimensions; four if you include time. If God is, then it is outside of time. God is; in this sense, infinity, or the metaphysical if you prefer.
We might then ask if God exists if outside of our accepted parameters of existence. It is perhaps sufficient to say that 'God is' because this is as much as can be said without positing God in time and space by the addition of an adverb. We may further reduce this to 'God', because 'God is' is may be taken (incorrectly) to mean 'God exists' which is illogical due to the equation of God and infinity. To state 'God exists' as by stating 'infinity exists' is to make the assertion that 'existence exists'. Similarly, to state that 'God does not exist' is to invoke the existence of God and then quash it in one utterance. Quite an achievement if you can justify it.
The final offering, respectively to Mr Holland, appears to contain a contradiction between collective consciousness influenced by the will of a deity, and individual aspiration unless i misread it.
It is late and i must sleep now, further considerations however include Stirner, Nietzche, Heidegger and Kierkegaard.
My conclusions include that God 'exists' because we have faith and not that we have faith because he exists. Reality provides the occasional lucid glimpse of truth before it again evades our grasp and i think the confusion might lie in the elusiveness of our own identities which in the same manner as our understanding of the truth, often escape us.
Peace, love and understanding
Nick x
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on May 1, 2009 6:20:12 GMT
If I were God . . . for a day . . . I would go shopping
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on May 1, 2009 18:19:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 4, 2009 0:58:20 GMT
God wouldn't have to think, would he?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on May 4, 2009 13:08:50 GMT
If S/He wants
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 5, 2009 0:53:30 GMT
he-he-he ;D Off with my head! Maat
|
|