I believe in God but I adamantly refuse to use petty paltry inchoate terminology to define it, must less confer gender for Christ's sake.
And it gets back to reconciling the disparate conceptions of God
Allah ak bar my ass
I'm not Defining God, that is impossible...I'm attempting to define a reconciled concept of God
They'd cut off your head for even trying in some countries.
but that's a moot point
the universal truth has been broken up into many many fragments (religions) that have been twisted to fit not so much the needs as the WANTS of those who control them for their own ends, thus we have our world today, strife with religous turmoil
So its an absolute impossibility in any comprehensive form.
thus we see aspects of God in all religions, but no reconciled concept of God that all could fundamentally agree on if they could first rationally acknowledge a reconciled concept of God, and second seek to experience God through metaphysical practice
I despise organized religion because of these inherent limitations
Well - you learn something new every day!! I have never in my life heard of the word "inchoate", in fact I wondered if it was some sort of typo. Anyways, google as always is my friend and I have looked it up and yes it is a REAL word!! lol
but I disagree vehemently that it's impossible to rationally explore a reconciled concept of God
May I ask why you refuse to attempt to define the "Concept of God"?
I don't invent words- neologisms
I think it should be a priority of the people of the world
not God, as I've stated a few times I am not trying to define God, but our concept of God.
Because by doing so suggest a doubt in its existence. It is between me and it and no one else.
I'm taking spiritual alchemy for what it promises, and metaphysically experiencing that it works
see, that's solipsistic my friend
Are you the only one God has a relationship with?
All religions can agree on one thing...........there is a God, thats a start, and perhaps the most important thing
that is what you seem to have stated
I don't give a hoot about anyone else's relationship.
I don't care what you think, I care what I think.
Exactly Ayrton, and what about those who do have doubt? What about Atheists who can't agree on a concept of God that doesn't prove its existence but could allow for more widespread conceptualization and more opportunity for more people to Know God and Thyself
Well, I have nothing against you personally sobroquet, but I find that stance very selfish
and God is not selfish
ain't that a shame
Thus, you limit how much you can know God fundamentally
You have some agenda?
Because being selfish in your relationship with God, you can only see one facet of God: you
Agenda? Yes, I want to know God as much as possible and to raise my consciousness as possible, and if possible, to do what I can to make it more likely for others to know God
I wouldn't evangelize anyone if that's what you mean
but it's worth discussion, so I come here to discuss it
That's fine, but this isn't a mutual admiration society.
I'm not pigeon holing, you're the person who said it...
I don't want admiration
This is Alchemy to me.
I'm seperating elements and reconstituting them in a purified form
and these elements must be tested
God murdered his own son but isn't selfish? 25,000 people perish in a Tsunami isn't selfish? God is a enigma of unspeakable proportions.
I want to pursue the middle path, the straight path, to balance all elements in my pursuit of a tabula rasa
The ultimate phenomona
You're talking about the Judeo Christian God
The "real God" right?
a concept of God that reconciles all concepts of God.
without denying the individual concepts of God that do not attempt to reconcile with other concepts.
You're a mystic
then I guess I'm in the right place?
is there a word for word porn?? lol
yeah the right place Thad
Dictionaries at dawn!!
Alright let me ask you this, do you think God is ambivalent despite the fact that tsunamis exist and people do horrible things?
I think God is loving and beautiful
I have no idea, that is a human sensibility.
like word fetish
So when you experience the metaphysical do you experience it as a human?
I think he's a mo fo
Because that is what you are, are you not?
The thinking man's alternative weapon lol
Whatever I am its irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant?
Because the topic isn't about me.
Yet your opposition comes from yourself
where do you get opposition?
I personally prefer to challenge my beliefs, again this is an alchemical principle
if the topic is about God and Gods universe then sure the topic is about everyone?
perhaps the single most important topic in the universe
That is my belief, yes Ayrton. Know thyself, as you said sobroquet, know thyself is (one of the) goal(s) of alchemy
I failed church
and our higher self, many here believe from what I've seen, is an aspect of God
I suspect your inference as to my place here is erroneous.
that we all have within the quotient for Godhood
I study people like you
to know thyself is to know God, As above so Below?
What is my inference to your place here?
To know thyself alchemically
Likewise I study myself and people who are different from me, as every individual is different from me yet universally we share the same aspects in many wyas.
Ah, well then, don't be so shy...what is your place here? I don't mean this in an offensive way
the universal truth is the one thing that connects us all
Looking for signs of life
I am curious, the more I understand you the more I can understand myself and the metaphysical experiences of others can inform my own experiences.
So, may I ask since you study people like me, what have you learned?
That you never give up.
And what about you, have you given up on me?
Or am I as irrelevant as you
Ultomately everyone is.
hey, irrelevant extra is my name.....
So, from what you have said I can infer that you believe God is a chaotic God
a bad mofo who you have a relationship with that is individual, has nothing to do with any one else
is that correct?
we are individuals.
Well, I'm not trying to force you define god, but you have somewhat betrayed your concept
whether you would like to acknowledge it or not
I reconciled the irresolvable quagmire of competing religious disparate thoughforms long ago.
Then please share
If my reconciled concept is false, I want to know the truth.
As you said this is not a mutual admiration society, so I'm not going to stand in awe of your accomplishment and assume you are far superior to me just because you said you did it long ago.
How can it be false when it works for you? Although it may be founded on a plethora of falsehoods.
That does not answer my question...
That wasn't my intent.
I have acted in good faith and courtesy by answering your questions honestly and directly, I would answer that question if I had not already answered it already in more than one way
No, I can say you have been civil and courteous but you cannot answer a question with a question and call it honest or direct
If you have reconciled all these things, can you tell me how?
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style
You kept asking the same questions.
Your question cannot be answered.
And yet you accomplished it
Now I get the feeling you're just fucking with me
Are you the only person in the history of man to accomplish it? If not, then please direct me to someone else who has and perhaps I can ask them, and be enlightened
I'm not. I'm sorry if I've upset you.
Alright I can see that I am frustrating you by challenging your beliefs or, simply, trying to find out what your beliefs are, so I will stop out of respect.
It is inexplicable.
Please understand I at no point was trying to 'fuck with' you.
I disagree but I've already explained why so I will stop debating you.
casuistry |ˈkaZHo͞oəstrē| noun the use of clever but unsound reasoning, esp. in relation to moral questions; sophistry. • the resolving of moral problems by the application of theoretical rules to particular instances.
syllogism |ˈsiləˌjizəm| noun an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of the topic of argument. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a different proposition (i.e.,
theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē| noun ( pl. theories ) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin's theory of evolution. • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:
(i.e., "stand up a straw man";) and then deny it ("knock down a straw man";) instead of the original proposition.
Aunt Sally: fallacy based on misrepresentation of the topic of argument. How can you misrepresent what isn't knowable?
heres a word for ya..........Antidisestablishmentarianism
just for kicks lol
ooohhhhhh such cunning linguists......lol
Sobroquet, if you truly want to continue this debate I will.
Can we perhaps set some rules?
Such as, answering a question directly?
Otherwise there is no debate.
If its possible.
I shall referee :)
Then we have no debate.
Do you agree that somethings are beyond answer or definition?
no insults or cheapshots lets keep it civil, we are all friends and fellow seekers
If you are simply going to say it's impossible, without telling me why it's impossible, without using a structured argument to disprove my assertions as logically fallible, than how can we debate?
Again I already addressed that, would you like me to repeat it? or will you say that my stating the same thing again in a different way is evidence of my argument being false or poorly founded?
For those responses are all responses that avoid the debate.
i.e. Straw Man arguments.
I have no doubt that you have reconciled these matters regarding God, but I contest whether its full knowable to everyone.
Ok, then we can agree on the debate: Is the a reconciled concept of God knowable?
do we agree on that?
Aren't you kind of trying to convince yourself?
That is a straw man argument, it does not relate to the debate.
It is for you.
Then we have no debate as I just said.
Please do not ask me to continue the debate, and then refuse to enter into said debate.
What are after, some universal understanding permutating every belief?
since all human share brains that in essence perform the same functions and are constructed of psyches that are proven to be universal in their symbology and linguistic mechanisms, a universal concept of God that reconciles all concepts of God is attainable.
its just achieving the reconciliation is the difficult task lol
I mean for all human beings
Is that bad?
I don't think so.
I think its bad in the sense that the current situation has led to thousands of years of death over the arguments of who/what is God
Well, like I said if you truly want to debate the possibility of a reconciled (yes, universal) concept of God through rational exploration coupled with metaphysical empiricism I will be glad to.
I should say, technically I don't consider myself unitarian. I don't believe there is a single word for what I consider myself, because that is a work in progress, a magnum opus in alchemical terms.
If you believe it to be true, what's the point of debate, pedantic diction?
The point for me is to challenge my assumptions.
I consider it part of my spiritual development as well as mental development.
Maybe 40 days in the wilderness would help.
If you think that would help, could you be more specific?
Or is this meant to be insulting?
Be silent and know I am thy God
Or are you saying you have spent 40 days in the wilderness literally?
Ok, well, then do you believe in the God of Abaraham Isaac and Jacob?
that would illuminate things quite a bit
that sort of was my original question
I believ as you do, its an aspect of the greater whole.
But you believe the aspects are not reconcilable, correct?
Not to everyone certainly.
But to some?