Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to Tale of two Gods
BrWiSk
If you will have read one of my earlier posts about how we can create our own realties to some degree, you will see how I think people who have 'felt God' have done it. It does not prove anything. We know the human mind is a very strong tool and can effect one is a physical manner. If you believe strong enough you will 'feel God'. It does not for one moment mean that God really touched that person.
As for why I keep doing this Blog. I have a lot to say. Not sure why you have such a problem with me presenting these ideas.
'proof of the existence of the unknown', isn't that an oxymoron? We know that there are many unknowns is the universe. And I am aware that there are things that we are unable to explain. And you have made the unknown synonymous with God, not I. God is an unknown, which would back up my statements that the Bible is wrong, because the Bible makes God a known. But all unknowns are not God. In fact as far as I can figure God is not the biggest unknown. This "Supreme Consciousness", which I am not sure if it can be called Conscious, may have started things, but I do not believe it to be active in any way towards our lives, unless you want to say it is part of our minds, in which case it is really nothing like the God of the Bible.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 6, 2003 at 9:59 AM
| link to this | reply
predetermined divine logic
I think it can exist. Thik of time as the linear elapse of God's thought. His/Her/Its thought is comlex and goes through various ideas before reaching the conclusion(s) that facilitate(s) perpetual existence of the entire universe -- not just us.
In fact, our demise might even be necessary for the universe's survival, given our current path of space exploration and technology coupled with highly dangerous practices such as war. Who knows? We're not God, the unknown Being or Entity or Whatever that reaches the conclusions that we, in turn, expeience within the context of linear time.
It's interesting how the "Supreme Consciousness" (there...I like that name for this God) still tries to help us understand and feel how we are wrong so that we may avoid the logical conclusion for our current path of destruction. God transcends the time and thought (and countless other, completely unfathomed) realms and, thus, can think the entire thing before, in tandem with, or even at the same time that He/She/It endeavors spiritually to connect with us and correct our path.
There is so much more to this, but comments are getting long.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 6, 2003 at 8:15 AM
| link to this | reply
which is why...
-- and this is not meant insultingly - why do you continue with this blog?
kooka, there is 100%, or darn near close to it (give or take a couple 100ths of a percent), proof of the existence of the unknown. Remember that we have made the unknown synonymous with God.
How can we be so sure, you ask? Well, remember that total reality cannot be completely fathomed by our limited intellects. Neither can it be totally felt, but the feel part is more precocious than the intellectual part -- more perceptive, if you will.
I am saying to you that millions and millions of people who swear they've felt God (they've felt the unknown) cannot be summarily dismissed in hand as wrong, simply deluded, blind followers. That is arrogant, for the person discarding this form of evidence is basing his opinion entirely on intellectual rigor and empiricism, which have their well-document, highly recognized and acknowledged merits but also have acquired far more than their fair share of hegemony in the field of inquiry.
They can be 100% sure; those humans who do not feel it but see that so many others do can be 99.9% sure. One thing empiricism has done is teach us to ignore something completely if it cannot be proven through science. While it is healthy to question these things that fall outside of scientific proveability, we deny ourselves important insights by becoming, in practice, extremely biased against these things. We are impetuous.
Besides, this idea of pursuing "knowledge" through more than just empirical and intellectual means has strong footing in many Eastern philosophies, so I'm not just divining (no pun intended) some argument here.
A new blogger left me an interesting comment yesterday here. He said that a school of thought in the Christian Church takes the opinion that some people worship the Bible, and this is misguided. On the other hand, others worship the Living God, a much stronger faith and what Jesus was really all about.
SIDEBAR: Remember that Eric Clapton group Blind Faith? Believe it or not, this guitar god -- again, no pun intended -- may have unwittingly inspired my words, here.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 6, 2003 at 8:04 AM
| link to this | reply
BrWiSk
By that line of thought, there is no point to even talking about it. Most everything becomes a moot point, including you own views on the subject.
It all comes down to the fact that there is no 100% proof that there is or is not a 'God' of some kind. No matter what you believe, this is fact.
I have never likes the idea of 'predetermined by a divine logic'. I do not think it can all be planed out.
And for being perfect, I still am unclear as to how you define perfection. God has flaws. Every version of God I can come up with would have to have flaws to be able to work in the universe as we know it. Unless you want to redefine what perfection is.
When you say 'this God is perfect in the sense that it survives' it does not fit with any idea I have of what perfection means. It would seem to be taking the idea of perfection and giving it a wide leniency.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 4, 2003 at 5:50 PM
| link to this | reply
in other words...
...on that last point, any attempts to prove or disprove the Bible's or any other religious book's veracity or logic is a moot point and does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a God.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 4, 2003 at 12:41 PM
| link to this | reply
glad we're finding some common denominators
But it still seems that I'm not quite communicating this idea of the linguistic relativity of the word "perfect," the meaning of which is the closest the human language faculty can conjure to describe "God" but that is still a word that only inexactly describes what "God" actually is.
What if we look at this way: Total reality
functions in a way that allows it to perpetuate. It comprises the "thoughts of God," which are at once constantly changing and predetermined by a divine logic. Precisely because it is able to perpetuate, this functioning system, this
total reality -- this
God is perfect in the sense that it survives.
Not to shamelessly plug myself, but I really urge you to read
Hypothetical Christianity, something I wrote that endeavors to present Christianity at an intellectual level that intelligent skeptics such as yourself might be willing at least to consider.
One thing that you and I might try to agree on:
As a result of the unfathmable essence of God, it stands to reason that our accounts or explanations of Him/Her/It (i.e., "total reality") would be flawed. In fact, by definition they will be.
It does not follow, however, that these accounts or explanations (e.g., the Bible, the Torah, etc.) should be ignored or that we should strive to expose their faults. That endeavor would run against the spirit of the inquiry that has now changed.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 4, 2003 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
BrWiSk
What you are saying agrees with the underlining idea of what I have been saying.
The God of the Bible does not work. If we are to believe the Bible, then God is perfect yet he has human faults. The Bible makes God to be too much like man to be able to be what it is trying to make it into.
The idea that 'God' (For lack of a better term) is thought and really does not connect with us on any level we can understand makes much more sense.
Does 'God' even know he created us? Is it even conscious?
But even this idea, 'God' is still not perfect. Thoughts are flawed. And thoughts are constantly changing, so that form one moment to the next they are not agreeing with themselves. This form of 'God' would be fairly chaotic and uncontrolled. All the more believable for me.
I agree that the idea used for God in the Bible was the unknown. They needed something and that is what they came up with. And you want to make what created you perfect.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 4, 2003 at 11:49 AM
| link to this | reply
kooka
Notwithstanding your well-thought-out previous comment, I wonder if I adequately communicated this altered take on "perfection" that might expand the conversation sufficiently for us to reach common ground.
The idea of God -- again, "God" being the symbol for the unknown (remember: the ancient people masses had limited, if any, knowledge of scientific or philosophical notions) -- as being "perfect" may not mean the "perfect" of the lexicon that our linguistic faculty has begotten. In fact, "perfect" is probably only the closest meaning we, as humans, have to equate with the idea of God, some "thing" that is something more than perfect, if you will.
It's kind of like dialectics; different languages have words that closely approach other languages' corresponding words, but often not exactly. The language of the unknown surely deviates even more so.
As for "God's" (i.e., the "unknown's") powers, how can you presume it is limited if neither you, nor I, nor any other human can fully understand total reality? Methinks this is conjecture on your part.
As for the understanding our scientific knowledge
has been able to ascertain, again consider string theory.
Just recently a PBS special explored string theory. For the sake of any last possibility of brevity for this lengthy comment of mine, I will excessively water down the idea pertinent to our conversation.
Apparently, string theory has discovered physical qualities regarding thought. This is interesting, for it parlays with an idea that came to me once, i.e., that God is pure thought, thus something that transcends time, for time is the result of thought, and God can merely "think" total reality.
Of course, we are now attributing essentially human traits to God, the unknown of total reality, by saying He/She/It thinks, but the idea deserves further inquiry and, above all, a completely open mind.
That's the thing. I agree with you that organized religion is largely close-minded. Yet I also think a recalcitrant attitude toward
any interpretation of God (e.g., the Bible's, organized religion's, Christianity's, etc.) is also close-minded.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 4, 2003 at 9:38 AM
| link to this | reply
BrWiSk
I dislike the idea of the God of the Bible. He doesn't work or me at all, there are too many gaps in logic with such a being. Everyone seems to want him to be both perfect and yet have human flaws, but they are not flaws for him because he is perfect. And he has no limits, but there are limits to what he can do but they are not limits because he has no limits and he can do anything. It just goes in circles like that.
Originally I was going to try and cover all religions, and I have tried not to focus on Christianity for everything. Going after the Bible, especially the OT, which is used by many religions, I was trying to stay fairly general with it. Many religions use the Bible to control their flocks, so it is a good target to use to point out the flaws in Organized religions.
The idea of respect for where we came from I can follow. I try to have respect for nature and other living things. But I do not believe in the God of the Bible. I have stated that I do think there to be some higher power out there, but we have yet to get a glimpse of what it is. Whatever it is, it has limits. It can not do anything just with a thought. Nothing in the Universe is all powerful.
The Bible was created because man needed to try and explain it. It is accepted because mankind thinks they have an explanation so they do not need to put any more effort into learning more. Once more the logic goes into a circular reasoning, we believe in the Bible because it has all the answers. The Bible has all the answers because God put them there. We know that God is right because the Bible says he is. And we believe the Bible because it has all the answers.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 3, 2003 at 4:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Please excuse the grammatical errors in that last comment
I was writing and revising at a fast pace.
A couple more things:
It seems you dislike any idea of God, not just of organized religion. Please tell me how I may be misinterpreting your stance.
Also, Christianity is not the only organized religion, nor the only organized religion that has caused problems, as you might say.
I will concede that organized religion has hurt this world, but please take a look at
this post of mine before you go on blaming CHRISTIANITY for these problems, for surely you see how the concept does not equal the organized religion about it.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 3, 2003 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
GOd is perfect
but for the sake of your oppostition to that concept, let's look at God in different way, a way that compels us to honor "Him" -- and by "Him," you and I can think of it as symbolism for the moment.
God represents all the things that we, as mere humans, lack the sensoral and intellectual faculties either to feel or understand (let alone fathom) but that,
nevertheless exist.
SIDEBAR: We feel a bit more of God than we understand about Him (stay with me on the analogy part of this), and, therefore, many of us, through feel -- many call this "the Holy Spirit"
know He exists.
Think of God as the science behind things that, even though, we cannot understand it, is nonetheless there. There is reality, and then there is the reality we understand. Just look at string theory.
Should we pay attention to and even --
perish the thought -- revere, honor, and respect the things about reality that we do understand or fully sense but, through a reasonable look at logic, can at least understand
is there?
Of course. We are arrogant to act otherwise. This is why we must respect God. It is not because some "being" is forcing a behavior upon us. In fact, this being is not even doing that. Yet we end up on this path toward destruction when we decide to ignore, outrightly defy, or even question the unknown's existence.
Do you see, now, how we are basically displaying the absolute height of arrogance by not respecting a God, by saying He does not make sense to us? Of course He does not. THe whole essence of God would be lost otherwise.
posted by
BrWiSk
on December 3, 2003 at 12:25 PM
| link to this | reply
cantey
Organized religion is about control and very little else.
That is why I do not like it.
I am saying the church and those in power at the time are the ones behind this 'highly organized marketing scheme'. I have done enough research to know, for fact, that there is proof of this.
And no, I am not looking for God. I have no need to.
I am however trying to figure out how our world came to be where it is now days and I blame most of the problems on organized religion.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 3, 2003 at 11:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Cantey
very well put!
posted by
Inkling
on December 2, 2003 at 9:46 PM
| link to this | reply
to what formidable intellect are you attributing this brilliant, highly organized marketing scheme to. the bible is an almost infinantly complex work with deep interwoven messages compiled throughout centuries of time. It is obviously impossible for one human mind to invent it so it must have been created by multiple intellects all in conspiracy and on one accord: throught hundreds, even thousands of years. that seems very improbable. talk about a conspiracy! what possibly could have been their motivation? control? constraint? opiate for the people? who knows? the problem in my opinion with human beings in general is they make things way more complicated than they actually are. the central core of the message of the bible is Gos is love. Does anyone really understand love? is their a textbook definition for it? Don't people in love do things that seem silly and wacky to people in the street? maybe that that would account for the seemingly eccentric goings on and inconsistancies in the good book. in our futile attempts to understand God without KNOWING Him we make things complicated and nearly impossible to reconcile. please, you cannot understand Love without knowing Him. Do you really want to know Him? It does not seem that way, but I think you do. If anything else, it would help you understand His Book.
posted by
cantey
on December 2, 2003 at 9:38 PM
| link to this | reply
God's jealousy is justified because he deserves to be number one
in our lives and when we disobey him by having idols (anything that we put above him), it hurts him because he longs to lavish us with his love. It's kind of like if you have a child and they run away and go live with someone else they call dad, but who abuses them--in a way, you would feel jealous of that man, but also outraged. God's "emotions" are always justified because of his total goodness whereas ours tend to be self-centered despite the fact that our selves are very flawed.
posted by
Inkling
on December 2, 2003 at 9:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
God openly admits to being jealous.
He destroys because of this jealousy.
How is that righteous?
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 2, 2003 at 9:31 PM
| link to this | reply
No, I'm not saying that, so unfortunately we can't agree yet
I'm saying that he has opposite qualities but unlike us humans, he doesn't use them negatively, i.e. his anger is righteous, unlike ours which is based on fear and insecurity and self-centeredness. I expressed what I meant once in this poem about God.
posted by
Inkling
on December 2, 2003 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Inkling
Then that would make God imperfect, wouldn't it?
I did not think God was allowed to have human flaws.
If you are saying God is not a perfect being, then I can agree with you.
posted by
kooka_lives
on December 2, 2003 at 9:04 PM
| link to this | reply
I have known Jesus Christ since age 9 and read the Bible since that time
I have no difficulty reconciling the God of the Old and New Testaments. Don't you see paradoxes in your own personality? You can get angry but still love someone. I know I'm like that. Human beings can have opposing qualities and emotions, even at the same time. So does God. But the merciful, loving God of the NT is very much recognizable as the same one who delivered Israel, despite their rebellion against him, from trouble time and time again. The God of justice of the OT appears in the NT when Jesus overturns the tables in the temple. God has not changed; he is three persons in one: the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit, each with a unique temperament but the same character.
posted by
Inkling
on December 2, 2003 at 8:25 PM
| link to this | reply