ForumGarden

Whenever we are discussing the Divine we are using metaphor for that is the only language that we have and it does not come close to the reality. We have no language to define or describe God in anything close to reality. Personally I refuse to get into a discussion about the reality of God because it ends up in endless circles and is basically a waste of time.

Shalom

Ted :-6

lilafran wrote: I believe that the way of peace and to God is faith, pure and simple, and that intellectualizing about God is useless. :-6Lilafran, I agree with you, but I would qualify you last statement a little. God would certainly rather be loved than intellectualized. I don't intellectualize my wife!

But when I talk to others about God, there are a lot of questions to answer about God, and there are a lot of (in my humble opinion) bad answers out there that paint a very unlovable picture of God. I want to caringly and thoughtfully persuade people against unlovable pictures of the God I love. Sometimes this is an intensely involved intellectual exercise, but rather than useless, I couldn't think of a more important and life-giving thing to do.

One day, it is written that no one will teach his brother saying 'God is like this or that,' because the knowledge of God will cover the earth like waters cover the sea. But we live in a time now when there is a famine of the Word of God. We are drowning in religious talk, but very little of it represents God truthfully. That's why there is so much rebellion, atheism, and religious bigotry, and so little faith and peace.

I think God is what we perceive of Him.

Suresh Gupta wrote: I think God is what we perceive of Him.True, its the religions I dislike

capt_buzzard wrote: True, its the religions I dislike


Hello Captain. How are you?

A querry. You may believe in a religion or may not believe in any religion, but why dislike?

I believe in God. I also believe He is a living God. If you want to know about Him, just ask Him.

Raven wrote: I believe in God. I also believe He is a living God. If you want to know about Him, just ask Him.


Very nice. I like it.

Suresh Gupta wrote: Hello Captain. How are you?



A querry. You may believe in a religion or may not believe in any religion, but why dislike?Welcome back Suresh Gupta. Where have you been

capt_buzzard wrote: Welcome back Suresh Gupta. Where have you been


I have been to my hometown.

My brother-in-law met with an accident and was admitted in the hospital. I was attending on him. He is well and now progressing at home.

Then my mother expired. May God rest her soul in peace. We were a four-generation family, and now one generation has gone.

Glad to be back on FG.

Suresh Gupta wrote: I have been to my hometown.

My brother-in-law met with an accident and was admitted in the hospital. I was attending on him. He is well and now progressing at home.

Then my mother expired. May God rest her soul in peace. We were a four-generation family, and now one generation has gone.

Glad to be back on FG.Oh dear, sorry to hear of your loss. Good to have a friend back on FG.

very sorry to hear of the loss of your mother...condolences to you Suresh Gupta.

lady cop wrote: very sorry to hear of the loss of your mother...condolences to you Suresh Gupta.


Thanks my dear, I appreciate it.

Suresh Gupta wrote: I have been to my hometown.

My brother-in-law met with an accident and was admitted in the hospital. I was attending on him. He is well and now progressing at home.

Then my mother expired. May God rest her soul in peace. We were a four-generation family, and now one generation has gone.

Glad to be back on FG.


My deepest condolences for your mother's leaving your side on this plane. When's the next generation due?

sagan wrote: Nope, not in the slightest. Although I accept certain people feel the need for one.


You must be believing in something, may be yourself.

Suresh Gupta wrote: You must be believing in something, may be yourself.


Sounds like you hit the nail on the head.

kensloft wrote: My deepest condolences for your mother's leaving your side on this plane. When's the next generation due?


Thanks, I appreciate your feelings.

Next generation will take time.

Suresh Gupta wrote: You must be believing in something, may be yourself.


Very clever, Suresh. :yh_clap

But, then, the question is Do you believe in God? and the concept of God is almost certainly defined as an omnipotent source outside of one's self. So if sagan believes in himself as the controller of his world it does not mean he would answer yes to the question unless he also believed that he was the controller of other people's worlds as well.

koan wrote: Very clever, Suresh. :yh_clap

But, then, the question is Do you believe in God? and the concept of God is almost certainly defined as an omnipotent source outside of one's self. So if sagan believes in himself as the controller of his world it does not mean he would answer yes to the question unless he also believed that he was the controller of other people's worlds as well.


Sagan might have a different concept of God, the controller of this world.

koan wrote: Very clever, Suresh. :yh_clap

But, then, the question is Do you believe in God? and the concept of God is almost certainly defined as an omnipotent source outside of one's self. So if sagan believes in himself as the controller of his world it does not mean he would answer yes to the question unless he also believed that he was the controller of other people's worlds as well.


May you never cease to amaze me! That would be God in action.

Sagan might have a different concept of God, the controller of this world
He does. His view is "nonexistent", as he said.

That would be God in action.
No. Just me in action. God is much more amazing.

koan wrote: He does. His view is "nonexistent", as he said.

No. Just me in action. God is much more amazing.


Will one deny existence of something one does not understand or believe in? Understanding or believing comes first and then comes the acceptance or denial of existence of that entity.

If I am asked, 'Do you believe in God?',I should first understand what is God and only then I can say whether I believe in God or not.

Suresh Gupta wrote: Will one deny existence of something one does not understand or believe in? Understanding or believing comes first and then comes the acceptance or denial of existence of that entity.

If I am asked, 'Do you believe in God?',I should first understand what is God and only then I can say whether I believe in God or not.


So you are wondering if sagan doesn't believe in God because he doesn't know what God is supposed to be? (Suppose to be according to whom?)How long is one required to research before they can have a valid opinion?

I believe in the form of God I believe in because it has been shown to me by the source. God has not chosen to reveal itself to sagan so he has every right to not believe in it. From what I have read of his posts, sagan is extremely well read and mostly likely could define God in seven different ways if he so chose. But he does not believe in the existence of any of these definitions. Why? You could also ask why hasn't God shown itself to him? Maybe he is not meant to believe. Or maybe we are wrong and sagan is right. You could argue til pigs fly but ask Ted if you are likely to change sagan's mind.

For some reason I felt like answering this question. I would be thrilled to hear anything sagan has to say as well. Just couldn't help jumping in where the question seemed moot.

the original meaning of moot has been altered I use it here to refer to a subject that has no possible practical outcome.

koan wrote: So you are wondering if sagan doesn't believe in God because he doesn't know what God is supposed to be? (Suppose to be according to whom?)How long is one required to research before they can have a valid opinion?

I believe in the form of God I believe in because it has been shown to me by the source. God has not chosen to reveal itself to sagan so he has every right to not believe in it. From what I have read of his posts, sagan is extremely well read and mostly likely could define God in seven different ways if he so chose. But he does not believe in the existence of any of these definitions. Why? You could also ask why hasn't God shown itself to him? Maybe he is not meant to believe. Or maybe we are wrong and sagan is right. You could argue til pigs fly but ask Ted if you are likely to change sagan's mind.

For some reason I felt like answering this question. I would be thrilled to hear anything sagan has to say as well. Just couldn't help jumping in where the question seemed moot.the original meaning of moot has been altered I use it here to refer to a subject that has no possible practical outcome.


Well put! You are simply amazing.

kensloft wrote: Well put! You are simply amazing.


Flattery gets you everywhere. :yh_battin

If on a fateful day, the sky should opens wide and a loud says "I am God and I exist" will people still believe that He exists or will science try to explain the phenomenon?

polycarp wrote: If on a fateful day, the sky should opens wide and a loud says "I am God and I exist" will people still believe that He exists or will science try to explain the phenomenon?


a) That ain't gonna happen. Rhetorical question perhaps?

b) If it happened? They would shut up.

kensloft wrote: a) That ain't gonna happen. Rhetorical question perhaps?

b) If it happened? They would shut up.


Um...yeah, I'm with you, kensloft.

koan wrote: Flattery gets you everywhere. :yh_battin


Woo-Hoo! :-4

sagan wrote: Yes. I deny the existence of invisible thirty foot tall pink and purple pixies on the same basis as I deny the existence of 'god'. I have no direct or indirect evidence of either.

Quite right. It’s called scientific methodology. I accepted the existence of atoms before I ever saw one, even though they are invisible.


Sagan dear, do you know what invisible thirty foot tall pink and purple pixies are?

And dear Koan, I am not saying that sagan doesn't believe in God because he doesn't know what God is supposed to be? Only sagan knows it. What I suggested was a scientific methodology (this term has been used by sagan). I am also not denying the right to sagan of not believing God. Who am I to grant or deny such right?

posted by sagan

Yes. I deny the existence of invisible thirty foot tall pink and purple pixies on the same basis as I deny the existence of 'god'. I have no direct or indirect evidence of either.


Do you deny the existence of the purple people eaters? You can't can you? Have you ever met any purple people? No, good therefore the purple people eaters really do exist and you can't prove otherwise.

gmc wrote: posted by sagan



Do you deny the existence of the purple people eaters? You can't can you? Have you ever met any purple people? No, good therefore the purple people eaters really do exist and you can't prove otherwise.


:yh_rotfl

Suresh Gupta wrote: Very nice. I like it.
Thank you.

It may seem like an oversimplistic view, but I also believe thats what gets in the way of folks, and their understanding the divine. They try to complicate and overexplain things. God has already explained that which needs explaining. It's His explanation of things that people dont want to accept.

Suresh Gupta wrote: Sagan dear, do you know what invisible thirty foot tall pink and purple pixies are?

And dear Koan, I am not saying that sagan doesn't believe in God because he doesn't know what God is supposed to be? Only sagan knows it. What I suggested was a scientific methodology (this term has been used by sagan). I am also not denying the right to sagan of not believing God. Who am I to grant or deny such right?


They're one foot shorter than the 31 foot tall pink and purple pixies!

sagan wrote: See how easy it is to start a religion?


I calll dibs on the collection plates and all the bank accounts. You 'n' me sagan, we can be rich, rich, rich. You tell 'em to send the cash and I'll collect it. The purrfect plan.

If you are really good we can branch out, score a few sects. We're talking big bucks.

We can be bigger than Gates,

sagan wrote: Yes I do. They are as believable as any other invisible entity.


Then how do you deny their existence?

Suresh Gupta wrote: Then how do you deny their existence?


Suresh, while I would really like to laugh WITH you, it is becoming more difficult to not laugh AT you. I'm not trying to be cruel. Just read the last ten posts and tell me it is still a serious question. Please laugh WITH us? Pretty please?

koan wrote: Suresh, while I would really like to laugh WITH you, it is becoming more difficult to not laugh AT you. I'm not trying to be cruel. Just read the last ten posts and tell me it is still a serious question. Please laugh WITH us? Pretty please?


Oh dear Koan, I am laughing, not at others but with them. I am enjoying this discussion. I am only acting as a catalyst. It is bringing out the best in all of us.

Suresh Gupta wrote: Oh dear Koan, I am laughing, not at others but with them. I am enjoying this discussion. I am only acting as a catalyst. It is bringing out the best in all of us.


CATALYST? Thank you for helping us know-nothing lesser entities to see the light. Yes, we have nothing to offer. We are so soul-less and unaware of the things that are spiritual that can only be divined by superior religons and concepts that we Westerners lack in more than one way.

Think a little much of your powers don't you.

kensloft wrote: CATALYST? Thank you for helping us know-nothing lesser entities to see the light. Yes, we have nothing to offer. We are so soul-less and unaware of the things that are spiritual that can only be divined by superior religons and concepts that we Westerners lack in more than one way.

Think a little much of your powers don't you.


Oh dear Suresh. I wish I were a catapult to eject condescention from this discussion.

Kensloft is not alone in his opinion.

kensloft wrote: CATALYST? Thank you for helping us know-nothing lesser entities to see the light. Yes, we have nothing to offer. We are so soul-less and unaware of the things that are spiritual that can only be divined by superior religons and concepts that we Westerners lack in more than one way.

Think a little much of your powers don't you.


Oh my God. I never thought that using the word 'catalyst' will hurt you so much. In fact this word applies to each member on this forum. I am sorry for hurting your feelings and of any other member (Koan has expressed her hurt).

My purpose of being on this forum is not to hurt anybody. I am feeling so low finding that I have become a cause of hurt to others. This calls for some action on my part.

SORRY ONCE AGAIN.

Suresh,

You didn't hurt my feelings, you were annoying me by asking the same question over and over denying that it had already been answered.

Attached files

sagan wrote: Its a deal!


I'm off to see the wizard.

kensloft wrote:

I'm off to see the wizard.
or was that "i'm off to see the lizard"? (oh baby, jim morrison!)

lady cop wrote: or was that "i'm off to see the lizard"? (oh baby, jim morrison!)


If you were really good we could let you trail us in your car and pick up the cash that falls out of our dump truck on the way to our storage bins.

Look out Scrooge McDuck! Plus guard duty the rest of time. It's a good deal. Trust me.