Nietzsche was right, and God is dead… for most people

Wisdom seeker

more correctly, they were providing the antithesis of an existing thesis

.

hence antithesis becomes thesis, which results in further antithesis down the track - this is the cycle of knowledge as it is struggles with the onslaught of habits of ignorance

if one thinks language is an inappropriate medium for instigating a change in values, its not clear what other resources one could avail oneself of

you have your interpretations derived from your knowledge base - hence the distinctions between your knowledge base and that of saintly persons is what constitutes the difference

perhaps that is correct - still that doesn't mean all descriptions of the absolute are equally accurate

if you can speak through a written word, why can't god?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Our intuition is our best teacher.

Because written word is that of humans, and we limit our experience by putting it into words.
If there is a god, he is alive and kicking, not alive only during the time of Jesus or the scriptures, he is alive now.
A scripture is talking about what god told people many years ago, but god is talking to people right now. I rather hear what God has to say right now, than what he had to say 2000 years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, that doesn't contradict the definition(s) I posted earlier, unlike your thoughts on "god" which you yourself admitted doesn't fit the definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All I’m saying is that no one can tell you the concrete truth about God, and we will never be able to fully understand him or his actions.

I frankly find a little logic on what you are arguing about. I mean, what is the point on arguing about dictionary definitions of the word “god”? You should be arguing about your own definitions of god instead.

 

That voice that emanates from your inner self that would say to you it is wrong if someone tells you horrific actions and words(that would repulse most decent people) are the nature of God.

 

I'm not arguing over dictionary definitions, those are fine. I'm arguing over you saying one thing and meaning another. Communication wouldn't work at all if everyone did what you did, saying something but meaning something completely different.

I mentioned earlier, me saying oranges but meaning plastic bottles. How is what you're doing any different?

 

I´m just talking about God here, how do you want me to call it? The Dao? I´m not a Daoist, but I believe in God. If you want to talk about your definition of God, you can do that in here.
On the other hand, if you want to stick to grammatical issues, then you can go to the linguistics threads (=; I say that in a good way, no harm intended.

 

No harm taken. But I'll ask again, how is it any different than me saying oranges and meaning plastic bottles? This isn't a matter of grammar.

Even if you don't consider yourself a Daoist, the Dao is what you believe in, no?

 

Nope, I believe in God, described as the "Dao" by Lao-Tzu in order to avoid confusions with the many concepts of God that there were already. And yet I´m not all about the Dao, I believed in this stuff way before I read the Tao-Te-King, and Lao-Tzu was just another poet of the divine.

God is not a concept you can put in a dictionary and expect to have it all figured out. God is a concept that needs elaboration, the most extensive elaboration there is, and yet, it also can be defined in a simple word, which is Love.

It is like a sunset, could you describe a sunset to a blind man with mere words? I think not my friend, and yet that is exactly what some people try to do with the concept of God.

 

"I believe in God, described as the "Dao"" <-- That's my point. The definition of a god does not fit the concept of the Dao. Here's a nice point from a paper I just finished reading describing the similarities and differences between Chrisitianity and Taoism.

"The Bible’s Yahweh is named and intimately involved in the lives of shepherds, kings, farmers, and fishers. This contrasts profoundly with a silent, void, and nameless Tao which is of most value to emperors and other ministers of the state. This is the greatest gap between the faiths. Though Lao Tzu prefigured and paralleled many beautiful aspects of the Christian Bible, he falls short in ascribing to the supernatural a personable agency, instead granting the faithful only a cold, vague, elusive Tao."

And that's the difference. The concept and definition of god, and not just the Christian one noted above, involves interference. The Tao, and your concept of "God", does not.

Uh.. it's not? So what are all those definitions for the word god that I see in who-knows-how-many dictionaries? And I don't know what you're talking about, no one mentioned the definition being used to fully figure out god(s). Even the definition I posted earlier requires elaboration to match the many different religions out there that believe in that concept. You don't believe in that concept, you believe in a completely different one.. which is why I don't think it's correct for you to continuously call it god.

I can describe a sunset to a blind man. I can tell him why it happens, what's causing it to happen, I can mention the stages of a sunset, I can do all that and more. What I can't do is have him experience a sunset like I do. But that doesn't mean I can't describe it to him. A sunset to me will mean the same thing as a sunset to him, in terms of just what it is. It's definition.

 

actually the best teacher is someone who already knows - its not like we have to behave like mad artists (at least all the time) and re-invent the wheel just so we can stick our signature on it

just imagine how more limiting your life would be if you had no access to the written word (which doesn't just mean no more sci forums - but no history, no science, no philosophy etc)

certainly - i agree

many years ago people were subject to death, old age and disease.
today people are subject to death, old age and disease

many years ago people were in anxiety due to material existence
today people are in anxiety (and perhaps even more than many years ago) due to material existence

many years ago people were drawn to the ephemeral attractions that clouded their perception of eternal absolutes
today people are drawn to the ephemeral attractions that cloud their perception of eternal absolutes

he has the same thing to say

what "new events" of the modern age have placed different slants on the struggle with dualities within the material world?

 

Hi WS.

A question was posed by 'ashura' at the begining of the thread which you may have missed.

"What's the source of this God of yours? Where did you get the concept and what is it that made you believe this concept is true, as opposed to the hundreds (thousands?) of other concepts out there. How do you know the Bible and it's God, or the Quran and it's God aren't 100% real?"

Jan.

 

What is the criteria to determine whether they "know"?
By observing their actions? Or simply believing their claim that they do know?

Every sunday morning I see so called men of God claiming they know the mind and heart of God. Of course this is usually followed by a sermon on the wrathfull/hatefull nature of God (which God does not have of course) and then usually a plea for some financial contributions.

Do you believe all the various Gods and Goddesses to be faithfull reflections of the one God? Or are you willing to admit that they were simply various groups of peoples' rendition on God according to their particular social and cultural habits?

 

The tao that can be described
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the eternal Name.

*** replace "Tao" with "God" ***

Emmm, no you can´t. Try to explain how the contrast of blue, orange, violet, mixed with infinite imagination... the colors plus the effect on the mountains and the clouds. I think you would get stuck at "blue" for a long time my friend.

 

Hi Jan, that´s the beauty of it, I don´t have a specific source. I´m talking about my understanding.

I´d like to hear you guys try to give me your definitions and understandings of "God", not taken from a "Holly Book" or worst: a dictionary.

It would be nice to hear that people are taught "how to think" intead of "what to think".

 

I don´t agree my friend. Even the best teachers cannot define this concepts to you, this is something that you need to do by yourself. But if you don´t agree, that´s ok, lets move on.

Yes it would be limited, but still, words are limited big time as well. Imagine a more evolved being, one that has doubled our brain capacity. Do you think they would find our languages suitable for everything they need to say and explain?

Even between Earthly languages we can find limitations, there is only 1 word for Love in English, but there are 5 words for Love in Italian, 2 words for love in French and ancient Greek, that mean different kinds of Love. Is not something you can grasp in English language, when I say "I love my girl", is limited because "love" does not contain the full expression of my feelings towards her.
There is: love for movies, love for mom, love for rain, love for best friend, love for Pizza, love for school cancellations, etc. Very expressive don’t ya think?

I’m not saying that the circumstances are different; I’m saying that the scriptures have been tampered with for many personal reasons across the many years. And there is an important reason why an enlightened teacher never writes anything down himself, it is because their teachings cannot be explained in words, it also requires body language and most importantly: presence. Many people have said that when they come across an enlightened teacher, they didn’t understand a word they said, and that is not important, the important thing is that they felt a presence and a tranquility that can only be experienced in life, it cannot be experienced by reading a book or a dictionary. This is because words are insufficient.

 

Nice job Wisdom_Seeker. Way to go and COMPLETELY miss the point of that paragraph.

Again, you failed to comprehend my post.

Can someone else clarify, am I just not communicating properly? Am I spouting uncoordinated gibberish?

 

If you gave a piece of paper to every human, and tell him/her to write their understanding of “god” in 1 page in their own words; you would have as many definitions as humans on this Earth.

 

Wisdom_Seeker,

What lead you to that understanding?

If we did, we would be atheists.

I don't know what to make of that statement.
Could express it in a different way?

Jan.

 

God isn't dead. He's just dying.