If we take interract replace it with pure act instead, then why not? How come something immaterial cannot act on something material? Something material can be affected by something immaterial. Maybe the material cannot do anything back to it, but why should it? The material isn't of interest here. If gravity pulls you down, how come you must be able to do something to it? It acts on you (and sure there is little bit of interraction but not much - we just ignore that for the sake of the argument) why because of that do you have to be able to act back on it?
my dictionary says god means creator. you can't just start changing meaning of words you know! all. reputation is a thought, and thoughts are material. although, the reputation is not really the reason why people buy a mercedes. you have to go deeper and ask, "why do people want things which have good reputation?" and then... even deeper... then you'll find the real causes... i know, they're just abstracts, two sides of the same thing. i mean, it's like with the spectrum of light. red has has a lower energy than blue. but they're both parts of one light, they're both the same thing. but i still think it might be more correct to say that everything is spiritual rather than material because spiritual means that it's not separate from consciousness. we could say that everything is light. even matter. that's why god said: let there be light. light is consciousness, christ. still, it may not be a full explanation if we don't explain what consicousness is. thoughts are made of the same thing as anything else. it's impossible that the universe would consist of more than one thing. reality can't be relative, because relative means illusive. we can call things by many names, but it's just different forms of 'motion', waves, vibration.
People have written volumes and volumes of books on the nature of God(s). You chose to limit centuries of debate and philosphical exploration to one simple dictionary definition? And, as I said, God creates humankind in his own image and humankind creates God in its own image. So God, though he is a creator, did not necessarily create all of existence, unless, as I also said, you want to go to the level of the akasha and prana. I'm not making up definitions, I'm acknowledging the vastness that the simple term "God" entails. You really think it is that simple? Why do Mercedes HAVE a good reputation? What about Mercedes gives people the image or reputation they are seeking? Where do these "thoughts" exist? They are cultural memes, that do not exist solely in a person's head, they are thought expressed and spread. Where do rumors exist? Where do ideals exist? Where do ideas exist, once expressed and introduced to the collective cultural consciousness? Where does the cultural acceptance of slavery or condemnation of theft exist? Can you put them in a jar and sell them in a supermarket? They are most certainly not material. Life is the medium through which the immaterial interracts with the material.
In the most simple terms, yes. I have always felt that the best way to look at anything, my personal life, my political leaning –what have you– when attempting decide the best course I should take, is pragmatically. I look at the situation and attempt to decide what the results of an action will be, and if those results align with my ideals or take me closer to my goals, that is the right choice to make. Having this pragmatic outlook on life, whenever I was asked if I believed in God, I would always reply that I was agnostic, because, to me, it seemed the only pragmatic path. My reply would be that God just may exist, but it simply doesn’t matter to me, because it wouldn’t change my life one bit if I found out he did tomorrow. If that’s true, what’s the point of believing in him? So, I decided to take that pragmatic lens and point it at God, or At least popular depictions of God. There quite a few different points of view regarding what God is out there, of course, but there are some attributes that are fairly universal, and I focused on those. I determined that there actually WAS something that all those attributes could be ascribed to. It has all the power that the “universal God” has, I could see its effects in my every day life, I can contribute to it, I can learn from it, I am affected by it every moment of every day and it deserves all the praise and worship that is lauded upon the God(s) of different religions. If I did respect the force of this God, act with integrity and be mindful of all my actions and what I contribute to this God, I could see the results of those actions and it satisfied my pragmatic point of view. I could see the direct and indirect results of living a virtuous life, while recognizing, acknowledging and revering something bigger than myself that is not distinct and separate from myself. Does that make sense?
i think god is the existence/life which we recognize as the self which exists in everything. they're mental waves, travelling around here, like sound waves. you can't really put radio waves into a jar either, still they're material, although they're not even visible to our senses. what is material? yes. your higher self. that's all god is. your real self.
Explain, please. You really think so? So everything that was ever thought, by any person, at any time in history, is still floating around us, in a real, tangible, material sense, and accessible? They are detectable because they directly interract with matter. These "thought waves" as far as anyone is aware (or able to provide evidence for) do not. See above answer. I don't really know what that implies. Why is "Self" God rather than simply "Self"?
yep, that's why some clairvoyant people can see into the past and future. astral light. obviously thought waves also interract with matter, that's why our brains can detect them. it doesn't explain what matter is. people don't know what matter is. it's just "stuff" that we can feel and detect. but what is it made of? it's made of something immaterial. everything is made of nothing. it can't be made of anything but nothing because everything else is matter, ie. something (unknowable, illusion). only nothingness is an explanation, because it's absolute, it's not relative, it's not an illusion, it can be understood by everyone. because self is understood differently by different people, according to how much they know themselves, how aware they are about themselves. primitive people will think that the self is their body or person. if you find yourself, if you are fully aware, you'll see that "i am what i am". god also said that his name is "i am" (although it was actually just moses who realized it, he found his real self). it means [the feeling of] existense, so god is existence. the universe radiates from the eternal existence of the "self", the creator, the zodiac. the self is in all of us, like god, it is omnipresent. so everything is included in the self, so the self knows everything, like god.
Cityzity - stay off the drugs man. Raven - Wasn't Michael Jackson at least partly responsible for his own 'rise' and 'fall' How convenient for man to absolve all responsibility for action and reaction to a n other unspecified oh lets call it god People take responsibility for your own actions and their consequences
sniffy, What the Hell are you talking about? I honestly can’t fathom how, upon reading what I wrote, you could have come to the conclusion that I was trying to absolve anyone, myself or otherwise, of their personal responsibility or accountability. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The whole point was that people should acknowledge and respect the power this has over people’s lives, and to keep that in mind upon considering any action. A decision you make, regardless of how insignificant it may seem on the surface, could ultimately end up affecting the lives of millions of people that you don’t even know, and many that you do know. The immense power of this is something that should be revered, not blamed, because the source of the blame is placed squarely on individuals and their actions. What is most important is being mindful of the contributions you make to it by virtue of simply existing and interacting with other life.
Hey Raven you asked us what we think. I think that humans should stop looking for 'meaning' and consider their own actions on their fellows and the world around us. It sounds like thats what you're saying in your previous post but certainly not in your first. All this He is this and He is that just doesn't sit well with me. But whatever floats your boat. Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle them.
I wouldn't. When someone comes away with something that is essentially the opposite of what I said, I want to know where that impression came from. I didn't say that I didn't want to know what you think. I asked for opinions for a reason. What I was simply asking was where you could have gotten the impression that I was trying to absolve anyone of anything based on what I said. I still don't understand it.
I think we are. I think the disconnect is coming from the fact that I am trying to acknowledge the fact that we and our lives are so powerfully influenced by this "force", and that we have to keep that in mind when we make the choices we do. We are constantly inundated with influences in our lives, and while that is certainly no excuse to absolve yourself of your responsibility and accountability of your actions, not being mindful of such influences will cause you to fall prey to it. What I am saying is that these influences are no excuse and if you recognize and acknowledge them, you then have no standing to offer them up as excuses. The best way to own up to yourself and your own actions is to recognize what is influencing you. By the same token, we should also recognize the power of this "force" over the lioves of others, and act responsibly when contributing to it. Everyting you do affects countless people, therefore you should be mindful not only of what you do and how it may affect others, but how they are affecting you as well, to no lose yourself.
So this 'force' what do you believe it is? Spiritual, governmental. The only force thast i can identify is the force of nature.
I don't understand the question. 'What do I believe it is'? I spent the past three pages explaining what I believe it is. Also, what exactly IS a "force of nature"? How is that term defined... qualified... delineated? Does this "force of nature" you identify it as, have a name (like "gravity")? Could you perhaps elaborate, or at least rephrase your question?
I think what he's saying, and pardon if I'm incorrect, is that all forces are just part of nature, different manifestations of the same thing... the properties of nature... its structure incites all forces. As I said in my first post here, it seems to me like you're personifying it and giving it a new name such that you can relate to it more clearly. Sort of analagous to "meme" and "idea", the difference between "god" and "nature".
What is "natural"? What is "supernatural"? Isn't every thing that occurs, “natural” by definition, even if “God” did it? Where do you draw that line? Is it “supernatural” simply if you give it a name? Such as “God” or “Gravity”? Is it “supernatural” if you associate it with spirituality? Wouldn’t that make any act of kindness, if done with the intention of piety “supernatural”, therefore impossible? Furthermore, I am reluctant to call it a “Force of Nature” for a few reasons. First of all, the connotation that comes along with the expression implies a force above, beyond and extant regardless of mankind’s existence, interference or influence. Gravity exists as a force of nature. Whether or not humans exist, whether or not other life exists, whatever we may or may want to do with or to it, it still exists. Not only does it still exist, but it is a static, quantifiable force. It is independent. Secondly, the concept of synergy - the whole is greater than the sum of all its parts – causes me to be reluctant to define this as a “Force of Nature”. I am unaware of another such “Force of Nature” that exhibits this property. It’s not simply a matter of strength multiplying with numbers. Third, this is wholly dynamic and greatly unpredictable. With a little hindsight and wide knowledge, it wouldn’t be too terribly difficult to trace cause and effect relationships backward and find that because DaVinci's mother made a left on Maple street instead of a right on an apparently innocuous Sunday afternoon, hundreds of years ago, it's not inconceivable that Hitler would not have been born. There is no way that could have been predicted, regardless how much foresight a person has. It couldn’t be scientifically determined, regardless what instruments they had at their disposal. I wouldn’t define “The Butterfly Effect” as a “Force of Nature”. You might, but I think that renders the term “Force of Nature” itself fairly meaningless. Not exactly. Writing this out is not about me trying to relate to it and understand it. I already understand and relate to it. It is about trying to help other people relate to it and understand it. I still don’t understand why personifying it is a problem. If it helps people understand, what does it hurt? Do you have the same issue with Æsop’s fables? Is it simply your own preconceived notions and prejudices that are getting in the way? I’m afraid I can’t see the analogy at all. Are you saying that you don’t believe memes exist? Are you saying that memes are identical to ideas, but have different names? I don’t get it.
