Any one who can well define God

[hani_san]

Hi all,
Here I am looking for complete definition of God.

All of you who think they have complete definition of God please help
me.

Hani San

[chazwin]

God = a myth to explain the inexplicable.
It is a catch all phrase used by millions of people. It has no
definitive meaning and tends to change with the requirements of the
question at hand. It has differences of meaning across cultures,
across historical periods, and amongst individuals trapped in their
own cultural milleu. It can be one, it can be many, it can be a force
for good, a force for evil, a trickster, a creator, an indifferent
presence, it can have a personality, it can be devoid of personality,
it can have a gender male or female and it can be neuter. It can be a
personification of an ineffable entity, it can be a malevolent spirit,
In can be corporeal and incorporeal. In fact the only thing that you
can be certain of is that "god" exists in spite of all the evidence to
the contrary.
All those that believe in god are atheists when it comes to definition
of other gods that do not match their own model.
To believe in god you have to reject reason. As Martin Luther (one of
the most devout and serious believers ever) taught that faith and
reason were antithetical, and that man must reject reason and accept
faith. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God
has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly
impossible, absurd, and false."and "Reason is the greatest enemy that
faith has."
So to even have a working definition of god you must be atheistic of
all other versions and reject all reasonable objections to the notion
and existence of such a thing.

[archytas]

Chaz,
Excellently descriptive in historical terms in regard of the
religiobabble. Your logic takes a leap at the end, no doubt for
closure due to tiredness and boredom. I would say that god is what
comes into question, action (often undesirable) and inter-subjectivity
from the godspot in human and chimp brains. Failure to understand
this has led to a history of myth, conflict and devastation of the
apelines, the human form about to takes its role in evolution like any
asteroid on a collision course, by burning the planet and mutually
assured destruction explosions of greater precision than hurled
comets. A fair, working model I would have thought? The inter-
subjectivity bit could be explored through social spider interaction
and the excellently unhierarchical termites. Perhaps they coordinate
through god too? It is possible we might think up other matter to
work on the godspot than ancient scripture involving misogeny, songs
of victory and enemy vilification and in group superiority. Peaceful
living in sustanable communities freed from the serfdom of capitalism
and the freezing moral climate of commodity fetishism and and
political-media class seems not yet to get through. God, in this
latter sense, might be a means of catching up with what the rational
can see. My gods would see a human future, if in developed form.
Religion is merely that which drives us to heat death and assures a
non-human future of whatever feeds on what is left of us to decay.
"Oh look Georges", the future earthling may say, "there's some charred
human in that glacier over there - fancy a bite". "No thanks Ethel",
the second future earthling may say, crawling off in another
direction. "They taste good, but I can't get what wankers they were
out of my mind as I chew". God, looking on, will be satisfied his new
charges know that onanism is fine and proper in private, but should
never have been allowed a role in public, human affairs.
"Heorsheorit" God will think alound, "to think I could have sold them
to the devil for a sack of horseshit. What a missed opportunity".

Neil

[Pat]

Usually, a complete definition is rather large; however, with
this question it requires a careful and concise approach. I prefer an
existential approach that is of Anselmic (that is, derived from the
philosophy of St. Anselm, who, in my opinion, got it only slightly
wrong) derivation: God is that than which nothing is greater. And,
that than which nothing is greater will be that which is omnipresent,
omnipotent and omniscient.
Cheers,
Pat

[archytas]

Brilliant Pat,
Almost political, an answer leaving all the important questions
unanswered and stifling compromise with omnisience and omnipresence.
I shall demur old chap, having no problems with any god acting through
you.

Neil

[Pat]

On 26 Nov, 06:27, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Brilliant Pat,
> Almost political, an answer leaving all the important questions
> unanswered and stifling compromise with omnisience and omnipresence.
> I shall demur old chap, having no problems with any god acting through
> you.
>
> Neil
>

To demur is to raise doubts or to take exception; are you sure you
didn't mean that you would not demur? The trouble, though, with my
philosophy is that I have to accept that anything anyone does is God
acting through them. Which is why I always have to not demur with
God--irrespective of anyone's actions, as I am forced to recognise His
omniscience and my lack of it.
My definition above defines God qualitatively rather than
quantifying Him. It says what God MUST be without saying exactly what
He IS. Which is, in my opinion, a 10-dimesional object of stringy
energy; but I don't think THAT was the kind of answer Hani San was
looking for.

> On Nov 26, 5:10 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Nov, 14:53, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi all,
> > > Here I am looking for complete definition of God.
>
> > > All of you who think they have complete definition of God please help
> > > me.
>
> > > Hani San
>
> > Usually, a complete definition is rather large; however, with
> > this question it requires a careful and concise approach. I prefer an
> > existential approach that is of Anselmic (that is, derived from the
> > philosophy of St. Anselm, who, in my opinion, got it only slightly
> > wrong) derivation: God is that than which nothing is greater. And,
> > that than which nothing is greater will be that which is omnipresent,
> > omnipotent and omniscient.
> > Cheers,

> > Pat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[hani_san]

Here what I got an impressive defintion from my frnd,
though not complete,

"He has no beginning no middle no ending.
He is the light of all luminous object.
He is beyond the darkness of matter and
He is un-manifested. He is the knowledge,
He is object of knowledge and He is the goal of knowledge.
And He is situated in everyone's heart."

Though this definition describes Him impressively, it makes all
of us knowledge-less.

What I concluded here is only God can define Himself, any other
definition is either incomplete or wrong.

One more point I got from my script itself that God is beyond time,
space and energy (I mean He is creator of all this).

He has controll over entropy. Though He is creator of all language,
He understands only one language, Language of love.

At the point, when it goes beyond space time and energy, any
definition
given for Him/Her is meaningless.

One point to support above definition from my friend is:
Think in this way...
We are here,only because we are here all these definitions, all this
space,
time, energy blah blah are along with us. At the very moment we (a
living creature) became dead, existence of all these definitions goes
for him in
one way, but He still lives among us with His deeds, anything He did
for Humanity, or with less or more reactions (you may call side
effect ) of that .

When you are able to see yourself in every living creature, then only
you can
realise that yes You (The God) are omnipresent, omniscience....
Then only you will see your numerous hand, numerous power...

Any comments welcome!

[Lee]

Hey Hani San,

My definition of God is short and sweet and, indeed to the point.

God is all. Ik onkar.(God is1)

[archytas]

Pat,
At work one can demur from a collective decision in cabinet so to
speak. One is not necessarily in disaggrement. Speculation on the
physical exisitence of god, however convolutedly extended, is
something from which I demur. String theories have always bothered me
on the grounds that gravity ends up being so powerful it has its
effects by doing little more than 'farting in our general direction'.
I would set sail in a sweeter wind of god.

Neil

> > > Hani San- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Nov 25, 6:57 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Chaz,
> Excellently descriptive in historical terms in regard of the
> religiobabble. Your logic takes a leap at the end, no doubt for
> closure due to tiredness and boredom.

Actually it was short-hand for a common and very current piece of
thinking from R Dawkins, who has accused Christians of being atheistic
concerning all the other gods, becasue they reject other examples of
gods that do not conform to the Christian one. Atheism, he says, just
goes one god more. In which he is suggesting that atheists follow
their postion to the logical conclusion.

> I would say that god is what
> comes into question, action (often undesirable) and inter-subjectivity
> from the godspot in human and chimp brains.

As Dawkins also points out.

Talk about logic making a leap!

> > and existence of such a thing.- Hide quoted text -

[Pat]

On 26 Nov, 18:01, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Pat,
> At work one can demur from a collective decision in cabinet so to
> speak. One is not necessarily in disaggrement. Speculation on the
> physical exisitence of god, however convolutedly extended, is
> something from which I demur. String theories have always bothered me
> on the grounds that gravity ends up being so powerful it has its
> effects by doing little more than 'farting in our general direction'.

I suppose that explains why I'm a big Monty Python fan! LOL!!

> I would set sail in a sweeter wind of god.

To God, all of His farts smell good. ;-) This was, of course, a by-
product of His budget breakfast on the fourth day where He encountered
his first experiences with some of the plants He created on the third
day, namely, beans on toast and coffee. ;-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

> Hey Hani San,
>
> My definition of God is short and sweet and, indeed to the point.
>
> God is all. Ik onkar.(God is1)

God is ALL!! God is the dogshit on the bottom of your shoe.
God is the laugh of the suicide bomber, and the nails form the bomb
which rip through the eyes of the innocent child leaving her blind for
the rest of her life.
God is the Iraqi child without arms and legs.
God is the tsunami which killed millions of people
God is the nuclear bomb which destroyed Nagasaki.
God is the earthquake that ripped through Pakistan.
God is the tear in the eye of the child who has just seen his parents
raped and murdered by The Lord's Resistance Army who seek to imposed
the rule of law based on the Ten Commandments in Uganda.

God is responsible for the death and pain and suffering.

[Pat]

On 27 Nov, 00:37, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Hani San,
>
> > My definition of God is short and sweet and, indeed to the point.
>
> > God is all. Ik onkar.(God is1)
>
> God is ALL!! God is the dogshit on the bottom of your shoe.
> God is the laugh of the suicide bomber, and the nails form the bomb
> which rip through the eyes of the innocent child leaving her blind for
> the rest of her life.
> God is the Iraqi child without arms and legs.
> God is the tsunami which killed millions of people
> God is the nuclear bomb which destroyed Nagasaki.
> God is the earthquake that ripped through Pakistan.
> God is the tear in the eye of the child who has just seen his parents
> raped and murdered by The Lord's Resistance Army who seek to imposed
> the rule of law based on the Ten Commandments in Uganda.
>
> God is responsible for the death and pain and suffering.
>

Yup. And all the things you perceive as good, as well.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

Hey Chaz,

Now you're getting the idea!

Yeah of course God is all that we would label bad, as well as all that
we would label good. If God is all, how can God not be?

On 27 Nov, 00:37, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[chazwin]

On Nov 27, 9:18 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Hey Chaz,
>
> Now you're getting the idea!
>
> Yeah of course God is all that we would label bad, as well as all that
> we would label good. If God is all, how can God not be?

The trouble with any definition that says X is all, is that you end up
saying absolutly nothing at all about X.
The universe is all. Does nothing more than say what the universe is.
God is the universe. The universe is god. Meaningless piffle. What is
the point of using the word god when you actually mean "universe".
What value does it add? What does it ellucidate: nothing at all.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

Yep I agree that would be the way that the nonreligious take the
statement. I of course am religious, and so to me it has great
meaning and brings much peace and happiness to my life. As to using
the word God, it is because it is God we are talking about.

Saying God is all, is not the same as saying God is the universe, the
universe is God.

[chazwin]

On Nov 27, 10:31 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Yep I agree that would be the way that the nonreligious take the
> statement. I of course am religious, and so to me it has great
> meaning and brings much peace and happiness to my life. As to using
> the word God, it is because it is God we are talking about.
>
> Saying God is all, is not the same as saying God is the universe, the
> universe is God.

What is god then?
Religious = acceptance of a deity whatever the evidence.
Religious = acceptance of the myths of their culture.
Religious = people who have had a skeptectomy.
Religous = blind fools who rage aganist the truth

Your defintion of god is without meaning or substance.

[Lee]

Yep to you I dare say it is.

I have a great friend, we have been friends for many years now, Big
Dave is the name that we call him by.
He doesn't understand football, he has absolutely no interest in the
beautiful game, he doesn't get how people can be so empassioned about
22 men kick a spherical object about, it bores him rigid.

So talk about footie, is litraly meaningless to him, but that does not
mean footie is meaningless. He finds no merit in it, and places no
value in it, others do though, and the world keeps turning, and all of
the people that 'bad mouth' football will continue to do so, and all
of the supporters will continue to support, and then we all die.

You find no sense in my faith nor my definition of God, if that works
for you then I'm pleased for you, I find myself living a good life,
I'm happy with it, and my faith is massive reason why.

So I choose to remain deluded, but thanks for your concern.

[archytas]

These arguments were had in the 13th century and by Greek and Indian
philosophers before. At least they didn't have to put up with
tasteless millionaires strutting on coiffeurred pitches, pretending to
play soccer then.

Neil

[Lee]

All of which shows that there are no new ideas?

[chazwin]

On Nov 27, 11:19 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Yep to you I dare say it is.
>
> I have a great friend, we have been friends for many years now, Big
> Dave is the name that we call him by.
> He doesn't understand football, he has absolutely no interest in the
> beautiful game, he doesn't get how people can be so empassioned about
> 22 men kick a spherical object about, it bores him rigid.

Football bores me ridid too. But your analogy is fale and rather
ignorant.
Though I hate football I am not too stupid to understand the offside
rule, or any of the rules for that matter.

>
> So talk about footie, is litraly meaningless to him, but that does not
> mean footie is meaningless.

I think you meant to say "literally". Not only is it badly spelt but
your usage of it is incorrect as well. To say that football is
literally meaningless would be to say that he cannot understand the
word "football".
Clearly your ignorance and stupidity know no boundaries. And as such
you are much like the other idiots that form the club "Theists
United": ignorant , bone- headed, a tendancy to violence, as thick as
pig-shit: following the rest of the sheep.
Blaahhhhhhhhhh, blahhhhhhhhh.

He finds no merit in it, and places no
> value in it, others do though, and the world keeps turning, and all of
> the people that 'bad mouth' football will continue to do so, and all
> of the supporters will continue to support, and then we all die.
>
> You find no sense in my faith nor my definition of God, if that works
> for you then I'm pleased for you, I find myself living a good life,
> I'm happy with it, and my faith is massive reason why.

Your faith is a blindfold my ignorant little fool.
And makes about as much sense as "England is the best team in the
world"

>
> So I choose to remain deluded, but thanks for your concern.

Fodder for the next religious war.

[hani_san]

On Nov 27, 5:37 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Hani San,
>
> > My definition of God is short and sweet and, indeed to the point.
>
> > God is all. Ik onkar.(God is1)

NOP, God is who lets us doing goods and only god defines good and bad.
Each and everything is governed by laws of nature.
And God is beyond nature.

If this nature starts doing bad, He comes and save us in different
form.

[Sociologist]

To Hani San,

God is just a name for that which has created everything that we have
been, are, and ever will be.

[chazwin]

On Nov 28, 5:35 am, Sociologist <lzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To Hani San,
>
> God is just a name for that which has created everything that we have
> been, are, and ever will be.

So god invented himself too? How bizarre and childlike your mind must
be

>
> On Nov 25, 7:53 am, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
> > Here I am looking for complete definition of God.
>
> > All of you who think they have complete definition of God please help
> > me.
>

[Lee]

Again with the personal insult Chaz?

I really did think that we got through that about two years ago. I
suppose then if that is the timbre of your response to me, then we,
that is you and I, can go no further in our discussions.

The sad irony though is that my post in essance was just saying of
course my defintion means nothing to you, you do not belive in God, so
why would it.

You know also that I'm dyslexic, tell me would you also 'rag' on the
depressed, or the physicaly handicaped?

You talk about my ignorance and violance and yet show your own hatred,
and totaly lack of understanding.

I could go on, but you diatribe has left a taste similar to shit, in
my mouth and honestly I have not got the heart to.

[chazwin]

On Nov 28, 12:26 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Again with the personal insult Chaz?
>
> I really did think that we got through that about two years ago. I
> suppose then if that is the timbre of your response to me, then we,
> that is you and I, can go no further in our discussions.

Though I compared you to Football thugs I did not say that you were
one of them. I do think that religious people tend to conform to the
type though. They have a tendency to follow rather than think things
through.

>
> The sad irony though is that my post in essance was just saying of
> course my defintion means nothing to you, you do not belive in God, so
> why would it.

Bu that is the essence of your problem. In beleiveing in god you have
stopped beleiveing in the power of your own will to distinguish
between following and thinking for yourself. Why indeed should I
recognise the slappy happy Christian flock mentality. I gave that up
wen I was 14 yo.

>
> You know also that I'm dyslexic, tell me would you also 'rag' on the
> depressed, or the physicaly handicaped?

Actually I did not know that you are dyslexic, though you may have
told me. It is not something I find important. I was not "ragging" you
for that, aws I am dyslexic too. I have overcome this with much
effort. You don't get Brownie Points for being dyslexic. Mis-spelling
is only one aspect of what my comment was about. My main aim was to
make you aware of a common misuse of the word "literally", a fault
which has nothing whatso ever to do with dyslexia. It does have to do
with following the crowd though. I thought you might appreciate that.
I bet you will use the word with more care in future.

>
> You talk about my ignorance and violance and yet show your own hatred,
> and totaly lack of understanding.

I don't hate you. I am dissappointed in you though. Clearly you can
read and write, but you still have a way to go to divest yourself of
your religious baggage which seems to be playing havoc with your
reasoning ability.

>
> I could go on, but you diatribe has left a taste similar to shit, in
> my mouth and honestly I have not got the heart to.

When you say that you have a taste in your mouth do you mean
"literally"??
If so I should get to the doctor straightaway.

[hani_san]

Is there any way to get Him ? Or is there any one who can show me
the right way to get Him.

[hani_san]

On Nov 27, 3:44 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:31 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep I agree that would be the way that the nonreligious take the
> > statement. I of course am religious, and so to me it has great
> > meaning and brings much peace and happiness to my life. As to using
> > the word God, it is because it is God we are talking about.
>
> > Saying God is all, is not the same as saying God is the universe, the
> > universe is God.
>
> What is god then?

> Religious = acceptance of a deity whatever the evidence.

NOP, I totally disagree..

> Religious = acceptance of the myths of their culture.

NOP.....Not completely....Yes a small part of GOD, I guess who
nurtured that culture..

> Religious = people who have had a skeptectomy.

No, The person who is really religious is not skeptic, He/She finds
and then believes.
And Yes,
Person who follow the religion because there ancestors does..

> Religous = blind fools who rage aganist the truth

I would say only one thing here:
Jab main tha tab Hari nahi. Sorry, But this is Hindi saying by all
saints (said by Kabeer)
"When there was I in me God was away from me,
Now God is in me and I had gone away." (Here I is indicating the
ignorance)

He who follows God blindly is not fool, but He must ask God to help
Him.

PS "Kabeer was totally illeterate"

>
> Your defintion of god is without meaning or substance.

Somewhere I got like this,
Two things are there, One is Nature other is soul.

When soul is contaminated with Nature then it is not God otherwise it
is.
All saints/prophets/gods have very high level of soul purity so they
were very near to God/were God..

[chazwin]

On Nov 28, 10:11 am, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 3:44 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 10:31 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yep I agree that would be the way that the nonreligious take the
> > > statement. I of course am religious, and so to me it has great
> > > meaning and brings much peace and happiness to my life. As to using
> > > the word God, it is because it is God we are talking about.
>
> > > Saying God is all, is not the same as saying God is the universe, the
> > > universe is God.
>
> > What is god then?
> > Religious = acceptance of a deity whatever the evidence.
>
> NOP, I totally disagree..

Why, when it is so obvious?

>
> > Religious = acceptance of the myths of their culture.
>
> NOP.....Not completely....Yes a small part of GOD, I guess who
> nurtured that culture..

Human interntionality nurtures culture. Islamic humans nurture Islamic
culture, Hindu Hindu culture, Mormons Mormon culture. WHich one is the
correct one? If nurtures by god then why do they fight and disagree?

>
> > Religious = people who have had a skeptectomy.
>
> No, The person who is really religious is not skeptic, He/She finds
> and then believes.

DUh! that is what a skepectomy means, as in apendecomy or vasecotmy.
They have had the skepticism cut out of them and no longer fucntion as
an independantly thinking being.

> And Yes,
> Person who follow the religion because there ancestors does..

But not a good reason as such - wouldn't you agree?

>
> > Religous = blind fools who rage aganist the truth
>
> I would say only one thing here:
> Jab main tha tab Hari nahi. Sorry, But this is Hindi saying by all
> saints (said by Kabeer)
> "When there was I in me God was away from me,
> Now God is in me and I had gone away." (Here I is indicating the
> ignorance)

No shit? I'd rather die in truth than live in ignorance.

>
> He who follows God blindly is not fool, but He must ask God to help
> Him.

He will need all the help he can get!

>
> PS "Kabeer was totally illeterate"

I think you mean iliterate. No surprises there.

>
>
>
> > Your defintion of god is without meaning or substance.
>
> Somewhere I got like this,
> Two things are there, One is Nature other is soul.
>

Whatever soul is it must be natural to exist.

> When soul is contaminated with Nature then it is not God otherwise it
> is.

It is what?

> All saints/prophets/gods have very high level of soul purity so they
> were very near to God/were God..

Says who?... says themselves!

[Lee]

> > The sad irony though is that my post in essance was just saying of
> > course my defintion means nothing to you, you do not belive in God, so
> > why would it.
>
> Bu that is the essence of your problem. In beleiveing in god you have
> stopped beleiveing in the power of your own will to distinguish
> between following and thinking for yourself. Why indeed should I
> recognise the slappy happy Christian flock mentality. I gave that up
> wen I was 14 yo.

Total rubbish, you know me only through whatever exchanges go on
here. Umm which means I guess I can afford to be a tad forgiving.

There are many, many people who can have faith in the existance of God
whilst still being capable of thought and logical deduction, you do
yourself a disservice by your generalisations. As to following, I
have never followed anything blindly ever at any stage in my life, and
I'm now far to old to change my ways in that respect.

I talked briefly a while back with our Ian on the necessity of
learning the language of any skill, or occupation that you wish to
learn. Spirituality is not diffrant in this respect. Yeah I know
that some of the things that come out of 'our' mouths may sound
'whishy washy' or even 'slappy happy', but all you show by your attack
is a lack of understanding of the lingo.

I don't ask for 'brownie points' because of my dyslexcia, only for you
to reconise that sometimes, I may transpose letters, misspell words,
and that there is not a lot I can do about that. As to my use of the
word litraly yes, I did mean that for him talk about football has no
meaning.

Okay so I may have not used perfectly correct English, but isn't that
the buety of the written art form, could you not see the inherent
metaphor? Why am I asking, of course you could not not, hence your
reply calling me how did it go now, ahh yes Ignorant, Stupid, and and
Idiot.

Disappointed in me, you don't even know me? What I can then safely
assume and infer from your words, is that you dispare of anybody who
sees things differently from you, which in turn shows a staggering
amount of arrogance on you side. In short you think that you are
right and thus anybody who disagrees is clearly wrong.

I live a good life with my 'religous baggage' it doesn't effect my
reasoning skills at all, I am not the kind to protheltise indeed, I am
happily married to an atheist and between us have spawned two little
atheists of our own. My life's motto is very much 'each to their
own', I can certainly live in a world with religous and nonreligous
people, and I would never have the nerve to tell you how idiotic,
stupid, and plain wrong your ideas are.

Really Chaz, I honestly thought this kind of comunication between you
and I had finished along time ago, but obviously you read my words,
see red, and out pours the dribble.

Please lets keep it civil between you and I, other wise I'll have to
think about just ignoring you in the future.

[annavictoria.net]

A complete definition of God can only be found when you look within,
otherwise to define God is to deny God because no intellectual
definition will suffice. Having said that let me point you to
information that can give you proof of a non-physical or spiritual
realm. Surprisingly enough it is scientific evidence which is
unfortunately at present denied and swept aside by atheist scientists
who do not want it known or accepted. This evidence points very
strongly to a non-physical realm or spirtual realm. You can can find
this information on my webpages at annavictoria.net from the home page
click on real causes of lifestyle diseases and then look for the links
to medical experiments, insightfulness, as also the lies and the
evidence. There is in these sections further links to see what is
possibly done by scientists to discredit prayer experiments. Sincerely
yours Anna

[Sociologist]

Well you would not exist right now if something did not create you
therefore there must be some power, force, God, or whatever you want
to name it out there.

Childlike huh? Childlike to me would be personal attacks without any
constructive comments added. Sound familiar?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On 28 Nov, 16:15, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > The sad irony though is that my post in essance was just saying of
> > > course my defintion means nothing to you, you do not belive in God, so
> > > why would it.
>
> > Bu that is the essence of your problem. In beleiveing in god you have
> > stopped beleiveing in the power of your own will to distinguish
> > between following and thinking for yourself. Why indeed should I
> > recognise the slappy happy Christian flock mentality. I gave that up
> > wen I was 14 yo.
>
> Total rubbish, you know me only through whatever exchanges go on
> here. Umm which means I guess I can afford to be a tad forgiving.
>
> There are many, many people who can have faith in the existance of God
> whilst still being capable of thought and logical deduction, you do
> yourself a disservice by your generalisations.

In my experience most who have faith eschew logic and rationality,
indeed are proud of the fact, others whilst demonstrating some degree
of thought stop short of the application of deduction when it comes to
matters of faith, ending with some hopeless mantra such as "mysterious
are the ways of the Lords, his wonders to perform" or some such other
statment to cover their lack of explanation or to mask the ungodly
events that so disfigure and destroy humanity with suffering and
disease.

As to following, I
> have never followed anything blindly ever at any stage in my life, and
> I'm now far to old to change my ways in that respect.
>
> I talked briefly a while back with our Ian on the necessity of
> learning the language of any skill, or occupation that you wish to
> learn. Spirituality is not diffrant in this respect. Yeah I know
> that some of the things that come out of 'our' mouths may sound
> 'whishy washy' or even 'slappy happy', but all you show by your attack
> is a lack of understanding of the lingo.
>
> I don't ask for 'brownie points' because of my dyslexcia, only for you
> to reconise that sometimes, I may transpose letters, misspell words,
> and that there is not a lot I can do about that. As to my use of the
> word litraly yes, I did mean that for him talk about football has no
> meaning.

You really have not cottoned on to this one yet have you. When you use
literally it is to indicate a "LITERAL" meaning. I said to a friend
the other day that someone had put some more crap through my door: he
asked "literally?" - we laughed as it has become a common misused to
word - most people use it to emphasise or exaggerate. But to literally
put crap through the door would mean that "crap" was put through the
latter box rather than junk mail.

>
> Okay so I may have not used perfectly correct English, but isn't that
> the buety of the written art form,

No it is not!

could you not see the inherent
> metaphor?

It is NOT a metaphor either. Inherent or otherwise.

Why am I asking, of course you could not not, hence your
> reply calling me how did it go now, ahh yes Ignorant, Stupid, and and
> Idiot.

Carry on!

>
> Disappointed in me, you don't even know me? What I can then safely
> assume and infer from your words, is that you dispare of anybody who
> sees things differently from you, which in turn shows a staggering
> amount of arrogance on you side.

Not at all. I despair of people who hav brains but do not appear to
use then effectively. I think it was you who started with the
arrogance by saying that because I did not beleive in god I was
incapable of understanding faith. If you don't think that was
patronising then you need to think again.

In short you think that you are
> right and thus anybody who disagrees is clearly wrong.

I am always open to reasoned debate. But I don't see any reason here,
just whinging.

>
> I live a good life with my 'religous baggage' it doesn't effect my
> reasoning skills at all, I am not the kind to protheltise indeed, I am
> happily married to an atheist and between us have spawned two little
> atheists of our own. My life's motto is very much 'each to their
> own', I can certainly live in a world with religous and nonreligous
> people, and I would never have the nerve to tell you how idiotic,
> stupid, and plain wrong your ideas are.
>
> Really Chaz, I honestly thought this kind of comunication between you
> and I had finished along time ago, but obviously you read my words,
> see red, and out pours the dribble.

Drivel?

>
> Please lets keep it civil between you and I, other wise I'll have to
> think about just ignoring you in the future.

Perhaps you can avoid the patronising too, as will I.

[chazwin]

On 28 Nov, 19:58, Sociologist <lzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well you would not exist right now if something did not create you
> therefore there must be some power, force, God, or whatever you want
> to name it out there.

My Dad fucked my Mum. He remembers the actual moment of my creation.

>
> Childlike huh? Childlike to me would be personal attacks without any
> constructive comments added. Sound familiar?

Yes, you are sounding childlike.

On the question above, if you really think that all things are
created, who created god?

[archytas]

Lee,
Some poor sod came in here and asked for a definition of god and got
Chazwin. There is always a certain irony in life. I'm something of
an empiricist, so I tend to believe in god. This won't be in your
terms. I see no evidence other than the stories made up by people for
heorsheorit, and the godspot in the brain that appears to generate the
sensations associated with religion. I more or less accept the
evolutionary neo-Darwinism stuff and know that only around 20% of
people show much aptitude for critical reasoning, itself rather
interesting in terms of whatever evolution is about. The world was
once full of gods, needed to bring order of some kind to hostile
evolution and these rarely seem to have been friendly heorsheorits
(they were undooubably gendered rather than just male).
Religion has long been understood as political (but don't tell the
masses). Scholars, even in the Middle Ages, in all religious
traditions, got much further with debates than managed in here. A key
repetition is that knowledge is a route to god. Avveroes, an Islamic
scholar, even states that religion experienced without knowledge and
philosophy is relatively poor stuff. Too elitist for me, but the
principle of having faith in what we know and putting it to good use
is really appealing.
The problems I have with Xtianity are being shown sharply in the Teddy
Bear incident in Sudan. We like to see ourselves as more civilized
than this, yet our history is littered with nonsense like this. I
just don't want to engage rationally with people who won't do the hard
work and whip up the sacred to prevent penetrating enquiry.

I'm disabled, depressed and tired. I can see there is no harm in
Chazzer and he can rib to his hearts content. He isn't going to have
a rather sweet infant school teacher arrested. I don't think any hard
work done on history, including religious history, proves any
religion, but it does say a great deal about how religion is used.
It's not a pretty picture. We are short of something to believe in.
Some of us want to work this out and change the world and how we live
in it. Highly religious, even if we are scientists. We may well turn
to slagging because we are *religiously" sensitised to debate and
change getting nowhere.

Neil

On Nov 28, 12:26 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

[Lee]

Hey Neil,

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my reasons for the response to
Chaz, she and I have a history of this sort of thing, and quite
frankly I'm just getting tired of the same old thing going round and
around between us. It is not conducive to debate.

Lets just take a step back and see what happend and try to detirmine
how much value both Chaz and I have added to the debate with these
last few posts.

Hani asks if anybody can well define God. I offer my definition, Chaz
counters that it is meaningless. I counter that yes I can see that
for then non religious it may well be. Chaz starts again with the
personal insults, the rest, well you can see the rest.

Again you know I don't want to be sitting here typing out long winded
and boring explanation posts, suffice to say when somebody starts
insulting you, you have to try to stop that.

Hopefully thats the end of it and we can get back to the matter in
hand.

> ...
>
> read more >>

[Lee]

> You really have not cottoned on to this one yet have you. When you use
> literally it is to indicate a "LITERAL" meaning. I said to a friend
> the other day that someone had put some more crap through my door: he
> asked "literally?" - we laughed as it has become a common misused to
> word - most people use it to emphasise or exaggerate. But to literally
> put crap through the door would mean that "crap" was put through the
> latter box rather than junk mail.

*Sigh* Chaz please go back and read the actual words that I typed.
You will find that my use of the word literal was fine in the context
of the words, and the meaning I wanted to portray.

If I talk about football to my friend he does indeed get all glassy
eyed and it is though I am talking a foreign language to him. Stop
trying to give me lessons in English, I do not appreciate it, and it
has nowt to do with the topic.

> Not at all. I despair of people who hav brains but do not appear to
> use then effectively. I think it was you who started with the
> arrogance by saying that because I did not beleive in god I was
> incapable of understanding faith. If you don't think that was
> patronising then you need to think again.

No I did not say that either.

> I am always open to reasoned debate. But I don't see any reason here,
> just whinging.

Yes, I am whinging.


> Drivel?

No Dribble

> Perhaps you can avoid the patronising too, as will I.

Then I applogise.

[chazwin]

You seem to have a couple of typos in your text.
1) "I'm something of an empiricist, so I tend to believe in god. "
Do you really think there is an empirical basis for god?
If you accept the "darwin stuff" then surely you know that "god" is an
evolved tendency for higher organisms to have a sense of purpose.

2) "The problems I have with Xtianity are being shown sharply in the

Teddy
> Bear incident in Sudan. "

Don't you mean "Isalm" or "organised religion"?

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Nov 29, 10:02 am, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Hey Neil,
>
> I'm afraid you may have misunderstood my reasons for the response to
> Chaz, she and I have a history of this sort of thing, and quite
> frankly I'm just getting tired of the same old thing going round and
> around between us. It is not conducive to debate.

If you expect me to remeber that you are dyslexic then you might at
least try to remember than I am a male.

What is conducive to debate is to counter arguments and positions
posed.

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[Vamadevananda]

I am not the one to show the way. But I can confirm to you that there
is a way, especially suited to you.

> > > Hani San- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

I applogise to you, I have always been under the asumption that you
are female, now I know better.

As to counter arguments and their ilke. It is not a counter argument
to responded on a topic asking for a definition of God to weigh in
with the 'all believers in God are idiots' type posts, it's not even
on topic but it is counter productive to the topic, and it is
argumentative. It turns the topic from it's original intent to a
flamefest.

I don't mind arguing my case for my belief, but lets not hijack any
topic on the G word and turn it into that huh.

> ...
>
> read more >>

[Pat]

On 29 Nov, 01:13, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28 Nov, 19:58, Sociologist <lzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well you would not exist right now if something did not create you
> > therefore there must be some power, force, God, or whatever you want
> > to name it out there.
>
> My Dad fucked my Mum. He remembers the actual moment of my creation.
>

Somehow, I think he (followed by you) confused his orgasm with the
fertilisation/conception process; they occur at different times. I
seriously doubt that either your father or mother remember the moment
of your conception.

[Pat]

On 29 Nov, 04:55, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Indeed, although most of it is kept fairly quiet. I remember quite a
few nieghbours getting in an uproar about another neighbour whose pet
dog was called Jesus. These people would have had NO problem had it
been pronounced "hey-zeus". Which I always thought (not really!) was
the Spanish way of referring to the god-man via Greek thought. ;-)

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[archytas]

Hey Lee - no problem. I didn't even now Chaz was Chazette as it
were. None of this is slagging as the wit is engaging. I wish we
could get more positive only in having a go at how what we nearly all
think, godsworth or otherwise could shift things in practice. There's
a point where ridicule, which is just about all our politicians and my
subject area are worth, just starts to sound so much like the bare
truth it ceases to be funny, unless delivered, as Chaz says by an
expert like Bill Bailey. Even Bremner, Bird and Furtune are sounding
more like a public opposition than satirists. I could sense the tone
and only wanted to be intimate in it! It's just such a blessed relief
from trying to teach 100s of Chinese who can't afford to buy the
etxbook I don't really want them to read.

Neil

On Nov 28, 12:26 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

[Lee]

Ahhhhh about that Chazette thing. I was wrong.

[chazwin]

On Nov 29, 12:02 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> I applogise to you, I have always been under the asumption that you
> are female, now I know better.
>
> As to counter arguments and their ilke. It is not a counter argument
> to responded on a topic asking for a definition of God to weigh in
> with the 'all believers in God are idiots' type posts, it's not even
> on topic but it is counter productive to the topic, and it is
> argumentative. It turns the topic from it's original intent to a
> flamefest.

Its no wonder - I'm still waiting for the definition. If you beleive
in god, as you claim, what do you mean by god?

[chazwin]

As a fellow teacher I am truey worried for what she must be going
through.
In sympathy I am going to name my teddy-bear "mohammed".
I hope they let her go.

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

Is that what you do - teach Chinese?

[chazwin]

On Nov 29, 3:21 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Ahhhhh about that Chazette thing. I was wrong.

I checked this morning in the shower and I can confirm that you are
definitely wrong!

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Nov 29, 2:33 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Nov, 01:13, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Nov, 19:58, Sociologist <lzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well you would not exist right now if something did not create you
> > > therefore there must be some power, force, God, or whatever you want
> > > to name it out there.
>
> > My Dad fucked my Mum. He remembers the actual moment of my creation.
>
> Somehow, I think he (followed by you) confused his orgasm with the
> fertilisation/conception process; they occur at different times. I
> seriously doubt that either your father or mother remember the moment
> of your conception.
>

But pedanticism aside - That was the time and incident of my creation:
on a couch late at night, a horny yank and his English wife.

[chazwin]

On Nov 29, 12:01 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not the one to show the way. But I can confirm to you that there
> is a way, especially suited to you.

Is there one for me too, oh Great One? Can you also confirm that there
is a way for me to get to Him?

>
> On Nov 28, 2:52 pm, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is there any way to get Him ? Or is there any one who can show me
> > the right way to get Him.





>
> > On Nov 28, 10:35 am, Sociologist <lzwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To Hani San,
>
> > > God is just a name for that which has created everything that we have
> > > been, are, and ever will be.
>
> > > On Nov 25, 7:53 am, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > Here I am looking for complete definition of God.
>
> > > > All of you who think they have complete definition of God please help
> > > > me.
>
> > > > Hani San- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

Heh there are multitude of ways for each of us to 'get to Him'. Most
of us just can't be bothered though. Thats okay, as according to my
particular delusion, there is no punishment, and we all come to 'Him'
eventually.

[Pat]

On 29 Nov, 18:25, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As a fellow teacher I am truey worried for what she must be going
> through.
> In sympathy I am going to name my teddy-bear "mohammed".
> I hope they let her go.
>

She's been sentenced to 15 days. She's already served 5 and Sudan is
thinking about just deporting her.

[Vamadevananda]

You are already on the way !

[Pat]

On 29 Nov, 18:31, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 12:01 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not the one to show the way. But I can confirm to you that there
> > is a way, especially suited to you.
>
> Is there one for me too, oh Great One? Can you also confirm that there
> is a way for me to get to Him?
>

One cannot escape omnipresence; there is no way NOT to get to Him. ;-)

[scre...@gmail.com]

God= Self
GOD= Generator+ Organaizer+ Distroyer
Just search the link with in ur self deep inside u. thats all.
U will find himm there.

[chazwin]

On Nov 29, 7:35 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Heh there are multitude of ways for each of us to 'get to Him'.

Name one!

>Most
> of us just can't be bothered though. Thats okay, as according to my
> particular delusion, there is no punishment, and we all come to 'Him'
> eventually.

As there seems to be no rational or empirical reasoning or evidence
for making such a claim I can only assume that you are living on
wishes.

[chazwin]

On Nov 30, 6:07 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Nov, 18:31, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 12:01 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am not the one to show the way. But I can confirm to you that there
> > > is a way, especially suited to you.
>
> > Is there one for me too, oh Great One? Can you also confirm that there
> > is a way for me to get to Him?
>
> One cannot escape omnipresence; there is no way NOT to get to Him. ;-)

You are contradicting yourself. If "IT" is omnipresent then I have
already "got to Him", and do not have to wait for Guru Vama to tell me
when or where it will happen.

[Lee]

> > Heh there are multitude of ways for each of us to 'get to Him'.
>
> Name one!

Umm Sikhi! ;¬0

> >Most
> > of us just can't be bothered though. Thats okay, as according to my
> > particular delusion, there is no punishment, and we all come to 'Him'
> > eventually.
>
> As there seems to be no rational or empirical reasoning or evidence
> for making such a claim I can only assume that you are living on
> wishes.

Wishes, faith, dreams, I guess there is some truth to that yes.

[archytas]

I'm not sure I can eat my cornflakes this morning after reading of the
act of creation Chaz. The teddy bear saga does remind me of the
Xtians, even if it is clearly about idiot muslims wanting to throw out
the great satan and get their jobs back bashing the Quoran into
innocent heads. It kind of brings up creationism in Newcastle schools
and the like and that evil arse Blair making his peace with god,
rather than telling the electorate the truth. It makes me think just
how backward we are under the veneer.

As to being an empiricist and believing in god on evidence, I think
this holds. The problem is in meaning and intention. Your entirely
apposite reference fo shit and junk mail through letter boxes is not
the point here. There is no intention on my part to reference the
barmy god of the brothers of Abraham - the one that granted favours to
war criminals and inspires the arrest and detention of decent teachers
over a teddy bear, crusades, jihads and othodox jewqish men to thank
him every morning for not being born a woman. Sorry about the gender
mishap incidentally. It is something of a disappointment to discover
you are not a witty, intelligent, nipping out to see Bill Bailley
lass, rather than just another of the lads - though I'm sure that
won't be your perspective! Actual apology mate - as was Leed-on as it
were.

The empirical evidence lies in biology and ethology. Chimps doing a
"rain dance" and that kind of thing, and the god-spot found in brain
scans. This does not identify Yahweh or any such, of course, but does
begin explanation of aspects of behaviour, including religious lunacy
and zealotry. The god I believe in is non-existent as far as I know,
and may turn out to be some guy or gal or heorsheorit much smarter
than us at physics who created this universe in a test-tube - just one
thought experiment amongst many. I am not about to believe some
salespitcher reporting from the unique vantage point of a golden
salamader's arse helmet. These people truly exist, but have eternal
difficulties seeing that the golden helmet is religious text in the
context of the importance they ascribe to it without thinking. They
make me angry too, not least because they kill any worthwhile debate.

There are any number of points to make, but religion is as real to me
as lead carbonate going yellow on heating. I ascribe the same method
in my search for god, and never find heorsheorit whilst heating a test-
tube, balancing a profit and loss account or pondering on the
universe. Given that we have developed about 20 senses (only
religious adherence to Aristotle holds us to 5), I'm inclined to
hypothesise the god-spot is for something communicable and we need to
apply reasoning to this. Godswankers, of course, get in the way of
this enquiry because of what they insist on wanting to find.

Our hostile response to them fuels whatever has driven them to
"believe" - a term needing unpacking, particularly when one looks at
their rotten behaviour over time. We somehow don't "respect" them,
another unpacked term. I used to teach "remedials" (lovely respectful
word!) and to help I had to understand their problems I had to see
them as "remedials", "thick" and the rest. My respect was given in
terms of them being human and not treated well, not towards some
mythical cognitive capacity, or idiot notions that getting them to
count and read were what really matters. In every class there were a
couple of quite bright kids hiding from the ruthless classroom, who
went on to get O levels but we should be wondering why we can't adjust
society to help the genuinely disabled in this sense, instead of
trying to normalise them into what they are not and can't be. One
can't give respect by lying that daft religious "beliefs" are OK or by
hiding the pain they cause us. Respect is connected with honesty.
General beliefs are connected with irrationality, politesse,
etiquettes and sleazy political correctness - minding one's manners
with Teddy Bears and the like.

We might be part of a quest in evolution that is unfolding. God might
be a useful hypothesis in that and in lessons in getting on with each
other. We could have a positive debate, factually based, but zealots
have about as much ability in that as my old remedial kids, putting
the sacred in the way of thought because it suits their purposes.

God in my sense could be useful sociologically, perhaps in questioning
the body as a site of decision and trying to do our best, of an ethics
of the undecidable. The raising of the name, of course, brings in all
kinds of unreflexive historical dross and arguments that were buried
in the middle ages. The lack of behavioural understanding and
competence in this is acute. I am now encouraged to teach the
incompetece, to skill it, rather than engage critical faculties. The
church methods are back in fashion.

Neil

[archytas]

I've just scrolled through this post and decided the key argument
concerns the moment Chaz looks down in the shower and discovers his
sexuality. Liebniz we are not! And thank god for that!
Lee may have made a mistake in the god is all and therefore all good
and all bad stuff. A german teacher once gave me Liebniz to read for
some godforsaken reason and amidst the ultimate and necessary
substances reasoning, was some stuff about the best of all possible
worlds, which heralded that dreadful modal logic of all possible
actual worlds that contain moons made of green cheese and so on.
Leibniz argued very convincingly that god is responsible for all the
shit, but as he is so virtuously wonderful, this can only be there
because this is the best of all possible worlds - this is as good as
it gets. Students have long used this when submitting shoddy
assigments a month late.

The point that these arguments were done and dusted in the middle ages
is not that there are no new arguments, just that we are not raising
them and evading scientific facts and what this might mean in dealing
with religion rationally. For the dislexics among us, the news is
that Dog had just cursed me by having my God, Thomas, roll in
heorsheorit, before presenting himself for lunch. His way, no doubt,
Cahz, of posting the real shit through our metaphorical letterbox!

Neil

[Lee]

Heh Neil,

You bloody crack me up!

Religion and rationality, isn't that almost oxymoranical? Once upon a
time I would have argued all day and all night on the rational nature
of faith. Now of course more rational beings than me have forced me
to reconise my own delusion for what it is (props to Ian and DC), and
so I tend to concentrate my ponderings instead on the role of
rational, logical thought, and irrational belife in life.

I honestly think there is room for both; love, music, in fact all art,
are governed more along irrational lines than not.

I absolutely love the blues, with a passion otherwise saved only for
my wife and children. I have pondered why this is so and have arrived
at one conclusion. It is merely the sound of a blues lick, it just
feels wonderful, it touches some sort of sweet 'soul' spot, deep
within my Self. Why? I dunno?

I just give into it, coz it makes me feel better.

Now it could be that for similar reasons I agree to disengage my
rational brain when it comes to my faith in God, I just give into it,
I don't feel the need to rationalise it, other than that kind of
subjective reasoning that we are all capable of when it comes to
fooling ourselves.

Yet I do this knowingly, you might even say rationally.

[Pat]

On 30 Nov, 09:28, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:07 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Nov, 18:31, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 12:01 pm, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I am not the one to show the way. But I can confirm to you that there
> > > > is a way, especially suited to you.
>
> > > Is there one for me too, oh Great One? Can you also confirm that there
> > > is a way for me to get to Him?
>
> > One cannot escape omnipresence; there is no way NOT to get to Him. ;-)
>
> You are contradicting yourself. If "IT" is omnipresent then I have
> already "got to Him", and do not have to wait for Guru Vama to tell me
> when or where it will happen.
>

Yup. No contradiction whatsoever. That is exactly what I'm saying. A
+

[Pat]

On 30 Nov, 09:21, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 7:35 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
> > Heh there are multitude of ways for each of us to 'get to Him'.
>
> Name one!
>

Always turn left! It's amazing(!) how well that works.

[Lee]

Yep indeed if your intent is to end up back where you started from.

[Pat]

On 30 Nov, 13:32, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Heh Neil,
>
> You bloody crack me up!
>
> Religion and rationality, isn't that almost oxymoranical? Once upon a
> time I would have argued all day and all night on the rational nature
> of faith. Now of course more rational beings than me have forced me
> to reconise my own delusion for what it is (props to Ian and DC), and
> so I tend to concentrate my ponderings instead on the role of
> rational, logical thought, and irrational belife in life.
>
> I honestly think there is room for both; love, music, in fact all art,
> are governed more along irrational lines than not.
>
> I absolutely love the blues, with a passion otherwise saved only for
> my wife and children. I have pondered why this is so and have arrived
> at one conclusion. It is merely the sound of a blues lick, it just
> feels wonderful, it touches some sort of sweet 'soul' spot, deep
> within my Self. Why? I dunno?
>
> I just give into it, coz it makes me feel better.
>
> Now it could be that for similar reasons I agree to disengage my
> rational brain when it comes to my faith in God, I just give into it,
> I don't feel the need to rationalise it, other than that kind of
> subjective reasoning that we are all capable of when it comes to
> fooling ourselves.
>
> Yet I do this knowingly, you might even say rationally.
>

You've brought up an interesting point, Chaz. How much does
aesthetic taste impact on the God spot? For you, you have no
aesthetic taste towards God, yet recognise an aesthetic desire for the
Blues. As our aesthetic values are all quite varying, I wonder how
much of a relationship there is between the mechanisms behind human
aesthetic appreciation and the God spot.

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[Lee]

Sorry did you mean Chaz, or Lee?

> ...
>
> read more >>

[Pat]

On 30 Nov, 13:45, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Yep indeed if your intent is to end up back where you started from.
>

I was just thinking about the way to get through a maze. Either
always turn left or always turn right. One or the other; just don't
mix the two. It can't fail.

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 11/28/07, hani_san <moh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is there any way to get Him ? Or is there any one who can show me
the right way to get Him.

You are 'that'... I am 'this'...

 

Allah (Brahma) is 'this' and 'that' and 'transcending' (the I)

                           'al'          'la'              'h'

Al is 'yes', la is 'no', and the 'h' is 'that which is unheard'

 

From studying the Upanishads,

Ramanuja believed that there were two realities - the finite and the Infinite...

Sankara argued that there was only one reality - the Infinite...

Understanding how they can both be correct is understanding Allah - Brahma - God.
 

[Abdullah Abd' Badi]

On 11/30/07, archytas <nwt...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure I can eat my cornflakes this morning...

 

Neil,

Didn't your mum tell you that you shouldn't ramble with your mouth full? :)

 

Have a good day, all.

 

[hani_san]

Its upto you whether you can see Him or not,
"He is situated in everyones Heart"

Thought, I too is not able to see Him where He is in my heart..
:(

[Pat]

On 30 Nov, 07:43, "Abdullah Abd' Badi" <aswat.min.al....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 11/28/07, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is there any way to get Him ? Or is there any one who can show me
> > the right way to get Him.
>
> > You are 'that'... I am 'this'...
>
> Allah (Brahma) is 'this' and 'that' and 'transcending' (the I)
> 'al' 'la' 'h'

> *Al* is 'yes', *la* is 'no', and the 'h' is 'that which is unheard'

>
> From studying the Upanishads,
> Ramanuja believed that there were two realities - the finite and the
> Infinite...
> Sankara argued that there was only one reality - the Infinite...
> Understanding how they can both be correct is understanding Allah - Brahma -
> God.

I agree. Ibn Arabi's (Sufi) analysis of Allah is perfectly
congruent with Sankara's Brahman.

[archytas]

Mum was more likely to refer to washing my mouth out with soap Badi.
I'm not, of course, trying to be rational about religious experience
from the inside. I do think we need to know we are not chopping down
all the trees for our fishing boats in order to put up megaliths and
so on. I'm pretty sure we are close to catastrophe. I think we are
always much less rational than we think we are being.

Neil

> congruent with Sankara's Brahman.- Hide quoted text -

[Quee...@gmail.com]

God. I will not define him because i dont know what GOD is. Only what
my heart and father tells me. I BELEIVE GOD IS everything that is
anything. What he pursue's in his creations.

There is also the beleif that God is What Is In The Begining, What Is
In The End, and What Is Embetween. God might be what God portrays in
God's on creation./ The beauty that is saught in nature and in space.
To each color of the planets so unique in there on way, only to
simbolize difference and what is and what could be.

And and Or the will, the choice that God lets us perceive to have and
be free to explore our own capablities.

Thats it!

[chazwin]

On Nov 30, 10:47 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure I can eat my cornflakes this morning after reading of the
> act of creation Chaz. The teddy bear saga does remind me of the
> Xtians, even if it is clearly about idiot muslims wanting to throw out
> the great satan and get their jobs back bashing the Quoran into
> innocent heads. It kind of brings up creationism in Newcastle schools
> and the like and that evil arse Blair making his peace with god,
> rather than telling the electorate the truth. It makes me think just
> how backward we are under the veneer.
>
> As to being an empiricist and believing in god on evidence, I think
> this holds. The problem is in meaning and intention. Your entirely
> apposite reference fo shit and junk mail through letter boxes is not
> the point here. There is no intention on my part to reference the
> barmy god of the brothers of Abraham - the one that granted favours to
> war criminals and inspires the arrest and detention of decent teachers
> over a teddy bear, crusades, jihads and othodox jewqish men to thank
> him every morning for not being born a woman. Sorry about the gender
> mishap incidentally. It is something of a disappointment to discover
> you are not a witty, intelligent, nipping out to see Bill Bailley
> lass, rather than just another of the lads - though I'm sure that
> won't be your perspective! Actual apology mate - as was Leed-on as it
> were.

Well you can keep with your lunacy. Forgive me if I can't see the
difference between your "god spot" and chimp's rain dancing, and
cutting off someone's hand for having a wank over the virgin Mary.

You are joking!!!! This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a
long time.
Theism in its various forms seems to have garenteed warfare for
thousands of years. Unless you wish to impose just one single religion
on the whole world so that we can all believe the same heorshit? That
might work!
But, my friend that has been tried before. The result was the wars of
the Reformation in xianity, and the shism of SUnni and SHitie in Islam
to name but a few.

We could have a positive debate, factually based, but zealots
> have about as much ability in that as my old remedial kids, putting
> the sacred in the way of thought because it suits their purposes.
>
> God in my sense could be useful sociologically, perhaps in questioning
> the body as a site of decision and trying to do our best, of an ethics
> of the undecidable. The raising of the name, of course, brings in all
> kinds of unreflexive historical dross and arguments that were buried
> in the middle ages. The lack of behavioural understanding and
> competence in this is acute. I am now encouraged to teach the
> incompetece, to skill it, rather than engage critical faculties. The
> church methods are back in fashion.

Jeeeesssssusssssssss! Does back go with my dog-collar?

[chazwin]

Antidote to Leibniz's Theodicy. The idocy of the Theodicy was
effectively ripped limb from limb by Voltaire's Candide.
I'm surprised that anyone is still serious about Leibniz's fantasy
after all this time.

[chazwin]

This is the most sense you have written.
But we all know that love of music and family; the trees; the stars;
all that smiling is nat rationally based. But we can give it a
rationale though it is born of desire and emotion. But talk to the man
that desires children and tell him he ought to give in to his
feelings!
Some of our desires and feelings are not to be persued: ever! It takes
courage and conviction to reject unsuitable desires, desires and
beliefs that are false and harming human progress.
Maybe you feel safe that there is some big guy in the sky? Maybe it
helps you by teaching you to avoid the difficult and angst ridden
questions that face you when you accept the truth about the massive
cold and indifferent universe?
Keep your delusion safe. I'll keep to the truth and STILL enjoy music
and the love of the ones that I care for knowing that the only
certainties are death and taxes. But don't expect me to bow down to
your delusion.

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

I think you are attributing another's words to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[chazwin]

On Nov 30, 1:56 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Sorry did you mean Chaz, or Lee?

I think Pat confused me with you or archytas.

[Pat]

On 30 Nov, 13:56, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Sorry did you mean Chaz, or Lee?
>

Yeah, I DID mean you, Lee. I don't know why I wrote 'Chaz' but, I'm
in the midst of another one of my week-long headaches, so it doesn't
surprise me that my full attention hasn't been blurred a bit.

[restless]

God is not religion. We are subject to his laws of nature, science and
what happens after we die. Whether we choose to abide by his laws are
a matter of choice. At the end of the day we get to choose how we live
and by what code. We are even given the choice after death. We
continually make the mistake of foisting what man does or thinks in
regards to religion as the edicts of God. Every horrendous undertaking
religion has mounted toward humanity have begun and end with man. Yet
it seems to be our nature to Blame God. I am curious when the blame
game started exactly. What century or millinium did it start and get
perpetuated. If one chooses to believe in the garden of eden, there
was no violence toward anyone or anything until man sinned. Once man
sinned it became God's fault. It is an impossibilty to define God. No
two people will feel the same way towards God, for no two people are
alike thus it is impossible. Each person must Seek God in their own
way. Everyone has faith whether it be faith that they wake up
tomorrow or that the sun will continue to shine etc. Even have faith
that no God exists. When you ask another how to find God what you are
in reality asking is what their doctrine towards God is. We can only
ever look within ourselves for the answers. I feel people who refuse
to believe a God exists is because they have looked around at the
havoc man has wreaked on humanity and refused to participate in the
insanity of religion. We forever want God to apologise for what we
have done to ourselves. I apologise for not having the ability at this
time to express myself better. This is a simplistic answer.

ained On Nov 25, 6:53 am, hani_san <mohe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,

[Lee]

In that case Pat, yeah I agree. I think there are many reasons for
people to believe in God, or desire the search for God. I think that
perhaps a majority of this can be put down to tradition, some can
certainly be put down to a type of brain washing, and some of us just
find the whole concept of God aesthetically pleasing.

If I'm honest (and I try to be so) I believe mainly for two reasons.

The first because I have seen and experienced many, many odd and
bizzare things in my life to no believe that there is something there
that we cannot as yet measure in a scientific way. The second because
the concept of God that I currently hold to(one that has been worked
out over some years) answers many of life's questions for me.

> ...
>
> read more >>

[Lee]

Hey Chaz,

I feel sorta strange to have you 'bigging me up' I like it though!

Yeah I agree not all of our desires are healthy or even safe for us to
indulge in. As to God, well I have never asked anybody to buy into
it, nor even as you say bow down to it. Why would you, you don't
believe, and that's fine.

> ...
>
> read more >>