# What "God" Do You Worship?



## elder999

I was once at a party where the host asked me not to mention God. I&#8217;m not sure why I even showed up at their home. Today I wouldn&#8217;t, under those circumstances. At that party, guests used the &#8220;F&#8221; word, talked about nutrition, politics, hiking, their beach vacation homes, how difficult it is to get good help in Santa Fe, and various other topics, but no one mentioned the word &#8220;God&#8221;, except as part of a curse word. I suppose they felt comfortable mentioning God in their curses, but that&#8217;s another post for another day. This thread is about how I think that every person, whether they think so or not, has a God.

Before we go any further, I suppose I need to say that this culture has become quite simply, an open-air insane asylum. What&#8217;s even worse, the inmates are in charge. If you think things are bad, let me assure you that they&#8217;re much worse than you imagine, and will get worse than that! It&#8217;s not popular to point this out, as the prevailing mentality seems to be that everything is beautiful in its own way. You don&#8217;t believe me? Well, how would you describe a culture where the &#8220;F&#8221; word is perfectly acceptable, yet if you mention God, there&#8217;s something terribly wrong with you? 

Everyone worships a God. For many people in early 21st Century America, it is the God of money, or materialism. These people realize that in this material world, money is power. As they say, it&#8217;s all about the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules. The false God of materialism fools people into thinking that if they can make enough money, or accumulate enough possessions, or get comfortable enough, then they can relax and enjoy life. The catch is, they never get enough. Materialism gets everything backwards, for material comfort can come only when there is a measure of peace inside. The immortal Ascended Spiritual Master Jesus taught that if we seek first the things of Spirit, then everything else we need will be provided. He didn&#8217;t promise vacation homes, or a gold Rolex, or designer clothes., but He did assure us that our needs would be met&#8230;.needs, not material world desires. 

Many people worship a particular philosophy. In the US, Canada and Western Europe, the philosophy of multiculturalism has become a civil religion. Its tenets cannot be questioned any more than Catholicism could be questioned when it was in power three hundred years ago. The problem is that multiculturalism says one thing and does another. It claims to respect all cultures and belief systems, yet in fact, it attacks and belittles certain cultures and types of people. It is based upon a deep hatred of Western Civilization, and those who created it. It is, in fact, culturally nothing more than recycled Marxism. It is predicated upon continual racial and ethnic conflict. In today&#8217;s culture, you cannot question multiculturalism with risking loss of your job, your family or your home. It has become a religion, as fundamentalist in nature as any other form of fundamentalism. Do you want to see how tolerant they really are, how much diversity they truly celebrate? Disagree with them, and they will try to rip out your throat. Their God is conformity. You&#8217;d better conform, or else.

There are some who worship a book, and a particular interpretation of their book. The most visible of these are some of the evangelical Protestants. They literally worship a book. Their God is the Bible. If you watch the TV preachers, you&#8217;ll notice how they wave the book back and forth over their heads. They hold it up for all to adore. They don&#8217;t so much pay attention to the teachings, as to the bound pages of the book. I find that difficult to understand, as each Protestant sect has its own interpretation of the book, many of them conflicting, and each claiming to be right! Obviously, they can&#8217;t all be right with such conflicting beliefs. It is ironic that one of the 10 Commandments of their book says, &#8220;You shall have no other God but me&#8221;. Their book forbids idolatry, yet they idolize a book, bound pages of paper and ink. This is astounding, isn&#8217;t it? What&#8217;s even more astounding is the political power they have amassed over us.

Some people call themselves "atheists," claiming not to believe in any God, yet they do. Some believe in the God of scientific, rational materialism. Some believe in the God of democracy, and have turned the US into a missionary organization, intent upon imposing their belief system upon the entire world. How can anyone claim this is not a religion? It obviously is, and a dangerous one, at that-perhaps even more dangerous than the religionof Communism proved to be. Incidentally, I've met very few true atheists-with a few of the notable exceptions being here on the internet. I&#8217;ve had many conversations with atheists, and I discovered that most had been painfully abused by religion, or raised by people who were abused by religion. They disbelieve in the God they were taught about, not necessarily the Creator. They tell us that the universe was created by a Big Bang. I have this to say about big bangs. To claim that the beauty and complexity of the universe merely resulted from a big bang is like saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica resulted from an explosion in a print shop. 

Some people worship another person as God. This is quite common in the guru system of India. I&#8217;ve never been able to understand that. I share so many of the spiritual beliefs of Hinduism. I believe in reincarnation, and I find much inspiration in the ancient Vedic literature, yet I&#8217;ve never been able to appreciate worshipping the guru as God. There are just too many cheaters who set themselves up as gurus. It is dangerous to acknowledge divinity in someone else without seeing divinity in yourself. Too many people are running around looking for false Gods to worship. Even with as much beauty as I find in the traditional spirituality of India, I continue to be dismayed by the insistence of gurus that they be worshipped. At the same time, there are certain teachers who are obviously highly advanced souls. I can simply look at a picture of Paramahansa Yogananda, and I see God. His divinity shines through the physical. Paramahansaji always pointed away from himself and toward the Creator. One of my teachers helped a lot of people with the ceremonies he ran, and he always made a point of asking them to thank the Creator, and not him.This is the sign of a true guru. 

Many people worship the State as God. They depend upon the God of government to regulate every aspect of their lives, just as surely as 11th Century Christians depended upon the Church to regulate their lives. Many people worship the God of the nation. These people are nationalists. They are not patriots, they are nationalists. There is a huge difference between the two. Nationalists are aggressive and belligerent. They attack other nations, for they see others as less than themselves. They offer up their sons to be sacrificed upon the altar of militarism, another false God. 

Everyone worships a God. The question is not whether you believe in a God or not. 

The question is, what "God" do you worship?


----------



## kamishinkan

I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Elohim through His Son and Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus).

Cool thread by the way. :ultracool


----------



## Andrew Green

I'm not gonna bite that bullet. 

Define God as whatever you believe in and you can't be an atheist?  I'm gonna disagree right there.  When people say "God" they mean something fairly specific, not whatever you believe in.  And I also don't bite that everyone worships something, believe maybe, worship no.


----------



## elder999

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I'm not gonna bite that bullet.
> 
> Define God as whatever you believe in and you can't be an atheist? I'm gonna disagree right there. When people say "God" they mean something fairly specific, not whatever you believe in. And I also don't bite that everyone worships something, believe maybe, worship no.


 
I suppose, then, that there are no atheists that worship money?

Or their wives? Or sex?Drugs? Rock musicians? 

From the excellent, _Merriam-Webster Online English Technical Manual_(that's engineer-speak for "dictionary-and do take note of #4):



> Etymology: Middle English _worshipe _worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English _weorthscipe _worthiness, respect, from _weorth _worthy, worth + _-scipe _-ship
> *1* _chiefly British_ *:* a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
> *2* *:* reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; _also_ *:* an act of expressing such reverence
> *3* *:* a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
> *4* *:* *extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar> *


----------



## michaeledward

I think it is terribly arrogant of you to presume what the beliefs of others are, or must be, and to ascribe them to motives you hold.


----------



## elder999

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think it is terribly arrogant of you to presume what the beliefs of others are, or must be, and to ascribe them to motives you hold.


 
Yeah, I'll cop to being arrogant, and then some. Comes with the territory.....

It's not presumptuous at all to make observations, though, especially as I prefaced them with "some," or "many."

Surely, you know _some_ people who worship money.*Many* people do.......


----------



## michaeledward

elder999 said:
			
		

> It's not presumptuous at all to make observations, though, especially as I prefaced them with "some," or "many."


 
Some ? 

Many ? 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> This thread is about how I think that *every person*, whether they think so or not, has a God.


 


			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> *Everyone* worships a God.


 


			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> *Everyone* worships a God. The question is not whether you believe in a God or not.


----------



## elder999

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Some ?
> 
> Many ?


 
Well, let's re-emphasize what you quoted, Michael:

THis thread is about how *I think* that every person,_ whether they think so or not,_ has a "God."


----------



## SFC JeffJ

elder999 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'll cop to being arrogant, and then some. Comes with the territory.....



And what territory would that be?

Oh, and if you'd call anything I do worshiping, it would have to be my beautiful and wonderful wife.

Jeff


----------



## Kane

As a deist/pantheist, worshipping an invisible entity or being who we can never know is considered superstition. However it is generally believed in some free-thinking systems that using Reason (rather than Faith) is a metaphoric way of worshipping God. As Thomas Paine wrote in his writings, "My mind is my church."

But no there is no bowing down and chanting or animal sacrifices. Prayer is also generally rejected as superstition (Since most deist and pantheists believe in an impersonal God).


----------



## michaeledward

elder999 said:
			
		

> Well, let's re-emphasize what you quoted, Michael:
> 
> THis thread is about how *I think* that every person,_ whether they think so or not,_ has a "God."


 
Yes, I saw that.

How are you going to re-emphasize the final two quotes, from the conclusions of your argument?



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Everyone worships a God.
> 
> Everyone worships a God. The question is not whether you believe in a God or not.


----------



## Korppi76

> Originally Posted by *elder999*
> _Everyone worships a God. The question is not whether you believe in a God or not. _


 Hmm what about those who havent even thought this worshipping thing.


----------



## Drac

Is there more than one?????


----------



## MartialIntent

*I* am my only god.

If anyone were to fill a "god" role _for me_, it would be _me_. And as is apparent, I am not a god, my belief is therefore that I have no god.

Respects!


----------



## qizmoduis

elder999 said:
			
		

> Everyone worships a God.



Incorrect, arrogant and condescending.  I am an atheist, and regardless of your prejudicial assumptions about me, I do not worship anything.  Please don't twist words to suit your argument.

I've heard this particular claim from religious people before.  What it really amounts to is nothing more than projection.  The theist cannot comprehend that there are folks out there that simply do not have the god-belief thought patterns.  They seek to rationalize this fact by twisting and redefining the meanings of words so they can feel better about themselves by fitting everyone into into something like their mold, with their's being the most perfect.  

The rich guy worships money!
The scientist worships science!
The mathemetician worships numbers!
The atheist worships <insert demeaning assumption here>

Everyone worships a god, but mine is the best!

Unfortunately for them, life simply doesn't work that way.


----------



## Flatlander

IMO, the words 'worship' and 'god' are altogether far to strong to use for some people.  I understand the metaphor of 'worshipping the god of money', but in my mind it works only as a metaphor; as a statement of fact we run into definition problems.   

For example, the 'thing' of most value in my life is money.  It is the item with which I can provide for the wants and needs of myself and my family.  Therefore, a great quantity of my time is committed to the acquisition, maintenance of, and use of money.  Can this be called worship?  I don't think so - it's pragmatism.  The local economy operates using money, so it's the thing to have.  However, I don't worship or deify it.  In fact, I give it away sometimes.  I take risks with it with respect to investing and gambling.  Sometimes, I spend more of it than I have to.  I wouldn't do these things if it were something I worshipped or had deified, would I?

Material possessions are a source of comfort for me - I enjoy looking good in nice clothes, watching large televisions, driving in nice cars, etc.  However, I don't spend any time devoted to these things.  I enjoy, but do not worship.  Will I work a little harder to acquire these things?  Sure - it's a trade off.  However, does this mean I suffer to acquire them (perhaps a way of demonstrating that I 'worship' material possessions)?  No.  I enjoy my work a great deal.  I find it quite satisfying.  So, I do more of something that I enjoy, and gain more money, with which to buy stuff I want and like.  Again, I see no 'false gods' there.

I have no such attachment to anything that could be construed as a 'god' which I am 'worshipping'.  I'm pretty sure that I could refute any argument to the contrary, given the subjectivity of the proposition.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

i find it unfortunate and limiting that the words 'god' and 'worship' are so emotionally loaded that they appear to prevent people from having what could be an interesting conversation.

elder seems to be asking about our driving motivations, using the vocabulary he knows and uses.  as a martial artist, i could have posted "what concepts are you willing to die for?" and nobody would have gotten their knickers all atwist.

now, i have very little use for the organized christian church in america.  but let's not turn into what we despise by getting all reactionary when somebody offends our concept of what is 'right' thought.  

to answer elder's question, i worship the god of family.  blood kin and friends who are family are my highest priority.  i think it's what makes my school successful:  it feels like family and i work hard to nurture and protect my people.


----------



## michaeledward

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> elder seems to be asking about our driving motivations, using the vocabulary he knows and uses. as a martial artist, i could have posted "what concepts are you willing to die for?" and nobody would have gotten their knickers all atwist


 
I will prefer to comment on the actual question he asks, rather than trying to interpret what he really means. This medium is especially susceptible to misinterpretation, without my adding my own opinions and prejudices to questions asked.



			
				bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> now, i have very little use for the organized christian church in america. but let's not turn into what we despise by getting all reactionary when somebody offends our concept of what is 'right' thought.


 
That you assume that I, or others "despise" anything, would seem to be without merit. I have made no claims to what I value or despise. I have only challenged the premise; which I find faulty. 

That premise  can only be supported by imposing a subjective belief on others. The act of imposing a belief on others is repugnant to me. Oddly, this is a lesson I had learned from the Bible. 

"Render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's."

"When you pray, go into your closet, and let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."​I posit, further, that someone who posts a question with an anectdote about not being able to speak the word 'God' at a party, may not have absorbed the meaning of those lessons in the same way in which I have.


----------



## elder999

Well, it seems that my rather loaded use of the words "God," and "worship," have had quite an effect.

Good.

Sorry if I offended any atheists. It seems as though I have to keep reminding people to read what I've written, though, rather than take it personally.....:



> Some people call themselves "atheists," claiming not to believe in any God, yet they do. Some believe in the God of scientific, rational materialism. Some believe in the God of democracy, and have turned the US into a missionary organization, intent upon imposing their belief system upon the entire world. How can anyone claim this is not a religion? It obviously is, and a dangerous one, at that-perhaps even more dangerous than the religionof Communism proved to be. Incidentally, I've met very few true atheists-with a few of the notable exceptions being here on the internet. I&#8217;ve had many conversations with atheists, and I discovered that most had been painfully abused by religion, or raised by people who were abused by religion. They disbelieve in the God they were taught about, not necessarily the Creator.


 
And one has to wonder which part offended those of you who choose to believe in no god, that I've observed that some of you-though, no one here, at least, not yet-"worship" rational materialism, or that most of the atheists I've met have been abused by religion in one way or another? 
As for this:



> Everyone worships a god, but mine is the best!


 
Well, I didn't say that-and, no matter how imperious, haughty or excessively proud I am, I never would.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

interesting idea, even if the thread disintegrated some.

out of curiousity, was your intent to stir up a hornet's nest just cos sometimes it's fun to watch them buzz?  god and religion and worship are so charged on both sides of the debate.  

for my money, a discussion of our core values would have been interesting (thanks, by the way, to posters who did).  watching people try to flame you for the conversation you tried to start is not.

sad that god seems a curse word these days.  if you're an athiest/agnostic the religious whackos get all swole up when you say you don't believe in their god.  if you're religious, the athiest/agnostic whackos get defensive faster than you can say 'amen'.


----------



## Bigshadow

elder999 said:
			
		

> Etymology: Middle English _worshipe _worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English _weorthscipe _worthiness, respect, from _weorth _worthy, worth + _-scipe _-ship
> *1* _chiefly British_ *:* a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
> *2* *:* reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; _also_ *:* an act of expressing such reverence
> *3* *:* a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
> *4* *:* *extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>*


Yes, do pay close attention to #4.  It does point this out well, with respect to _*ESTEEM*_.  I believe ESTEEM in this case could be replaced with EGO.

I draw a big distinction between what I find important in my life (My family above all things) and what I would consider worship.  I worship nothing, but I do hold certain things important.

My order of importance is as follows.

1.  Self well-being (I cannot be there for family otherwise).
2.  Family well-being
3.  Money
4.  Material items of interest

Of course #1 and #2 are very entertwined and can often be indistinguishable.  To me money is nothing more than a necessary evil that must be weilded with caution, because it can pollute the mind and cause imbalance in life.  

As for a "god", I have no answer for you.  I would venture to say that I believe that all that one needs (spiritually) can be found within the self.

I remember an old saying that went something like this *



			The only Zen you will find at the top of the mountain, is that which you bring with you.
		
Click to expand...

*
I am still trying to understand the point and purpose of the thread.


----------



## SFC JeffJ

elder999 said:
			
		

> Well, I didn't say that-and, no matter how imperious, haughty or excessively proud I am, I never would.



No you didn't say that, it just seems to be the underlying theme of many of your posts in this thread.  Maybe not even intentionally, but you do seem to speak of other peoples beliefs in a condescending manner which would lead us to thinking that.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward

elder999 said:
			
		

> Sorry if I offended any atheists. It seems as though I have to keep reminding people to read what I've written, though, rather than take it personally.....


 
Your premise is faulty. Because of the subjective nature of your starting premise is colored to meet your personal belief structures, all conclusions drawn from that premise are 'fruit of the poison tree', and similarly tainted.

That you appear incapable of including in your premise the idea that "Some believe homo sapiens are the lucky result of random mutation and natural selection, on a random planet, in an unspectacular galaxy, in a wonderfully, almost infinite universe."

There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere ... if not A, then B ... or something like that, I think. 

Again, even worse, *THE* teacher of Christianity tells us, essentially, to mind our own business.


----------



## beau_safken

Hmmm how to respond.  

Well honestly, I just don't care.  Until I can see it and feel it...I can't believe it.  I do think that more or less that KArma is in most things we do and say.  So I guess I'm a little more eastern in my thoughts, but western in my "not giving a **** about organized religion."  

All one their own...I just think god would much rather have people leave him alone on the weekends also.


----------



## shesulsa

_*Moderator Note:
*_
Thread moved to Philosophy/Spirituality.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Sr. Moderator


----------



## Ray

elder999 said:
			
		

> I was once at a party where the host asked me not to mention God. Im not sure why I even showed up at their home.


Assuming you were invited (and not a party-crasher) and not told before arriving not to mention God: Then what was the hosts motivation in asking you not to mention God?

Was it because the host is offended by the mere mention of God? If so, then he/she must know that they have offended you in the same manner as they would themselves be offended. 

Was it because the host had some other guests who would be offended by the mention of God? If so, then those guests must be more important to the host; else why would the host not worrying about offending you?

If the host told you at invitation time not to mention God, then you should either have not gone; or gone and respected their wishes. You could even have fulfilled your "witnessing" duty by declining the invitation with an explanation about how important God is in your life.

Your saying that everyone "worships" something/someone has certainly been argued strongly against. It might have been better to say that everyone has something that they devote time/money/etc to (an object of devotion)...The idea may be the same or similar but the color of the words may aid in getting your idea across.

I worship the God of Abraham and Isaac.


----------



## Ray

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Again, even worse, *THE* teacher of Christianity tells us, essentially, to mind our own business.


Which teacher of Christianity and what reference? 

According to my limited understanding of Christianity, my interest should be the self-interest of others (i.e. I should be interested in the needs of others  and that should be the business I am minding).


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:
			
		

> And one has to wonder which part offended those of you who choose to believe in no god, that I've observed that some of you-though, no one here, at least, not yet-"worship" rational materialism...


 
That would be me.  I "believe" in science (believe is too strong of a word).  I think that it is the only way that can truly know anything about the world.  I find it hard to trust things I cannot sense in some way (and sometimes this extends to things that I have not sense personally).  Therefore, the concept of a God, unless it can be shown to me with real evidence, is irrellevent in my life.

Further, I would argue that my insistence upon rational materialism as an epistomologic system is not really worship at all.  One can use this system to understand the world without veneration of any sorts.  If somebody says they believe in God and I respond with a question about what evidence they use to justify that belief, it is nothing but an inquiry.


----------



## elder999

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Your premise is faulty. Because of the subjective nature of your starting premise is colored to meet your personal belief structures, all conclusions drawn from that premise are 'fruit of the poison tree', and similarly tainted.
> 
> That you appear incapable of including in your premise the idea that "Some believe homo sapiens are the lucky result of random mutation and natural selection, on a random planet, in an unspectacular galaxy, in a wonderfully, almost infinite universe."
> 
> There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere ... if not A, then B ... or something like that, I think.
> 
> Again, even worse, *THE* teacher of Christianity tells us, essentially, to mind our own business.


 
1) What, exactly, is my "personal belief structure?" Or what is it you infer about it from my "starting premise?"

2) For the record, I'm *not* a Christian-at least, not in any conventional sense: while I have a great deal of love and respect for teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua, I'm not a Christian-not really sure there's a label that could apply to my religious practices...

Also for the record, though-I did say, and it's true, that I have met a few genuine atheists, and I'll add that for the most part they were genuinely nice people. I'm not selling the idea that you *have* to believe in a god, or that if you don't, you won't get to heaven, or anything like that-all I'm saying, in the larger scheme of things, is that most of us do "bend our knees" to something, whether we're aware of it or not, and one should question what that someting is.

 I'm just posing a question-perhaps in a way designed to "rattle people's cages"-but posing a question for people to ask _themselves_, and answer here, or not-what you believe, or don't believe-in the words of Thomas Jefferson,_Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg._ I'm only curious about such things.Sorry if my curiousity forced some uncomfortable self-examination on anyone's part, or brought up anger in that I who have met very few true atheists, would dare to presume that all the other people I'd met who claimed to be atheists were, in fact, not atheists at all. Not that I said that about anyone here, though-I wouldn'
t be so presmptuous, though, apparently it's okay for you to presume that I do.....

I shouldn't want to make the world *you* live in any larger, should I?


----------



## elder999

Ray said:
			
		

> Which teacher of Christianity and what reference?
> 
> According to my limited understanding of Christianity, my interest should be the self-interest of others (i.e. I should be interested in the needs of others &#8211; and that should be the business I am minding).


 
I think that's Matthew, 7:3: _
And why beholdest thou the *mote* that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?_

But I've been wrong before........


----------



## Ray

elder999 said:
			
		

> I think that's Matthew, 7:3:
> _And why beholdest thou the *mote* that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?_
> 
> But I've been wrong before........


And again this time.  That is not "mind your own business and do nothing"  That is "do not judge unrighteously."  I believe if you'll review the documentation, that Christ was certainly in favor of people doing for others.  Doing for others is definately not "minding your own business."  

example: review Matthew 25:26 - 25:45.


----------



## elder999

Ray said:
			
		

> And again this time. That is not "mind your own business and do nothing" That is "do not judge unrighteously." I believe if you'll review the documentation, that Christ was certainly in favor of people doing for others. Doing for others is definately not "minding your own business."
> 
> example: review Matthew 25:26 - 25:45.


 
Oh, I know that-I just imagine that that's what Michael meant......I could be wrong, though.....


----------



## Ray

michaeledward said:
			
		

> "When you pray, go into your closet, and let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing."


Watch ye therefore, and pray always..." Luke 21:36


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."


"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." D&C 64:10


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> ... someone who posts a question with an anectdote about not being able to speak the word 'God' at a party, may not have absorbed the meaning of those lessons in the same way in which I have.


"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt 5:16


----------



## michaeledward

Ray said:
			
		

> Which teacher of Christianity and what reference?


 
I am referring to Jesus ... Joshua ben Joseph ... from the quotes I referenced above. I am sure there are others.


----------



## michaeledward

Ray said:
			
		

> And again this time. That is not "mind your own business and do nothing" That is "do not judge unrighteously." I believe if you'll review the documentation, that Christ was certainly in favor of people doing for others. Doing for others is definately not "minding your own business."
> 
> example: review Matthew 25:26 - 25:45.


 
Certainly, doing for others is not, minding your business. But, does doing for others, according to the scriptures, mandate that one only do for others that believe as you do? 

[paraphrase] What does it profit a man whom loves his friends? For even they do that. I say, you should love your enemies.[/paraphrase]

The premise that 'Everyone worships something', means that all the world is in the group of 'friends' in the above paraphrase.

Does 'doing for others' mean bludgeoning them to your belief system? 

That was not my take away.


----------



## elder999

Some atheists -I&#8217;ll mention no names, yet-seem to get downright *angry* at the notion of a deity. I recently ran across a quote from George Orwell, which might be appropriate for their situation. It goes something like this:



> _&#8220;The atheists I&#8217;ve met don&#8217;t so much disbelieve in God as the personally dislike him.&#8221;_





I&#8217;ve had similar experiences with people who described themselves as atheist, though most of the atheists I&#8217;ve known have been kind, compassionate people. What I have discovered about them is that they disbelieve in the *God they were taught about as children.* They&#8217;re often, as George Orwell observed, quite angry with God, and I add, probably the God of their youth. And, guess what? 

I can&#8217;t blame them for it.

So many of us were taught to believe in a God who resembles a mean-spirited, vengeful old uncle who was tolerated only to ensure staying in his will. We were taught that we&#8217;d better behave, follow the rules and plop our nickels in the collection plate, or we&#8217;d burn in hell forever. Personally, I think it is abusive to teach children that, but teach it to children, they do.

Actually, I remember quite well the day I told my mother that I didn&#8217;t believe in God any longer. I was about 7-and as sick, both physically and emotionally, as any child could be-though I *was* happy as well, because I was well loved. I told her that I figured out that adults made up God, just as they did Santa Claus, to scare kids and make them behave. My mother told me, years later, that if she could do it over, she wouldn&#8217;t have told her children about Santa Claus.I agree. It&#8217;s not a good idea to tell lies to children, even seemingly innocent ones, such as Santa Claus.(Side note-we lived on the 20th-top-floor of an apartment building in Manhattan, and they actually had the night watchman stomp on the roof above my room on Christmas Eve. Whatta thrill!) 

So, my point is this: I think many atheists disbelieve in the &#8220;Santa Claus gods&#8221; they were taught about as children. They don&#8217;t move beyond the anger, and they wind up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

They also ask why a loving God would allow a child to have cancer, or allow cruelty or war. I&#8217;m no expert on God. I don&#8217;t really know any more about God than anyone else can, but, in fairness to God, I&#8217;d ask some more questions about the good things and beauty that God does allow in the world, like mountains and seashores, love and joy, and the way a baby&#8217;s smile can melt even the coldest of hearts. The best explanation I&#8217;ve found is contained in the ancient Vedic scriptures of India. They explain that this material world is a place of conflict and contrast, of light and dark, of beauty and ugliness and of joy and suffering. 

Some are good at pointing out the apparent fallacies and contradictions in a variety of scriptures, but  seem to lack the open-mindedness to even admit-let alone civilly discuss- the beauty and truth contained in the great spiritual literature of the world.

For me, and others like me, it&#8217;s not enough to believe in God; I need to _experience_ God. Fortunately, I have found a vehicle to do so, and I am grateful. There are countless paths to God, no matter what some  fundamentalists may insist, but there are also devilish paths, and one has to use discernment, as one does with people. If you want to know what people really think about God, I advise you to pay close attention to what they do. You can pretty much ignore what they say.

This last especially includes me, BTW.....


----------



## michaeledward

Ray said:
			
		

> Watch ye therefore, and pray always..." Luke 21:36
> "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." D&C 64:10
> "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt 5:16


 
All wonderful teachings, even if I no longer believe in them as I once did. 

But, let's take a look at the last. 

"No man lights a lamp and places it under a bushel."

What lesson should we take from this teaching? My understanding is that believers should proselytize passively, through their actions. Alternatively, we see, often, believers actively proselytizing through aggressive tactics; such as running homosexuals out of schools.

Others may take different things from this teaching. And the other teachings in the bible. While I can never claim certainty, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would say "everyone worships something .... what do you worship and why?".


----------



## ibba

The one and only true God, Jesus Christ


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder

Yucks, the god of humor.


----------



## elder999

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Others may take different things from this teaching. And the other teachings in the bible. While I can never claim certainty, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would say "everyone worships something .... what do you worship and why?".


 
Well, I find it hard to believe that anyone would compare my words with Jesus's....I'm *not* Jesus, and don't recall claiming to be-nor am I a Christian, nor am I even a Jew, ......however:



> *Mathew 6:21*
> For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

can i change my answer to Thor?

they had _real_ gods in the old days.  real gods, with real hammers that put the real smackdown on the badguys.

if a bunch of romans nailed thor to something, do you think he would've come back and forgiven them?  i think not.  he woulda come back and opened up a thundergod-sized can of mjolnir whoopass.



(of course, the mythological precedents in old norse and greek mythology for the christ legend is a discussion for another time)


----------



## Carol

elder999 said:
			
		

> Some people worship another person as God. This is quite common in the guru system of India. I&#8217;ve never been able to understand that. I share so many of the spiritual beliefs of Hinduism. I believe in reincarnation, and I find much inspiration in the ancient Vedic literature, yet I&#8217;ve never been able to appreciate worshipping the guru as God. There are just too many cheaters who set themselves up as gurus. It is dangerous to acknowledge divinity in someone else without seeing divinity in yourself. Too many people are running around looking for false Gods to worship. Even with as much beauty as I find in the traditional spirituality of India, I continue to be dismayed by the insistence of gurus that they be worshipped.


 
Elder,

With a bowed head and folded hand I would like to kindly make a request.   What you are speaking of is indiginous to India and can be found in India, but there are more faiths indiginous to India than just Hinduism.  As such, a description like "the guru system of India" is inaccurate.

The Sikh faith also was bourne of India.  There was one Guruship that encompassed 10 consecutive teachers, the 10 Sikh Gurus.  These Gurus were not gods, never claimed to be, never asked anyone to worship them, and didn't set out "found" a religion. 

April 13th is coming up...Baisakhi Day.  On Baisakhi Day, 1699  the 10th Guru announced that his students would be called "Sikhs" (meaning student, or disciple of God), he transferred his guruship to Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee (Sikh scriptures), and so remains the Sikh faith to today.   The Sikh faith is strongly monotheistic and strictly forbids any form of worship to anything except the Almighty God.

There is fraud in every path of worship.  Humans are infallible, and many are seduced by power, money or both.   Even in Sikhism there are those that proclaim themselves to be a Saint of some sort, and there are many gullible Sikhs wrongly break their focus away from God and turn to the human for some sort of shortcut to a personal goal.

The reason why I am saying is simply because the statements that you are using are a too pandemic...I do not believe that you intended to be offensive.  Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world...but it remains a faith that is not well known in the west.

Respectfully,
Carol Kaur


----------



## Makalakumu

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> He woulda come back and opened up a thundergod-sized can of mjolnir whoopass.


 
:viking3: :rofl: :viking2: :rofl: :viking1: :rofl: 

He'd bust out a can of mjolnir Ragnorok!


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:
			
		

> _Some people worship another person as God. This is quite common in the guru system of India. I&#8217;ve never been able to understand that. I share so many of the spiritual beliefs of Hinduism. I believe in reincarnation, and I find much inspiration in the ancient Vedic literature, yet I&#8217;ve never been able to appreciate worshipping the guru as God. There are just too many cheaters who set themselves up as gurus. It is dangerous to acknowledge divinity in someone else without seeing divinity in yourself. Too many people are running around looking for false Gods to worship. Even with as much beauty as I find in the traditional spirituality of India, I continue to be dismayed by the insistence of gurus that they be worshipped._




The Religions of India

Hinduism developed roughly about 5000 years ago.
Buddhism and Jainism developed around 500BC 
Sikhism appeared in the 15th century.

India Today

HINDUISM - about 82%
ISLAM - about 12%
CHRISTIANITY - about 2.5%
SIKHISM - about 2%
BUDDHISM - about 0.7%
JAINISM - about 0.5%
ZOROASTRIANISM - about 0.01%
JUDAISM - about 0.0005%

guru:
Hinduism & Tibetan Buddhism. A personal spiritual teacher. 
A teacher and guide in spiritual and philosophical matters. 
A trusted counselor and adviser; a mentor. 




			
				Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Elder,
> 
> With a bowed head and folded hand I would like to kindly make a request. What you are speaking of is indiginous to India and can be found in India, but there are more faiths indiginous to India than just Hinduism. As such, a description like "the guru system of India" is inaccurate.
> 
> The Sikh faith also was bourne of India. There was one Guruship that encompassed 10 consecutive teachers, the 10 Sikh Gurus. These Gurus were not gods, never claimed to be, never asked anyone to worship them, and didn't set out "found" a religion.
> 
> April 13th is coming up...Baisakhi Day. On Baisakhi Day, 1699 the 10th Guru announced that his students would be called "Sikhs" (meaning student, or disciple of God), he transferred his guruship to Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee (Sikh scriptures), and so remains the Sikh faith to today. The Sikh faith is strongly monotheistic and strictly forbids any form of worship to anything except the Almighty God.
> 
> There is fraud in every path of worship. Humans are infallible, and many are seduced by power, money or both. Even in Sikhism there are those that proclaim themselves to be a Saint of some sort, and there are many gullible Sikhs wrongly break their focus away from God and turn to the human for some sort of shortcut to a personal goal.
> 
> The reason why I am saying is simply because the statements that you are using are a too pandemic...I do not believe that you intended to be offensive. Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world...but it remains a faith that is not well known in the west.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Carol Kaur


 
Thank You for this post, I believe it was necessary and agree whole-heartedly.


----------



## elder999

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Elder,
> There is fraud in every path of worship. Humans are infallible, and many are seduced by power, money or both. *Even in Sikhism there are those that proclaim themselves to be a Saint of some sort, and there are many gullible Sikhs wrongly break their focus away from God and turn to the human for some sort of shortcut to a personal goal.*
> 
> The reason why I am saying is simply because the statements that you are using are a too pandemic...I do not believe that you intended to be offensive. Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world...but it remains a faith that is not well known in the west.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Carol Kaur


 
No disrespect was intended, but the behavior I was describing *is* pandemic-though I'll concede that not all gurus are so affected; I'm more than a little familaiar with Sikh dharma, however, and have nothing but respect for it-I grew up with a Punjabi  family named Singh for neighbors in New York, and I even have a little familiarity with gatka, courtesy of Mrs. Singh.

I've also been in New Mexico for some time, and I'm neighbors with the  the "Sikh" community in Espanola; while there are many good people who are part of it, and I've even enjoyed attending kirtan with them on a few occasions(Creator blessed me with a marvelous voice), they've displayed the sort of behavior I spoke of when i spoke of guru worship, and the same could be siad for their "guru," before he passed on...

I also said that_ "I've never been able to understand it,"_  while adding how I've gained much from the spiritual traditions of India.............for all I know (being quite fallible myself) those people are right to worship their guru as God, and I'm missing out on something, but I obviously don't think so...thanks you, though; I appreciate your viewpoint, especially in light of your faith.:asian:


----------



## Carol

Elder, 

Thank you so much for writing back Your response is greatly appreciated.  How wonderful it is to hear that you have enjoyed your contact with the community in Espanola.

It is not the real Gurus that have caused these problems, and I agree with you that such a problem is pandemic across India, and other nations as well.  Such influences have also slipped in to Islam, especially in countries without Shari'a law.

My request is just...to not dilute the word Guru further, as it does have a very important meaning in a religious context...lets call the charlatans what they are: *fake gurus*.

:asian:

Bowing in humility and respect, 
Carol Kaur


----------



## ed-swckf

I believe in me, i am my own god, its me that is the center of my universe, without me i don't exist,  i'm omnipitant in my existance.  Its due to my actions and reactions that i am on the path i am on, i am almighty and great and better than all other gods, deitys or supreme beings.  I am pretty laid back as far as gods go, its an internal worship that never needs to be expressed outwardly although taking pride in myself could be considered an outward self worship and showing self belief too could be considered such.  I'm not delusional i just don't see any other believable god that can do for me what i can do for me.  

I don't really see myself as a god but i simply do not believe in god, i believe in control and coercion and peoples need or want to believe but ultimately i don't feel that need to believe in some god created in mans image as a vessel to embody the unknown.


----------



## Ray

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> ...i'm omnipitant in my existance.


Ominpotent? maybe. good speller? Maybe not.


----------



## Lisa

Ray said:
			
		

> Ominpotent? maybe. good speller? Maybe not.



Omnipotent? maybe.  good speller?  Maybe not.


----------



## heretic888

While I'm not sure I "worship" anything in the traditional sense....

I consider myself something along the lines of a postmodern neo-perennialist or nondual panentheist. If that makes any sense.

That being said, and while Michael may not like this, I think elder999 has a point when he says that "everybody has a god". In particular, I am reminded of psychologist James Fowler's Faith-Development Theory (FTD):

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30751

I would like to re-post something I wrote on that thread, as I believe it pertains to this discussion:



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> James Fowler gives a very good description of the distinction between "faith", "religion", and "beliefs" in _Religion and the Clinical Practice of Psychology_ (ed. Edward Shafranske, 1996, pp. 168-169):
> 
> "Faith-development theory and research have focused on a multidimensional construct for faith that sees it as foundation to social relations, to personal identity, and to the making of personal and cultural meanings (Fowler, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991). My claim is that faith is a generic feature of human beings. To make this claim credible, I must take some care to distinguish faith from two related patterns of human action that are often treated as synonymous with faith; belief and religion. Belief, in the modern period, has come increasingly mean the giving of intellectual assent to propositional statements that codify the doctrines or ideological claims of a particular tradition or group. Although belief may be an aspect of a person's or a group's faith, it is only a part. Faith includes unconscious dynamics as well as conscious awareness. It includes deep-seated emotional dimensions as well as cognitive operations and content. Faith is both more personal and more existentially defining than belief, understood in this modern sense.
> 
> Religion, as distinguished from faith, may be thought of as a cumulative tradition composed from the myriad beliefs and practices that have expressed and formed the faith of individuals in the past and present. The components of a cumulative tradition can include art and architecture; symbols, rituals, narrative, and myth; scriptures, doctrines, ethical teachings, and music; practices of justice and mercy; and much more. Elements from a cumulative tradition can be the souce of awakening and forming for the faith consciousness of individuals in the present. A current generation's drawing on and being formed by elements from a cumulative tradition make for a reciprocity of mutual vitalization and commitment. In the long evolution of humankind, the tie between faith and religion has generally been inextricable. It is only in the modern period, where many people have separated themselves from religious communities and religious faith, that religious faith needs to be distinguished from faith in a more generic and universal sense.
> 
> Faith, understood in this more inclusive sense, may be characterized as an integral, centering process, underlying the formation of the beliefs, values, and meanings, that (a) gives coherence and direction to people's lives; (b) links them in shared trusts and loyalties with others; (c) grounds their personal stances and communal loyalties in a sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference; and (d) enables them to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying on that which has the quality of ultimacy in their lives.
> 
> The foregoing characterization of faith is meant to be as formal as possible. It aims to include descriptions of religious faith as well as the explicit faith orientations of individuals and groups who can be described as secular or eclectic in their belief and value orientations. The non-content-specific characterizations of faith correlates with the formal intent of the descriptions of the stages of faith. The stages aim to describe patterned operations of knowing and valuing that underlie consciousness. The varying stages of faith can be differentiated in relation to the degrees of complexity, of comprehensiveness, of internal differentiation, and of moral inclusiveness that their operations of knowing and valuing manifest. In continuity with the constructive developmental tradition, faith stages are held to be invariant, sequential, and hierarchical."


 
Laterz.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Watch "What the Bleep do We Know?" 
Just a suggestion. =)


----------



## elder999

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Watch "What the Bleep do We Know?"
> Just a suggestion. =)


 
Don't get me started-that movie was good at provoking conversation, but full of ridiculously bad science and metaphysical gobbledy-gook.


----------



## heretic888

elder999 said:
			
		

> Don't get me started-that movie was good at provoking conversation, but full of ridiculously bad science and metaphysical gobbledy-gook.


 
While I have not seen the film in question, it has been my personal experience that movies or documentaries that presume to depict history, philosophy, and/or science almost always (if not always) do a terrible job of doing so.

Just my opinion, mind you.

Laterz.


----------



## ed-swckf

Ray said:
			
		

> Ominpotent? maybe. good speller? Maybe not.


 


			
				Lisa said:
			
		

> Omnipotent? maybe. good speller? Maybe not.


 
Hahaha, pointing out a spelling mistake can't backfire much worse than spelling it wrong yourself.  

However as god i can't be wrong so its obvious you've all been spelling it incorrectly!!


----------



## Ray

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Hahaha, pointing out a spelling mistake can't backfire much worse than spelling it wrong yourself.
> 
> However as god i can't be wrong so its obvious you've all been spelling it incorrectly!!


I sent Lisa some rep points a couple days ago for catching my mis-spelling. 

But that still doesn't make you a god.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> But that still doesn't make you a god.


 
Eh, it depends on your definition of the word.


----------



## qizmoduis

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Eh, it depends on your definition of the word.



You know, you can redefine words as much as you want to mean almost anything.  But at some point, you have to have a conversation.  It certainly complicates things immensely if you've basically invented your own language without telling those you're conversing with.

That's the main reason why I objected so fiercely to Elder999's earlier post on everyone worshipping a god.  Sure, if you use alternate definitions, then it's certainly true that everyone worships (if worship == respect) a god (if god == object of worship), but such word-jockeying adds nothing to a conversation and serves only to confuse matters, as the listeners will rarely assume a usage other than the common one unless the context is glaringly obvious  Alos, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't true in Elder999's case, but in the vast majority of cases I've encountered, such definition replacement is often done disingenuously as well.

Depending on your definition of 'disingenuously' of course.

Or 'definition'.  Or 'replacement'.  Or ...


----------



## heretic888

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> You know, you can redefine words as much as you want to mean almost anything. But at some point, you have to have a conversation. It certainly complicates things immensely if you've basically invented your own language without telling those you're conversing with.


 
Bingo.

That's whole point of such little quibbles. Unless the participants in a discussion clarify from the onset the context that they are speaking from, then confusion and miscommunication will be the inevitable result. This is one of the enduring truths of postmodern philosophy: all truth is contextually-bound --- in other words, contextualism.

That brings up another truth of the postmodern movement (which in its own way is beginning to wind down). Namely, contrary to what passes for "common sense" these days, reality is not just pregiven (a fallacy known as the Myth of the Given); in many significant ways, reality is constructed --- it is as much an interpretation as it is an observation. In other words, constructivism. This is why, contrary to the arguments of physicalists and materialists, the subjective is not secondary to nor derivative from the objective. They are co-substantial and mutually arising. 

So, in our own little ways, we do at least in part _construct_ much of the language, rhetoric, lingo, and terminology that we use to communicate with others. That is why communication is a two-way street, it involves actual _dialogue_. The point it so try to actually _understand_ the perspective, the schema, the context, the construction, the interpretation that the other person is coming from --- not just impose yours onto them.

The phrase "common sense", by the way, is a perfect example of exactly what I'm trying to talk about here. It means different things to different people, so unless you clarify what _your_ "common sense" is, you are liable to be misinterpeted by others.

I hope I made myself clear here. Of course, it does depend (in part) on your definition of "clear". 

Laterz.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Eh, it depends on your definition of the word.


Cool, that makes me right, right? or maybe not?


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:
			
		

> Cool, that makes me right, right? or maybe not?


 
It depends.


----------



## melj7077

I show up at a catholic church every Sunday because I love the ritual of the Roman Catholic faith.

But Buddhism makes a lot of sense too.

Of course I navigate this by remembering Joseph Campbell's lectures about dieties and how they are masks to what is really going on.

That of course leads me back to Plato and his Theory of Forms in which the true form of something exists in some other realm and occassionally impinges on this one.

But then again I think getting to stand on the edge of the Bifrost Bridge with the Norse Gods waiting for Ragnarok to begin is a great place for a kenpoist to be because then we get to go to Valhalla and talk about the fight.

But then Athena has always been a personal favorite of mine along with Kuan Yin and Mary Magdalene.

Meister Echart says that your image of god is your final obstruction.

And on Futurama that binary cloud was apretty cool god.

Damn this is fun!


----------



## ed-swckf

Ray said:
			
		

> I sent Lisa some rep points a couple days ago for catching my mis-spelling.
> 
> But that still doesn't make you a god.


 
Yeah, but the point i was making is that i'm the closest thing i will ever encounter to a god being that i don't believe in god.  If i'm not not a god then as far as i'm concerned no god exists and that makes me happy because for me the idea of god is pretty redundant.


----------



## Ray

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the point i was making is that i'm the closest thing i will ever encounter to a god being that i don't believe in god. If i'm not not a god then as far as i'm concerned no god exists and that makes me happy because for me the idea of god is pretty redundant.


I haven't met you, but I'm pretty sure that you would not be the closest thing to a god that I've ever encountered.


I'm sure you can get the testimoninals of several people who do know you that will endorse the idea that you're the closest thing to a living god?


----------



## ed-swckf

Ray said:
			
		

> I haven't met you, but I'm pretty sure that you would not be the closest thing to a god that I've ever encountered.


 
So what?  its about what i worship not what you think of what i worship.  And based on the logic i used to arrive at the decision it would be more likely that i would expect you to worship yourself as opposed to finding god like qualities in myself for you to choose to worship.  If you have a problem with my personal beliefs you don't have to adopt them and i never suggested that you did have to either.  My initial intention was to put forward a light hearted injection to this thread whilst exclaiming some of my personal beliefs on god which do negate somewhat the initial post.




			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I'm sure you can get the testimoninals of several people who do know you that will endorse the idea that you're the closest thing to a living god?


 
If you are sure why are you asking the question?  And again this statement proves you don't really follow the logic behind my beliefs because i don't expect anyone else to see me as god but i don't praise anything else as a god either.  My belief therefore, doesn't need testimonials of others.

I hope that makes things clearer because otherwise i fear we will both be banging are heads against a wall rather than being communicative.


----------



## Ray

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> So what? its about what i worship not what you think of what i worship. And based on the logic i used .. If you have a problem with my personal beliefs ...
> 
> ... again this statement proves you don't really follow the logic behind my beliefs...
> 
> ...I hope that makes things clearer because ...


Oh, I see, you were trying to be funny.  Thanks for clearing that up for me...


----------



## Andrew Green

oh boy, this is gonna get all epistemological and confusing, good stuff 

Ok, I am the closest thig I have ever encountered to a God as well, largely because I can not truly verify anyone elses existance 100%, but I can verify mine.  Therefore as the only being I am sure exists, I am the closest being I have ever encountered to a God.  (Descartes lead to fun stuff )

Unless...  Existance is not a true trait of a God, in which case my existance makes me less like a God and I am not the closest thing to a God I have encountered because I exist, and things which do not really exist are actually closer...

Fun stuff this intro Philosophy stuff can be


----------



## ed-swckf

Ray said:
			
		

> Oh, I see, you were trying to be funny. Thanks for clearing that up for me...


 
Wow, this is crazy! I'm trying to be civil as you obviously took my initial statement the wrong way.  Thats all.

I don't recall ever saying i was trying to be funny, so i don't know where you even got that from!  Nice job!


----------



## ed-swckf

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> oh boy, this is gonna get all epistemological and confusing, good stuff
> 
> Ok, I am the closest thig I have ever encountered to a God as well, largely because I can not truly verify anyone elses existance 100%, but I can verify mine. Therefore as the only being I am sure exists, I am the closest being I have ever encountered to a God. (Descartes lead to fun stuff )
> 
> Unless... Existance is not a true trait of a God, in which case my existance makes me less like a God and I am not the closest thing to a God I have encountered because I exist, and things which do not really exist are actually closer...
> 
> Fun stuff this intro Philosophy stuff can be


 
Thats pretty much the way i was seeing things also.


----------



## trav101

elder999 said:
			
		

> Don't get me started-that movie was good at provoking conversation, but full of ridiculously bad science and metaphysical gobbledy-gook.


 
Sorry for reopening this old conversation... but "metaphysical gobbledy-gook" ???? Just because you don't understand metaphysics, which is a large philosophical school in most major universities, doesn't mean it is goobledy gook. It is no more goobledy gook that believing there is a man with a beard on a fluffy white cloud that is judging me.   The major premise of that movie is comparing the subjectiveness to the objectiveness of the universe. If you do some research into modern, read "quantum" mechanics, and into philosophy, you'll see that this goobledy gook warrants some serious thought. Try reading Gary Zukav's book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Or maybe all reasoned intellect is goobledy gook as far as faith based intellect is concerned.


----------



## Martial Tucker

trav101 said:
			
		

> Sorry for reopening this old conversation... but "metaphysical gobbledy-gook" ???? Just because you don't understand metaphysics, which is a large philosophical school in most major universities, doesn't mean it is goobledy gook. It is no more goobledy gook that believing there is a man with a beard on a fluffy white cloud that is judging me.   The major premise of that movie is comparing the subjectiveness to the objectiveness of the universe. If you do some research into modern, read "quantum" mechanics, and into philosophy, you'll see that this goobledy gook warrants some serious thought. Try reading Gary Zukav's book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Or maybe all reasoned intellect is goobledy gook as far as faith based intellect is concerned.


It's all an illusion anyway:ultracool. A couple other books to recommend, though:

The Quantum Power of Thought, by Grant Trevithick

The Disappearance of the Universe, by Gary Renard


----------



## trav101

Thanks for the reading suggestion. Always looking for new thoughts on physics and philosophy. Gotta say though....love the "martial tucker" name, much more imaginative than I am!!!


----------



## monkey

Hers a thought for thoughs who may beleave in more then God.Lets say for laugh sake those of the names like Appalo ect were just like us.And just for laughs  sake they had some extream amounts of Chi-ki ect.(this can coralate to the young Skywalker who was born with that of many Jedi powers.Ok now what if they went on a tangent & proclaimed gods.Now some may follow out of eagor to live like Imortals.Some follow blindly like they followed Karesh (Who proclaimed he was Christ).Now just for laughs sake -Just say there are some kind of beings (to us seeming magical or spiritual,due to the fact we are not evolved to that status)This can cooralate with some one who brings a tv to early Africa in say around 1912 or so.That person would apear to them as a god type.So If we pass on as we know it.Maybe just maybe -untill we all agree on total peace or total no existance ,It will become like a twilight zone episode.Keep looping (hence the after life or re-born type)So we do agree on total peace-or toatal non existance.Dose that then mean all is for ever or just untill some god or being thinks its time to do it all over again (Just for Laughs)


----------



## pstarr

I worship the God of Abraham; Jesus the Messiah.

I have studied other faiths in depth, from Buddhism to Daoism, but I am Christian.  And not afraid to admit it.


----------



## fightingfat

I am Catholic, and I worship Jesus who is &#955;&#972;&#947;&#959;&#962; (Logos) The Word of God. Thought, speech, reason, principle, standard, logic.


----------



## searcher

I will try to keep my answer short and to the point.   I am an Independant, Fundemental Baptist.   I worship God the Father, through Jesus Christ, His Son.   I use only the KJV Bible and I attend Church twice every Sunday.  I believe that the only way to heaven is to repent of being a sinner, understand that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and ask Christ Jesus to forgive you for your sins.   Plain and simple.


----------



## elder999

trav101 said:
			
		

> Sorry for reopening this old conversation... but "metaphysical gobbledy-gook" ???? Just because you don't understand metaphysics, which is a large philosophical school in most major universities, doesn't mean it is goobledy gook. It is no more goobledy gook that believing there is a man with a beard on a fluffy white cloud that is judging me. The major premise of that movie is comparing the subjectiveness to the objectiveness of the universe. If you do some research into modern, read "quantum" mechanics, and into philosophy, you'll see that this goobledy gook warrants some serious thought. Try reading Gary Zukav's book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Or maybe all reasoned intellect is goobledy gook as far as faith based intellect is concerned.


 

Somehow I missed this.:rofl: 
That's too funny...


----------



## ArmorOfGod

elder999 said:
			
		

> I was once at a party where the host asked me not to mention God. Im not sure why I even showed up at their home. Today I wouldnt, under those circumstances. At that party, guests used the F word, talked about nutrition, politics, hiking, their beach vacation homes, how difficult it is to get good help in Santa Fe, and various other topics, but no one mentioned the word God, except as part of a curse word. I suppose they felt comfortable mentioning God in their curses, but thats another post for another day. This thread is about how I think that every person, whether they think so or not, has a God.
> 
> Before we go any further, I suppose I need to say that this culture has become quite simply, an open-air insane asylum. Whats even worse, the inmates are in charge. If you think things are bad, let me assure you that theyre much worse than you imagine, and will get worse than that! Its not popular to point this out, as the prevailing mentality seems to be that everything is beautiful in its own way. You dont believe me? Well, how would you describe a culture where the F word is perfectly acceptable, yet if you mention God, theres something terribly wrong with you?
> 
> Everyone worships a God. For many people in early 21st Century America, it is the God of money, or materialism.
> The question is, what "God" do you worship?


 
Excellent post.
I worship the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) and am very devout in the belief that the only way to Heaven is through the son (Jesus).

The thing that always amazes and saddens me about topics like this is the hatred and rancor that people show towards anyone who say they believe in one definite God (whichever that one may be).

Many (actually most) in today's American society harbor a very new age belief that whatever god one worships is fine and that individual will get his or her own personal heaven.  That is poppycock.  There is only one god.  I am quite sure that my god is the right one, but regardless of which god is correct, there is only one.

Interestingly, I will get blasted from the "open minded people" who believe in many gods.  They believe everyone can have their own god, but no one should ever come out and say that there is only one.

AoG


----------



## heretic888

ArmorOfGod said:
			
		

> Excellent post.
> I worship the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) and am very devout in the belief that the only way to Heaven is through the son (Jesus).
> 
> The thing that always amazes and saddens me about topics like this is the hatred and rancor that people show towards anyone who say they believe in one definite God (whichever that one may be).
> 
> Many (actually most) in today's American society harbor a very new age belief that whatever god one worships is fine and that individual will get his or her own personal heaven. That is poppycock. There is only one god. I am quite sure that my god is the right one, but regardless of which god is correct, there is only one.
> 
> Interestingly, I will get blasted from the "open minded people" who believe in many gods. They believe everyone can have their own god, but no one should ever come out and say that there is only one.
> 
> AoG


 
From my signature:

"They are indeed still trapped in hell, as were their predecessors, but postmythic men and women have at least, and finally, thrown off their childish images of deity as a protective parent sniveling over their every move, listening to their every wish-fulfillment, catering to their every immortality project, dancing to their every prayer of magic. Postmythic men and women did not get thrown out of Eden; they grew up and walked out, and, in now assuming rational and personal responsibility for a measure of their own lives, stand preparatory for the next great transformation: the God within, not the Father without."

- Ken Wilber, A Sociable God: Toward a New Understanding of Religion

Laterz.


----------



## Monadnock

ArmorOfGod said:
			
		

> Excellent post.
> I worship the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) and am very devout in the belief that the only way to Heaven is through the son (Jesus).
> 
> The thing that always amazes and saddens me about topics like this is the hatred and rancor that people show towards anyone who say they believe in one definite God (whichever that one may be).
> 
> Many (actually most) in today's American society harbor a very new age belief that whatever god one worships is fine and that individual will get his or her own personal heaven. That is poppycock. There is only one god. I am quite sure that my god is the right one, but regardless of which god is correct, there is only one.
> 
> Interestingly, I will get blasted from the "open minded people" who believe in many gods. They believe everyone can have their own god, but no one should ever come out and say that there is only one.
> 
> AoG


 
Well, you weren't blasted, but your point was made.


----------



## michaeledward

ArmorOfGod said:
			
		

> The thing that always amazes and saddens me about topics like this is the hatred and rancor that people show towards anyone who say they believe in one definite God (whichever that one may be).
> ...
> There is only one god. I am quite sure that my god is the right one, but regardless of which god is correct, there is only one.


 
ArmorOfGod, this reply is not directed specifically to you, but, your quote is an effective beginning for this thought. Of course, you are included in these general thoughts.​One of the great, sad, challenges our world faces today, is that others are quite sure the god they worship is the 'right one'. 

There is one faith in the world which has this profession of faith.
"There is no God, but God. And Mohammed is his Prophet."​Anyone claiming that God is Three, Father, Son, and Spirit, is blaspheming according to the most basic tenent of that, sibling, faith.

Is there a way to reconcile the followers of these two faiths? 
Or are they each damned to believe the other is damned? 
Are they each prescribed, by their faith, to convert the other?


I wish I was the first person to ask these questions. But I am only one in a line that goes back thousands of years, maybe longer.


----------



## heretic888

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is there a way to reconcile the followers of these two faiths?



Yes. From http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=494366#post494366:



> In 1981, psychologist Dr. James Fowler published a book entitled Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. While there is still some debate about the validity of his Faith Development Theory (FDT) among the psychological community, empirical research has generally supported Dr. Fowler's ideas and it has demonstrated success in psychotherapuetic applications. In essence, FTD concerns the development of an individual's "faith" over the course of his or her lifetime through a series of six invariant, sequential, hierarchical stages (comparable to the cognitive development theory of Jean Piaget, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg, or the ego development theory of Jane Loevinger).
> 
> "Faith", in this context, is not necessarily religious in content (although it often is), but concerns how an individual makes sense of life and where he or she places a concern for ultimacy (whatever that may be). Fowler's "faith" is similar in many respects to the "existential intelligence" that Dr. Howard Gardner has suggested in his recent update to Multiple Intelligences Theory.
> 
> The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:
> 
> *1) Intuitive-Projective Faith:* Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age; characterized by emotional narcissism and a domination by one's impulses; fantasy and reality are poorly distinguished; one's faith is a projection of oneself and one's intuitions; drawn to imaginative stories involving fantastical beings.
> 
> *2) Mythic-Literal Faith:* Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age; sees the world in a very orderly and dependable way; able to reason inductively and deductively; can begin to take the perspectives of others; has a very literal outlook and interprets reality in a very literal way; adopts a reciprocal view of morality ("eye for an eye", reward & punishment).
> 
> *3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith:* Typically found at age 12 and beyond; individual defines oneself on the basis of his or her relationships with others (parents, peers, teachers, etc.); a strongly sociocentric outlook on life; individual identifies exclusively with one group as opposed to others; adopts the morals and norms of the in-group; this is the "unexamined" faith.
> 
> *4) Individuative-Reflective Faith:* Typically found in the early 20's and beyond; one begins to move beyond the group identity and adopt individual views; a "de-mythologizing" stage of faith; translates the symbols and images of one's tradition into personal concepts and ideas; beginning of post-conventional morality.
> 
> *5) Conjunctive Faith:* Typically found at midlife and beyond; begin to distinguish between what is true and what one believes; realizes the stories, symbols, and teachings of one's tradition are inherently partial and incomplete; seeks truth/wisdom from a multitude of sources (i.e., other traditions) in order to complement and/or correct one's own; characterized by a "radical openness" to other viewpoints, acceptance of pluralistic views, and use of paradox for understanding; deepening of post-conventional morality.
> 
> *6) Universalizing Faith:* Extremely rare; concepts of "relevent irrelevance" and "decentration of self" become important; have a detached but passionate view of life; identify with the whole of humanity, regardless of tradition or in-group; selfless compassion for all others; characterized by a unitive experience with being.



The "solution", if I may be so bold, is for the practitioners of these faiths that are at Stages 2 and 3 to "grow up" and start thinking like rational adults. Because, ultimately, this has less to do with the content of one's beliefs than it does about the cognitive patterns that underline those beliefs (i.e., using reason instead of appeals to authority/tradition as a basis for one's truth-claims). Whether this is "secular" or "religious" is irrelevant, as one can be religious and still perfectly rational.

Laterz.


----------



## Ram

None, thats about it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Wait a minute isn't God Alanis Morissette and God's voice is Alan Rickman

Sorry I couldn't resist... I will slink back to my corner now.... I should never take days off...


----------



## michaeledward

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The "solution", if I may be so bold, is for the practitioners of these faiths that are at Stages 2 and 3 to "grow up" and start thinking like rational adults. Because, ultimately, this has less to do with the content of one's beliefs than it does about the cognitive patterns that underline those beliefs (i.e., using reason instead of appeals to authority/tradition as a basis for one's truth-claims). Whether this is "secular" or "religious" is irrelevant, as one can be religious and still perfectly rational.


 
While I don't disagree with these ideas. It certainly does not seem to be a way to bring about effective change. Telling people of faith that they must 'Grow Up', just doesn't seem to be bringing anything productive to the table. If my goal is to piss off the holy people, well, that might be a way to do it, but the age-based analysis, somehow doesn't feel helpful. 

If I recall my Houston Smith, he explained the Hindu religion as being tolerant of human desires. The basic tenet is do what you think will fulfill you. And as you progress through the wheels of life, you will find fulfilling carnal desires is unsustaining, then fulfilling the family desires wanting, to fulfilling the community service leaves one empty, until you progress to being in tune with the everything. (I don't think Mr. Smith would appreciate my synopsis, but you get the idea). 

In this telling, the progression is not based on age, but rather on what goes unfulfilled. While my position of a non-believer is not secret on this board, I certainly understand, know and love people whom have a very close connection with churches of different sorts. They each take a measure of fulfillment from that community that I do not question or wish to denigrate.

But, I am troubled when a person of one faith makes a claim that demands a person of another faith is wrong. Something just doesn't seem right there.


----------



## heretic888

michaeledward said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree with these ideas. It certainly does not seem to be a way to bring about effective change. Telling people of faith that they must 'Grow Up', just doesn't seem to be bringing anything productive to the table. If my goal is to piss off the holy people, well, that might be a way to do it, but the age-based analysis, somehow doesn't feel helpful.



The "age-based analysis" was an analogy, nothing more, nor does it entail "telling people" what to do. What I gave was a psychological explanation, not a pedagogical one. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If I recall my Houston Smith, he explained the Hindu religion as being tolerant of human desires. The basic tenet is do what you think will fulfill you. And as you progress through the wheels of life, you will find fulfilling carnal desires is unsustaining, then fulfilling the family desires wanting, to fulfilling the community service leaves one empty, until you progress to being in tune with the everything. (I don't think Mr. Smith would appreciate my synopsis, but you get the idea).
> 
> In this telling, the progression is not based on age, but rather on what goes unfulfilled.



This is actually how the concepts are presented in the work neo-Piagetians like James Fowler and Jane Loevinger. The "age-analysis" really represents more or less statistical averages (i.e., most people at Stage X tend to be Y years old), although sometimes a certain age seems to be prerequisite (most probably due to age-related brain development) to achieve a certain stage of development.

The basic idea in Fowler's work is that an individual will not change their level of "faith" if it adequately addresses what it needs to address and fulfills what it needs to fulfill for the practitioner. The complexity of one's "faith" is often related to the complexity of one's environment. A person only changes his or her "faith" if it begins to fail in answering fundamental questions for the believer.

Now that we're speaking pedagogically, I believe the best way to do that is to provide environments that evoke more complex thought patterns. This is often achieved through educational reform, but economic development (i.e., full-scale industrialization) can also be a boon. You will notice that most of the world's "fundamentalists" come from poor or undeveloped regions of the world.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> But, I am troubled when a person of one faith makes a claim that demands a person of another faith is wrong. Something just doesn't seem right there.



It seems "right" if your outlook is based on something like Stage 2 or 3, which is precisely the problem.

Laterz.


----------



## evenflow1121

I believe in an God that wants you to work to achieve things, not just sit on your *** and pray but work toward things.  And I believe in a God that gave you excellents and shortcomings on purpose, and whatever short comings you have, you excel in areas that others do not, and try to use that towards you.  Far too many times people just sit back and feel sorry for themselves without realizing their true strengths and what they can actually accomplish with a little drive in them.  Dont ever let fear or doubt get in the way of your dreams, whatever they may be.


----------



## DeLamar.J

I see myself as my own god.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Egyptian-Taoist, seeking Zen, while dancing with Shiva.


----------



## Brother John

what "God" do I worship??

To quote Tolkien:
".....oh yes, an Older chap, gray beard....pointy hat...."

hahaha....
just kiddin..


The one I was taught to pray to from my youth, the one I left as I grew up and the one who found me again when I needed more Light for my path.


Your Brother
John


----------



## spiderboy

I do not consider myself to be religious at all, and am actually very envious of those who have something more to support them in life. I just dont see it.

I guess I value my family and friendships above all else - they are what I lean on when things get tough.

Alex


----------



## evenflow1121

I sort of evaded this question and I apologize for that, I did not want to hurt anyone's feelings.  But the truth is that I do not believe in a God, I believe in myself.  I dont know how we got here, or where we come from, but I do not believe in an after life or an ever loving entity who is somehow perfect, yet allows suffering and all other atrocities to come about.  Now I have dwelled upon the whole free will issue a lot, but even at that I can not see myself believing in a higher being, see if it is our will, and we can not control ourselves, then would an ever loving ever perfect being give us this gift, or perhaps it is a detriment, just my two cents, hope no one is offended by this.

(BTW I have not been posting or trolling much because I just moved to my new place, and still waiting on furniture and what not).


----------

