There is nothing I* can say...

Post #44,865 by static 7/9/02 7:25:19 AM Reply	There is nothing I* can say... ... that will change your mind. Because you've clearly already made your mind up about the existence of God. Wade. * or indeed anyone, really. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,928 by Andrew Grygus 7/9/02 2:23:27 PM Reply	I have my opinions . . . . as to the validity of an anthropomorphic "made in our image" God. This makes no sense to me, nor does it make any sense to me that we would understand God's will and/or motives any more than the aformentioned pigeons would understand multiprotocol routers. Their viewpoint is different. Pagan gods in human image were created to illustrate and make easier understanding natural and social forces. Some might seek to propitiate one or another as a means to manipulate such forces to personal advantage, but the fact they are constructed aids to human perception is not hidden. The anthropomorphic One God is constructed in similar fashion, but His purpose is to justify and forgive acts that have no justification and for which forgiveness is inappropriate when viewed from a broad human perspective, and to provide and justify the authority by which a few rule the many. He is a convenience also for insurance companies that wish not to be held liable for damages from events characterized as "Acts of God". Do I then reject possibilities beyond physical reality, or the posibility of higher forms? Clearly no. Physical science leaves too many things unanswered (generally by claiming the question is not valid). I do not, however, consider God as made in our image, nor the other way around (except in a most metaphorical way). Do I reject the concept of a "personal God"? I accept the possibility of higher forms of consciousnesses that take a personal interest even in individuals, but this would not be "God", but "near side" intermediate forms. To think otherwise would be to place severe limits on the scope of God. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,939 by Ashton 7/9/02 3:14:57 PM Reply	Too many words? How about: The lower cannot see the higher. (Imagination.. and especially, the crafting of a custom 'higher' to suit your organizational plan, while seeking comfort from the angst of the unknown: doesn't count)
Post #44,945 by Andrew Grygus 7/9/02 3:43:38 PM Reply	Perfect sense, but sounds too "esoteric". Like when I was with a group discussing the "Seth" books which were popular back then - I remarked that Aleister Crowley had covered all that material in a paragraph or two, and quoted. Blank stares - and I wasn't invited back. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #44,948 by Ashton 7/9/02 4:16:44 PM Reply	As A. Einstein said, things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. 'Esoteric' sayings may point towards (by def'n) pithy imaginations of unknowable Truths. This does not prohibit anyone from coopting any one of them and embroidering that with McDoggerel - surely an omnipresent activity in the Ad/Bizness Thingie with which we have replaced what used to be called a culture. (Puritanism.. The Search for Prurience, mostly?) Since esoteric Means hidden: how more apt can ya get? Remember, when speaking of the infinite it is impossible to exaggerate... Ashton The EZ revealed as boring. The Difficult made more fun. The Impossible left alone.
Post #44,954 by Brandioch 7/9/02 5:55:36 PM Reply	Understanding vs Control Like you thought you'd get away without me interjecting my viewpoint. :) "Understanding" is easy/impossible. That is where the simply "Truths" are. That which is, is. Control is when it gets complicated. The various rules for should/should not and how to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
Post #44,960 by Ashton 7/9/02 7:30:10 PM Reply	Control.____Hmmm___ a seed! Good word / image. Extrapolation is fun - I believe that there are always a very few around, who have grokked to fullness [is as good as any]. Believe also that these are invariably ones entirely disinterested in 'control' or any variant - that is, among the few who ever come to be noticed by many other people at all. Wisdom appears to be a nontransferable attainment. Control implicitly imagines that ~ "one may 'understand' enough to devise a system, force people to abide by certain Boolean-like rules" - and you can call this life and, "a society". Yet in a world in which all our metaphors are about 'opposites', no such set of rules ever satisfies more than just 'most'; frequently a lot fewer - and people are changeable in their wants. So war is our constant vocation (and our model for a business and often.. for a social avocation too). Organized religions are supposed to fill-in for the missing knowledge, thus the missing understanding. Having been devised by men, to attempt to soothe the angst of not Knowing - those too fail on all counts - including ignoring of the gender differences in certain innate qualities of homo-sap. So I believe that the entire idea of 'control' is a chimera, is associated only with the crudest possible definitions of 'life': the struggle to get More than anyone around you, thus to accumulate indefinitely. ie Greed redefined as 'progress'. And so it goes. Funny species, no? Ashton who now returns control of your mind to the bearer, or its surrogate. Not responsible for misapplication of any rules. None of the characters represent anyone alive or dead. Not responsible for merchantability or fitness to purpose of the product.
Post #45,005 by static 7/10/02 3:30:39 AM Reply	Notes. The "Acts of God" line in insurance contracts is, to my thinking, a clearer than usual example of a historical holdover being used as a cop-out. So we agree on that. Putting that one aside... I can see you have a problem with labelling some sort of "higher-being" as "God". I can understand that. As has been demonstrated in this thread, the very word "God", capitalisation and all, in English carries with it quite a lot of meaning far exceeding it's three humble letters. That seems to be largely the same issue Ashton has with it. I have taught myself over the years to distinguish between the various things attributed to "God" and done in his name over the centuries and between organisations, which is why I objected to Ashton earlier. So permit me to opine that I suspect you may be closer to the truth than you think you are. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."

Welcome to IWETHEY!