What is God? Is God a giant man who once incarnated as his own son 2,000 years ago through the womb of a woman in the Middle East? Certainly not. Is God a man who created everything we see? Wrong again. These stories are just perceptions filtered through the limited human mind. They are not ultimate truths. Is God male? No way. This notion is an erroneous interpretation by the male ego.
"God" is the Life Force
One can think of God as the life force or sentience that permeates the cosmos - gravity or levity, it matters not. As an example of such an energy, one can take a plug and stick it into an electrical outlet - this "zapping" is what becoming spiritual is all about. One becomes plugged into "God." But think about that electrical life force: It has no form. In other words, it's not a human being. It has no gender; it's not a male. It has no color; it's not white. It has no size and no container. That life force, or "God," is not a giant white man, as we have been told, who can mysteriously incarnate himself through the womb of a virgin of any particular ethnicity. Rather than being historical, these are myths that are merely symbolic for the creation of matter out of spirit.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
You are on the right path, but God is something we humans cannot ever understand. Therefore, whatever analogy is made to convey God is wrong at some level. Calling God electricity is also wrong just like calling God a white man on a cloud, but it is better in many ways.
It is similar to the kabalion in teaching the ancient science that was know everywhere at the time and is now becoming known again. It's HERMETIC - ESOTERIC - MYSTICAL PHILOSOPHY! Pretty good reading too.
This really isn't anything more than another "here's what I believe and the other stuff is wrong" thread. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with such threads (we have many of them) but this doesn't seem particularly "new."
Reinterpreting the idea of "god" as some sort of "force" rather than the more traditional anthropomorphic deity is intuitively pleasing to many. But all it does is reframe the definition so that it isn't so at odds with reason and science. Though I'd still press the issue to such adherents to show any evidence of a "life force" that doesn't include our natural biological processes and actions/emotions, since it's just vague enough for most that it doesn't need a clear definition or evidence. Handy for spiritualists, since they can dodge the question, but not logically tenable.
I'm reminded of the trite but true phrase: "The invisible and the non-existent look the same." Believe that God is a "life force" if you must, but know that it's tantamount to saying that He doesn't exist. I realize that one can believe in "something" without a God (the "spiritual but not religious crowd") but both lack solid ground upon which to stand. We can transcend ourselves in a variety of ways, but we don't need the paranormal or something that is logically baseless to achieve it.
...
Hopefully that general statement captures my thoughts well. I'd address more specific points (for example, consciousness permeating the cosmos? A deliciously New Age idea, but wrong on numerous counts without something new in the form of evidence). But it would obscure my main point, stated above.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
More like a reflection. They (gods) are a way for us to know those things we can never know. Like, how did the universe begin?; God made it. Why did the Earth shake?; God did it.
One day the human race will grow up, but for now, we are just children.
Lay persons and scientists assume a transcendent casual agent--an intelligent Being--created the cosmos--and all within--because a naturalistic explanation is unavailable and inconceivable. This has nothing to do with ignorance, but noting the obvious.
Shakyamunison... get real! Everybody and their mother knows that the cosmos had a beginning--even those with extreme bias views. Einstein didn't like the idea of a "beginning" either; but he later excepted observational data and dismissed his biases. The cosmos are not eternal.
Last edited by ushomefree on Apr 12th, 2008 at 01:59 AM
And Multiverse is a viable theory that is accepted by many. Just because YOU feel absolute in your idea doesn't mean every other theory is automatically idiotic.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 10th, 2008 04:51 PM
