Peter Sellick wrote: "To have an image of God, even a mental image, was forbidden. This is how the identity of God was protected from human projection." In the Jewish tradition which supposedly Christianity follows God is unknowable. The pagan gods such as Mithra and Apollo were surrounded by myth - virgin birth, resurrection and other myths which were incorporated in the Jesus narrative. Christianity has the contradiction of an unknowable God in humanoid form incorporating pagan myth. The Christian nonsense has had a long run, but eventually it will disappear as the pagan myths did which it incorporates. However, humans are immensely gullible, and the myths will probably be recycled.

I presume you have a recommendation for this position, Mr Sellick?

>>We have plenty of real theologians who could have been on the panel, why not ask them?<<

My question to you is - would they agree with you?

This piece leaves even more questions on the table than usual.

"We should proclaim to the world that our God is not a divine being 'out there' nor the mind behind the creation, nor the providential ruler of the universe."

OK. I think I understand that. God is not divine. God did not create the universe. Nor is God the caretaker of that universe.

I guess that takes most of the Bible out of the picture, then, as well as the entire Roman Catholic faith. Sorry, not faith - religion.

"It is only when we give up on creation as the ground of faith, that is so easily confused with nature, and place the cross of Christ at the centre, that we will come to realise that before this One we must give way."

There, that understanding didn't last long. According to my Sunday School teacher, Christ and God should be completely interchangeable (she never did quite explain the Holy Ghost very well). But if God isn't a divine being, doesn't that make the cross business - not to mention the resurrection - nothing more than a moral tale?

Or is that the intention here?

"'God raised Jesus from the dead.' It is not meant literally, it is figurative but points to a real event."

I see what you mean about Christians becoming atheists, Mr Sellick. Most atheists I know have said the same thing - the whole resurrection malarkey is just a sophisticated bedtime story, providing a high-level benchmark for being nice to each other.

But I hope that not too many Christians heed your call. They might start to give atheism a bad name.

Peter,
Probably one of you better articles. Pity it was so short.
I thought I was reading Crossan for a moment because you are becoming a little post-modern of late. I worry when Christians start finding it necessary to start convincing the rest of us that they and only they have the correct concept of their god/faith.

I too agree that the show was shallow and frustrating.
I suggest that all your admirers here on OO send an email to the ABC insisting that you be on the next panel that discusses religion.

Peter, it seems you have based an entire piece on the 13.4 seconds of air time Q&A allowed John Lennox. Not really an adequate amount of time to learn much about the man...

As someone who has heard him speak numerous times, and read his books, I can assure you that you are completely off beam with your article.

I insist you read "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox before commenting further.

Interesting article, thanks Peter, for letting me know that I was not alone in my disappointment at the particular shallowness of that episode of Q&A.
About a week later I went to the John Lennox versus Peter Singer debate at the Melbourne town hall and Prof Lennox was again hopeless. He had more time though, to dig a deep hole for himself and his particular circular argument with its false appeals to evidence. He would have been much better just invoking faith.
PS I’m an atheist.

Jennifer, the PS wasn't necessary. Only an atheist would say that Lennox was hopeless in that debate.

My response to reading Sellick is always similar...NO, no....yes, ok, yes,no,no,no, no and NO!

A frustrating experience.

The man has turned Christianity into something else, I'm not sure exactly what. What irks me though, is his insistence that all the real "theologians" agree with his liberal ideas, when that is clearly and undoubtedly NOT the case.

'We should proclaim to the world that our God is not a divine being "out there" nor the mind behind the creation, nor the providential ruler of the universe.'

OK, Peter, you've 'proclaimed' what he is NOT: now what IS he, exactly? Preferably in plain English.

Or failing that, welcome to atheism.

Beautiful article, Thank you Peter!

Jon J, you asked: "you've 'proclaimed' what he is NOT: now what IS he, exactly? Preferably in plain English"

If that was possible to tell, then God would be reduced to the level of an object; in other words, an idol, of which we have too many already. Only THINGS or OBJECTS can be described in a positive way, yet God is not a thing, God is not an object.

I did however encounter one flaw in the article, claiming that "God is personal": Yes, God is not a person, but God is not personal either - I assume that what Peter meant is that the EXPERIENCE OF GOD is personal; not an objective one.

Unlike God Himself, one's experience of God can be described positively, but being subjective in nature, it obviously cannot be too accurate or serve as substitute for the actual direct experience of God.

Dear Trav,

Christianity is not a theology - Christianity is the willingness to follow Jesus' example and be crucified, or whatever equivalent anguish is required under the circumstances, for the love of God and Others. A Christian is someone who is willing to go on the cross for God's sake, not someone who holds this or another belief. I met just a handful of those.

...yet another definition of god/faith/religion.
I love this...there seems to be no end to it.
I guess a delusion is a personal and completely subjective thing isn't it.

"If that was possible to tell, then God would be reduced to the level of an object; in other words, an idol, of which we have too many already. Only THINGS or OBJECTS can be described in a positive way, yet God is not a thing, God is not an object."

Wonderful! Only a theist would try to make a virtue of the fact that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

"Wonderful! Only a theist would try to make a virtue of the fact that they don't know what the hell they are talking about."

Virtue? can you please tell me how this possibly makes me any better than anybody else?

The only "virtue" I can think and boast of, is that of not being a complete illogical fool and/or an idol-worshiper. This is not a matter of belief, but of pure logic.

I take it as accepted (otherwise let me know and I can elaborate on it) that:

A: Only objects can be described positively.
B: All objects are limited.

If you further claim that:

C: God is __fill_in_the_blank__

Then
D: God is an object
and
E: God is limited.

A limited god is called an idol, so if you worship a God that can be described positively, then you worship an idol.

"I take it as accepted (otherwise let me know and I can elaborate on it) that:

A: Only objects can be described positively.
B: All objects are limited."

And I take it as accepted that:

C: Only things which can be described positively exist.

So therefore

D: If God cannot be described positively, God does not exist.

But if you can think of any counterexamples, let me know.

What would the Christian martyrs in the Colosseum have made of your pathetic "God", I wonder, this ghost of a ghost? Or Joan of Arc and St Louis? What would all the missionaries who suffered illness and death to bring the gospel of a loving God and a blissful afterlife to the world feel, if you could tell them that their spiritual heirs would declare 'all objects are limited'? Do you think they would be proud of your feeble logic-chopping?

If this is what Christianity has come to in the year of our lord 2011, then the quicker it puts itself out of its misery the better.

"We must realise that God is personal but is not a person, that we are not saved by belief in an idol of our own construction."

God is certainly personal if one subscribes to the idea of a 'God' within rather than without.

Isn't God an 'idol of our own construction' regardless of intent? The fact that faith relies on lack of evidence more than hints at a human construction open to many interpretations. God means many different things to many different Christians hence the myriad of different Churches all with a variable human interpretation of God - all human constructs.

Much of this article is about semantics and discussions about verbs and nouns but adding a faux sophistication does not work in blurring the history and fundamentals of the religious experience.

I do agree with Sellick's comment about the poor quality of the debate on Q&A and (his words) the 'flaccid' comments by the biblical scholar which were nothing more than thinly veiled self-congratulations and the oft found 'I am right and you are wrong' attitudes of many who are deeply committed to their faith. The comment about looking to one's beliefs to 'see the person' was one such furphy. Don't we all know by now it is actions and behaviour that reflect our values not our words. "Looking to what one believes" is useless without corresponding action.

Eva Cox was the stand out, even John Safron was more insightful while holding up the mirror to extremism and intolerance on all 'sides' of the discussion.

My interpretation of the article is Peter Sellick appears to be selling the idea of Atheist Christians as a response or even a retaliation against other Christians with whom he (or one) would disagree

Dear Jon,

"D: If God cannot be described positively, God does not exist"

No need for counterexamples - isn't this exactly the main point of the article, so beautifully written?

Once it is established that God does not exist, only then does faith can finally enter. Only then can the Christian martyrs and saints be seen as truly spiritual and selfless rather than a bunch of traders, bargaining away with a material god for material benefits hereafter. I would hope that at least some of them experienced God directly, then they would have no need to rely on logic, feeble or otherwise.

"If this is what Christianity has come to in the year of our lord 2011, then the quicker it puts itself out of its misery the better."

It is indeed time to put Christianity out of its misery, to take it out of the dark middle ages, to shake off the dust and renew it by the Holy Spirit. It is time to end the lingering traces of the false, primitive, man-made Jewish god, fashioned in the image of man. It is time to redeem our image of God from the blemish of existence. It is time to complete that transformation which Jesus started but had no time to complete, from the worship of a material human-like god, bargaining, capricious, chauvinist and nationalistic, to the worship of God, which none can describe, but which by His grace we can experience directly.

Dear Pelican,

"God is certainly personal if one subscribes to the idea of a 'God' within rather than without."

One's idea of God has no impact on the reality of God. God Himself is not limited by notions of "within" or "without".

God Himself does not mean anything. It is us, humans, who harbour different ideas about God in our minds and attach different meanings to those ideas. Surely our feeble mind-stuff has no impact on Reality.

"Once it is established that God does not exist, only then does faith can finally enter. Only then can the Christian martyrs and saints be seen as truly spiritual and selfless rather than a bunch of traders, bargaining away with a material god for material benefits hereafter. I would hope that at least some of them experienced God directly, then they would have no need to rely on logic, feeble or otherwise."

Now explain how you can experience something that doesn't exist. On second thoughts, don't bother. This is just all too silly.

Peter, thanks for the article -- a good one.

Yuyutsu, you and I seem to be very close in our understanding. My article "God does not exist: God insists" is pertinent.
[http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11008&page=0]

Sorry I can't continue in the discussion for a few days due to business commitments.

""many of the stories are playful,
the book of Jonah especially.""

jonah is an allagory of the lowest hell
and the power of prayer,..and of freewill

""This gives us an insight
into how we could interpret a sentence like
"God raised Jesus from the dead."""

the difficulty in percieving the purpose of the stories
is made simply..by observing the events in their spiritual importances

[ie jesus in his material flesh died
his spirit was resercted...much like he told a thief hanging besides him..'that this 'day' he too would be in 'heaven'

the heaven for a thief
is much different from the heaven of the messiah
[but as jesus says..'mine fathers house has many rooms'
[ie many 'heavens'..[where there..more shall be given]

""It is not meant literally,""

but..IT IS MEANT SPIRITUALLY

""it is figurative""

so people can take what heppens
as a result of this 'other' happening
sequance/consequance

that what..in the main..can and will happen..
even if only spiritually

""but points to a real event.""
even if not 'real'...materially speaking

'"It includes but is not emptied
by the subjectivity of the first believers.""

but can also be looked at objectivly
assuring a sequence of consequences

""It is unexpected and is not the work of men.""

it was formed ultimatly to give comfort
not enshrine un-comfort

""But its proclamation opens the door to faith and freedom.""

no it is about specific work/act
bearing specific fruit/action

""The one we killed has been vindicated.""

we didnt kill him
nothing others do
can vindicate..what we chose to do
no guilt or blame or shame..if the deed wernt done by you
[unless its a good you intended..but never 'got arround..to do']

""Our evil actions have been subverted to the good.""

who judges evil
may be judging good as evil
or judge evil as good..what the better good
or worse evil...judging*

thou shalt not judge

""Our lies have produced a truth
that illuminates the whole world.""

thats how mass murders rant on

no good comes from a bad thing
because of the judgment being the worse bad

[that being said...evil
allows the doing of bigger good
but better is the good that comes from desire
to schieve the good for a greater good..than one good god

""The resurrection signifies
the overturning of the powers of the world..
that keep us in bondage,..the defeat of death as having the last word,""

ie be born again
in the spirit realm

""a sign of the fulfilment of his-story to come.""

ahhh men

""All these things and more
rely on us dethroning the God..that we have made in our own image""

agree

""and being open to the events in history
that bring..the real meaning of creation,""

""it has nothing to do with cosmology
or the big bang""[ie materialism]

but the revelation...of a new people,
the suns and daughters of Good...of the god of light

On the contrary, Jon J

>>Now explain how you can experience something that doesn't exist. On second thoughts, don't bother. This is just all too silly.<<

It is not at all silly. It is fascinating.

We are witnessing the final headlong, lemming-like rush of educated Christians who have finally intellectualized their God out of existence. They have, in this (for a change, mercifully short) thread, completely obliterated any trace of their former "God", and replaced him or her with something completely ethereal, utterly evanescent. Henceforth, the only way you will "experience" religion will be to close your eyes, and wish very hard.

Kids do this at performances of Peter Pan, when they are asked to make Tinkerbell better. They do it very effectively, I'm told. She recovers, every time.

The odd thing is - and I have remarked this to Mr Sellick on more than one occasion in the past - that they have collectively arrived at the identical destination that atheists have already found, and without the assistance of a theological degree. Or two.

So long as they don't get fanatical about it, it is totally harmless. Quite sweet, in its way.

Dear Crabsy,

Thank you for pointing me to your beautiful article.

The experience of God cannot be transmitted, but as we nevertheless insist on expressing our feelings about it, we use a multitude of different expressions, taken from our life-context.

The "ewe-boy" is a valid expression of God, when coming from you personally, but if that later turns into an organized religion and people start claiming that "God is an ewe-boy", then they've missed Him by miles - and once they do, I hate to think of the ensuing wars:

Your vision of a boy with a sheep playing the flute, is close to that of Krishna, only that Krishna had cows, not sheep, so are we going to see fighting between the sect of the cows and the sect of the sheep? I hope not.

Dear Pericles,

It seems that the Christians are finally ready for a spring-clean, to continue with the job that Jesus started, of obliterating the false notions of the Jewish God, just as the Jews before them obliterated the prevailing notions of gods made of wood/stone/metal.

It is no wonder that materialists are jealous, for they would like to see all this new vigor directed towards serving THEIR gods, the god of existence, the god of science, the gods of the human-race and its society.

(I will be unable to respond again until tomorrow night)

The apophatic tradition actually has a very long pedigree in Christianity and a number of other religions. This holds that God is beyond human comprehension and that we can therefore best describe God in terms of what God is not. Whatever the merits or otherwise of this position, it is not a recent invention of modern intellectualizing Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Like many, I watched the recent Royal Wedding, after the vows were spoken the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a (too long) droning lecture. Admonishing the newly weds to bring up future children to fear god, so that they may do the right thing.
Holy Moses!, I always thought (as a child) that my God was an all loving all forgiving God. Now in the 21st century, we have been told to fear God. (I am glad that I am now an atheist).
NSB

What in the world is this article all about?
This is incoherence writ large.

Jon J,
>>Now explain how you can experience something that doesn't exist.<<
For instance, your toothache that only you can experience.

More seriously: As I keep on saying, in oder to have a meaningful debate the parties have to agree on the meaning of terms used: either by defining them explicitly or by somehow mutually agreeing that the term is fundamental, cannot be defined, only intuitively grasped, and share this “grasp”. The verb “exists” is of this second, fundamental kind. I presume that you and I agree on its meaning (though we disagree on some statements using that verb), whereas Yuyutsu (if I understand him properly) - and maybe also Tillich and Crabsy - attach a different intuitive meaning to it.

If we were asked in a survey whether we believed that God existed, that He did not exist or were undecided, no other option, I would tick the first option, you probably the second, so in this we would disagree. However, if we were to enter a serious discussion about the statement “God exists” we would have to agree not only on the meaning of “exists” (which I assume we do) but also on the meaning of the noun “God”, which is a much more complicated matter and discussing it opens a Pandora’s box of oversimplifications, ridicule etc.

For instance, I feel - though I might be very much wrong - that I attach the same intuitive meaning to the word “God” as Yuyutsu, but apparently we two disagree with him on the intuitive meaning of the verb “exists”.

thought provoking as usual george
does your tooth'ache egsist
only you know..for sure

does the good of god egsist
most certainly

the only thing i disagree with is the meaning of egsist
[egsistance is beyond desputing...that god egsists thus is also witnessed...by the things only god can make egsistant]

i learned moral code..heavilly biased by xtian foundations
but in time have modified my moral egsistance..as further info revealed more certainty]

life can only come from life
thus life needs egsist..pre the big bang
when clearly life couldnt materially 'egsist'

as science has evolved more theory...
we see the possable egsistance of other realms
as a reasonable probability...

the brane theory..actually says
that the big bang was initiated by two opposing realms..
[in other dimentions]...'comming together...to form this one

its a never ending facination...confirming my certainty
that god egsists...[i disagree with our atghiest mate..that god insists,...thus cant egsist]...

egsist according to our friend...means outside
insist according to his athiest insight..mean within

and then im confounded that the same
distorted perceptions egsist[lol]..within those
who claim to have their own certainty..[re god]

i prefer the cetainties inherant in fact[science]
i am...being a huh-man being..

thus i am
as i am..

[rationalising out why 'i' am]
seeking only to know..i am better
because im know the great i am..thunk me

before i even knew..i could be all that i am

ME
WE

its like looking into a mirror
reflecting on the reflection of the we..[he]..that made me

i accord my being to god'..as prime cause

because the science is so far..egsistant alone..
with-in the realm of theory...possability and probability

it can observe...that which egsists..
but as to the cause..that origonates the material being..
it remains speculative at best..and a destraction at worst

there is much profound thought within the holy texts
just as there is much thought in science

only a foolish person would ignore..the simple facts..
that cause has sign symptom...then outside verifications
[like that of percieving an aching tooth]..and the dentist
confirming and rectifying..by actually doing something

the tooth is a thing..only we can know
if it aches...but a dentist could in theory say
it should ache..or not ache..

but in the end
its us who feel or dont feel its sign/symptom egsists
thus as the cause egsists..the tooth egsists..damage egsists
thus in all probability..the pain should egsist...

unless your spiritual nerve
has been cauterised blocked or ignored
and the personal sign..simply dont get recognised

its like they say i feel pain
but the pain is in my mouth
and they simply know not
the name of those other things..actually making their mouth hurt

because in their ignorance
teeth are just a part of our mouth
till you recognise the pain...has a definite cause
you dont even think of looking for a more specific cause

i feel so sorry
that those who deney good of god
miss so much more..in seeing only part
of this life's experience..missing its underlying cause
is all living..all loving..all mercyfull..logical and eternal

[anyhow its all good]
cause its all a gift of god
who dont need to even explain its his gift
without any obligation..the best gifts are annon*

"This gives us an insight into how we could interpret a sentence like "God raised Jesus from the dead." It is not meant literally, it is figurative but points to a real event. It includes but is not emptied by the subjectivity of the first believers. It is unexpected and is not the work of men. But its proclamation opens the door to faith and freedom. The one we killed has been vindicated. Our evil actions have been subverted to the good. Our lies have produced a truth that illuminates the whole world."

Personally I reject Christianity because it is historically and quite demonstrably, cruel, calculated and oppressive lie. Perhaps the most unforgivable insult to our species being the notion of eternal torment.

Nonetheless, we must deal with today's problems. And the above from Peter is a message that should at the very least be taught at schools instead of the literal biblical translation at the hands of those who seek to usurp science with creationism and faith with obedience.

Hi Yuyutsu
"One's idea of God has no impact on the reality of God. God Himself is not limited by notions of "within" or "without...God Himself does not mean anything. It is us, humans, who harbour different ideas about God in our minds and attach different meanings to those ideas. Surely our feeble mind-stuff has no impact on Reality."

Then who defines the reality of God. It is humans as you say yourself further on. "it is us humans who harbour different ideas about God...". It has always been humans since the days of old and it is human interpretations that bring us to today like a game of Chinese whispers where the story changes with the storyteller.

And it is our feeble mind-stuff that does impact the reality. I have no problems with Christians or any religious person or non-theists - the criterion for me is do no harm. But the Christian faith more than any other has so many interpretations it almost makes it meaningless other than a few core values that sit well on their own - 'do unto others' and respect for life etc.

before i quote pel-i-can
i would like to note the absurdity of what the card-[in-all] pell
has done...ie the deal to remove..the alternative moral courses from nsw schools...

so now athiests really will claim not to know
the laws of common decency

mr pell your a fool
[not you pelican]

you said...""Then who defines the reality of God.""

depends much on what you percieve god to be
but as allways..the god recognition begins and ends in thee

how a beast defines god
is a thing a beast can even concieve..let alone reply

its not the defioned that is limited
but the one attempting such a definition
its much like a bacteria trying to define quantum mechanics

even if they tried
it would be meaningless

out of context..and wrote in bacteria dna
another concept the bacteria cant define
he dont even know a bannana shares 55%
of huh?-man dna

""It is humans as you say yourself further on..."it is us humans who harbour different ideas about God...". It has always been humans since the days of old...""

the bacteria dares refut this
just cause you never asked the bug
dont mean he dont got a bug level concieving ..of god[good]

""and it is human interpretations
that bring us to today like a game of Chinese whispers..where the story changes with the storyteller.""

oh dear
you win

god is such a personal concept
we can only adopt a definition
by willing looking foolish trying to ex-plain
[even the intent to make things plain...has the prefix...'ex']

oh it was so much knowing god was all good
said the bacteria...why did i ever yearn to be 'man'[huh?]
yes so much more WAS given...but then
*too much more..was expected

oh lord i hear ju-liar guile-lard..prattling on her ignorance
[yesterday it was a letter saying WERE LEADING THE WORLD

todys spin is we dont want to be left behind
its fools leading the foolish

but back to the matters of spirit
[matters of the materialistic flesh..only are corruptable]
the two party patsie machine is bringing its latest spin[fruit]

jesus...[often mistaken to 'be' god]
was to be called emmanual..[god with us]
well the truth is god is with/in...us..[all]
as much sustaining the bacteria its living..as he sustains us HUH?-man our living

hopw to define the force of animous
that animates life/living...

but science calls 'autonmous response'
cause it dont know..*how god does it either
there is no science method..in "natural"..selection

yet those who dont 'get' the science...
couldnt explain..it..or use it..ignorantly declare their faithlessnesss in any higher power..by science 'proof'...lol

know we are ignorant
in the main because of the cardinal pells
albert einsteins.. and rupert murdoche's..of this realm
the blind leading the ignorant..

that they do to the least
has karmic comeback
in ways mere bacteria simply cant concieve

Dear George,

Tillich's book has arrived and I am looking forward to read it soon.

It seems indeed that we differ about the word "exists", but since my definition of "exists" is more inclusive than yours (I think), because it includes mental/psychic phenomena as well as the obviously physical, this fails to explain why you tick the box "God exists" while I don't. I may claim that Tinkerbell exists (as a figment of some people's minds) and you may claim that she doesn't: fair enough, but I don't consider God to exist EVEN in the sense of Tinkerbell's existence (God is not a mental image, an hallucination, a wishful-thought, a concept, a feeling, etc. etc), then how much more so should you, who adhere to a stricter definition of "exists", state that God does not exist.

So I wonder, is your definition of "exists" broader than mine in some other sense?

Dear Pelican,

"Then who defines the reality of God."

A monkey may say: "Then who peels the reality of God" (considering Him a banana)
A squirrel may say: "Then who cracks the reality of God" (considering Him a nut)
A hedgehog may say: "Then who digs the reality of God" (considering Him an insect)

Only humans feel the need to define God, but God is neither a banana, a nut, an insect, nor mind-food. He is not anything that can be defined, because... He is not a thing!

So why are we, humans, so addicted to definitions?

You complain that Christianity is almost meaningless, but why should it matter? why are we so addicted to finding a meaning? The test of religion, is how well or otherwise it serves in bringing us closer to God, not how well it feeds our hungry minds.

"Do unto others" and respect for life are great religious techniques because they are so effective in breaking the walls of the ego that block our experience of God. I am therefore fully in favour, but I do not consider them as ends for themselves.

The person is more real in the actual character they express than the transient flesh they live within. Yet the character has no physical reality of itself but we can witness the physical effects of the character. It is the actual character that has eternal consequeces over the transient flesh that exists for a mere human life span.

Yututsu, Christianity, and indeed all the religions, were created from a human need for meaning. Definitions give meaning to words that we use, without them we cannot understand anything. If you don't think that 'meaning' is important, then you might as well give up on religion.

God doesn't make sense under close scrutiny of course, because it is a false positive, an ascribed meaning to an unknown and hidden cause of everything we don't understand. I have a feeling that as long as people need some sort of positive explanation for things nobody can yet understand, the concept of God will likely be with us. And economics.

Well said Bugsy:

>> God doesn't make sense under close scrutiny of course, because it is a false positive, an ascribed meaning to an unknown and hidden cause of everything we don't understand. I have a feeling that as long as people need some sort of positive explanation for things nobody can yet understand, the concept of God will likely be with us. And economics. <<

God is the explanation when you don't have an explanation. Some people, such as atheists are not troubled by the great unknown, others require the sense of security that a benevolent higher being may provide. And this would not be a problem, if not for that imposition by religious adherents into the lives of non-religious people.

I suspect the problem for religious people is their fear that non-religious people find religion amusing at best and proscriptive at worst.

'Live and let live' works for everyone.

Dear Bugsy,

Let alone why Christianity or other religions were established - we were not there to judge, so I am willing to accept the possibility that religions (some or all) were initially invented for the wrong reasons. What's important is whether and to what extent do established religions serve us today in coming closer to God.

Thank God He doesn't make sense. A god who makes sense would be a mere silly idol.

The fact that people have weaknesses and are looking for meaning and explanations, has nothing to do with God. If silly people are using the name of God as an explanation for material issues, I consider that sacrilege.

People can do without the concept of God, probably without economics too (obviously in much smaller numbers), but not without God.

Dear Ammonite,

The fear of religious people is that the non-religious/materialistic/humanist people would not follow the "Live and let live" rule. It is not a hypothetical possibility, it is exactly what communism did.

"Thank God He doesn't make sense"

Probably the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum....thank you so much for this.

Yuyutsu:"The fact that people have weaknesses and are looking for meaning and explanations, has nothing to do with God."

Actually, it has everything to do with God.

I did not mention 'explanation of material issues', in fact if anything God is supposed to put meaning to everything, material and non-material. Your whole life and existence in fact, not what just how you ate for breakfast.

God doesn't make sense, but is supposed to make everything else make sense?

Yep, that about sums it up.

Okay, Yuyutsu, i can't resist.
You have a penchant for reasoning (although at the same time you deny the use of "your mind") yourself around in circles, so often cancelling out you explanation of God.

Previously you've said that we are God - and yet you say that striving to be closer to God is what it's all about. Believe it or not, most people don't think God is a thing....more likely they think God is a concept. However, in the past you have denied that God can be anything - even a concept, because concepts are constructions of the mind.

Can you explain how religion is a vehicle for "bringing us closer to God" if 1) we already are God and 2) we are capable of moving closer to something that doesn't exist?...or perhaps you mean becoming more "aware" of God. But then again "awareness", either spiritual or intellectual is a function of mind.

so tell me
do you 'believe' in the theory of evolution
do you believe in economic theory

god is with us
its all so many theories
but note how free we are to believe as we chose

purerot said...quote..""because concepts
are constructions of the mind...""

[sorry thats from the jinn
giving me this reply]

yes concepts
but god is more than a con-cept

sure religeons reflect the worser face
of the good inherant of god

[yet they claim to hold the high ground...much like demons claiming to own heaven]

materialism..confounds a scientific cause
thus we are free..to believe as we wish
this cant change..*the prime cause

think of god as the first action
that then caused the reactions..we now think to be real

can in fact prove real...
but that first cause[spark]..of the big bang
was real..and..made reality..[and the holy texts said that
long before science thunk it..[with a big bang]

""Can you explain..how religion is a vehicle
for "bringing us closer to God"..if 1.. we already are God""

we have god within us
we are thus..the cause within us
sustaining us our lives..is real too

you cant exclude the means..that life lives
from the life living...its gift

im not god
your clearly not god
how can an adjective become a noun

[think of subjective
rather than objective]

""and 2)..we are capable of moving closer
to something that doesn't exist?""

if i have my tghumb in your mouth
can it get any closer...move me any closer to your 'mouth'

emmanuel..[god with us]
WAS TO BE THE MESSIAHS NAME
yet he is called jesus...because he came to reveal the good within us all...jesu wasnt god...but to look at him..you could see the good works god does for us all

""...or perhaps you mean becoming more "aware" of God.""

if we sit in meditation
we soon find the good within
think of you/me..as prisons..holding that we feel most precious...deeply within us all..[god aint going no where]

""But then again "awareness",
either spiritual or intellectual is a function of mind.""

there is another point
the brain...is not the mind
the mind isnt about function..but dicerning/judging/learning
that are process...not fun-ction..

the function of the brain is to enlighten our mind..[enlighten-men/t..isnt a function neither]..

its a present..[a gift]
the gift

without which no life could live

thats it for the present

Dear Bugsy,

I know you did not mention "explanation", but I combined my answer to you with my answer to Ammonite, who mentioned it.

God is not there to feed your addiction for having meaning and making sense.

Dear Poirot,

Of course you are God, there is nothing but God, but your mind is in the way of you experiencing God directly. You do experience God every moment, but you normally experience Him via certain veils, such as your mind and your senses. What is needed in order to experience God directly is not an addition, but a subtraction, and that what's religion is meant to do. Religious practices loosens your attachment to the world, thereby you are "mind"ing less and less about it. Once you no longer mind, once over your addiction to experience via the mind, then you Are.

Yuyutsu:"God is not there to feed your addiction for having meaning and making sense."

Of course it isn't. I don't have that addiction, the religious people do.

God is supposed to explain everything and give people meaning to their lives. Have you not been listening to the preachers?

yu..""looking for meaning and explanations,
has nothing to do with God."..

buggsy replying.."Actually,..it has everything to do with God."'

imust agree
god made logic..[logus]
the material world makes sense...
because material reason followed spiritual cause

how i hate that word..that subverts spirit..[spi-ritual]
ie ritual has subverted god..as jesu repeatedly pinted out
creed-al differences...are usually creed vairiables of ritual

that [rite]..also seems the root of the perversions
that sepperate us from good [god]...[rite right?]

bugsby..""I did not mention 'explanation of material issues'
,in fact if anything God is supposed to put meaning to everything, material and non-material.""

for an unbeliever..you certainly grasp the basics[sic]

""Your whole life
and existence in fact,""

is based on the simple fact
of gods prime causation
being factually based

but then we got lost

""not what just how you ate..[what]..for breakfast.""

you were going so well
so i will do the thing christ taught us to do
and ignore that bit of my brothers nakedness...and continue
with that i can comprehend...[makes sense of..if only in my mind's images made into words]

""God doesn't make sense,""'

i hate when we talk in different senses
god makes sense..once we get that
the very logic that makes sense
...is gods gift..to us

but i sense your using it..in a different sense
thus will simply take the sense..as suits my senses
and suport in a general sense..

the truth even from the mouth of babe..
[in the loving sense]

babe as in not yet tainted
by creed or greed

[recall mosus..AND all; the old ones
never left the deserts..ie didnt enter the 'holy land']

the kids alone
'got'..onto,..the promised land
and straight away..resorted back to the absurd rituals

absurd blood rite's
that serves demons

it dont make sense

""but is supposed to
make everything else make sense?""

which of course is a sign
[proof]..of god as cause

[cause it just makes sense]

[of all good sense-ability..]
truth..life
living loving good grace..mercy charity
and so much more...revealable..via our senses
if it feels good..its of god..[good]

Yuyutsu:"God is not there to feed your addiction
for having meaning and making sense."

remember charity
is mans highest virtue
does it make sense...no...but it fels good

bugsby said in reply..

""I don't have that addiction,
the religious people do.""

b...mate...
think about that one...again
the 'addiction'..was to meaning and sense..!

you think
thus you do seek...sense..
even if we dispute 'meaning'

""God is supposed to explain everything""

no..!

know god lets us chose..our own meaning
that we then may use..to explain anything
some accepting only that of the good sense
others accepting..just about any non-sense

""and give people meaning to their lives."'

no god gives us life
its up to us..to chose our lifes meanings

""Have you not been listening to the preachers?""

clearly we both havnt..!

preaching is lecturing/judging..ranting raving

when the call was to love neighbour
to help neighbour...

to teach
not preach

[thats just yet another
bad creed based rite..[ritual]
that got us into this mess...[i guess]

its we who in the end make sense of it

Bugsy,

There are probably only a handful of people, religious or otherwise, who are not addicted in some degree or another to meaning, sense and explanations.

Whatever your addictions are, crying like a baby "but God must feed my addiction, He must, He must!" is not going to change the fact that He won't. If you heard preachers claim so, then you must have heard the wrong preachers (who must probably be bent on money and/or power and/or sex).

The good news is that once you realize your unity with God, you will attain to absolute contentment - all your addictions will fade away, become irrelevant, so the idea of searching for meaning and explanations would probably just make you yawn.

OUG,

In the course of life, just obviously as we find our daily bread, we also come across some meaning and explanations. Wonderful, nothing wrong there, we cherish God's gifts - do praise the Lord for it!

The problem is that humans tend to be addicted to meaning, sense and explanations, they feel they cannot do without it, they kick and scream if they don't have it, or not enough of it, they make demands on God to do their will, not God's.

Yeah, ok I admit it, I guess I do have an 'addiction' (for want of a better word) to making sense.

But God was not invented to feed peoples 'addiction' to explanations, it was invented to soothe it.

You have just shown that with your own writings. I can see that your concept of God has certainly soothed your addiction for making sense.

Yuyutsu,

You refer to God as an entity - that is you assign ownership of will to God as in "God's will".
"they make demands on God to do their will, not God's".

I thought you maintained that "they" (as in men who demand) and "God" were the same thing - now you're intimating that God is separate owing to the fact that he possesses a will that is distinct from the will of man.

Dear Yuyutsu,
>>my definition of "exists" is more inclusive than yours (I think), because it includes mental/psychic phenomena as well as the obviously physical<<
You are right, in this context I understood under “exist”, objective existence, i.e. irreducible to “mental/psychic phenomena”, existence that we usually assign to physical entities (i.e. that can be investigated by science), and theists also to God, eventually other “spiritual beings”.

Here “irreducible” does not mean “completely outside of”, c.f. my earlier remark that “God created man” and “man created God” (more explicitly, man created anthropomorphic images or models of God that he/she often identifies with the ineffable God/YHWH/Allah) are just two sides of the same coin, (like e.g. the particle wave/duality).

There are other ways of interpreting the term exist, which refer neither to physical nor mental reality: in mathematics a solution to a given equation might or might not exist, and less trivially, the basic entities and relations of mathematics are believed to exist independently of our mental as well as physical world. There are many famous mathematicians (and also not so famous, like yours truly) referred to as realists or Platonists, who accept Roger Penrose’s three intertwined but distinct worlds: physical, mental and mathematical. (Penrose is apparently an atheist).

Well, I accept a fourth world, simply described as supernatural, also intertwined with the other three, “built around” the notion of an ineffable God who carries the cause/purpose of those other three worlds and is the cause/purpose also of Himself. Without my belief in the existence of Penrose’s “mathematical world”, what I know about (pure) mathematics would not make much sense to me. Similarly, without belief in such an ineffable God, what I know about the human condition would not make much sense to me.

>> this fails to explain why you tick the box "God exists" <<
Well, because if I ticked one of the other two boxes I would be counted as an atheist or agnostic which I am not, as I (and I think also the evaluators of the poll) understand these terms.

Just passing by but I couldn't help but notice Peter Sellick still flogging his dead horse of a theology.

Anyone can watch a youtube of an NT Wright or Lane Craig etc debate the Resurrection these days, and judge for themselves - they need no strange spiritualism that it seems Peter alone has gnostic access to. Christianity is a vulnerable religion, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead it is false and no one should be a Christian. But to pretend that no evidence could refute it, as if it weren't an historical religion but Hinduism or Buddhism is just untenable.

If a person didn't know much about Christianity they could be forgiven for thinking after reading Sellick that it claims that the Resurrection's meaning is exhausted by establishing its historical veracity alone. Which is as silly as claiming writing on a page alone, without the language, is enough to determine meaning. Higher meanings stand on the actual events like the holocaust for those present, which may have many facets, stands on the actual events. The dichotomy between faith and the history is simply a false one: the Greek word for faith in the manuscripts means something like trust based on a reasonable probability, something describing a friendship.Not Peter's interpretation of internal spiritual enthusisams. Of course one can't measure the trust we put in a friend based on their past loyalty, but that doesn't mean the object of our friendship, our friend, doesn't really exist.

Peter too simply assumes a mechanical philosophy - http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/06/materialist-shell-game.html it has no necessary connection with the methods of physical science any google of 'scientism' is enough to prove that. A Christian has no requirement to accept this silly philosophy.

To maintain this descredited theology Peter must scrupulously avoid all the philosophical, biblical, historical, cosmological and physical scientific evidence arrayed in favour of traditional orthodox belief. Something only a click away.

Also a click away is the 'historical event' of Altizer's (the thinker Peter draws from) famously bad loss to JW Montogmery's in debate.

It seems a sad waste of time. Anyway God bless everyone.

george/quote..""images or models of God
that he/she often identifies with the ineffable God/YHWH/Allah)
are just two sides of the same coin,..""

ie ""that “God created man” and “man created God”
ie in image form
immitation being the mnost sincere form of flatery
[however...not anywhere near the same thing

""(like e.g. the particle wave/duality).""

ok thats the bit i wanted to give insight to
particles of photons[light]..are released sequentially
by specific change...in wave form..[to wit particles..together..
acting [re-acting..]*IN waves][ie both are specififc and follow logical sequence]

i guess its natural..that being in gods image
we try to create an image of our master event

""the basic entities and relations of mathematics
are believed to exist independently of our mental
as well as physical world.""

i can accept that

""realists or Platonists,..who accept Roger Penrose’s three intertwined but distinct worlds: physical, mental and mathematical.""

lets say spirit
in lue of math-ematical
i could agree...the spirit cant be subverted by math
but probalility should make a case for possable cause
[math is more in the mental..but cause is remains spirit]

""I accept a fourth world,
simply described as supernatural,""

ok i agree math is a realm as well

""also intertwined with the other three,
“built around” the notion of an ineffable God""

ineffable..:to extreem for words?
or to sacred to be utterd?

neither desribes..that condition
god ascribes to all living beings

""an ineffable God..who carries the cause/purpose of those other three worlds and is the cause/purpose also of Himself.""

apparently..these 'worlds'[realms planes]
..levels..overlap each other [much like a number can be many divergent comminalities..but also just be a prime[sorry im not into math..thus cant follow the math into words]

""Without..what I know about
(pure)mathematics would not make much sense to me.
Similarly,..without belief in such an ineffable God,..what I know about the human condition would not make much sense to me."'

i agree..we need to have a form of context
[common denominators...symbols signs..known..as well as unknown's]

hence the value of good works
good deeds..over good words
charity over faith

what we did
rather than how we said it

Martin Ibn...""..Christianity is a vulnerable religion,
if Jesus didn't rise from the dead it is false
and no one should be a Christian.""

jesus didnt 'come' to form a religeon
his mission was primarilly..to unite
then refute the replacement of creed/ritual with the messages

then he refuted dead being dead
[ie the lie of a 'reserction day']
as well as disproving judgment day.

he rose from the death
proving life after death

[ps he isnt comming 'back']

""But to pretend that no evidence could refute it,
as if it weren't an historical religion..but Hinduism or Buddhism is just untenable.""

i note you offer no proof

""Higher meanings stand on the actual events
like the holocaust for those present,..which may have many facets, stands on the actual events.""

all i know is kapoes ran the camps
and the biggest deaths were of russians/poles
the hollow caust...has become a religeon for some..to cast blame
upon those who wernt even there..

or claim some form of credit due..
that allows your own mossad capoes
to do the same genocide slowly..[to the true semites]..same natzie acts..[in the 5th reiche..in the holy lands]

satan
in the holy of holies

""one can't measure the trust we put in a friend
based on their past loyalty,..""

thats why jesus said by their works will we know them
not their words

""but that doesn't mean the object of our friendship,
our friend,..doesn't really exist.""

nor validate that he/she does

""'scientism' is enough to prove that.

scientism..;'excess belief
in science knowledge or teqnuiques'

""A Christian has no requirement to accept this silly philosophy."'

i find science confirms gods rightfull place
and find it a usefull interplay..with the god logus
[as all..is being his work...i can know the master..by his deeds
his creations]


""Anyway God bless everyone.""

yep me too
thanks for the advic

Dear Bugsy,

God was not invented. The most people (myself included) can invent is IDEAS about God. Besides mere inventions, people are also capable of having insights about God. Neither of these comes close to the direct experience of God.

Dear Poirot,

I was writing to OUG in his own language, so that requires translation:
The common-person's will is clouded and distorted by their mental desires. "God's will" roughly translates to "What your will would be had it not been affected by your mind".

Dear George,

"Well, I accept a fourth world, simply described as supernatural"

That certainly explains our differences.

I also speculate on the existence of subtler layers of the physical world which science has not yet discovered, may never will, and perhaps is even unable to. Yet I don't delegate these into a different new realm and I don't go looking for God there. In fact, I consider the supernatural more likely, if anything, a diversion away from God. You may recall that the Soviets were very keen on researching this area.

I can see why you need this fourth-world in order to make sense of the other three, but:
1) your personal need to make sense makes no difference to reality.
2) God has no cause nor purpose, not even Himself! God is not subject to time (and thinking about it, why should even that which is subject to time require a cause or a purpose?).

Penrose’s “mathematical world" makes good sense (excepting hiccups like Godel's incompleteness), the physical world somewhat less and the chaotic mental world even less than the former. Dividing the world according to the level of sense it makes, is artificial.

As for ticking the box, it is indeed unpleasant to be counted as an atheist, but if that's how they define it, than it's not my fault. I believe in God, I love God, I take refuge in God, I just do not believe in trivializing Him as if He were something that exists.

Dear Yuyutsu,
>> I consider the supernatural more likely, if anything, a diversion away from God.<<
Then we obviously have different understandings not only of the verb “exists” but also of the noun “God”. If there is anything that the most conservative Christian and Richard Dawkins have in common then it is their understanding that supernatural is not a diversion away from God, but that the two concepts are intrinsically linked.

Where I differ from both is that God exists not only solely as part of the supernatural (as the conservative might claim) nor completely only as part of our mental world (Dawkins’ “delusion”) but both. Thinking of God, praying, meditating (yes, I know this is a restricted meaning of meditating since Buddhists and their western imitators meditate without reference to God) is not unlike the mathematician’s dilema of inventing/discovering.

>> the existence of subtler layers of the physical world which science has not yet discovered, may never will, and perhaps is even unable to<<
If you accept layers of reality which science “never will, and perhaps is even unable to” discover, why call these layers physical. Perhaps we differ also in the understanding of “physical”, although, at second thought, I would prefer "aspects of reality" instead of "layers".

>>I can see why you need this fourth-world in order to make sense of the other three<<
I never said that; I actually quoted the athist mathematician Penrose for whom his three worlds make sense without any reference to God or the supernatural.

>> your personal need to make sense makes no difference to reality<<
Neither did I claim this, but since you mention it, this applies also to what makes sense to you about how God can/has to be understood.

You do not accept my, and many theists’, need for the supernatural, as there are mathematicians who are not Platonists, i.e. do not accept a nedd for Penrose’s mathematical world. I was not defending these beliefs, I was just trying to explain them to you. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>God has no cause nor purpose, not even Himself! <<
I agree since I consider “has no cause/purpose” and “is his/its own cause/purpose” as equivalent, whether applied to God or to Dawkins’ understanding of the world.

>>Penrose’s “mathematical world" makes good sense (excepting hiccups like incompleteness)<<
I don't understand where the hiccups come from: Goedel, the author of the two incompleteness theorems, was a (mathematical) Platonist (and theist).

>>Dividing the world according to the level of sense it makes, is artificial.<<
Well, I do not understand how else could you “do” e.g. science.

>>it is indeed unpleasant to be counted as an atheist, but if that's how they define it, than it's not my fault. <<
This sounds like voting for e.g. the ALP, while feeling unplesant about being counted as an ALP voter.

Dear George,

Sorry for mixing up your views with those of Penrose.

It may prove to be, after all, not a confusion about the word "God", but about the word "supernatural". I think of "supernatural" as those aspects of nature which we do not encounter everyday and are not inclined to accept as scientific or even true. This is the realm of telepathy, telekinesis, ghosts, angels, super-powers, etc. It is those that I alluded to as being mostly a diversion away from God, because they tend to increase our fascination with the world.

If God is part of the mental world, then how is He different than Tinkerbell? would He also die if we stop praying (at least this half of Him, the other half being supernatural)?

I accept the POSSIBILITY of layers/aspects of reality with which we can interact (physically), but which we will never be able to research in an objective, scientific way. As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to separate those aspects of the world which can be researched and those (if any) which cannot.

Obviously when we do science we need to dissect the world in too many ways to mention, but once the experiment is over there is no need to maintain that artificial dissection.

Box-ticking: should be weighed on a case-by-case basis, whether it is more important to be truthful or to achieve/prevent something (suppose the ticking-outcome were to throw every newborn son of theists to the Nile river... I regret not hearing back from Ammonite).

God is not natural -therefore He cannot be trivialized.
God is not unnatural -therefore He cannot be condemned.
God is not supernatural -therefore He cannot be mocked.
God is not scientific -therefore He cannot be proven.
God is not unscientific -therefore He cannot be discarded.
God is not physical -therefore He cannot be broken.
God is not mental -therefore He cannot be cured with drugs.
God is not mathematical -therefore He cannot be contradicted.
God does not exist -yet there is nothing but Him and yet it is possible to experience Him directly.

God is TIMECUBE

in the many afterlife readings i have read
no one specificly speaks of 'meeting' god

yet many recognise the key lies..
in knowing god 'is'..within us all

some narrow it down further
god is love...[yet love isnt 'god'

we feel most 'godlike'[good]..
when we do good for other..give others grace and mercy
it is easy to not judge others..lest we judge that we dislike within ourselves..[and thats the place where god does his/her..thing]

hating others..or hating ourselves
demeans the simple fact god hates no-one
[see how he sustains even the 'least'..their life too]

god naturally dont judge anyone..
and this is where those who claim to know her
get it most badly wrong...[yet god still wont stop loving us]

what does it hurt to give back to god
the most loyal most...serving equally the best as the worse
when 'bad'...accepts grace/mercy..and 'goes and sins no more'
its like the long lost son returning home

[he...even if only as one
who held the faith...of a parent
that we would all..eventually see the light]
loves atonement...[that shares the love/grace mercy unto other]

we know the word atonement
[at one meant]..that in time love conquers all

the hints of the good of god abounds
and still those who dont know the science...claim science knows all
[but again..science has never 'made' life..the quaran specificly challanges them..'to make but one like them'..to make but one living thing...and this science has not been able to do]

i still love science
but will allways love god more
and keep trying to love neighbour...cause
in this way..i can serve the bit of god in you..

you are sustained to realise the greatness within you
but only by recognising[respecting]..the greatness with/in us all

where god is..is the holy of holies
god makes me feel wholly whole...[but i cant be complete..till we all unite...the whole holy spirit...by atonemeant..

why should any wish to feel any less
god lies within..how can any feel alone

lets be all-one
one for all

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree that “supernatural”, (i.e. “The Sacred”,“The Holy Other” etc) is not easy to define, firstly because it is not easy to explain what in philosophy of science is meant by “reality that science can investigate”. Very roughly put, there are essentially two approaches: “critical realism” and “constructive empiricism”.

Your “telepathy, telekinesis, ghosts, angels, super-powers” is a mixture of different things: science can investigate the first two (their claims are falsifiable), the others are constituents of a naive (or not so naive), model of the supernatural, rooted (or not) in the Abrahamic religions that culturally moulded what we now call the West. You can choose to believe in angels, like millions of adherents of those religions, or to believe in ghosts, poltergeists etc that today nobody seriously believes in.

>>If God is part of the mental world, then how is He different than Tinkerbell? would He also die if we stop praying (at least this half of Him, the other half being supernatural)?<<
I think you are not being fair. I never spoke of parts or halves of God. I wrote “man created anthropomorphic images or models of God that he/she often identifies with the ineffable God/YHWH/Allah”. I am afraid I could not explain better in one sentence what I meant by the subjective/objective understanding of God (as I see it) in Abrahamic religions.

Neither did I speak of “dissections” in science. Newton’s, Einstein’s (or some new) theories of gravitation do not "dissect" physical reality although they ignore many phenomena, and are not bothered about that unless their predictions contradict some of them (c.f. the efforts to find a theory, TOE, that would reconcile Einstein’s theory with quantum physics). (ctd)

(ctd)
“the ticking-outcome were to throw every newborn son of theists to the Nile river”
Again I do not think you are being fair, since I believe you know the difference between statistics that opinion polls are after, and discussion panels. However, if you sincerely think this is the intended outcome of such opinion poll, then you should not tick the theist box. Or refuse to participate, c.f. the question “Have you stopped bashing your wife?”

The last part is poetry that I can say nothing against (probably you are hinting at apophatic theology), although in this sense I prefer Lao-Tsu’s Tao Te Ching or writings by Christian and other mystics.

Yuyutsu,

"....and yet it is possible to experience him directly."

I suppose the keyword here is "experience". How does one experience something without recourse to the mind which decodes sensory input.
If one had no senses there would be be nothing [out there] and consequently nothing in here. Your mind is the venue where "experience" is made "sense" of.

Now it may be that when you subtract the human experience of the material world that what is left is something that could be conceived as God. However, in order to experience the conception of God amid the human condition, you can't negate the mind.

Dear George,

Re "halves of God", was in reference to you saying that God is both part of the supernatural and part of the mental world. I used "half" to save on word-count, thinking you would understand.

Re "dissections", was in reference to: {>>Dividing the world according to the level of sense it makes, is artificial.<< Well, I do not understand how else could you “do” e.g. science.}

Thanks for bringing up the "have you stopped bashing your wife" question. I confess having this personal tendency to answer "No" to it, regardless of what people would think of me, but I guess that if the questioner was a policeman or held a gun, then I would answer differently.

Re poetry, I'd never dare to conceive that something I wrote in 5 minutes is better than Lao-Tsu's.

Now where does it leave us?

Since you claim that "God exists", comes the metaphoric question "where does He live?":

* Not in the physical world, not even in its remotest corners or under its carpets
* Not in the mental world
* Not in the mathematical world

That leaves the supernatural, but as you already agreed [with my poem] that God is not part of my idea of "supernatural", then only your idea of it is left.

You wrote: "I agree that “supernatural”, (i.e. “The Sacred”,“The Holy Other” etc) is not easy to define", but would you care to try and explain it to me anyway, because otherwise I really have no clue what you are referring to. Can you give me an example of something which is not physical, not mental and not mathematical, nor a combination of these three?

Dear Poirot,

You are getting close!

So let me just adjust the last screws a bit:

Indeed, if you and God were separate, as in the case of two different bodies in space, then experience was not possible without a mediator, such as the mind or the senses. Fortunately, this is not the case.

Just as one can divide their attention, listening and tasting at the same time (and women in general can do even more simultaneously), there is no principle reason why one should not be able to experience God both directly and indirectly at the same time.

While you do need to practice setting the human experience aside, at least for a while, you do not need to die or to become blind, deaf, atactiliac, anosmic and ageusiac in order to experience God directly. Further, so long as you have a working brain, you can still think, do your sums, write your reports, engineer your projects, etc.

Even further, your mind itself may not shrivel completely overnight. You will not be feeding it any further because you would find it superfluous, but remaining shreds may still display themselves in automatic habits or even bring old emotions to the surface. Even though you would experience God directly and realize your identity with Him, other people may still consider you as human as themselves.

pure/o..quote..""Now it may be that when you subtract
the human experience of the material world
that what is left is something..that could be conceived as God.""

i must react to that
god is within all living things
essentially where god is life is
thus all of the life experiences..IS affected by the cause.*god
to extract the material 'life'..is to miss much of what god achieves materially

then there is what he does in the afterlife
the sum of god is all experience..[huh?man or otherwise]
he alows us our choices,..todo or chose to not do..to know or avoid knowing

but essentially..he provides the means
we then chose the tao..[the way]

""However,..in order to experience
the conception of God amid the human condition,
you can't negate the mind.""

ok im with you that the mind is the key
but any conception of god...cannot be limited to mere experience
but rather the quality of the experience level..[evolution]..
we are allowed..[qualified]..to experience

our experience of mind
is greater than a flies experience of
via the sennses recorded within it's brain
its the higher mind functions that differentiate 'us'..from all the other lives god[good]..sustains into life/living

""If one had no senses
there would be be nothing..[out there]""

the reality dosnt rely on the sense
[because all sense is subjective]
we mostly are unaware...via our base senses[for egsample]
to realise the other dimentions..that definitly egsist along side this materially sensual experience [spirit by the way has many more senses

""nothing [out there]..and consequently nothing in here.""

but there is the crus
we have something in mind
but also aware of the reality
..of a lot of that..[which seems to many]..to be really 'out there'

im glad we do have poiints of con-sensus
""Your mind is the venue where "experience" is made "sense" of.""

its where we realised..
that the brain isnt much..without the real present
[presence of mind]

[that when present
lifts us into the realm of god..[awareness of self]

as well as awareness of 'other'...
then expanding the basic mean

that love of other..is as vital as loving of self..
[perhaps even more so]

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>the metaphoric question "where does He live?”<<
Where do you, your identity, live? In your body? That would bring up cartesian duality, the substance of soul that lives in your body. We do not use that language today, we say that what makes you you is NOT REDUCIBLE to your body, although we cannot say “where” it resides: one cannot investigate your brain to find you, your mind, I can only make conclusions about who/what you are from your manifestations, e.g. here over internet. This analogy, of course, has limitations, when applied to your question.

Some, even some materialists, (“emergent materialists”) see the mind as “an irreducible existent in some sense” (Wikipedia), so perhaps one can see the “supernatural” in a similar way.

I have learned on this OLO that many atheists do not like it if you say they do not believe in God, they rather define their atheism as “lack (absence) of belief”, full stop. So in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883 I formulated my belief in the “supernatural” as absence of belief in what I called Sagan’s maxim.

In other words, I cannot answer your question, metaphoric or not, satisfactorily, because my understanding of “where” refers to space and God is understood to be BEYOND (not the same as “outside of”) space-time. (Children are told that He is everywhere; also under my bed?; yes, also under your bed.)

In physics they assume the existence of dark energy as something they know practically nothing about, but need to assume its existence in order to make sense of what they know about the cosmos.

In this sense I - and many others - need the concepts of “supernatural” and “God” who is reducible to neither the mental nor the material world (although is intrinsically related to both of them in our understanding of these terms) to make sense of what I know about the human condition and the role religion plays/played in it on the anthropological, historical, sociological and psychological levels.

An interesting observation, George.

>>I have learned on this OLO that many atheists do not like it if you say they do not believe in God, they rather define their atheism as “lack (absence) of belief”, full stop.<<

While you are correct that atheists identify themselves as having an absence of belief in God, I cannot recall any atheist on this Forum objecting to the definition that they do not believe in God. It would seem to me that the two are entirely congruent.

Except possibly for the abstract philosophical notion that it is impossible to disbelieve in something that does not exist, since it cannot be sufficiently identified in order to make specific that disbelief.

If you have examples where "many atheists do not like it if you say they do not believe in God" are expressed here on OLO, I'd be interested to see them.

On your characterization of atheism, I'm firmly a "c) it does not make sense to ask for [the universe's] cause or purpose". In fact, the very assumption that everything requires some form of purpose in order to exist, is to my mind thoroughly primitive, analogous to the early hominid's contemplation of the moon, or the sun.

Given the timeframe in which human life is likely to exist on earth - which is a mere blip in cosmic terms - I suspect that we will be unlikely to resolve that question, one way or the other, before our planet boils away. Which, if you agree with that proposition, renders all supposition that a) there is a purpose, b) that purpose is God and c) that we humans are able to "communicate" with that God, entirely without substance or merit.

Dear George,

"I - and many others - need the concepts of “supernatural” and “God” who is reducible to neither the mental nor the material world (...) to make sense of what I know about..."

You clearly went to great lengths to describe your need for concepts that may provide sense. This is why scientists consider dark energy. This is also, for example, how the number "i", the square-root of -1, was engendered.

If indeed dark energy is discovered, then it must be of the physical realm. Otherwise, it must remain in the mental and mathematical realms, just as the number "i".

You already agreed that God is neither physical nor mental and previously agreed that he is not mathematical either, but for some reason the later was omitted in your last post - I wonder whether inadvertently you think of God as a mathematical object, but to avoid the disrespect of placing Him together with "ordinary" numbers, sets, polinoms, functions, vectors, matrixes, alephs, etc. you've set up for him an exclusive "first class" partition within the mathematical world?

(this way, if God could speak He would say: "Hey, I am not a number - I am supernatural!")

thanks for the insight to athiest thought process pericules

further..""In fact,
the very assumption that everything requires some form of purpose
in order to exist,is to my mind thoroughly primitive,""

its funny how inventers invent things
even if the world ridicules its creation in the first place
[think phones/tv...or boogie boards or bogans]

you know of many egsamples
of no use excuse..no doudt?

the longer i live..there more i see how wrong we were
how things SUPPOSED to be completly useless[apparently]
do have vital things..to teach us

things others saw as having no reason..or excuse in being
yet are...[its up to us to find a use]..think of waste streams etc

without use...""analogous to the early hominid's
contemplation of the moon, or the sun."""

yes both are useless
imagine nutters looking into the 'heavens'
what a complete and utter waste of their time[and our money]

""I suspect that we will be unlikely
to resolve that question,..one way or the other,
before our planet boils away.""

that seems a closeminded statement
what if the cyclotron bears fruits
or science validates dark matter with its reason for being

or a wormhole opens up somewhere
are we so sure?

""c) that we humans are able to "communicate"
with that God, entirely without substance or merit.""'

oh good

YOU GOT PROOF?

remember those from heaven
and hell...

[all speak with that
still quiet voice within]
that can act with consience
or with spite..

but outside commentary none the less
[even if alone the voices of time past]

[only by reasoning out the results of our inner visions
the fruit..of our mebntal gymnastics
can its source be guessed at]

good result
from good humches
bad result
from selfish minds

best we consider 'others'

Pericles,
You are right that I should have said “many atheists do not like if you say they believe God/gods does/do not exist, they rather define their atheism as lack of belief ...”. See Veronika’s “In terms of god, I have no belief” in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2171#46503 and the following discussion that also you took part in. I certainly do not want to reopen that can of worms. Admittedly, at that time I did not know of the distinction between positive and negative atheism, (though I still have difficulties distinguishing the latter from Huxley’s classical agnosticism).

There is certainly a difference between what you and I believe, but there is also another difference in the sense that I would never call your worldview (or parts of it) “thoroughly primitive” or “entirely without substance or merit”.

Fortunately, not all those who call themselves atheists are like that (see e.g. my references in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8444#133779).

Dear Yuyutsu,
I think there is a big difference between dark energy and the imaginary unit i. The latter was arrived at through pure speculation, and the fact that it turned out to be so useful in the description of the physical world is part of what Eugene Wigner called “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”. The former was, so to say, forced on the physicists and cosmologists in order to make sense of their experimental data.

You could have mentioned phlogiston, that at a time played the role similar to that of dark energy today, but had to be abandoned in view of further developments in our knowledge of the physical world.

Scientists don't need the concept of God to understand the working of the physical world (“methodological atheism” that also most theist scientists subscribe to). Leaving that aside, (positive) atheists think that the concept of God plays the role of “phlogiston” in their worldview, whereas theist see it more like todays's role of “dark energy”.

>>I wonder whether inadvertently you think of God as a mathematical object <<
Theists mostly agree with Augustine’s dictum that mathematics (the mathematical world) ”resides” in the mind of God, the same as the mathematics I know resides in my mind. Otherwise, I did not understand the need for sarcasm in your last paragraph.

As you put it, I “went to great lengths” to explain my position about Penrose’s three worlds plus an additional one to make sure that God - as I (and more or less all Abrahamic religions) understand Him - is not reducible to these three. I am sorry I could not explain this better.

Yuyutsu,

Whatever God is, don't you think that we're provided with the ability to explore the material realm and that realm is alive the a presence?
Numbers are not "ordinary" - they perhaps come closest to revealing the mystery to us.

http://www.goldennumber.net/spirals.htm

i feel its worth joining this
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12427

with the topic
as it explains much about 'mind'

further the comments
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12427&page=0

is christianity..[or rather belief in a godhead]
just the same as disbelief...in any god head
thus a mind ab-normality

its subjective
we each know what we know
and thus use[leverage]..that we 'know'
into our belief

once we fixed any belief
we tend to try to rationalise everything via that 'belief'
[thus we get mind programed into 'believing ]evolution];;as children

from them on its pure peer presure
dreading our 'mates'
saying your nuts

Dear George,

If we are discussing the CONCEPT of God, then indeed its importance can vary and be anywhere on the phlogiston-darkenergy-i scale, depending on one's point-of-view. The CONCEPT of God is indeed an object and it undoubtedly exists, but I believed that we were discussing God, not the various concepts of Him.

I am not interested at this stage in what St. Augustine believed, or Penrose, or the Abrahamic tradition, but I truly want to know what YOU believe.

Let me summarise your position as far as I understand:

* God exists.
* God is not part of ("does not live in") any of the 3 worlds - physical, mental and mathematical.
* There is a fourth world, the supernatural, in which God lives.

In that case, I would like to know:
* Besides God, who/what else is in that supernatural realm?
* Is the supernatural subject to time?
* Is the supernatural realm enclosed in space?
* Can supernatural objects interact with each other?
* Can the supernatural interact with the other realms - if so, would it not be affected by them?

I am so sorry that this sounds sarcastic, but I am indeed sarcastic about the possibility of existence of that supernatural world.

My understanding about "how to understand the workings of the physical world" is, "render unto Caesar what is his". When I talk about the world I talk science and when I talk about Reality I talk about God. God is not meant to be used as a scientific or a mathematical instrument, God is meant to be loved, worshiped and experienced directly.

Dear Poirot,

We obviously explore the material realm, with a moderate degree of success, it seems.

Sorry I could not decipher the syntax of the rest of your question: "and that realm is alive the a presence?".

Indeed, numbers can at times help us to reveal the mystery. They do so by tiring out our minds and rendering it temporarily out of action, thus allowing us a glimpse of a direct experience of God.

yuyutsu..quote...""I am so sorry that this sounds sarcastic,
but I am indeed sarcastic about the possibility of existence of that supernatural world.""

we are energy
that animates flesh

[science law reads..energy cant be created nor destroyed]
thus our essential energy...[our spirit]
goes to that other place where energy [that cant be destroyed]..goes

where our spirit resides in our soul [body]
there is the supra world...[as natural and as pure as can be
[once the dross is sorted from the goats and sheep
and the tares from the wheat[etc]

""In that case, I would like to know:
* Besides God, who/what else is in that supernatural realm?""

every energy 'form' that ever was living energy
[even the realms of that we vividly*..imagined as 'real'
dream time land/heaven and hell...and everything in between

[except of course there is no 'hell''..
only the right person..in the wrong place

[ie tares where only wheat can be..
or sheep where only goats can 'be'}

""Is the supernatural subject to time?"'

no there is only non stop living
''more shall be given''

there are those still linked to this realm
that have a grasp on the cobncept of time
but basiclly..the life hereafter is non stop
eternity doing that we wish to be doing

one 'day'[as we measure our stay here
is like an eternity..of timeless monents..for the 'departed'
[a fate NONE can avoid]

""Is the supernatural realm enclosed in space?""

they use different concepts..space is a vairiable
like the perception of time

yet each has all the space they need
[think of like how many angels..on the head of a pin]

they all could fit on the point
[think of just 'pre the big bang']

''Can supernatural objects interact with each other?''

utterly and completly
even flowers have songs stories/teachings
we can talk with the animals..not just 'talk to them'

we interact as easy
as cordial mixed with water
and 'the other' dimentions..just the same

""Can the supernatural interact with the other realms""

yes
much is dependant on like[the same]..mind
if we think evil..evil is allowed entry
but till we think them past our minds protections
they are excluded completly..[but ione single hatefull cruel/lustful thought..and the4y can get into our minds and even force weaker beings to do as they 'both'..will to do

those who think only of love grace mercy
are as safe as babies in the arms of god
[but chose to walk the dark side..they own you
first small vile..then bigger..as we lean into the dark abis
of our own choice]

""if so,would it not be affected by them?""

have you never heard a song writer say
'the song wrote itself'...[good and bad can be input[inspired]
inventions meld..and in a flash like minds have be-gotten..the new idea

but we need to link thinking first
to mind meld...enough to exchange imagry

[till we see it...who would have thunk it..

well
great minds...

*think 'alike*'
thinking on a math problem
en-joines and attracts 'like minds'

we are never alone
[eg just in/on our bodies
are untold billions of living things]
but mostly we learned to ignore them..but give a think on them now

feel itchy?

best to learn thought moderation here now
[ie the gift learned from fasting..that is about focuing the mind]

Dear YuYutsu,

You are asking about what I believe. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I am a Catholic, and - to use Anselm’s dictum - my faith is seeking understanding, in particular of God, which might or might not be congruent with your understanding of God (no “concept” if that irritates you). Although, as I said before, God AS SUCH is ineffable (even more so than the physical world AS SUCH) so we can talk only about concepts of God, or models (of course not mathematical as in case of physics), as I prefer to say.

Nevertheless, let me try to react briefly, since you cannot expect me to write down a sort of personal systematic theology (capitals to distinghuish from your text, no shouting):

* God exists. YES.
* God is not part of ("does not live in") any of the 3 worlds - physical, mental and mathematical. YES.
* There is a fourth world, the supernatural, in which God lives. --- YES FOR THE FIRST PART, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE SECOND, BUT IF YOU CAN ACCEPT ONLY YES OR NO, THEN YES (I CANNOT EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN I DID BEFORE).

* Besides God, who/what else is in that supernatural realm? YOU WANT ME TO REPRODUCE HERE THE CREDO?
* Is the supernatural subject to time? “NOT SUBJECT TO”; THE RELATION IS MORE COMPLICATED, SEE THE QUOTE IN http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9423#150700
* Is the supernatural realm enclosed in space? NO
* Can supernatural objects interact with each other? WHAT ARE SUPERNATURAL OBJECTS?
* Can the supernatural interact with the other realms - if so, would it not be affected by them? A COMPLICATED PROBLEM THAT MANY PAPERS ON THE RELATION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION/THEOLOGY ARE DEDICATED TO; SEE ALSO THE ABOVE LINK.

>>God is meant to be loved, worshiped and experienced directly<<
We have come full circle. How can you love and worship somebody who does not exist?

Thank you for helping me to find “understanding for my faith” but I think we have exhausted the theme since we seem to be just repeating ourselves.

Dear George,

"How can you love and worship somebody who does not exist?"

Existence is a secular term. Not only is it an illusion, but also a hindrance on the spiritual path. In my scientifically-induced youth I believed that God needed to exist in order for me to love and worship Him. Later on, however, I discovered that this is quite unnecessary, that my attitude towards God depends only on myself, that I don't need to place secular conditions and qualifications on Him before I can express my love and gratitude to Him. I discovered that "It is good to give thanks to the Lord" is unconditional.

The world's foremost philosopher - Ecclesiastes, reached the same conclusion: "My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man". If that be followed, then what else is there to ask for?

The last thing on earth that I wish to do here is to undermine your faith. I am worried however, that in this day and age, this delicate flower is under fierce attack by the atheists surrounding us who prey on theological weaknesses. I am afraid that they hold an advantage in their home-court and it is my honest belief that ANY understanding of God which includes His existence, which attempts to place Him in ANY realm(s) whatsoever, can be easily crushed down by an above-average atheist. I am concerned that you fail to guard your flank. Remember that the strength of a Christian is not in theory, but in the Holy Spirit.

I am not a Christian myself, but I have a Catholic friend, a leader in his church, who can explain the deeper meanings of the Credo without resorting to existence. Perhaps I should ask him to write a commentary here from a Catholic, non-materialistic perspective.

Dear OUG,

I have no knowledge of the afterlife, so I wish to pass no judgment on your description, but to remain open about it. If what you describe is correct, then I consider that realm as but a part of the material world, part of existence.

I would not exclude the possibilities of subtler layers, aspects or extensions within the physical universe. Energy for example is subtler than matter, so it is possible for there to be even subtler elements than energy around, elements which interact with time differently.

This scheme is interesting, but nevertheless, it does not mention God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have just reconfirmed my suspicion that we understand different things under “exist” (“have objective reality or being” in my dictionary). So as I said, we are now going around in circles, since - to repeat myself - there are no more fundamental terms, on the meaning of which we all can agree, and by means of which I could give you a clear-cut definition of the verb “exist” as I understand it.

Thank you for the sermon, and rest assured, nobody can “undermine my faith”. I have been exposed to atheist (Stalinist) schools, hence vaccinated against all sorts of “underminings”.

>>ANY understanding of God which includes His existence … can be easily crushed down by an above-average atheist.<<
I am not sure if you count Richard Dawkins as an above-average atheist, but there are certainly many people, who believe in an objective existence (i.e. not a delusion) of God, and whose beliefs were not crushed by him. You certainly do not want me to list all the publications critically responding to Dawkins’ book on delusion.

If you get your Catholic friend (who does not believe in the objective existence of God) to write an article on this OLO about this, I would certainly be interested.

Anyhow, thanks for this interesting (to me at least) exchange of opinions on God.

yu/quote..""If what you describe is correct,
then I consider that realm as but a part of the material world,
part of existence.""

in truth none can 'know' him

think of the cordial analogy
[say fruitcup type]..the juice compartment of the drink is
suger/many fruits/preservatives/acids water etc..the sum total[once its absorbed..into a living being...is god]

god is more than his parts
he needs 'be'..by affect..accross all dimentions
yet subject to..none of their limitations

omnipresent

""I would not exclude the possibilities of subtler layers,
aspects or extensions within the physical universe.""

even science has its 'other di-mentions' theories
it can be explained by math..but math isnt god
though many might fel in heaven..
once they figure out the la-test theo-ry..

""Energy for example is subtler than matter,
so it is possible for there to be even subtler elements than energy around,..elements which interact with time differently.""

i agree of course
but even the term energy..is a destraction
catalist would seem closer..but both catilist and re=actment..are qualities of him..[god is omnipresent..exta/pre/sent..yet intra/pre/sent..

i find the concept quite plea-sent]

""This scheme is interesting,
but nevertheless, it does not mention God.''

to write a sentance we need to use words
that have definite meaning..definitive qualities
we both mutually agree on..but cause and affect..beginning and end
whatever meaning we accord to them..god is there..[as well]

You have just reconfirmed my suspicion
that we understand different things under “exist”
to..(“have objective reality or being” in my dictionary).""

objective reality
could be made a more ciomplete reality
by enjoining the objective..and the subject-ive..with the collective
substantive/qualitive prospective speculative and perspective

""to repeat myself
there are no more fundamental terms,
on the meaning..of which we all can agree,..

and by means of which..I could give you
a clear-cut definition of the verb “exist”..as I understand it.""

is only to convey others limited perceptions
when god is one to one...where we each gain..our comprehention directly...simply by living this life experience..and knowing as a surity..'more shall be given''[for-ever there is more]

we think a lesson[or topic is over]
we think we are all thought out

then god gives/reveals.. a finding
and much more comes

>>ANY understanding of God
which includes His existence..
can be easily crushed down by an above-average atheist.<<

anything defined only in single positive numbers
limites that they can refute with same number limitation

but once we get into the rest of the other numbers
we gather...more of the real issues

minus numbers...or adding a zero[which signifies nothing]
these are all potentials/modifiers..just as god is an enabler
that activates all probability

""I am not sure if you count Richard Dawkins
as an above-average atheist,""

he delected pages of text in our debate
he lost re flatfish...having 'evolved'...flat[his theory]
because one eye was dragging in the mud..[the guy is obesesivly selective..lacking perspectuive...and thin skinned]

he knows nought of which he doth speak

only convinces the ignorant of science methead's
[noting small flat fish are just like normal fish]
thats when our debait ended..he simply deleted it all

ie the dude is igno-rant

""but there are certainly many people,
who believe in an objective existence..
(i.e. not a delusion) of God,""

if they cant give a science proof
its their opinion..their belief..their god delusion
if they cant reveal the cause...they have a theory
if the cant replicate..they only speculate
to wit mass-ter bait



bring on mr dorkins
he has created the faith..of the faithless

sold dis-belief..the same way
we got sold on religeon

thus so many[too many]..
are still missing on knowing god [good/love/grace/mercy...*cause..]..completly

Dear OUG,

I find your posts difficult to read.
If you imply that God has parts, then I will be bound to ask some silly questions, such as: "do these parts sometimes fight against each other?"; "Can God remove some of His parts?"; or "which of those parts should I worship?".

Indeed, everything is God and God can be found anywhere - there is nothing but God, but this does not imply that God is everything.

Dear George,

It was pleasure to discuss God with you.

I hope my friend, who is extremely busy, will find the time to write here on OLO about the Catholic Credo and how it can be understood without implying God's objective existence.

I wish you the best on your spiritual journey.

ju...quote..""..I find your posts difficult to read.""

sorry im trying to use simple egsamples
like think of god as the water...in the fruit juice cordial
holding all its various bits together...making its parts into one satifying drink

or think of religeons as being like different wells
all drawing their beliefs from the one body of water[ie god]

""If you imply that God has parts,"'

no he is uniting..the other bits
into his oneness...[that sustains every life its living]

""then I will be bound to ask some silly questions,
such as: "do these parts sometimes fight against each other?";"'

of course
we need opposing bits to grasp 'higher concepts'
thus god allows us to choose..*vile or good..[or anywhere in between]

"Can God remove some of His parts?";
he could[and possably might have
but essentially..to kill oner part of you
via another 'part' of you..thats a sign of insanity
[and i hope god never goes insane...but i dont know]

if there is insanity
i need god to remain logic
so if i cant comprehend something
i trust god to know if it can hurt me or not
so trust his will to so much]

""or "which of those parts should I worship?".

absolutly none
[isnt it 'normal'..for kids to idolise their parents
we dont have kids to get them 'worse-shipping'..us..
for something WE CHOSE..*to do for..them]

i believe god is seeking an equal
just like we all have

someone who knows what its like
to have your own 'reject' you
someone to share his burdens

logiclly he knows he is one
[or she..because god is the best of mother
and the best of father's...wanting only that we chose love
[when we grow up]

and we got eternity
we have only just begun

in time we all know
what he went through
but even then as suns of good
we yet radiate his life forces[light heat][etc]

[in time we affectivly become god like
yet there inside us is our loyal father..
still sustaining us all our very lives]
even as our light sustains others their life

[think of all them trillions of bacteria/moulds etc
micro life forms..living in on your body
TO THEM..you are 'god'

yet in truth the life they 'are'
is asustained them..by god

""Indeed, everything is God
and God can be found anywhere - there is nothing but God,
but this does not imply that God is everything.""

yes it gets complicated dont it
yet in my is the living loving good
sustaining me my life..equally as he does yourn

i await for what god
shall cause to be revealed next

know he blesses us all

[we dont need to beg]