Religion a kitten?

Either you have no idea what religion is, Pericles, or you deliberately choose your opponents from the junior league.

People give up their life and all in the service of God; religious people often go through emotional hell and the dark night of the soul in their pursuit of God; religion involves austerity and sacrifices, but you still think it's all emotional fluffy.

That description (of a kitten) may suit some pop-lite socio-religious establishments - I can see that you can handle those and you don't even mind too much if those stay around, but just wait till you meet truly religious people who are serious about dedicating their life to God.

I never claimed that myself and AJ Phillips are deities, what I wrote is that we are God, and I stand by it. I also did not exclude anyone or anything else from being God - there is nothing but God, nothing and no-one are excluded!

As for your claim to me using neologism, nothing is new as I can point you to ancient scriptures that stated the same 1000's of years ago. The key is in the statement "Tat Tvam Asi" - That God is You:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
http://advaitatalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/tat-tvam-asi-that-thou-art.html

And 100's of other articles about this great statement.

You were asking what's the point in religion, given that you are already God. Well, the above wikipedia entry answers with an nice equation:

God minus His illusion = Individual-soul minus its ignorance

Religion is the path that draws you closer to God - it's not that you are not God already, but you are unaware of it - you need to remove your ignorance, your attachment to the illusion of existence, in order to realize your identity with God.

Yuyutsu, thank you for reminding us of the Upanishads, written all those thousands of years ago, in which Udalaka teaches his son Svetaketu: "That which is the subtle essence -- in that have all beings their existence. That is the truth. That is the Self. And that, O Svetaketu, THAT ART THOU."

Similar renditions of this perception have been given in the Christian mystical tradition over the last two millennia. St Irenaeus in the second century CE: "God became a human being in order that human beings might become God." Julian of Norwich about a thousand years later: "We are in God, and God, whom we do not see, is in us."

Countless other examples can be found from the writings of centuries. The tradition is alive and flourishing again today as increasing numbers of enquiring people accept the theology of panentheism (not pantheism), which eschews the theistic God. This theology rests, as Matthew Fox emphasises, on the observation that "God is in everything and everything is in God".

So, Pericles, we have used no neologisms. They are new to you, perhaps, but certainly not to humanity.

Oops! Correction to the end of previous post: "...but certainly not to the history of humanity."

What rational basis do I have for my claims that your version of God is new, Yuyutsu?

I suppose none - if, as your non de plume suggests, you’re of one of the Eastern religions. But I don’t concern myself too much with the Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Apart from the fraudulent gurus that are a dime-a-dozen in India, the Eastern religions seem more like philosophies and relatively harmless compared to the Abrahamic religions.

So if you are of the Eastern religions, then I take my comment about a “new” God back, but it still applies to the Abrahamic religions and for the reasons I stated too.

However, my other points - such as the fact that you don’t actually “know” any of this, but merely believe it - still stand. Belief does not become knowledge no matter how many people believe it or for how long.

<<…life without God is a logical impossibility...>>

Nice. But until you can provide some actual evidence/reasoning here, this is just yet another assertion.

Crabsy is trying to make out like as if what you guys are doing to the English language is poetic or beautiful or even useful, but it’s not. It’s deceitful - even if the only people you are trying to deceive are yourselves. There is nothing useful about playing word games for the specific purpose of making it impossible for dissenters to use language to present rebuttals. As you had even once said...

“…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.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12391#214920)

Which is precisely why you engage in these kinds of word games...

AJ Philips:
“…how do you tell the difference between something that is ‘beyond’ existence and something that ‘does not’ exist?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4163#104638)

Yuyutsu:
“God is not "something" (a common error!), and no-"thing" is beyond existence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4163#104646)

Regardless of wording, you knew precisely what I meant and yet, rather than facing my question head-on, you instead played semantical word games.

An interesting angle, Yuyutsu.

>>Religion a kitten? Either you have no idea what religion is, Pericles, or you deliberately choose your opponents from the junior league.<<

Use of simile is clearly beyond your comprehension. Take a closer look:

>>Trying to destroy religion is like drowning kittens - completely pointless, and distressful to the drowner, kitten and kitten-lover alike. I have no interest in causing pain to small fluffy creatures who are unable to defend themselves.<<

The equation is the pointlessness of the act of destruction. I have no interest in an act that is pointless.

>>People give up their life and all in the service of God; religious people often go through emotional hell and the dark night of the soul in their pursuit of God<<

Some of these, in my direct experience, were self-appointed martyrs who roamed the streets of Belfast, each parading their belief system (only subtly distinguishable from their victims') as the rationale for shooting people's kneecaps. Or heads. Fascinating "pursuit of God", that.

>>...just wait till you meet truly religious people who are serious about dedicating their life to God.<<

That's the sort of threat that struck terror into non-believers in the sixteenth century. Especially those sufficiently erudite to read the instruction manual:

"Quoniam punitio non refertur primo et per se in correctionem et bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, et a malis committendis avocentur"

>>I never claimed that myself and AJ Phillips are deities, what I wrote is that we are God<<

You see, that is where I start having problems with your use of the language. The vast majority of sources agree on a form of words that is much like this:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"

If you are intent on redefining God, maybe that is where you should start. Because as it stands, claiming to be God, and that we all are God, makes no sense whatsoever. Except to you and crabsy, that is. And probably Sells also.

AJ Phillips:
I have not been aiming to win a debate about atheism-vs.- theism or to "convert" anyone to some sort of religion (old or new). I don't expect words to "prove" that God is real; the words I choose are an attempt to convey to the reader as best I can what I have perceived. I have admitted that the attempt can never be completely successful because language collapses when confronted by the experience of God.

Since I am convinced that my perception is valid, and my intention is to be as faithful as I can to that perception as I choose my words, where is the deceit?

The question of the reality of God can never be settled through language, "evidence" presented to the public, etc. One needs to learn how to perceive clearly, usually by following a discipline that helps one to do that. The person needs to experience for himself or herself.

If you choose not to do that, it's fine with me. But please don't accuse me of trying to "deceive" you and others when I try to put my perceptions into language. Just accept what I write about as something you have not experienced.