Dear Ammonite,

Don't get me wrong - There are many issues that I still question. The issues of power and wealth, just as an example. And of course there is the current church leadership in Australia. To me some of the actions of Cardinal Pell are the antithesis of Jesus. I am referring to his treatment of gays. Pell is probably acting on behalf of the Vatican, however he is not supported by the majority of Australian Catholics. In this respect the church at times appears to not be God's church, but the church of ambitious and ruthless men. Many people have left the church because of the church's lack of respect for freedom of conscience, the sometimes bullying or discourteous behaviour of particular bishops and priests, its controlling approach to the community and the inability of its leadership to come to grips with a fast-changing society. Many people left the church behind as they adapted to contemporary reality, particularly in the sphere of personal morality.

Anyway, I'd again like to Thank You and everyone who contributed for their inputs. I'll see you on another thread.

Love to all.

Dear Yuyutsu,
Thank you too for a stimulating discussion

>>if I claimed that God exists, that would seem to reduce Him to the state of a material object.?<<
At first sight, this makes sense only if you redefine the verb “exists” to be a ”property“ of only material objects. Whether or not God exists depends not only on what you understand by “God” but also on what you understand by “exists”. These are not simple questions, so no wonder that people decide one way or another more on psychological and emotional than philosophical reasons.

At second sight, you are possibly hinting at the philosopher-theologian Tillich’s “God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him”. If you are interested, here on OLO I had a relatively extensive discussion with relda on Tillich’s approach in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#157122 and the posts surrounding it.

>>A spiritual plane? I haven't seen any! I think we have enough trouble with the material plane to want to add an extra one.<<
This confuses me. How can you accept God if you BOTH do not want to “reduce Him to the state of material object” (see above), AND at the same time dismiss the “spiritual plane”? Without this extra-material dimension God would indeed be reduced to “the state of a material object” entity or being. In the latter case it is, of course, legitimate to demand (scientific) evidence for His existence, and in the absence of such evidence to place the idea of God at the same level as that of Santa or Tooth Fairy, as some of our atheist friends like to claim.

Your last post addressed to me does not contain anything I could disagree with, (although it neither confirms nor contradicts what I wrote in my post preceding it).

Anyhow, I think we have deviated too much from the original topic of this thread.

Dear George,

I was happy with your previous post, just had no particular comments to make on it. Sorry I did not make this clear.

I am quite unversed in western philosophy, so it is nice to learn that Tillich, a leading philosopher, reached similar conclusions as mine. Let me assure you that I reached this conclusion that "to argue that God exists is to deny him" not out of psychological or emotional reasons (on the contrary, I would be so much happier with a God that I can touch or at least prove), but out of cold logic. It was not a pleasant conclusion.

However, I learned that my love of God need not depend on material conditions such as existence.

Without knowing too much about Tillich (except some of what you discussed on the other thread), it seems that I went one step further than him. You quoted Tillich saying "He is being-itself beyond essence and existence", which is nice and warm, but sadly I must dismiss this too: even the claim about God that "He is beyond" places a limitation, a qualification upon God... but oops, this drops us back into denying Him.

Had I claimed that "God is not here - He's in the spiritual plane", then I would have had to fall in the same pit and deny Him.

If I understood correctly, then Tillich believed in the need of symbols to know God. Symbols can be helpful and valuable along the way and I respect them, but knowing God through symbols is not knowing Him directly (or in more brutal words, not knowing Him at all).

In fact, it is impossible to know God, because knowledge requires two: the knower and the known, but how can this be where there is no gap? You ARE Him!

I do however believe that it is possible to directly experience God, but not by adding new knowledge - by subtracting false knowledge, by shedding off the veil of illusion. The spiritual is therefore not an additional plane, but the absence, the subtraction of the material plane.

Yuyutsu,

You state that you employ logic and experience as well as scripture reading to help your own spiritual progress.
However,now you say that to reduce the notion of God to the symbolic is not knowing him at all (although it's helpful)...how can you dismiss the use of logic in defining the notion of God to yourself? I put it to you that without symbolism, you would be unable to mentally formulate any ideas, let alone one concerning your idea of God.

A "spiritual plane" is a way of describing a non-material realm of consciousness...it's not new knowledge at all, but simply a way to distinguish that realm from the material one.

puro..quote,..""..A "spiritual plane"
is a way of describing a non-material realm of consciousness...""

like the mind?
or like the dream state?
or like imagining..things that nver were[in this realm]

""it's not new knowledge at all,""

what is new 'knowledge'
the non-material realm'..of dreams/imagination
how can a 'new' invention..not be new knowledge?
its not as if we saw a computa then...found new knowledge

your saying a nwew book..[a new arrangment of wordd]..
is..""simply a way to distinguish..that realm from the material one."

somehow im more comforted that 'more shall be given''
this is how i have found life so far
and expect much more in the next life

""that without symbolism,
you would be unable to mentally formulate any ideas,""

your likely talking specificly
about the inner mind imagry
the vision..

that comes before the invention

[anyhow that comes from them other realms...
although in time IT MIGHT be made 'real'..
into this material realm..if the one that had the vision has the nessesary skills to make the visioning 'materially-real'

""let alone one concerning your idea of God.""

god is perfectly get-able[comprehensable]..without symbols
symbols have long been corrupted with materialistic meaning and value

its told us that children can grasp the goods of god
symbols is a destraction...

[i go further..if symbols..is all you got..
your never going to 'get'..god

OUG,

"If" one is here as a human being, then one is indoctrinated into the symbolic order - that's the way it is.

Whatever the essence of "God" really is, we can only form notions by using our mental capacities. this may be completely separate from the "essence" or "energy" that is God, but one has to have the ability to define an idea to oneself.

If we are God, then in our present state of material being we have been given an awareness of that materiality and we employ symbolism to deal with it.

My question is, if you dispose of symbolism in your quest to define God, what is the use of logic to help one along the road of individual spiritual progress? Shouldn't we just "be"?