What's your take on God?

[Vater Araignee]

First I'll just quote me. "Your god created all that you survey. My god is going to punish your god for creating all that you survey."

We ar nothing to "The Everything" because of what ever we as an individual did to receive this punishment and the best any of us can hope for is ascent into nonexistence.

Those that do good to receive reward are the first to rot and those that do it to avoid punishment are the next in line. A few peoples concept of god is merely a symptom. A symptom of the unexplained and then eventually one of loneliness. How I envy them. To be innocent and have no concept of reward for doing the right thing and just doing it because it is.

My ultimate concept?

"The Everything" created "It".

"It" in its loneliness created what you see.

When we transgress against "The Everything" we are cast here and in "The Everything's" endless power "The Everything" forgets we ever existed.

When "The Everything" no longer has need of "It" then "It" will be eliminated.

[Guest Game of Chance]

First I'll just quote me. "Your god created all that you survey. My god is going to punish your god for creating all that you survey."

We ar nothing to "The Everything" because of what ever we as an individual did to receive this punishment and the best any of us can hope for is ascent into nonexistence.

Those that do good to receive reward are the first to rot and those that do it to avoid punishment are the next in line. A few peoples concept of god is merely a symptom. A symptom of the unexplained and then eventually one of loneliness. How I envy them. To be innocent and have no concept of reward for doing the right thing and just doing it because it is.

My ultimate concept?

"The Everything" created "It".

"It" in its loneliness created what you see.

When we transgress against "The Everything" we are cast here and in "The Everything's" endless power "The Everything" forgets we ever existed.

When "The Everything" no longer has need of "It" then "It" will be eliminated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll repeat the question. Is there a possibility that it is all in your head? That your mind has tricked you into explaining away the Universe?

[Paper Hearts]

I'll repeat the question.  Is there a possibility that it is all in your head?  That your mind has tricked you into explaining away the Universe?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's just it to a certain extent w/ everything that happens. No one has the same experience with anything, essentially. There's a bit of programing that we're all subject to...but in the end we all have a different god...or we're all different agnostics or atheists.

I'm sort of, of the impression that a "religeous" person is someone who's greatfull for life, and also places self-preservation above liberty...beyond all the stereotypical programming involved.

[Guest Game of Chance]

That's just it to a certain extent w/ everything that happens.  No one has the same experience with anything, essentially. There's a bit of programing that we're all subject to...but in the end we all have  a different god...or we're all different agnostics or atheists.

I'm sort of, of the impression that a "religeous" person is someone who's greatfull for life, and also places self-preservation above liberty...beyond all the stereotypical programming involved. I'd say an extremist is anyone who feels that a god communicates with them through whatever direction...and feels that their self-preservation supercededs the rest of humanitie's liberties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're confusing religious experience with dogmatic imprisonment. Sure there are religious types that preach morals and dogma all day long. There are others, for example the taoists, that simply don't care about what you do. They are only trying to better themselves.

[Paper Hearts]

I think you're confusing religious experience with dogmatic imprisonment.  Sure there religious types that preach morals and dogma all day long.  There are others, for example the taoists, that simply don't care about what you do.  They are only trying to better themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are Buddhists that believe the only way to nirvana is by doing nothing...and so they do nothing all day--but they're still working towards enlightenment or away from karma. I've a copy of the Tao Te Ching in my library actually and it's really more of a set of rules for a public swimming pool or something...kind of like a lengthy and colorfull 10 commandments...but there's more than 10 principals.

Well, why those principals and not just 'do whatever the fuck it takes'? There's a common thread with all religeons, I think, and it's that they issue laws that will eventually help you escape imprisonment of whatever sort.

[Guest Game of Chance]

There are Buddhists that believe the only way to nirvana is by doing nothing...and so they do nothing all day--but they're still working towards enlightenment or away from karma. I've a copy of the Tao Te Ching in my library actually and it's really more of a set of rules for a public swimming pool or something...kind of like a lengthy and colorfull 10 commandments...but there's more than 10 principals.

Well, why those principals and not just 'do whatever the fuck it takes'? There's a common thread with all religeons, I think, and it's that they issue laws that will eventually help you escape imprisonment in whatever way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its all in the intepretation. Not sure we're reading the same book. The concept of the Tao that I got out of the Tao Te Ching is that there are really three principles in the Universe. Easiest way to break it down is...Matter, Energy and the Union of the two. Another way is...Point, all the events that could possibly interact with that point, and the interaction itself.

Taoism certainly is not the only path, and in fact, all religious systems (at their core, stripped of the morals and dogma that burden them) have the same basic message. The basic concept is Union of the "lower self" and the "higher self". However way you look at it, whether its being more Christ-like, Krishna-conciousness, Nirvana, Enlightenment, Gnosis, what have you...its all the same.

I don't disagree with you on the dogmatic mess that most religions have become. But there are still some purists out there...

"Prophets" laid down rules simply to describe techniques that worked for them. Unfortunately for mankind, rulers of their time would slip in a few extra rules to keep the masses in check (ie...no pork for fear of bacterial outbreak, etc.)

Personally, the only rules I live by are Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law and Love is the Law, love under will.

The way I interpret it is to follow my own will and my own will only. Perhaps by doing so...I can achieve and maintain at least a semblance of harmony with the rest of the Universe.

[Steven]

Its all in the intepretation.  Not sure we're reading the same book.  The concept of the Tao that I got out of the Tao Te Ching is that there are really three principles in the Universe.  Easiest way to break it down is...Matter, Energy and the Union of the two.  Another way is...Point, all the events that could possibly interact with that point, and the interaction itself. 

Taoism certainly is not the only path, and in fact, all religious systems (at their core, stripped of the morals and dogma that burden them) have the same basic message.  The basic concept is Union of the "lower self" and the "higher self".  However way you look at it, whether its being more Christ-like, Krishna-conciousness, Nirvana, Enlightenment, Gnosis, what have you...its all the same. 

I don't disagree with you on the dogmatic mess that most religions have become.  But there are still some purists out there...

"Prophets" laid down rules simply to describe techniques that worked for them.  Unfortunately for mankind, rulers of their time would slip in a few extra rules to keep the masses in check (ie...no pork for fear of bacterial outbreak, etc.)

Personally, the only rules I live by are Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law and Love is the Law, love under will. 

The way I interpret it is to follow my own will and my own will only.  Perhaps by doing so...I can achieve and maintain at least a semblance of harmony with the rest of the Universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

although I understand the logic behind this stance dude, I just have a hard time with it - at least in reagrd to Christianity.

Yes you can strip it of all its dogma, and actually you need to to get to the core of Christ's message.

But when you do that - you find his decalration of mediation on his part as being absolutely neccessary for success. And that conflcits with say, the Gnostic approach of looking within.

[Steven]

Is it possible its all in your head?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely.

As would apply to yrou own principles as well, and anyones for that matter.

Incidently, it IS all in my head.

My thoughts have been influenced to the point of changing the fiber of who I am.

[Guest Game of Chance]

although I understand the logic behind this stance dude, I just have a hard time with it - at least in reagrd to Christianity.

Yes you can strip it of all its dogma, and actually you need to to get to the core of Christ's message.

But when you do that - you find his decalration of mediation on his part as being absolutely neccessary for success.  And that conflcits with say, the Gnostic approach of looking within.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, I'm not surprised. Don't take it the wrong way...its certainly not an insult, but I think you have a real lack of objectivity when it comes to this subject. Its difficult to discuss philosophy with you because you are so tied to this one specific ideology.

Certainly, you may be right and Christianity may be "The Way", I just don't see the harm in taking a scientific approach in dissecting religious philosophies and separating the meat from the fat.

I hate to break it to you, but what you really find is the council of Nicaea's message of mediation on christ's part. I don't know about you, but I wasn't in Rome about 325 AD. Couldn't tell you how it all went down. Since I have no direct experience to draw on, I have a hard time accepting any of it as Truth.

What I do have direct experience in is using techinques of various religious philosophies in achieving various effects. Those effects determine my outlook on the Universe.

Not some ancient old dudes sitting around a table arguing...

[Paper Hearts]

Its all in the intepretation.  Not sure we're reading the same book.  The concept of the Tao that I got out of the Tao Te Ching is that there are really three principles in the Universe.  Easiest way to break it down is...Matter, Energy and the Union of the two.  Another way is...Point, all the events that could possibly interact with that point, and the interaction itself. 

Taoism certainly is not the only path, and in fact, all religious systems (at their core, stripped of the morals and dogma that burden them) have the same basic message.  The basic concept is Union of the "lower self" and the "higher self".  However way you look at it, whether its being more Christ-like, Krishna-conciousness, Nirvana, Enlightenment, Gnosis, what have you...its all the same. 

I don't disagree with you on the dogmatic mess that most religions have become.  But there are still some purists out there...

"Prophets" laid down rules simply to describe techniques that worked for them.  Unfortunately for mankind, rulers of their time would slip in a few extra rules to keep the masses in check (ie...no pork for fear of bacterial outbreak, etc.)

Personally, the only rules I live by are Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law and Love is the Law, love under will. 

The way I interpret it is to follow my own will and my own will only.  Perhaps by doing so...I can achieve and maintain at least a semblance of harmony with the rest of the Universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't speaking of the foundations that Taoism rests on, but all of it's teachings and their various messages...which lead to those foundations. That book is full of little messages. I think we just have a misunderstanding with my usage of 'principals'. But anyway...if there are 3 principals or there are 35, it really doesn't matter...as long as you have one principal, then you have a religious law or concept. So that's what I mean-

I noticed right away, although, that you do say that it's all a matter of interpretation, which is exactly what I was trying to describe. There's no 2 Taoists alike...nor Christians, nor atheists...essentailly we all have different gods or 'takes' on the beginings of reality. In other words, to a certain level it IS all in of our heads.

-And all I meant by 'stereotypical programming' was the teaching of religeous concepts by whatever methods you're familiar with and would expect to find. I wasn't implying that religeon programs stereotypes into people. That's another subject completely.

Can I have a beer?

[Guest Game of Chance]

I wasn't speaking of the foundations that Taoism rests on, but all of it's teachings and their various messages...which lead to those foundations. That book is full of little messages. I think we just have a misunderstanding with my usage of 'principals'. But anyway...if there are 3 principals or there are 35, it really doesn't matter...as long as you have one principal, then you have a religious law or concept. So that's what I mean-

I noticed right away, although, that you do say that it's all a matter of interpretation, which is exactly what I was trying to describe. There's no 2 Taoists alike...nor Christians, nor atheists...essentailly we all have different gods or 'takes' on the beginings of reality. In other words, to a certain level it is all in of our heads.

-And all I meant by 'stereotypical programming' was the teaching of religeous concepts by whatever methods you're familiar with and would expect to find. I wan't implying that religeon programs stereotypes into people. That's another subject completely.

Can I have a beer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure...but I'm out of Guinness...

I just wanted to be clear...the reason why I use the Taoist system to classify the Universe is because of the simplicity. It really is just Yin, Yang, and Tao anyway you look at it. And for further simplification, ultimately its just Tao. I realize that Lao Tze was more than a little cryptic, but the bottom line is those three principles. Another reason that I use it is because of the ease of conversion to scientific principles such as matter and energy.

I'm a big fan of Occam's razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

[Paper Hearts]

Sure...but I'm out of Guinness...

I just wanted to be clear...the reason why I use the Taoist system to classify the Universe is because of the simplicity.  It really is just Yin, Yang, and Tao anyway you look at it.  And for further simplification, ultimately its just Tao.  I realize that Lao Tze was more than a little cryptic, but the bottom line is those three principles.  Another reason that I use it is because of the ease of conversion to scientific principles such as matter an energy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright, I guess I don't attache any more to Taoism than I attach to Judeism or anything else on the topic...because I don't feel that existance is my fault or I don't feel it makes much of a difference for me. So I am a bit jaded, (somehow...even though I have no idea what the answer is, and really have no beliefs), to try to look at it scientifically. Which possibly means I look at religeons hyper-scientifically. I look at the teachings of Buddha or Christ, or Abraham, whatever, and either think something along the lines "No shit" and/or "Piss off". -But, that's just me...and again, I'm maybe not the best one to make a response here, because (are you ready for this?)...I've not seen any gods yet. I do however promise you and everyone else that I DO NOT KNOW THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE (which probably makes me a fairly reputable source). I think that anyone who claims to have the answers is suspect.

Deffinately, I think a large part of all this is just in our heads...but I don't take it any deeper than that. -Any time I hear of a concept on the origins of reality I tune out and go "fuck off" for some reason, it's just my personality. I mean I've thought about a lot of things like this, just as most everyone else has...and my thoughts on things like it are that no one ever really knows, in the end.

To me, the fact that no one knows is somewhat interesting however. I sometimes wonder about what we're all missing.

But yeah, I'd rather have a alcohol and listen to Iggy Pop. I get more out of that.

[Steven]

Honestly, I'm not surprised.  Don't take it the wrong way...its certainly not an insult, but I think you have a real lack of objectivity when it comes to this subject.  Its difficult to discuss philosophy with you because you are so tied to this one specific ideology. 

Certainly, you may be right and Christianity may be "The Way", I just don't see the harm in taking a scientific approach in dissecting religious philosophies and separating the meat from the fat. 

I hate to break it to you, but what you really find is the council of Nicaea's message of mediation on christ's part.  I don't know about you, but I wasn't in Rome about 325 AD.  Couldn't tell you how it all went down.  Since I have no direct experience to draw on, I have a hard time accepting any of it as Truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Nicean councils influence has been widely disputed for many years. And Its also been also reconstituted lately as a huge abortion of alleged "fact" such as has been done in projects like the Davinci code. The influence of the council of Nicea is nothing new to me. There is however....more to the story in regards to that gathering of text and the decisions that were made.

Regardless - your not really breaking anything to me Steve.

You have to understand that my concept of Christ and his message spans both the old and new testaments, through prophetical writings, and into the way christ carried himself and the types of questions that he asked common people. To me the consistency is pretty astounding.

But here is the difficulty I suppose.....yes I am tied to this one basic ideology, this is true. I also think that I'm more open minded than many of my peers on this subject, but regardless it has led me to where I'm at - and that has a dirtect influence on what I think and how I approach a specific idea. But is that really so different than anyone elses approach? I mean we all draw from certain conclusions that we have made a certain degree of peace with. You draw from soemthing, I draw from something.....the differecnes are ok with me. It never upsets me.

I dont have a problem with the scientific approach that you mentioned either.

I just think there needs to be soem balance. that same scientific approach when it comes to validating ancient writings and texts, is often called to question in regard to quote unquote "cannonized biblical writings" and yet is not called to question when researchign other ancient manuscripts. I've said this before......its the subject matter that is devisive. I do beleive there3 is plenty of scientific support on both sides of the argument.

I'm going to quote your last paragrapoh because I liked it:

"What I do have direct experience in is using techinques of various religious philosophies in achieving various effects. Those effects determine my outlook on the Universe. Not some ancient old dudes sitting around a table arguing..."

I agree with this Steve, as I've done very much the same thing, only its led me to where i am, and "Those effects determine my outlook on the Universe."

peace.

Steven

[Paper Hearts]

(Master of the Universe)

[Anathema]

right now, my personal take on god is it's just a tool used by government to control the masses. once perhaps it god was an original idea but it got twisted into something ugry.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Alright, I guess I don't attache any more to Taoism than I attach to Judeism or anything else on the topic...because I don't feel that existance is my fault or I don't feel it makes much of a difference for me. So I am a bit jaded, (somehow...even though I have no idea what the answer is, and really have no beliefs), to try to look at it scientifically. Which possibly means I look at religeons hyper-scientifically. I look at the teachings of Buddha or Christ, or Abraham, whatever, and either think something along the lines "No shit" and/or "Piss off". -But, that's just me...and again, I'm maybe not the best one to make a response here, because (are you ready for this?)...I've not seen any gods yet. I do however promise you and everyone else that I DO NOT KNOW THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE (which probably makes me a fairly reputable source). I think that anyone who claims to have the answers is suspect.

Deffinately, I think a large part of all this is just in our heads...but I don't take it any deeper than that. -Any time I hear of a concept on the origins of reality I tune out and go "fuck off" for some reason, it's just my personality. I mean I've thought about a lot of things like this, just as most everyone else has...and my thoughts on things like it are that no one ever really knows, in the end.

To me, the fact that no one knows is somewhat interesting however. I sometimes wonder about what we're all missing.

But yeah, I'd rather have a alcohol and listen to Iggy Pop. I get more out of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, its all good. Its just that I locked myself in a room for a few years and studied this stuff and only this stuff. Personally, I think the quantum physicists are closest to the Truth. Again, taoism is a just handy as a classification system for the Universe.