I KNOW 'God' exists ask me about it i experienced the TESTamenT

[Lacewing]

...if weren't for the believers the wisdom of great men like Jesus would have been lost.

There is great wisdom continually flowing throughout, in countless ways and countless sources, which NATURALLY makes sense! It seems that the DISTORTION of Jesus' wisdom by self-serving man obscures (for many people) much of the naturally and continually-accessible and ever-unfolding/expanding wisdom available through and for all! To think that some sort of ultimate wisdom emanates from a certain point/time or belief system... and that only certain people can/do receive and "know" and use and distribute it... must surely be the height of ego and ignorance.

[attofishpi]

...if weren't for the believers the wisdom of great men like Jesus would have been lost.

There is great wisdom continually flowing throughout, in countless ways and countless sources, which NATURALLY makes sense! It seems that the DISTORTION of Jesus' wisdom by self-serving man obscures (for many people) much of the continually-accessible and natural ever-unfolding/expanding wisdom! To think that some sort of ultimate wisdom emanates from a certain point/time or belief system... and that only certain people can/do receive and "know" and use and distribute it... must surely be the height of ego and ignorance.

lol. ..you bring ego and ignorance into an intelligent debate? And..without explaining what the ignorance is. Keep your shallow assumptions and stick with Belinda...i ask again please put me back on ignore.

[Lacewing]

you bring ego and ignorance into an intelligent debate? And..without explaining what the ignorance is.

I DID explain what the ignorance was. Are you too shallow and rigid to see/accept it?

Is your response always to say "put me on ignore" just because you don't like what you hear, and you have no intelligent response to the valid points that are brought up?

I said: "To think that some sort of ultimate wisdom emanates from a certain point/time or belief system... and that only certain people can/do receive and "know" and use and distribute it... must surely be the height of ego and ignorance."

Please explain why you disagree.

[attofishpi]

I said: "To think that some sort of ultimate wisdom emanates from a certain point/time or belief system... and that only certain people can/do receive and "know" and use and distribute it... must surely be the height of ego and ignorance."

Please explain why you disagree.

1. Ego? This God\'God' entity - if you actually read what i have posted in this thread reduced my ego to less than an ant. I hated the kunt.
2. So i know God\'God' exists. So what? Doesn't mean i'm special - i stated the reason i know in this very thread and i am not proud of what i did.

[Lacewing]

(I see that you've deleted your response to me... but I've responded to it anyway...)

..you are too simple for an intelligent debate, please let myself and shtitarapinga continue.

You're too big of an asshole to be pretending that you are intelligent.

And you're a coward who can't answer: Why would God be represented in limited ways? IT MAKES NO SENSE. It reeks of the ego of those who claim what those limited ways are! If you think it DOES make sense, explain why. Simple fucking question.

Unless your "intelligence" can't handle it, and you're not actually here to question/discuss viewpoints, but rather to only strut your own limited view.

[attofishpi]

...sorry, please re read my post - you caught what i deleted. Oh well.

[Lacewing]

...sorry, please re read my post - you caught what i deleted. Oh well.

So you deleted your attack and replaced it with defensiveness (after your first attempt to simply blow me off). And all of this continually avoids addressing the point(s) I put to you: Why would (a limitless) God be represented in limited ways? Can you see how this doesn't make sense, and how such thinking might reek of the ego of those who claim what those limited ways are? What is your position? If you agree/see... why are you insulting my intelligence? If you don't agree... or you think it's an unreasonable question... why don't you explain WHY, without further insults and avoidance?

[attofishpi]

...sorry, please re read my post - you caught what i deleted. Oh well.

So you deleted your attack and replaced it with defensiveness (after your first attempt to simply blow me off). And all of this continually avoids addressing the point(s) I put to you: Why would (a limitless) God be represented in limited ways? Can you see how this doesn't make sense, and how such thinking might reek of the ego of those who claim what those limited ways are? What is your position? If you agree/see... why are you insulting my intelligence? If you don't agree... or you think it's an unreasonable question... why don't you explain WHY, without further insults and avoidance?

Now i wish i had left the original post. Again with your presumptions - where are you getting this idea of a 'limitless God' from.

Im done - got better things to do than debate with a waffler.

[Lacewing]

where are you getting this idea of a 'limitless God' from.

Oh! So the "God" you keep referring to is not limitless? This would explain why access to your limited "God" is accessible only by you. Makes perfect sense! And nicely self-serving! See, why couldn't you just say that?

Im done - got better things to do than debate with a waffler.

Why are you calling ME a "waffler"?

Do you just throw out insults, and drink, and make claims/projections without any consciousness? I guess you don't realize that other people can see your dance even if you remain intent on not seeing it.

[Harbal]

Yes. And btw, a so-called 'pantheist' is just a mediaeval version of an atheist. Anyone who calls himself that today is just a wanker.

I never said i am a "Pantheist" ..I said i am a "Panentheist" - they are vastly different. (shit for brains.)

For some reason that makes you seem like even more of a wanker.

[sthitapragya]

If you are still set on drawing lines, then you are an 'atheist' and i am not a 'theist', what am 'i'?

You are a believer in God which is, for simplification, called a theist.

You expect me to accept that even though i know God\'God' exists, i am a theist - a mere believer. Or are you suggesting the term theist can be applied to someone who knows God exists, but only believes in what 'it' has stated?

Pretty much. Yes. I too once "knew" God existed. Turned out it was just a belief. I have no reason to believe that your knowledge of God is any different. Unless you can prove that you know God. So yes, you are a theist.

Also, I am not set on drawing any lines. But for the purpose of the discussion on God, there is no escaping the fact that the lines have been drawn between those who believe and those who do not.

Yes, but you appear to fail to real eyes that if weren't for the believers the wisdom of great men like Jesus would have been lost.

Would it? If it was real wisdom, why would it need believers? Wisdom has no connection with belief or disbelief. I have yet to come across anyone who does not believe in wisdom.

[Belinda]

...if weren't for the believers the wisdom of great men like Jesus would have been lost.

There is great wisdom continually flowing throughout, in countless ways and countless sources, which NATURALLY makes sense! It seems that the DISTORTION of Jesus' wisdom by self-serving man obscures (for many people) much of the naturally and continually-accessible and ever-unfolding/expanding wisdom available through and for all! To think that some sort of ultimate wisdom emanates from a certain point/time or belief system... and that only certain people can/do receive and "know" and use and distribute it... must surely be the height of ego and ignorance.

It is remarkable that the ethical core of Christian belief has survived despite that Christianity is a man made religion .All religions are man made. The ethical cores of all the big religions are identical. Because the ethical cores of the big religions are identical and that this ethical core is tenacious over two and a half thousand years suggests that that the ethical cores are "natural and continually -accessible", if Lacewing refers to what is life-supporting(and not death-dealing).

However the Gospels were written by men and so they contain a lot of ephemeral stuff. By "ephemeral stuff" I refer to Jesus' supposedly saying "Those who have ears to hear let them hear". Whether Jesus actually said that or whether it was inserted by the author of the Gospel is irrelevant to the fact that esoteric secret knowledge comes and goes according to fashions often superstitious fashions. The esoteric secret knowledge that Jesus is reported to have referred to is no longer of practical value, but the core ethic is not thereby diminished, and is of practical value as ever.

[Lacewing]

Because the ethical cores of the big religions are identical and that this ethical core is tenacious over two and a half thousand years suggests that that the ethical cores are "natural and continually -accessible"

Yes! I don't think religion even has to be a part of it. Religion is a methodology for distribution of ideas and agendas. If there were no religion... and a person was born onto this Earth and lived a full life, that person could still be in-tune with natural and continually-accessible wisdom.

Jesus and all the other countless beings who continually have pointed to "higher-thinking" and greater awareness are simply reflecting what we all have within us and are already part of. When we make those beings into idols, we essentially cast ourselves lower, and pin all of our hopes and expectations for brilliance and salvation onto THEM. Wherein, THEY have our backs in a convoluted system that we put THEM in charge of, while we deny the ready-access to brilliance and salvation that we are actually responsible for ourselves.

(As a side note: Such denial of personal ability and responsibility seems very dangerous! Because the extraordinarily powerful and ever-righteous "front" of religion can be used for any ill-conceived and destructive purpose that suits the egos who are using it -- which can inexplicably include denying and ignoring the sacred ALREADY IN ALL! I can't help but wonder if we would be so destructive and hateful if we were living with more personal responsibility/accountability without religion?)

[Belinda]

Lacewing wrote:

(As a side note: Such denial of personal ability and responsibility seems very dangerous! Because the extraordinarily powerful and ever-righteous "front" of religion can be used for any ill-conceived and destructive purpose that suits the egos who are using it -- which can inexplicably include denying and ignoring the sacred ALREADY IN ALL! I can't help but wonder if we would be so destructive and hateful if we were living with more personal responsibility/accountability without religion?)

This is an impractical question. Religion as other meaningful art forms is man's attempt to explain and regulate the natural and human conditions, therefore religion is a permanent fixture whatever it may be called. Lacewing is obviously right in her claim

powerful and ever-righteous "front" of religion can be used for any ill-conceived and destructive purpose that suits the egos who are using it

however this can be said of any human quest not excluding scientific, commercial, and technological quests, and religions are not alone as institutions that are poisoned by unscrupulous or stupid people.

Christianity has as its strength the fact that it's based upon the life of an individual and not upon a holy book as are Judaism and Islam.Christianity's weakness is the tradition among Christians high and low for philosophising about Christian 'beliefs'.

It's an impractical question as it stands. If the question were framed as "should we have more personal responsibility/accountability ?" I'd say that we should indeed. The converse of personal responsibility/accountability is unthinking, unfree, mindless, gullible, uninformed and undemocratic. It's only by means of free, responsible and accountable individuals that societies are going concerns. You may object that societies have existed and do now exist where the people were and are repressed, unfree etc. That is true. Such societies are ultimately self -destructive because they cannot accept that the world is a joined-up system.

[Lacewing]

I can't help but wonder if we would be so destructive and hateful if we were living with more personal responsibility/accountability without religion?

This is an impractical question. Religion as other meaningful art forms is man's attempt to explain and regulate the natural and human conditions, therefore religion is a permanent fixture whatever it may be called.

I understand what you're saying.

I wonder, though, to what degree religion is tied to our evolutionary development... and whether further evolution would still require religion as we have thus far during our brief cosmic blip of thousands of years? I don't doubt that pockets of religion might remain for a long time, even if extraterrestrials were to arrive and greatly debunk our notions of gods. Yet, we can clearly see that religion is not a necessity for all, as there are vast numbers of people who have had no personal use for it while they live respectful, effective, artful lives. So that leads me to think that religion is not the only way "to explain and regulate the natural and human conditions", nor that religion must ALWAYS remain a permanent fixture on a grand scale that defines humankind.

Shifts in our thinking can change what seems practical... yes?