Reflex,
In discussing your beliefs, you seem to identify the boundaries of who you are, what is possible, and what is or must be.
A tadpole such as myself must live as a tadpole until it become a frog. There's no sense in pretending this tadpole is a frog. Make-believe can only be a hindrance to my growth.
Believing you are a tadpole who must follow a process to become a frog could easily be make-believe. The idea that any transformation must follow a certain process or linear path, or must take a certain amount of time or look a certain way, could all be make-believe. There are plenty of examples of people who do not follow and are not defined by such structure. So it's not "necessary".
Yes, in a certain sense "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world," but that point of view is only fully accessible to the infinite, eternal and free.
How can you even put the word "but" after the first part of that sentence?
And why do you water it down by introducing it with the words "In a certain sense"? Your conditions of a person needing to be infinite, eternal, and free could be said to be (as you like to say) "meaningless". To me, it sounds like an excuse. Such a point of view of "all being right with the world" is FULLY ACCESSIBLE ALL THE TIME. Rather than requiring the boundaries/path you specify, such could be accessed from a state of love, or as an attitude of acceptance.
The idea that we must reach some point where we are fully immersed in the glory of a god 24/7, seems to discard "ALL THE REST OF IT", as NOT BEING OF GOD. Such a view could easily be said to be make-believe. Why not ACCEPT ALL OF IT? Why not rejoice in all of it? Why not play with all of it while knowing that all is right with the world?
God (or, if you prefer, perfection) is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism and we live in the spectrum of its light. It's all light, but it's not the Light. It's not a new or alien concept.
It's a concept. Even if it's an "old one". There are SURELY many alternative concepts that have been around since the dawn of man. Saying that God is all, but all is not God, sounds like human judgment.
You're right, theists are pretty vocal in identifying their philosophy, but non-theists tend to be elusive about theirs so there is seldom an equitable give-and-take. The discussion with Greta is a good example.
Perhaps that's because theism and non-theism do not contain the same elements to give and take. It's not a simple "this for that" trade-off. Theism is typically built on certain rules -- non-theism is not, it is very diverse. So it's not like comparing apples to oranges... it's like comparing apples to hummingbirds.
I agree with the Tao Te Ching which says:
Sure... there's truth in that. It doesn't encompass or invalidate the vast range of possibilities that any of us can experience.
Some people like to live by rules and within boundaries. Some like to feel they have a path, and that it is the "right" path (of course, that probably means they'll be vocal about their perceptions of the "wrong" paths). But options and perspectives are so vast... doesn't it come down to what we're "choosing/making-up" for ourselves? When there are so many ways that "it works". So many ways to love and harmonize. It doesn't require any particular path or perspective.
Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am
...not everything is God.
Lacewing wrote:
Who is capable of determining what is and isn't?
Reflex wrote:Every being of normal mind.
And such determinations are made-up and variable, yes? For the individual... they decide what is and what is not of God, for themselves? So if there are those who decide that ALL IS GOD... they live with and experience that, and it is truth for them. For those who think otherwise, they live with and experience what is truth for them. Individual thoughts and decisions do not reflect the limits or experiences for all, nor do they reflect universal or eternal truths, nor do they reflect a particular true god.
Once last thing... all of the quotes of "reputable" people do not affect me as "authoritative proclamations". They are all people who are equals. We all have access and ability to the same ideas and understandings. You will pick and choose from all that are available to reflect alignment with your own views. But it's ALL, out there... so, in your words, you would perhaps classify such a distinctive focus as "meaningless", if someone besides you was doing it.
There is no shortage of people (famous and not) who share my perspectives. I typically don't feel compelled to quote anyone -- I'm just speaking my own words and exploring my own creative expression -- while smiling at the thought that it's all divine.
Even tears, pain, horror are divine. And I'm not sitting in a smoky den wacked out on mind-altering substances... I'm functioning just fine in the real world, facing all of its challenges like most people.