Why is God being represented by very stupid people on this forum?

[Walker]

Are you suggesting that this thread is aimed at dattaswami?

No. My long, brilliant posting was aimed at dattaswami, because I knew you couldn't comprehend it, as I 'splained.

[Lacewing]

I created this thread because I see some men claiming they know that which (even they can admit) is unknowable. And in the case of knowing a god to such a degree as many claim -- to know that god's words, thinking, desires, plans, preferences, commands, etc. -- essentially reduces that god down to be encapsulated by the pea brain of a human... which is.... stupid.

And while this was not aimed specifically at Dattaswami, he does this AND then tells us he knows that God was in Jesus and others and he tells us God's qualities and motives and goodness. Do as I say and not as I do is pretty typical guru hypocrisy.

And one of the reasons this bothers me is that it lacks courage. It is not easy to truly deal with one's reactions to the way things are. So, when I see copining mechanisms like this in people who are talking down to others it strikes me not simply as some kind of rational error, but as adding injury to insult.

Yes!

It suggests that 'the rest of us' are separate and below those who claim to 'know' such things. It's an ego trip... which, as you pointed out, lacks the courage to explore and see beyond the self-serving nature of such beliefs and claims.

It doesn't take long for people who make such absolute claims to become tripped up in them. It is valuable to be discerning in all things, because (from my own experience) there are errors and nonsense as well as value and insight in all directions. Noticing how something is being presented is a clue (I think) of the energy that might affect (and distort) the value of the content.

There are answers to be found everywhere. It just takes being observant of that. I'm not a follower of anything in particular -- I think that's limited, as well as risky. So, I tend to offer observations and comments and challenges from that perspective here on the forum. And I find it entertaining to do so, to the same dramatic degree as the absolute claims are being made.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes!

It suggests that 'the rest of us' are separate and below those who claim to 'know' such things. It's an ego trip... which, as you pointed out, lacks the courage to explore and see beyond the self-serving nature of such beliefs and claims.

I'm not at all closed to the idea that someone knows more than me, though the presumption is rude. My irritation at the lack of courage has to do with my since being a teenager really feeling into the horrbile or potentially horrible aspects of any belief system that was in the air around me. That includes secular ones and religious ones. I have met people who also can readily admit, even, that they have felt/thought about this also. I mean existential terror and sorrow.

When I meet people who just seem happily avoid those areas AND they are taking an authority position AND they can't seem to actually admit they might not know or can admit to fears, etc., then I think of this as a lack of courage. For example, DS thinks that any victim is actually to blame for their suffering. The only other possibility is that God is a sadist, for him. That is the binary pair of options he sees. Since I did not think that victims are as a rule being punished for past sins or past life sins, he assumed I thought that if there is a God, God must be a sadist. This is how I know he sees the options as binary, as two.

To believe that God is a sadist is a terrifying thought, so he cannot even for a moment examine those people/souls he blames for their own suffering, including children who are raped. They HAVE TO BE GUILTY or.......

Huge fear avoidance. If he could manage to feel his fear there and actually look/feel these people, he would realize that there are other options. But he's too cowardly to look.

And hell, I understand the fear. I've felt it. I have sympathy for anyone's coping mechanisms. But when you go forth and tell many people that if a child is raped that child deserved that punishment...Now you bear a lot of responsibility for your coping mechanisms. If it helps you sleep at night to hallucinate that, fine. If you want to be a guru and have followers and preach here and elsewhere, sorry, then I will call you out as a coward. He has not with an open heart and mind truly listened to victims of rape, for example. His idea HAS TO BE TRUE OR....and he doesn't want to feel that or.

It doesn't take long for people who make such absolute claims to become tripped up in them. It is valuable to be discerning in all things, because (from my own experience) there are errors and nonsense as well as value and insight in all directions. Noticing how something is being presented is a clue (I think) of the energy that might affect (and distort) the value of the content.

I am pretty eclectic about where I pick up information and inspiration, role modeling, advice, heuristics, etc. I don't mind absolute claims. It's a very different topic, but I think pretty much everyone is at least implicitly making absolute truth claims, even in how they rule them out. And I kinda like stuff being thrown out. I do a creative art form and I like it when one of these teachers comes along with THE method. I may not become a disciple but that kind of near fascist approach (as long as they don't have power over me) makes it so clear what is good and bad about their method. It's bracing. Heck, I might even agree or agree with one part. So, to me it's not his absolute claim quality, it's more the interpersonal dynamic. I suppose I would prefer if they would say that their intuition is what gives them certainty at some level. And also to not pretend that deduction proves their belief to be true.

I believe things that I could not convince most others of and certainly not with words on a screen. I don't know where this idea came from that everything true can be demonstrated by words on a screen or even that we learn mainly through arguments. That seems implicit in a lot of online silliness.

So, DS presents us with arguments that he thinks are just so clearly true and final and they are just silly.

There are answers to be found everywhere. It just takes being observant of that. I'm not a follower of anything in particular -- I think that's limited, as well as risky. So, I tend to offer observations and comments and challenges from that perspective here on the forum. And I find it entertaining to do so, to the same dramatic degree as the absolute claims are being made.

I think this is a better use of the forums than many uses. I mean if we really wanted to learn about philosophy there are better places to learn. Here we meet characters, memes, attitudes...often ones that hold sway and power in parts of real life. What happens when one pushes on those things? How do these characters maintain their positions? Do their positions still get their hooks into me and why? What happens if I say this? or this? Do the old arguments still flummox me? Is part of what they are saying necessary for my own balance? Or more than part?

That's the investigation/experiment for me. I have many of these voices in my head. Here I can meet them outside me, which makes the interaction between the main part of me and these voices easier to flow, in slow motion on a screen.

[Belinda]

I created this thread because I see some men claiming they know that which (even they can admit) is unknowable. And in the case of knowing a god to such a degree as many claim -- to know that god's words, thinking, desires, plans, preferences, commands, etc. -- essentially reduces that god down to be encapsulated by the pea brain of a human... which is.... stupid.

It's not only stupid, it's also blasphemy.

In fact, blasphemy does not consist so much in an insult addressed to God.
True blasphemy is the claim to know God!

And it is the result of the arrogance of superstition.

Because faith, the only possible faith, is faith in Nothingness.

God = Nothing

Faith consists in the hope that this Nothingness is the Good.
Any addition is superstition.

I call it idolatry, because it's idolising your own idea as o it were infallible.

[Lacewing]

Huge fear avoidance. If he [DS]could manage to feel his fear there and actually look/feel these people, he would realize that there are other options. But he's too cowardly to look.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

To me it looks like religion offers promises to escape the monsters which are actually (in large part) produced by religion itself. And believers use the idea of a supreme being to justify and excuse and deny all sorts of things, rather than facing and taking responsibility for that which their fear produces/creates.

Fear is natural but it is disastrous if we allow it to drive us. The way I see it, the best way to deal with fear is to replace it with love.

I have sympathy for anyone's coping mechanisms.

I do too... as long as those coping mechanisms don't impose anything on other people. And that includes any religion/ideology that preaches/claims condemnation for not believing in that religion/ideology. I see that as a despicable form of control and rejection being waged against the naturally divine while pretending to represent 'the only true form of the divine' as that person believes it to be.

The conversation expands when we reasonably consider 'that which is clearly pulsing throughout all' -- animating it, dancing through it, and communicating throughout the parts. It seems that many people cannot engage in such a conversation because we humans want to define and know on our own specific terms. But I think we can consider implications and potential without obsessing over imagined specifics. We can practice techniques and assess repeatable results. There doesn't have to be a big story associated with it -- for example: It's really no different than learning all throughout your life what you can do with your hands. It's natural and it is a practice of mastery.

So, DS presents us with arguments that he thinks are just so clearly true and final and they are just silly.

This is what I mean by 'absolute claims'. Very specific claims of absolute supreme knowing and applicability over all others. It makes no sense. Why can't each of our experiences/perspectives be fulfilling for us and shared while allowing others to be fulfilled by and share theirs -- rather than imposing one idea of 'knowing'? Is this Universe so limited that it cannot contain such potential? Or is it man that cannot allow such potential?

]There are answers to be found everywhere. It just takes being observant of that. I'm not a follower of anything in particular -- I think that's limited, as well as risky. So, I tend to offer observations and comments and challenges from that perspective here on the forum. And I find it entertaining to do so, to the same dramatic degree as the absolute claims are being made.

I think this is a better use of the forums than many uses. I mean if we really wanted to learn about philosophy there are better places to learn. Here we meet characters, memes, attitudes...often ones that hold sway and power in parts of real life. What happens when one pushes on those things? How do these characters maintain their positions? Do their positions still get their hooks into me and why? What happens if I say this? or this? Do the old arguments still flummox me? Is part of what they are saying necessary for my own balance? Or more than part?

Yes! It's fascinating! Questioning everything! And playing. Why do people hold or push specific ideas, and do those fit or distort the broader world? What are the similar ideas or insights between varying perspectives? Can we allow (and even embrace) diversity... if not, why?

That's the investigation/experiment for me. I have many of these voices in my head. Here I can meet them outside me, which makes the interaction between the main part of me and these voices easier to flow, in slow motion on a screen.

This forum and its characters have been, for me, an extraordinary tool for spotlighting various forms of captivity and nonsense in order to evolve beyond that, as well as being inspired and empowered through seeing a 'divine essence' existing throughout all in various ways and from various perspectives. It's the human noise I feel compelled to challenge (my own too) -- and the claims and interactions on this forum offer many great examples of that.

[Lacewing]

It's not only stupid, it's also blasphemy.

I call it idolatry, because it's idolising your own idea as o it were infallible.

I think that's a good description too.

Idolizing one's supposed infallible truth over that which resonates through all in many forms.

[bobmax]

It's not only stupid, it's also blasphemy.

In fact, blasphemy does not consist so much in an insult addressed to God.
True blasphemy is the claim to know God!

And it is the result of the arrogance of superstition.

I call it idolatry, because it's idolising your own idea as o it were infallible.

Yes, it can be understood as idolatry.

I think this claim to objectify the truth comes from the will to power. We create an idol and place it upon us, but it is actually our creation.

And so instead of opening ourselves to the Absolute, we close ourselves off.

[Age]

It's not only stupid, it's also blasphemy.

In fact, blasphemy does not consist so much in an insult addressed to God.
True blasphemy is the claim to know God!

And it is the result of the arrogance of superstition.

I call it idolatry, because it's idolising your own idea as o it were infallible.

Yes, it can be understood as idolatry.

I think this claim to objectify the truth comes from the will to power. We create an idol and place it upon us, but it is actually our creation.

And so instead of opening ourselves to the Absolute, we close ourselves off.

YOUR CONTRADICTIONS here "bobmax" are STRIKING.

Is CLAIMING to KNOW that God can NOT be KNOWN just ANOTHER form of 'arrogance of superstition'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Is that CLAIM just ANOTHER form of idolizing your OWN idea as though it was infallible?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Is YOUR CLAIM just ANOTHER idol, which you are 'trying to' PLACE UPON us? After all it is ACTUALLY just YOUR creation ONLY.

And, by CLAIMING that the Absolute can NOT be known just THE PRIMEST of EXAMPLES of instead of OPENING "your" 'self' UP to the Absolute, you are, literally, ACTUALLY CLOSING "your" 'self' OFF, COMPLETELY?

The HYPOCRISY here is Truly AMAZING.

[Age]

It's not only stupid, it's also blasphemy.

I call it idolatry, because it's idolising your own idea as o it were infallible.

I think that's a good description too.

Idolizing one's supposed infallible truth over that which resonates through all in many forms.

And a GREAT EXAMPLE of this IDOLIZING of ones supposed infallible truth OVER 'that', which resonates through ALL in many forms, is when one ACTUALLY CLAIMS that; 'There is NO one truth'. EXACTLY like what "lacewing", "itself", DOES.

"lacwing" is, LITERALLY, DOING EXACTLY what 'it' is 'trying to' RIDICULE and CLAIM is the WRONG thing TO DO.

And, "lacewing" DOES THIS in the most HYPOCRITICAL WAY. That is; "lacewing" CLAIMS that 'its' OWN IDOLIZED CLAIM and TRUTH is ACTUALLY 'one truth'.

"lacewing" ALSO PLACES this supposed 'infallible truth', which they HOLD as 'one truth' OVER 'that', which resonates through ALL in MANY FORMS, which, by the way, IS WHERE thee One ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS ACTUALLY FOUND and DISCOVERED.

But, "lacewing", like "others", will NEVER be ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this Truth' while they continue to IDOLIZE, HOLD ONTO, and be STUCK IN their OWN 'supposed infallible truths'.

[Walker]

That's clear and spot on, Age.

It's just so unfair, isn't it.

Do you think that pointing out this truth to the unjust, will change the injustice?

I think you're just asking for a double-down.