posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 12:02 PM
Originally posted by depth om
If you're looking for an image of God you wont find it here. The eyes aren't the only things that see.
I would say the same thing. But maybe to many more words and not as eloquent.
God is not even something that can be thought. You can feel God. Love is the most accurate I have found for any description. But any description is
only a description.
Poets seem to be better at describing such things. Scientists are like Priests of any religion. All believe only within a strata of culture,
language and symbol. I suspect no way is "thee" way. All ways is the way.
Binding force of Atoms? Zeropoint, Time/space, Quantum infinite potential? All are just descriptions in the end. Symbols of something that cannot
be described. The more we try and define, the further we wander from any valid sense.
Stories in biblical text talk of the "experience" of God, but not God him/her/itself. We all have our stories. It is more in "how" we say what
God is than "what" we say God is. Any path up a mountain will lead to the top.
Some religious thought and doctrine forbid such an assumption that God can be described. Call it a sin to try. Even to mention a name for God, as
such a linear and limited form of identification that gives an impression God can be even referenced in finite reality. I see that point, but have
(This is paraphrased as it is a 30 year old memory)
A Zen Scholar D.T. Suzuki in a lecture was questioned on his points about his citing that any discussion about the ultimate question was wrong, and it
was pointed out that because he himself was discussing this, if he would be wrong also. He replied that was correct, and that he would surly burn in
hell for this, but added this gem quote;
"It is improper to speak of it, but misleading not to."