It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The two most important associations with God(s).

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
It really is something simple.
Whether you believe in God(s) or not.

The idea of God is familiar to just about everyone past the age of reason.

I'm bypassing the typical associations such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient" and "omnipresent"

and I'm sticking to 2 associations that are similar but re-worded - in that God(s)...

1. Creates

2. is More Intelligent.


From these 2 come all others exaggerations or magnifications of God(s)' Attributes such as being infinitely powerful in creating and infinitely intelligent. As well as all moral attributes as all loving or condemning.

Now let's go back in time. Because God(s) obviously has not always been even thought of as existing. Now I know a lot of people think that the concept of God is a cop-out on human understanding and nothing more than a fill-word for things we cannot explain. And the rise to the explanation of God came from the times where much was questioned an nothing was answered until the Idea of a creator came up to make sense of it all.

This thread is to elaborate on why we created God, but not eliminate the idea of God(s) at the same time.

You see - as people, we are distinctly different than all other living things (that we are aware of) because of two things - We are more Intelligent, and we understand Why we Create, We can even control and create other living things.

We are in a sense Gods to them - but we never called ourselves a God, because our existence is a mystery, thus something is responsible for even us. In many ways it only made sense for us to believe that Something very similar to us was responsible. Now What could that be?

Many intelligent modern and ancient philosophers were aware of the absurdity, that an invisible all powerful entitiy created existence, yet they didn't rule it out. Why?

The conundrum wasn't the lack of proof, to prove other wise - and today, that is still not the problem. The reason I believe they didn't rule it out and some even embraced the idea, was that as long as human beings existed - you truly can never rule out the Idea of God - because we posses the 2 most important features in life's discoveries. - We are More intelligent than all other living things, and we not only know how to Create - we know why (The same attributes we gave God)

As a disclaimer - I'm not proposing that human beings can be God(s)
what I am saying is that as long as those two abilities remain within us - The power and Idea of God(s) is arguably one that fits - or has the capability of fitting in the future.

and Please do not associate God as something so simple as bearded being spying on us and deciding our fate in something similar to a game. - I would encourage people to think much more abstractly.

edit: wording/phrasing



[edit on 24-4-2010 by juveous]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by juveous]




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


Dear juveous

I like this one and it is from a boffin who’s name I forget.

He thinks we are all part of a massive hologram, created by some future computer.

I like it for two reasons first it really upsets the religious. Second if true everything we know of could be true.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by MAC269]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


In many ways "God" has always been described with ambiguity - because we hold such an eminent value to the idea that - its almost as if we must sell our selves short in understanding to keep the notion of God's existence.

With that being said - what makes up God, has many interpretations and possibilities.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
1. Love

2. Light

Speaking from personal experience.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Everything is a personal experience now isn't it.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


Sounds right to me.

The emphasis on more instead of just a static amount is paramount. There is no stopping, there is always still creation and reaching out. That's an important aspect of it, maybe the most important, to go infinitely.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I get sick of threads like this, so sick it hurts my heart! Lol Please make it stop!
Do you want Endless Christian Threads here, or must we always be forced to answer in the somewhat antagonistic responses to athiests who have insulted our religion, our life experiences, our intelligence, our faith, and all the benefit we have found in that? If you hate God, and hate the concept of God then why do you even mention Him? Why do you not carry on in your own pursuits, roll your eyes at us, and move on? Because you can't! It's every brainiacs dream to encounter the great mysteries and somehow "publicly abolish them", and yet a child could understand God better than they.

All I can offer is a perspective snap which may be helpful. Please consider how to detect if a person is Speaking in Tongues.


Compare the genuine in the Bible with the fakes of today!


In the format of (for this thread):

First century
Vs
Today


Spoke a known language. Acts 2:8
Today don't even claim to use known languages.

Were understood. Acts 2:6; I Cor. 14:19
Don't claim to understand today.

Were edified. I Cor. 14:26
No such claim today.

Confirmed the word. Acts 10:46;Heb. 2:3-4
Today, they don't accept confirmed word today. Add to and deny it.

Spoke by turn. I Cor. 14:27
All speak together today in Mass confusion.

No interpreter? - Silence. I Cor. 14:28
Don't want to be interpreted today.

Sign to unbelievers. I Cor. 14:22
Used today for excitement.

For use of edifying I Cor. 14:26
Show, entertain.

Spirit subject to speaker. I Cor. 14:26-31
Today - "Don't stop me, I'm getting a revelation.

Spoke to profit the church I Cor. 14:6
No profit today.

Prayed for interpretation. I Cor. 14:13
Today - pray for tongue speaking.

Spoke to instruct. I Cor.14:13
Revel in confusion - no instruction.

Believed Gospel. Mark 16:16
Deny gospel because getting new revelation.

Spoke to benefit hearers. I Cor. 14:9
No so today. Benefit in glory of speaker.

Interpret so unlearned understand.; 1 Cor. 14:16
Interpretation not done today.

No accusation of madness. I Cor. 14:23
Today confusion rampant.

No confusion allowed. I Cor. 14:33
Today, all in confusion.

Women kept silence. I Cor. 14:34
All speak today. In regulating usage of gifts, women had not abilities.

Holy Spirit Baptism audible. No mistake in knowing H. S. came upon them. Acts 2:2
None will say so today.

Holy Spirit baptism visible. Not mistaken in seeing. Acts 2:3
None will say so today.

Holy Spirit baptism heard. No mistake in hearing. Acts 2:4
No so today.


Compare the truth with the fake:

Simon The Fake Vs Apostles the truth: Acts 8:5-13

Purpose of the gifts

Bible
modern pentecostals

To confirm god's word
word confirms gifts

Bring About Unity Of Faith
Many Different Churches Claim To Have

Gifts Confirm False Teachings

Miracles

Bible
modern pentecostals

Dependent On Faith Of Healer Acts 3:7
Dependent On Faith Of Person Healed

If Not Healed- "No Faith"

Truly Supernatural Acts 3:7
Scientific Explanation

Healings Were Instant Acts 3:8
Healings Usually Take Months

Healings Total Acts 3:8
Partial Improvement, Remission

Person Healed Known By All Acts 3:10
Person Often Unknown

Miracle Known By Miracle (Obvious)
Miracle Accepted By Personal Testimony

Even Enemies Accepted Acts 4:16
Highly Questionable, Always Internal and unseen

tongues

Bible
modern pentecostals

Real Human Language Acts 2:8
Total Gibberish And Nonsense

Max Of 3 In Church 1 Cor 14:27
More Than 3 Speak (visitors view as madness: 14:23)

Each Must Speak In Turn 14:27
Many Speak Simultaneously

If No Interpreter Keep Silent 14:28
Rarely Any "Interpreter"

Only One Interpretation Possible
Often Interpretations Vary

Emphasis On Public Demonstration
Emphasis On Private Devotion

Considered a childish gift of lesser importance 14:5
Stressed As A Sign Of Spirituality

A Sign To Unbelievers 14:22
A Sign To Believers


Ever looked into it? Please Google accounts on the miracle if this strikes a chord. It's a sign to non-believers that might help you understand faith from a miracle perspective. Imgine, you know someone doesn't speak a language, then they are speaking in it fluently, and the experience is documented. I don't need such proofs to know that God is real, and speaks to us, as in, everyday. Others may find they need this. I have looked into it in the past.

www.bible.ca...







[edit on 25-4-2010 by Northwarden]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


There was no prejudice in this thread until you entered it.

Noticed even how my title has a parenthesis around (s) after God - to not even rule out those who may believe that more than one exist.

I did not mention anything about Christianity or the Christian God.

This thread is about the Concept of God that early gnostics, mystics, and philosophers tried to understand and elaborate. Some even wrote allegorical stories on it. (I'm sure you are familiar with one of them).

How have I insulted you? and in way am I setting you up to answer antagonistically?

Again, give it some thought to others who you may not agree with who believe in higher powers that created existence - They have many names for God, but interestingly very similar attributes.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
My point was more realistic, to say that what we speak of about God, is also before the eye of God. I take offence only to the divine that made of put into the clam perspective of a contruct of the mind, someone for us to shape, while He can mold the clay, and shape the vase as He will. I find people are very black or white in their beliefs, so perhaps give me credit for perceptions in my mind that have allowed definitions of some very telling characteristics about us, senses we all should sharpen. It's not just an ego trip bro, I know what they are and take a decided look at issues too, not myself, not you or me, just the ideas at hand.

Make a copy of a post in your minds sometimes, and analyze that, instead of searching for the original person. The moment really is that frozen in time. We move on and see matters objectively. You are talking about God, after all. A certain elevated sense of importance and, I'll even wager at what is missing, decorum to the moment. Modern language doesn't seem to support that faculty well in it's succintness, so sometimes we have to raise the platform on our own where it doesn't exist.

It's a looking at the "what-doesn't exist", not the "what can we build on" sometimes.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
God has a height, not just a breadth and a width. How much can we be connected to at one time anyway? How much can you fill your mind with? Can we understand "ALL", of course not, we have our limits. You can't see all without seeing it? I think we can all visualize what is there. But what centers your mind to the source of the all, and do you politely ask there? I question that way a lot, it's healthy to do so.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


I like to do the one where there is no God yet - the local matter clumps seem uninhabited by conspicuous volition ...but there will be a God soon ...us humans are going to bring Him on, we're going to power up and turn pro and get-a-God/make-a-God/become-a-God, right quickly now...post-Singularity, as they say...

I must use an analogy to present this succinctly...All conscious beings are the sperm cells, and all the inert non-volitional matter laying around as the rest of the Universe is the egg cell...big, dumb for its size, but full of nutrition/energy/raw-materials...One of us conscious beings is going to fertilize the Universe, i.e. we - one of us, that is - will eat the Universe, assimilate it, transform its lumpishness into one new grand body, organized by our pattern of information, that we then use to fulfill our will the way we use our current little bodies now...

Of course, I'm not on the mailing list, so maybe this happened already a while ago...and the Universe that seems dully uninhabited and limp to me is actually even now being intensely micromanaged by some space-spider in furtherance of space-spider-yachting, or whatever...We could already have a local-Universe-God who I don't notice because my area and my activities are of little interest or concern, (and/or I am perfectly slaved to His plan), so He doesn't come around much or conspicuously grab my steering wheel...But I figure, the default assumption should be if you can't tell, then it doesn't matter...so I'm sticking with Plan A, and agitating to God-up ASAP...

(And that spacebaby was about to destroy the Earth there, at the end of 2001 : A Space Odyssey...Hell yes...You betcha).


[edit on 25-4-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
My thought is the notion of 'God' is a mechanism/method to still/quiet/calm the mind & fulfill our need/desire for coherence in the world around us.

Certainly calming the nervous system can be useful under many [most?] circumstances.

Where we get into very big problems with this is when we start making all sorts of neurotic additions to it, ie. superstitions. You have to read & worship the sacred text, sacrifice the animal, the child, go through the [secret?] ritual.
This is really problematic when it involves persons other than ourselves or other living things or damages the environment we all depend on to sustain us & all living species.

Additionally our need/desire for coherence may rear its potentially ugly head in 'science'. We have a strong bias to favor/find some coherent explanation instead of being truly objective & open to either incoherence in the world around us or at least it being vastly beyond any explanation or understanding we can get our little heads/brains around.

There are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational ones. How is it we, our lucky selves, are going to forever find a [continuous?] string of unending rational ones? Does that really make mathematical sense?

In a sense if you live in a universe where rational numbers are always the fruits of other rational numbers doesn't it become a kind of circular self referencing system that can never go anywhere? And when you get into fractal &/or fractioning logic & let it run unimpeded of its own accord it starts branching to almost irretrievable minutia anyway.

I think we need to come from a place of delicacy rather than blocky, inarticulate 'force-of-will'. The less [tyrannical, dictatorial] we are the more open we are to possibilities/alternatives. We must let the Universe [other?] move through us & perhaps live in us, rather than always treat it as a pickled corpse we are forever dissecting. If the Universe is forever & absolutely 'out there' it will always be 'the alien' to us.

The island of the known [tonal?] is its own prison. That isn't to say it doesn't have positive attributes, but if no part of it is open to the uncertain, the unknown then it can never grow in scope nor in richness of detail.

If you always find a conclusive explanation from your data, would that suggest a reflex to 'find' a conclusion at least as much as something actually conclusive?
We always try to make linear, [or at least] deterministic, predictive/predictable projections from current data.

Are we 'finding' 'answers' because we are inclined to be 'answer-finders' or because there are actual answers we are finding?

Again, clear, careful impressionism may more truly reflect what our experience has to tell us. Reflecting the polydimensional foundation of our existence rather than trying to shoehorn a higher dimension reality in to some flattened reduced simplification. Taken to extremes that can have sick & dire consequences.

We can get [are?] addicted to simple. Reality by virtually everyone's experience is complex & regularly unexpected.

Reality is what is at issue, not our addictions to simplicity.
If we have a sustenance genuine need of some simplicity, let us keep it rationed & measured as possible.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
I take offence only to the divine that made of put into the clam perspective of a contruct of the mind, someone for us to shape, while He can mold the clay, and shape the vase as He will.


Forgive me, but I just have a hard time understanding you. Elaborate on this for me - if you want.

Do you understand the point of my OP? The discussion is to be open-ended.
As for your other post

Originally posted by Northwarden
How much can you fill your mind with? Can we understand "ALL", of course not, we have our limits. You can't see all without seeing it? I think we can all visualize what is there. But what centers your mind to the source of the all, and do you politely ask there?

This paragraph is vague and I don't know how you believe people aren't going to misinterpret it? - If you are going avoid being specific for any reason then its useless discussing it.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I'm confused...

We are the gods now?

I was pretty convinced God was the sun



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


THIS is what i meant by thinking abstractly! thanks!



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 



Atheist tried to kill the idea of God...Nietzsche said...

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

There has been a lot of debate about God, and who he actually is. To me, the order of the universe validates that there is indeed a God with a purpose that we cannot come to understand. In order to understand God, we would have to truly understand infinity. We have an idea of infinity, but we can't truly fathom the concept...if we could, we have to start with a single dot, and go both ways forever, but since forever is forever, and we're bound by time...we will never come to a conclusion as to what infinity actually is. (if that makes since)

The idea of God is ineffable! I believe that trying to understand the motives and thoughts of God would be similar to a cockroach trying to understand our motives and thoughts.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I guess a lot of it comes down to what is our/one's philosophic foundation of operation.

As an atheist it is inherently non-reflexive. Always a bit alive & uncertain.
I [propositionally with a bias to certainty] pose that i exist. & my self described mission is navigating a path of sustenance & moderately interesting experience to make my existence as relatively continuous through time & as neurologically 'rewarding' as possible.

thumbs up? thumbs down? maybe?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
I take offence only to the divine that made of put into the clam perspective of a contruct of the mind, someone for us to shape, while He can mold the clay, and shape the vase as He will.



Forgive me, but I just have a hard time understanding you. Elaborate on this for me - if you want.


I don't usually give explanations for what is self-explanatory, and I'm sorry you took it so personally. Please forgive me too.


Do you understand the point of my OP? The discussion is to be open-ended.
As for your other post

Originally posted by Northwarden
How much can you fill your mind with? Can we understand "ALL", of course not, we have our limits. You can't see all without seeing it? I think we can all visualize what is there. But what centers your mind to the source of the all, and do you politely ask there?

This paragraph is vague and I don't know how you believe people aren't going to misinterpret it? - If you are going avoid being specific for any reason then its useless discussing it.


It's inconclusive as to how anyone should take it, and it's just as inconclusive as your open ended thread is, perhaps by way of proof that I understood your OP. It just gets kind of dull hearing the crap in some of these threads lately.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Repeating with elaborations,
the idea of 'God' is a quieter of negative emotions, excitement or a bringer of [presumed] coherence with positive emotions, excitement,

the question is,

is it you choosing to bring this into your life,

or someone else forcing it upon you, raping your mind/life with their [religion/god] bludgeon?

[edit on 25-4-2010 by slank]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Historymajor
reply to post by juveous
 

The idea of God is ineffable! I believe that trying to understand the motives and thoughts of God would be similar to a cockroach trying to understand our motives and thoughts.


Don't you see that this serves as the excuse to never attempt to understand it? try telling a cave man how TV works and then play a TV show, they will worship you for you knowledge and supreme wisdom.
People have grown so much over thousands of years and there seems to be no end to our capabilities because we are always surprising ourselves.
This is why the idea of God should not be ineffable, it should be the terminus in our journey through this unexplainable existence!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join