What is God?

[SolitaryWalker]

I do. I can't prove that he hears or that he exists, but I speak to him and believe that he hears. I don't think I could stop if I wanted to. It's like instinct or something.

I dont think there is anything instinctual about this, but no doubt it feels like it because you've been doing it for so long that it resembles something that is second nature to you.

This has nothing to do with our innate predispositions, it is merely habits inculcated by consistent repitition.

People who first came up with the idea of 'talking to god', were mostly INJs who entertained powerful intuitions just like our modern day prophets along the lines of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.

3000 years ago when men were uncouth and bewildered they interpreted everything anthropomorphically. Much analogously to how children tend to think the world revolves around them. The more primitive our thinking is, the more likely we are to think anthropomorphically. Hence, INJs of 3000 years back perceived their powerful intuitions as a person who resembled their father figure or God.

Yet Nietzsche and Dostoevsky were realists enough to understand that what they had going on was no more than a powerful connection to the realm of abstract thought. Had they lived several thousand years back, no doubt they would have had intricate mythological characters representing their ideas that we'd be reading in our gospels today. Whoever does the best job of appealing to the tastes and prejudices of the common folk will be the most influential visionary. So, it is no surprise that prophets who spoke about how God shared all the tastes and prejudices of the conventional man of their community were hailed as geniuses.

God is to be thought of as a metaphor for the greatest possible good in the universe. Such a notion could only be abstract and can not manifest itself in concrete terms, therefore direct revelation is not possible. The best that we have is the attempts of prophets to translate their connection with the infinite realm into concrete terms. Prayer, if aimed at the proper ingredients of profound thought may link you to the infinite realm, but in most cases it doesnt because people have toned down the idea of 'god' too much. You need to be in tune with the abstract as much as possible in order to reach the infinite realm, yet god has been turned into something very concrete. Hence, people do not worship god ( using their unconscious mind to intuitively grasp the infinite essence, or the greatest good of the universe), but merely worshipping the convention. Thinking that it is the concrete picturizations of god from the Bible that comprise the greatest good that there is, and that virtue is no more than doing the concretely expressed good deeds spoken off in the Bible, and not some amorphous force that could be grasped only intuitively through the unconscious mind that shall transform you from within.

So, in the end what we have is the following; prophets may have accessed god with their powerful imaginations through the unconscious and this transformed them from within. They described their experiences to other highly intuitive people, and it worked, they followed them on their words and were able to use their imagination to access the infinite realm that the previous prophets spoke off. So, they figured, why cant everybody do this, only if they could understand the teaching, they'd also be transformed from within just like we were. Okay, so lets make the story as simplistic as possible, just to ensure that absolutely everybody gets it, and then they will imagine the vision that we had and it will appeal to their unconscious and they shall be reborn!

No...not to be.. the sensors could not see past the symbols and did not receive the true message by envisioning the vision the prophets intended to convey. They thought that there were literal sheep and goats and literal shepherds and a literal king on the throne who physically throws you into the lake of fire or speaks to you directly like a human being without even attempting to grasp the message that underlies all of this.

Anyhow,everyone, that is my take on god and 'talking to god', hope this helps.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

My imaginary friend is an elf, she is soooo cool lol, she promises that one day, if I am extra good, I will be allowed to go to the far away lands too.

Thats much better than having 'god' as your imaginary friend, or 'Jesus'. I wouldnt have a problem with that either so long as people regarded it as that.

I think it is much more congenial to say: suppose there is a man(archetype) who resembles the man who called himself Jesus.

What qualities do we think a sage should have, lets think this matter through thoroughly...So there we go...we have a list of all positive qualities we could imagine...we now know what a perfect man archetype is like. We are referring to Jesus amidst all of this because we think he may have been the best man that has ever lived, though not necessarily perfect.

So, now we have an idea of what a 'good person' is like, this will be very helpful as most people have no perspective and need to be told exactly how to live. And if we reinforce how he behaved (not necessarily what was in his heart), we will set an example for how everyone should behave. Hence we will have a rigid order in society that will allow for us to always stay in power and govern the multitude. Sensors go by memory, so the older the practice is, the more vividly they will remember it, and the stronger their memories, the more they will value the ritual. So, if we force the issue hard enough and win the hearts and minds of many people with the Jesus stature, we will have the multitude follow us for long enough for the set of teaching that we put in Jesus' mouth to ossify. And after it ossifies, most will behave in the way we prescribed. The way that we need them to behave to retain power which will be inherited only by our family members.


Now, that is the real state of the case. Not that anyone who seriously thought about this matter seriously could certify that those matters were true. Obviously, religion is a product of custom and not insight. No preacher wins over followers through profound erudition, but only through forcefulness of his demeanors. A good preacher shows his skill when he has people going along with him without having a slightest clue to what he is saying.




Yes, it would be helpful to have an imaginary friend even for those of us who are highly intuitive, such an imaginary friend may symbolize our idea of what a perfect person may be like. Or whatever archetype we hold dearly, but when we take it out of this context and make it concrete enough for sensors--nothing good can come out of this. At best it will poison your thinking, just like when I was a child I was trying to come up with justifications for existence of Santa-Claus--for, maybe I thought he had keys to everyone's house, or he could climb roofs, enter through the ceiling..and so on...when I was a Christian, I was wondering maybe god could break laws of physics or maybe there could be laws of physics that allow for miracles to happen...was pathetic...

And in the worst case scenario, if it really gets concrete enough to fall into the hands of most sensors (the idea of an imaginary friend who represents the best possible person there could be)--it will almost certainly be used as an instrument of their personal vendetta. As we see, the stature of prominent religious leaders was often exploited by many for political gain.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Lets talk about whatever superstitions we maintain in regards to that matter and their prudence and lack thereof.

I dont want to hear about your tastes and prejudices on the subject or your personal superstitions, but only explorations of this phenomenon in an endeavor to reach the truth about the 'question of God.'

 

[spirilis]

I dont think there is anything instinctual about this, but no doubt it feels like it because you've been doing it for so long that it resembles something that is second nature to you.

This has nothing to do with our innate predispositions, it is merely habits inculcated by consistent repitition.

People who first came up with the idea of 'talking to god', were mostly INJs who entertained powerful intuitions just like our modern day prophets along the lines of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.

3000 years ago when men were uncouth and bewildered they interpreted everything anthropomorphically. Much analogously to how children tend to think the world revolves around them. The more primitive our thinking is, the more likely we are to think anthropomorphically. Hence, INJs of 3000 years back perceived their powerful intuitions as a person who resembled their father figure or God.

Yet Nietzsche and Dostoevsky were realists enough to understand that what they had going on was no more than a powerful connection to the realm of abstract thought. Had they lived several thousand years back, no doubt they would have had intricate mythological characters representing their ideas that we'd be reading in our gospels today. Whoever does the best job of appealing to the tastes and prejudices of the common folk will be the most influential visionary. So, it is no surprise that prophets who spoke about how God shared all the tastes and prejudices of the conventional man of their community were hailed as geniuses.

God is to be thought of as a metaphor for the greatest possible good in the universe. Such a notion could only be abstract and can not manifest itself in concrete terms, therefore direct revelation is not possible. The best that we have is the attempts of prophets to translate their connection with the infinite realm into concrete terms. Prayer, if aimed at the proper ingredients of profound thought may link you to the infinite realm, but in most cases it doesnt because people have toned down the idea of 'god' too much. You need to be in tune with the abstract as much as possible in order to reach the infinite realm, yet god has been turned into something very concrete. Hence, people do not worship god ( using their unconscious mind to intuitively grasp the infinite essence, or the greatest good of the universe), but merely worshipping the convention. Thinking that it is the concrete picturizations of god from the Bible that comprise the greatest good that there is, and that virtue is no more than doing the concretely expressed good deeds spoken off in the Bible, and not some amorphous force that could be grasped only intuitively through the unconscious mind that shall transform you from within.

So, in the end what we have is the following; prophets may have accessed god with their powerful imaginations through the unconscious and this transformed them from within. They described their experiences to other highly intuitive people, and it worked, they followed them on their words and were able to use their imagination to access the infinite realm that the previous prophets spoke off. So, they figured, why cant everybody do this, only if they could understand the teaching, they'd also be transformed from within just like we were. Okay, so lets make the story as simplistic as possible, just to ensure that absolutely everybody gets it, and then they will imagine the vision that we had and it will appeal to their unconscious and they shall be reborn!

No...not to be.. the sensors could not see past the symbols and did not receive the true message by envisioning the vision the prophets intended to convey. They thought that there were literal sheep and goats and literal shepherds and a literal king on the throne who physically throws you into the lake of fire or speaks to you directly like a human being without even attempting to grasp the message that underlies all of this.

Anyhow,everyone, that is my take on god and 'talking to god', hope this helps.

So while I'm not sure I have too much to add here, as I've rarely indulged that thought of "all that is good," I've had this same theory about how the concept of "God" was created for a while. That it is a mistakenly concrete manifestation of something totally abstract. This became even more evident with a book I just read, where it was mentioned that Jung thought of the archetype of the "self" as "God within." He had high regards to what this "self" archetype was and what it meant, being an integral unconscious counterpart to the ego.

Even then, with all that taken into account, I do not understand the point of "talking" to this abstract "God" nor worshipping it in any way. Seems superfluous and pointless, UNLESS for most people it evokes some form of self-growth... ie if it has utility value from a psychological standpoint (in the same way that writing down stuff in a journal can help you think it through), then I guess I shouldn't judge believers too quickly. But if that is the case, then I can't mistake their concept of "God" with some kind of empirical truth of the universe.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So while I'm not sure I have too much to add here, as I've rarely indulged that thought of "all that is good," I've had this same theory about how the concept of "God" was created for a while. That it is a mistakenly concrete manifestation of something totally abstract. This became even more evident with a book I just read, where it was mentioned that Jung thought of the archetype of the "self" as "God within." He had high regards to what this "self" archetype was and what it meant, being an integral unconscious counterpart to the ego.

Even then, with all that taken into account, I do not understand the point of "talking" to this abstract "God" nor worshipping it in any way. Seems superfluous and pointless, UNLESS for most people it evokes some form of self-growth... ie if it has utility value from a psychological standpoint (in the same way that writing down stuff in a journal can help you think it through), then I guess I shouldn't judge believers too quickly. But if that is the case, then I can't mistake their concept of "God" with some kind of empirical truth of the universe.

Worshipping isnt used in a way you seem to be thinking of. Basically, when you embrace the infinite realm, and it transforms you from the unconscious--that is worshipping as I have used that word. It just means to be in tune with the greatest good that there is. Worshipping in the vernacular sense of the word implies devaluing yourself in favor of a higher personal diety. Thats not at all what we have going on here. Far from moving towards self-abnegation, you become in tune with the infinite realm in order to perfect your inner being. Paradoxically enough, religions may argue that you can perfect your nature by first doing the self-abnegation, but I do not think that this is the route to salvation. Attainment of inner peace is what perfects your nature. Yet, the closer you move in towards self-abnegation, the more distant you will be from inner peace. Ethically fulfilled individuals do not truly sacrifice themselves, like for instance Mother Theresa actually reaffirms her inner being by being selfless as opposed to surrendering it. She helps others because it is a source of inner gratification for her.

 

[spirilis]

Worshipping isnt used in a way you seem to be thinking of. Basically, when you embrace the infinite realm, and it transforms you from the unconscious--that is worshipping as I have used that word. It just means to be in tune with the greatest good that there is. Worshipping in the vernacular sense of the word implies devaluing yourself in favor of a higher personal diety. Thats not at all what we have going on here. Far from moving towards self-abnegation, you become in tune with the infinite realm in order to perfect your inner being.

Hm, ok--so by "worshipping" what we do, in essence, is indulge the idea of the "greatest good" and try to establish its pulse, to determine our alignment to it and get the thoughts flowing to the end of which we can grow and perfect ourselves, inching closer and closer to this ideal state?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Hm, ok--so by "worshipping" what we do, in essence, is indulge the idea of the "greatest good" and try to establish its pulse, to determine our alignment to it and get the thoughts flowing to the end of which we can grow and perfect ourselves, inching closer and closer to this ideal state?

Correct.

 

[spirilis]

Correct.

Another thought in that same direction which came to me... If some people have trouble embodying the idea of the "greatest good" in a way that they can apply to their lives, it would be appropriate to find some form of analogy or metaphor with which they can relate, correct?

So for some people, who have trouble relating their life to an abstract idea but do, on the other hand, have an easy time relating themself to the actions and behaviors of another person, the idea of "God" as a perfect man or woman may be appropriate to allow them to appreciate this idea in their own way. It's just that one must accept such a situation with caution because of the risk that others may take their concrete "God-as-human" example and adopt it when it may not be appropriate for them.

Or I suppose to put it in a more Jungian terminology, "God" is the archetype of "the greatest good," its physical manifestation and symbol may be numerous in count.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Or I suppose to put it in a more Jungian terminology, "God" is the archetype of "the greatest good," its physical manifestation and symbol may be numerous in count.

Yes, the greatest good can manifest in a myriad of fashions.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

God is an imaginary friend for weak minded adults who can't deal with reality.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

God is an imaginary friend for weak minded adults who can't deal with reality.

I thought I had this covered in the two opening posts. It may even be a good idea for a strong-minded person to envision the archetype of God so long as they acknowledge it as that.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

People, what are your reasons for believing in God?

 

[Recluse]

I sent my soul into the invisible,
Some letter of that after life to spell.
And by and by my soul returned to me
And answered, I myself am heaven and hell.
-- Omar Khayyam [Rubaiyat]

Edit: This is not a reply to BlueWing's last post but rather a thought that popped into my mind after reading the opening post and subsequent discussion. I am still exploring these issues--my thoughts are not yet solidified, causing me to vacillate between atheistic and agnostic beliefs.

 

[Tayshaun]

No personal God.

If God is the unifying feature of nature, its structure and fundamental energy, there is no reason not to accept pantheism as a matter of definition, an approach.

 

[findthejake]

I grew up in a very christian home. Very churchy and all that.

Now I tend to side with Mark Twain, if there is a God then he is not good and he is not loving and life is a cruel joke for his amusement.

It's a depressing thought so I've turned to happier ones like living for today.

 

[Eileen]

I do not intellectually believe in a personal God, but I give my heart over to the idea of it. The story of a personal God--in particular, for me, the Christian God--is one that is edifying, even if I can't intellectually accept it as factual.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I do not intellectually believe in a personal God, but I give my heart over to the idea of it. The story of a personal God--in particular, for me, the Christian God--is one that is edifying, even if I can't intellectually accept it as factual.

Do Gods of Olympus and Islam seem less charismatic to you? If so, why?

 

[Eileen]

People, what are your reasons for believing in God?

The belief in God is never truly about reason or logic, imo. It is... alogical... (teeheehee). The belief that I have in a loving God is one hundred percent an emotional, spiritual impulse that has nothing to do with evidence or the sort of reason that we've come to expect in our age.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The belief in God is never truly about reason or logic, imo. It is... alogical... (teeheehee). The belief that I have in a loving God is one hundred percent an emotional, spiritual impulse that has nothing to do with evidence or the sort of reason that we've come to expect in our age.

So, you're ok with believing in God even though you know that there is no reason to believe in anything of the like?

 

[Eileen]

Do Gods of Olympus and Islam seem less charismatic to you? If so, why?

I choose the Christian god because it is my context--but yes, I'd say that I find the Christian god a good deal more irresistible than the Olympians... I'd say that the Islamic god is related to the Christian god in no small way, so I may find resonance there, but those stories are not my stories.