The GOD Thread~

[Avocado]

First, I've been watching this thread a bit and it's got me to thinking. Look out. That's dangerous. I'm just warning you. haha.

Secondly, I interpreted the original post [or at least this updated version; I haven't read the older portions of the thread.] to be for those who already believed or have had some sort of experience. She didn't say she wanted to hear about whether or not we believed in the validity or existence of a god. I think that somehow the thread went that way anyways. However I may be wrong in my interpretation. So, to me, the solution is simple. If you don't believe in God, don't read a thread addressed to those who do. That's like going to a bar and complaining because that there's alcohol. So, I suggest that if you want to argue the existence of God then dedicate a thread to "Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--warning, it is the thread that never ends." Because [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] is right. Arguing the existence is endless. Arguments sound like a bunch of people all just trying to prove who's right, like a massive ego trip. Either believe or don't believe but don't belittle or make fun of others who choose to see things differently.

I'm not trying to sound harsh. I'm just saying that I feel like the thread got derailed a little bit along the way. If I am wrong and the OP meant for it to be a discussion about the existence or non-existence of a deity, then I apologize, but I interpreted it to be addressed to those who had a positive experience. I took it to mean that she wanted to hear about those experiences.

I will make such a thread and leave this one alone.

 

[Ene]

I will make such a thread and leave this one alone.

I think that's a good idea.

 

[indra]

I have a hunch that such a being is as real as time-traveling dinosaurs who live on a planet circling the next star over though.

Oh hey, Turok fan?

 

[prplchknz]

I can disprove specific many specific god-claims, but the larger concept of god and gods is, in fact, untouchable. The flood story, for example, is so ridiculous that it can only be mythology. If one portion of the Bible is mythology, what of the other parts? This only applies to the God of the Bible, but I feel I have made a pretty solid case against that specific god.

I can neither prove nor disprove a being who does not interfere with daily life. I have a hunch that such a being is as real as time-traveling dinosaurs who live on a planet circling the next star over though.

I will say this, though, religion is not all that bad if it is moderate and makes room for science and reason.

there could've been a major flood in the region though. the mesopotamian's also had a flood story that sounds similar to the noah one. but that's just saying there could have been a flood. more of flood's happen but we didn't have the technology to explain it back then. most things that can now be explained by science but not really any other way got explained with religion. I don't think the whole earth flooded, but it's not unreasonable considering there was not really good transportation and people had limited scope of the world that to them the flood was the whole world. especially if it's big enough. and both religions are from pretty much the same region. but there's no evidence of the stories being around because of a flood or if they're even the same flood

The hypothesis that the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak represent the same event is no more than an assumption. Flood events occurred with frequency throughout southern Mesopotamia, as the two separate early flood levels at Kish indicate. Even more so than the Ur flood, the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak fail to fulfill the biblical or even the Mesopotamian literary descriptions. In the degree to which those descriptions are "rationalized," any criteria for distinguishing between the biblical Flood and virtually any other flood disappear. The flood remains at Kish and Shuruppak are hardly imposing. The silt at Kish averages less than ten inches thick, and the deposit at Shuruppak is about fifteen inches-in comparison to up to eleven feet of material at Ur (Raikes, 1967, pp. 52-63). The severity of a flood cannot necessarily be deduced from the thickness of an isolated sample of the flood deposit. It is nonetheless suggestive that thicker, more impressive deposits from another flood have been discovered at Kish, dating too late to be identified with the innundation of the Bible and Mesopotamian literature, and yet that later flood left no record in history (Watelin, 1934, pp. 41-43; Mallowan, 1964, pp. 78-79 and plate XX). All that remains is the possibility that the Kish and Shuruppak materials do represent the same event and coincide chronologically with the date of about 2900 BCE for the Flood of Mesopotamian literary tradition.

The flood materials from Ur, Kish, and Shuruppak were excavated over half a century ago. Woolley's description of the flood level at Ur is far from scientific. It is not even possible to be sure of the exact number of sondages in which he found flood remains. While attempts to dismiss the remains of the Ur flood as merely windblown sand are unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiatable, the two "scientific" examinations of materials from the Ur flood stratum are, by modern standards, vague and inconclusive. The same situation prevails at Kish and Shuruppak (Raikes, 1967, pp. 52-63). In all probability, the finds do represent floods, but the exact character of those events—fluvial or marine, rapid or slow deposition, unitary or episodic—remains unknown. The hydrology of southern Mesopotamia is very complex. Renewed excavation and modern scientific techniques could probably solve many of these questions, but current political and military conditions would seem to preclude any such activity in the near future. Until the situation changes, there are no compelling grounds on which to conclude that the Flood story found its ultimate beginning in an actual event that has been identified at Kish and Shuruppak or anywhere else in Mesopotamia.

The endemic character of flooding in southern Mesopotamia may well have been sufficient to generate the story about a supreme Flood, and the attachment of that story to a specific, long-passed, ill-known historical context may, in fact, be late and unreliable. The earliest edition of the Sumerian King List certainly includes no list of antediluvian kings, and the presence of reference to the Flood is in doubt. It may first have been added much later, during a period in which the Flood story was popular (Civil, 1969, p. 139). Ultimately, the search for a local Mesopotamian flood upon which a rationalization of the Bible story can be based may prove as illusionary as the search for Noah's ark.

The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | NCSE

(I've not read the whole thing just skimmed it, because it's long, I was looking for evidence for my argument)

 

[Avocado]

Oh hey, Turok fan?

Yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Take it to the new thread.

- - - Updated - - -

there could've been a major flood in the region though. the mesopotamian's also had a flood story that sounds similar to the noah one. but that's just saying there could have been a flood. more of flood's happen but we didn't have the technology to explain it back then. most things that can now be explained by science but not really any other way got explained with religion. I don't think the whole earth flooded, but it's not unreasonable considering there was not really good transportation and people had limited scope of the world that to them the flood was the whole world. especially if it's big enough. and both religions are from pretty much the same region. but there's no evidence of the stories being around because of a flood or if they're even the same flood



The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | NCSE

(I've not read the whole thing just skimmed it, because it's long, I was looking for evidence for my argument)

Take it to the new thread.

 

[prplchknz]

Yes.

- - - Updated - - -

Take it to the new thread.

- - - Updated - - -



Take it to the new thread.

seriously? you replied to me in this thread. don't higher moralize me. plus I wasn't trying to prove the existence of god

 

[HongDou]

I have a hunch that such a being is as real as time-traveling dinosaurs who live on a planet circling the next star over though.

Maybe God is on the next star over and Earth is just the pet fish tank.

 

[SD45T-2]

Former Cult Members Find New Life In Christ

Helen Hurley of the Fellowship House in Hanover, NH, where cult
survivors are being given a chance to return to the real world,
be reborn and ascend into Heaven for all eternity through devotion
to the one true Savior, Jesus Christ.


"Look," she said, her expression turning serious, "some of the men and women who have come through the Fellowship House were actually involved in ritual cannibalism at one time. Now they can turn their back on darkness and confusion. They are free to take their first communion, and in the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, they have been washed of their sins by the blood of the Lamb."

After all, isn't that what it's really all about?

Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox thing. Protestants (that would include me) generally think it's a silly idea.


And now for something completely different:

 

[93JC]

Maybe God is on the next star over and Earth is just the pet fish tank.

 

[Coriolis]

god arguments are stupid. you can neither prove nor disprove god. there can not be an end, it's just back and forth.

Amen!

I can disprove specific many specific god-claims, but the larger concept of god and gods is, in fact, untouchable. The flood story, for example, is so ridiculous that it can only be mythology. If one portion of the Bible is mythology, what of the other parts? This only applies to the God of the Bible, but I feel I have made a pretty solid case against that specific god.

No, you have made a case against specific claims humans have made for God in that context. The existence of the God revered by those who wrote the Bible is independent of their skill in making a case for him in their writings.

Secondly, I interpreted the original post [or at least this updated version; I haven't read the older portions of the thread.] to be for those who already believed or have had some sort of experience. She didn't say she wanted to hear about whether or not we believed in the validity or existence of a god. I think that somehow the thread went that way anyways. However I may be wrong in my interpretation. So, to me, the solution is simple. If you don't believe in God, don't read a thread addressed to those who do. That's like going to a bar and complaining because that there's alcohol. So, I suggest that if you want to argue the existence of God then dedicate a thread to "Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--warning, it is the thread that never ends." Because [MENTION=360]prplchknz[/MENTION] is right. Arguing the existence is endless. Arguments sound like a bunch of people all just trying to prove who's right, like a massive ego trip. Either believe or don't believe but don't belittle or make fun of others who choose to see things differently..

These lines in the OP

Also, I'd love to dialogue with you about God related issues.
If you have questions, please share them.

suggest that the scope of the thread is broader than what you outline here. The question of whether God exists at all is definitely a "God related issue". That being said, there is certainly room for a thread where believers can share their thoughts and experiences, predicated on the assumption that God does exist.

This still leads to trouble, though, since even among believers, perspectives on God differ considerably. Some people think that people whose views of God differ from theirs don't believe in the "real" God, and are in some way infidels, or at least wrong. I believe in a divine power, for instance, but I guarantee my views on it are markedly different from those of (ironically named) AproditeGoneAwry. We have discussed this here on this and other threads. Throughout history, there has probably been more enmity, distrust, and outright violence between various groups of believers than between believers and atheists/agnostics. The latter in particular seem to avoid conflict, and feel no need to force their views on others (with exceptions, of course).

 

[Cimarron]

Conservationists and environmentalists might appreciate Psalm 104. Kind of long, but the theme of nature and humankind co-existing, and the balance of everything is in there.

He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains.

11
They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

12
The birds of the sky nest by the waters;
they sing among the branches.

13
He waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
the land is satisfied by the fruit of His work.

14
He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for people to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:

15
wine that gladdens human hearts,
oil to make their faces shine,
and bread that sustains their hearts.

16
The trees of the Lord are well watered,
the cedars of Lebanon that He planted.

17
There the birds make their nests;
the stork has its home in the junipers.

18
The high mountains belong to the wild goats;
the crags are a refuge for the hyrax.



19
He made the moon to mark the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.

20
You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.

21
The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.

22
The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.

23
Then people go out to their work,
to their labor until evening.



24
How many are Your works, Lord!
In wisdom You made them all;
the earth is full of Your creatures.

25
There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.

26
There the ships go to and fro,
and Leviathan, which You formed to frolic there.



27
All creatures look to You
to give them their food at the proper time.

28
When You give it to them,
they gather it up;
when You open Your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.

29
When You hide Your face,
they are terrified;
when You take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.

30
When You send Your Spirit,
they are created,
and You renew the face of the ground.

 

[Mole]

"To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower.."

We never left the Garden. We are still there, we have simply forgotten how to be. Heaven is in the present moment. If only you learn to see again, slip away from all you've known.. the garden holds such incredible beauty..

"Gratitude is heaven itself." -William Blake

Yes, this is called mysticism. It is available to believers and non-believers.

And interestly almost all religions have a mystical strand. And the mysticism of very different religions is startlingly the same.

A good way to get into mysticism is to fall in love with a mystic. This is easy because most mytics are ineffably loveable. I fell in love with the mystic Simone Weil (pronounced Vey), the first female graduate of the Sorbonne. And I carry her in my heart.

There are of course many mystics from many religions and none. Evee favours William Blake, but who is the mystic for you?

 

[Ene]

Also, I'd love to dialogue with you about God related issues.
If you have questions, please share them.
suggest that the scope of the thread is broader than what you outline here. The question of whether God exists at all is definitely a "God related issue". That being said, there is certainly room for a thread where believers can share their thoughts and experiences, predicated on the assumption that God does exist

.

As I said, I was only basing my words on the statement made in the opening line of the thread's resurrection, I apologize.

However, I do not apologize for my opinion that such arguments are seemingly endless.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox thing. Protestants (that would include me) generally think it's a silly idea.

funny video.

Protestants still take communion. I've been to at least 7 non-catholic churches that do. Some DO see it as more symbolic, but it is still odd to me.

But the Bible is so full of silliness, it doesn't even matter.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. ~Matthew 4:3,4

I like celebrating the eucharist as much as possible. It's a ceremony where we honor Jesus' death for us, and reaffirm our faith in Him. I even keep wafers by my bedside and have a ritual I do, sometimes reciting the shema.

I think this is an important part of worship that non denominational churches have lost. I did it growing up as an Episcopalian, and I like it. It makes for a well-rounded worship to the LORD. It emulates Jesus' last supper before He was crucified.

 

[Avocado]

funny video.

Protestants still take communion. I've been to at least 7 non-catholic churches that do. Some DO see it as more symbolic, but it is still odd to me.

But the Bible is so full of silliness, it doesn't even matter.

God is a terrorist. Just look at his track record.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. ~Matthew 4:3,4

Rice paper, with a little salt, is also delicious.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. ~Matthew 4:3,4

I like celebrating the eucharist as much as possible. It's a ceremony where we honor Jesus' death for us, and reaffirm our faith in Him. I even keep wafers by my bedside and have a ritual I do, sometimes reciting the shema.

I think this is an important part of worship that non denominational churches have lost. I did it growing up as an Episcopalian, and I like it. It makes for a well-rounded worship to the LORD. It emulates Jesus' last supper before He was crucified.

Well since we're sharing the ceremonial rituals of our religions, I often recite the following incantation when summoning certain Goetic Spirits of the underworld:

"I DO invocate and conjure thee, O Spirit, Tetragrammaton and being with power armed from the SUPREME MAJESTY, I do strongly command thee, by the most Powerful Princes, Genii, Liachidæ, and Ministers of the Tartarean Abode; and by the Chief Prince of the Seat of Apologia in the Ninth Legion, I do invoke thee, and by invoking conjure thee. Oh terrifying Spirits of Asmodeus, Carnax, and Naberius."

One must not do so without the proper Dark Altar and a sphere of pure Obsidian (for skrying purposes) and 6 red candles, 1 white candle, and of course, an Order of Thelema ceremonial Dagger.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

If you want to play kinky with me, we do so outside the religion realm.

 

[five sounds]

If you want to play kinky with me, we do so outside the religion realm.

This post exemplifies religion vs spirituality.

Spirituality is all-encompassing. There is nothing outside of it.