What knowlegde about gods would be more acceptable to you?

[Mole]

Is God Chinese? Is God Samoan? Surely God is an Aussiie!

But no, all we have to do is ask who are God's Mum and Dad.

Who are they?

 

[Yara the Corpse]

God is above the domain of reason, a supreme logic if you will. You will never be able to prove God's existence the way you prove a scientific fact. There's a problem with understanding the world purely on scientific terms, as not everything is science, and science does not necessarily equal truth. If you need to warp your understanding of God to better suit your ego, then I'm sad to say you're doing it wrong.

pretty much yes

 

[Mole]

God is above the domain of reason

The sleep of reason brings forth monsters, like the three young men on trial today in Melbourne, Australia, for preparing to murder large number of Australians in the centre of Melbourne, all in the name of Allah.

 

[sLiPpY]

One thing I can say with certainty...gods are not to be found here.

 

[j.c.t.]

The sleep of reason brings forth monsters, like the three young men on trial today in Melbourne, Australia, for preparing to murder large number of Australians in the centre of Melbourne, all in the name of Allah.

I agree.

 

[Amberiat]

God is above the domain of reason, a supreme logic if you will. You will never be able to prove God's existence the way you prove a scientific fact. There's a problem with understanding the world purely on scientific terms, as not everything is science, and science does not necessarily equal truth. If you need to warp your understanding of God to better suit your ego, then I'm sad to say you're doing it wrong.

Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong to say that God is just an imaginary branch that people create so that they have something to hold on to when their own abilities and will can't keep up with reality anymore. That's at least one of the more believable explanations to the reason why certain people choose to believe in the existence of a higher being.

 

[Mole]

One thing I can say with certainty...gods are not to be found here.

It only takes a little digging,

Whatever we worship, we become, so if we discover what we are becoming, we discover what we worship.

And we find we worship multiple gods right here on Typology Central.

 

[j.c.t.]

Therefore, it wouldn't be wrong to say that God is just an imaginary branch that people create so that they have something to hold on to when their own abilities and will can't keep up with reality anymore. That's at least one of the more believable explanations to the reason why certain people choose to believe in the existence of a higher being.

That is not the point I'm making. I'm curious as to how you came to such a conclusion based on what I originally wrote.

 

[Amberiat]

That is not the point I'm making. I'm curious as to how you came to such a conclusion based on what I originally wrote.

My bad, I got a little too absorbed in my idea and didn't really make a connection. The thing is, as long as something can't be proven in any way, it's not wrong nor "bad" to assume that the people who blindly accept something like the existence of a "God" are doing it out of weakness, be it something obvious or with very deep roots in the subconscious.

I have been accused before of being "evil"(cults everywhere) for giving this simple reasoning to people, but you said it yourself, the existence of God can't be proven scientifically, and I bet "it" won't come to my face to shake hands with me, so it's a grey area. I'm just a little irritated with people who are so black and white about religion, they can be found on both sides but they are more often found on the side of the "believers". Just to be clear, I am on neither side. Religion, from the oldest times was born as a way to control and manipulate people, and it preyed on their greatest needs, desires and fears. It worked splendidly, and it still does. There are some cult leaders who are very well aware of this fact and use it to their advantage, not all of them are mentally deranged with strong beliefs in whatever caricature they bred in their heads, some of them just see Religion as it really is and use it as a weapon to accomplish their desires.

I hope I explained why I quoted your post, after reading it the idea just popped inside my head and it felt proper to quote the post that fueled my idea, after going on and on about religion I'm sure the initial connection is even harder to see, sorry if I confused you.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Just to be clear, I am on neither side. Religion, from the oldest times was born as a way to control and manipulate people, and it preyed on their greatest needs, desires and fears. It worked splendidly, and it still does.

You revealed a bias against religion you claimed not to have: "That religion is a form of social control." One could either come to that conclusion independently, or perhaps it was "whispered in your ear?" I too, had a simplistic view of religion at one time, and to some extent it's vaguely true if you're willing to stay in the kiddie pool, but once you graduate from the the pre-school view of religion (in general) you come to realize it (True religion) has more to do with facilitating the development of the spirit; even if you don't believe in the spirit, by fully understanding what (True) religion is, you come to a truly neutral position. At that point, you can accept the proposition or not. But, it's a life or death situation for the Ego: The Keeper of your Cognitive Biases, if your ego is invested in wallowing in the kiddie pool, wallow it will.

At least, that's what the True religion is about (swimming in the deep end). To be sure, there's lots of counterfeit religions (that look like an Olympic size pool, but once you get in it's only about a foot deep) that do emphasize the lowest form (social control), or rather has been corrupted by men to the point of only being about the lowest form of religion whether it be Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, to SJWism, Anti-theism, Donald Trumpism, etc. I could see you're open to developing a discernment in such topics, but remember that if you decide to travel from the kiddie pool to the deep end, personal experience tells me it's safer (better) to "walk" rather than run lest you slip and fall into Mormonism along the way D). Unless, your understanding of religion is actually low-resolution, and you truly are unbiased in that regard?

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Either way, I'm not too fond of cataphatic theology either, so we have that going for us...which is nice.

(Just to be clear: I believe in God.)

 

[Amberiat]

You revealed a bias against religion you claimed not to have: "That religion is a form of social control." One could either come to that conclusion independently, or perhaps it was "whispered in your ear?" I too, had a simplistic view of religion at one time, and to some extent it's vaguely true if you're willing to stay in the kiddie pool, but once you graduate from the the pre-school view of religion (in general) you come to realize it (True religion) has more to do with facilitating the development of the spirit; even if you don't believe in the spirit, by fully understanding what (True) religion is, you come to a truly neutral position. At that point, you can accept the proposition or not. But, it's a life or death situation for the Ego: The Keeper of your Cognitive Biases, if your ego is invested in wallowing in the kiddie pool, wallow it will.

At least, that's what the True religion is about (swimming in the deep end). To be sure, there's lots of counterfeit religions (that look like an Olympic size pool, but once you get in it's only about a foot deep) that do emphasize the lowest form (social control), or rather has been corrupted by men to the point of only being about the lowest form of religion whether it be Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, to SJWism, Anti-theism, Donald Trumpism, etc. I could see you're open to developing a discernment in such topics, but remember that if you decide to travel from the kiddie pool to the deep end, personal experience tells me it's safer (better) to "walk" rather than run lest you slip and fall into Mormonism along the way D). Unless, your understanding of religion is actually low-resolution, and you truly are unbiased in that regard?

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Either way, I'm not too fond of cataphatic theology either, so we have that going for us...which is nice.

(Just to be clear: I believe in God.)

It's not that I am biased against it, it's just that I see how it can be used for social control, maybe the "bias" appears from my belief that religion initially came to be specifically as a form of social control which I admit, is wrong when thought about in depth, it would probably be more accurate to assume that religion began to be used as a "weapon" long after it became an actual thing. I'm not for or against it, I just find it useful to be educated on the subject since it plays such a major role in our society right now.

I do respect people that have vast knowledge on the subject, regardless of my opinion on it though, so whether you're a believer or not, I'm not going to judge you based on that, I prefer judging based on how much you actually know about whatever you believe in. There's nothing more irritating than people who strongly uphold their beliefs while having only surface level knowledge, if even that.

 

[Coriolis]

It's not that I am biased against it, it's just that I see how it can be used for social control, maybe the "bias" appears from my belief that religion initially came to be specifically as a form of social control which I admit, is wrong when thought about in depth, it would probably be more accurate to assume that religion began to be used as a "weapon" long after it became an actual thing. I'm not for or against it, I just find it useful to be educated on the subject since it plays such a major role in our society right now.

I do respect people that have vast knowledge on the subject, regardless of my opinion on it though, so whether you're a believer or not, I'm not going to judge you based on that, I prefer judging based on how much you actually know about whatever you believe in. There's nothing more irritating than people who strongly uphold their beliefs while having only surface level knowledge, if even that.

I agree with this. My understanding is that religion began as attempt to explain and control the world around us, before our scientific understanding of the world was well developed. This explanation rested upon assigning non-physical causes to physical events like storms or illness. Now we explain physical events through their proper physical causes. To the extent that anything beyond the physical exists, that is the sphere of religion. Of course the despotic or unscrupulous quickly realized how religion could be used for exactly what you describe - controlling people. A credible claim to be able to influence not only this life but the afterlife also is a powerful tool for motivation and coercion.

 

[Mole]

Religion is entrancing where our critical minds go to sleep for a while, our imaginative minds wake up, and we believe what we are told.

We long to be entranced, and we have many ways of being entranced, religion is just one of them.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It's not that I am biased against it, it's just that I see how it can be used for social control, maybe the "bias" appears from my belief that religion initially came to be specifically as a form of social control which I admit, is wrong when thought about in depth, it would probably be more accurate to assume that religion began to be used as a "weapon" long after it became an actual thing. I'm not for or against it, I just find it useful to be educated on the subject since it plays such a major role in our society right now.

Ok. I believe you.

There's nothing more irritating than people who strongly uphold their beliefs while having only surface level knowledge, if even that.

True, but most times those people are the ones holding it down for society at large, or a large percentage of them, and it triggers intellectuals to know these plebs have that much "power." But, in the end, these surface level "thinkers" make the world go 'round. They're certainly not on TypoC discussing religion and God, nor are they watching debates at the Oxford Union, and yet they seem to be living fulfilling lives.

St. Paul says to have "Faith like a child." Sometimes, I envy these simple people (and just as quickly, repent of my sins).

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I agree with this. My understanding is that religion began as attempt to explain and control the world around us, before our scientific understanding of the world was well developed. This explanation rested upon assigning non-physical causes to physical events like storms or illness. Now we explain physical events through their proper physical causes. To the extent that anything beyond the physical exists, that is the sphere of religion. Of course the despotic or unscrupulous quickly realized how religion could be used for exactly what you describe - controlling people. A credible claim to be able to influence not only this life but the afterlife also is a powerful tool for motivation and coercion.

This is still surface-level stuff which is the modus operandi of science. A "Flesh" understanding, if you will.

True religion operates at a deeper level: The level of the spiritual nous. Most flesh humans (who are much closer to the lower animals than to spiritual Humans) aren't able to break through to that spiritual level because their (flesh) animal egos are keeping them at the surface. Flesh humans admit this much, and even pride themselves on being closer to lower animals citing some naturalistic philosophy. "Mole" is a good example of one.

Flesh religion is what is being mistaken for Religion as a whole, because it's what the eye sees (flesh), disregarding the nous (spirit). All of this is clearly written in the Bible in the language of Spirit, but when read by flesh humans it sounds like jibberish. The lower animals too, aren't able to understand our speech (or at least a very basic form). So too, the flesh misunderstands the spirit.

"a veil is covering their eyes"

This not to diminish the flesh, though. God created the flesh, too. ~98% of our lives operate at the surface/flesh level. The problem comes when the surface/flesh approaches the deep/spirit with its own ego. The surface/flesh and the deep/spirit are not the same. That's the disconnect.

The animal/flesh ego will fight tooth and nail for its life, but once it is subdued you'll know it: the freedom of the spirit.

I was able to approach the deep by first setting aside my ego and admitting to myself that maybe there are things that I don't understand. One can only set aside the ego, but never fully kill it. Fighting the ego is like trench warfare.

The marriage between the two is the ideal to aspire towards: Spirit & Flesh/"Theanthropos"/ God-man (Christianity) - Wikipedia

Gnosticism is a good example of the spiritual extreme. Materialism is a good example of the fleshly extreme. The ideal is found at the mean, I'd think. The Buddha tried this as well and independently came to the same conclusion with his Middle Path, except his extremes were Poverty and Wealth. Both of which are still of the flesh.

Here's a less cryptic version, because I'm dumb and don't know how to get ideas across plainly:

 

[Coriolis]

True, but most times those people are the ones holding it down for society at large, or a large percentage of them, and it triggers intellectuals to know these plebs have that much "power." But, in the end, these surface level "thinkers" make the world go 'round. They're certainly not on TypoC discussing religion and God, nor are they watching debates at the Oxford Union, and yet they seem to be living fulfilling lives.

Those "surface level 'thinkers'" as you call them may be making the world go round, but they are doing it at the behest or direction of others who are thinking beyond the surface, and who may not have anyone's best interests at heart other than their own. This seems to be exactly what [MENTION=36787]Amberiat[/MENTION] was describing. It is hard to control people with religion when they are thinking for themselves and are willing to view it with a critical eye.

This is still surface-level stuff which is the modus operandi of science. A "Flesh" understanding, if you will.

True religion operates at a deeper level: The level of the spiritual nous. Most flesh humans (who are much closer to the lower animals than to spiritual Humans) aren't able to break through to that spiritual level because their (flesh) animal egos are keeping them at the surface. Flesh humans admit this much, and even pride themselves on being closer to lower animals citing some naturalistic philosophy. "Mole" is a good example of one.

The physical and the spiritual are indeed different spheres, though both can be treated at a superficial or a deeper level. Science, as I have already pointed out, rightly operates in the physical sphere, while religion operates in the spiritual. Ignoring one or the other will significantly diminish a person's understanding and appreciation of life.

This not to diminish the flesh, though. God created the flesh, too. ~98% of our lives operate at the surface/flesh level. The problem comes when the surface/flesh approaches the deep/spirit with its own ego. The surface/flesh and the deep/spirit are not the same. That's the disconnect.

The animal/flesh ego will fight tooth and nail for its life, but once it is subdued you'll know it: the freedom of the spirit.

I was able to approach the deep by first setting aside my ego and admitting to myself that maybe there are things that I don't understand. One can only set aside the ego, but never fully kill it. Fighting the ego is like trench warfare.

The marriage between the two is the ideal to aspire towards: Spirit & Flesh/"Theanthropos"/ God-man (Christianity) - Wikipedia

Too many religious traditions/practices denigrate the physical. I see physical and spiritual as both necessary, and even interdependent. As you write here, God created the flesh, too, and the entire physical world in which we operate. We should not ignore or debase it, but instead learn to appreciate and work with it in healthy and constructive ways.

 

[1487610420]

these questions make my brain hurt

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Those "surface level 'thinkers'" as you call them may be making the world go round, but they are doing it at the behest or direction of others who are thinking beyond the surface, and who may not have anyone's best interests at heart other than their own. This seems to be exactly what [MENTION=36787]Amberiat[/MENTION] was describing. It is hard to control people with religion when they are thinking for themselves and are willing to view it with a critical eye.

That's true. There are a lot of "dirty rooms" (mine included) out there. Social control via (traditional) religion is not that relevant in the West anymore, not even the Amish, tbh. The current religious orthodoxy most visible would be Secularism/Anti-theism in the West (which is slowly being eaten away by Islam).

Co-sign with everything else you said.

Where do you worship by the way? Is it called a temple or shrine?

 

[Coriolis]

That's true. There are a lot of "dirty rooms" (mine included) out there. Social control via (traditional) religion is not that relevant in the West anymore, not even the Amish, tbh. The current religious orthodoxy most visible would be Secularism/Anti-theism in the West (which is slowly being eaten away by Islam).

Co-sign with everything else you said.

Where do you worship by the way? Is it called a temple or shrine?

I worship in many places: "seek ye the Lord where he may be found". No, I'm not being cagey with that answer. I consider myself a pagan, and in that context worship in a circle, which is situated physically wherever is most convenient, usually in someone's house or yard, or a public park for a large group. I find it meaningful to worship in the sacred spaces of other faiths as well, though. I am frequently at Christian church with my husband, occasionally at Bahai devotions, or infrequently even a Hindu temple or Jewish synagogue. Though my knowledge of these last two is limited and I'm sure I don't experience worship there as their own congregants do, I still see the same God as everywhere else, just wearing different "clothing" perhaps, and speaking a different tongue.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I worship in many places: "seek ye the Lord where he may be found". No, I'm not being cagey with that answer. I consider myself a pagan, and in that context worship in a circle, which is situated physically wherever is most convenient, usually in someone's house or yard, or a public park for a large group. I find it meaningful to worship in the sacred spaces of other faiths as well, though. I am frequently at Christian church with my husband, occasionally at Bahai devotions, or infrequently even a Hindu temple or Jewish synagogue. Though my knowledge of these last two is limited and I'm sure I don't experience worship there as their own congregants do, I still see the same God as everywhere else, just wearing different "clothing" perhaps, and speaking a different tongue.

Interesting. Although, I don't agree with your POV, I respect that you seek out the sacred, however "spiritually promiscuous" it may sound on first glance.

Speaking of sacred spaces, have you read Mircea Eliade's book: The Sacred and the Profane?