More Than One "god", More Than One Path...

[jeffpugh]

silly Ora... I think she was implying it ONCE had a soul...

[Ora et Labora]

[Jesus_lol]

many roads may lead to Rome, each as different as can be, with the only thing they all have in common, is that after all their twisting and turning, all the true roads guide you to the same place.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1335125' date='Jul 19 2007, 07:48 PM']many roads may lead to Rome,[/quote]
What's in Rome again?

[123]

First, I don't forsee any robots having souls. Second, carrdero, one thing we must all learn is that just because we believe or don't believe doesn't mean that what we embrace or reject is real or not.


Rome? I think what Jesus_lol means is that many diverse paths lead to the Catholic Church. We mention Rome like that since the Church started and is still located in Rome.

Edited July 20, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1335567' date='Jul 20 2007, 06:03 AM']Rome? I think what Jesus_lol means is that many diverse paths lead to the Catholic Church. We mention Rome like that since the Church started and is still located in Rome.[/quote]

sorry, i would have meant that if i was roman catholic (im just a run of the mill christian). you do have the right meaning but i did not mean it as that specific. i used Rome because it would be similar to the old saying "all roads lead to Rome". i meant Rome as in God, not just strictly roman catholicism, though for many here those will be one and the same.
i beleive that even within the christian faith there is different paths to god, and even other religions carry the truth, or elements of it,so there is other paths as well. personally i dont beleive that God would leave behind a follower/beleiver because he is reading the wrong rule book.
and a quote from CS Lewis's "the last battle" that i think really shows this well. it is long though

[quote]"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, 'Son, thou art welcome.' But I said, 'Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.' He answered, 'Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.' Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, 'Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?' The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, 'It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites -- I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for truth constrained me), 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan[/quote]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1335567' date='Jul 20 2007, 06:03 AM']Rome? I think what Jesus_lol means is that many diverse paths lead to the Catholic Church. We mention Rome like that since the Church started and is still located in Rome.[/quote]

sorry, i would have meant that if i was roman catholic (im just a run of the mill christian). you do have the right meaning but i did not mean it as that specific. i used Rome because it would be similar to the old saying "all roads lead to Rome". i meant Rome as in God, not just strictly roman catholicism, though for many here those will be one and the same.
i beleive that even within the christian faith there is different paths to god, and even other religions carry the truth, or elements of it,so there is other paths as well. personally i dont beleive that God would leave behind a follower/beleiver because he is reading the wrong rule book.
and a quote from CS Lewis's "the last battle" that i think really shows this well. it is long though

[quote]"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, 'Son, thou art welcome.' But I said, 'Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.' He answered, 'Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.' Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, 'Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?' The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, 'It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites -- I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for truth constrained me), 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan[/quote]

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1332046' date='Jul 17 2007, 06:23 AM']I think I made need to clarify my query. I hold to one of the possible beliefs that we are all eternal and that we may have all self-existed (like GOD) except that GOD was the first and may have had more time to “develop” than other entities. I do not believe that any human begins their existence in the physical realm but originates in the spiritual realm before choosing a physical existence (therefore qualifying us all as gods). Here’s where I may need further understanding from you:
Could not the soul that is self existing (by nature) be distinguishable by the different moment that it self-existed? Just like no two humans are born at the same time and the same place in a physical existence, could there be some some distinguishable traits to separate it from other entities (possibly by frequency)?[/quote]

Carrdero,

This does not make sense. If we are all "self-existing" then that necessarily means that we never had a beginning. That means that our existence is necessary. Therefore there could be no such thing as God having "more time" than us. We would all encompass eternity.

Carrdero, I think this is a sign os something, and I mean this with all charity. You seem to be making this up as you go along. Let me ask you, do you think that is a valid path to arrive at truth? People have been struggling with these questions for thousands upon thousands of years, and many of the questions have been answered very decisively. I think you would do well to consult tradition on this matter.

Also, I posted something earlier (on the first page of posts for this thread) that got pushed to the side and I would like to know how you or anyone else would answer the point I brought up there: on what grounds do you say something is "bad" or "good"? If we are all gods as you say, then who are you to tresspass against Hitler's divine right to kill Jews? "Good" and "bad" all of a sudden become a matter of opinion, and all we need to do it to look at very recent history to see what disasters unfold from that kind of thinking. Please read the original post for more detail on this argument.

Thank you,

Philip

[bmb144]

Hi everyone,

Looks like I did start something. Sorry I have not been here, I have not been feeling 100% and I don't post if I'm not. I should be back in a couple of days when I feel on top again.

Belinda

[carrdero]

[quote]Lord Phillip writes: Carrdero,

This does not make sense. If we are all "self-existing" then that necessarily means that we never had a beginning. That means that our existence is necessary. Therefore there could be no such thing as God having "more time" than us. We would all encompass eternity.[/quote]

There are two lines of reasoning that I am following up on:

1) We self-existed (like GOD) in a spiritual realm and have been left to wonder upon each other at our own time. In this case, GOD was indeed the first entity (and may have been alone for many moments) but only just observed these other entity's origins and existence. This "non-interfering policy" may be very similiar to the way GOD observes our earthly existence.

2) GOD (after a very long moment of BEIng alone) created or “wondered” what it would be like to have other spiritual entities accompany Him and created other spiritual entities to have their own purpose or experience and possibly aid Him in creation. In this instance, as I understad it, if GOD decides to cease to exist, we all do.

Either of these example could qualify these entities as gods.

In both of these examples the souls or “entities” have an eternal existence (read: immortal) unless they choose to terminate this existence.

I believe these spiritual entities were very helpful in assisting GOD in creating the universe and even many aspects of the earth (someone on this phorum may even had been the originator of the fir tree or participated in the creation of the human eye).These same “gods” have also made the decision to incarnate to earth (if they desired). These same souls return to heaven not to be judged but to continue their existence in some capacity or purpose.

I think that the only time that we have to compare time is when we were on earth. Even the Bible mentions a comparison to GOD’s moments to human time. Moments may pass in heaven but I believe it is very different from how we experience it. Whether these moments can be manipulated, I cannot say for sure. In paintings depicting angels, one will notice that there are never any scenes where angels are looking at their watches.

[quote]Lord Phillip writes: Carrdero, I think this is a sign os something, and I mean this with all charity. You seem to be making this up as you go along.[/quote]

There is much that I do not know and I will admit that I have a lot on my plate yet to decipher and understand but I am just one person who is trying to reason through this. This understanding is not original but it must be compared to many other sources of knowledge before I can conclude this to be the Truth or and Untruth.

[quote]Lord Phillip writes: Let me ask you, do you think that is a valid path to arrive at truth?[/quote]

I am big promoter and have a great deal of respect for the Truth but I beleive that there are two kinds of Truth. Universal and personal. Personal Truth implies what is Truthful to me, may not be Truthful to you. Everyone has these truths just as I believe that everyone must abide by Universal Truths.

[quote]Lord Phillip writes: People have been struggling with these questions for thousands upon thousands of years, and many of the questions have been answered very decisively.[/quote]

What I have observed is that many of these questions have been answered very [i]faithfully[/i]. One just has to look around to realize that there are many opinions, many brands of faith to some of the same questions.

[quote]Lord Phillip writes:Also, I posted something earlier (on the first page of posts for this thread) that got pushed to the side and I would like to know how you or anyone else would answer the point I brought up there: on what grounds do you say something is "bad" or "good"?

If we are all gods as you say, then who are you to tresspass against Hitler's divine right to kill Jews? "Good" and "bad" all of a sudden become a matter of opinion, and all we need to do it to look at very recent history to see what disasters unfold from that kind of thinking. Please read the original post for more detail on this argument.[/quote]

Gods, once they accept their heritage, do not think in terms of good and bad, weak and strong, nice and evil, right from wrong, better and worse. There is no hierarchy when we are equal. Gods have nothing to fear for existing, nothing to fear in ceasing to exist. One needs to look for another reason why the Holocaust transpired and when you have that reason, look for several more. When it comes to death and killing, there is more here than meets a human perspective of good and bad or right from wrong. We must view death through “godly” eyes.

Edited July 21, 2007 by carrdero

[jeffpugh]

Whoa... post was a little freaky... sounds like a theology scraped together from Sylvia Browne and backward Mormonism... anywho, let's say my personal "truth" is that you aren't a god. Is that true?

[carrdero]

[quote]SacredMusicMan writes: Whoa... post was a little freaky... sounds like a theology scraped together from Sylvia Browne and
backward Mormonism... anywho,[/quote]
Many people who are unfamiliar with such reasonings tend to categorize these beliefs as New Age. I prefer to think of them as Old Age or possibly First Age.
[quote]SacredMusicMan writes: let's say my personal "truth" is that you aren't a god. Is that true?[/quote]
You and I would still have to prove it to each other and ourselves.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Gen 3:4-5']But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!

No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."[/quote]

Do we want to take the serpent's advice?

[carrdero]

[quote](Gen 3:4-5)
But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!

No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened [color="#FF0000"]and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.[/color]"[/quote]
[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1337359' date='Jul 22 2007, 09:59 AM']Do we want to take the serpent's advice?[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]What could be bad and good to eternal gods?[/color]

Edited July 22, 2007 by carrdero

[son_of_angels]

Right, well, there are two threads going on here: (1) There can be more than one god, and therefore multiple paths (2) we could all be gods.

It is clear that for this discussion to go anywhere one has first to accept that we are not talking about the same definition of God. We have to look further back, and elsewhere, to understand what sort of gods are up for question, and then determine exactly whether or not we, or something else fits that definition, and then critically examine whether or not that is even a sound concept.

In the first case, it should be clear that, if there is more than one God, and "god" is a genus of beings, like human, or creature, or whatever, then it doesn't follow that one is talking about GOD who is a genus which is, by definition, singular and unique. The examples of this kind of god would be Athena, Zeus, Aphrodite, etc. Each of these are gods, of varying degrees of power and influence. But, since that is a genus apart from the genus of humans, it doesn't make sense that there would exactly be enough gods to go around for everyone to come up with. For example, the Christian god might not exist at all (and it seems likely, considering how powerful the God of Israel is considered in the Bible), nor might the god Athena. So it is clear that by a multiplicity of gods, there shouldn't necessarily follow that there would be a limitless number of religions. In fact, there might be only one religion which those gods favor. On the other hand, if the goal of this argument is peace and concord, and the gods simply favor those who pray to them, and none other, then the result would be the opposite, because you would have more reason to be solely devoted to "your god" and to try and destroy the other people's gods in order to defeat them. This is exactly what used to happen in pagan days.

In the second case, this is simply ridiculous. If we are all gods, and every living being is gods, and there is no distinction in that overall genus of "gods" except that there is one big, bad God above all others, why not just call ourselves "living beings" like we have, and reserve our worshipful language for the big, bad God? Is it not worshipful enough to refer to ourselves as sons, daughters, and the creations of God? Is that not enough dignity for you, to consider yourself chosen, planned, and loved? Instead, you say, let us call ourselves gods and worship ourselves, indulge in every passion and fit of pleasure that comes our way. Or, if to show ourselves in our true god-nature, we must abstain, then we do so to gain more control of the world around us and elevate ourselves to be true "gods." Is this prideful self-seeking really what you are looking for.

In other words, both these ideas are BS.