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

[carrdero]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1339835' date='Jul 24 2007, 03:56 PM']What is a reliable source?[/quote]
A reliable source is Truth.
[quote]kamiller42 writes: What makes it reliable?[/quote]
The Truth is always available.

[reyb]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1330525' date='Jul 16 2007, 05:08 AM']"There is more than one "God" in this world, more than one path and more than two places to spend eternity"
This is what I believe, but I understand that the people here may not share this belief, so my "question" is why do you feel that your path/belief is a better or the best way?

In Her light,
Belinda[/quote]

[indent]Bring your god or all of those gods here in phatmass and let us discuss every and all of these paths going to two places and then we can decide if there are really many gods and many paths going to two places. But for me, there is only one God and one Lord – The God of gods and the Lord of lords. [/indent]

[indent](excuse me if I am off topic) [/indent]

[carrdero]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1340058' date='Jul 24 2007, 09:03 PM']It is reliable if it is non-judgemental, politically-correct, unbound by any western standards of linear thought and logic, and in conformity with the arbitrary and whimsical tenants of the hallowed cult of Patrickism, giving Carderro the warm, fuzzy feeling of BEing in a k(NOW)ing REALationship with his oW.n e-GO.[/quote]
Socrates is concerned because he has just figured out that there is no way to follow Patrickism (in reason and in spirit). Patrickism is not a “I got my GOD, you get yours” religion because I do not own a GOD and anyone can get their own knowledge from GOD (if they desire). There are no credits, benefits or rewards (or fuzzy feelings) for sharing my REALationship with GOD but you will eventually have to confront GOD and start your own (if you desire). This REALationship with GOD (if one desires) is something personal, special and unique. Not just because GOD is special, personal and unique, it is because both you and GOD are special, personal and unique. My REALationship with GOD will not be like your relationship with GOD. This is why there will ALL(ways) be different paths to GOD.

[quote]Socrates writes: Some guy posting weird new-agey jargon on an internet message-board, of course.[/quote]

If I pronounce that GOD is a non-judgmental BEing, I state that there had to be a reason or a decision process why GOD is this way. If I pronounce that GOD is equal to all entities, I state that there had to be a reason or a decision process why GOD is this way. GOD could have firmly decided on non-judgmental equality even before the creation of humans and a planet to put them on making this (very) Old Age, not New Age.

For those that believe GOD begins at the Bible or when the first religion started or even when their first church was established, one still has to ponder and wonder what GOD was doing or BEing before these creations. Do you have to believe me when I say these things? No, if one is interested they will probably have to confront, reason and conclude and decide these concerns for themselves. This recognition of self, the reasoning of who you are, why you are here and where you want to be is where GOD begins for most people.

Edited July 25, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='reyb' post='1340348' date='Jul 25 2007, 05:25 AM'][indent]Bring your god or all of those gods here in phatmass and let us discuss every and all of these paths going to two places and then we can decide if there are really many gods and many paths going to two places. But for me, there is only one God and one Lord – The God of gods and the Lord of lords. [/indent]

[indent](excuse me if I am off topic) [/indent][/quote]
Where is Belinda?

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: I do not base my beleif in Jesus' miracles on pure logic,
I base it on sound history.[/quote]

I will admit that this "sound" history is very loud but certainly there is enough reasonable room in your beliefs that some aspects of this history may/can be distorted.

[quote]Aloysius writes: Because I am convinced of the truth of the Christian Logic, and I see no contrary historical evidence to their take on the history of Jesus and His Church and see all historical evidence as confirming this, I can make the leap of faith to accept these historical truths as well.[/quote]

Were they historical truths before or after you took this leap of faith? What good is a leap of faith if you only find more faith on the other side? How far did you get? There are many beliefs from many religions that are both honorable, respectable and noteworthy but I see this logic as to having to be comparable to things we already understand and not being applied to things we don’t. There was a thread posted some time ago entitled “GOD As a Mystery” and how some religions would use aspects of their history or their logic and conveniently reason this with the unknowing “the Lord works in mysterious ways” mentality. This may just be a excuse some people make because they do not understand how this logic or reasoning fits in with the current understanding or the recognizable irreparable damage this could do to their faith if they do get too close to the solution of this “mystery.”

[quote]Aloysius writes: It's not random superstition,[/quote]

The moment one precieves GOD as holy, divine, higher or sacred is the moment one moves into the realm of superstition.

[quote]Aloysius writes: I did not pick some random historical figure and attribute to him divine powers; rather, I found that the teachings coming out of the Church He created were unparalleled in their elegance and logical consistenc, and that the Church He created is an unprecedented unparalleled human institution and that he has had the biggest impact on all of human history and because of all these things, I find the facts proposed about his life logically the most plausible;[/quote]
So by identifying with someone else’s perception of God you have somehow been fascinated or entranced to follow or practice an already established belief system. I would admit that the description of your adopted religion sounds very romantic but even the most heavy heavings of faith and feelings can sometimes cloud one's reasoning capacities.

[quote]Aloysius writes: I come to a point of dichotemy: either this is correct, or nothing is correct.[/quote]

One of the reasons that I did not engage in a philosophical discussion with you in the other thread was because I felt that you had more of a comparable intellectual understanding than I did and that I would not have been a worthy opponent to continue a philosophical discussion but with this statement I see not only the importance of you having to be correct but that you have not calculated or compared the myriad of other possibilities that can be reasoned or understood.

The problem with choosing and joining an already established religion as a path to God, is that as long as one continues to want to be a member of this organization (in good standing as opposed to standing to reason) one must strictly adhere to the already established belief parameters of this system. One belief that is out of focus and others begin to question your faith, integrity and worthiness to their cause. I wish that some religions could be more understanding of people who want to belong but need more time to reason and conclude their beliefs but I also understand why this is not permitted.

[quote]Aloysius writes: And that's a very logical point that I come to, and my presupposition that the world has meaning causes me to affirm the historicity of Christ's actions on earth. But I would like to focus here not on my historical beleifs, but on my philosophical beleifs about the ontology of creation and why there is a "God" and not a powerful being.[/quote]

Now see this is interesting because my views on Christ’s actions may be totally different from how you perceive them to be but not so far as to defy logic of my own knowledge and understanding. Make no mistake, fact or fiction, Christ had many admirable qualities and makes quite the impression (as do other historical personalities) but how this relates to one’s own purpose, one’s own existence, one’s own desires, one’s own belief system is (like beauty) in the eye of the beholder.

[quote]Aloysius writes: Do you see how the being you describe is subject to TIME and CHANGE, both categories of your human brain? What leads you to believethat God is subject to these categories of your experience?[/quote]

Time is nothing until there is a reason to label, refer or encapsulate it. Change is irrelevant and meaningless until one has a reason to measure and perceive what they are NOW to how they were before. Everything I do, every thought I make is in the NOW but what good would the NOW be to me, you or GOD if we did not have the remembrance of where we used to BE. Memory is not a human privilege or construct which is only stored or utilized for the human brain (this physical brain has also been proven unreliable). It can also be accessable from the soul (which is undenable). So whether I AM existing as a spiritual or physical entity, with this soul, it isn’t necessarily a matter of where I AM because there I AM.

[quote]Aloysius writes: What leads you to believe that there is even such a being as the god you describe?[/quote]

There is not necessarily one particular thing leading me to the GOD that I describe. If there was something or someone leading me to GOD, most likely I would be experiencing GOD vicariously through someone else’s relationship with GOD, which to me doesn’t seem REAL or personal. Patrickism is indeed a solo endeavor because eventually I will have to determine for myself, once and for all, what GOD means to my existence and exactly what kind of REALatrionship (if any) I encourage with this BEing. GOD, at His best, is a BEing who directly, honestly descirbes Himself to the individual but this doesn’t mean that one cannot meet other interesting, considerate gods along their journey.

[quote]Aloysius writes: It seems like an arbitrary supposition, not necessitated by logic... the universe would make just as much sense;
neigh, in fact it would make more sense, without this powerful being as you have not placed him as a logical principal but rather viewed him merely as some sort of lifeform. It is nothing better than me claiming that I know there are vulcans and klingons out there in space; it's just stories about other lifeforms.[/quote]

You can learn a lot from stories. Some of the most timely and profound beliefs that I have collected and encouraged come from other people’s writings.

[quote]Aloysius writes: but to us, God is the causation of the existence of everything, necessitated by logic. sure, Christianity itself is not necessitated by logic in the same way; if we wanted to get into that I would argue that it is necessitated by a mix of logic, good history, and optimism about human nature... but I don't want to get sidetracked there, I'd like to focus more on this philosophical nature of God.[/quote]

The terms “us and “we” are prevalent on this Phorum, but in all fairness, there is no “us” to Patrickism. I am not sure if these terms are meant to impress me but I will not treat or deal with this forum’s members collectively but individually. Each member has some beliefs that are similar and some beliefs that are different. That is fine. Let us discuss, compare, reason and respect each others beliefs but I will be honest, I find it difficult to debate, discuss, compare and reason faith. I will not refer to your religious affiliation but instead appeal to your humanity because no matter what organization one belongs to, it seems that what it all comes down to is that we all have beliefs that we would like to try to understand and conclude.

[SJP]

[quote]Aloysius writes: What leads you to believe that there is even such a being as the god you describe?[/quote]

[quote]carrdero writes:
There is not necessarily one particular thing leading me to the GOD that I describe. If there was something or someone leading me to GOD, most likely I would be experiencing GOD vicariously through someone else’s relationship with GOD, which to me doesn’t seem REAL or personal. Patrickism is indeed a solo endeavor because eventually I will have to determine for myself, once and for all, what GOD means to my existence and exactly what kind of REALatrionship (if any) I encourage with this BEing. GOD, at His best, is a BEing who directly, honestly descirbes Himself to the individual but this doesn’t mean that one cannot meet other interesting, considerate gods along their journey.[/quote]

You didn't answer the question.

[123]

[quote]And I believe that dieties have no need for concepts such as good or bad unless punishing, judging and sentencing are part of their personalities, which really does not sound like much of an purposeful existence or an appealing REALationship for me to enter into. I believe that GOD may be perfect but that a desire for perfection had to be established and that this perfection had to be actively achieved. I believe that GOD’s beginnings were primordial, innocent, immature and vague. I believe that GOD evolved and grew in awareness.[/quote]

You mentioned deities, this means that you believe in more than one god? Correct? If so then your henotheistic mentality is that you have God in one corner and the rest of the gods in the other that deal with life. I used to believe that there was more than one God, but that YHWH was King over all of them. Can I be sure there is no gods, nope, do I believe in them, nope. To me the existance of more than one God takes away from Aloysisus point, God is not just "somthing outside of time and space" He exists in the time and in the space, not as a mass or matter (currently, but did.) but amass and amatter. The term I found to describe God's existance here, there, and everywhere is preternatural, this has to do directly with the existance and actions of God. Supernatural is ghosts and elemental spirits whose only job is to decieve and scare. That is not God. Aloysius has an awesome point that when we see God the right thing, and the right, place, and the right time. It sounds like Charles Darwin concoted God right there in his theory of human development. God is more than in the right place at the right time. This is, not only, a superstictious view of God, but rather an under-judgment of what he truly is. Not to mention that God [b]is[/b] the right place, the right moment, and he most certainly can be the right time. Remember, that ontological principle comes into play.

Here is what the late Dr. Suzuki, one of the greatest teachers of Zen Buddhism, says about his concept of God: "If God after making the world puts Himself outside it, He is no longer God. If He separates Himself from the world or wants to separate Himself, He is not God. The world is not the world when it is separated from God. God must be in the world and the world in God."

God doesn't just exist.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1340339' date='Jul 25 2007, 04:46 AM']A reliable source is Truth.

The Truth is always available.[/quote]
You said earlier there are personal truths. How can we judge which one of us is more reliable if we do not have a common, singular truth which to measure ourselves against? Doesn't the fact we need to seek a reliable source mean one's personal truth is in error, and therefore, not truth?

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: You didn't answer the question.[/quote]

I thought I did.

[quote]Aloysius writes: What leads you to believe that there is even such a being as the god you describe?[/quote]

[quote]carrdero writes:
[color="#008000"]There is not necessarily one particular thing leading me to the GOD that I describe.[/color] If there was something or someone leading me to GOD, most likely I would be experiencing GOD vicariously through someone else’s relationship with GOD, which to me doesn’t seem REAL or personal. Patrickism is indeed a solo endeavor because eventually [color="#FF0000"][b]I[/b][/color] will have to [color="#FF0000"][b]determine[/b][/color] for [color="#FF0000"][b]myself[/b][/color], once and for all, what GOD means to my existence and exactly [color="#FF0000"][b]what kind of REALatrionship [/b][/color](if any) I encourage with this BEing. [color="#800080"][b]GOD[/b][/color], at His best, [color="#800080"][b]is a BEing who directly, honestly descirbes Himself to the individual [/b][/color]but this doesn’t mean that one cannot [color="#000080"][b]meet other interesting, considerate gods along their journey[/b][/color].[/quote]

[SJP]

You say that there is not necessarily one particular thing leading you to the God that you describe. Well what has led you to your belief?

How is it that you have come to believe in these Gods that you speak of?

[quote]carrdero writes:
I will have to determine for myself, once and for all, what GOD means to my existence and exactly what kind of REALatrionship (if any) I encourage with this BEing. GOD, at His best, is a BEing who directly, honestly descirbes Himself to the individual but this doesn’t mean that one cannot meet other interesting, considerate gods along their journey.[/quote]

You're speaking of your relationship with God(s) but you haven't told us how it is that you have come to believe the things that you do.

As someone has stated in another thread, part of having a debate/discussion is defending your statements and being forthcoming about your own beliefs, you seem hesitant to do this. We've been more than willing to share our beliefs, it's really only fair for you to do the same.

Edited July 25, 2007 by SJP

[Aloysius]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1340695' date='Jul 25 2007, 06:45 PM']I thought I did.[/quote]
So... your "god" is basically an imaginary friend. My "God" is a necessary logical principal.

the formation of your god is no different than the formation of pagan greek gods; these gods did not exist and neither does yours. it's a creation of the human imagination. it does not stand up to the test of logic... you propose all this based upon human emotional imaginary experiences of powerful beings, I totally reject them as creations of human imagination. great for literature, bad for philosophical beleif.

Sure, one might write off our experiences of the divine as the same thing, potentially; but where we differ is that we say: we do not believe because we experience the divine, we believe because it is logical and the experience simply re-inforces the sound logic which has led us to this belief. of course, the order of this is not always the same for all who believe, but even those who base it solely off their experiences can fall back on the logical basis of others in the Communion who believe because they have been convicted by sound logic and reasoning.

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: You say that there is not necessarily one particular thing leading you to the God that you describe. Well what has led you to your belief?

How is it that you have come to believe in these Gods that you speak of?[/quote]

My beliefs come from the same places that other people get their beliefs. Resources and knowledge can come from almost anywhere. As you know from our previous conversations that ther are no shortages of beliefs to collect and reason. You should also remember the freedom and importance that I apply to reasoning and concluding beliefs. Most of my beliefs come from listening,experiencing, reading and comparing them to what I know and to actively seek out what I do not know.

[quote]SJP writes: As someone has stated in another thread, part of having a debate/discussion is defending your statements and being forthcoming about your own beliefs, you seem hesitant to do this. We've been more than willing to share our beliefs, it's really only fair for you to do the same.[/quote]

I have been sharing my beliefs and my resources but to include all my beliefs would crash the Phorum. I am not hiding anything from anyone. If you would like to know what I believe and where I got them from just ask, though you may not receive the same answer next week. Some of these beliefs are evolving and changing daily.

[carrdero]

[quote]Aloysius writes: So... your "god" is basically an imaginary friend.[/quote]

A friend, yes, I can safely assume that GOD is a friend but as an imaginary one, no one including myself has been able to prove or disprove. I would suspect that there are other people who believe in a God who are also lacking such infallible evidence.
.
[quote]Aloysius writes: My "God" is a necessary logical principal.[/quote]
To whom? To you or Itself?

[quote]Aloysius writes: the formation of your god is no different than the formation of pagan greek gods; these gods did not exist and neither does yours. it's a creation of the human imagination.
it does not stand up to the test of logic... you propose all this based upon human emotional imaginary experiences of powerful beings, I totally reject them as creations of human imagination. great for literature, bad for philosophical beleif.[/quote]

The REALationship that I have with the GOD that I describe cannot be compared to historical
catagorizations because I am a individual who is unique, unlike any other BEing. I am also an individual who is unaware and unfamiliar with pagen Greek gods or their rites, rituals and behaviors. My REALationship with the GOD that I describe is not based on any organized religion or group because the GOD that I describe is not affiliated with any known groups or organizations. The GOD that I describe does not display any human attributes, characteristics or behaviors because the GOD that I describe is not human and has had no need to incarnate into a physical existence. The reason that the GOD that I describe doesn’t stand to your tests of logic could come in the form of misunderstanding (both GOD and I) and that the beliefs that I am currently proposing do not and can not match your known understanding.

[quote]Aloysius writes: Sure, one might write off our experiences of the divine as the same thing, potentially; but where we differ is that we say: we do not believe because we experience the divine, we believe because it is logical and the experience simply re-inforces the sound logic which has led us to this belief. of course, the order of this is not always the same for all who believe, but even those who base it solely off their experiences can fall back on the logical basis of others in the Communion who believe because they have been convicted by sound logic and reasoning.[/quote]

If GOD was to have explain and given these beliefs to me personally it would still be my responsibility, my obligation and prerogative to reason and conclude these beliefs for myself. There is no taking matters on faith with this BEing because this GOD that I describe does not practice faith and does not expect it from anyone else to exist. Sound logic and reasoning comes from understanding, gathering and deffering to many different sources and concepts before applying this understanding to what we already know.

[SJP]

[quote]carrdero writes:
I have been sharing my beliefs and my resources but to include all my beliefs would crash the Phorum. I am not hiding anything from anyone. If you would like to know what I believe and where I got them from just ask, though you may not receive the same answer next week. Some of these beliefs are evolving and changing daily.[/quote]

ok, let's just start with that first question that Aloysius asked earlier in the thread:

What leads you to believe that there is even such a being as the god you describe?

[carrdero]

[quote name='SJP' post='1341451' date='Jul 26 2007, 01:52 PM']ok, let's just start with that first question that Aloysius asked earlier in the thread:

What leads you to believe that there is even such a being as the god you describe?[/quote]
Maybe I am not understanding your question. Let's start it from this direction.
Besides my reasoning capacities, my accumulated experiences, my own informational resources and the time to research them, my curiosity and desire to know GOD, and my interest to consider and understand others viewpoints; [b] [i]What else do I need [/i][/b]to lead me to the belief that there is a BEing as the GOD that I describe?

Edited July 26, 2007 by carrdero