Jamie Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 All you need it love ... love ... love is all you need ... OK ... is love different to god ? and have you experienced anything better than love ? (and i don't mean 'that' kind of love) ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by Carlwarker And now folks - a debate upon the sexuality of God - man, woman or bi? Pansexual. All things to all lovers of course. As for God's gender, hermaphrodite I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlwarker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by max And which category, exactly, does the cow fall into? When I posted the above, I was being facetious. But Phan’s reply epitomizes Western Man’s egoistic approach to ‘God’ (Pansexual. All things to all lovers of course. As for God's gender, hermaphrodite I would imagine.) As stated in Genesis: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’ (Gen. 1:27) King James Version As Voltaire wrote: ‘If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.’(Voltaire, 1694-1778 Epitres xcvi), as part of his argument for the existence of God. Bakunin, the anarchist and political theorist, turned this argument on its head: ‘If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.’ (Mikhail A. Bakunin, 1814-1876) I prefer Saint Augustine’s statement on God: ‘We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what He is.’ – Which brings to mind what I stated earlier in this thread: ‘Neti, Neti’ - Not this, Not that - Sanskrit words expressing the inexpressible - the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Transcendental, the Divine, God, Tao … Getting back to the topic of this thread: Ban Religion, one of the main arguments in support of this relates to the harm that has been done in the name of religion(s) – and particularly the Western Church. Over the centuries, a justification for this has been that terrible verse in Genesis: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’ (Gen. 1:26) King James Version On a lighter note, here are a few aphorisms on ‘God’: I think Jamie would like this: ‘The best way to know God is to love many things.’ (Vincent van Gogh) ‘I sometimes think that God, in creating man, overestimated His ability.’ (Oscar Wilde) ‘It's God - I'd have known Him by Blake's picture anywhere.’ (Robert Frost) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 I like that neti neti thing too CW !! I once had the idea that sin ... the only real sin ... is to consider yourself in anyway seperate from 'god'. To see 'god' in everything ... flowers ... grass ... the wind ... your own thoughts ... birds ... stones ... dog poo ... in everything. Not to intellectualise or pontificate ... but just simply to love ... indiscriminately and with as much wisdom and understanding as a new born babe. Is it really you loving the things that you percieve ?? Or is 'god' loving 'god' ?? I just don't know ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlwarker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by JamieW I like that neti neti thing too CW !! I once had the idea that sin ... the only real sin ... is to consider yourself in anyway seperate from 'god'. To see 'god' in everything ... flowers ... grass ... the wind ... your own thoughts ... birds ... stones ... dog poo ... in everything. Your first precept, Jamie, is Vedantic in concept, and the idea is found in the Bhagavad-Gita. Your second, brings to mind William Blake's poem: To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour. I like what Percy Brysshe Shelley wrote about Man and his relationship with God: The One remains, the many change and pass; Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly; Life, like a dome of many-colour'd glass, Stains the white radiance of Eternity, (Shelley, Adonais LII) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlwarker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by Carlwarker Your first precept, Jamie, is Vedantic in concept, and the idea is found in the Bhagavad-Gita. Further to this: This is part of what Aldous Huxley wrote in his foreward to the Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood translation of the Bhagavad-Gita: At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines. First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness the world of things and animals and men and even gods is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be nonexistent. Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known. Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark. of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit. Fourth: man's life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Hey, Zamo, I bet you didn't anticipate all this tosh when you started this thread. If only all these philosphers and poets hadn't wasted their energy on religious claptrap and concentrated more on achieving world peace and a cure for the common cold. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlwarker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 And rob Kleenex of it's profits - sniff. sniff ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigD Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by back2basics Organised religion has just become a slush fund for the court cases and out of court settlements of Paedophiles. It has been for decades. In the US alone $1 Billion of contributions for the so called 'moral minority' has been used to keep Paedophiles out of court. That $1 Billion was BEFORE the current media activity. Where did you get the information? I have just railed against journalists in another thread, but remember that most, if not all, press articles are written from a view point, and the truth is not allowed to ruin a good story. I have to smile whenever I see a "We should ban the ...". It usually means the banning of something in which 'I' have no interest. Let's really sort everything out properly, once and for all. My "ban" list: all those who flaunt their cars, all those who drive too fast, all those who drive too slow, all those who vote Conservative, all those who don't vote, all those with no taste buds who eat garlic, all those who do anything to hurt anyone, all those with no respect for anyone else's views or property, all those who refuse to give me, a smoker, just a tiny bit of space in which to indulge my habit(which I don't resort to crime to pay for), and all those who disagree with my views. :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by BigD Where did you get the information? I have just railed against journalists in another thread, but remember that most, if not all, press articles are written from a view point, and the truth is not allowed to ruin a good story. I have to smile whenever I see a "We should ban the ...". It usually means the banning of something in which 'I' have no interest. Let's really sort everything out properly, once and for all. My "ban" list: all those who flaunt their cars, all those who drive too fast, all those who drive too slow, all those who vote Conservative, all those who don't vote, all those with no taste buds who eat garlic, all those who do anything to hurt anyone, all those with no respect for anyone else's views or property, all those who refuse to give me, a smoker, just a tiny bit of space in which to indulge my habit(which I don't resort to crime to pay for), and all those who disagree with my views. :evil: I didn't realise that intolerance was a deportable crime. Ah well, you live and learn. PS Agree with quite a lot of that actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.