God has died

[Akashic_Librarian]

Its not the physical God has died. Its that his relevance in today's society is no longer necassary, most belief is unecassary...thus God has Died.

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Its not the physical God has died. Its that his relevance in today's society is no longer necassary, most belief is unecassary...thus God has Died.

Then say that its relevance is not necessary. If he's dead, he existed.

As for me... I think religion, the organized form where everyone says I'm right, you're not and going to hell... That's obsolete, right. Spirituality is not, and many people are looking for it now. Religion is limiting and constraining, whereas spirituality is empowering.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Its not the physical God has died. Its that his relevance in today's society is no longer necassary, most belief is unecassary...thus God has Died.

Seems a rather curious remark, considering that in countries like Russia and China, where religion was suppressed for decades under suppressive, godless, communist regimes, Christianity is now making an unprecedented recovery. Aren't the people in those countries part of 'today's society'?

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Seems a rather curious remark, considering that in countries like Russia and China, where religion was suppressed for decades under suppressive, godless, communist regimes, Christianity is now making an unprecedented recovery. Aren't the people in those countries part of 'today's society'?

...as evidenced by Vladimir Putin's strong public support of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I would ask, A.L., how is belief irrelevant considering that over a billion of the world's population would identify themselves as Christian and billions more Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc?

[Brutha]

As an artist, I know alot about the color wheel and the creation of color based off of other colors and light itself.

The color wheel doesn't describe physical colors. It describes how humans perceive colors.
Without human beings the wheel wouldn't make any sense.
You develop a metaphysical reasoning.
When their is a human who perceives color, you conclude that color exist.

When humans would lose their eyesight the colorwheel make no sense. Both ends of a rainbow don't meet each other.
Red has a wavelenght between 625 and 740 nm. Violet has between 420 and 380 nm. Those colors aren't next to each other by any physical standart.
It is only that the part of our eye that detects red gets also activted a bit from Violet light.
The colorwheel is a human construct.

If all humans would lose their eyesight, speaking of it wouldn't make any sense anymore, because it is only real because of humans.
If people would stop their believe in what the believed in that idea is dead.

If people would stop believing in God, the idea or concept of God is dead.
When you say: "God is dead" you mean therefore that the concept of God is dead.
Like saying communismn is dead. You don't acknowledge that communismn was right 50 years ago. You simply conclude that the idea of communismn is dead.

If we believe in God, he still exists, or we'd be gone. If you don't believe in God, then he never existed. Long story short, it's impossible for God to have created, and then be gone, at any time. I believe in God, therefor, I believe we are created through him.

You conclude on your own misunderstanding of the claim that it is wrong.
The claim that God it dead doesn't

I would ask, A.L., how is belief irrelevant considering that over a billion of the world's population would identify themselves as Christian and billions more Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc?

A large number of Hindu's and Buddhists don't believe in a God. The fact that you think that religions that have no God are practially the same as those who have a God rather proofs that the belief in God is irrelevant to religion.

When God is even irrelevant to religion it is also irrelevant society at large.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Brutha

A large number of Hindu's and Buddhists don't believe in a God. The fact that you think that religions that have no God are practially the same as those who have a God rather proofs that the belief in God is irrelevant to religion.

When God is even irrelevant to religion it is also irrelevant society at large.

1) I didn't use the word "God", I used the word "belief". Big difference.

2) When did I ever claim that religions without a single God are the same as religions with one? All I ever claimed is that both have beliefs.

Finally, your claim about God being irrelevent to religion is not substantiated by the fact that some religious don't have a "God". They still have supernatural beliefs to some extent, which gives them something in common with the supernatural belief in God common to western religions. Thus God is definitely relevant, even when talking about religions like Hinduism or Sikhism.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I didn't say people didn't believe in God, of course they do. I said his relevance in today's society is non-existant. We live in an age of rationality, science, deep thinking. Not scary-fire-God who smitheth me with his might. Its nothing more than a glorified childs story, just like the boogey man, designed to scare weak people, and give hope to weak people.

Yes I know people say they recover from Alcoholism an Drug addiction, and "gain strength and courage to face life" through God. But really...God did nothing, because God is dead. All the happened is you put some energy into something...grow up people and just think before you act.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Seems a rather curious remark, considering that in countries like Russia and China, where religion was suppressed for decades under suppressive, godless, communist regimes, Christianity is now making an unprecedented recovery. Aren't the people in those countries part of 'today's society'?

The world we live in has many value systems or Memes Colors of Thinking in Spiral Dynamics and as such exist side by side.

Different cultures are further along the scale than others.

[Brutha]

Its that his relevance in today's society is no longer necassary, most belief is unecassary...thus God has Died.

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

1) I didn't use the word "God", I used the word "belief". Big difference.

I guessed you anwered AL, who spoke about belief in God.

They still have supernatural beliefs to some extent, which gives them something in common with the supernatural belief in God common to western religions.

Saying "God is dead" doesn't necessarly attack belief in supernatural things. Or in values. It just is God isn't as relevant anymore.

500 years ago nobody searched for meaning in their life. Or for purpose.
Just live on this earth, do what you are told and go to heaven to meet with God.
That God focus doesn't satify many people anymore.
We have an New Age in spirituality.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Thank you Brutha. You seem to understand my point. Apologies if I come acroos akward or cryptic in my messages.

[Lychee]

That's the problem with society today. Many people think that God is no longer relevant and rely on solely one human faculty to see through life. It is instead replaced with recycled ideologies borrowed from the major religions. Humility is no longer a virtue except when it suites someone.

Superficially speaking, one can say that people have changed and times have changed, warranting a new truth or belief. But if you look deeper, it is not true. People's nature are the same and the times has been dressed up as something which is seen to be different than what we know as history. Why do people look in the past to learn answers? How could anyone find answers if people were so different and society had changed so much? We wouldn't be able to if it wasn't relatable and it absolutely is. History is repeating itself.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The color wheel doesn't describe physical colors. It describes how humans perceive colors.
Without human beings the wheel wouldn't make any sense.
You develop a metaphysical reasoning.
When their is a human who perceives color, you conclude that color exist.

When humans would lose their eyesight the colorwheel make no sense. Both ends of a rainbow don't meet each other.
Red has a wavelenght between 625 and 740 nm. Violet has between 420 and 380 nm. Those colors aren't next to each other by any physical standart.
It is only that the part of our eye that detects red gets also activted a bit from Violet light.
The colorwheel is a human construct.

If all humans would lose their eyesight, speaking of it wouldn't make any sense anymore, because it is only real because of humans.
If people would stop their believe in what the believed in that idea is dead.

If people would stop believing in God, the idea or concept of God is dead.
When you say: "God is dead" you mean therefore that the concept of God is dead.
Like saying communismn is dead. You don't acknowledge that communismn was right 50 years ago. You simply conclude that the idea of communismn is dead.

You conclude on your own misunderstanding of the claim that it is wrong.
The claim that God it dead doesn't

A large number of Hindu's and Buddhists don't believe in a God. The fact that you think that religions that have no God are practially the same as those who have a God rather proofs that the belief in God is irrelevant to religion.

When God is even irrelevant to religion it is also irrelevant society at large.

I tried to say, as many times as I could, that there was alot more to the point I was making than what I was saying. I understand the wavelengths of red, violet, the shades, how similar, how different, ect..ect. I studied them for years, I know. I don't need the info just because you disagree with me.

I think you took my point out of context though. My point wasn't about our human perception of reality. If it was, then whatever we believe vs whatever we didn't believe would indeed determine what idea's or notions are dead or not. That wasn't my point though, I wasn't talking about the colors. Weather or not anything makes sense to us dosen't matter, it wouldn't change how things really work. I wasn't misunderstanding anything, I understand that our ideas of something being dead now makes the reality of the curcumstances nonexistant to us. At the same time though, our ideas determining our concepts our only limited to things we can control, which is alot, but at the same time, not so much.

I was trying to use that model, though there is alot more info than what I said, to illistrate that the first beginning has direct influence on not only how the progression will be outlined, but that it cannot survive without it. That's the point I was making. I wasn't talking about the concept or idea of it, because in that case, as well as others, it dosen't matter.

If all humans lost their vision, then the concept of color would make absolutely no sense to anyone, and we would find a system to live without it, so that we wouldn't need it, and that it wouldn't matter. However, all the while, the color would still exist and continue to exist, it would just be a matter of weather or not we'd use it in our lives, which we wouldn't be able to, but so what. The concept would be dead, but only to humans. Our revelations don't make things in reality pop into existence, only the concept of how to use it to our benefit does, that's what pops into existence. What we concieve, and then use, isn't defining the overall usefullness of what it is we're concieving, only it's usefullness to us humans. When our idea of something has died down, it has only died down to us, the concept never existed to anything else, but yet, it was always there.

When something can "see" things that others can't, it dosen't mean that it's only the reality to the one who can "see" it, it's just as much of a reality to the one who can't, weather good or bad. What is the greater reality, the existing or the "blind"? It's in vain for us to think that only the things we know and can apply in some way are the only things that exist.

There are millions of colors that we cannot see, and so, can't concieve or apply, and we are "blind" to them.


The ultimate reality is that in which we cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or concieve.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by sourceofmiracles

But we ALL know that "something greater" definitely exists.

I don't know this.

Originally Posted by Dragon

It's in vain for us to think that only the things we know and can apply in some way are the only things that exist.

There are millions of colors that we cannot see, and so, can't concieve or apply, and we are "blind" to them.

The ultimate reality is that in which we cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or concieve.

It's also vain of us to firmly believe that we know anything of those things we cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or conceive.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

It's also vain of us to firmly believe that we know anything of those things we cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or conceive.

Just because we can't see the cause, it doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist. We are experiencing it now.

I certainly can't see my soul, but does that mean I don't know something about myself?

[Mark Lapierre]

You're right, but it does mean that we don't know what the cause is. Until we experience the cause, rather than the effect, Dragon's argument for vanity applies equally to denial as well as faith.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I don't know this.

It's also vain of us to firmly believe that we know anything of those things we cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or conceive.

Understanding that the ultimate reality is that in which we cannot see is something totally different than calaiming to understand everything about it. My arguement might be used to justify denial, if, I claimed that, which I did not. You have to claim full understanding of something to then be able to claim denial to an oposite view. If not, then it's just two different opinions. That's the differece between denial and faith, the two aren't opposite standpoints. If I claimed that I knew everything about God, knows his purposes, understands all of his workings to the T, then I, in fact, would not be a person of faith.

I believe in God. One would have to claim absolute truth to call denial. I believe that many people have indeed experienced God in their lives, me included.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Dragon

If I claimed that I knew everything about God, knows his purposes, understands all of his workings to the T, then I, in fact, would not be a person of faith.

I believe in God. One would have to claim absolute truth to call denial. I believe that many people have indeed experienced God in their lives, me included.

I agree with that. We cannot fully know or understand God in this life. We can feel/sense his presence within our hearts or from without - spirit/divine consciousness in nature and in the mysteries of the universe. We are given so much grace and so many blessings and gifts every day of our lives - but, how much do we appreciate them? What more do we want? God will always be a mystery to our mortal minds. Once that is accepted, one can then realize a sense of peace and returning home. Forget about the "what if's" and the pretty, sweet wrappers around the latest self-fulfillment teachings. There is nothing new under the sun.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I agree with that. We cannot fully know or understand God in this life. We can feel/sense his presence within our hearts or from without - spirit/divine consciousness in nature and in the mysteries of the universe. We are given so much grace and so many blessings and gifts every day of our lives - but, how much do we appreciate them? What more do we want? God will always be a mystery to our mortal minds. Once that is accepted, one can then realize a sense of peace and returning home. Forget about the "what if's" and the pretty, sweet wrappers around the latest self-fulfillment teachings. There is nothing new under the sun.

Isn't God just a label for understanding? We all want to know how we got here, why we're here and where we're going, isn't that why we search for something outside of us to give us clarity of purpose?

I wonder if we are so powerful that even when your physical body dies your belief system while here will continue on. Maybe christens will go to heaven, maybe muslims will go where they believe, me I'm off to consciousness

Only faith can change, god can't die.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Max Power

Isn't God just a label for understanding?

The Bible says that "God is love." I agree with that. Mostly because I've defined love as the process of understanding.

Differently, I have wondered if God is the sum total (greater than its parts) of relationships in humanity. Thus, serving God would be serving the interconnectedness of humanity. That supports Manifest Destiny as much as it supports environmental sustainability.

*shrug*

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Dragon

I believe in God. One would have to claim absolute truth to call denial. I believe that many people have indeed experienced God in their lives, me included.

Hmm, I don't think we're on the same page. I don't think you need complete understanding of one thing to deny its opposite when denial is an opinion. I'm talking about denial in terms of belief in non-existence, not proof of non-existence. That would require complete understanding, since gathering evidence is impossible.

I was simply pointing out that where such limited knowledge is concerned vanity applies equally to firm denial as it does to strong belief.

But I don't think that applies to you since you're not claiming certainty for which vanity is applicable. I think that the vanity we're talking about only applies in a generalised sense to those who refuse to see an alternate point of view.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Dragon

If all humans lost their vision, then the concept of color would make absolutely no sense to anyone, and we would find a system to live without it, so that we wouldn't need it, and that it wouldn't matter.

The wavelength of the light would still matter for various physical experiments. Colors as defined today over the wavelength would still make sense.
The color wheel on the other hand wouldn't since it is based on the way our eyes work.

What we concieve, and then use, isn't defining the overall usefullness of what it is we're concieving, only it's usefullness to us humans. When our idea of something has died down, it has only died down to us, the concept never existed to anything else, but yet, it was always there.

Did money existed 10000 years ago?
Did communismn existed 2000 years ago?
Did digital computers existed 1000 years ago?
Do the book that Steve is going to write already exists at the moment?

"God is love."

If God is love and love is God we don't need God anymore because we have to words that mean the same thing.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The wavelength of the light would still matter for various physical experiments. Colors as defined today over the wavelength would still make sense.
The color wheel on the other hand wouldn't since it is based on the way our eyes work.

Did money existed 10000 years ago?
Did communismn existed 2000 years ago?
Did digital computers existed 1000 years ago?
Do the book that Steve is going to write already exists at the moment?


If God is love and love is God we don't need God anymore because we have to words that mean the same thing.

Our perception of the color wheel is based off of the way our minds work, not our eyes. Our eyes work based off of what our mids signal to them, as well as what our eyes signal back. This is why people people blinded from birth still see in their dreams, but they don't see what we see. the elements of the color wheel are actually stronger in reality than what we percieve, not weaker or nonexistant. That's just the way we would look at it from our eyes, which is the point i've been trying to make.

And my other point was that the wavelegths being important for physical experiments and needed to make sense, wasn't my point. Again, the entire (small) outline that I gave about the colors and their relationship to one another had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the colors, in any way, shape, or form. I was talking about the workings of the first existence in relationship to the last existence, and the colorwheel demonstrates this easier than other things, if I cared about what colors make what or how far away each color actually was to one another, i would have either talked about it, or i wouldn't have braught it up at all. Sinse i didn't, then it didn't matter to my point. That's point #1.

Point #2, based off of you're second quote. I said DEFINE. I said define It's overall USEFULLNESS. Not weather or not it EXISTED. Something's usefullness to Humans dosen't DEFINE It's USEFULLNESS in life. that's what I was saying.

-Do animals know what money is 10,000 years ago or today?

-Do animals know what communism is today or 200 years ago?

-Do animals know what a digital computer is today or 1,000 years ago?

-Do animals know how to read now or in the futute? Do they care what a book is?


Now, are these things usefull, or just usefull to us humans?

Ofcourse, it's all up to the belief weather or not humans are far superior to animals or not. I believe that a computer is usefull because it helps human beings live there lives easier, and that if an animal dosen't understand them, it dosen't mean the animal isn't going to survive without them, unlike us, who would have a hard time.

God's overall (remember, I'm using the word overall here) usefullness isn't defined by our views of what he would be usefull for. If we somehow find that we don't have any use for him, that dosen't mean he isn't usefull.


And on you're last point, (even though you weren't quoting me) That's like saying that Love isn't needed. God is love means that when you love, you're fulfilling the will of God. Now, we can analyze what God actually is all we want to, but everyone already has their own views, which is fine, because everyone has their own view to what love is, which is fine aswell. As long as we love each other and not hate. I don't think I'll hear a husband say to their wife anytime soon "honey, I don't really love you, it's just that our brain signals complement each other" because he'd be missing the point, and the same applies to God.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If God is love and love is God we don't need God anymore because we have to words that mean the same thing.

I agree. *adds filler text because the message buffer is silly*

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Hmm, I don't think we're on the same page. I don't think you need complete understanding of one thing to deny its opposite when denial is an opinion. I'm talking about denial in terms of belief in non-existence, not proof of non-existence. That would require complete understanding, since gathering evidence is impossible.

I was simply pointing out that where such limited knowledge is concerned vanity applies equally to firm denial as it does to strong belief.

But I don't think that applies to you since you're not claiming certainty for which vanity is applicable. I think that the vanity we're talking about only applies in a generalised sense to those who refuse to see an alternate point of view.

I see what you're saying. The thing is though, is that I think the're alot of people who claim to know absolutely everything about God, sometimes because they don't want to give multiple views of him. People will say things and criticise those people, but the people that always openly state that It's a mystery, always get critcised aswell. so we'll always have those people that won't claim any mystery whatsoever, and will try to claim 100% fact or full absolue knowlege.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I agree with that. We cannot fully know or understand God in this life. We can feel/sense his presence within our hearts or from without - spirit/divine consciousness in nature and in the mysteries of the universe. We are given so much grace and so many blessings and gifts every day of our lives - but, how much do we appreciate them? What more do we want? God will always be a mystery to our mortal minds. Once that is accepted, one can then realize a sense of peace and returning home. Forget about the "what if's" and the pretty, sweet wrappers around the latest self-fulfillment teachings. There is nothing new under the sun.

AMEN.

[Mark Lapierre]

A pertinent Terry Pratchett quote I just stumbled across. He's got a lot; it's no wonder I love his writing so.

Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more.
– Terry Pratchett, Pyramids

[palimpsest]

Douglas Adams also has a fun explanation for it:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

But as to why people think that a greater force outside of them exists... well, I think that would be more easily answered by wondering what the world would be like if we didn't. What would happen if God were dead, to all of us?

Scientific studies (though I can only cite Dr. Phil and the anecdotal evidence of a friend of the family's who was abused as a child) show a trend that religious people are generally healthier-- less stressed in the belief that some things are just out of their hands, that there's a plan for them and that they're loved unconditionally even when alone. Best placebo ever.
We can't deny the impact that monotheism has on our culture for better or worse (whether we ourselves are religious at all or not, that the superpowers are predominantly monotheist is enough,) and the very concept of monotheism must have pushed worlds of progress for our thinking in abstractions-- Being, and Love... rather than many specialized anthropomorphs of a river, field, sun, marital relationship, etc. (Even though polytheism has its place in thinking creatively...)
Most importantly I think-- if God were dead to all of us (even if He were alive to ALL of us,) that would be one less point of view, or way of life, to vary among people-- judge for yourself if the world would be poorer or better for that.

I hope that all made sense.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by palimpsest

Douglas Adams also has a fun explanation for it:
But as to why people think that a greater force outside of them exists... well, I think that would be more easily answered by wondering what the world would be like if we didn't. What would happen if God were dead, to all of us?

Scientific studies (though I can only cite Dr. Phil and the anecdotal evidence of a friend of the family's who was abused as a child) show a trend that religious people are generally healthier-- less stressed in the belief that some things are just out of their hands, that there's a plan for them and that they're loved unconditionally even when alone. Best placebo ever.
We can't deny the impact that monotheism has on our culture for better or worse (whether we ourselves are religious at all or not, that the superpowers are predominantly monotheist is enough,) and the very concept of monotheism must have pushed worlds of progress for our thinking in abstractions-- Being, and Love... rather than many specialized anthropomorphs of a river, field, sun, marital relationship, etc. (Even though polytheism has its place in thinking creatively...)
Most importantly I think-- if God were dead to all of us (even if He were alive to ALL of us,) that would be one less point of view, or way of life, to vary among people-- judge for yourself if the world would be poorer or better for that.

I hope that all made sense.

I don't think that faith is a plecebo though, I think It's the other way around if anything. If a doctor gives someone a plecebo, it's not the pill that cures, it's the faith that the pill might work that cures. Therefore, it's faith that cures. The pill might be fake, but faith is not, and that's all you needed in the first place.

[Michael Chui]

It's so... subjective reality... Note to self: build shrine, fill bowl will pills, wait for worshippers. Add candid camera.

[Groundless]

it's not the pill that cures, it's the faith that the pill might work that cures. Therefore, it's faith that cures. The pill might be fake, but faith is not, and that's all you needed in the first place

Beautiful quote there bud. Very good insight.

Thank you.