< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

A New Concept of God

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
23 August 2018 06:33
 
EN - 23 August 2018 06:03 AM
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 05:20 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 01:38 AM
Chaz - 23 August 2018 12:33 AM

It went off the rails again. SO back to the OP, I like thinking of God as a pissed off child that’s been grounded to his room with no TV and we’re his only form of entertainment. It makes way more sense to imagine him as a sadistic kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

It all comes down to whether there is any actual point in all the crap we go through down here. Are we learning lessons or developing in some way that we can benefit from in the future? If so, then God is not a pissed off child but more like a very strict teacher.  If there is no second chance, so to speak, then the pissed off child analogy may be more accurate.

Apologies for the slight derailing.

To my mind, the ‘Book of Job’ is one of the most telling in regards to determining the character traits of God, as is portrayed in scripture. In portraying God and Satan (The Sheitan) as what can basically be described as gambling buddies, whose collective interests are to discover just how much suffering that Job can endure before renouncing his faith, God can be seen as a rather masochistic entity that cares more about being worshipped than the well-being of “His” worshipers. And Job was a righteous man, so I’m not sure what that says for the rest of us.

For the rest of us it’s better to be a bit unrighteous so that you 1) stay off the radar; and 2) rely on grace rather that personal righteousness. Righteousness didn’t help Job.

I try to make a regular habit of screwing my life up, if only to avoid the fate of characters like Job, Lot, the Pharaoh, all of the Egyptian first-born children, etc.

P.S. I’d highly recommend ‘The Complete Illuminated Books’ by William Blake.

 

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 August 2018 08:33
 
EN - 23 August 2018 06:03 AM
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 05:20 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 01:38 AM
Chaz - 23 August 2018 12:33 AM

It went off the rails again. SO back to the OP, I like thinking of God as a pissed off child that’s been grounded to his room with no TV and we’re his only form of entertainment. It makes way more sense to imagine him as a sadistic kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

It all comes down to whether there is any actual point in all the crap we go through down here. Are we learning lessons or developing in some way that we can benefit from in the future? If so, then God is not a pissed off child but more like a very strict teacher.  If there is no second chance, so to speak, then the pissed off child analogy may be more accurate.

Apologies for the slight derailing.

To my mind, the ‘Book of Job’ is one of the most telling in regards to determining the character traits of God, as is portrayed in scripture. In portraying God and Satan (The Sheitan) as what can basically be described as gambling buddies, whose collective interests are to discover just how much suffering that Job can endure before renouncing his faith, God can be seen as a rather masochistic entity that cares more about being worshipped than the well-being of “His” worshipers. And Job was a righteous man, so I’m not sure what that says for the rest of us.

For the rest of us it’s better to be a bit unrighteous so that you 1) stay off the radar; and 2) rely on grace rather that personal righteousness. Righteousness didn’t help Job.

As for Job, “The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.  And he also had seven sons and three daughters.  The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.  Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.  And so Job died, an old man and full of years.”  Job 42:12–17 (NIV)

There’s another hint in there, but I’ll leave that for another time.

“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.  So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!  No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”  1 Corinthians 10:11–13 (NIV)

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21592
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
23 August 2018 08:36
 
bbearren - 23 August 2018 08:33 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 06:03 AM
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 05:20 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 01:38 AM
Chaz - 23 August 2018 12:33 AM

It went off the rails again. SO back to the OP, I like thinking of God as a pissed off child that’s been grounded to his room with no TV and we’re his only form of entertainment. It makes way more sense to imagine him as a sadistic kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

It all comes down to whether there is any actual point in all the crap we go through down here. Are we learning lessons or developing in some way that we can benefit from in the future? If so, then God is not a pissed off child but more like a very strict teacher.  If there is no second chance, so to speak, then the pissed off child analogy may be more accurate.

Apologies for the slight derailing.

To my mind, the ‘Book of Job’ is one of the most telling in regards to determining the character traits of God, as is portrayed in scripture. In portraying God and Satan (The Sheitan) as what can basically be described as gambling buddies, whose collective interests are to discover just how much suffering that Job can endure before renouncing his faith, God can be seen as a rather masochistic entity that cares more about being worshipped than the well-being of “His” worshipers. And Job was a righteous man, so I’m not sure what that says for the rest of us.

For the rest of us it’s better to be a bit unrighteous so that you 1) stay off the radar; and 2) rely on grace rather that personal righteousness. Righteousness didn’t help Job.

As for Job, “The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.  And he also had seven sons and three daughters.  The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.  Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.  And so Job died, an old man and full of years.”  Job 42:12–17 (NIV)

There’s another hint in there, but I’ll leave that for another time.

“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.  So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!  No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”  1 Corinthians 10:11–13 (NIV)

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
23 August 2018 08:41
 
bbearren - 23 August 2018 08:33 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 06:03 AM
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 05:20 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 01:38 AM
Chaz - 23 August 2018 12:33 AM

It went off the rails again. SO back to the OP, I like thinking of God as a pissed off child that’s been grounded to his room with no TV and we’re his only form of entertainment. It makes way more sense to imagine him as a sadistic kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

It all comes down to whether there is any actual point in all the crap we go through down here. Are we learning lessons or developing in some way that we can benefit from in the future? If so, then God is not a pissed off child but more like a very strict teacher.  If there is no second chance, so to speak, then the pissed off child analogy may be more accurate.

Apologies for the slight derailing.

To my mind, the ‘Book of Job’ is one of the most telling in regards to determining the character traits of God, as is portrayed in scripture. In portraying God and Satan (The Sheitan) as what can basically be described as gambling buddies, whose collective interests are to discover just how much suffering that Job can endure before renouncing his faith, God can be seen as a rather masochistic entity that cares more about being worshipped than the well-being of “His” worshipers. And Job was a righteous man, so I’m not sure what that says for the rest of us.

For the rest of us it’s better to be a bit unrighteous so that you 1) stay off the radar; and 2) rely on grace rather that personal righteousness. Righteousness didn’t help Job.

As for Job, “The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.  And he also had seven sons and three daughters.  The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch.  Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.
After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.  And so Job died, an old man and full of years.”  Job 42:12–17 (NIV)

There’s another hint in there, but I’ll leave that for another time.

“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.  So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!  No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”  1 Corinthians 10:11–13 (NIV)

I’m fully aware that the ‘Book of Job’ (to say nothing of the rest of the Pentateuch) has been edited to suit the purposes of whoever was rewriting it at any given point in time. I still think it should all be interpreted based on whatever historical context might exist, but that’s beside the point. The versions of ‘Job’ that I’ve seen have mostly left out the warm fuzzy bullshit at the end. Job is left with nothing, not even his faith. There’s no “hidden clues” in any version of the Judaeo-Christian scripture aside from bad editing.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 August 2018 09:11
 
EN - 23 August 2018 08:36 AM

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

Perhaps my memory is failing me (entirely possible) but I seem to remember elsewhere that you have said that you believe in the resurrection.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21592
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
23 August 2018 09:53
 
bbearren - 23 August 2018 09:11 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 08:36 AM

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

Perhaps my memory is failing me (entirely possible) but I seem to remember elsewhere that you have said that you believe in the resurrection.

I do, but that’s a separate conversation.  Furthermore, it’s not based on my righteousness.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15845
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 August 2018 10:02
 
EN - 23 August 2018 09:53 AM
bbearren - 23 August 2018 09:11 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 08:36 AM

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

Perhaps my memory is failing me (entirely possible) but I seem to remember elsewhere that you have said that you believe in the resurrection.

I do, but that’s a separate conversation.  Furthermore, it’s not based on my righteousness.

As a lawyer, you’ll have to take you case to get into Heaven all the way to the Supreme Court.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 August 2018 10:18
 
EN - 23 August 2018 09:53 AM
bbearren - 23 August 2018 09:11 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 08:36 AM

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

Perhaps my memory is failing me (entirely possible) but I seem to remember elsewhere that you have said that you believe in the resurrection.

I do, but that’s a separate conversation.

Depends on one’s POV (or faith), doesn’t it?

Furthermore, it’s not based on my righteousness.

From whence came Job’s righteousness?  “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.  “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.”  Job 1:8–10 (NIV)

It would appear that Job was not the source of his righteousness, would it not?

“You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’  Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.  You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’  My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”  Job 42:3–6 (NIV)

“The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part.”  Job 42:12 (NIV)

Not based on Job’s righteousness.

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
23 August 2018 10:37
 
bbearren - 23 August 2018 10:18 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 09:53 AM
bbearren - 23 August 2018 09:11 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 08:36 AM

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

Perhaps my memory is failing me (entirely possible) but I seem to remember elsewhere that you have said that you believe in the resurrection.

I do, but that’s a separate conversation.

Depends on one’s POV (or faith), doesn’t it?

Furthermore, it’s not based on my righteousness.

From whence came Job’s righteousness?  “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.  “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.”  Job 1:8–10 (NIV)

It would appear that Job was not the source of his righteousness, would it not?

“You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’  Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.  You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’  My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”  Job 42:3–6 (NIV)

“The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part.”  Job 42:12 (NIV)

Not based on Job’s righteousness.

I don’t even know what “NIV” means (though I’m sure I can venture a guess). You realize that any version of this text that appears in English has been filtered through transliteration, and then translation, and then another translation, etc., yes? There are even apocryphal texts which people have been selectively choosing to omit from the scripture for over a millennia.

And not to harp on the obvious too much, but no one seems to have posed a better example of what ‘faith’ is than William James. Take the leap or don’t evoke the concept. You can’t reasonably pretend to have an understanding of ‘good faith’ if you haven’t accepted that faith itself means having no tangible evidence.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15845
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
23 August 2018 10:39
 

Back to the original OP. I’d say that Horgan’s experience was, in part, a matter of his getting boosted into a particular state of consciousness without proper preparation. So he took it as real and reacted to it from his own ego-perspective (which at that point was, for him, all that existed). In that sense, the experience says more about him than it does about the nature (or lack thereof) of God. And he fled back into the world of intellectual chatter where he felt comfortable and secure. But, of course, the memory of the experience remains and will likely bug him as he ages. Would be interesting to see how he attempts to defend himself in the future, possible construction of mental theories that try to explain things away, or at least allow him to believe it was all due to the drug. With proper preparation, he would have accepted the total uncertainty of existence and allowed himself to vanish.

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
23 August 2018 10:45
 
burt - 23 August 2018 10:39 AM

Back to the original OP. I’d say that Horgan’s experience was, in part, a matter of his getting boosted into a particular state of consciousness without proper preparation. So he took it as real and reacted to it from his own ego-perspective (which at that point was, for him, all that existed). In that sense, the experience says more about him than it does about the nature (or lack thereof) of God. And he fled back into the world of intellectual chatter where he felt comfortable and secure. But, of course, the memory of the experience remains and will likely bug him as he ages. Would be interesting to see how he attempts to defend himself in the future, possible construction of mental theories that try to explain things away, or at least allow him to believe it was all due to the drug. With proper preparation, he would have accepted the total uncertainty of existence and allowed himself to vanish.

I would tend to agree completely with burt’s assessment. I’ve had a couple of experiences on 5-MeO-DMT that seemed to bring into focus some kind of singular entity, except the feeling that I got was more of a playful nature. I sensed no malevolence, and there was nothing to be afraid of at all.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 August 2018 11:04
 
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 10:37 AM

And not to harp on the obvious too much, but no one seems to have posed a better example of what ‘faith’ is than William James. Take the leap or don’t evoke the concept. You can’t reasonably pretend to have an understanding of ‘good faith’ if you haven’t accepted that faith itself means having no tangible evidence.

Not to derail the thread further, but “Faith —belief that is not based on proof.”

Additionally, “I’m convinced he and I will sit on the same fence and chat amicably about the foolishness of certitude.”—saralynn, 24 November, 2013

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21592
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
23 August 2018 11:42
 
bbearren - 23 August 2018 10:18 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 09:53 AM
bbearren - 23 August 2018 09:11 AM
EN - 23 August 2018 08:36 AM

Job lost his original children. All of them. Children cannot be replaced. Job suffered irretrievable loss. Children are not like sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. Again, there is nothing in the book that makes me want to be like Job.

Perhaps my memory is failing me (entirely possible) but I seem to remember elsewhere that you have said that you believe in the resurrection.

I do, but that’s a separate conversation.

Depends on one’s POV (or faith), doesn’t it?

Furthermore, it’s not based on my righteousness.

From whence came Job’s righteousness?  “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied.  “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land.”  Job 1:8–10 (NIV)

It would appear that Job was not the source of his righteousness, would it not?

“You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’  Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.  You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.’  My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”  Job 42:3–6 (NIV)

“The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part.”  Job 42:12 (NIV)

Not based on Job’s righteousness.

I understand that this is your interpretation, to which you are entitled.

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
23 August 2018 11:43
 
bbearren - 23 August 2018 11:04 AM
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 10:37 AM

And not to harp on the obvious too much, but no one seems to have posed a better example of what ‘faith’ is than William James. Take the leap or don’t evoke the concept. You can’t reasonably pretend to have an understanding of ‘good faith’ if you haven’t accepted that faith itself means having no tangible evidence.

Not to derail the thread further, but “Faith —belief that is not based on proof.”

Additionally, “I’m convinced he and I will sit on the same fence and chat amicably about the foolishness of certitude.”—saralynn, 24 November, 2013

That website barely qualifies as a dictionary, but regardless…

Faith: (via Wiktionary)

1.) The process of forming or understanding abstractions, ideas, or beliefs, without empirical evidence, experience or observation.

2.) A religious belief system.

3.) An obligation of loyalty or fidelity and the observance of such an obligation.

4.) A trust or confidence in the intentions or abilities of a person, object, or ideal.

5.) (obsolete) Credibility or truth.

 

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3808
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 August 2018 11:55
 
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 11:43 AM
bbearren - 23 August 2018 11:04 AM
ubique13 - 23 August 2018 10:37 AM

And not to harp on the obvious too much, but no one seems to have posed a better example of what ‘faith’ is than William James. Take the leap or don’t evoke the concept. You can’t reasonably pretend to have an understanding of ‘good faith’ if you haven’t accepted that faith itself means having no tangible evidence.

Not to derail the thread further, but “Faith —belief that is not based on proof.”

Additionally, “I’m convinced he and I will sit on the same fence and chat amicably about the foolishness of certitude.”—saralynn, 24 November, 2013

That website barely qualifies as a dictionary, but regardless…

Faith: (via Wiktionary)

1.) The process of forming or understanding abstractions, ideas, or beliefs, without empirical evidence, experience or observation.

2.) A religious belief system.

3.) An obligation of loyalty or fidelity and the observance of such an obligation.

4.) A trust or confidence in the intentions or abilities of a person, object, or ideal.

5.) (obsolete) Credibility or truth.

I’m fine with your definition: “faith itself means having no tangible evidence.”  I have no tangible evidence, and further, I claim none.

You okay with that?

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >