Why God

[PeterJ]

I always like Philo. Seems to have had his head screwed firmly on.

[Athena]

No, those religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam should be understood and defined in the context of Hellenistic and Egyptian priests.

 

Philo of Alexandria.

 

Philo's view of God.

 

Okay, so I am not getting the rules about the word "God" and how God is defined. Thomas Jefferson used the word "Creator" . The religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, seem to be being with the an Egyptian pharaoh's efforts to have only one God, and we could use the word Ra for god. Then the Sumerian story about a river that flooded its banks, and lead to the creation of the first man and woman, to keep the river in its banks was added to the Egyptian one God. Around the world I think most primitive people thought is was our scared duty to care for the earth. Effectively, we are the co creators, right?

 

The theory of how the monotheistic God Ra got connected with the Sumerian story of creation, is when the Pharaoh died, both the former priest, military and most of Egypt was glad to destroy any memory of that pharaoh, who tried to force monotheism on everyone, and was so wrapped up in his new religion that he was a very bad pharaoh. The believers in this new religion fled to Ur, a Sumerian city that didn't exist at that time, but its clay tablets remained, and these people who worshiped the one God, translated the Sumerian story, adjusting it so it made sense to them. Then of course, these people return to Egypt, and have to flee Egypt again. The bible is an account of their story. It is history from their point of view, and it is mind boggling that so many have taken this tribes historical point of view, as God's truth. Oh, well.

 

There is tension around the notion that a God/ Creator endows us with morals, but this is established by science and learning of mirror neurons, and the behavior of social animals. The error is not in believing we are endowed with a moral nature, but in not understanding how we are endowed with a moral nature. Another error is the notion that a God has favorite people, and can be manipulated with sacrifices, prayers, burning candles. You know, superstitious notions of how God works, instead of a scientifically based notion of how things work, that can be corrected as we gain more information.

 

I think if we work with the idea that there is a God, and bridge religious people from their understanding of the cosmos, to the scientifically based notions, we will progress a long this scientific line a lot faster than if we seem to confirm their superstitious notions by arguing there is no God. That is an argument that locks people into a senseless argument, and does not move things forward. It is perhaps better to just ask, how does God do that, and move forward.

 

Hey, would anyone like to carry Philo's understanding of numbers to another thread? I think we have much to gain by understanding the archetypes of numbers.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Athena

[Iggy]

Okay, so I am not getting the rules about the word "God" and how God is defined. Thomas Jefferson used the word "Creator" and those religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, seem to be being with the an Egyptian pharaoh's efforts to have only one God, and the Sumerian story about a river that flooded its banks, and lead to the creation of the first man and woman, to keep the river in its banks.

To which Sumerian myth are you referring? In the story I know humans were created to relieve the lesser gods of their work... farming, dredging canals, plowing... those kinds of things.

[immortal]

Okay, so I am not getting the rules about the word "God" and how God is defined. Thomas Jefferson used the word "Creator" .

 

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others believed in the Deist concept of God where God creates the cosmos and doesn't interfere with it but such a concept of God is turning out to be very unlikely. The concept of God that is sounding more likely is the concept where gods play around with human life.

 

The religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, seem to be being with the an Egyptian pharaoh's efforts to have only one God, and we could use the word Ra for god. Then the Sumerian story about a river that flooded its banks, and lead to the creation of the first man and woman, to keep the river in its banks was added to the Egyptian one God. Around the world I think most primitive people thought is was our scared duty to care for the earth. Effectively, we are the co creators, right?

 

No, monotheistic views was developed very early in Human history and its highly philosophical.

 

Even the earlier Mandalas of Rig Veda (books 1 and 9), which contain hymns dedicated to devas, are thought to have a tendency toward monotheism.^[6] Often quoted isolated pada 1.164.46 of the Rig Veda states (trans. Griffith):

 

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,

 

ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ

 

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

 

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."(trans. Griffith)

 

 

When you use the word Holy Father or God, what concept you have of him in your mind? What do you know about his ontology?

 

Father or God actually represents Fullness, everything is contained in him, all Archons reside in him, all gods emanate from him, the world is in him, everything is in his fullness, there is nothing outside of the Father.

 

 

For all the series of the ruling Gods (θεοὶ ἄρχοντες), are collected into the intellectual fabrication as into a summit, and subsist about it. And as all the fountains are the progeny of the intelligible father, and are filled from him with intelligible union, thus likewise, all the orders of the principles or rulers, are suspended according to nature from the demiurgus, and participate from thence of an intellectual life.—Proclus, The Theology of Plato.

 

 

 

When we refer to as the Father or the God he doesn't represent just one being, but actually the totality of divine orders, he represents fullness.

 

 

All this is full. All that is full.

 

From fullness, fullness comes.

 

When fullness is taken from fullness,

 

Fullness still remains.

 

 

- Isha Upanishad

 

 

 

Its in the Bible and its in the Isha Upanishad.

 

 

 

The theory of how the monotheistic God Ra got connected with the Sumerian story of creation, is when the Pharaoh died, both the former priest, military and most of Egypt was glad to destroy any memory of that pharaoh, who tried to force monotheism on everyone, and was so wrapped up in his new religion that he was a very bad pharaoh. The believers in this new religion fled to Ur, a Sumerian city that didn't exist at that time, but its clay tablets remained, and these people who worshiped the one God, translated the Sumerian story, adjusting it so it made sense to them. Then of course, these people return to Egypt, and have to flee Egypt again. The bible is an account of their story. It is history from their point of view, and it is mind boggling that so many have taken this tribes historical point of view, as God's truth. Oh, well.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, taking the literal interpretation of any religions is like wiping out the history of the world and walking blind-folded.

 

I think if we work with the idea that there is a God, and bridge religious people from their understanding of the cosmos, to the scientifically based notions, we will progress a long this scientific line a lot faster than if we seem to confirm their superstitious notions by arguing there is no God. That is an argument that locks people into a senseless argument, and does not move things forward. It is perhaps better to just ask, how does God do that, and move forward.

 

Its true that other concepts of God are discussed very less in this forum.

 

 

 

Great. For the first time we completely about something. I would never say anything to suggest any of this was not true.

 

We can agree about all this. 'Eastern' religion, if we must call it that, and a lot of 'western' religion, is about empiricism, not speculation. This is what esotericism, gnosticism, nondualism, mysticism, call it what you will, is all about. BUT, and it is a fantastically important 'but', the doctrine that emerges from this empirical research makes complete sense in philosophy. Most people do not know this, and certainly very few professional scientists and philosophers. Nobody has yet written a book explaining this. although it is there to see for any literature review. It It is not an area of research that many people venture into. Accordingly, most people have no idea that it is possible to demonstrate that this metaphysical doctrine, if we present it as such, as Nagarjuna does, is the only one that cannot be refuted in logic. They assume that Eastern religion is incomprehensible, a bunch of people describing untestable and illogical first-person non-ordinary experiences that are not in any sense scientific, or even of any use in philosophy.

 

In reality this doctrine is the only one that can be defended in philosophy. I do not know why this is not taught in schools. The issues are simple enough. By studying the philosophical scheme of this doctrine we are able to deduce in logic that Aurobindo is correct in what he says here.

 

For any true doctrine or 'theory fo everything' logic and empricism would fit together as hand and glove, and for this doctrine they do. I don't think we should undersell it by suggesting that there is no point in thinking about it, that there is nothing to be learnt from thinking. It is perfectly possible to become completely convinced that Sri Arobindo's cosmological doctrine and that of the Upanishads must be true by only thinking about it, with nothing but 'everyday' experiences (as if) to go on. I know this from experience. It was all quite surprising. I also know from experience that logic must be abandoned for true knowledge. Aristotle himself teaches us this. But the intellect may step in later to debrief oneself, as it were, such that 'what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason.'

 

So we can agree about most of this. But we must note that for Aurobindo the experience is not the understanding. He does not suggest that we should misutrust our reason or that there is no point in using it. There is nothing to prevent reason and experience from preceeding hand in hand and in perfect harmony, and they are no threat to each other.

 

We might wonder why a scientifically-minded person would ever become interested in the Upanishads if the doctrine it endorses cannot be defended on logical grounds. It would be poor marketing for this worldview to suggest that the only way to understand it is in experience, achieved by years of work and practice. Aurobindo spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain his view and presumably did not think this was a pointless project.

 

If we do the sums and actually calculate which philosophical doctrine comes out best in philosophy then we will be struck by the fact that this is same doctrine on which all the major prophets and sages have converged since time immemorial. We will also see that this cannot be a coincidence. If we do not do the sums, and believe it would be a waste of time, then unless we take up the practice it will alway seem to us as if Aurobindo's view must be a conjecture, not knowledge, and we will not see the rigour of his writings but think he is making it up as he goes along.

 

Philosophical analysis, which is thinking about the issues, allows us to logically deduce that the scriptures must contain a lot of truth, or are at least plausible and unfalsifiable. I would not say such a thing if it could not be demonstrated. I suspect that the only reason why people within religion are so often dismissive of logic, of taking an analytical approach, is that they are not aware of this. It is not a well know fact. It is likely that they will not hold the religious view that logic endorses and this keeps the research field fairly uncrowded, more or less empty in fact, and it's mostly amateurs. Few people would have the time. Also, professional philosophers confuse the issues to such an extent that the discipline is in chaos, beset by problems on all sides, which makes it very difficut for the layman to see that it might be worth doing some, and even for the average physicist. This failure of philosophy is a western phenomenon though, not a global failure of philosophy.

 

Sorry, Too long again.

 

Aurobindo had other thoughts in his mind.

 

 

"I seek not science, not religion, not Theosophy, but Veda, the truth about Brahman, not only about His essentiality, but about His manifestation, not a lamp on the way to the forest, but a light and a guide to joy and action in the world. I. believe that the future of India and the world to depend on its discovery and on its application, not to the renunciation of life, but to life and the world and among men. .. The Veda was the beginning of our spiritual knowledge; the Veda will remain its end. These compositions of an unknown antiquity are as the many breasts of eternal Mother of knowledge from which our succeeding ages have all been fed. The recovery of the perfect truth of the Veda is therefore not merely a desideratum for our modern intellectual curiosity, but a practical necessity for the future of the human race. For I believe firmly that the secret concealed in the Veda, when entirely discovered, will be found to formulate perfectly that knowledge and practice of a divine life to which the march of humanity, after long wanderings in the satisfaction of the intellect and senses, must inevitably return."

 

- Aurobindo.

 

[Athena]

To which Sumerian myth are you referring? In the story I know humans were created to relieve the lesser gods of their work... farming, dredging canals, plowing... those kinds of things.

 

The story of Eden which in cuneiform means "uncultivated plain" while Adam means "settlement on the plain". Enki the river spirit eats the goddesses plants, and she curses him to death. A fox convinces her to let the river live, and Niniti which translates to both "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live" becomes Eve in the translated account of the story. The goddess makes a man and woman out of mud, to help the river stay in its banks.

 

I would dearly love a link to your story. I am working on trying to explain the importance of caring for our earth. Parables are much more interesting than lectures.

 

='immortal' timestamp='1348311111' post='703783']

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others believed in the Deist concept of God where God creates the cosmos and doesn't interfere with it but such a concept of God is turning out to be very unlikely. The concept of God that is sounding more likely is the concept where gods play around with human life.

 

Wow, what is your reasoning? Like my mind has been playing with this idea, but I haven't focused on it.

 

 

No, monotheistic views was developed very early in Human history and its highly philosophical.

 

I believe many people began with monotheism, in the form or an Earth Mother, and then went to multiple gods when they became bureaucratic.

However, I think knowledge of pharaoh Amenhotep IV is vital our understanding of Judaism, which later becomes the foundation of Christianity and Islam. I think this line of reasoning is especially helpful when dealing with religious people, because it demonstrates the God of Abraham is not a revealed God, unless we want to credit Amenhotep IV with receiving that revelation, and that really throws a monkey wrench in the gears, because then the chosen people are Egyptians. Well, scholars would have to chew on this. I suppose we could agree only those who followed Amenhotep IV religion were the chosen people?

 

 

 

When you use the word Holy Father or God, what concept you have of him in your mind? What do you know about his ontology?

 

Father or God actually represents Fullness, everything is contained in him, all Archons reside in him, all gods emanate from him, the world is in him, everything is in his fullness, there is nothing outside of the Father.

 

 

When we refer to the Father or the God he doesn't represent just one being, but actually the totality of divine orders, he represents fullness.

Its in the Bible and its in the Isha Upanishad.

 

I must apologize for my very bad reaction to the Father, because I know it is not pure logic. You might be able to tell by my name, that I am female, and I think a jealous, revengeful, fearsome god, is the role model for abusive men. Obviously, a Father in heaven is patriarchy, and few men are good enough for me to desire patriarchy. Those who are, are really great, but unfortunately there is extremely few of them. I think matriarchy has its merits, as in the Earth Goddess. However, I do not think we would have advanced technology without the patriarchy and we could not support the world population we have today without technology. Can I say God works in strange ways? It might be helpful if we think in terms of process, rather than this or that.

 

Yes, taking the literal interpretation of any religions is like wiping out the history of the world and walking blind-folded.

 

Its true that other concepts of God are discussed very less in this forum.

 

 

I am thrilled that this thread has survived and developed! I hope some folks get what happens when it is okay to discuss God and the discussion is not prevented by those insist there is no God. I hope people are getting how much there is to talk about, when discussing God, including our concept of history which goes with all kinds of prejudices. If Iran would return to its religion Zoroastrianism, and the memory of their king paying for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, we might avoid an ugly war! Please, folks work on tolerance of discussion of God, because people with nuclear bombs need to be as wise as they are smart.

 

 

Aurobindo had other thoughts in his mind.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sri_Aurobindo

 

Oh my goodness, I will have to give this person more of my attention. I am a bit unnerved at the moment. Have you read Jose Arguelles "The Mayan Factor"? We most certainly can not discuss these two men's thoughts here. The real force of censorship is the culture, and the culture here is not ready for some ideas. For sure Aurobindo's ideas are what I am talking about when I speak of God. If I used the word Brahman would that be better?

Can't everyone see the hang up over one word, a word that be the Creator, Brahman, Allah, but not Jehovah or Yahweh, these last two names are the name of a patron god, equal to other patron gods and goddesses. God, Creator Brahman, Allah are abstract. Jehovah or Yahweh is not. I might be interesting to follow the evolution of Judaism, from Amenhotep IV through all the cultures these people traveled. We are not clear on the word these people used for God, because the name was not spoken and no images are to be made of this God. These taboos function to prevent an abstract idea from becoming a literal one, but humans seem to love being literal and have a real hard time with dealing with stractions. I think the Hebrews began with an abstract God, and ended up with a literal one. For sure Christianity took a turn towards literalness, with religious icons, and for awhile converting the patron gods and goddesses into saints.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Athena

[Iggy]

The story of Eden which in cuneiform means "uncultivated plain" while Adam means "settlement on the plain". Enki the river spirit eats the goddesses plants, and she curses him to death. A fox convinces her to let the river live, and Niniti which translates to both "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live" becomes Eve in the translated account of the story. The goddess makes a man and woman out of mud, to help the river stay in its banks.

I'm familiar with that story. I don't recall it ending with the creation of humans to keep the river in its banks, or the creation of humans at all. She gives birth to 8 gods to make Enki well. I think you might be confusing it with the Babylonian creation myth where Abzu was trapped in canals.

 

I would dearly love a link to your story.

This is what people typically refer to when they reference the Sumerian human creation myth: enki-ninhursag myth. The story you're talking about is directly above the highlighted portion. The next story, the one below, is the human creation myth.

 

I am working on trying to explain the importance of caring for our earth. Parables are much more interesting than lectures.

The Hebrew and Greek creation myths have humans being created as leaders of the animals, but the Sumerian myth is quite different in that people were created essentially as slave labor for the gods. G.S. Kirk said in The Nature of Greek Myths, 1974,

 

In short, the Greeks evidently did not wish to include in their myths any detailed account of the creation of men, even though the various Mesopotamian motifs must have been available, and even though allied themes, in particular the periodical destruction of men, were themselves alluded to. Why? It was because the idea of men as slaves of the gods was repugnant to the Greeks that they rejected Mesopotamian stories of their creation and passed over this whole topic, or adopted details of such stories only erratically and in minority or sectarian versions.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Iggy

[immortal]

I believe many people began with monotheism, in the form or an Earth Mother, and then went to multiple gods when they became bureaucratic.

However, I think knowledge of pharaoh Amenhotep IV is vital our understanding of Judaism, which later becomes the foundation of Christianity and Islam. I think this line of reasoning is especially helpful when dealing with religious people, because it demonstrates the God of Abraham is not a revealed God, unless we want to credit Amenhotep IV with receiving that revelation, and that really throws a monkey wrench in the gears, because then the chosen people are Egyptians. Well, scholars would have to chew on this. I suppose we could agree only those who followed Amenhotep IV religion were the chosen people?

I must apologize for my very bad reaction to the Father, because I know it is not pure logic. You might be able to tell by my name, that I am female, and I think a jealous, revengeful, fearsome god, is the role model for abusive men. Obviously, a Father in heaven is patriarchy, and few men are good enough for me to desire patriarchy. Those who are, are really great, but unfortunately there is extremely few of them. I think matriarchy has its merits, as in the Earth Goddess. However, I do not think we would have advanced technology without the patriarchy and we could not support the world population we have today without technology. Can I say God works in strange ways? It might be helpful if we think in terms of process, rather than this or that.

 

You got to respect Religion and Science. God is an anthropomorphic being even though he is ineffable, he has a form and he is formless, he comes in dual so he is androgynous, he can manifest both in the feminine as well as in the masculine aspect. These cannot be understood with our limited intellect and its wrong to compare God with what we see things in our natural world, it should be taken in a allegorical way.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sri_Aurobindo

 

Oh my goodness, I will have to give this person more of my attention. I am a bit unnerved at the moment. Have you read Jose Arguelles "The Mayan Factor"? We most certainly can not discuss these two men's thoughts here. The real force of censorship is the culture, and the culture here is not ready for some ideas. For sure Aurobindo's ideas are what I am talking about when I speak of God. If I used the word Brahman would that be better?

 

I don't know about astrology so I am not going to talk about the "The Mayan Factor", yes, its important to study different cultures but we got to respect the views of that culture and understand them in their own milieu and we need to stop using New Age terminologies and misinterpret their culture with modern scientific terms, we need to view the nature just as they viewed it. I am talking serious Religion here and not New Age stuff.

 

Using the word Brahman even makes things more complicated because no one knows what it is, a better word to use it is the "Pleroma" and it represents the fullness or the totality of divine powers and we need to talk more about the Pleroma.

 

 

I am thrilled that this thread has survived and developed! I hope some folks get what happens when it is okay to discuss God and the discussion is not prevented by those insist there is no God. I hope people are getting how much there is to talk about, when discussing God, including our concept of history which goes with all kinds of prejudices. If Iran would return to its religion Zoroastrianism, and the memory of their king paying for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, we might avoid an ugly war! Please, folks work on tolerance of discussion of God, because people with nuclear bombs need to be as wise as they are smart.

 

We never know how things will change in the future.

 

John F Kennedy's speech

 

http://s0.vocaroo.com/media/download_temp/Vocaroo_s0G5IIjAfx43.mp3

 

President Truman's speech

 

http://s0.vocaroo.com/media/download_temp/Vocaroo_s0kWVEjtjJwK.mp3

Edited September 23, 2012 by immortal

[Athena]

I'm familiar with that story. I don't recall it ending with the creation of humans to keep the river in its banks, or the creation of humans at all. She gives birth to 8 gods to make Enki well. I think you might be confusing it with the Babylonian creation myth where Abzu was trapped in canals.

 

 

This is what people typically refer to when they reference the Sumerian human creation myth: enki-ninhursag myth. The story you're talking about is directly above the highlighted portion. The next story, the one below, is the human creation myth.

 

 

The Hebrew and Greek creation myths have humans being created as leaders of the animals, but the Sumerian myth is quite different in that people were created essentially as slave labor for the gods. G.S. Kirk said in The Nature of Greek Myths, 1974,

 

 

 

Oh bother, the Internet now includes many more stories than it once did. I am absolutely sure I have not confused Sumerian stories with any others because I have the books on my shelve, but I now get, there are new explanations of the text. It seems much has been added to the original information, because of on going efforts to interpret the text. This is really wonderful.

 

Given the recent experiments teaching chimps and bonobo language, I have begun to wonder again about the possibility of aliens influencing evolution. This comes to mind here, because this interpretation of the Sumerian stories says that could have happened, http://www.halexandr...rg/dward191.htm I like this explanation because it says Niki and his brother disagreed about the creation of man. It says God giving man skins to cover himself and throwing man out of the Garden, could be the two God's Niki and his brother, one wanting to help man and the other rejecting him.

 

I think when knowledge of these text spread, it will surely change the context for understanding these biblical stories. In Greek mythology we also have the gods divided on the issue of humans. The stories I read, assume man already exist. He was created by Zues's father and they don't know why. It is the creation of Pandora that is addressed, in the story equal to Adman and Eve, and Zeus has her created and gives her a box full of miseries, and gives her to the first man, because one of the gods had given man the technology of fire. Zeus didn't want man to have this technology, and wanted to delay discovery of other technologies. This again, parallels the Sumerian story, of gods being divided on the issue of man.

 

Which Greek story creates man as a leader of animals? I don't know that one. Hebrews were into herding sheep, so it makes sense they gave man the duty of leading animals instead of farming duties. In fact, we have a biblical story that God favored a herding brother over a farming one. This was my first reason for rejecting the God of Abraham as a true God. I have no tolerance for favoritism.

 

I think all these stories are like the game telephone, where everyone holds hands and pass a message from one end of the line to the next. The message gets changed as it goes down the line. Or as Joseph Campbell and Jung would say, our stories are the same, because humans think the same and tend to use the same symbology.

I think skipping over the possibility that the Hebrews begin with Amenhotep IV is a mistake. Amenhotep IV is the first monotheism of which I am aware. He had an entire city devoted to his new religion, and his followers filled this city, while the pharaoh neglected the rest of Rome. There is no doubt he was a terrible pharaoh, and a devoted worshiper of this one God. These people would have to flee when the city was destroyed. The religion put a high value on family and learning, and the Hebrews, now Jews, carry these values. The value of learning is dropped when we come to Christianity, a religion that warns against attempting to learn too much, and like Islam, promotes fear of Satan misleading people. This fear of Satan and demons comes from the east, and is not an original Hebrew division of good and evil. But I say, those followers of Amenhotep IV fled Egypt, went to Ur, and searched Sumerian libraries for truth, and interpreted their stories, as they once searched Egyptian libraries for truth. Sumer had already fallen, so there would be no Sumerians to interpret the stories in the context of an established civilization. The activity of searching ancient recorders for truth is the same for Amenhotep IV's followers.

 

Whoo, the Internet is getting more exciting every day! How about this book by Freud claiming Moses was a follower of Amenhotep IV. Freud writing on this subject? I didn't expect that.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._and_Monotheism

 

This site is even firmer on the connection between Hebrews and Amenhotep IV.

http://www.domainofm...maat/moses.html Psalm 104 is an embellishment of the Hymn to the Aten which was found by archaeologists at the city of Akhetaten.⁽²⁷⁾

 

You got to respect Religion and Science. God is an anthropomorphic being even though he is ineffable, he has a form and he is formless, he comes in dual so he is androgynous, he can manifest both in the feminine as well as in the masculine aspect. These cannot be understood with our limited intellect and its wrong to compare God with what we see things in our natural world, it should be taken in a allegorical way.

 

 

I don't know about astrology so I am not going to talk about the "The Mayan Factor", yes, its important to study different cultures but we got to respect the views of that culture and understand them in their own milieu and we need to stop using New Age terminologies and misinterpret their culture with modern scientific terms, we need to view the nature just as they viewed it. I am talking serious Religion here and not New Age stuff.

 

Using the word Brahman even makes things more complicated because no one knows what it is, a better word to use it is the "Pleroma" and it represents the fullness or the totality of divine powers and we need to talk more about the Pleroma.

 

 

 

 

We never know how things will change in the future.

 

John F Kennedy's speech

 

http://s0.vocaroo.com/media/download_temp/Vocaroo_s0G5IIjAfx43.mp3

 

President Truman's speech

 

http://s0.vocaroo.com/media/download_temp/Vocaroo_s0kWVEjtjJwK.mp3

 

Okay, there we go with the word problem. Is the God issue different if we use a different word? A word no one understands, and so excludes Jews, Christians and Muslims from the conversation? Then there isn't much point in having the conversation. Why is this necessary? Because there is a handful of intolerant people who insist on interpreting God literally, so they can be right about claiming there is no God? What kind of logic is that? Personally, I think the problem is ignorance and attitude, not a word. It is certainly more effective, from my point of view, to address the problem of ignorance, by providing information, and the problem of attitude, by raising awareness of it, than use a new word, no one understands, and that excludes the most important people from the conversation. The people who cause us so much trouble by promoting ignorance and threatening to start a nuclear war. It is those people I want in on the conversation, because they are dangerous folk. I am not concerned with those who just have a bad attitude and chose to be ignore information. In fact, it is rather pleasant when they stay out of the conversation.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Athena

[PeterJ]

You might be able to tell by my name, that I am female, and I think a jealous, revengeful, fearsome god, is the role model for abusive men. Obviously, a Father in heaven is patriarchy, and few men are good enough for me to desire patriarchy. Those who are, are really great, but unfortunately there is extremely few of them. I think matriarchy has its merits, as in the Earth Goddess. However, I do not think we would have advanced technology without the patriarchy and we could not support the world population we have today without technology.

 

Yes. The idea that God belongs to a gender is so ridiculous that it's difficult to see how it ever took hold. And I think you're right, had the Earth Mother not been vanquished we would not have such a terrible population and technology problem.

Can't everyone see the hang up over one word, a word that be the Creator, Brahman, Allah, but not Jehovah or Yahweh, these last two names are the name of a patron god, equal to other patron gods and goddesses. God, Creator Brahman, Allah are abstract. Jehovah or Yahweh is not. I might be interesting to follow the evolution of Judaism, from Amenhotep IV through all the cultures these people traveled. We are not clear on the word these people used for God, because the name was not spoken and no images are to be made of this God. These taboos function to prevent an abstract idea from becoming a literal one, but humans seem to love being literal and have a real hard time with dealing with stractions. I think the Hebrews began with an abstract God, and ended up with a literal one. For sure Christianity took a turn towards literalness, with religious icons, and for awhile converting the patron gods and goddesses into saints.

I think if you look you'll see that that the literal and the esoteric view have always co-existed in the major religions. It's just that the literalists always end up running the show, being more active and driven in the world. So the more sophisticated and naturalistic view has to go underground, and be spoken of in riddles. Christianity and Islam are most easlily understood, I believe, by approahcing them via Buddhism and Taoism. It's not a question of these religions being better or worse, but their sages and teachers were allowed to speak without fear, and thus the literature is far more accessible.

Edited September 23, 2012 by PeterJ

[Iggy]

It is the creation of Pandora that is addressed, in the story equal to Adman and Eve, and Zeus has her created and gives her a box full of miseries, and gives her to the first man, because one of the gods had given man the technology of fire. Zeus didn't want man to have this technology, and wanted to delay discovery of other technologies. This again, parallels the Sumerian story, of gods being divided on the issue of man.

 

Which Greek story creates man as a leader of animals? I don't know that one.

It was the Prometheus/Pandora story, but I don't remember which rendition. Every Greek myth has 10 ancient authors and 10 versions after all... it may have been the Theogony because I know I've read it, but I really don't remember.

 

It shouldn't surprise you though. Prometheus' brother gave each species a gift (speed, fangs, etc.) but ran out when he got to humans so the story has Prometheus making us upright and giving us fire to set us apart making us first among animals and whatnot.

[Athena]

Yes. The idea that God belongs to a gender is so ridiculous that it's difficult to see how it ever took hold. And I think you're right, had the Earth Mother not been vanquished we would not have such a terrible population and technology problem.

I think if you look you'll see that that the literal and the esoteric view have always co-existed in the major religions. It's just that the literalists always end up running the show, being more active and driven in the world. So the more sophisticated and naturalistic view has to go underground, and be spoken of in riddles. Christianity and Islam are most easlily understood, I believe, by approahcing them via Buddhism and Taoism. It's not a question of these religions being better or worse, but their sages and teachers were allowed to speak without fear, and thus the literature is far more accessible.

 

 

Here is where our thinking diverges and thank goodness. Without opposing points of view, things get very boring!

 

It looks like most people have given up arguing here so may be I get away with speculating that advancing technology is in God's plan. I know, it is very hard to believe that we are not the ultimate creation. It may be crazy to think there is other intelligent life in the universe and that things move in the direction of humans connecting with them. But what if we are not the ultimate creation and the New Age is a possible realty? It is so obvious to me that we can not continue repeating history, I do not understand the resistance to the idea of a new age, when human consciousness is so changed, people can not relate to a our primitive past, any better than we can relate to human existence before we had clothing and the technology of fire, and developed languages. Image running in the nude after a grounded bird and eating it feathers and all. Yuk! Give me a break, we are not as we were when we first walked the earth, so what firm sciences proves our existence can not get better than this? For sure, technology is vital to where we are today, and we do not know how technology may change our future.

 

While I value the perspective of all approaches to knowing ultimate truth, I think math is our best path to truth. The whole cacamemie Aztec calender belief system is based on math. It may not be accurate, but I am saying, with math we can think of things like psychology and sociology and the future. That is, with math we can think of things that seem totally unrelated to math, including notions of God.

 

I also feel strongly about not allowing others to define God for me. This was the Greek position before they took the bull by the horns and wrote the first Christian bible. You know, the Greeks, those great philosophers and story tellers. Come on folks, we were making great progress with proof that a God did not reveal himself to a tribe of people. Amenhotep IV's grandfather was disapproving all the gods, and had his men search the archives for the true God. Ra comes up as the dominate god, but just as there are problems with the word God, there were problems with one called Ra, so the name is changed. Amen, is a monotheist God, and what we speak His name at the end of prayers. The way to cure the religious problem is not to refuse to use the word God, but to increase what we can know of our ideas of God. This totally changes the discussion with religious folks. The ones we really need to work with, because religion can be a serious problem, just as having no unifying belief system, promoting ethical behavior, can be a problem. Good grief, these folks now have nuclear weapons, or are tied to nuclear powers. Let us not make matters worse by behaving in away that confirms their false notion of God and war! Let us engage them in arguments and plant seeds of truth, so that we might have a chance of proving human beings are capable of reason and capable of being both wise and intelligent.

 

It was the Prometheus/Pandora story, but I don't remember which rendition. Every Greek myth has 10 ancient authors and 10 versions after all... it may have been the Theogony because I know I've read it, but I really don't remember.

 

It shouldn't surprise you though. Prometheus' brother gave each species a gift (speed, fangs, etc.) but ran out when he got to humans so the story has Prometheus making us upright and giving us fire to set us apart making us first among animals and whatnot.

 

Oh my goodness! I had not heard of Prometheus brother. Good grief, just want I need, something else I have to learn about.

 

Totally, trying to make sense out of information from the past, can drive a person mad. This is what makes our arguments about God so ridiculous, as though there is one revealed God, and you either you believe in this God or you don't. All those myths are allegorical, and we laugh at many of the notions of someone being God's chosen king, and here is the gold chair to prove it, or God's chosen people, or the "real people", as though all other humans aren't real people, until we come to the God of Abraham, and then we take this belief so seriously, and prevent discussion from going any further than arguing over if this God does not exist. What strange human behavior. Why do we act so strangely? We all know what we are arguing about when we argue about God, but we can use the word "God".

 

Some of our arguments are as stupid as two people arguing "It is 8AM", "No it is 8PM", until their blood pressure is sky high and their faces turn red. Then discovering they are calling from opposites of the globe and they are both right. Being technological correct is not the end all. A degree of wisdom is also needed. It is not real wise to argue about abstract reality as though it were literally truth.

 

So what is that Greek story telling us? More information please. I feel like Star Trek's Data at this moment. More information please.

 

Yes. The idea that God belongs to a gender is so ridiculous that it's difficult to see how it ever took hold. And I think you're right, had the Earth Mother not been vanquished we would not have such a terrible population and technology problem.

I think if you look you'll see that that the literal and the esoteric view have always co-existed in the major religions. It's just that the literalists always end up running the show, being more active and driven in the world. So the more sophisticated and naturalistic view has to go underground, and be spoken of in riddles. Christianity and Islam are most easlily understood, I believe, by approahcing them via Buddhism and Taoism. It's not a question of these religions being better or worse, but their sages and teachers were allowed to speak without fear, and thus the literature is far more accessible.

 

I forgot a thought. It is easier to be unemotionally rational about other people and their idea of God, than to be that way about ourselves. It is so obvious the common people of India, in their separate villages, have understood the notions presented by Hinduism differently from the highly literate people, who will understand it all abstractly instead of literally. I am also reminded of the Buddhist notion in Japan that these village people who must toil all day, and do not have the luxury of education, can not achieve a Buddhist state of mind. Not until expanding the industrial base of the Japanese economy, did their Buddhism become democratically open to all. However, Taoism began with the village people, did it not? Please, if you have knowledge of this, share it. As I ponder the thoughts expressed here, it seems terribly important to me to have a better understanding of such matters.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Athena