What do you mean by "God," anyway?
-
God is the highest intent ahead of me that I might attain to ever expand my increasing experience. God is ever ahead of me and always more than I have thus far been. God is the motive behind the forward movement ahead of me. There is no God but the future of me.
-
There is none else besides Her.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"In brief: In speaking of that which is beyond labels and bounds, it's silly to get caught up in labels. I see no practical difference between infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of physics or infinite-and-indescribable labeled in terms of deism. And, given that there is little or no difference, I pick the labeling that (a) best suits my own nature and (b) has the greatest promise for directing social vision, i.e., of telling a more compelling and productive story."
Fundamentally, I agree with you that it is silly to get caught up in labels. I wish we lived in a world where everybody (or at least an educated majority, working to guide the rest to our full potential as a species) shared that belief. Unfortunately, we don't. We live on a planet where labels have become a sort of shorthand which allow for easy compartmentalization and dismissal of whole swaths of people who don't fit with an individual's preferred label. We live on a planet where the ability to do this is epitomized as advanced thinking.
To some degree, this makes sense: there are over 7 billion domesticated primates running around on this piece of rock and there needs to be some way to filter out the ones with whom we each want to spend what precious little time we have orbiting the sun. On the other hand, it very quickly leads to a simplification of analysis; a dumbing down of thought that inevitably arrives at: Four legs good, two legs bad!
As you say, the labeling you choose best suits your own nature. As a counterpoint, it does not in any way suit mine. I would guess that a lot of this derives from our individual natures and nurtures, as well as your much more extensive experience in practically working on the consciousness frontier. At the end of the day, though, "god", for me, is nothing more than a distracting epithet: a word that never fails to evoke memories of Sunday mass and Jesus on a cross. I find much more inspiration and direction from contemplations of the vastness of Universe, the complexity of a single cell, and the utter uniformity of every proton in existence. At a more diversified level, the characteristics of any pantheon of mythic gods are ten times more evocative than some personified "Vast and Mighty ONE". Give me the Tao and call it a day.
But, between you and me and anyone else uninterested with "-isms", these symbol sets can work as co-equals. Whatever works, as they say. There are those, unfortunately, who get those same evocations of Jesus on a cross (or Muslim suicide bombers, or Hindu ascetics) and can't get past them. All they see are the failings of exoteric religion and it hangs them up. It blocks all further development. At root, this is a problem within them that they can either overcome or which will block them for life. The word "god" is the catalyst. It will invariably cause a reaction; the important question is what the result of that reaction ends up being.
-
Yes, it took 10-20 years of my adulthood to get comfortable using the word casually. In my case, the issue was a persistent concern that others would attribute to me opinions and beliefs that in no way were mine.
There is enormous value in learning to disengage personal label-reactions and other barnacles from particular words. Words are very useful to our process, therefore, when they are barnacle-heavy.
-
Is there Intelligence greater than my own that may be tapped through the use of the symbol "God"?
Yes.
Success is your proof.
But we could go on and on about whether that Intelligence is the natural sum of the human intelligence (embodied and speaking through the unconscious mind) or whether there becomes something larger, at least transpersonal, at play as well.
-
Ah, see, that's it. I get where I can't stand the denials of that experience.
For me, that's the bare minimum starting point for the discussion.
"Since an experience of such a greater Intelligence exists..."
-
Me, too.
-
Mostly i use this word in all kind of jokes, when am not taking things seriously. When seriously this word has meaning of predetermined fate of universe and of every conscious being, keeping in mind that everyone has his unique ultimate self. Or even something that has not yet manifested in spiritual realms. Or idea of eternity.
-
I thought of a less LBRP-shorthand way to say it.
Being
I am He.
I Am.
ThouFour different ways of relating to G-d.
The atheist in me goes with the first. The theist in me goes with the last. And the pantheist in me stretches over all four to cover the other two in the middle.
Of course, I am playing with the words a bit. We'll call it hyperbole.
-
@Aion said
"I thought of a less LBRP-shorthand way to say it.
Being
I am He.
I Am.
ThouFour different ways of relating to G-d."
Thanks, though I'm not sure if it's all that "less LBRP"
In a more LBRP sense, here are a few lines from one of my poems:O ineffable GOD without Name,
I’ve invoked Thee, provoking thy flame.
In the sensuous Form of my Lord,
’Neath its veil, wailing gale, my soul roared.
I desire the sweet fire of thy Being —
Single spark, sail the dark sea of wonder!
Thrice almighty in all things Thou art,
Solar snake in the lake of my heart. -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
telling a more compelling and productive story.
"Telling... and being told. If who writes who be a part of that story
So in "mine", Nuit is the ultimate God. Then me, Hermes. Then, The Law.
-
@Frater INRI said
"There is none else besides Her.
"Yes! Your avatar is great by the way. After all, "I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night sky." I. v64. Even though I'm very new to my studies, that quote immediately struck me and continues to do so every time I read it.
I like what some people have said about "God" being many different things, whether it's a personal relationship with a deity, or incorporating the symbols and values of a particular god or goddess into your daily life and practice, or just simply the all-encompassing word for everything that is. It's a personal decision.
I saw a video recently of a man who reveres the goddess Isis and all that she has taught him throughout his life. I suppose, though obviously it goes without saying, that every person chooses their own path.
-
I use the word "God" as a placeholder.
A type of variable for the highest notion a person might conceive.LBRP short hand:
THAT,
which stands in the Center
Surrounds the Self
with:
Being,
The Lord,
I am,
MIGHTY FOREVER! -
@dr. ski wampas said
"You post a thread like this, inviting others to comment but you don't want any real discussion."
You aren't engaging in a discussion, you are engaging in a rant-styled attack utilizing broad assumptions, sweeping generalizations, limited cognitive ability, and very little evidence. If you actually want to engage in a discussion, why don't you begin by addressing the question of the thread: What do you mean by God anyway?
-
[Response to a contentious, off-topic post. Retained in the thread for its intrinsic value. - Admin]
This is where you and your ilk get things wrong. Yes, you can look at the factual side of life all you want (and it is encouraged), and yes "words have meanings." In fact, that's part of the key to it all because MEANING HAS POWER.
Here's a fact: everyone (including you) attaches meaning to everything. Your meaning may be purely mathematical, or it may be the ultra fruitcake factory fantastical. What is the specific meaning TO YOU is what really matters in your life. And the thing is, I remind you, MEANING HAS POWER.
To the magician, meaning is in his or her tool kit. It is (or should be anyway) used like all other tools, according to Will. Now, as Crowley is often uselessly quoted from his introduction to The Goetia, and I will paraphrase, it doesn't matter if the meaning we use is factual based or not; what matters is that it works for the magician. It doesn't matter if there is a real "God" or not, it doesn't matter if it means something unique (which it invariably must) to every individual, what matters is ... (drum roll) ... does the belief in this thing and the method of utilizing this belief actually work to benefit the magician. If it does, then YOU STFU and let the magician be. IF it doesn't, then let the magician discover what next to do about it.
You come in here only wanting to rabble rouse and discourage genuine students of magical life toward whatever it is you believe - and the thing is, since you feel this neurotic compulsion to go around correcting everyone's minds for them, I'm convinced that what you are using as your tools isn't working for you.
Now go back to the sand box with the other little boys and girls and let the grownups continue to have their conversation.
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"And I hate to break it to you (actually no, I love to) but grown ups don't believe in ghosts or magic mspells. At least not the sane ones."
That's the problem with being an adult.
But, of course, we're in the Aeon of the Child!
-
That's it? After all that sturm und drang, all you have to contribute is a badly proofread assertion that you don't think gods exist?
Waste of my evening. Let me know when you actually have something of substance to contribute. Something that demonstrates a modicum of independent thought.
-
[Response to a contentious, off-topic post. Retained in the thread for its intrinsic value. - Admin]
An appeal to the limitations of dictionary definition in a discussion of this nature not only begs the question but inherently attempts to prevent the worn out paradigm from changing. It biases itself to the status quo rather than the transforming edge.
It's the logic of the previous conclusion forced on a new line of questioning.
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"I did not assert anything, I stated a fact. There is no evidence."
Well, at least that's an improvement from the previous "I can't say there is much evidence any gods exist." This at least gives us something to work with. You believe in this fact. You are no longer hemming and hawing about "can't say" and "much evidence". You've finally taken a for real stand on the matter. Good work.
But the question remains, "What do you mean by 'God', anyway?" When you attack others over this word "God", what is it that you are attacking?
"If you asserting that god(s) do exist then I would wonder just what evidence you think you've got? If it were really convincing you wild be trying to prove it to people. You claim that you don't care about convincing anyone (but yourself) that god exists or doesn't exist, and I will bet it's because you are aware of how weak or ridiculous your position would appear to sane people. That suggests to me that it barely convinces you. So just how can you be surely aren't totally fooling yourself?"
You haven't actually read my reply to the OP, have you? None of what you are assuming here makes any sense whatsoever. Go read my reply back on page 1 of this thread and, if you still feel the need to attack whatever it is that you assume me to be, try again with a little more focus and specificity. I can assure you, nothing in this sentence (even the correctly spelled parts) applies.
Also, this constant appeal to the authority of "sane people" is really starting to beg the question...
-
@dr. ski wampas said
"There is no evidence. If you asserting that god(s) do exist then I would wonder just what evidence you think you've got? If it were really convincing you wild be trying to prove it to people. You claim that you don't care about convincing anyone (but yourself) that god exists or doesn't exist, and I will bet it's because you are aware of how weak or ridiculous your position would appear to sane people. That suggests to me that it barely convinces you. So just how can you be surely aren't totally fooling yourself?"
Nobody proves God to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you're willing to undertake the necessary training and practices to make it so. Scientific illuminism, in a nutshell.
(As a rule, people understand this about the physical sciences – one wouldn't expect a shoe maker to comprehend stellar dynamics, nor expect a physicist to explain quantum theory without the necessary use of specialized language – but when it comes to metaphysics people expect all the answers to everything right now in terms they understand. Blame the exoteric religions, perhaps, for discouraging independent consideration of the Divine.)
You want proof that there are seeds within an orange, but unless you're willing to peel the thing and dig through the pulp you're just going to see an orange ball, and apparently in your case rail against those who have gotten their fingers sticky.
You seem to be an astonishingly angry man. I'm sorry.