What do you mean by "God," anyway?
-
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.
-
@zeph said
"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."
You can sure convince yourself, but this is not proof of anything. Plenty of people the world over have already convinced themselves a god exists, without scientific illuminism.
"one wouldn't expect a shoe maker to comprehend stellar dynamics"
Just like I don't expect a lawyer to be able to comprehend physics. Nor to be able to expound upon that particular topic to lay people.
"without the necessary use of specialized language –"
I find it to be convoluted language. If it's just a matter of words, then we can easily understand that what people in the past once understood as god, is not actually a magical and capricious being who lives in the sky somewhere. If we are not actually referring to a deity then I don't really see a need to keep using the word as people once did, to refer to things we are as yet ignorant of (like what happened before the big bang, what is consciousness, etc.), or in the way that pantheists use it (i.e. everything is god).
" 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.)"
Metaphysics has had thousands of years to bear fruit. Religions don't build rockets, and computers. Medical science has it beat when it comes to health care.
Some exoteric religions do promote a consideration of the divine. Buddhism for example. But I'm not sure what that had to do with the conversation.
"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."
Do you really think that skeptical people, and people with an atheistic leaning, don't ever expose themselves to a variety of strange experiences? You would be exceedingly narrow minded to assume that atheists don't do yoga, or meditate. Just because somebody doesn't share the same conclusion that you do about an experience, does not mean that it does not work for them, or that they have never had a strange experience.
The difference between us is that we draw different conclusions. At one time I might have drawn other conclusions, but eventually I started to wonder if maybe it was even possible to see a ghost, or to cast a spell. Not according to the latest findings in physical sciences, no.
"You seem to be an astonishingly angry man. I'm sorry."
You seem to think you can judge the character of a person based on a few paragraphs typed in haste. Or is this an attempt at remote viewing?
-
You appear to be trying to convince or convert somebody to your opinion. The original invitation in tis thread was for people to share that they mean by the word - with a goal of getting a diversity of language and point of view - not for anybody to convince anybody else of anything on the matter.
If I understand you correctly (paraphrasing), what "God" means to you is bullshit, hoax, error, etc. Is this correct? If so, thanks for sharing.
-
It doesn't really have any special meaning to me. And TBH it never really has, not even when I was exploring the idea of magic and spirituality, or psi or whatever you want to call it.
Whenever used in a conversation, I just assume that the other person means some variation of any one of the dictionary definitions.