The names of God

Author	Comment
Sgt Tomas	The names of God		Lead	[-]
Posts: 177 11/11/07 17:35:12	Tags : None The names of God were revelations of His character. The power of the word is to reveal characteristics of reality that cannot otherwise be perceived. The word embodies reality. I can see the ancients finding the power in these concepts appealing. The I AM is a declaration of noncontingent existence. As we apprehend the I AM we also apprehend our own eternal selves. LORD is also a very powerful concept. The Earthly authority. The archetype. The limit of ability and capacity are governed by the LORD. And on and on, we find more aspects of God revealed through His divine names. I wonder how this evolved? I can imagine that creative minds are aware of attributes of reality that seem to be self-evidently great: full of potential for human satisfaction, peace, and preservation. So by knowing the names of God we know our limitations as humans, both in the lowly sense and in the mighty sense. The names of God are pearls of wisdom for reflecting on our status and purpose in life. They guide us through hardship and direct us to prosperity. They are the "laws of human nature" that we ignore at our peril, for the Righteousness of the LORD demands it! Psalm 7:17 I will give thanks to the LORD because of his righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High. Consider how starkly this stands in contrast to the zeitgeist of salvation by our own hands (through technology). The manipulation of our selves to remove suffering rather than overcome it. When we alter this relationship with the world, are we speaking the names of the LORD in deference to His Magesty? Isaiah 26:10 Though grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and regard not the majesty of the LORD. The names of God are revelations from antiquity about how to put ourselves in right standing with our existence. This is really what brought me back from the brink of materialist agnosticism. I could discount all proofs for the physical presence and purpose of God, but I could not discount the direct revelation of truth implied by the names of God. The names became the reality of God. The names ARE the whole of the reality of God. To call upon the Lord, to speak His name, is to bring into our minds the relationship between us and the Almighty. We keep the name of the LORD sacred, because to pollute or defile that characteristic is to change the nature of our right-standing with life (personal and corporate). If we take the name of the LORD in vain we will be punished because we will naturally be working against the author of life. It is possible for us now to understand the significance of The Word in creating the Kingdom of Heaven. The power of the Word isn't to define an absolute reality, but to bring us into a proper relation with the reality that we are entirely subject to. We do not find the immutable nature of the LORD by turning Jesus' ministry into theology, but by meditating on the words of the LORD to reveal His holy Name. When we know the LORD by his name, we have the creative material for transformation into a godly being. The names of YHWH: beitnitzachon.com/Beit-Ha...f-YHWH.htm Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/12/07 02:01:28	You began your other post with an example of Buddhist thought in which you advise letting go of certain negative concepts. In this post you advise filling your head up with words that stand for idea that stand for a particular view of reality quite the reverse of Buddhist thought. Thought proceeds language, which proceeds words. The description is not the thing. It's nice that you think the interface you have fashioned from words is working for you, but something of a disaster that you think one particular interface is absolute and describing of all things. It fails for me when you say: *Quote:* Consider how starkly this stands in contrast to the zeitgeist of salvation by our own hands (through technology). The manipulation of our selves to remove suffering rather than overcome it. When we alter this relationship with the world, are we speaking the names of the LORD in deference to His Magesty? That is some bad words, there. The old, don't bother trying and put your trust in a fantasy approach. Technology is also a system of thoughts and symbols about reality one that actually corresponds to reality. You can enjoy your symbolic playground all you want, but at some stage you are going to need to find some more useful words. And while you are "lost in the sauce" others will be working to stave off global warming, pandemics and meteors. Pleasant dreams. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/12/07 05:23:31	*Quote:* You began your other post with an example of Buddhist thought in which you advise letting go of certain negative concepts. In this post you advise filling your head up with words that stand for idea that stand for a particular view of reality quite the reverse of Buddhist thought. Well, first off I'm not sure why I need to hold a consistent position within any of your conceptions of religion. Secondly, which kind? Pure Land Buddhism advocates for salvation by enlightenment as we become aware of the holy other in relation to ourselves. It is in such an awareness that we see that any destruction is destruction of our selves. From this we realize that we need to orient our selves righteously, but that we have no power to attain this. It is the holy other that makes it self known to us. The holy other has specific characteristics. *Quote:* Thought proceeds language, which proceeds words. The description is not the thing. Right, because our notions of reality are incomplete and flawed. I am advocating for recognizing the holy other by our description of things - doing so we inevitable encounter the paradox that whatever enlightenment we attain with respect to the character of the holy other is not the identity of the holy other. Yet the two are not totally divorced, either. Love is not hate. We are enlightened when we recognize this characteristic of the holy other. Buddhism thrives in the resolution of paradox by spiritual enlightenment. That is the characteristic of the mythology I am advocating for. *Quote:* It's nice that you think the interface you have fashioned from words is working for you, but something of a disaster that you think one particular interface is absolute and describing of all things. I never implied this. *Quote:* That is some bad words, there. The old, don't bother trying and put your trust in a fantasy approach. Technology is also a system of thoughts and symbols about reality one that actually corresponds to reality. You can enjoy your symbolic playground all you want, but at some stage you are going to need to find some more useful words. And while you are "lost in the sauce" others will be working to stave off global warming, pandemics and meteors. Well I'm an engineer working in the alternative energy sector and I'm a chairman in ASHRAE, the leading engineering body for setting standards in alternative energy development. You show your ignorance in judging before inquiring. All of our stories about reality are fantasies. I agree that we need to be pragmatic. I am being pragmatic about the soul. I can simultaneously be pragmatic about material existence...in fact, I find it quite easy. My assertion does not come at the expense of knowledge of the material world. I realize this is where you feel most comfortable. Let me assure you that I don't lack for knowledge of material reality. Peace in the presence of the LORD is an improvement in the personal, subjective sense. There is no way to prove this isn't the case for me. So all I'm doing is describing the character of such a state of mind in relation to the holy other. We apprehend this only partially, yet even a partial improvement is a welcome one. I realize that this also applies to your sense of technology. True, but when we orient our self to the holy other we are not requiring the unwilling participation of others, which is the case with our world of technology - the effects are not limited only to the specific application of the technology. There is no imperative for social change in personal enlightenment. Social change is the inevitable outcome of implementing technology. There is no objective measure for improvement in the social change resulting from technology. There are winners and there are losers. This doesn't stop me from trying to make technology that fits in better with the Earth's environment. But I don't do so because I expect the world to be better. I do so because it is more aesthetically pleasing and because I believe that limiting our generation of entropy is a "good" thing. There is no objective proof for this. It stems from my orientation to the holy other. *Quote:* Pleasant dreams. Thank you! You as well. Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/12/07 06:09:16	What makes you think this "holy other" is not a shadow puppet cast by your choice of words? Why do you say that love is not something we generate by our relationships with each other? ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/12/07 07:42:27	*Quote:* What makes you think this "holy other" is not a shadow puppet cast by your choice of words? Words are not material things, they are information intrinsic to material things. Any such "shadow" is a meaning that is implied by the collection of words. The "holy other" is indeed a shadow puppet. What makes you think this diminishes its value in describing reality? I'm talking about subjective interpretation. There are no criteria for truthfulness except for that which is inherent to the interpretation. So as long as I'm consistent in my description, you can't say that I've erred. You may, of course, say that I've erred in judgment of what is valuable, but not what is true/real. *Quote:* Why do you say that love is not something we generate by our relationships with each other? I haven't implied such. Why do you think I don't think that? Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
One Brow	Re: The names of God	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2348 11/12/07 08:33:16	*Quote:* The I AM is a declaration of noncontingent existence. As we apprehend the I AM we also apprehend our own eternal selves. LORD is also a very powerful concept. The Earthly authority. The archetype. The limit of ability and capacity are governed by the LORD. You didn't know that I AM and LORD are the same name, except one is first person and one is third person? *Quote:* This is really what brought me back from the brink of materialist agnosticism. I could discount all proofs for the physical presence and purpose of God, but I could not discount the direct revelation of truth implied by the names of God. The names became the reality of God. Did the names of Santa Claus become the reality of Santa Claus? ----------------------------- With formal systems, such as mathematics, you can have certainty and demonstrability, but not reality. With science, such as physics, you can have reality and demonstrability, but not certainty. With belief systems, such as Christianity, you can have reality and certainty, but not demonstrability. --HRG, on CARM (paraphrased with his approval) "Come now, and let us reason together"
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/12/07 10:47:37	*Quote:* Words are not material things, they are information intrinsic to material things. Any such "shadow" is a meaning that is implied by the collection of words. The "holy other" is indeed a shadow puppet. What makes you think this diminishes its value in describing reality? I'm talking about subjective interpretation. There are no criteria for truthfulness except for that which is inherent to the interpretation. So as long as I'm consistent in my description, you can't say that I've erred. You may, of course, say that I've erred in judgment of what is valuable, but not what is true/real. Beneath all that convolution and muddling I'm seeing a circular piece of reasoning. First you say words are immaterial, then you say they are intrinsic to material reality. Not so information is a property that emerges from "stuff," not something intrinsic to it. For words to carry information, they must correlate with the "stuff." They are not part of it, though. This holy shadow of yours that is not reality. You take words and instead of correlating them with actual things, you arrange them so that they suggest a shape, then you call the shape real. Internal consistency is not truth. You are arguing for solipsism. Your description of Buddhism resolving mental paradox by correlating symbolic thought ever more closely with the very shadow that the mental description casts is utterly backwards you have gone the wrong way with that completely. Much, much further along that route, madness lies. That is not the kind of Buddhism I have any interest in but I see how you can happily mix it with Christian doctrine, as it is exactly the same process. To resolve mental paradox, forget words. There is nothing intrinsic to them. Their only power is symbolise relationships between things. Why did I ask you about love being something we generate through our interrelations? Because you said this before: *Quote:* I am advocating for recognizing the holy other by our description of things - doing so we inevitable encounter the paradox that whatever enlightenment we attain with respect to the character of the holy other is not the identity of the holy other. Yet the two are not totally divorced, either. Love is not hate. We are enlightened when we recognize this characteristic of the holy other It is not a paradox that words, or thought, can never completely match reality. It's just incompleteness. You mentioned Godel yourself, elsewhere. A paradox would be if love was hate. You think that by naming something as distinct a set of phenomena generated though our relations with each other, as opposed to a different set of phenomena generated by the same, you are in some way describing a kind of platonic, perfect reality that informs existence, but you are not, you are simply labelling that which emerges from below. It looks as though you hope to find the ultimate and perfect symbol system, but that cannot exist. It would be reality itself. By definition, "other" is impossible at that level. I have absolutely no idea whether any being, least of all a human, has conscious knowledge of that I rather think not. But whatever symbol system you choose, whatever your favourite, and whatever depth you perceive in the words, you are only slicing and dicing things mentally. And I say madness lies that way, because you are taking those finally sliced spooks and mental shadows and daring to call them the whole. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/12/07 11:01:47	*Quote:* Did the names of Santa Claus become the reality of Santa Claus? I wish I had something of your ability for succinctness, Onebrow. That is indeed what I wanted to say. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
1skybluepink	Re: The names of God	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 842 11/12/07 13:23:08	Name it whatever you wish, but it 'is' what it DOES. At least in the 'material' (= physical) world. As regards the ONE, it's all human approximation anyway.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/12/07 17:18:48	*Quote:* Beneath all that convolution and muddling I'm seeing a circular piece of reasoning. First you say words are immaterial, then you say they are intrinsic to material reality. Not so information is a property that emerges from "stuff," not something intrinsic to it. For words to carry information, they must correlate with the "stuff." They are not part of it, though. Convolution and muddling, eh? Well, merry chistmas to you too, bud! Your belief about information is a mythology, not a logical imperative. It's the difference between metaphysical dualism or monism. I'm not going to pretend that we can resolve that argument. I have my position and I'm perfectly consistent in my internal logic. *Quote:* This holy shadow of yours that is not reality. You take words and instead of correlating them with actual things, you arrange them so that they suggest a shape, then you call the shape real. Your notion of an "actual" thing would have me believe that you are deluding yourself, since you think that you are replying to a real person. You are not. This is just a figment of your imagination and any presumed character is not reality, not an actual thing. *Quote:* Internal consistency is not truth. You are arguing for solipsism. No. Truth and reality are not equivalent. Truth is what we believe about reality. I'm not a solipsist, I'm a person who conceives of truth pragmatically - a rich and well developed philosophical tradition (see William James). *Quote:* Your description of Buddhism resolving mental paradox by correlating symbolic thought ever more closely with the very shadow that the mental description casts is utterly backwards you have gone the wrong way with that completely. Much, much further along that route, madness lies. No, you're just constructing versions of my argument that are easy for you to deny. You haven't described what I'm arguing with anything I can recognize. So...I'm not really going to bother to defend myself against this critique. You don't find affinity with my words. Okay. *Quote:* That is not the kind of Buddhism I have any interest in but I see how you can happily mix it with Christian doctrine, as it is exactly the same process. It's nice that you didn't waste much time before you made your argument so transparent - you don't have interest in what I'm saying. But you confuse yourself into thinking that this makes my arguments invalid (and yes, Pure Land Buddhism has those parallels....this makes it invalid?). I'm not going to spend much more time talking with you unless we start to reach a point of constructive dialogue. I've already worked through my internal logic. I'm not interested in that kind of conversation. *Quote:* To resolve mental paradox, forget words. There is nothing intrinsic to them. Their only power is symbolise relationships between things. It would serve you well to find more ways to explore my thoughts constructively instead of critically so that I must implore you to take me seriously. I do, in fact, use this logical relationship in my understanding of the holy other. You'll notice that you have taken no opportunities to discover why. You have interjected your own beliefs as they are incongruous with my own. But since words have no intrinsic meaning, I put forth that all of your arguments have been consistent with my own. I have constructed the proper relationships from them. I win. Yay???? *Quote:* It is not a paradox that words, or thought, can never completely match reality. It's just incompleteness. You mentioned Godel yourself, elsewhere. ...which uses a paradox. And everything else I wrote follows. Love and hate are the same except for the distinctions we make. And.... Look, I'm not going to respond to anything more you've written here. I hardly see the point in this back-n-forth bickering. I see that you find my beliefs distasteful. Fair enough. Whatever else you think you've concluded about me I'm going to assume is the same as the time you said I must not care about the environment. Must have really fucked up your picture of me to learn I'm an engineer in that field and a member of an engineering society that helps protect it. You just go on casting me into your own mental categories. I'm sure you'll sleep better at the end of the night. Peace, -sgttomas Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/12/07 17:22:55	*Quote:* You didn't know that I AM and LORD are the same name, except one is first person and one is third person? I didn't? From my perspective that's what I just described. Ah well, perception is a murky thing. *Quote:* Did the names of Santa Claus become the reality of Santa Claus? Yes. He's jolly, giving, cookie lover. The naming of reality has a significance to it. We aren't just material beings, we interact with our environment physically and mentally. The naming of the holy other (god) is a construction of mythology in order to apprehend truths about the world. Truths are all contingent, pragmatic exercises. By not participating in them, we do not share in the pragmatic benefits. So that is the nature of reality in the names of God. I gather most people here expect God is found in a test tube. You won't find any congruence with that notion and my arguments about God. Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/12/07 17:25:48	Good! Then maybe we're getting somewhere. I must say, though, that I'm confused about the sense that I get that you think your arguments are working AGAINST me, rather than confirming what I'm saying. I believe you may be operating with a mental picture of what this sgttomas thing is, that is quite different from the reality....well...I ALREADY know that YOU are doing that. I'm just going to go critique an assessment of the feasibility of implementing distributed heating systems from a ground source heat pump field. Hey, it might just save your life! Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/12/07 17:27:22	*Quote:* Name it whatever you wish, but it 'is' what it DOES. At least in the 'material' (= physical) world. What do our mythologies do but construct mental categories of reality. Our names don't only segregate material things, but mental conceptions of those things also. *Quote:* As regards the ONE, it's all human approximation anyway Right....that's sort of tautological, isn't it? Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/13/07 02:07:01	I don't find your beliefs distasteful just so much foam and flotsam. I'm sorry you take that personally, or feel put upon when anyone's image of you is not like your own self-image. I actually have no idea what you are like, and only read your words. Interestingly, these have not built a consistent picture. People are not, after all, words. As long as you feel internally consistent, that's great for you, but even if you did not feel internally consistent, I hardly see how that would change reality, for the rest of us. Am I interested in what you are saying? I said I wasn't interested in a religion that asserts it's mythology as absolute reality. So, IS that what you are doing? If so, then I am not interested. I rather think it would serve mostly YOU well if I were to "find more constructive ways to explore your thinking" but what would constructing your reality with you do for me? You want objective confirmation of your own subjective truth? You need an extra hand to form the shadow of this "holy other?" Well, maybe I will share some of your dreams and projections, maybe you'll share some of mine. But when it comes to painting faces on the clouds, I've had plenty of practice already. Is there correlation between any of the things we each are saying? Would that signify objectivity if there were? Or would it simply be a temporary coming together of parts? I can actually see there's is some commonality between what we seem to be saying. My "notion of an actual thing" is basically that there is not such thing a notion is certainly not one, in any case. For saying things that appeared antagonistic, I apologise. Seriously, I had no wish to offend. We really mustn't identify too strongly with the truths we manufacture for ourselves. The fact is though, this "holy other," as you have styled it, is basically "that which cannot be known." I understand that all truth is basically inference, built on some premise currently not being argued over. And "what is known" can be expanded through logical inference, that is the case. But I've seen far too many people take the unknowable and use one label or another to give "it" a face, ascribe all sorts of characteristics to "it," and proclaim the truth of this projected image. And it is all too easy to start from an internally consistent premise that correlates with nothing but a person's own fantasies, and hurl a construction onto the void that has no reality for anyone but the thinker themselves. If anything, it is the cracks in our internal consistencies, the funny parts, that bear most resemblance to the unknowable reality beyond thought. It's those things that never seem to fit into words. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/13/07 02:12:08	*Quote:* I believe you may be operating with a mental picture of what this sgttomas thing is, that is quite different from the reality....well...I ALREADY know that YOU are doing that. Nope, no mental picture. And no reason to work against YOU, though what you are SAYING comes across like an attempt to prove your mind (whatever it contains) and the universe are alike. Why are you so bothered about my image of you, the person, separate from your words? I'm sure you are very good at your job. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/13/07 02:22:24	I see where you are coming from. Linguistic entities take on a life of their own, get passed from one person to another, shape the way we interact, how we interpret things. That can be extremely dangerous. Far from extracting the truth from reality, this can distort and overlay reality with all kinds of apparent essentials that have no basis in real needs. Wars are fought, people are persecuted. Myths are not reality, they are items of clothing we can put on and take off. And we better learn to take them off identifying personally with a particular myth, thinking it has some ultimate power, drives people to do insane things. As something to be adopted temporarily for a particular need, played with, enjoyed, that's all well and good. As social creatures, we need unifying myths of one kind or another from time to time. But we should not forget that our myths shape the world we live in far more than the world shapes our myths, and when the world becomes ugly, it's time to drop the myth, no matter how precious it seemed to us before. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
One Brow	Re: The names of God	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2348 11/13/07 07:59:20	*Quote:* Yes. He's jolly, giving, cookie lover. The naming of reality has a significance to it. We aren't just material beings, we interact with our environment physically and mentally. The naming of the holy other (god) is a construction of mythology in order to apprehend truths about the world. Truths are all contingent, pragmatic exercises. By not participating in them, we do not share in the pragmatic benefits. So that is the nature of reality in the names of God. Well, I'm quite comfortable seeing existence as strictly material, with any mental/emotional aspect arising therefrom as emergent properties. I disagree that all truths are contingent, but certainly most of the truth that have to do with value, purpose, and meaning are. *Quote:* I gather most people here expect God is found in a test tube. You won't find any congruence with that notion and my arguments about God. Whatever we find in the test tube has nothing to do with any god as described by you or anyone else I can think of, but I actually find significant congruence between the results of the test tube and your description. ----------------------------- With formal systems, such as mathematics, you can have certainty and demonstrability, but not reality. With science, such as physics, you can have reality and demonstrability, but not certainty. With belief systems, such as Christianity, you can have reality and certainty, but not demonstrability. --HRG, on CARM (paraphrased with his approval) "Come now, and let us reason together"
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
corwin17	Re: The names of God	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1838 11/13/07 08:46:50	[/lurk] *Quote:* I'm sure you are very good at your job. SEE! Right there! You've already formed a mental image that this person HAS a job! [/sarcasm][lurk] "Ah! Arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How convenient." -- Londo Mollari If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll do it for you! ;) We now return you to your regularly scheduled dementia.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Gramlins in the System	Re: The names of God	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 864 11/13/07 09:06:29	Sorry Corwin, I just haven't mastered the symbolic art of the sarcasm tags as well as you. I somehow expect the information to be intrinsic to my words. ______________________________ While I was sitting on the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there; he wasn't there again today, I really wish he'd go away.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/13/07 15:09:15	*Quote:* I don't find your beliefs distasteful just so much foam and flotsam. You've known me for all of two seconds (that's the going rate for internet time to "real person" time). How can you appreciate the depth of my beliefs from such a superficial rendering? I appreciate your response here. My beliefs are theistic, but not in any conventional sense. I'm not a Christian. Just someone who knows a lot about it and prefers to construct my sense of place in the universe based on those stories. *Quote:* Am I interested in what you are saying? I said I wasn't interested in a religion that asserts it's mythology as absolute reality. So, IS that what you are doing? If so, then I am not interested. Absolute reality is a ridiculous notion. It's a meaningless term like "omnipotence". The idea that our sensory perception is not the full experience of reality is ancient and modern. It's not limited by knowledge of the material world. So what I'm saying is that my mythology has a way of explaining the world. Not THE answer, but a perspective for those who would like to try and appreciate it. The common style of argument I get into with atheists is an endless procession of disputes over the meaning of words and the ignorance I'm presumed to operate under. I can appreciate the difficulty in explaining a story that can't be measured and parceled out. But I have very little patience for anyone who presumes I'm ignorant for trying. Again, thank you for your response here as it has taken a good step away from that approach. I'm not thin skinned, I've just had these conversations a million time and I have different priorities now. I'm not trying to make you all be more like me. I'm saying that I'm not going to respond to certain kinds of arguments because I'm just not interested. That's all. *Quote:* You want objective confirmation of your own subjective truth? No. Please, in the future, consider my level of intelligence to be greater than a sheep. *Quote:* You need an extra hand to form the shadow of this "holy other?" Yes. It's called community. I like to spend time with people who can give me insight into the world I find myself in. *Quote:* Well, maybe I will share some of your dreams and projections, maybe you'll share some of mine. But when it comes to painting faces on the clouds, I've had plenty of practice already. Me too. I guess we don't agree on the value of that exercise. Please, in the future, don't consider me ignorant for doing this. My eyes are wide open. I just enjoy the creative process. *Quote:* The fact is though, this "holy other," as you have styled it, is basically "that which cannot be known." I understand that all truth is basically inference, built on some premise currently not being argued over. And "what is known" can be expanded through logical inference, that is the case. But I've seen far too many people take the unknowable and use one label or another to give "it" a face, ascribe all sorts of characteristics to "it," and proclaim the truth of this projected image. Me too, which is why I've spent the last 5 years trying to reconstruct my sense of religion into something that respects contingency and values creativity as a valid truth-seeking activity. The problem with creativity is that it leaves you out on an edge with few supporters some times. It's too easy just to call someone ignorant because you haven't met them where they are at. This doesn't make me the arbiter of absolute truth. It just means that perspective is everything and I have a rather odd perspective on religion. I'm trying to explore that here. If I don't find that creative outlet, I will just leave. No harm, no foul. But it's my hope that there are people here who can appreciate the process and help me out. *Quote:* And it is all too easy to start from an internally consistent premise that correlates with nothing but a person's own fantasies, and hurl a construction onto the void that has no reality for anyone but the thinker themselves. Well...actually you just described how knowledge of non-material reality works. As soon as we stop talking about something that can be put in a test tube, we engage in that process. As far as my knowledge of material reality goes, I'm pretty good. Sorry, not trying to be arrogant, I just have enough experience, enough times I've been tested, to have confidence in what I know. So please consider that my beliefs about God are as internally consistent with my knowledge of material reality as I can determine. That doesn't mean I'm not open to criticism, but I shouldn't have to put up with the kind of accusations that being a religious person implies I'm ignorant of material reality. That's a stupid assertion. Sorry, I haven't gone to check if you behaved in that manner, but I encountered it a half dozen times in the first dozen posts here. Wow. What a welcome. I quickly decided that there wasn't anyone worth talking to here. Can you blame me? Thank you again for this reply. At least you seem like a reasonable fellow. *Quote:* If anything, it is the cracks in our internal consistencies, the funny parts, that bear most resemblance to the unknowable reality beyond thought. It's those things that never seem to fit into words. Buddhist tradition: construct a paradox and make it fit into reality. That's been my approach to religion. Start at those inconsistencies - there's something interesting there. Nice to know you can appreciate that. Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts
Sgt Tomas	Re: The names of God	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 177 11/13/07 15:16:09	*Quote:* Why are you so bothered about my image of you, the person, separate from your words? I'm sure you are very good at your job. Words are meaningless without context and I can't imagine how anyone here has enough context - encounters with me - to put what I'm saying into MY categories as opposed to THEIR categories of what they think I am. Intersubjectivity (understanding one another in a subjective manner) requires a person to be able to operate between their categories and those of the person they are talking with. If I don't see this behaviour I'm just going to leave. Otherwise I'm just wasting my breath. See what I mean? Peace, -sgttomas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts

The names of God	11/11/07 17:35:12	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 02:01:28	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 05:23:31	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 06:09:16	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 07:42:27	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 10:47:37	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 17:18:48	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 02:07:01	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 15:09:15	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 15:37:37	Malkut
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 16:40:12	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 18:44:03	Malkut
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 19:11:34	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 14:53:52	Malkut
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 15:14:20	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 02:46:23	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 10:55:03	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 11:35:16	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 12:41:08	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 08:33:16	One Brow
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 11:01:47	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 17:25:48	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 02:12:08	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 08:46:50	corwin17
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 09:06:29	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 15:16:09	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 02:49:40	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 10:56:55	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 11:44:58	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 12:51:15	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 17:22:55	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 02:22:24	Gramlins in the System
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 15:20:38	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 07:59:20	One Brow
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 15:28:15	Sgt Tomas
What's Godel got to do with it?	11/13/07 15:42:33	cyborg evolved
Nothing, but people wave him like a magic wand	11/13/07 16:19:04	One Brow
Re: Nothing, but people wave him like a magic wand	11/13/07 16:41:30	Sgt Tomas
What has circular logic got to do with Godel?	11/13/07 16:42:42	cyborg evolved
Re: What has circular logic got to do with Godel?	11/13/07 16:47:35	Sgt Tomas
What has circular logic got to do with Godel?	11/13/07 16:49:27	cyborg evolved
The logic is recursive, not circular	11/14/07 07:18:15	One Brow
Re: The logic is recursive, not circular	11/14/07 10:58:43	Sgt Tomas
Re: The logic is recursive, not circular	11/14/07 12:25:55	One Brow
Re: The logic is recursive, not circular	11/14/07 13:08:58	Sgt Tomas
Re: The logic is recursive, not circular	11/14/07 13:42:52	One Brow
Re: The logic is recursive, not circular	11/14/07 13:45:38	Sgt Tomas
Recursion is not the same thing	11/14/07 13:52:28	cyborg evolved
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/14/07 13:56:19	Sgt Tomas
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/14/07 14:13:02	cyborg evolved
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/14/07 14:40:59	Sgt Tomas
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/14/07 14:49:56	cyborg evolved
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/14/07 15:18:26	Sgt Tomas
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/15/07 02:19:49	Gramlins in the System
Re: Recursion is not the same thing	11/15/07 12:47:28	Sgt Tomas
Thought so	11/15/07 15:22:40	Gramlins in the System
really? Why's that?	11/15/07 17:00:20	Sgt Tomas
Re: Nothing, but people wave him like a magic wand	11/13/07 16:46:02	Sgt Tomas
I fail to see how Incompleteness applies here.	11/13/07 16:52:21	cyborg evolved
Re: I fail to see how Incompleteness applies here.	11/13/07 17:02:33	Sgt Tomas
There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:19:21	cyborg evolved
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:31:25	Sgt Tomas
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:35:27	cyborg evolved
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:49:48	Sgt Tomas
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:53:45	cyborg evolved
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 18:04:36	Sgt Tomas
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/14/07 10:50:09	cyborg evolved
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/14/07 11:01:52	Sgt Tomas
I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 11:44:08	cyborg evolved
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 13:17:37	Sgt Tomas
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 13:30:12	cyborg evolved
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 13:48:08	Sgt Tomas
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 13:53:49	cyborg evolved
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 13:57:21	Sgt Tomas
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 14:06:07	cyborg evolved
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 14:10:16	Sgt Tomas
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 14:14:56	cyborg evolved
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 14:43:17	Sgt Tomas
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 14:53:20	cyborg evolved
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 15:20:45	Sgt Tomas
Re: I don't know why you think I'm ignorant of the subject	11/14/07 16:11:12	cyborg evolved
Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/14/07 15:12:21	Sgt Tomas
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/14/07 16:09:51	cyborg evolved
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/14/07 16:35:52	Sgt Tomas
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/17/07 03:48:08	cyborg evolved
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/18/07 05:50:53	Sgt Tomas
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/19/07 11:53:11	cyborg evolved
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/19/07 13:43:41	Sgt Tomas
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/19/07 14:18:55	cyborg evolved
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/19/07 16:10:54	Sgt Tomas
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/20/07 09:43:32	cyborg evolved
Re: Ooh ooh ooh!!! Can you please give me your input	11/20/07 13:52:59	Sgt Tomas
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/14/07 02:36:43	Gramlins in the System
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/14/07 11:05:25	Sgt Tomas
You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 11:46:47	cyborg evolved
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 11:50:33	Gramlins in the System
There is no perfect model.	11/14/07 11:53:43	cyborg evolved
No, I realise that.	11/15/07 02:21:10	Gramlins in the System
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 13:25:22	Sgt Tomas
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 13:24:13	Sgt Tomas
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 13:37:47	cyborg evolved
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 13:51:03	Sgt Tomas
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 13:55:34	cyborg evolved
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 13:59:15	Sgt Tomas
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 14:16:51	cyborg evolved
Re: You seem to think you're outside the system	11/14/07 14:45:16	Sgt Tomas
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:35:48	Svlad Cjelli
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/13/07 17:47:53	Sgt Tomas
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/14/07 02:28:35	Gramlins in the System
Re: There's nothing mysterious about incompleteness really	11/14/07 11:06:35	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 16:18:03	One Brow
Re: The names of God	11/13/07 17:01:30	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 07:46:18	One Brow
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 11:09:48	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 12:34:52	One Brow
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 13:28:39	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 13:41:08	One Brow
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 13:52:36	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 16:29:42	One Brow
Yes. That is what I meant.	11/14/07 16:40:15	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 16:26:09	One Brow
Precisely	11/14/07 16:43:29	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 13:23:08	1skybluepink
Re: The names of God	11/12/07 17:27:22	Sgt Tomas
Now that the preamble seems to have fizzled out....	11/13/07 17:03:35	Sgt Tomas
bump	11/13/07 17:34:51	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 00:14:57	NannyG123
Re: The names of God	11/14/07 13:44:35	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/15/07 08:50:05	NannyG123
Re: The names of God	11/15/07 12:49:15	Sgt Tomas
Re: The names of God	11/15/07 13:17:48	NannyG123
Re: The names of God	11/15/07 15:09:11	Sgt Tomas

Yuku free message boards

Replies