Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 13:40 (4722 days ago) @ BBella

Bella,

Gonna try to respond to all of your points here. Thank you for taking the time to share your beliefs with us.

The "god/s"...describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God"...this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants...the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.

Um, actually, what you describe is EXACTLY what the bible describes. The "ALL that IS" that is mentioned in the bible is described as having only directly created exactly one thing, His 'only begotten son', and everything else was created through him and the active force, or 'holy spirit' of "All that IS". Whether you consider the Elohim as aliens or angels is only symantics as, by all description, they are fallible, have feelings, are not immortal, and can be in fact wrestled down by a mere human(Jacob).

From my perspective, the Creator of ALL that IS, could be considered similar to the way some ancient beliefs describe mother earth. They call her Gaia...

"Mother Earth is the sentience or soul of our planet. A sentience is that which is conscious or aware of itself and its purpose. A sentience is more like an emotional response and less like an intellectual process.".. A sentient being is "less" like an intellectual being, in that it doesn't have "thought," as a whole, it responds as a whole to itself and to outside forces. It describes a sentient being as being "more" like a being that "responds" on an emotional level. So, for me, to make it clear from my perspective, The God is a sentient being that responds to itself in an emotionally reactive way. God is not a being that speaks from the heavens or comes down from the heavens to speak with humans or directs them to write books about it's exploits and teachings.

This is almost, almost an echo of how I think. God IS love. But, that being said, emotion is a function of intelligence. Personally, I see emotion broken into two categories, apathy and love. Their may be some argument over that statement, but suffice to say for now that if you do not love or care about something, then there is no point in anger, hate, loathing, dissappointment or jealousy. So either you love it enough to care, or you are apathetic.The God of the bible DID react on a very emotional level, so I do not disagree with your statement, I simply allow for a broader scope.

I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works.

I think, as a species, are judgement is too clouded by immediate needs and desires(and our inability to distinguish between the two) to ever "All that IS". We are not temporally ready.

In my opinion, the word Sin, is, within itself, a word much like demon. It has a shelf life...and it's expiration date is upon us. Morality, much like the word Sin, has a shelf life. At some point, it's meaning will be so diverse, it will no longer have use.

That is why I attempted to simplify and remove all the baggage from the words. They are binary states. Either a = b, or not. Their may be more than one correct way to do things, but each and every one of those ways will either be correct, or not.

[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.

I agree, if you are saying above that there really is no such thing as inherited sin.

No. I am saying sin is very simply, a mistake. If you say a potato is a tomato, you are wrong, and it is a sin(mistake). No moral connotation involved. As I mentioned above, sin is the 0(false) in a binary statement. My mention of inherrited sin could be better read "inherrited teachings that are mistaken(wicked/sinful/wrong)"

[*]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.

I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?

It means that we are so lost, and so separated from the fundamental nature of reality that humanity as a species will never be able to find our way back on our own, without outside intervention.

[*]This act of creation was performed out of love.

I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.

That statement was specifically pointed to the prime motivation, and was made as an answer to DHW's concern over the prime motivation of a creator God. The prime motivation was love.

Cont...

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.