hinduwoman

In the first place 'Thou art God' cannot be scientifically tested, because it does not mean anything.
Secondly, this actually does not make any difference to the lives of people concerned. Hindus believe in tbis theory, but they have yet to create a paradise where every person genuinely believes his neighbour is as important as himself.

Darth Dane

diana

"My point was that you perhaps shouldn't believe everything you read about him. I see no reason to believe he had "powers" of any kind." Do you believe everything in the bible? i see no reason why jesus should be able to walk on water. someone said it was God! Well I haven´t seen him, should I believe a mere Book?


"I read There Is A River, too. Very powerful and moving stuff--written by a friend, who believed the stories and wanted to world to remember Edgar Cayce as the most incredible, infallible "prophet" of modern times."

I never said he was infallible! he was given part of the truth.

Like Neale Donald Walsh, he claims to have spoken to God, can you disprove him?

"However, the book is written from an obvious bias and offers no primary sources to back up the wonderful stories." same goes for the bible I imagine...


"Granted. But as with rocket science, the information about the bible is out there, if you only take the time to do some research."

It´s not so important, but I am getting more and more knwoeldge everyday.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the Lord your God is driving them out before you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The text says you will drive out anyone who fits these descriptions out of your midst. It admits that such creatures do exist, in the opinion of the writers, and that they will be driven out because they offend God."

So it says anyone you consider to be abnormal should be driven out? Well the muslims are trying to do that to christians/heathens! And we do the same upon them!
What if we didn´t consider someone like that to be abnormal. What then?
"love thy neighbor as you love thyself" -Are you normal?


"Okay. You lost me here. But I confess I haven't figured out what your major argument is yet. (Or if I am understanding you, it is essentially meaningless: God is everything? What does this prove? Setting one word equal to another that was working perfectly fine by itself doesn't get us anywhere.) I was just pointing out a couple of flaws that I saw."

The point is, if everyone contains that which is God, why are we fighting about it, why are some miserable? Share that which is in the garden of Eden.

"Gurdur"


"*sigh*
It is often better to get on with normal life than to get stoned and imagine one's burblings have any cosmic significance
---- Sayings Of Gurdur"

Well if the chaos theory holds any validity even a butterflys wings can cause a tornado!

"Something may be logical within itself if it is protected from the facts and supported by butchering the language. This doesn't make it a good foundation for your life
---- Sayings Of Gurdur"

True in some extend, choose love as that gives meaning to the world

"God is dead. Why the hell does everyone want to be a God ?
--- Pet Peeves Of Gurdur" Well if my theory is sound, I can´t try to be, I am. "Do or do not there is no try!" -Yoda

"Robert Heinlein was only an imaginative flack. Donald Kingsbury and Terry Pratchett are far better.
--- More Pet Peeves Of Gurdur"

Subjective, and I rather like RAH.

"hinduwoman"

"In the first place 'Thou art God' cannot be scientifically tested, because it does not mean anything.
Secondly, this actually does not make any difference to the lives of people concerned. Hindus believe in tbis theory, but they have yet to create a paradise where every person genuinely believes his neighbour is as important as himself."

They cannot create that on their own, the whole planet has to decide. Gandhi, one small man, turned 300 million Indians from fighting to peace. ONE man. Imagine if there had been 100 Gandhi´s!





DD - Art Spliff

-DM-

The expression "God is" is fairly often heard. If what it is meant to mean is "God exists," then it would be more meaningful to say, "God exists."

When people say, "God is, " or "God is everything," those expressions strike me as transcendent double-talk signifying nothing at all.

-Don-

-DM-

If "God" is everything, then the word "God" has no meaning.

-Don-

post-it

I think God made and is everthing and God is also separate as in personality from all that he made. Therefore God can have meaning.

curbyIII

I can accept the fact that God has as much consciousness as a rock. So why worship God and not worship a rock? Maybe the rock will save your soul etc.

Saying consciousness is part of God is very, very different from saying that God is conscious. Consciousness is part of a dictionary yet a dictionary isn't conscious.

Darth Dane

DM


"The expression "God is" is fairly often heard. If what it is meant to mean is "God exists," then it would be more meaningful to say, "God exists.""

"God is" is less meaningful than "God exists"?

The difference as I see it, lies in that "exists" denotes a state of being, whereas "is" is before the fact that God exists.
Down below I will elaborate more.

"When people say, "God is, " or "God is everything," those expressions strike me as transcendent double-talk signifying nothing at all." -It is weird to hold both sides of the coin at the same time...



"If "God" is everything, then the word "God" has no meaning." Why doesn´t it hold meaning? What do you mean?





"post-it"



"I think God made and is everthing and God is also separate as in personality from all that he made. Therefore God can have meaning." LOL yeah it does kinda make sense


"curbyIII"

"I can accept the fact that God has as much consciousness as a rock. So why worship God and not worship a rock? Maybe the rock will save your soul etc."

Yes indeed why not? "lift the stone and I will be there, cleave the wood and I will be there"

"Saying consciousness is part of God is very, very different from saying that God is conscious. Consciousness is part of a dictionary yet a dictionary isn't conscious."

How do you know? Have you tried to establish a communication with it? I suspect it is quite hard, it is far easier to find someone that can express themselves, with a language of symbols that you can relate to.




Someone said "I was dreaming I was a butterfly. Now I wonder if I am a man dreaming he was a butterfly, or if I am a butterfly dreaming he is a man"


Before any discussion can be made we must define ourselves to exist so to say. If we don´t know if we are real or just a dream, no discussion seems sensible. So we choose to say " I am"



1) I Am

Now we decide that we shall discuss the logics of my thoughtexperiment.

I choose to say that "God exists", or more aptly put "God Is". I don´t know if he exists as such, but I choose to say he/she is.

2) God Is

Now I define what I in fact want God to be. Since I don´t know what God can or cannot be, some say this others that. So to be on the safe side I say that "God Is everything". I choose everything, because I feel it covers all possible solutions, other words could have been used as well, but this is fine.

3) God Is Everything



So is the logics more clear?

I Am
God Is

I and God share something already here. We both are.
Since I myself is included in everything, I must be it.
But since I from the first get go, didn´t know if I knew anything at all, I can´t be that. But Whereever I go I can see others that is included in that which is everything, so I say to you "Thou art God"

Imagine this is the garden of eden, and then look at how we treat it, and those living in it.



DD - Love Spliff

diana

My point was that no one has demonstrated even a scrap of "psychic" ability in Cayce.

You just said "he was given part of the truth." That is a positive statement. Please support it with evidence.

Do keep in mind that anyone who makes enough guesses will occasionally be right from sheer chance. I assume you have some way of distinguishing between this and being "given part of the truth.

Concerning Cayce's claim to have spoken to God, are you sure Cayce himself even made such a claim? Or did his biographer say he made this claim?

It is not my burden to disprove anyone's claim to have spoken to God. Just as I won't bother to disprove someone's claim that he just saw a leprauchan on his sofa, I don't feel a pressing need to disprove the claim that someone had a conversation with the Almighty. You have the burden of proof backwards.

The text doesn't use or imply the word "abnormal." If I accept the assumption, for the sake of argument, that God inspired the bible, I think it's implicit in that understanding that God is capable of saying exactly what he means. If he'd meant "abnormal," he'd have said it.

Instead, the text says that Israel is to disown people who have familiar spirits and cast spells, etc. The point of my quoting this in the first place is that the writers of the text in question believed people had these powers. To accept the text as inspired is to accept that people really, truly have these powers.

If you do not accept that people have such powers but you do accept the text as inspired, you have a dilemma on your hands.

You have not yet defined God in such a way that it is remotely meaningful to me. As DM so succinctly put it, "If God means everything, then 'God' has no meaning."

To put it in my own words, though, if you define something broadly enough--and I can think of no broader definition than equating that something to "everything"--that thing loses any distinguishing characteristic it may have had, and at that point is rendered meaningless.

To say "God is everything" is an extreme example of this very problem.

d

Hawkingfan

This is one of the most overused and often-quoted lies in all of biology. I've heard everything from "we use 10% of our brains" to 5% to 25% to....

That is bunk.

We use 100% of our brains-- scientific FACT.

Hawkingfan

I agree this is a great book. Heinlein is one of the greatest SF writer's. But it is fiction, not fact.


No. There is no reason to believe God is everything. God is nothing. His description in the bible excludes him from Hell and separates us from him (A&E's fall). He supposedly is not capable of evil and is only "good". He himself said he has enemies. He cannot be his own enemy.

Also, if you look under a rock, you say God is there. I pick up a rock and God is not there. If you argue that he is there "spiritually" I would ask you to prove why him and not Allah or some other god.
Scientifically speaking, god is not present in anything. Everything in the universe is matter and energy (God has neither) and is made up of molecules. Break the molecules down and you find elements and atoms. Break it down further and you get particles and antiparticles. You also can detect the strong force of the particles working in the atom at that level. Break it down further and you get quarks (in 3 colors!). Break it down more into strings. There is no god there. Saying "God is everything" contradicts the laws of science. The reason you say God is everything is because you do not understand how the Universe works (the laws of physics). God is not the way to understand the universe. If it was, then the answer to questions like say, "What is a rainbow?" would be "A work of God." And that would be all. There would be no reason to mention light refraction and the truth would remain unknown.

Also, you say that God is love and hate and things of that sort. But those are only subjective ideas and do not have a specific meaning to everybody. And you cannot say that love is hate because the two ideas exclude each other.

All is not one. For example, a particle and an antiparticle cannot exist together. They must annihilate.