Jul 11, 2012 -- 4:12PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Jul 11, 2012 -- 4:03PM, G.flower wrote:

Jul 11, 2012 -- 3:55PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I don't think that religions are at odds with one another or with atheism. I am willing to believe that there was a man, a historical Jesus. I have not met him so I cannot offer an opinion on whether or not he is a god. He is not my god.

I believe that there is a material world and a spiritual one. "As above, so below." I believe that some are able to meet and interact with supernatural beings. I have no knowledge if we have a soul that is separate from our physical body or what happens after death. I have opinions though, that changes with my mood. It occurred to me that this life just may be a training ground for the next world. It truly may be the great adventure if our world is a reflection of the spiritual world.

All I can say about your supposition - start with something real and measurable, then move off into spiritual. The topic is what is rational about your religion. If you start with something of the spiritual or supernatural, that can't be proven, then it isn't a rational argument. 

Intelligence isn't real?

Sounds to me, we're much more on the same page. 

I think, you made a supposition. I mentioned "spiritual," and you immediately, IMO, thought "magical" -- as in unicorns, faeries, or Jesus literally walking on water.

What a nice conversation! Thank you.

To me, there is nothing degrogatory about anything magical, I'm Wiccan. :) But yes, "spiritual" "magical" "supernatural" "spiritual"  - all the same things, IMO. They are not measurable. To me, unicorns, faeries or a supernatural Jesus all fall into the same supernatural catagory. They are held in esteem by someone and no one can prove they exist.

I used magical unicorn because I knew it would get your attention and it was something that you feel is unreal. Not much different than how other people feel about Jesus.

Intelligence is measurable although the tests for that are can be questioned.

I think much of what "Jesus" has been made out to be isn't real.

I think Christ was/is God manifest, not God inarnate -- if those terms are understanable in the context within which I'm using them.

Likewise, our intelligence, or sapience, to be more specific, manifests our soul, I think. 

We use the Divine as in everything is a part of the Divine, the All. Gods are spiritual creatures that inhabit the spiritual realm and some can/will interact with us. Ours in not the Abrahamic world view.

My dogs are intelligent. Does that mean that they have souls, in your belief?

Intelligence is tied to the physical body. If there is an injury to the brain, the intelligence can go down. Does that mean that the soul no longer exists?

Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

We use the Divine as in everything is a part of the Divine, the All. Gods are spiritual creatures that inhabit the spiritual realm and some can/will interact with us. Ours in not the Abrahamic world view.

My dogs are intelligent. Does that mean that they have souls, in your belief?

Intelligence is tied to the physical body. If there is an injury to the brain, the intelligence can go down. Does that mean that the soul no longer exists?

Intelligence, in the basic form, is common between man and animal.

Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.

The biology is merely the "hardware" so to speak. If my iPod breaks, does Pink Floyd's music cease to exist? If I mirror reflecting the sun is shattered, is the sun affected in any way?

I find polytheism to be ultimately untennable. "Gods" in the sense I think you describe them would also need a cause greater than or outside themselves.

In order to be an uncaused cause of everything else, a Creator would have to be perfectly simple (non-composite), unique, utterly singular and self-subsisting. It would further stand to reason that such a being, force or entity would be both far too vast and too subtle for the human mind to grasp or conceptionalize. 

Therefore, he who tries to imagine a full grasp of "God," likey is worshiping his own imagination. 

Again, you cannot prove that once the body breaks the soul (if there is such a thing, again unprovable) continues on.

Plus sapience is wisdom, and due to working with the public, I would have to say that there are a good many mentally ill people or those damaged by drugs or accidents or illness in the world who do not have wisdom and will most likely never have it.

It's fine with me if you don't find polytheism tenable. I do. Monotheism makes no sense to me, especially since I have mutliple gods.

There is not a creator god in my religion. There is the Divine.

Who claimed to grasp all of Yahweh?

You know we got some play room as to what it means for us to be us.   Whats it mean for YOU to be YOU in a world with thousand gods, one or none?  Kindness is what it is.  

When its all said and done im pretty sure we want to communicate a kindness to the rest.

If we got a finish all we have is a last communication we'd want it to count.

If we don't its only cause we're still immature.

Just being able to communicate that contact with friends, family, everyone....... thats a big enough miracle alone.  

When divinity is so common and ordinary I suppose its like its not there at all.

One, many, none............I still carry this kindness.   It could be claimed impossible,  but from experience of just existing, the impossible is a piece of cake.

Jul 11, 2012 -- 9:55PM, G.flower wrote:

Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

We use the Divine as in everything is a part of the Divine, the All. Gods are spiritual creatures that inhabit the spiritual realm and some can/will interact with us. Ours in not the Abrahamic world view.

My dogs are intelligent. Does that mean that they have souls, in your belief?

Intelligence is tied to the physical body. If there is an injury to the brain, the intelligence can go down. Does that mean that the soul no longer exists?

Intelligence, in the basic form, is common between man and animal.

Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.

The biology is merely the "hardware" so to speak. If my iPod breaks, does Pink Floyd's music cease to exist? If I mirror reflecting the sun is shattered, is the sun affected in any way?

I find polytheism to be ultimately untennable. "Gods" in the sense I think you describe them would also need a cause greater than or outside themselves.

In order to be an uncaused cause of everything else, a Creator would have to be perfectly simple (non-composite), unique, utterly singular and self-subsisting. It would further stand to reason that such a being, force or entity would be both far too vast and too subtle for the human mind to grasp or conceptionalize. 

Therefore, he who tries to imagine a full grasp of "God," likey is worshiping his own imagination. 

Again, you cannot prove that once the body breaks the soul (if there is such a thing, again unprovable) continues on.

Plus sapience is wisdom, and due to working with the public, I would have to say that there are a good many mentally ill people or those damaged by drugs or accidents or illness in the world who do not have wisdom and will most likely never have it.

It's fine with me if you don't find polytheism tenable. I do. Monotheism makes no sense to me, especially since I have mutliple gods.

There is not a creator god in my religion. There is the Divine.

Who claimed to grasp all of Yahweh?

I well versed in mental illness. I have a mentally ill son.

Mental illness is just another example of "hardware" malfunction, IMO. Increasingly, they are linking mental illness to disorders in the brain. 

I think sapience is its own proof. There's no sensible reason for it to exist, from a purely bioloigcal/evolutionary standpoint. If fact, taken from that view, it actually causes a myriad of problems, and impedes the species. Think, environmental degredation, mechanized warfare and thermonuclear weapons.

 Therefore, I think, it's transcendent reason for existing is evident. It's a powerful force all its own.

Also, the potential of humans to transcend thier biology or mere intelligence in the animal sense is just that -- potential. It's something you have to work at. And I think all religion teaches that, monotheisic or not. 

Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:27PM, mainecaptain wrote:

Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Intelligence, in the basic form, is common between man and animal.

Sapience -- is not. That is unique to human beings. That is what manifests our soul.

The biology is merely the "hardware" so to speak. If my iPod breaks, does Pink Floyd's music cease to exist? If I mirror reflecting the sun is shattered, is the sun affected in any way?

I find polytheism to be ultimately untennable. "Gods" in the sense I think you describe them would also need a cause greater than or outside themselves.

In order to be an uncaused cause of everything else, a Creator would have to be perfectly simple (non-composite), unique, utterly singular and self-subsisting. It would further stand to reason that such a being, force or entity would be both far too vast and too subtle for the human mind to grasp or conceptionalize. 

Therefore, he who tries to imagine a full grasp of "God," likey is worshiping his own imagination. 

No one said anything about grasping YHVH, and you god is no more a big deal then any other god, if gods are created, your god too was created. Prove otherwise.

Polytheism actually makes more sense then monotheism if you actually observe the world. Clearly there is not one all powerful god, because if there is, this world proves he is evil to the core.

You just don't like the idea that others have more gods, and that some actually communicate with their people. That is sad.

I never said anything about YHVH. Why do you assume I acknolwedge the Biblical concept of God as the only "God?"

That's a concept or image of "God." All said concept or images are just as invalid as they are valid. Allah, YHVH, The Great Spirit, Braman, the gods of the various pagan pantheons -- all the same, and yet, all merely attempts to put a name to something beyond names. 

If I go outside during the winter, and see a fluffy substance coming down out of the clouds, I see it as one thing, and call it by one name. A person on some cultures in the Artic will see it as many things, and call it by many names.

Which of us is correct? We both are.

Which of us is going only by his perception and learned ideas, and therefore, in the objective sense, wrong? Again, we both are. 

Do you understand now? Please, quit assuming YHVH is "my" God. There is no "my" or "your" or "their" God/gods from my perspective.