Please Help Me Find More Of These.....
Jokes3 mins ago
About Time God Did Something Isn't It?
85 Answers
a question for the theists. (for ' god' read 'any and all gods')
If there is a god, he's certainly had a good innings - he's has almost total devotion for centuries.
well now, he hasn't any more... billions of people are losing faith, people are doubting, people are starting to turn away - so why doesn't he do anything about it?
if a businessman is losing loyal customers interest, he doesn't just clam up and hide, he steps it up a notch, he comes out all guns blazing with a new plan to win back his followers. he tries hard to prove himself worthy again.
why doesn't god think - 'Oh eck, i'm losing them, i best give them something to reaffirm their faith in me'?
not small wishy-washy seemingly inconsequential things, but something big - you know like all those 'WOW' things he has apparently done in the past that prove his existence - anything would do really - it'd only take one totally convincing and undeniable thing for many to go back to him
so why is he seemingly content to just lose his flock?
what is he going to do when majority of the world no longer believes? because thats the way its heading.
i know many will say he cannot prove it, because proof denies faith and without faith he is nothing - but supposedly lots of things already prove he exists don't they?
well according to him they do -
Us, for start...we are so amazing we MUST be made by god - therefore that is him giving 'proof' ... then there's the earth - making a planet in 7 days is a pretty big deal and proves he exists too - doesn't it?
and also animals, good deeds, well everything, as well as all the other showy things hes done - surely doing stuff like that was proving his existence?
If there is a god, he's certainly had a good innings - he's has almost total devotion for centuries.
well now, he hasn't any more... billions of people are losing faith, people are doubting, people are starting to turn away - so why doesn't he do anything about it?
if a businessman is losing loyal customers interest, he doesn't just clam up and hide, he steps it up a notch, he comes out all guns blazing with a new plan to win back his followers. he tries hard to prove himself worthy again.
why doesn't god think - 'Oh eck, i'm losing them, i best give them something to reaffirm their faith in me'?
not small wishy-washy seemingly inconsequential things, but something big - you know like all those 'WOW' things he has apparently done in the past that prove his existence - anything would do really - it'd only take one totally convincing and undeniable thing for many to go back to him
so why is he seemingly content to just lose his flock?
what is he going to do when majority of the world no longer believes? because thats the way its heading.
i know many will say he cannot prove it, because proof denies faith and without faith he is nothing - but supposedly lots of things already prove he exists don't they?
well according to him they do -
Us, for start...we are so amazing we MUST be made by god - therefore that is him giving 'proof' ... then there's the earth - making a planet in 7 days is a pretty big deal and proves he exists too - doesn't it?
and also animals, good deeds, well everything, as well as all the other showy things hes done - surely doing stuff like that was proving his existence?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The OP; "About Time God Did Something Isn't It?" demonstrates what might be called a 'wrong view'. It says; 'let me sit here in my position of neutrality and you; 'God', whatever that is, let off a few fire-crackers to let me know that you are alive,' Whereas in reality, is it impossible to remove oneself from the totality of existence and make such a request. We are only a small part of a great flow from which no one and nothing can escape, and has been named in Eastern thought, 'Tao'. In the West we have no name for it and so may as well use that. There is little analogy between Tao and the Western ideas of God.
"The Tao is that from which one cannot deviate; that from which one can deviate is not the Tao".
"The Tao that can be told of is not the absolute Tao".
In other words it cannot be described and approached solely by intellect and has to be intuited.
(Exits stage left again, pursuing birdie and pursued by v_e)
"The Tao is that from which one cannot deviate; that from which one can deviate is not the Tao".
"The Tao that can be told of is not the absolute Tao".
In other words it cannot be described and approached solely by intellect and has to be intuited.
(Exits stage left again, pursuing birdie and pursued by v_e)
Khandro, I do like that cop out 'has to be intuited' What you are really saying is 'I have a vague idea that I cannot express or explain so it must necassarily be profound' whereas what it come over as is 'I'm talking complete rowlocks so take no notice'. It appears from what you say that tao is a kind of predestination which seems to be in direct conflict with Heisenburg's uncertainty principle.
https:/
From the above link:
"Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe... Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe... the object of spiritual practice is to 'become one with the Tao... Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words. It can, however, be known or experienced, and its principles (which can be discerned by observing Nature) can be followed or practiced...”
etc.
So Tao is a feeling and nothing more. That's all it can ever be since it is ineffable and therefore by definition cannot be expressed nor described. Apparently one can know 'it' or experience 'it' but since 'it' is ineffable, one can never be sure that they are at one with the 'Tao' or if they're having a quite different experience based on some entirely different stimulus.
Take about having your cake and eating it! The spiritual equivalent of Catch 22.
It's a pathetically intangible and ethereal concept that sounds profound and meaningful on first hearing but collapses into a pile of its own transcendental flummery the second one looks closely at it.
From the above link:
"Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe... Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe... the object of spiritual practice is to 'become one with the Tao... Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words. It can, however, be known or experienced, and its principles (which can be discerned by observing Nature) can be followed or practiced...”
etc.
So Tao is a feeling and nothing more. That's all it can ever be since it is ineffable and therefore by definition cannot be expressed nor described. Apparently one can know 'it' or experience 'it' but since 'it' is ineffable, one can never be sure that they are at one with the 'Tao' or if they're having a quite different experience based on some entirely different stimulus.
Take about having your cake and eating it! The spiritual equivalent of Catch 22.
It's a pathetically intangible and ethereal concept that sounds profound and meaningful on first hearing but collapses into a pile of its own transcendental flummery the second one looks closely at it.
Khandro you said
''We are only a small part of a great flow from which no one and nothing can escape, and has been named in Eastern thought, 'Tao'
''
Then you said
'' There is no 'predestination' in Tao''
Can you not see the contradiction there? or was it just a poor choice of words?
Fortunately I am well aware of the part that intuition plays in the way the human brain works. In a person with a reasonably developed intellect these intuitive notions are reported to the rational part of the brain which assesses them using the latest in-brain model of the outside world. If they fit the model they are accepted and if not rejected. That is why my intuition tells me that the ideas of the eastern mysticisms that you are so keen on are really just ideas that couldn't be explained because the mystics didn't have the scientific knowledge that is available today. I did find the concept of a 'zen slap' a bit bizarre, just as well I stay well away from such people. :-) Do you not think that some of these mystical ideas aren't just a bit outdated?
''We are only a small part of a great flow from which no one and nothing can escape, and has been named in Eastern thought, 'Tao'
''
Then you said
'' There is no 'predestination' in Tao''
Can you not see the contradiction there? or was it just a poor choice of words?
Fortunately I am well aware of the part that intuition plays in the way the human brain works. In a person with a reasonably developed intellect these intuitive notions are reported to the rational part of the brain which assesses them using the latest in-brain model of the outside world. If they fit the model they are accepted and if not rejected. That is why my intuition tells me that the ideas of the eastern mysticisms that you are so keen on are really just ideas that couldn't be explained because the mystics didn't have the scientific knowledge that is available today. I did find the concept of a 'zen slap' a bit bizarre, just as well I stay well away from such people. :-) Do you not think that some of these mystical ideas aren't just a bit outdated?
birdie; It may be that you are incorrigible, but I will press on. Imagine that you were an undergraduate and your tutor gave you a subject of which you knew nothing at all, and asked you to go away and research that subject, write a précis, and summarise your view of it, and you went straight to wikipedia, skipped through whatever it says there (I haven't looked) and wrote the deliberation as you have above. Don't you think you would be shown the door in short order?
jomifl; I reiterate; there is no predestination because this would pre-suppose that the future had been previously established by some form of prior arrangement which is not so, we are part of an endless flow and there is no 'mysticism' involved.
I really did LOL at your idea on outdatedness!
jomifl; I reiterate; there is no predestination because this would pre-suppose that the future had been previously established by some form of prior arrangement which is not so, we are part of an endless flow and there is no 'mysticism' involved.
I really did LOL at your idea on outdatedness!
Glad to hear that you are coming to grips with time Khandro. Of course there is no predestination, there would have to be some kind of god thing to arrange that and there is precious little evidence that one of those exists.. I would be interested to hear how you think this ineffable tao thing interacts with the world as we know it other than in the heads of a few self selected masters of something mystical, incomprehensible and really, irrelevant to those of us who have managed to come to terms with life, death etc. Of course you can't explain unless telepathy is one of you skills since these things strangely don't lend themselves to explanation by mere words. A good retreat? :-)
Khandro - “... birdie; It may be that you are incorrigible, but I will press on...”
And then you make some fatuous remarks about researching a subject. It's rather pathetic that you seem to think that in order to prop up your argument about the 'Tao' you simply trash my understanding of it based upon a link I have posted for the convenience of others. Your dismissive post above is particularly peculiar since you've already said that the 'Tao' in ineffable, yet you're claiming to understand it or are at least are chastising others for not having your apparently vast knowledge of an unknowable and indescribable concept.
It's quite clearly nonsense Khandro. Nailing your colours to this particular mast of philosophy just makes you look stupid.
And then you make some fatuous remarks about researching a subject. It's rather pathetic that you seem to think that in order to prop up your argument about the 'Tao' you simply trash my understanding of it based upon a link I have posted for the convenience of others. Your dismissive post above is particularly peculiar since you've already said that the 'Tao' in ineffable, yet you're claiming to understand it or are at least are chastising others for not having your apparently vast knowledge of an unknowable and indescribable concept.
It's quite clearly nonsense Khandro. Nailing your colours to this particular mast of philosophy just makes you look stupid.
God made us with free will, the ability to recognise and choose between right and wrong. The world He created for our ancestors was unimaginably wonderful, lacking in nothing, so much so, that the name by which it was known, "The Garden of Eden", has passed down throughout history to indicate a perfect world.
The problem with giving someone free will presents a huge problem for the giver, even one such as God, which is, whether or not to interfere whenever He sees signs of people straying straying from the path of knowing and loving Him.
For of course to interfere would be revoking that precious gift, free will.
So he doesn't interfere at all, he just makes quite clear that at a future time, everyone will be expected to account for their actions in this life.
Even so, about 2,000 years ago, he decided mankind was so far from the track of goodness, that it was necessary to send an Emissary, explaining afresh the rules.
The life of the Emissary has been well described in 4 very well-known books, as well as entire libraries of back-up stuff.
One thing is amazingly clear, throughout the short life of the Emissary, He never once, in all His sayings, uttered a single bad word or phrase. He is the only person in history to have done this.
For this perfect honesty and truth, He was killed.
Perhaps Joko, if you take the time to read about Jesus, you will find the answer to your question.
The problem with giving someone free will presents a huge problem for the giver, even one such as God, which is, whether or not to interfere whenever He sees signs of people straying straying from the path of knowing and loving Him.
For of course to interfere would be revoking that precious gift, free will.
So he doesn't interfere at all, he just makes quite clear that at a future time, everyone will be expected to account for their actions in this life.
Even so, about 2,000 years ago, he decided mankind was so far from the track of goodness, that it was necessary to send an Emissary, explaining afresh the rules.
The life of the Emissary has been well described in 4 very well-known books, as well as entire libraries of back-up stuff.
One thing is amazingly clear, throughout the short life of the Emissary, He never once, in all His sayings, uttered a single bad word or phrase. He is the only person in history to have done this.
For this perfect honesty and truth, He was killed.
Perhaps Joko, if you take the time to read about Jesus, you will find the answer to your question.
“For of course to interfere would be revoking that precious gift, free will.
So he doesn't interfere at all, he just makes quite clear that at a future time
everyone will be expected to account for their actions in this life.”
So you believe in life after death, IamReplete? What will that life be like?
So he doesn't interfere at all, he just makes quite clear that at a future time
everyone will be expected to account for their actions in this life.”
So you believe in life after death, IamReplete? What will that life be like?
Latest Posts
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching37 mins ago