Why Not...

rugadd wrote: One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to serve a deity like that.

Nothing is above being wrong/evil if we're going to view things in those sorts of terms. Not even god.

Sorry, I know I'm mostly talking to myself here.

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

rugadd wrote: One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to serve a deity like that.

Nothing is above being wrong/evil if we're going to view things in those sorts of terms. Not even god.

Sorry, I know I'm mostly talking to myself here.

I viewed it as a fragmentary view of the divine, limited by my own corporeal incarnation. By holding onto a set of values as obligatory to its presence (the experience), it might best define those which give the most useful (?) meaning to the experience of it. Else, change the values and try again....

... and instead of using the experience to define the source, the experience is defined by both source and recipient. I mean the source might even be within oneself, but that detail could be incidental if the intended result is the experience itself.

So by understanding its defined (to some extent!?) by your own limitations/capabilities/self then you can more easily relate the experience back to your own self in terms of progress, rather then characterizing any anthropomorphism of the divine experience and stagnating personal development into dogmatic servitude. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with dogmatic servitude... well at least not all the time.

It can be a very colorful meditation.

Since I wrote my last post on this topic (and after reading some of the responses), I have to admit to being slightly unsure of, well, everything. Not just because of what I've read but because of what I've experienced.

My conclusion is simple. "All the answers fall short of the truth."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wutmEjdbedE&list=PLCA4298A0D7F18B04&index=13

Streen wrote: Since I wrote my last post on this topic (and after reading some of the responses), I have to admit to being slightly unsure of, well, everything. Not just because of what I've read but because of what I've experienced.

My conclusion is simple. "All the answers fall short of the truth."

have you really tested all of the answers?

i dont dispute that conclusion but i am curious at the process that brought you to it

from here it looks like you were introduced to ideas that you hadnt considered, and these ideas made you realize that what you thought was true, may not actually be as true as you thought it was, and now you are saying "since the truth that i want to be true, might not be true, i have to conclude that we cant know the truth"

MartaLina wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wutmEjdbedE&list=PLCA4298A0D7F18B04&index=13

Interestingly enough, I still listen to Christian radio, sometimes, for a bit of a positive, uplifting spirit for my day. Not to derail the discussion, but my range of music I listen to is very wide.

I do, i love Gospel , i am just not into the Religion anymore

Because, in my opinion, the Bible is just a book. Paper. It is a fictional story about a charismatic Arab written by some desert dwelling scribes who were bored. It has just as much relevance today as Harry Potter, or oliver Twist. Just a book.

Because I was taught as a child that I should not worship middle men and seek out my own path and beliefs on my own time.