Does It Make Sense For A *Personal* God to Exist??? - Page 2

defyfear · (#26 (**permalink**))

Mamoulian wrote:

Quote:

defyfear wrote:

Quote:

Mamoulian wrote:

Quote:

defyfear wrote:

Quote:

The dead in my view are dead. No will means no identity, not able to practice and build faith. If the dead are 'pure faith' I would expect much more for the 'living' which includes that mostly unrealized concept called 'love'. The dead are no longer the sole carriers of 'soul' but that 'soul' is reclaimed by the one who implanted it in the first place.

Yes, greeting again Mamoulian

Quote:

Salaam defyfear.

Quote:

Children - like all living things - are born without any 'identity' or 'soul'.

The have their own identity or glory in my opinion just as each star in the sky shines differently and some have different colors at times. If they dont realize it they will soon enough.

Humans fill this void with noise tosilence their own insecurities. We give our children names and histories and imagine them to be what they are not.

I agree with this. We do make sure our children carry on most of our bad business deals in our present life to the next generation slowly but surely making sure that 'prison' fits all of us.

Butwe cannot silence the noise within us byprojecting it intoothers.

Yes, that noise wants somebody to control and lead to more ruin of a promising life of liberation. In short just more adversities and adversaries.

Quote:

The dead are mute and still. They cannot defy Allah.

Allah or any god already got plans for that dead body for food for scavengers, enrich the earth with nutrients building blocks etc.

Onlythe living can choose to disbelieve and worship life as though they will always possess it. But what does Allah care for human vanity?

Allah I would assume knows this but went ahead and allowed this to happen because Allah or any god just as we do as mankind like to test things out such as freewill or gift we possess.

By nurturing the emptiness and silence within us we draw closer to God.

That can be said among other things as nurturing our freewill also to God or other pursuits however you wish to define it or not.

Quote:

We should live closer to the dead.

For me, I tend to leave the dead alone because my body will be joining them for an eternity also shortly but in the meantime I am for the living and the life that vibrates from such. That feeling of happiness over matters inside or outside is one thing I greatly appreciate about being alive.

Quote:

Peace.

Yes that, and well being.

Quote:

One Zero Seven · (#27 (**permalink**))

Shemsi en Tehuti wrote:

Quote:

Let's make somecrude realizationsabout what "God" is.

Quote:

After reading through this thread, it seems to me that these "realizations" are actually "speculations"...and there is a difference.

Quote:

God is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and theepitome of righteousness. How can an entity deemed as "God" bless the most crooked people to ever live, yet allow the most righteous to suffer?There are countless real-world examples present and throughout history.
This statement is based on an assumption...an assumption that a "personal" God must necessarily be limited in expression to those traditions and customs accepted by the majority. It is entirely possible that a "personal" God could in fact be absolutely just in allowing or causing whatever will further the Overall Plan of such a Being. It is entirely possible that there is a Truer concept of Justice than that which many of us, as "individuals" have. It is not that the guilty get off free, and the righteous suffer. The truth is that all suffer, and all benefit, according to the quality of their knowledge and application. If we argue that the "wicked" benefit more, and the "righteous" suffer more, then we must consider the question..."why?". If this is by the Permissive will of the Almighty, what is the purpose? Could it be that we are being given an opportunity to Learn about ourselves and our own potential for Good and Evil?

Quote:

Why would God punish innocent Americans with 9/11 (as some have said), yet turn a blind eye to other crookedness in the world. Surely God would be able to punish all inequities, butGod does not. If we even try to rationalize why God would pick and choose these things, we only make ourselves out to sound extremely stupid...quite frankly because it is incredibly stupid for a God to do that.
Did God punish those "innocent" Americans? Or is Man "punishing" himself with his own evil? Since it is true that the Universe is constructed on very definite laws which maintain Balance and Equillibrium throughout, how do we know that what happened was not just an inevitable balancing out of wrongs committed by "both sides"? And why would God allow such a thing? To show us something about ourselves, possibly?

Quote:

Therefore, we must remove one of the properties for "God", whereeither God isn't all-powerful, isn't all-knowing, or isn't the epitome of righteousness. You can pick one, but I don't think God would be God if he wasn't all-powerful or all-knowing...which means God can simply not be righteous. This notion seems a bit wierd, and is the idea of God that the Mesopotamianscame up with. I have to say that an unrighteous God only confers to many other questions, which suggests this simply cannot be the case either.
This is not the best conclusion, in my opinion, because it does not take into consideration the possibility that our present understanding is yet insufficient to properly answer such a question. Perhaps "God" has a Purpose for Causing/Allowing such things that is yet above our present understanding. Sure, we can speculate...or we can keep searching for the answer until we find it. Perhaps God is allowing Us to follow in the Path of His Own Growth into Mastery...by allowing and managing Trial and Error with "Cause and Effect".

So what are we left with other than that God must be a non-personal all-powerful & all-knowing being? This is where I am at with the question of the thread.

Does It Make Sense For A Personal God to Exist? Please give your justifications for which ever is your conclusion...

I think it makes sense...buy hey...what do I know...I'm just a religious fanatic...lol.

RM

ChocolateCookie · (#28 (**permalink**))

YES there is a Personal God...ie- Jehovah! errrm NO it wont make sense to those that don't know Him even those that do have a hard time understanding all...that is why we have FAITH...

He will answer your prayers..maybe not when you want Him to...but we are strenghtened when we are patients

He knew your name before you were born, nobody is a ACCIDENT

He even knows the number of hairs on your head..

lol..I know you didn't want Bible bashers, but I gotta keep it real..

Bless

CC

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#29 (**permalink**))

One Zero Seven wrote:

Quote:

Shemsi en Tehuti wrote:

Quote:

Therefore, we must remove one of the properties for "God", whereeither God isn't all-powerful, isn't all-knowing, or isn't the epitome of righteousness. You can pick one, but I don't think God would be God if he wasn't all-powerful or all-knowing...which means God can simply not be righteous. This notion seems a bit wierd, and is the idea of God that the Mesopotamianscame up with. I have to say that an unrighteous God only confers to many other questions, which suggests this simply cannot be the case either.
[highlight=yellow]This is not the best conclusion, in my opinion, because it does not take into consideration the possibility that our present understanding is yet insufficient to properly answer such a question.[/highlight] Perhaps "God" has a Purpose for Causing/Allowing such things that is yet above our present understanding. Sure, we can speculate...or we can keep searching for the answer until we find it. Perhaps God is allowing Us to follow in the Path of His Own Growth into Mastery...by allowing and managing Trial and Error with "Cause and Effect".

Quote:

You make a valid point. So then what should be used to determine right and wrong? Religion or humanism? If humanism, then which subset of human's ideologies (White, Asiatic, African) should be used and why?

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#30 (**permalink**))

ChocolateCookie wrote: [highlight=yellow]

Quote:

YES there is a Personal God...ie- Jehovah! errrm NO it wont make sense to those that don't know Him even those that do have a hard time understanding all...that is why we have FAITH...[/highlight]

He will answer your prayers..maybe not when you want Him to...but we are strenghtened when we are patients

He knew your name before you were born, nobody is a ACCIDENT

He even knows the number of hairs on your head..

lol..I know you didn't want Bible bashers, but I gotta keep it real..

Bless

CC

Hotep Sis...please do not take offense, but the reason I started this thread in the Philosophy Forum is to keep the Bible babble and Qur'an blather out of a thread about God where I want people to actually think. I'm sorry, but the fact that you are reciting what you were told either from some purported holy book or your religion is perhaps the antithesis of "philosophy".

One Zero Seven · (#31 (**permalink**))

Shemsi en Tehuti wrote:

Quote:

So then what should be used to determine right and wrong? Religion or humanism? If humanism, then which subset of human's ideologies (White, Asiatic, African) should be used and why?

Salaam (Peace) to all...

Very Good question(s), in my opinion.

"What should be used to determine RIGHT and WRONG? Religion or Humanism?" Well, my answer would be neither of the two...not because either of them is wrong, but because I believe the truest answer is common to both/all of them.

I am of the view that the standard of "right" and "wrong" is intimately connected to the common principle of SURVIVAL.

There was a certain man who learned that the one thing that all Men...and indeed, all LIFE...have in common is the Urge to Survive; and that Man, in particular, is constantly seeking to surviveat the Highest possible State...and doing this on many levels, which he called dynamics.

In short, he stated that Man is seeking to survive on at least eight (8) levels or dynamics:

1. Self
2. Family
3. Group - Race, Nation, Fraternity, Organization, etc.
4. Humanity - The whole human family.
5. All Life
6. Physical Universe
7. Spirit
8. Infinity (Supreme Being)

We all exist as part of each of these dynamics. Therefore, he postulated,for anything to be considered"good" or "Right"it mustbring about more benefit than harm across these dynamics. In other words, the more helpful my actions are to the survival of all these dynamics, the more "good" or "right" those actions are. Conversely, the more harmful my actions are to the survival of all these dynamics, the more "bad" or "wrong" those actions are.

I think this is a good way to look at it...and it does not conflict with my beliefs as a Muslim. Are not all Sacred Texts ultimately concerned with the Survival of Man?

What do you think?

RM

Shemsi en Tehuti · (#32 (**permalink**))

One Zero Seven wrote:

Quote:

Salaam (Peace) to all...

Very Good question(s), in my opinion.

"What should be used to determine RIGHT and WRONG? Religion or Humanism?" Well, my answer would be neither of the two...not because either of them is wrong, but because I believe the truest answer is common to both/all of them.

[highlight=yellow]I am of the view that the standard of "right" and "wrong" is intimately connected to the common principle of SURVIVAL. [/highlight]

There was a certain man who learned that the one thing that all Men...and indeed, all LIFE...have in common is the Urge to Survive; and that Man, in particular, is constantly seeking to surviveat the Highest possible State...and doing this on many levels, which he called dynamics.

In short, he stated that Man is seeking to survive on at least eight (8) levels or dynamics:

1. Self
2. Family
3. Group - Race, Nation, Fraternity, Organization, etc.
4. Humanity - The whole human family.
5. All Life
6. Physical Universe
7. Spirit
8. Infinity (Supreme Being)

We all exist as part of each of these dynamics. Therefore, he postulated,for anything to be considered"good" or "Right"it mustbring about more benefit than harm across these dynamics. In other words, the more helpful my actions are to the survival of all these dynamics, the more "good" or "right" those actions are. Conversely, the more harmful my actions are to the survival of all these dynamics, the more "bad" or "wrong" those actions are.

[highlight=yellow]I think this is a good way to look at it...and it does not conflict with my beliefs as a Muslim. Are not all Sacred Texts ultimately concerned with the Survival of Man? [/highlight]

What do you think?

RM

Quote:

I think that this was a good attempt at defining "good" and "evil", but where it is flawed is it assumes common morale amongst all stocks of humanity. If we look at the classical Black civilization of Sumer, our people wrote about their first contact with Whites. They called them "habiru", and said they were unclothed, travelled in dead silence, and destroyed everything. The influx of Whites/Semites into West Asia is what destroyed all of our classical Black civilizations except perhaps Absynnia (although it was extremely altered). I am sure that when the Whites were raiding our peoples civilizations back then, Whites and Semiteslooked at it as a deed for survival. Of course ancient Sumer saw it quite differently, and so erectedmassive walls to keep the Whites outin their mountains andcaves north of civilization. In the instinct of survival, the Sumerians tried to starve the Whites, killedand enslaved to protect their women, children, livestock, and agriculture; however, in the end the White's willfor "survival" was stronger than ours.

This is the problem, and it even persists today where theMaafa has continuedever since ancient Sumer throughout West & South Asia, Africa, as well as the African Diaporagoing long and strong forover 6000 years.Indo-European and Semitic (White) peoples have theunremitting desire to exploit and destroy the dark man at all costs because it is the only way they know how to survive. When they are not exploiting others, they are steep into barbarism. This is why when non-White peoples do what is "right" for themselves, they are labelled as "extremists", "terrorists", "militant", and other names by Whites.

As for your mention of the "Sacred Texts", I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamo texts. The survival they all seem interested in is only that our their own...much like White men.

One Zero Seven · (#33 (**permalink**))

Shemsi en Tehuti wrote: I think that this was a good attempt at defining "good" and "evil", but where it is flawed is it assumes common morale amongst all stocks of humanity...As for your mention of the "Sacred Texts", I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamo texts. The survival they all seem interested in is only that our their own...much like White men.

I see what you are saying, but your "assumptions" have hindered you from seeing my statement as it is, and therefore have prevented you from answering the question put forth.

Try to put aside your bias against what you believe "religion" to be, and READ the WORDS ...define them if you must...and then see if you can really SEE what I am saying.

Peace.

RM