Knowing vs Believing

[Windwalker]

That the vast majority of people in the East don't use the word 'God'.

What word do they use then?

Do you mean to say that your use of the word 'God' is similar to how this word is used on mainstream?

I would say all conceptions of God have certain deep structures. Didn't you notice where it says on my profile "religion" I list the Perennial Philosophy? Do you understand anything about that?

Or so you say.

Now you're ******* me off. I can say this, because it is my mind. I am looking at how I understood this as part of the mainstream and how I do now. What I say stands. Keep this up and I'll starting seeing you as a troll - in the Internet usage sense of the word.

By Eastern concept of God, do you mean as in hinduism?
Or do you have something different in mind?

Hinduism works for a start. Have you never heard anyone in Hinduism speak of God?

Or so you say.

Troll?

Point by point?
I would do it if there was anything to say other than how you use the word 'God' ( as in the following examples ) is not how people use it.

You don't have anything to draw off of other than these little meaningless comments? You're entire argument is just combative without substance? Appears so.

"God is used to describe certain qualities of our reality as an expression of something within us that transcends, yet encompasses this reality."

Yes, in Christianity this is the meaning as well. Do you not have any religious experience yourself you're speaking from, or are you just a troll?

"What God is, is Reality, or *real* reality."

This is how I see it in the "expanded view" I now hold. That the mainstream may not entirely see that does not mean that how they see God is not embraced by my statement. It is only different to them from their perspective at this point, but it is not something entirely different as you argue. They simply see it is a more limited box.

I've argued this point many times to no avail to your mind.

You are picking up a chair, cutting off all the legs and the back rest, and insisting it is still a chair.

From your perspective stuck in your box.

"God is used to describe certain qualities of our reality as an expression of something within us that transcends, yet encompasses this reality."

Yes. Even in the mainstream use, that is there. But you don't just read crap at face value.


Here, do some homework reading this and get back to me when you've gained some perspective: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, i would argue that what he meant by 'God' ( or rather the correspondent word in aramaic ) was quite similar to what jews understood by 'God'.

OK. I'd argue that Windwalker's God is quite similar to the current 'normal' understanding of God.

But we can't talk about it. That would be a semantic morass -- which you want to avoid.

 

[Windwalker]

OK. I'd argue that Windwalker's God is quite similar to the current 'normal' understanding of God.

But we can't talk about it. That would be a semantic morass -- which you want to avoid.

What I would love to do is open this discussion up into the real meat of it. How does it agree with the mainstream. To share with you since you seem able to process this, it takes a 2nd person perspective of traditional theism, merging it with a 3rd person perspective of pantheism, into what has been termed pantentheism. Now 2nd and 3rd person perspectives are valid religious points of view. Then we can later bring in 1st person perspective of mystical transcendence. My perspectives embrace all 3 in a nondual realization. But that's way ahead of getting over our demand for the Dictionary as the Word of God argument.

 

[Koldo]

OK. I'd argue that Windwalker's God is quite similar to the current 'normal' understanding of God.

But we can't talk about it. That would be a semantic morass -- which you want to avoid.

Can't talk about what?
We are talking about it already.

 

[Windwalker]

Can't talk about what?
We are talking about it already.

No, you're just repeating yourself, not actually even asking me specifics as to how I see it fit. Again, I am speaking as someone who has had what you call the traditional mindset understanding of God, and now I have what I call a larger perspective and am saying from that person inside my own head who has seen BOTH perspectives, that is is included. To you it is not, because you only have ONE perspective.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What I would love to do is open this discussion up into the real meat of it. How does it agree with the mainstream. To share with you since you seem able to process this, it takes a 2nd person perspective of traditional theism, merging it with a 3rd person perspective of pantheism, into what has been termed pantentheism. Now 2nd and 3rd person perspectives are valid religious points of view. Then we can later bring in 1st person perspective of mystical transcendence. My perspectives embrace all 3 in a nondual realization. But that's way ahead of getting over our demand for the Dictionary as the Word of God argument.

Thanks for the offer, but your God seems a little complex for me. Polysyllabic terms tend to make my God uncomfortable.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Can't talk about what?
We are talking about it already.

I thought you said that you had no interest in semantic arguments.

But who knows. I really have difficulty following your meaning.

 

[Windwalker]

Thanks for the offer, but your God seems a little complex for me. Polysyllabic terms tend to make my God uncomfortable.

It's actually only complex to try to talk about it. In a nutshell it simply means how does one relate oneself to God. It's all a matter of position. People do it all the time in one form or another.

 

[Koldo]

What word do they use then?

There are so many different languages there.
Mandarim, hindi, japanese, malay, thai, korean...

What language do you want to want to know about?
Google is our friend.

I would say all conceptions of God have certain deep structures. Didn't you notice where it says on my profile "religion" I list the Perennial Philosophy? Do you understand anything about that?

Which means it is not how it is used on the mainstream. Otherwise you have simply said 'yes'.
Regarding your question, i would say i don't know much more than the core concept.

Now you're ******* me off. I can say this, because it is my mind. I am looking at how I understood this as part of the mainstream and how I do now. What I say stands. Keep this up and I'll starting seeing you as a troll - in the Internet usage sense of the word.

At least from how you portray it ( as i can't read your mind ), i disagree with your conclusion.

Hinduism works for a start. Have you never heard anyone in Hinduism speak of God?

Yes, i have.
When 'God' is used, it pretty often means Brahman.
Are you going to give a name to your ''god'' too?

Troll?

Troll for what reason?
Because i see no reason to accept what you say?

You don't have anything to draw off of other than these little meaningless comments? You're entire argument is just combative without substance? Appears so.

I am not apt at making simple things turn into complex things.
This is my shortcoming indeed.

Yes, in Christianity this is the meaning as well. Do you not have any religious experience yourself you're speaking from, or are you just a troll?

I am sorry to tell you this, but this is not the meaning in christianity.
I was a christian, you see...

This is how I see it in the "expanded view" I now hold. That the mainstream may not entirely see that does not mean that how they see God is not embraced by my statement. It is only different to them from their perspective at this point, but it is not something entirely different as you argue. They simply see it is a more limited box.

I've argued this point many times to no avail to your mind.

How is, what is meant by the mainstream, embraced by your statement?

From your perspective stuck in your box.

I don't have a box. I would like to have one though. Can you send me yours?

Yes. Even in the mainstream use, that is there. But you don't just read crap at face value.

It is complicated to debate over a subject if we disagree over the facts, isn't it?

Here, do some homework reading this and get back to me when you've gained some perspective: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

Oh, link exchange time!
This one is for you: Exegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koldo]

No, you're just repeating yourself, not actually even asking me specifics as to how I see it fit. Again, I am speaking as someone who has had what you call the traditional mindset understanding of God, and now I have what I call a larger perspective and am saying from that person inside my own head who has seen BOTH perspectives, that is is included. To you it is not, because you only have ONE perspective.

I am repeating myself because you are repeating yourself.

 

[Koldo]

I thought you said that you had no interest in semantic arguments.

But who knows. I really have difficulty following your meaning.

I would try to explain...
But you wouldn't understand anyway. And you don't care about an explanation either way.
It would be a waste of time.

 

[Willamena]

[youtube]V2f-MZ2HRHQ[/youtube]
Cool Hand Luke - Failure to Communicate - YouTube

 

[Windwalker]

Which means it is not how it is used on the mainstream. Otherwise you have simply said 'yes'.

The only thing I've been saying, which you seem to somehow be blocked in hearing for some reason, is that the mainstream understanding of God can be embraced within how I see it now. I have never, once, claimed that how I speak of God is exactly the same thing as the mainstream understanding. Are you creating a strawman argument so you can look like you won against a straw soldier?

At least from how you portray it ( as i can't read your mind ), i disagree with your conclusion.

How can you? You don't even know what I believe!

Something is amiss in your argument here.

Yes, i have.
When 'God' is used, it pretty often means Brahman.
Are you going to give a name to your ''god'' too?

What is Brahma? Describe Brahma to me. Please.

And yes, I will call it Brahma as well.

I am not apt at making simple things turn into complex things.
This is my shortcoming indeed.

Actually, you are making it complex.

I am sorry to tell you this, but this is not the meaning in christianity.
I was a christian, you see...

WELL... there we go! I actually have a degree in theology, was on my way into the ministry when I found the teachings of my organization I was in to not be something I could agree with and left them. Now, that qualifies my background as a Christian. And as a Christian, I did see things much the way I do now! Many Christians do too, and use language, the word God to express that. Now that you did not, says something significant, and furthermore destroys your argument about the "meaning of the word".

You were saying?

How is, what is meant by the mainstream, embraced by your statement?

Ahh, the question I've been waiting for! Because your understanding of what God means is very anthropomorphic and mythological in nature. My view allows for that sort of understanding or perspective of God because it is frankly a certain developmental perspective. It is much more the concrete-literal mind's view of God, in much the same way someone not yet matured into the adult understanding of love might see love as that warm fuzzy puppy. Yes, the puppy expresses love, but love is so much more than that! Just because some might not be able to see that, does not mean what the adult is talking about isn't love.

The mean average understanding does not mean a "higher" meaning should be a different word. It is still God, not something different. The issue is that to you, it seems different because it is outside the scope of your experience - even as a Christian, apparently.

 

[Windwalker]

[youtube]V2f-MZ2HRHQ[/youtube]
Cool Hand Luke - Failure to Communicate - YouTube

I know, I keep telling myself if I can only frame it better it might communicate. For me, it really boils down to an exercise in refining how I talk about things, a way for me to have some easier mental model to reference, I guess.

 

[Koldo]

The only thing I've been saying, which you seem to somehow be blocked in hearing for some reason, is that the mainstream understanding of God can be embraced within how I see it now. I have never, once, claimed that how I speak of God is exactly the same thing as the mainstream understanding. Are you creating a strawman argument so you can look like you won against a straw soldier?

Let's look at the context, shall we?

It began with: "How you use the word 'God' is so distinct from the mainstream that you might as well have said 'God is my cup of tea'."

You replied: "Only according to you, which goes to my point about being stuck in thinking within a linguistic box."

I asked: " Do you mean to say that your use of the word 'God' is similar to how this word is used on mainstream?"

In other words, i said your use of the word 'God' is very distinct from mainstream. You said that this is just my opinion. I asked if you meant to say that your use of the word 'God' is similar to mainstream. You didn't properly reply. And now you say i am making a strawman. Go figure.

How can you? You don't even know what I believe!

Something is amiss in your argument here.

What? So the things you said about 'God' were not related to what you believe in? :sarcastic

What is Brahma? Describe Brahma to me. Please.

And yes, I will call it Brahma as well.

I didn't say 'Brahma'. I said 'Brahman'.

There is a wiki page for it: Brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WELL... there we go! I actually have a degree in theology, was on my way into the ministry when I found the teachings of my organization I was in to not be something I could agree with and left them. Now, that qualifies my background as a Christian. And as a Christian, I did see things much the way I do now! Many Christians do too, and use language, the word God to express that. Now that you did not, says something significant, and furthermore destroys your argument about the "meaning of the word".

Many christians do too? How many? Oh, those in your community?
And what destroys my argument about the ''meaning of the word'' specifically?

Ahh, the question I've been waiting for! Because your understanding of what God means is very anthropomorphic and mythological in nature. My view allows for that sort of understanding or perspective of God because it is frankly a certain developmental perspective. It is much more the concrete-literal mind's view of God, in much the same way someone not yet matured into the adult understanding of love might see love as that warm fuzzy puppy. Yes, the puppy expresses love, but love is so much more than that! Just because some might not be able to see that, does not mean what the adult is talking about isn't love.

The mean average understanding does not mean a "higher" meaning should be a different word. It is still God, not something different. The issue is that to you, it seems different because it is outside the scope of your experience - even as a Christian, apparently.

Now i am going to quote him ( yes, him ):

As best I can figure, you believe that meaning is some sort of 'real' thing -- existing apart from human minds. That's my best guess as to what you believe. If so, I'm afraid that I find your view of language to be, well... unworkable.

Otherwise, a higher understanding of a word would simply be equal to a broader understanding of a word. As language is a tool to communicate, it is at its best when it serves its role.

Other than this, there is a huge gap between an anthropomorphic and mythological being and the *real* reality. Those concepts are very much apart.
As i have said before, it is not like the word 'love', which is used to convey multiple strictly related feelings.