True To Yourself or True To Your God?

[Sola*5]

Then why is God's creation Evil? Because for man to be a creation in the image and likeness of God He must have a will and be a rational being, he exercised this will to choose self will instead of Gods will.

Is the Architect Omnipotent? I guess not.

The architect is indeed omnipotent and so planned a new building for when he knew this one would be ruined, He is just waiting until those who will appreciate it are gathered to enjoy it, until then this derelict building with it's ruined beauty still apparent is a reminder for all who consider it that there is a Designer who made something beautiful that was destroyed by outside influences. And some (I.e Christians) have seen the blue prints for His new design (the new creation promised) and are trying to tell everyone about it and how they can enjoy it.

 

[Sola*5]

This is incorrect, because There was no outside force to destroy the building. A more appropriate analogy would be god created a building, the building fell apart, then he blamed the building for falling apart.

Sure there was, sin, sin brought death to creation, like a fungus brought destruction to the building. Sin is a destructive fungus on this building, eating away at it and distorting the appearance and strength of this once magnificent building.
Sin does that on every level.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Suppose your favorite deity commanded you to do something that was not true to yourself? Would you be justified in not obeying your god because s/he commanded you to do something that was not true to yourself?

Suppose you believed your favorite deity had created you, and that, consequently, you are being true to your deity by being true to yourself. If you believed that, and your favorite deity commanded you to to do something that was not true to yourself, would you be justified in not obeying your god?

Lol favourite deity?

I may ruffle a few feathers by saying "God is all therefore, I am a part of God" God's "commands" (even though my beliefs are that God does not command) are communicated to me (and everyone else) through intuition - an inner knowing - and so, any *outside* commands claiming to be of God are not communicated to me properly because my intuition says something else. Thus God is not commanding me to do anything and being true to myself is the true "command"

well... that's kinda brief but kinda gets the idea across

 

[blackout]

Lol favourite deity?

I may ruffle a few feathers by saying "God is all therefore, I am a part of God" God's "commands" (even though my beliefs are that God does not command) are communicated to me (and everyone else) through intuition - an inner knowing - and so, any *outside* commands claiming to be of God are not communicated to me properly because my intuition says something else. Thus God is not commanding me to do anything and being true to myself is the true "command"

well... that's kinda brief but kinda gets the idea across

Ditto!

That's just what I wanted to say.
But you said it first, and better.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Heh thanks Newreality

I was hoping someone else could make sense of it!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If we say God is everywhere, God is God only because we put him Heaven. How, then, can we conceive of God as giving rules to us, extensions of his Being? If religious teachings are to free us from ignorance and corruption, we must transcend them; in order to know God, we must see God in the seeing.

 

[methylatedghosts]

If we say God is everywhere, God is God only because we put him Heaven.

... I don't understand this bit. Could you rephrase?

 

[Diogenes]

Suppose your favorite deity commanded you to do something that was not true to yourself? Would you be justified in not obeying your god because s/he commanded you to do something that was not true to yourself?

Suppose you believed your favorite deity had created you, and that, consequently, you are being true to your deity by being true to yourself. If you believed that, and your favorite deity commanded you to to do something that was not true to yourself, would you be justified in not obeying your god?

I think this presupposes that one actually knows themselves well enough to be true in the first place, which I think is very rare. I think most people do not know themselves for what they truly are, and so they are true to a false image which they hold of themselves. If you get past this presupposition the question really is about action in response to the will of the Other. How can anyone really say what they are going to do until they actually do it?

 

[Aasimar]

Sure there was, sin, sin brought death to creation, like a fungus brought destruction to the building. Sin is a destructive fungus on this building, eating away at it and distorting the appearance and strength of this once magnificent building.
Sin does that on every level.

Yes but God created sin as well. God put the fungus there. The problem withing being credited with the creation of everything is you really are credited with the creation of everything. If God made man, he made sin also. Everything is his creation, ergo sin. There is a tremendous fallacy here, God supposedly made everything. EVERYTHING. It's all his fault, his responsibility. Sin didn't come from outside, where did it come from? It either existed without God (i.e. he did not create everything) Or it was introduced when he made mankind (ergo, he made it)

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

>True to yourself or true to God?

I humbly suggest there's no difference.

Or at least, there shouldn't be!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Omnipresent Truth]

Lol favourite deity?

I may ruffle a few feathers by saying "God is all therefore, I am a part of God" God's "commands" (even though my beliefs are that God does not command) are communicated to me (and everyone else) through intuition - an inner knowing - and so, any *outside* commands claiming to be of God are not communicated to me properly because my intuition says something else. Thus God is not commanding me to do anything and being true to myself is the true "command"

well... that's kinda brief but kinda gets the idea across

LOL Looks like we do hold similar beliefs after all!

I'd like to add that if you find the 'God' you currently hold with such a high regard commands you to do something out with you're comfort zone then you should use you're brain and figure out that it's not really you're 'God' after all. Back to the drawing board my friend.

 

[YmirGF]

Methinks that several of us need to start an extended conversation in the "Mystics Only" dir.
I will be running about all morning, but if anyone else wants to get the ball rolling (winks at TheNudeReality & MethalatedSpook *flutters eyelashes* ) I think some VERY intersting perspective could emerge. What say y'all. I would certainly invite Omnipresent Tooth to join in as well as several others... you already know who you are, lol.

 

[blackout]

Methinks that several of us need to start an extended conversation in the "Mystics Only" dir.
I will be running about all morning, but if anyone else wants to get the ball rolling (winks at TheNudeReality & MethalatedSpook *flutters eyelashes* ) I think some VERY intersting perspective could emerge. What say y'all. I would certainly invite Omnipresent Tooth to join in as well as several others... you already know who you are, lol.

What's that?
You mean I ACTUALLY fit into a "something ONLY" dir.?

Mystics Only. I like that.
I never fit in anywhere.

I feel almost .... well....speechless.
But then no. lol. not me.

ummmm...

TheNudeReality

RU suggesting both blogging AND posting in the nude now?!
It's rather inconvenient really,
and it's getting colder by the day!
Heating oil prices will not continue to support this ridiculous & unnecessary exposure.

But I will continue to lay bare my heart & spirit,
if you promise not to hurt me. ok?:flirt:

wow...... mystics only.......

(or the purple people only dir, I would fit in there too.....)

 

[Willamena]

Haha

 

[Omnipresent Truth]

Thanks for the welcome, it does seem like there are many views I agree with here. A very alien feeling to me as usually nobody has half a clue what I'm talking about. That said, where is the Mystic section?? This forum is HUUUUGE and and I've only just figured out how to find my previous posts, never mind secret portions for dedicated debates.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

... I don't understand this bit. Could you rephrase?
[/size]

If God is everywhere absolutely, there is no second, no “other,” and therefore no God. There is just the One. Our discriminating from a finite point of view, however, puts God “out there,” in Heaven, even though we are fundamentally one with him and in him.

As long as human beings rise from the sameness of the One, the latter must be regarded to that extent as personal and self-conscious.

 

[Sola*5]

Yes but God created sin as well. God put the fungus there. The problem withing being credited with the creation of everything is you really are credited with the creation of everything. If God made man, he made sin also. Everything is his creation, ergo sin. There is a tremendous fallacy here, God supposedly made everything. EVERYTHING. It's all his fault, his responsibility. Sin didn't come from outside, where did it come from? It either existed without God (i.e. he did not create everything) Or it was introduced when he made mankind (ergo, he made it)

God did not create sin, He created Law there is nothing evil about His laws, He also created man with the ability to reason and choose, there was nothing wrong with that either, man exercised this will for self breaking the simplest command, man sinned, God only made it a possibility by giving law because He is a God of order.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yes but God created sin as well. God put the fungus there. The problem withing being credited with the creation of everything is you really are credited with the creation of everything. If God made man, he made sin also. Everything is his creation, ergo sin. There is a tremendous fallacy here, God supposedly made everything. EVERYTHING. It's all his fault, his responsibility. Sin didn't come from outside, where did it come from? It either existed without God (i.e. he did not create everything) Or it was introduced when he made mankind (ergo, he made it)

A monk asked Tosu (Tou-tzu), a Zen master of the Tang period: “I understand that all sounds are the voice of the Buddha. Is this right?” The master said, “That is right.” The monk then proceeded: “Would not the master please stop making a noise which echoes the sound of a fermenting mass of filth?” The master thereupon struck the monk.

The monk further asked Tosu: “Am I in the right when I understand the Buddha as asserting that all talk, however trivial or derogatory, belongs to ultimate truth. The master said, “Yes, you are in the right.” ,- The monk went on, “May I then call you a donkey?” The master thereupon struck him.

…To conceive every sound, every noise, every utterance one makes as issuing from the fountainhead of one Reality, that is, from one God, is pantheistic, I imagine. For “he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25); and again, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being”( Acts 17:28) If this be the case, a Zen master’s hoarse throat echoes the melodious resonance of the voice flowing from the Buddha golden mouth, and even when a great teacher is decried as reminding one of an ***, the defamation must be regarded as reflecting something of ultimate truth. All forms of evil must be said somehow to be embodying what is true and good and beautiful, and to be a contribution to the perfection of Reality. To state it more concretely, bad is good, ugly is beautiful, false is true, imperfect is perfect, and also conversely. This is, Indeed, the kind of reasoning In which those indulge who conceive the God-nature to be immanent in all things.

…The masterful Tosu knew, as all Zen masters do, the uselessness of making any verbal demonstration against such a “logician.” For verbalism leads from one complication to another; there is no end to it. The only effective way, perhaps, to make such a monk as this one realize the falsehood of his conceptual understanding is to strike him and so let hi experience within himself the meaning of the statement, “0ne in All and AI1 in One. The monk was to be awakened from his logical somnambulism. Hence Tosu’s drastic measure.

D.T. Suzuki

 

[methylatedghosts]

LOL Looks like we do hold similar beliefs after all!

I'd like to add that if you find the 'God' you currently hold with such a high regard commands you to do something out with you're comfort zone then you should use you're brain and figure out that it's not really you're 'God' after all. Back to the drawing board my friend.

ok lemme just clear something up.

"God" to me is just a label so that joe bloggs knows what I'm refering to - even though our definitions may differ in some way - at least he has some kind of an idea.
Also, my belief about god is that god doesn't command. God has no needs and no demands, and for starters wouldn't command anything.

And if the case was that suddenly he did (which he wouldn't) then I'd do it if it was part of what I perceived to be me - to BE god - to simply just be.

I'm gonna have to come back to this I'm tying my brain into a knot....

 

[Omnipresent Truth]

God did not create sin, He created Law there is nothing evil about His laws, He also created man with the ability to reason and choose, there was nothing wrong with that either, man exercised this will for self breaking the simplest command, man sinned, God only made it a possibility by giving law because He is a God of order.

Stating 'God' created law instantly implies there is the means to break them, which is inbuilt into his creation. Thus in effect 'God' did create sin and it was merely man that exercised the ability to break it.

ok lemme just clear something up.

"God" to me is just a label so that joe bloggs knows what I'm refering to - even though our definitions may differ in some way - at least he has some kind of an idea.
Also, my belief about god is that god doesn't command. God has no needs and no demands, and for starters wouldn't command anything.

And if the case was that suddenly he did (which he wouldn't) then I'd do it if it was part of what I perceived to be me - to BE god - to simply just be.

I'm gonna have to come back to this I'm tying my brain into a knot....

I agree that 'God' has no needs, thus no commands are necessary.

What I meant was that if someone of a particular faith found that they were being asked to conduct themselves in a manner that was not in alignment to their moral judgments, then they should ask the begging question: is this the right faith for me?