What do you know about God?

[chinu]

I think meditation is a good way to know about god because your brain can make up anything.

If you don't have any other choice.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So, for example, if I want to understand Moon Spirit I would study astronomy and what it has to say about Moon, I would study poems and stories and mythologies about Moon, and most importantly I would just be present with Moon and soak in whatever Moon has to teach directly.

Interesting. How do you know it's the Spirit of Moon and not the Spirit of all universe teaching you when you observe things in nature? When you read different chapters in a book why not think of them as by the same author?

 

[Trailblazer]

Some people are unable to meditate because the inner monologue in their mind simply won't be silenced by any technique. Other people have a very easy time meditating, because they have no inner monologue.

And other people just don't like to meditate.

 

[Vinayaka]

Feel free to define knowledge any way you like.

I just defined it in three ways, so pick the one you want me to address.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting. How do you know it's the Spirit of Moon and not the Spirit of all universe teaching you when you observe things in nature? When you read different chapters in a book why not think of them as by the same author?

Questions like this are just so weird, confusing, and absurd to me.

How do you know it is your mom or your dad or your friend you are talking to and not the entire human species? When you look at a spruce and a goldfinch and how do you know they aren't the same organism?

I mean... duh? Not intending to be rude, it's just that basic object recognition is something humans learn even before they speak. It's sort of common sensibly obvious to the point it is very weird to even ask the question.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I just defined it in three ways, so pick the one you want me to address.

And I just invited you to address whichever definition you are comfortable using. But if I have to choose for you, use the third

 

[PearlSeeker]

Questions like this are just so weird, confusing, and absurd to me.

How do you know it is your mom or your dad or your friend you are talking to and not the entire human species? When you look at a spruce and a goldfinch and how do you know they aren't the same organism?

I mean... duh? Not intending to be rude, it's just that basic object recognition is something humans learn even before they speak. It's sort of common sensibly obvious to the point it is very weird to even ask the question.

Object recognition is no problem here. Subject recognition is. Most people can easily recognize a stone as a separate object but it's not common to recognize an inanimate object as a subject.

 

[Vinayaka]

And I just invited you to address whichever definition you are comfortable using. But if I have to choose for you, use the third

For that one I know nothing. other than some sort of slight intuitive sense of its existence.

 

[Quintessence]

Object recognition is no problem here. Subject recognition is. Most people can easily recognize a stone as a separate object but it's not common to recognize an inanimate object as a subject.

Depends on what circles you float in, but I don't agree. So-called "inanimate objects" are subjects all the time to the scientists who study those things and the artists who write songs and stories about them. Don't even have to be an animist for "inanimate objects" to be subjects.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, for example, if I want to understand Moon Spirit I would study astronomy and what it has to say about Moon, I would study poems and stories and mythologies about Moon, and most importantly I would just be present with Moon and soak in whatever Moon has to teach directly.

I may not be understanding you. We can study the physical attributes of the moon, such as its orbit or whether it has water. We can also study mythology of the moon and various deities associated with it. We can sit out on the porch on a starlit night and be awed by the moon's lonely beauty. But none of that would indicate that an actual Moon Spirit exists.

 

[Quintessence]

I may not be understanding you. We can study the physical attributes of the moon, such as its orbit or whether it has water. We can also study mythology of the moon and various deities associated with it. We can sit out on the porch on a starlit night and be awed by the moon's lonely beauty. But none of that would indicate that an actual Moon Spirit exists.

All of those things you just talked about are Moon Spirit, though. The Spirit of a thing is that-which-it-is. It is all-of-that-which-is. Past, present, future. Tangibles and intangibles. All of it. The full-and-total essence and nature of something. It doesn't reference some "supernaturalistic" thing for an animist. It-IS-the-thing. ALL-of-the-thing. Which very much exists, even if only limited glimpses of that totality can be understood by humans.

Would it confuse less if I called Moon Spirit "Luna?" Or "Selene?" Or "Lights-the-Night?" Or any of the countless other names trough which Moon has been deified? I doubt. Folks just do not get polytheism and animism these days. They keep looking for something "behind" that-which-is. I don't get it. Moon Spirit is all the things Moon. And all the things Moon humans can never know.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Depends on what circles you float in, but I don't agree. So-called "inanimate objects" are subjects all the time to the scientists who study those things and the artists who write songs and stories about them. Don't even have to be an animist for "inanimate objects" to be subjects.

I meant subject as a person, individual, observer... Science doesn't study inanimate objects as persons. Personification in poetry and stories is just a figure of speech.

 

[Quintessence]

I meant subject as a person, individual, observer... Science doesn't study inanimate objects as persons. Personification in poetry and stories is a figure of speech.

Not necessarily.

Modern domesticated humans, with their rampant anthropocentrism, have for some reason denied the personhood of the world around them that they once granted on the routine. It's a cultural thing. A cultural thing that I, as a modern animist reconstructing indigenous religion, vehemently reject. In honesty, I find the way most modern domesticated humans treat anything that isn't human as mere "things" or "objects" rather disgusting. Such disregard is how you get the entire ecosystem of the tallgrass prairie raped into almost total annihilation in the name of so-called "progress," among other ecocidal atrocities. Neither here nor there, I suppose...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All of those things you just talked about are Moon Spirit, though. The Spirit of a thing is that-which-it-is. It is all-of-that-which-is. Past, present, future. Tangibles and intangibles. All of it. The full-and-total essence and nature of something. It doesn't reference some "supernaturalistic" thing for an animist. It-IS-the-thing. ALL-of-the-thing. Which very much exists, even if only limited glimpses of that totality can be understood by humans.

Would it confuse less if I called Moon Spirit "Luna?" Or "Selene?" Or "Lights-the-Night?" Or any of the countless other names trough which Moon has been deified? I doubt. Folks just do not get polytheism and animism these days. They keep looking for something "behind" that-which-is. I don't get it. Moon Spirit is all the things Moon. And all the things Moon humans can never know.

You seem to be redefining the word spirit. No, a spirit is not necessarily all of a things properties. Unless you are animist, a chair or a rock have no spirit. I'm not dissing animists. I understand their view. I'm just pointing out that you are misusing the word spirit.

 

[CG Didymus]

Many people believe in God but what do they know about Him? How did you come to know what you know about God? How did you verify what you know about God or discovered? Was it through a dream? A Book or a personal experience or just from following tradition? How do you know what you believe about God is true?

I'm going to assume that a lot of people were told that God is real then told things about God. For those of us raised in some Christian denomination. the priests, pastors and TV evangelists tell us why we should believe in God. How many have actually question it? Especially when it is frowned upon by the religious leaders. Some will tell people that it is wrong to doubt and question... that is the devil trying to get them to deny God.

But how far can some people go before they have to stop and question all of it? Christianity is an easy religion to find a reason to doubt. And the more literal the Christian Church, the easier it is to find something to doubt. If the creation story with a talking serpent doesn't do it, then there is the flood. If that's not enough, then how about when God stopped the Sun in the sky to prolong the day so Joshua and his men could finish a battle.

But that's all from the Jewish Bible, what about the Christian New Testament? Right from the beginning it has a virgin birth and ends with a resurrection.

Maybe for you, as a Baha'i, it all makes sense. But for me, just because the Baha'i Faith believes that the Bible and New Testament are true, even though not literally, but Baha'is still believe they are true enough for me to then question the Baha'i Faith too.

What do we know about God? Whatever our preferred religion, and its scriptures tell us about God.

 

[Quintessence]

You seem to be redefining the word spirit. No, a spirit is not necessarily all of a things properties. Unless you are animist, a chair or a rock have no spirit. I'm not dissing animists. I understand their view. I'm just pointing out that you are misusing the word spirit.

Quintessence sighs and rolls their eyes.

Whatever, dude. Not "redefining" or "misusing" anything. If you can't deal with cultural diversity, that's YOUR problem. I'm flipping sick and tired of indigenous, animistic, and polytheist perspectives getting called "redefining" and "misusing" words. No. Deal. With. Diversity.

 

[Link]

Quran has a large portion confirming animism.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Not necessarily.

Modern domesticated humans, with their rampant anthropocentrism, have for some reason denied the personhood of the world around them that they once granted on the routine. It's a cultural thing. A cultural thing that I, as a modern animist reconstructing indigenous religion, vehemently reject. In honesty, I find the way most modern domesticated humans treat anything that isn't human as mere "things" or "objects" rather disgusting. Such disregard is how you get the entire ecosystem of the tallgrass prairie raped into almost total annihilation in the name of so-called "progress," among other ecocidal atrocities. Neither here nor there, I suppose...

Is it really a cultural thing or is it advancement of biology and other sciences? I mean, is a stone composed of cells? Modern man just distinguishes between a living being (not just human!) and a non-living thing.

 

[Quintessence]

Is it really a cultural thing or is it advancement of biology and other sciences? I mean, is a stone composed of cells? Modern [humans] just distinguishes between a living being (not just human!) and a non-living thing.

Yes, it really is a cultural thing (and a philosophical thing, I suppose, if one wants to take that angle). What constitutes a "person" - an agent worthy of ethical consideration - is not a scientific question. If you haven't studied environmental ethics or animism or indigenous religions just in general, this way of thinking and this language is probably unfamiliar to you. I'm not sure where the best place would be for a crash course, but I suppose there are worse places than this:

Personhood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Animism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Environmental ethics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many people believe in God but what do they know about Him?

Which one?