Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I just called you a poet God would be impersonal if i took away his personality; the 'him'. The reason he has a form is for us. I cannot properly love something that has no form. This whole conversation is assuming my love for God is not real. I don't understand the point of your argument. A true folly is trying to understand God.
Speaking hypothetically, but here are my points...
If a believer took a placebo affect, that source of what they experience is not real not the affect.
So, if that believer feels love, that love is real. The source is not.
The first point: He doesn't know it and that isn't wrong.
The second point, I don't see how it is wrong that believers are using an idea of god (source) and projecting from idea to where real experiences-like love-are felt.
Unless believers feel that without having a real source, it won't produce real affects? They can't benefit from an idea of god? If that is true, I can't argue against it. People's lives have been changed by belief in god.
My next point, I do think the OP quote has a point but I would never call it a believers' imaginations and would never consider the affect of believing in god (ideal or not) is not real love.
My personal belief is everything comes from the mind. So, even though I don't care for the terminology the OP quote used, actually more of an insult rather than an opinion, I see his point. If we acknowledge that our views of god and experiences are interpreted from the mind (inside out not
The Buddha says we live in a delusional world. He probably said that to the people of his day, but I'm not going around the bush, I believe we do but I never would call people delusional.