100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why did He bother? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think he did it to fill the void. The way I read it it was just him and the void. I would say the void wasn't that great of company and just talking to himself got old after a while. So he created man and thought gee this is just about as fun as talking to the void. So then he created woman and I would say
 God hasn't been bored sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
LouLou2
on
Fri 09/05/08 02:44 AM
|
|
This is something to think about. It fits with some of what I believe. I believe that we may in fact BE God...at least as a part of the whole - much as our various cells and organs are 'US', at least in part. Besides, I'd much rather be considered a work of art (who me???  ) than an ant farm So what is your definition of God then? I'm not claiming to be certain, mind you...but I am thinking less that we as individuals are 'god-like' and more that God is the whole of everything that is...all that exists, and we are a part of it all. Just as my liver is a part of me, serves a purpose and contributes to my existance, each of us is a part of God. Just as cells with in my liver can go rogue, becoming cancerous and damaging/destroying parts or all of me, I believe that the various parts of all or God can do the same. Those individuals who have committed such incredible evil are no less a part of the whole...but their contribution has been damaging to all that exists...to God as it where. The cells of my liver have no more awareness of their connection to the rest of me than most of us feel toward each other or the rest of the universe, but I feel we are connected and in fact everything that exists is interdependent. But as an individual? No, I do not think of myself as 'God' or a 'God'...I think of myself as a part of what is God...perhaps a tiny cell in His liver, making my contribution as I am able or see fit...but not necessarily aware of, understanding, nor always caring about all the ramifications of what I do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Fri 09/05/08 05:48 AM
|
|
So what is your definition of God then? Interestingly enough, until actually reading that question in black-and-white, I realized that no one has ever asked me that exact question before. Consequently, I never really thought about how the word "god" fits into MY personal belief system. Of course I've often used it in speaking with others. But whenever I have it has always with the idea that I was using what I thought was THEIR definition. Privately, I have always simply dismissed it with a thought of "god doesn't exist". But the simple fact of the existence of the word itself, means that it must have SOME meaning to me, regardless of whatever it might mean to anyone else. So I immediately thought that it must mean something like "an imaginary being who is assumed to be ruling the universe." But that was STILL based almost completely on the views I had been given by others. So it forced me to REALLY examine my own thoughts on the matter. That's what I love about this forum. As much divisivness and disagreement as there may be, once in a while there is a little gem that makes it all worthwhile. There are many phenomena that, when attempt is made to define, become like statues... trapped in moments of definition. One could only say what feels true in a particular moment and then move on to the next. But, that's not how we humans have worked. We've defined and stuck to our definitions, not allowing ourself sight beyond definition. Have you ever noticed times when, in speaking with another, you go to state one of your definitions that you consider significant (or significant to the one with whom you're speaking) and nothing will come out? Or perhaps it will be a strain to evoke audible words. Then, once you've stated it, you feel as if what you shared was somehow lacking truth.(?) Because we learn, grow and see more each day, it feels much like swimming up stream when proclaiming old definition. Perhaps this is a function of our higher self intervening to allow possible sight of new streams of information. If humankind only stuck to old definitions, we'd have slipped off the edge of our mere 2-dimensional Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 09/05/08 10:12 AM
|
|
So what is your definition of God then? Interestingly enough, until actually reading that question in black-and-white, I realized that no one has ever asked me that exact question before. Consequently, I never really thought about how the word "god" fits into MY personal belief system. Of course I've often used it in speaking with others. But whenever I have it has always with the idea that I was using what I thought was THEIR definition. Privately, I have always simply dismissed it with a thought of "god doesn't exist". But the simple fact of the existence of the word itself, means that it must have SOME meaning to me, regardless of whatever it might mean to anyone else. So I immediately thought that it must mean something like "an imaginary being who is assumed to be ruling the universe." But that was STILL based almost completely on the views I had been given by others. So it forced me to REALLY examine my own thoughts on the matter. That's what I love about this forum. As much divisivness and disagreement as there may be, once in a while there is a little gem that makes it all worthwhile. There are many phenomena that, when attempt is made to define, become like statues... trapped in moments of definition. One could only say what feels true in a particular moment and then move on to the next. But, that's not how we humans have worked. We've defined and stuck to our definitions, not allowing ourself sight beyond definition. Have you ever noticed times when, in speaking with another, you go to state one of your definitions that you consider significant (or significant to the one with whom you're speaking) and nothing will come out? Or perhaps it will be a strain to evoke audible words. Then, once you've stated it, you feel as if what you shared was somehow lacking truth.(?) Because we learn, grow and see more each day, it feels much like swimming up stream when proclaiming old definition. Perhaps this is a function of our higher self intervening to allow possible sight of new streams of information. If humankind only stuck to old definitions, we'd have slipped off the edge of our mere 2-dimensional Earth. I think there is a very good reason for maintaining constancy in the definition of words - so that people can understand each other. In other words, if two people agree on a defintion for a word at some point, and then one person changes the definition, without a new agreement from the other as to that new definition, then when they use that word in subesquent, communications, they are no longer really "talking about the same thing". Now that's not to say that language should never evolve. Of course there are new things that are discovered or encountered and there must be some new word, or new definition for an old word, that can be used as a referent for that new thing. But CHANGING an existing definition of a word, without agreement on exactly what that change is, can lead to nothing but misunderstanding. SkyHook http://larcho.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-larch-guide-on-how-to-spot-a-forum-troll/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think God when he chose to create earth, man, and all.....It was out of nothing but Love. When he chose and spoke to Adam and Eve on how he expected us to live it would of been glorious. But Adam and Eve chose because of their free will to rebel and do it their way (satan) Had things gone the other way.....hmmmmmm makes you wonder how our lives would be then. Would their be all this questioning, hate, war, etc.
I don't think god is ever lonely he is to busy. His love and his creation is not only of love but is what God wants for all of us. Does the Lord God the Father who created us want us to worship him and his only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Yep.....Does God get mad when man worships false idols and gods. Yep.....Does it seem that is not fair to a lot of folks...yep but it is what it is. If for arguments sake God when he created all....wanted all to live in peace and harmony but gave us free will in order to choose. Because he doesn't want you if it's not your choice. And then we screw up meaning man, Adam, Eve, and all that don't love God with all their heart, soul and mind. Then think hard on who really is to blame for the downfall of man? Is it God? or is it man? I think each and every ones journey to find God is a personal walk, but if your not open minded about it...then it's never going to happen. Again as only I can speak for myself. A lot of circumstances led me to the Lord & Savior and I would never ever deny him for He truly showed me. And I can't make anyone believe what I know because like I said it's a personal journey. But if you are truly seeking, then do it with an open heart, open mind and ask God to show you He is real. Don't worry about anyone else or what they may think....Just ask for yourself, and if your heart is open and you truly wish to know....HE WILL ANSWER. Take all those half formed thoughts and beliefs and ask the Lord to show "YOU" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is your definition of God then? Interestingly enough, until actually reading that question in black-and-white, I realized that no one has ever asked me that exact question before. Consequently, I never really thought about how the word "god" fits into MY personal belief system. Of course I've often used it in speaking with others. But whenever I have it has always with the idea that I was using what I thought was THEIR definition. Privately, I have always simply dismissed it with a thought of "god doesn't exist". But the simple fact of the existence of the word itself, means that it must have SOME meaning to me, regardless of whatever it might mean to anyone else. So I immediately thought that it must mean something like "an imaginary being who is assumed to be ruling the universe." But that was STILL based almost completely on the views I had been given by others. So it forced me to REALLY examine my own thoughts on the matter. That's what I love about this forum. As much divisivness and disagreement as there may be, once in a while there is a little gem that makes it all worthwhile. There are many phenomena that, when attempt is made to define, become like statues... trapped in moments of definition. One could only say what feels true in a particular moment and then move on to the next. But, that's not how we humans have worked. We've defined and stuck to our definitions, not allowing ourself sight beyond definition. Have you ever noticed times when, in speaking with another, you go to state one of your definitions that you consider significant (or significant to the one with whom you're speaking) and nothing will come out? Or perhaps it will be a strain to evoke audible words. Then, once you've stated it, you feel as if what you shared was somehow lacking truth.(?) Because we learn, grow and see more each day, it feels much like swimming up stream when proclaiming old definition. Perhaps this is a function of our higher self intervening to allow possible sight of new streams of information. If humankind only stuck to old definitions, we'd have slipped off the edge of our mere 2-dimensional Earth. I think there is a very good reason for maintaining constancy in the definition of words - so that people can understand each other. In other words, if two people agree on a defintion for a word at some point, and then one person changes the definition, without a new agreement from the other as to that new definition, then when they use that word in subesquent, communications, they are no longer really "talking about the same thing". Now that's not to say that language should never evolve. Of course there are new things that are discovered or encountered and there must be some new word, or new definition for an old word, that can be used as a referent to that new thing. But CHANGING an existing definition of a word, without agreement on exactly what that change is, can lead to nothing but misunderstanding. SkyHook http://larcho.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-larch-guide-on-how-to-spot-a-forum-troll/ To make "new" definitions was never suggested. The idea thrown on the table was the possibility of NOT defining. The suggestion was more of an abstract. In this, the heart guides instead of the mind's preset definition. It truly puzzles me, SkyHook, that your response includes a link on how to spot a forum troll. Is my contribution to this conversation perceived as disruptive dialogue or meant to undermine morale? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Fri 09/05/08 11:10 AM
|
|
So what is your definition of God then? Interestingly enough, until actually reading that question in black-and-white, I realized that no one has ever asked me that exact question before. Consequently, I never really thought about how the word "god" fits into MY personal belief system. Of course I've often used it in speaking with others. But whenever I have it has always with the idea that I was using what I thought was THEIR definition. Privately, I have always simply dismissed it with a thought of "god doesn't exist". But the simple fact of the existence of the word itself, means that it must have SOME meaning to me, regardless of whatever it might mean to anyone else. So I immediately thought that it must mean something like "an imaginary being who is assumed to be ruling the universe." But that was STILL based almost completely on the views I had been given by others. So it forced me to REALLY examine my own thoughts on the matter. That's what I love about this forum. As much divisivness and disagreement as there may be, once in a while there is a little gem that makes it all worthwhile. There are many phenomena that, when attempt is made to define, become like statues... trapped in moments of definition. One could only say what feels true in a particular moment and then move on to the next. But, that's not how we humans have worked. We've defined and stuck to our definitions, not allowing ourself sight beyond definition. Have you ever noticed times when, in speaking with another, you go to state one of your definitions that you consider significant (or significant to the one with whom you're speaking) and nothing will come out? Or perhaps it will be a strain to evoke audible words. Then, once you've stated it, you feel as if what you shared was somehow lacking truth.(?) Because we learn, grow and see more each day, it feels much like swimming up stream when proclaiming old definition. Perhaps this is a function of our higher self intervening to allow possible sight of new streams of information. If humankind only stuck to old definitions, we'd have slipped off the edge of our mere 2-dimensional Earth. I think there is a very good reason for maintaining constancy in the definition of words - so that people can understand each other. In other words, if two people agree on a defintion for a word at some point, and then one person changes the definition, without a new agreement from the other as to that new definition, then when they use that word in subesquent, communications, they are no longer really "talking about the same thing". Now that's not to say that language should never evolve. Of course there are new things that are discovered or encountered and there must be some new word, or new definition for an old word, that can be used as a referent to that new thing. But CHANGING an existing definition of a word, without agreement on exactly what that change is, can lead to nothing but misunderstanding. SkyHook http://larcho.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-larch-guide-on-how-to-spot-a-forum-troll/ To make "new" definitions was never suggested. The idea thrown on the table was the possibility of NOT defining. The suggestion was more of an abstract. In this, the heart guides instead of the mind's preset definition. It truly puzzles me, SkyHook, that your response includes a link on how to spot a forum troll. Is my contribution to this conversation perceived as disruptive dialogue or meant to undermine morale? First off let me say that I am truly sorry if you were offended by my inclusion of that link. I had, and have, no intention to imply that it applies to you. I have recently been suckered into debating with a troll and I decided that I wanted to try to help others avoid the same mistakes I made. So I decided to include that link in all my posts from now on. When I first started doing it this morning, I made a couple posts that just included it at the end of the post. But I realized that that could be taken just as you took it. So I started including my signature above it in attempot to separate it from the body of my posts. But I can totally understand how you could interepret it the way you did. I am just hoping that after I have been using it for a while, people will recognize it as a part of my signature and not as part of the body of my posts. If you have a suggestion as to how I might accomlish the purpose, I would appreciate any help. Again, I apologize for upset it might have caused you. Now, as to "definitions". It seemed to me that the several references to the word "stuck", combined with the general tone that that "stuckness" was the cause or root of a perceived problem, indicated that you were advocating that we should not "stick to definitions". I may have misinterpreted your intention, but MY intention was simply to offer my own, differeing viewpoint. I thought that the first two words of my post ("I think") were enough to make that clear. Peace.  SkyHook Join the Troll Busters: http://larcho.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-larch-guide-on-how-to-spot-a-forum-troll/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what is your definition of God then? Interestingly enough, until actually reading that question in black-and-white, I realized that no one has ever asked me that exact question before. Consequently, I never really thought about how the word "god" fits into MY personal belief system. Of course I've often used it in speaking with others. But whenever I have it has always with the idea that I was using what I thought was THEIR definition. Privately, I have always simply dismissed it with a thought of "god doesn't exist". But the simple fact of the existence of the word itself, means that it must have SOME meaning to me, regardless of whatever it might mean to anyone else. So I immediately thought that it must mean something like "an imaginary being who is assumed to be ruling the universe." But that was STILL based almost completely on the views I had been given by others. So it forced me to REALLY examine my own thoughts on the matter. That's what I love about this forum. As much divisivness and disagreement as there may be, once in a while there is a little gem that makes it all worthwhile. There are many phenomena that, when attempt is made to define, become like statues... trapped in moments of definition. One could only say what feels true in a particular moment and then move on to the next. But, that's not how we humans have worked. We've defined and stuck to our definitions, not allowing ourself sight beyond definition. Have you ever noticed times when, in speaking with another, you go to state one of your definitions that you consider significant (or significant to the one with whom you're speaking) and nothing will come out? Or perhaps it will be a strain to evoke audible words. Then, once you've stated it, you feel as if what you shared was somehow lacking truth.(?) Because we learn, grow and see more each day, it feels much like swimming up stream when proclaiming old definition. Perhaps this is a function of our higher self intervening to allow possible sight of new streams of information. If humankind only stuck to old definitions, we'd have slipped off the edge of our mere 2-dimensional Earth. I think there is a very good reason for maintaining constancy in the definition of words - so that people can understand each other. In other words, if two people agree on a defintion for a word at some point, and then one person changes the definition, without a new agreement from the other as to that new definition, then when they use that word in subesquent, communications, they are no longer really "talking about the same thing". Now that's not to say that language should never evolve. Of course there are new things that are discovered or encountered and there must be some new word, or new definition for an old word, that can be used as a referent to that new thing. But CHANGING an existing definition of a word, without agreement on exactly what that change is, can lead to nothing but misunderstanding. SkyHook http://larcho.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-larch-guide-on-how-to-spot-a-forum-troll/ To make "new" definitions was never suggested. The idea thrown on the table was the possibility of NOT defining. The suggestion was more of an abstract. In this, the heart guides instead of the mind's preset definition. It truly puzzles me, SkyHook, that your response includes a link on how to spot a forum troll. Is my contribution to this conversation perceived as disruptive dialogue or meant to undermine morale? First off let me say that I am truly sorry if you were offended by my inclusion of that link. I had, and have, no intention to imply that it applies to you. I have recently been suckered into debating with a troll and I decided that I wanted to try to help others avoid the same mistakes I made. So I decided to include that link in all my posts from now on. When I first started doing it this morning, I made a couple posts that just included it at the end of the post. But I realized that that could be taken just as you took it. So I started including my signature above it in attempot to separate it from the body of my posts. But I can totally understand how you could interepret it the way you did. I am just hoping that after I have been using it for a while, people will recognize it as a part of my signature and not as part of the body of my posts. If you have a suggestion as to how I might accomlish the purpose, I would appreciate any help. Again, I apologize for upset it might have caused you. Now, as to "definitions". It seemed to me that the several references to the word "stuck", combined with the general tone that that "stuckness" was the cause or root of a perceived problem, indicated that you were advocating that we should not "stick to definitions". I may have misinterpreted your intention, but MY intention was simply to offer my own, differeing viewpoint. I thought that the first two words of my post ("I think") were enough to make that clear. Peace. SkyHook Join the Troll Busters: http://larcho.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-larch-guide-on-how-to-spot-a-forum-troll/ Thank you Sky... for clarifying your purpose for including that link. One can't always know how they're being perceived unless they ask. Understandable how the use of the word "stuck" could be perceived as suggesting "stuckness" or presence of a some sort of root "problem" with another's perspective. Consider that my choice of the word "stuck" may have been more a reflection of my own recent experience in a personal journey. All of this is VERY new information (ideas) to me. Sharing it as it comes. One could also read the word "stuck" in the context of "sticking" to one's guns. Just beginning to realize how my own old M.O. has not always served me.  I truly appreciate you taking the time with this, Sky. Peace to you too.  |
|
|
|
|
