God, what's the nature of... ?

Are you talking about planes, or dimensions. There is a difference.

Imagine two sheets of paper stacked, one on top of another. These are different planes of existence. A square drawn on one of them does not exist on the other. However, a cube can intersect both pieces of paper and thus "exist" on both at the same time. Or it can move up and down and exist on only one or the other.

Extradimensional beings (aliens, angels, God, whatever else you can think of) would perhaps have the ability to move in and out of our dimensional "plane" in order to interact with us. We don't all have to constantly exist on all planes.

Im talking dimensions. Planear geometry (if thats a word) was just convenient to express myself.

Dimensions are more a way of expressing distortion of space-time. ie. any particle can be fully expressed through (something like) 10 or 12 dimensions. Think of it like a big ten x ten chart (ten dimensions). We can express spacial dimensions in a three x three chart. Add time and you have a four x four chart. Add in gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, electro-magnetic forces, etc. and you come up with somewhere around 10 I believe. I read about it in a string theory book a few years ago... not sure where the field has developed since then, but as I said, this was all the rage for explaining ghosts, angels, etc. back in the day.

Essentially, any physical FORCE is caused by a warping of space-time: another dimension. As an example take a two dimensional world. Now fold it in half. Any being moving about in this two dimensional world would experience a wierd field / force at the presence of the fold in his world. Then it got real complicated and I got real confused... something about all these dimensions rolling up into balls and stuff and thus being too small for us to measure (so far).

Of course string theory is neither here nor there... strictly speaking its a HYPOTHESIS and not a theory... which lands it solidly in metaphysics and easy conjecture. Besides theres like ten different "string theories" predicting 10, 11, or 26 dimensions, so take your pick.

I really think theres a book out there that explains why "extradimensional beings" wouldn't work this way, but I'm havin a tough time finding it... Anyway, I read "The Elegant Universe" back in the day which is where Im pulling most of this from.

==

Umm... ok you can return to your thread now... I forget what my point was.

thanks..

Sorry I changed the title - me... but this is what this thread is about... and this is not my native language...

forgive me...

I don't understand why everyone takes Genesis so literally. It has been scientifically proven that the world was not created in six days.

Also, the Old Testament, comprising of the Torah & the Tanakh was originally written in Hebrew, the language of G-d. Even Xtians accept this.
The literal translation from Hebrew to English is impossible to write down - the language is very complicated compared to English, but the best approximation is 'and He called them Eve and He called them Adam', so they were not neccesarily singular, but its more of a blanket statement as in, and G-d made Man and G-d made Woman.

Also, the tree wasn't a tree, it was the two main parts of Kabbalah...I don't know how to post pictures, so my explanation isn't going to be great. The tree of Life is the whole thing, the tree of Knowledge is the bit that runs up the middle. At the root of the tree is G-d, and the branches lead down to us. Anywho, not important. To get to G-d, you have to go up through the branches, through the tree of life, through all lifes little tests etc until you can eventually reach G-d, but its just like a computer game. You have to go throuh the levels to be good enough to reach the big boss at the end. Or you could type in a password that takes you the last bit, but you won't be good enough to face the boss.

The path up the middle is Kabbalah, the tree of Knowledge, and it was this that the 'serpant' taught the first civilisation. So they thought they could get to G-d, but they would never be worthy, so they got stuck.

Now, Xtian scholars say Jesus was sent to save us from that first sin, so by opening the gate, he got us past where we were stuck on the tree of knowledge - showed us the way along the branches so to speak, so we could get into heaven.

I however am not a Xtian and don't believe this.

But, most people can't get their heads round this, so the church publically sticks to the Apple and Serpent theory.

And somehow, thats where good and bad come from or something or other...

Now, its the theory on Noahs Ark and genetical engineering thats the best, but we'll save that for another time.....

Lou x

Not to mention "adam" vs "a man" when translating..... etc, etc.

still have to catch, up, sorry guys, will do so soon!

@ Gremlin: Read the "Evolution vs Intelligent Design thread"

Thanks for that input LouLou... right now there are a number of threads interacting so it seems... this one, "free willy" and the one Sethis mentioned...

It's getting interesting in here keep coming...

- Is "good and bad" a valid concept, or is it based on personal opinion and experience?
Both. It means differnet things to different people and different societies at different times. Nonetheless, it is a valid concept, with different meanings, I think, if that makes sense?

- Is some rain necessary in order to appreciate sunshine?
Yes. yes yes yes yes yes.

- Is it necessary to believe in a higher force in order to survive/ get/ be happy?
Thats a neat question, actually. Because one odd fallback is I'm convinced everything that happens is the right thing to have happened for no particular reason. This goes a long way towards helping me be happy in the face of unhappy circumstances, in a way that people who truly belive in randomness and chance seem, well, less content with. But my gut reaction is no, and I think the answer is no- you just need to be at peace with what it is you do belive about life, and etc.

- Is belief/ religion just a psychological trick to control each other or is it the very own mind that tries to put pieces/ evidence together and complete the missing links by it's own imagination?
belief is the second, religion can be either.

- Why do have different cultures a different concept of what, or who "god" is?
Because differnet cultures have a different understanding of a lot of things! (And, one would expect to draw, because there is no right answer to what god is, perhaps?)

- Would it be logical to assume, that "there is one force governing the universe"?
Depends on your definition of one, I think.

- Is "god" the (only) neverchanging element in the universe?
No... physics seem to be going pretty well, even if our understanding changes sometimes. And who says "god" doesn't change?

- Is it the desire of men, to create something that prevails? Or the desire of women to lean on something?
Why the sexist attitudes? I think some people do desire to lean on things, and they get trapped in the trappings of religion. Some people desire to make things prevail, and some of them get involved in the high-ups of religions, or start new ones. Some have these things and go on without religion. And some people have neither, and yet are still religious, or not...

- IF there is a superior/ perfect being - why would it have to generate/ create anything in the first place?
Who says creation is not superior?

IF the higher being is to be considered perfect, then is there need for reflection in the first place?
What is perfectionism, anyway?

Why would it demand "worship" and "obedience"?
I cannot possibly consider a perfect being doing this, I'm afraid. As for superior, well, clearly it has self esteem issues...

Now I'll try and summarize where I am at the moment for a brief overview. Maybe you check if you want and add what you think is missing/ correct what you think doesn't apply...

- OK - so far I understand that "good and bad" IS a valid concept. It greatly depends on the level of perception and the time.

As it's "bad" to hit my toe and break it, but it's been pretty damn "good" that it happened to me, as I therefore missed my train, got to work 1,5 hours late and find the entire building has been destroyed by a 747 crashing into it, but it didn't get me...

"Good and bad" is a momentary perception of events happening. Put into different contexts, viewed from another than the personal present angle, it might turn into something other. It's momentary.

- Also it's necessary to experience the "downs" in life in order to appreciate the "ups" even more. Some of us are generating the "downs" much by themselves. We're learning how to handle life as the perception of "the big picture" grows further.

- It's not necessary to believe in a higher source of consciousness/ something "godlike"/ some "masterplan" or similar in order to get/ be happy and sometimes it can even be in the way as much as it can help.

It's a personal preference - therefore I plea to give every human being the opportunity to render for himself what "god" means to her/ himself - freedom of religion as a birthright against state, society and parents.

- Different cultures have a different perception of "good and evil" as much as they have a different perception of "god" and even the elements. For instance: if the sun is nurturing and bringing life (to a colder climate) - it gender would more likely be female, if the sun is piercing and even destructive (to a hotter climate) it more likely will be perceived male. Same as in religion: if the environment is hostile and the people have to engage/ fight for survival (due to (social) environment) the perception will more likely be one of a angry and moody "god"...

- "God" may/ have change/d... one position is that anything is perfect anyways and therefore there is no need for change, the other concept is that things may change and still be perfect... evolution means that something perfect transforms into something as perfect on a different stage/ level. It might be "more perfect" or perfect in a different sense.

- There might be an underlying, governing force in the universe. What it looks like or means is due to definition. Everyone has a slightly different conception of it, as everyone is looking at the same thing from a different angle. To fuzz about it is as helpful "as chewing bubble gum in order to solve an algebra equasion" (which might actually work...)

To me it's just very interesting what different people feel and think about different (elementary) subjects...

Written by: FireTom

---

Is it the desire of men, to create something that prevails? Or the desire of women to lean on something?

---

How could one choose a methaphore and NOT being called a sexist? I am riding stereotypes here, yes, but maybe the dear reader at least tries to get beyond the obvious... Of course desires are not perfectly bound to gender and hormones...

The idea was whether the attributes of god, proclaimed from temples and churches might be very well chosen in order to give people a canvas they can project upon. Like smart advertising...

- "Worship" and "obedience" (to me) is a concept of control. It's basically demanded so the subject recognises that there is something superior, something higher than her/ himself - so in this way necessary to be reminded to stay humble. Also it's very helpful to those "linking" between "the higher" and "the ordinary" - the clerics to get their share.

IMU there is no need for a temple (hence certain ambience is helpful to get calm) as there's no need for a community (but it's nurishing to have people around who are in a similar mood).

Eh hem... He is the Alpha and the Omega (beginning / end). Now I take that to mean he encompasses all dualities, so it's pointless to say anything on the subject if that's true... Definition requires saying what something is and is not. How do you do that when this thing is and is not everything. Simply put, it is beyond definition. You can't even say it exists because it doesn't exist either.

So until we work out some new way of perceiving the world, we're a bit up shite creek...

The humbleness argument for the necessity of worship is compelling... but I don't buy it. To stake one's SALVATION on the NECESSITY of it oversteps the bounds of acceptable benevolent goverance. Of course you can side-step that by going Universalist... at which point practice of religion becomes completely optional and any real compelling reason to practice is negated and "religious" and "atheist" become practically interchangable in terms of ends. They just become different opinions with no real purported meaning. Yes, yes, maybe there is psychological advantage to one over the other, but nothing permanent hangs in the balance.

As He is omnipotent, and beyond our scope of understanding, it is only possible to say what He is not, as to say what He is, as He is statements would impose limits on a limitless being and therefore make G-d less Holy.

Or something.

Its what I was always taught anywho.

But "is not" statements automatically define something that he is. Ie he IS NOT BAD = HE IS GOOD.

This simple logic: P = ~~P. This is assuming that all knowledge falls into a dualistic forumla of course, but they are equivelant. Thus you ARE limiting him.

In plain english: God is not evil LIMITS him to being good, unless you say that he transcends all dualities, and thus is good AND evil, or Not Good AND Not Evil. But semantically, all language deals with "talking about things" as definitions saying what something is and/or is not. If what you are trying to talk about transcends this, then there is no way to possibly talk about it...

That doesn't mean it can't be experienced, just that we don't have the necessary explanatory methods due to the ways in which we define our world when talking about it. To quote Wittgenstein: "We must be silent about those things we can not speak". Or Tao Te Ching: "The Tao that can be named, is not the true Tao", or Zen Buddhist teachings.

This is specifically why a lot of religions take issue with "idolatry". Idolatry in essence is taking something as a symbol for something else that can not be symbolized or spoken of, etc. ie an infinite higher being (we can get into what a "true infinite" is and the consequences of it, ie all probability=1 in a true infinite situation, etc. thus the infinite is the source of all possibility, kinda a reverse cosmological argument). This is why we fall into discussing God, etc. as our experience of them... which is necessarily limiting. So while we can say nothing about God, we can say plenty of our experience of them. And then we can argue about the plausability and reliability of truthful experience, etc. etc.

Where people keep reading "Truth" into all that experience is beyond me... or maybe just predated analytical philosophy by too many centuries.

¬bad != good
much as ¬black != white

apologies for symbol mixing.

Personally I would agree, Beefy: by limiting an otherwise unlimited "being", it's us who put the duality on the said phenomenon - not the other way.

As to take this further: anything that one could call "god" would be neutral, neither good nor bad... it just is (as it is)... all valuation is sense- and useless, even in the way to fully understand the essence of "god". It would incorporate all aspects of existance - beyond human minds limitation. As "G-d" is in everything and everything is within...

Lou - does the prohibition to speak the name also include the therm "god", or are jews only prohibited to spell out the tetragrammaton "JHVH"? I understand it's due to respect.

When it comes to worship I would think that this also is a practice that has been put into a rite. It is meant as to keep the connection to the universal creation alive and to always remember that everything around us is (as) sacred (as we are).

Over time people have lost their understanding for rites and so they tend to become meaningless and hollow. Also rites have been changed by the priest cast until they got very complicated, so only priests can celebrate them. 500BC there was a grand uprising against the priest cast in India and later also in the Middle East I guess to end the priests influence.

In X-tianity the holy text has been only for the intellectuals until Luther translated the Bible into German...

The prohibition of writing/typing G-d is so that we don't throw away His name. Some people type, some people don't, some people believe it only counts in Hebrew. I however, like to play it safe.

YHVH is G-ds name. Well, its the the Tetragrammaton. G-ds name is YHVH with two vowels in the middle somewhere that I can't type. You don't say G-ds name. Ever. Unless your an Uber-Rabbi and creating a man from clay!

Yahveh or Yahweh is thought to have been known originally as the god Yah, one of a panthion of gods known as the Elohim. Some time afterwards the ancient Hebrews or their ancestors abandoned their other gods in favour of a singular one.

However I had always thought that the tetragrammaton was meant to be the true name of god and the insertion of the vowels was artificial to make it look more pronoucable.

Yeh, you don't type it either.

I guess we abandoned all other G-ds because they didn't rescue us from Eygpt and do loads of stuff for us. Some Jews do accept the possible existence of other G-ds. I do - I think theres far more out there than we know about, and the evidence for other G-ds is there...'I am a jealos G-d', 'Thou shalt not have any other G-ds but Me' and the incident of Pharohs magicians matching my G-d with magic from their own deities etc.