Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

...It refers to something beyond the material/dimensional, such as when you say, "not as a 'god' in any way shape or form--that is, an idol with dimensions--or even a supernatural being, with dimensions ...."

...save for later ...though I like the omni-definition for God ...as being omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient ...in a transcendent way, of course....

...well, the study of 'the' ...or 'theos,' I suppose.


I think both science and theology can be thought of as ways that humans have devised ...to study the source....

~

... And you said, =======================Thanks, for that! Theologically speaking, I hope you can see what I have in mind. In my opinion, a 'god' that can be named and called 'God' is nothing more than a mentally created idol, not what I had in mind when the idea came to me to use an acronym like, GOD, G0D, G?D, or even the Jewish version, G-d. To which you responded, You say you like "the omni-definition for God". This is why I no longer find it easy to stick with the proper noun, 'God'. If you do, you have the right to do so.

Interestingly, the ancient Hebrews made no use of capital letters, as we do. Unlike modern Hebrew, all letters were upper case.

When the ancient Hebrews wished to make a word, or a noun "proper", or "majestic", they made it into what is called a "majestic plural". That is, they pluralized it by adding the suffix IM. So GOD became ELOHIM--power (EL) in its highest form--that from which, even now, all matter emanates.

The modern Greek for power is dynami, from which we get words like dynamic, dynamo--logically speaking, it is the noun they should have used for 'god'.

However, as your helpful exegesis makes clear, the Greeks called 'God', Theos--which, I assume, they thought of as the highest idea behind all forms of power.

I REALIZE THAT THE FOLLOWING IS SIMPLISTIC--but here goes:
When we Anglo-speakers came along, I speculate that we simply chose to think of 'God', not as a being, or as a power, but as the ONE, POWERFUL and GOOD IDEA--in through us--including all people of GOOD-will--and around all that IS.

Modern philosophers and theologians, like A.N. Whitehead, coined the word, 'panENtheism'. I like to use a doublet of this word--coined by Warren Farr and me--'unitheism'. Our group on FaceBook welcomes one and all.

Sam, awhile back I asked you a question contained within a quote by you, You said ...It refers to something beyond the material/dimensional, such as when you say, "not as a 'god' in any way shape or form--that is, an idol with dimensions--or even a supernatural being, with dimensions ...."

I also asked, Then you added, You mention, studying, "the source". With this "source" in mind I am a new member of new forum. It is http://wondercafe2.ca
Welcome to members of all faiths, of no faiths, including curious inquirers, agnostics and atheists.
========================
There, I started a thread, in the form of a dialogue, about the source of Christian theology and its central figure, Jesus. Here it is:

http://wondercafe2.ca/index.php?conversa...hy-of-life.152/
==============
BTW, some Bible scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest written Gospel. It was written down by Mark about 25 years following the death of Jesus and is based on the sermons of Peter, who was illiterate.

THE SOURCE?
There is some evidence that long before Mark, a document circulated among the first Christians, which was called the "sayings of Jesus".

In modern times, German scholars gave it the title, the quelle (the German for 'source') or 'source' document. For short, it was called the 'Q' document.

Goodness, Order and Design, 2006--The following is the latest edit.

I think of GØD as goodness,
Order and design,
Which lives in perfect harmony
Within this human soul of mine.

GØD's not some distant super being,
Who lives in heaven, apart,
GØD is the One who dwells within
Each open, willing heart.

GØD dwells within each one of us,
And when we give the nod,
With every breath we all become
At one with omnipresent GØD.

=========000000000=========

Just checking latest posts!

Hiya RevL., Good to see you’re keeping up with the ‘philosophizing on religion’ dimensions such as this.
I don’t recall if you explained about how the social dimension that religion also fulfills for civilizations, historically, is important or not; and how your multifaceted definitions relate to that social dimension, rather than only to a totally subjective appreciation and comprehension of religious oneness.

What about the social role of religions, such as the functions that religions serve for unifying and binding together and helping provide narrative understanding across a (broad spatial) cultural entity as well as across the generations of a culture’s long history and presumed future?

Were religions, historically, agents of social stability, social justice, and/or social evolution?
What serves those needs and functions in society today?
Should religions participate in those larger social dimensions, today, or are they too subjective to be relevant?

There are many social dimensions (of people and the planet) that religions can help inform:
http://www.peopleandtheplanet.com/

http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/

"...to march for climate action with 400,000 others in New York City on September 21, 2014." -Sept.25 2014


The Bread of Life is the carbon cycle, manifested (or mana fested).

~

Religion is a belief system. It follows the need to isolate reason and definition of reality, rather than the exploration of it beyond the boundaries of belief, that is spirituality.

SAM! your comment--unlike the comment that follows your comment--is filled with so many helpful and interesting thoughts, and begs so many important questions that, short of writing a book, it is not possible to say all that needs to be said here. Maybe a blog in WordPress.com would be a good place to start.

Well we could just backtrack a bit to review the content of this forum topic, which (when guided by the forces of the reverends narcissim) focuses mainly on how G~Õ~D is defined by rev. lgk and how he sees himself as rising above any principals set into place prior to the grand entrance of rev. lgk by the unique formulation of acronyms and definitions of reality.

The reverends most recent post doesn't actually highlight the questions asked of him but rather the activities of the reverend, and a call for attention to where he lives lately in the continuing advertisement of wondercafe...

My guess is that the topic of question could be detailed in a book thru the interpretations of various means in psychological profiling, or we could just rehash what the reverend wants to say about what he thinks about G~Õ~D in his changing definitions that follow his changing belief system.

I know I've been entertained as he pulls ideas presented by others to make them into his own, and seeks to gain both credit and the attention of others as he pines for the days when he used to have the attention of the crowd as the entertainer in the spotlight of the pulpit.

Sam, as I said before:

At Wondercafe2, I started a thread, in the form of a dialogue, about the source of Christian theology and its central figure, Jesus. Here it is:

http://wondercafe2.ca/index.php?conversa...hy-of-life.152/ .........
So thanks for pointing out:
There are many social dimensions (of people and the planet) that religions can help inform:
http://www.peopleandtheplanet.com/

http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/
[/quote] BTW, Sam, I assume you've noticed how well you and I get along. Thus we offer our support to Bill S and others who want to prevent SAGG from going under. Thus, avoiding judgmentalism, we leave it to our mods to deal with any judgmental trolls.

and hypocrites who sling ad hominems while pretending to be righteous and above reproach.

Your whining to the moderators while slinging the verbal abuse and judgment of yours was just precious rev.
Especially when it backfired and brought the hammer down on your hypocrisy.

You probably didn't share that bit with the folks at wondercafe.

Of course we do! Because we know our good mods always judge us gently As did Jesus. He knew many would find it hard to resist and would need help. Check out what he said in his Sermon on the Mount: Matt. 7 ..................

This is why, at WC2, we use the dialogue method and share openly. Offensive "false profiles" are not allowed in the code of conduct.

Unlike debating--a Zero-sum game ... having a dialogue is a win/win one.

Obviously there are differing opinions regarding trolls when it comes to moderators.
Being that you have an agenda to advertize Lindsay King via wondercafe and flf, and turn all topics of conversation to a history of Lindsay King and his personal beliefs, the troll application was almost applied, as you say... "gently" with the intent of removing this forum topic (until the untimely death of the moderator).

Being that the current moderator is less invested in your activities than the previous one, (other than to curb the verbal abuse in using ad-hominems as a form of dialogue) you have been allowed to troll with a simple warning to be polite.

I've been to wondercafe and seen a similar pretense in the engagement of conversation as you have brought to this forum.
You advertize yourself and the topics of discussion you make claim to fame in association to in other forums, to try to draw attention to yourself.
The simple fact is, you need to apply the illusion that there is activity when there is little other than your own entries, due to the fact that few want to visit the repetitive call to attend to your need for attention.
Rather than to address the topic at hand from an objective point of view and have the discussion reflect the topic of conversation there is the repeated attempt to turn the discussion into a topic regarding the inventive nature of everything about rev.lgk, his profile and personal beliefs.

A troll is a troll is a troll.

People try to define reality by their own standards and condemn anything outside of the personal reality. You entertain with the amusing pretense in righteousness to shame all outside of the rev.lgk box. This is what the leaders of the Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition founded their reason and action upon to remove all obstacles in any opposing thought.

To you credentials are tantamount to the personal value and measure of self worth.

Humanity strives to be above such prejudice and judgment but people like you still parade the flag of righteousness and judgment to try to remove the fear of the unknown and to control the world around them.

Religions like the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Mormons and the Catholic Church try to influence all belief and thought, to funnel it into one way of thinking, and to condemn all that do not follow suit by shaming those others in the threat of eternal damnation.

You hide behind platitudes of self made acronyms and personal measure rev.
Your kind are going the way of the dinosaur as those who want to make the world bigger than those who live under the imagined threat of what cannot be controlled or defined by the personal measure.
A new generation which wants to explore the unknown rather than attempt to define everything into a limited past definition of reality, (while trying to gather numbers to fortify the castle of belief against fear) is constantly emerging.
You along with those like you, will not realize it, or survive to see it, any more than those of the past who tried to stamp their definitions of reality into permanence could survive the grave.

Have mods and other posters noted how busy TT--the unknown one--"from everywhere and nowhere"--always is? And what is TT busy doing?

Not spending much time discussing philosophy, the sciences and arts as most of us like to do. In his/her own words: he/she is busy,"spinning navel lint into infinite dimensional universes and potentials."

Question to one and all: Is this a productive and valuable use of SAGG?

Really rev.? Spending time like most of us do?

Is what you are asking/proposing, a philosophical question/discussion?

Have mods and other posters noted how busy TT--the unknown one--"from everywhere and nowhere"--always is? And what is TT busy doing?

Not spending much time discussing philosophy, the sciences and arts as most of us like to do. In his/her own words: he/she is busy,"spinning navel lint into infinite dimensional universes and potentials."

Question to one and all: Is this a productive and valuable use of SAGG's space?

BTW, I must not forget to thank SAGG for the ignore button. Like the G O D in my signature, I find it very useful and

...hardly ever use it,.. because of a need to follow up on navel lint spinning and people you need to put into a box because they won't oblige you by doing it for you?

BTW rev. did you ever chastise the moderator when she told you she doesn't share personal information about herself either? As long as you are addressing the moderator with that particular reference to personal worth as your pet peeve and a subject of science, philosophy and the arts.., you might wanna get right on that.

Ah, but Amaranth II does share personal info! To Bill S, in Quantum Engine

Not in her profile which you have such an issue with in regards to me.

The rest of the accusations/questions made towards who I am and what I was here for when engaging in the philosophy, science and the arts of measuring human self worth, were answered directly with relevant response.

About that ignore button...