[harmonygirl]

LOL! Guille, this used to be my argument. The bible is simply an old book that says it's the word of God. The Harry Potter books do not make that claim. I used to question, if Canterbury Tales (another old book) had said it's the word of God, would we all be worshipping the story of the Nun? What makes one old book better than any other old book when they all also claims to be the word of God (Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc)? Spirituality is different from religion I think. I can feel the Goddess. Most religions have gotten it wrong anyway, they are just used for the centralization and manipulation of political and economic power.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

LOL! Guille, this used to be my argument. The bible is simply an old book that says it's the word of God. The Harry Potter books do not make that claim. I used to question, if Canterbury Tales (another old book) had said it's the word of God, would we all be worshipping the story of the Nun? What makes one old book better than any other old book when they all also claims to be the word of God (Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc)? Spirituality is different from religion I think. I can feel the Goddess. Most religions have gotten it wrong anyway, they are just used for the centralization and manipulation of political and economic power.

Yes, well, it could be any other book that claims to be the word of god. Spirituality is indeed different from religion. But in that case, spirituality cannot speak of 'god'. 'god', simply by the definition of the concept, is a supreme being not relative to each's mind. Therefore spirituality can talk about another being, that might share several caracteristics with the classical idea of god, but it's not god. Simply we have got so used the the word god that now it's not meaning anything, but really if you speak about an inner path, etz.. as spirituality does, this is not 'god'.

[harmonygirl]

Well, Guille you have only one definition of the Goddess, mine is different. She is accessible to me and she has a great sense of humour!

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Well, Guille you have only one definition of the Goddess, mine is different. She is accessible to me and she has a great sense of humour!

See, this is what I refero. It's not "my god is this, and yours is that" that cannot be for god is universal. The simple word says it, not my definition. You use the word goddess, that's fine for me, for then it doesn't represent 'god'.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>>

See, this is what I refero. It's not "my god is this, and yours is that" that cannot be for god is universal. The simple word says it, not my definition. You use the word goddess, that's fine for me, for then it doesn't represent 'god'.

Again, I'm reminded of "The Way that can be named is not The Way". If one can attribute characteristics to god then it is not the true god (or goddess).

All I have seen points to this being the truth: http://duke.usask.ca/~eppw/misc/prose/hinustan.htm

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

Again, I'm reminded of "The Way that can be named is not The Way". If one can attribute characteristics to god then it is not the true god (or goddess).

All I have seen points to this being the truth: http://duke.usask.ca/~eppw/misc/prose/hinustan.htm

I've already said that whether religions are right or not when they claim to have the word of god, or at least claim that such thing as a supreme being exists, is irrelevant. We can explain nature without the need for the idea of god, and it is irrelevant for us to have him there or not. The six men are wrong about the elephant, for they only have a piece of truth. Just as science is wrong about nature, cause it only has several pieces of truth, not the whole. It's not that we need to know everything, but simply the basics. And by the way the analogy is not good for we can percieve-observe an elephant, it is a percept, whiles 'god' is only a concept.

[harmonygirl]

Guille, the Goddess IS universal. However, by saying that we have different conceptions of her, doesn't mean that she is any less than all. I was saying that you have an idea and I have a (VERY!) different idea. This has nothing to do with the Goddess (in fact), it is you and I disagreeing about ideas and words.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>>

I've already said that whether religions are right or not when they claim to have the word of god, or at least claim that such thing as a supreme being exists, is irrelevant. We can explain nature without the need for the idea of god, and it is irrelevant for us to have him there or not.

We can explain how nature works without god but we cannot explain how everything began. God is the only way to explain origin and, ultimately, purpose. I challenge you to provide irrefutable proof otherwise.

Originally Posted by <<>>

The six men are wrong about the elephant, for they only have a piece of truth. Just as science is wrong about nature, cause it only has several pieces of truth, not the whole. It's not that we need to know everything, but simply the basics. And by the way the analogy is not good for we can percieve-observe an elephant, it is a percept, whiles 'god' is only a concept.

The wisemen/elephant example is based on the idea that they didn't know what an elephant was (various versions of this story highlight this idea). So their perceptions of what an elephant is were based on their experiences. They weren't completely wrong nor completely right. In addition, none of their perceptions could change what an elephant is, although through discussion and debate their perceptions can be changed. Clearly we can use this as an example of how people view god.

[chazzysaw]

Originally Posted by enton

One source? The Bible is 66 books which were written by inspired men.

You are right, there are many books in the bible. I guess that is why there are so many confusing and conflicting interpretation of their God. Not to mention the many different religous sects. The writers may have been inspired but they were also superstitious and primitive in their writings.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

We can explain how nature works without god but we cannot explain how everything began. God is the only way to explain origin and, ultimately, purpose. I challenge you to provide irrefutable proof otherwise.

And again the same error you do that all believers in god do. I don't have to prove we need no god, I don't have to prove god doesn' exist, I don't have to do anything, just wait. You guys prove god, and prove we need god, and then we shall discuss.

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

The wisemen/elephant example is based on the idea that they didn't know what an elephant was (various versions of this story highlight this idea). So their perceptions of what an elephant is were based on their experiences. They weren't completely wrong nor completely right. In addition, none of their perceptions could change what an elephant is, although through discussion and debate their perceptions can be changed. Clearly we can use this as an example of how people view god.

Yes, I agree.