Post 645083 by orekix@pl.smuglo.li
(DIR) More posts by orekix@pl.smuglo.li
(DIR) Post #644719 by freemo@qoto.org
2018-10-19T21:30:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
by the explanation I just gave then pursuit in any knowledge is always pursuit in the divine, since the divine is everything.
(DIR) Post #644855 by jonpemby@qoto.org
2018-10-19T21:37:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo apologies for asking a seemingly silly question — however, does this not assume that God is everything and not a separate entity? What if He isn't everything?
(DIR) Post #644897 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-10-19T21:39:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I chatted with some freemasons a while back about the 3 questions they ask new candidates, and argued that an atheist should be able to answer affirmatively to all 3 on the basis that "nature" constitutes the "supreme being". they agreed, but said atheists still couldn't be masons, because they lacked the *attitude* that nature is sacred, and consequently wouldn't benefit from the rituals. point being that divinity isn't objective. it's just a perspective. generally a good one too imo.
(DIR) Post #645024 by sathariel@miniwa.moe
2018-10-19T21:44:46.580764Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jonpemby @freemo God is in everything and everything is in God. Everything is a manifestation of God. However everything can't contain God.
(DIR) Post #645083 by orekix@pl.smuglo.li
2018-10-19T21:46:49.190537Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sathariel @jonpemby @freemo but more importantly Lain is God.
(DIR) Post #645178 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-10-19T21:50:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sathariel @jonpemby @freemo "God" is metasyntactic variable. It has no inherent value or meaning beyond what is arbitrarily assigned to it. There's also no object one can point to and say this exclusively is "God", without a tonne of other people adamantly disagreeing based on their own arbitrary subjective value assignments. So rather than trying to say "God = <some thing>" or "God != <some thing>", it's less ambiguous/confusing to just speak of <some thing> and dispense with "God" entirely.
(DIR) Post #645251 by jonpemby@qoto.org
2018-10-19T21:54:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @sathariel @freemo so the objection to "God" is not necessarily that what "God" is not important, more in that "God" is not specific enough to be able to discuss efficiently?
(DIR) Post #645320 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-10-19T21:58:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jonpemby @sathariel @freemo Basically. The purpose of a symbol/word is to communicate the meaning it refers to. It's effectiveness is limited by it's ability to do so without ambiguity. As such in the context of society at large, "God" is just useless gibberish. It would be better to say "mystery", since that more clearly encapsulates the meaning people will understand from it. Notwithstanding that for a growing number it's also synonymous with "gullible".
(DIR) Post #645378 by sathariel@miniwa.moe
2018-10-19T22:01:35.692428Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @freemo @jonpemby The Way that can be followed is not the eternal Way.The name that can be named is not the eternal name.The nameless is the origin of heaven and earthWhile naming is the origin of the myriad things.Therefore, always desireless, you see the mysteryEver desiring, you see the manifestations.These two are the same—When they appear they are named differently. This sameness is the mystery,Mystery within mystery; The door to all marvels.
(DIR) Post #645418 by museus@freespeech.firedragonstudios.com
2018-10-19T22:03:32Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@sathariel @freemo @jonpemby Bang on! Here's my favorite english translation. ;)https://archive.fo/dbfbE
(DIR) Post #645481 by sathariel@miniwa.moe
2018-10-19T22:06:31.665970Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@museus @jonpemby @freemo that one is better, it's more similar to the translation that I like in my native language, thank you!