Thou art God.

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm, explain to me why it is of any importance?

your interpretation is analogous to a non-christian interpreting "love your neighbor" as have sexual intercourse with your neighbor: sure, it can mean that...but it obviously doesn't.

My only complaint about "Thou art God" is that the wording isn't very clear about what, precisely, it implies.

Does it mean to define the limit of God? As in, "Thou art God, and God is nowhere else" ???
Does it mean to imply God is a part or whole of the self? "Thou art God, and nothing else" or "Thou art God, as well as thyself" ???
A belief that the universe (which includes the questioner) is itself God, would be compatible.
A belief that God is a part of the universe, and that a part of God is in the questioner, is similarly compatible.

Perhaps it's clarified in the statement's context, which isn't provided here. If someone could nail down exactly what's being said here, or even scribble a Venn diagram, it might make more sense. Not that these aren't all important questions to ask, of course.

Which is the thing that confuses most people. There's God-as-everything and God-as-bigger-version-of-human-ego. The vast majority of organized religion seems to be based on the latter idea of God, although the mystics generally get the first bit.

Al-Hallaj, the Sufi mystic, ran through the streets of Baghdad shouting 'I am God!' They crucified him. History hasn't been kind to people with that particular insight.

(Love your avatar and username, BTW, tharn. I had a big WD obsession going on when I was ten or eleven.)

I think the idea of the universe and God being one and the same is more an Eastern idea. Nearly everyone I meet who hasn't studied any Eastern philosophy or religion just looks at me like I'm an idiot when I bring up the possibility.

And thanx - WSD is an obsession of mine. I'm working on learning the Rabbit language, actually.

spudnik!

It's really interesting to be new on this forum and follow some of these threads - you suspect that you have spotted a troll, and then when you follow the trail you find you were right by reading the views of veteran posters!

Are all of the forums in this site filled with these empty, knee-jerk responses from conservative types?

Excellent questions. The context can be answered by reading Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" - any attempt to summarize will not make much sense, I'm afraid. I would say that my impression from the book is more along the lines of your third statement above the others, although each situation you outline in questions is a valid interpretation on some level. Almost that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, it's remainder being spread throughout all existence as an intangible kindred quality; I caution that I am biased due to a great affection for this book, and the works of Heinlein in general. What you find not clear, I find somewhat delightful... a semantic puzzle wrapped up in philosophy, a great onion of questions. My own beliefs aren't something codified, although there are a few things that are easily identifiable: that I do not believe in a godhead, that I do not believe in a supreme being or eternal punishment/reward, that all things have value in their creation, their existence and their destruction... an adeist, although not in the classical sense. Just acutely aware that we have but one perspective on existence, and a limited one at that... all things are foreign on a new scale.


M.

This doesn't really contribute to the discussion, but I got to say that I love makuranososhi's writing style

Edit: Does the name makuranososhi mean anything?

i can't answer your question but he's got a boingo avatar and that's badass.

Makuranososhi - makura no soshi - is one of the Japanese translations for 'pillow book'. A pillow book was a diary concealed in a head pillow, often used by courtesans, which frequently contained lists of pleasant sensations, cruel instances, intense experiences. It is also a film starring Ewan McGregor and Vivian Wu, which is an almost overwhelming intoxication of the senses.

...and Oingo Boingo kicks ass; so does Danny Elfman's subsequent work. In fact, I'm going to listen to Boingo right now - Insanity!

*blush* I'm flattered that you enjoy my writing... there is a natural rhythm in words to me that fluctuates and makes imperative which words follow suit, dancing upon the tongue and left twisting through the mind. If I'm lucky, that sometimes will end up making it through my fingers and onto the screen. If I might ask, is there something that stands out to you? I ask so that I may better understand your compliment.


M.

While I enjoy the deftness with which it is written as well as the humour, I don't find it very illuminating beyond showing the scope of our mundane concerns that distract us.


M.

Let's me be clear on this. I find the statement itself facinating, and I have no small appreciation for a seemingly simple riddle that unwraps to produce still more questions. Although this is fine for meditation, it is terrible for debate. Unless the language of such a question is somehow clarified - or rather, specified - people tend to argue semantics until they're blue in the face.

As a Quaker, I can appreciate the perspective that God is spread throughout the world, and is both familiar, and accessable, to each individual. I find this resonates most closely with my own experiences and intuition. But if "Thou art God" simply implies, "God is dead. There is nothing divine beyond one's own needs or desires, so you are free to do as you will," I must say that I'm not impressed. That reading feels Wrong, morally empty, as though it leaves something fundamental unanswered, and it leads me to roads I don't want to travel. One may fairly object that my rejection of the "do as you will" reading defies good sense, evidence, logic, and foresight out of sheer obstenance! But such is my distaste for that reading, that I would rather be all those things, than accept it.

I did not mean offense in my response; my apologies if any was incurred. Given your viewpoint, I can understand why you would be discontent with such an interpretation. It has a much more positive meaning to me - that each person, each form and function in the universe is part and parcel of a greater whole... and the according respect and treatment that such a kindred spirit deserves. We live in a world obsessed with rights, instead of the freedoms imbued through responsibility... and we are the worse for it.


M.

Sorry. I intend the words I use so literally, I sometimes forget they can imply a tone. When I said "Let me be clear", I was simply worried that I had been unclear. I wasn't trying to imply any offense. ^_^

The statement "Thou art God" is indeed vague, as you seem to agree. And actually, it seems we BOTH enjoy pondering puzzles like this. I only meant to suggest that we recognize it for its complexity, by listing each reading of the statement, so that the vagueness of the statement itself doesn't confuse the discussion.

When I expressed my personal disapproval of the "do as you will" reading, I didn't mean to target it at anyone in particular. I see now that it could easily be interpreted as targeting you; this was unintentional.

I agree with you on the need for responsibility. People have certain rights, whether they are protected or not. It is unfortunate that we spend so much time afraid of our own rights being compromised, and more so, our fleeting, selfish desires... and so little time considering our responsibilities, unless they are imposed on us by force.

Perhaps that is why I react so strongly against "do as you will". It seems to suggest the only interests worth considering are one's own. -_-

How would you get past the fact that you are not to covet your neighbor's wife? Or to look upon each other with lustful eyes? The problem with the "Love" part is due to translation. In English "Love" doesn't separate in context.

You didn't explain why Satanism is powerful or pure to follow.





You're a ridiculous person.

way to completely ignore my point.

i repeat: your reading comprehension sucks.




did i ever state either? i know i most certainly didn't say pure. i think the concept of "you are your own god" is a very powerful and motivating one to the individual. it means "you are the one who has to affect change in your life".