
katofumiko45
why me
- Sep 20, 2025
- 9
any God from any religion, or not from a religion
Last edited:
You're smart to place that amount of value on "feeling" it. A lot of people go their whole lives never having a spiritual/mystical experience of God but give their whole being to dogmatic control freak vocal cord vibrators and scribbles on ancient parchment paper and the sexually repressed do-nots it rambles on about, and they mistake these spoutings as actually being God, or at least they believe the spouting when it tells them they'll eventually meet God when they die under the condition you do what I tell you to do. Sad, how did I end up on this planet...i have a lot of reasons to but i don't yet feel it . _.
might take time given i haven't been raised this way
i wish it were easier
Come to think of it, I also wonder how much God knows... while he may know than all of the internet combined (eg: what happened before the big bang... what is the source code of DNA, not the compiled code... what best to do for the world, etc)... he may not know the future without having to travel thru time or so.At any rate, God can not possibly be all knowing if we have any free will.
Why do you think its outlandish? A lot of the metaphysical truths in the Bible, especially in the OT, are clothed in narrative and not easy to decipher. That's why there is (supposed to be) a church which can uncover these hidden truths and render them accessible to ordinary people.I don't think there exists an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent creator that's the master of everything that ever could be. Every religion has different definition of god, I find all of them equally lacking in evidence but Abrahamic gods seems to be the most outlandish ones.
Unlike modern science, traditional cosmology did not attempt to describe reality in terms of atoms, energy, and mechanical causality. Instead, most ancient cultures perceived the world in terms of spiriitual principles such as angels, demons, and mysterious sea monsters at the edge of the world. So before attempting to interpret a book like Genesis, it is important to understand why our current worldview is so different from that of the past.
In biblical cosmology, the world was created by the union of 'heaven' and 'earth,' where the first is the source of spiritual meaning, and the second is the source of physical expression. Thus, everything in this universe is analogous to a written word in a divine language.
In general, all the miraculous powers of Moses are miniature versions of God's powers in creation. Even beyond such miracles, every single event in the Bible should be interpreted as a re-presentation of cosmic principles on the human scale. Of course, this type of interpretation is completely foreign to materialism because the only acceptable form of explanation is mechanical causality.
The number seven represents the natural law of the cycle, and the seventh part of that cycle symbolizes the irrational period when the end transforms into a new beginning. It is the strange moment when the cycle finally "swallows itself" in the confusion of first and last. This type of inversion is forbidden by the hierarchical "law of space" during periods of work and productivity. However, during the critical seventh period, space loses its grip on reality as it returns to more primitive cyclical conditions. In the Bible, this "returning to irrationality" is often symbolized as flooding on the cosmic scale and as carnivals, Sabbaths, and Jubilees on the human scale.
In this context, the notion that Adam is "in the image of God" means that humanity is a symbol of the Creator within creation. Thus, Adam is the embodiment of divine knowledge in the world. Unlike regular knowledge, which involves the union of spirit and matter for created things, this type of knowledge transcends itself into a form of metacognition.
Why do you think its outlandish? A lot of the metaphysical truths in the Bible, especially in the OT, are clothed in narrative and not easy to decipher. That's why there is (supposed to be) a church which can uncover these hidden truths and render them accessible to ordinary people.
Of course if you take the most blunt and two-dinensional intetpretation of the Bible its goiing to seem stupid and outlandish. If youre an intellectually honest person, though, you ought to engage with the most honest and authentic representatives of that tradition and not rely on your local nutjob evangelist preacher who takes everything in the Bible literally, word for word, to give you an accurate picture of the abrahamic faiths.
Some excerpts from a book called The language of creation:
Maybe the most recent version, which is partially based on the previous version, all the way down the chain.who is the real me at 1 day old , 1 year, 3 years old 7 years old, 20 , 21 ? identity keeps changing cause the brain is rewired every day the brain learns every day. i am not what i was at 1 day old or 2 years old . what was i then ? which me goes to the afterlife?
there's no evidence
Obviously there's more to it than that. These are just a few random examples I picked because I thought they were comprehensible without further context. I did not intend on giving a full-range account of all that the book has to offer.
- Ancients saw the world differently than we do.
- Genesis should be read in terms of spiritual symbols, not scientific facts.
- Numbers and cycles (like the number 7) have mystical meanings.
- Adam as the image of God = humanity reflects divine knowledge.
Where are they common? They used to be commom, but are so no longer. These truths have almost completely vanished from the world. I'd be suprised if there were more than five people left in the catholic church who understood traditional symbolism--in the way it was meant to be understood.All of these seem to be pretty common theological arguments, nothing groundbreaking once you strip away the fancy word maze. Pretty common from those who do not take the text in Bible literally, DEFINITLY more tolorable than the otherside but just as outlandish!
Unless you can prove that first, I will not go into discussing these texts intecritly.