Don’t be mad at me because I am sovereign.
- Thread starter rayzer
- Start date
rayzer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 291
Uh oh, the God word!
Debating the meaning of the word God is another fine example of an exercise in utter futility. However, I do think it is an appropriate word to use in the discussion of our personal sovereignty. That is because to me, the word God represents all those things we just know that we know, but we can't necessarily explain why we know it. On a micro-level, it is the purest representation of the source of natural law as it applies to our daily lives. While on the macro level, it encompasses the entirety of the universe.
Since we all inherently understand natural law, it seems quite useful to have a word like God in our vocabulary. It allows us to constantly remind ourselves that while selfishness is paramount to our own sovereignty, our entire being and all the power that we give ourselves, is only a mere speck, of a tiny fragment, of a minute piece, of an infinitesimally small part, of a microscopic crumb of the universe. To me, the word “God” wraps all these mind-numbing concepts into one nice little 3 letter package, and saves us all from a tedious diatribe; the likes of which I am currently embarking.
Unfortunately, however, some seem to enjoy this wearisome debate. This is my assumption because they have gone to such great lengths to apply very specific, real-world attributes to this concept of God. Which is odd, because the only thing that makes the word a meaningful and unique meme, is the mere fact that is fails to have any definable, real-world attributes; thus the futile exercise to which I have eluded. But worse yet, are those folks, who have become so violently opposed to certain definitions of God, and the forceful actions of those who attempt to apply them, that they, themselves, have created their own, strange anti-God version of the universe. They, similarly, have gone to great lengths to develop a detailed story around this anti-God concept, and generally have the same forceful attitude about those details. Many are so wrapped up in this, that they tend to become confused and afraid at even the mere mention of the word God. Yawn.
God is a word. It means something to people. Really, need we say more?
Debating the meaning of the word God is another fine example of an exercise in utter futility. However, I do think it is an appropriate word to use in the discussion of our personal sovereignty. That is because to me, the word God represents all those things we just know that we know, but we can't necessarily explain why we know it. On a micro-level, it is the purest representation of the source of natural law as it applies to our daily lives. While on the macro level, it encompasses the entirety of the universe.
Since we all inherently understand natural law, it seems quite useful to have a word like God in our vocabulary. It allows us to constantly remind ourselves that while selfishness is paramount to our own sovereignty, our entire being and all the power that we give ourselves, is only a mere speck, of a tiny fragment, of a minute piece, of an infinitesimally small part, of a microscopic crumb of the universe. To me, the word “God” wraps all these mind-numbing concepts into one nice little 3 letter package, and saves us all from a tedious diatribe; the likes of which I am currently embarking.
Unfortunately, however, some seem to enjoy this wearisome debate. This is my assumption because they have gone to such great lengths to apply very specific, real-world attributes to this concept of God. Which is odd, because the only thing that makes the word a meaningful and unique meme, is the mere fact that is fails to have any definable, real-world attributes; thus the futile exercise to which I have eluded. But worse yet, are those folks, who have become so violently opposed to certain definitions of God, and the forceful actions of those who attempt to apply them, that they, themselves, have created their own, strange anti-God version of the universe. They, similarly, have gone to great lengths to develop a detailed story around this anti-God concept, and generally have the same forceful attitude about those details. Many are so wrapped up in this, that they tend to become confused and afraid at even the mere mention of the word God. Yawn.
God is a word. It means something to people. Really, need we say more?
elielevin
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6
Alternate G-d-verses
Interesting.
I suppose people who create the anti-G-d universes are therefore just as dogmatic as those that dwell in the pro-G-d universes? Of course the problem comes right here, where an anti-G-d universe has a nexus with a G-d universe.
Like anti-matter contacting matter, there's bound to be fireworks.
Then there are those of us who avoid the G-d word for other reasons.
But, hey, it's still a free country. At least for a few more months.
But seriously, Rayzer, I think you are right. the G-d word is a useful word to have, and people have been using it in the fashion you suggest for a long time. I suppose that it works well enough to explain the ineffible, the Ayn Sof (infinite) so long as we remember that some people do have a definite, very defined concept of G-d, and they get very upset when they cannot force it on others.
I am not enamored with theocracy. It seems to descend rapidly into barbarism every time. And it's particularly hard on women and Jews* and self-sovereign types.
* Sometimes I think we get blamed because we foisted the G-d-word off on the world to begin with. Sigh.
Interesting.
I suppose people who create the anti-G-d universes are therefore just as dogmatic as those that dwell in the pro-G-d universes? Of course the problem comes right here, where an anti-G-d universe has a nexus with a G-d universe.
Like anti-matter contacting matter, there's bound to be fireworks.
Then there are those of us who avoid the G-d word for other reasons.
But, hey, it's still a free country. At least for a few more months.
But seriously, Rayzer, I think you are right. the G-d word is a useful word to have, and people have been using it in the fashion you suggest for a long time. I suppose that it works well enough to explain the ineffible, the Ayn Sof (infinite) so long as we remember that some people do have a definite, very defined concept of G-d, and they get very upset when they cannot force it on others.
I am not enamored with theocracy. It seems to descend rapidly into barbarism every time. And it's particularly hard on women and Jews* and self-sovereign types.
* Sometimes I think we get blamed because we foisted the G-d-word off on the world to begin with. Sigh.
lol, excellent argument.
rayzer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 291
Yeah, I thought so too! God discussion continued .... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206559
Last edited:
Similar threads
