Originally posted by kevcvs57
Yeah sorry I must have hit the wrong reply button.

I must have missed them post's, I will not argue about the Infinity thing because I just hear a whistling noise above my head when posters discuss it, but I think 0% of us have a clue about God, even supposing any such entity exists.

There is no entity called "God".
I am not a theist

Originally posted by Suzianne
But you seemingly treated what he said at its most basic level, completely disregarding what you must have known he meant. One may not include everything that is peripheral, but at least acknowledging the actual meaning of what he said would have been more preferable than restating a rather uninspiring synopsis of the words he used, without regard to the a ...[text shortened]... shouldn't open this can of worms, either, but psychiatry is not psychology. Just to be clear.

On the contrary, I knew immediately he was referring to the significance of cigars as a phallic symbol (duh!). This is in a post about the problem of talking defining "God" in terms of infinity and the problems of a supposed God with a 'form' of some sort. You would prefer to simplistically believe without questioning anything.

I proceeded to use the the cigar, not as a side discussion about dreams, sex and phallic symbols, but as a way of pointing out even the definition of a "cigar" has wider implications, hopefully a bit humorously. People's sense of humor does differ, so if you didn't get it, ok.

I am aware there is nothing that I would probably say that would either be able to communicate with you effectiveley on such subtleties or enable you to pursue some awareness expansion, as you are unfortunately trapped in an outdated, primitive and judgemental world view.

Let us stop these unfortunate snipings, eh? Try and say something about the problems inherent in stating "God" is infinite. Do you see "God" having some sort of body? Or is "he" spirit? Does a spirit have sexual gender? Do you perhaps think of "God" in a similar way to the Hindu view of Brahman, who is without form? Or like the Dao, an indefinable mystery, yet very real nevertheless?

Originally posted by Taoman
Now that is a topic not touched upon much here - The Phallus as a religious symbol, found in numerous religions, ancient and modern, nor do we see the traditions of sacred prostitution discussed. But, heaven forbid, let's not include 'feeeelthy sex' in one's spirituality. Ever heard of Shiva? Tantra?

The Christian Church has a lot to answer to in its debas ...[text shortened]... r Christ. One way they could make Christianity relevant today and they FAIL miserably!

If only the Bible had some dirty pictures in it the churches might be able to pack 'em in again.

It's funny, in the U.S. you can have shows freely depicting someone getting shot in the head or hacked at by an axe, but one stray boob and boom! -- it's censored. Violence = Okay. Nudity = No Way. Real screwed up country. In Europe I noticed it was much the opposite: plenty of nudity on television, but a relatively tame scene of violence from one of the Star Trek shows was edited out.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
There is no entity called "God".
I am not a theist

So because you are not a theist, ipso facto there is no entity called "God" but you still claim about 10% of posters and presumably the general population Have an understanding of this non entity called "God" . Mmmm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm, actually no. I would go far as to state that the minds capacity for learning is
infinite, given the correct environment and stimulus. Its such a great pity that we have
such a fleeting life span with which to explore our world of endless possibilities.

No matter how long our life span, if it is finite it will seem fleeting at its end. The issue is only whether we can be satisfied with that. Obviously the world is dominated by those who cannot be.

Originally posted by Taoman
On the contrary, I knew immediately he was referring to the significance of cigars as a phallic symbol (duh!). This is in a post about the problem of talking defining "God" in terms of infinity and the problems of a supposed God with a 'form' of some sort. You would prefer to simplistically believe without questioning anything.

I proceeded to use the the ...[text shortened]... thout form? Or like the Dao, an indefinable mystery, yet very real nevertheless?

As He said many times in the Bible, "I AM that I AM".

Sort of the epitome of "ineffable", no?

Anyways, to answer your questions, to me, He is spirit, without form. This is not to say He cannot assume a form, I do not know. He's always appearing as a character in a movie, whether Morgan Freeman or George Burns (both are wholly believable to me, btw), but I think this is mainly because showing Him as just a patch of fog or a burning bush or something would get rather old fast.

I think the Bible always refers to Him as "He" out of respect. I'm thinking genderless, yet He made Adam in His "own image", whatever that means. Maybe it's how He sees Himself, which seems interesting to think about. Definitely not "She", since man the world over seems to have a somewhat non-respectful concept of women in general. Nor "It", like some inanimate thing, like a lamp or a kettledrum, or even a computer (nod to Orson Scott Card).

I hope you don't mind my sharing what I think, especially since you consider my world view outdated, primitive and judgmental. And gosh, no, who would ever describe women as subtle? (/sarcasm off) And my religious views are quite sufficient and complete, needing neither "freeing" nor "expansion". I like the truth just fine, thanks.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So because you are not a theist, ipso facto there is no entity called "God" but you still claim about 10% of posters and presumably the general population Have an understanding of this non entity called "God" . Mmmm

more or less. like i say: it call comes down to linguistics
edit: hey kev, you have a basic grasp on Buddhism?

Originally posted by Suzianne
As He said many times in the Bible, "I AM that I AM".

Sort of the epitome of "ineffable", no?

Anyways, to answer your questions, to me, He is spirit, without form. This is not to say He cannot assume a form, I do not know. He's always appearing as a character in a movie, whether Morgan Freeman or George Burns (both are wholly believable to me, btw), ding neither "freeing" nor "expansion". I like the truth just fine, thanks.

you like your truth just fine, if it was The truth then there would be no contention.

btw, i do respect that you put your ideas out in the public domainn

Originally posted by Taoman
This is in a post about the problem of talking defining "God" in terms of infinity and the problems of a supposed God with a 'form' of some sort. You would prefer to simplistically believe without questioning anything.

What seems to bother skeptics and cynics more than almost anything is that most Christians don't mull about insignificant things, such as exactly what God looks like. It's a curious subject, but it has no bearing on anything important and is not explained in the Holy Scriptures we hold fast to.

Christians typically dedicate very little thought to spiritual and religious issues that, if answered either way, aren't signficant. To the cynics and skeptics that makes us seem narrow-minded or less intelligent. That's because they are unaware of what being saved does to your mind. Before I became Christian, I was searching for truth on many different fronts and asking questions of varying significance on a constant basis. After my transformation, 90% of what I thought was important, I realized wasn't important at all and they dropped near the bottom of my priority list. I'm still just as intelligent and open-minded as I was before - but my priorities changed.

Originally posted by sumydid
What seems to bother skeptics and cynics more than almost anything is that most Christians don't mull about insignificant things, such as exactly what God looks like. It's a curious subject, but it has no bearing on anything important and is not explained in the Holy Scriptures we hold fast to.

Christians typically dedicate very little thought to spiritu ...[text shortened]... I'm still just as intelligent and open-minded as I was before - but my priorities changed.

When people get to grade their own intelligence everyone gets an "A".

Originally posted by karoly aczel
more or less. like i say: it call comes down to linguistics
edit: hey kev, you have a basic grasp on Buddhism?

"edit: hey kev, you have a basic grasp on Buddhism?"

Occasionally🙂

In so far as we are all born with an internal landscape.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
"edit: hey kev, you have a basic grasp on Buddhism?"

Occasionally🙂

In so far as we are all born with an internal landscape.

Well because of the open-ended nature of Buddhism, I cant say your wrong 🙂

Do you believe there is an end to learning?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well because of the open-ended nature of Buddhism, I cant say your wrong 🙂

Do you believe there is an end to learning?

That is why I like to jump into threads/puddles concerning Buddhism with both feet, getting splashed with some answers that lead to more questions seems to be the usual outcome.

"Do you believe there is an end to learning?"

I do not see any evidence that there is, and I hope there is not.
🙂