believe in god!

but why does there have to be a god for this, why can't it just be

believe in science if you want to know the nuts and bolts of life, believe in god if you need comfort that your life has meaning, it is what it is, your life, live it how you will, why care what anyone believes, thinks or cares about

ok, forgetting the long list and focusing on "exist". Do you believe that we exist because of god or that god exists because of us? I don't mean that as a figment of the imagination. I mean, do you believe in a creator god or in a creation of god from the human spirit?

Are you familiar with panentheisum (different from panthesism)?

The definition for "Pantheism" given in the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy is: "The belief that God, or a group of gods, is identical with the whole natural world; pantheism comes from Greek roots meaning "belief that everything is a god."

By contrast, "panentheism" is the doctrine that God includes the world as a part, though not the whole, of "his" being.

An example of "Panentheism" is given by Fr. Charles Cummings, a Trappist-Cistercian monk, author of Eco-Spirituality: toward a reverent life. In Cummings approach, "Pantheism exaggerates divine immanence to the point of identifying God and the universe. The Judeo-Christian tradition maintains both that God is immanently in all things (or all things are in God) and the God is transcendentally beyond all things. "

For Fr. Cummings, "Reverence for nature is not irreverence for God; reverence for nature does not diminish our reverence toward God. God need not compete with nature for our reverence. Rather, we can reverence God by reverencing nature, because all creation is permeated with God's presence."

Similarly, Michael Fox has found value in a panentheistic approach. He writes: "The pantheism that regards the totality of Nature as being God (i.e.., that God is swallowed up in the unity of all) rather than an aspect of divinity is quite distinct from monotheistic pantheism. This monotheistic pantheism conceptualizes God as the all-inclusive essence or substance, the first cause of the universe, with many attributes, including intelligence, which we can perceive in Nature's lawful harmony. This form of pantheism would be better termed panentheism."

In short, the philosophy of "panentheism", as distinct from strict "Pantheism", believes in the immanence of God, but also in its Transcendence. By contrast, for strict Pantheists, like Ernst Haeckel, John Burroughs, and Joseph Wood Krutch, God and the Universe are one and the same, and the concept of a transcendent deity is abandoned. More at this link

persian Mysticism؟

I don't know Molana but I am familiar with (and have read) Khayam. I've read multiple translations of the quatrains in the Rubaiyat. I struggle with poetry but, yes, I would say that Khayam espouses a type of panentheism.

It is my belief that the mystics from many traditions have a sense of "something" that we as humans do not have the language to put into simple words. Some mystics use poetry, some use art, some use parables or stories to try to explain what it is that they "know" as truth. I believe they are trying to explain the same thing, but they (and we) lack the language to state it clearly.

I do, yes.

Setanta wrote:

Come back to talk to us when you've learned to speak English.

Thank u for this welcome and your offer...

djjd62 wrote:

how about the law of casualty, dead is dead

i know that one

incoherent reply, because u have not any reply this is
"Argumentum ad hominem" fallacy!

JPB wrote:

I do, yes. [I.e., she believes that mystics from many different traditions have the same idea about "exist" (the word you wanted was existence) and the world.]

Thank you for answering but i don't think so, I can rhyme as u can but now, we know we have difference epistemology(Philosophy).

Roammer wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Come back to talk to us when you've learned to speak English.

Thank u for this welcome and your offer...

There was no welcome in that post, nor is there any offer. If you ever succeed in learning enough English to express your ideas coherently, i can neither stop you from coming here to post them, nor can i cause you to do so. The point, which you are evading, is that you are not now expressing any ideas coherently in English. It appears that you think you are wise or clever, but the evidence of that simply does not appear in this thread. It is charity on my part to assume that that is because of your lack of language skills. In fact, i suspect that it is because you are not clever and you have no wisdom to offer. You throw out words and phrases as though they will be evidence of your wisdom and cleverness. They are not. So, for example:

roammer wrote:

djjd62 wrote:

how about the law of casualty, dead is dead

i know that one

incoherent reply, because u have not any reply this is
"Argumentum ad hominem" fallacy!

This is a perfect example of your incoherence, and i begin to suspect it's not just because you lack the ability to clearly express yourself in English. For whatever Djjd may have been doing in that post, argumentum ad hominem is not a part of it. Do you actually know what that means, or do you just like to throw terms around to make yourelf look wise? Argumentum ad hominem means to attack the man and not the idea. Djjd did not make a personal attack on you, so you are just as wrong as wrong can be.

roammer wrote:

JPB wrote:

I do, yes. [I.e., she believes that mystics from many different traditions have the same idea about "exist" (the word you wanted was existence) and the world.]

Thank you for answering but i don't think so, I can rhyme as u can but now, we know we have difference epistemology(Philosophy).

This is another wonderful example of how you just throw something out which you apparently think makes you look wise. Epistemology is the study of knowledge--how we can know that we know something. It is completely irrelevant as a response to what she has written in her several preceding posts.

When JPB asked you for a definition of god, you dodged that by providing a laundry list of mindless panegyrics which Muslims recite about their god. What you did not do was provide a definition of god, you did not answer her question. The member who earlier suggested that this may be an extended joke may be right. You may just be playing a game. Whatever it is that you think you are accomplishing, what you are certainly not doing is communicating. You are not engaged in an exchange of ideas. You are just telling people what the truth is, as though we have any good reason to assume that you know the truth. We don't. Perhaps if you ever did get an adequate command of the English language to have a coherent conversation here, you would engage in a free exchange of ideas. Personally, i suspect that that won't happen. Not because you cannot learn English well enough for the exercise, but because a free exchange of ideas was never your goal. You just want to tell us how things are, and tell us we are foolish or intellectually deficient if we don't agree.


In short, you didn't come here to discuss or debate a topic, you just came here to preach. How convenient the internet is for Muslims who want to fulfill their obligation to preach to the infidel.

...now i'm here and try to know what u know, believe what u believe, this is my way for improve my believes.... Although i know this is just my believe.

You asked me "what is my sect", to which the only answer I can give is "British intelligent adult". Like countless others, I am an atheist who occasionally attends religious ceremonies out of respect/obligation for friends and family who are believers, but not their beliefs.

IMO (and I am one of many), the word/concept "God" was developed as a psychological insurance against "the void". It is part of the price paid by humans for their pre-occupation with their cognitive ability to anticipate the future, especially their own death. Our ultimate incomplete control over our "destiny" and lack of perception of it gives rise the psychological need for a "big controller in the sky"...an omniscient and omnipotent "parent" in whom we will ultimately find "comfort". Tribal power structures were reified by their idiosyncratic versions of such a fairy tale, to the extent that rival tribes have murdered, and continue to murder each other over their particular versions.

In short "God" is a psychological opiate and palliative, with occasionally pernicious sociological consequences.

If you are not in fact a Muslim, you're doing a wonderful job making appear that you are. Your gender is meaningless here. Perhaps you could start over, and answer JPB's question. How do you define god?