Writingpoetry

[ Join Free! ]
(No Spam mail)

dotsdots
nav
  • RolePlay
  • Join Us
  • Writings
  • Shoutbox
  • Community
  • Digg Mashup
  • Mp3 Search
  • Online Education
  • My Youtube
  • Ear Training
  • Funny Pics
  • nav



    nav
  • Role Play
  • Piano Music
  • Free Videos
  • Web 2.0
  • nav



    << | >>
    poetry


    dots Submission Name: Goddots
    --------------------------------------------------------





    Author: monad
    ASL Info:    61/M/California
    Elite Ratio:    8 - 851/303/95
    Words: 1539
    Class/Type: Rant/Nostalgia
    Total Views: 389
    Average Vote:    No vote yet.
    Bytes: 8472



    Description:
       Pantheisim's pragmatics


    Make the font bigger!! Double Spacing Back to recent posts.

    dotsGoddots
    -------------------------------------------


    If one had a desire to define the word god where would he begin ? Why would he assign the traits he did to the word ? Would he want to assimilate traits that he perceived to be godlike ? Would he obtain a clearer vision in a realization of the futility of aspiration , or would pragmatism and adamant tenaciousness afford him a better route ? Perhaps we all could benefit by a reassessment of our affinity with god .
    The metaphysical extremities of human nature provide man with a multifaceted image of the possible psychic states of God . Objectivity has led man away from the true nature of his need many times at this point . Any retrospective analysis of man's personifications of deity most often leaves one lost in the quandaries of the psychic quagmire . The weaknesses created by man's lack of a universally acceptable id conclusion have elevated many philosophical or theocratic hypotheses to the level of demagoguery .
    One method which has been used by theologians in attempting to induct a sumerial derivation from the vast warehouse of human religious extrapolation is the concept that perhaps basic truths can be affirmed through the theory of sufficient constancy of conjunction . Which is to say that reasonably analogous conjectures can be found in the depths of religious pervasion . But this is not strictly true .
    The ancient Babylonians , like the Indians , were polytheistic . They worshiped gods of nature , tribal union , fertility . Deifications created from allusion to natural analogies , yet often imbued with a euphemistic optimism . Where as the pantheon of Grecian deities often seems an almost banal personification of psychological metaphors from the darker side of life . Zeus a fallibly omnipotent being who pompously subverts all beneath him to his will . Who along with Apollo and others roam the countryside raping and adulterating the women of their choice . And Ares the formidable God of war whose natural lust for violence leads him and his cohorts to vicarious involvement with mankind's altercations .
    Egyptian theology seems to have been an amendable and progressive state that began with sun worship and gods of nature , and moved on to attempted assimilation of godlike traits through a natural alignment with the perceived nature of God . There were in depth studies of the nature of time , and life , and notions of existential transcendentalism . The momentum of this progression led them to the ultimate grandiose delusion in which the Pharaoh was worshiped as the universal supreme being , omniscient and omnipotent ruler of the ultimate utopian society .
    The Jews worshiped a God who was at once both a part of them and an exogenous force believed to have created them in its own image . A God that deliberately instilled an understanding of its intended wisdom by instructing them of the laws they were to live by. These divine revelations were often considered as the unadulterated word of God . This God was jealous and demanded the adoration due him as the supreme essence . His worship became the underlying force in their social conjecture as they attempted to inspire his continued grace and benevolence . A seemingly irrational solution to the quandary of idealism . An allegiance whose impetus was unquestionable . It seems by me to be improperly rooted on a personal level in that it overemphasizes the need or expectation of divine inspiration .
    The ancient Chinese social wisdom was by me commendably rational . Unlike the Jews they do not seem to have overemphasized the expectation of divine inspiration . Instead they, like the Egyptians emphasized an alignment with the perceived nature of God on a personal level as the way to strength . They of course had a conception of the possible natures of deity , but considered wisdom to be an honorably truthful self orientation .
    Another realm of intellectual extrapolation from which one might hope to surmise a depthfully pervasive generality would be man's philosophical treatises on the possible natures of God . Unfortunately due to the myriad nature of possibility this again appears paradoxically difficult . To me this seems to be a product of the nonempirical nature of these conjectures . Humans experience a reality which does not necessarily have any relative effect on the transcendence of their conception of the possible nature of God . Although many have attempted to empiricise their conjectures through rational logic they are most often refuted by the possibility of ultimate transcendence or quandrified by the actuality of paradoxical argument .
    Some good examples of these points are perhaps the arguments of Lucretius who attempted to empiricise that God can not revoke mathematical truths . But what is the relative reality of those truths to the transcended essence of ultimate beingness . They are refuted by irrelevance . Another example might be the statement that God has aseity . That is if he exists his existence is not caused . This statement seems easy to refute for the supreme being could be all of the things possible for him except this and have evolved out of eons of cosmic continuum into natural omniscience and or through assimilation of the forces innate to the cosmos have achieved relative omnipotence .
    One generally accepted statement that is refuted by these arguments is " the cosmos does not have infinite existence and is therefore not the supreme being ." For if this supreme being has not yet evolved if its transcendental form could be said to have become out of cosmic continuum then the cosmos will indeed have achieved infiniteness . But this already seems intuitively necessary to the ultimate cosmic essence regardless of a lack of self consciousness or even a physical form . Perhaps what is possible and eons of void are the root of all force and matter , and perhaps this as yet unfulfilled sequence cycles on to nirvana . Then again perhaps the supreme being does in fact preempt all as a self conscious entity . This also would seem to be intuitively necessary to the essence of totality which of course has always existed and is in fact the supreme being in at that at that although not necessarily the true form of its transcendental being .
    On this lofty note I would like to reiterate my thesis . Perhaps we all could benefit from a reassessment of our affinity with God .
    A man can accomplish many things with his concept of God . What is extraneous ? Perhaps the question would better be put what is expedient , but that becomes subjective . You have to define your goals . Where in lies wisdom ? Can man truly aspire to godhead or is this personally nonproductive ? Man seems to perceive a sort of manifest destiny for himself . An intrinsic affinity with infiniteness that just must be dealt with .Perhaps our beliefs in life after death are a grandiose delusion in which we hedonistically waste our time pampering our egos . Which brings me to my third and final argument .
    Perhaps conscious regimentation and an affiliation with earth bound logic would bring us closer to our affinity with God .
    One of the ideas presented by my philosophical references was that many of mankind's inspirations to define his affinity with God grew inadvertently out of social realism and the powers assumed . Although often the subjective truths of these understandings went unmentioned out of a desire for objectivity . For example what God must be if God is to be God . Perhaps one would do better to relate personally to his affinity with God .
    I think this is true . although we seem to lack omnipotence we are all individually speaking a preternatural corporeal state . Perhaps we all should assert our godliness instead of hiding our talents in the sand . Perhaps then we could construct a contractual reality . An aspiration to the perfection of the human social mechanic. I salute this concept . In fact I firmly believe that by conscribing unalienable rights to our beings we have already performed the rights of the human social mechanic . Our aspiration to godhead is complete in its conjecture . All that is left is to obtain expedience and accuracy in our amendment toward continued obtainment of the majority goal .




    Submitted on 2011-02-27 19:38:28     Terms of Service / Copyright Rules
    Submissions: [ Previous ] [ Next ]

    Rate This Submission

    1: >_<
    2: I dunno...
    3: meh!
    4: Pretty cool
    5: Wow!




    ||| Comments |||
      Well...that was a head full. Really, though...hasn't the problem right along been that rather than knowing the personality and likes and dislikes of God, humans surmise their own personification of what they believe god is like?

    In other words, the way humans perceive, is that rather than us being made in his image, we make him in our own image. We say things like, "oh, God won't mind," when, in fact, maybe he might, but, since our hearts desires are stronger than our consciences, we will justify our behavior and do what we will albeit wrong or right. God-diversities are nearly as numerous as grains of sand upon the sea.

    And then there's the whole Evolution versus Creationism concept.

    I've heard it said...there is only one God.
    | Posted on 2014-02-05 00:00:00 | by KimmyMim | [ Reply to This ]
      How would one define god?
    As you have pointed out with your religious history foray, we (as humans) have attempted to define god for time out of mind.
    We are pretty bad at it.
    One group will come up with an idea; run with it, impose it on others, and insist that they are right.
    They may be right, but they may not.
    As has been pointed out in previous comments, we really cant say for sure one way or another.
    So, why do we need to define what god is?
    I think we should try to define what good is...it seems to be somewhat easier to reach with our mortal and finite minds.
    The divine eternal may be beyond us.
    But, that being said, I believe that the attempt to discover a definition of god is a noble effort. Much and more is learned by spiritual and soul-searching contemplation or cogitation.

    You were right, Bruce. I did enjoy this rant of yours.


    But, why 'nostalgia'?
    | Posted on 2012-01-07 00:00:00 | by latentlylyrical | [ Reply to This ]
      Good show! I agree with all of this completely. Except the parts that I don't. lol

    I know I should say more, but I wrote so much on your other piece. . . and it was short. I don't dare get started on this one! I'll be up all night!

    I will just say this: I like the idea of reinventing a god for the modern human being. I like the idea of the space-time loop thing and some deity that is both all-knowing and unaware. All powerful and completely powerless. I like the idea that that "god" is me, and you, and everyone and everything. I like the idea of the cosmos being infinite and us all being a part of it and everything all being connected. But I don't know how much difference it makes what I like. I don't know that my preference or belief is all that integral to the whole fabric of things. Or that my understanding is. Then again, sometimes I think that is the most important thing. Yet it is still the most impossible. Understanding. Knowing. Really knowing. How can we? Sometimes it just seems wisest to stand back in awe and say nothing.
    | Posted on 2011-12-05 00:00:00 | by JanePlane | [ Reply to This ]
      My problem with the relevance of any such historical prognostication as a abstention of the nonexistence of god is that we are pitting social historical perceptions against individual ones. You cannot summon a single greek, or summarian, or roman (before and after the christian conversion), egyptian and prod for "deep truths". Which leads me to believe that all the points you are making are only relevant insofar as the discussion of the social development of our society. In which case, perhaps above all else, the egyptians may have tapped into the deepest pool while slightly missing the point. And later on, perhaps that is why communism became such an emergent theory, such a threat to our liberty and freedom (or to america's). But none of these conjectures need to speak of god's traits, or even his existence. They need only speak of the impact such a concept as his has had on the developing social circles of society. We've already eliminated social classes (I understand that economic ones have taken over, but they are nonetheless not social classes).

    Perhaps the god we are moving towards today is a more transcendentally unified globalisation. Regardless, what of those who do not harbour this affinity you speak of? Those who are, I imagine, without souls, without want or need, without desire for this god?

    My point has been that maybe we have a word for a concept we don't yet have an understanding of, and that I think it might be more psychologically rooted in the domain of mob mentalities. It is virtually a given nowadays that religion is a group activity, and that historically it arose when cities had a need to maintain union in the otherwise chaotic oblivion of surging life. In which case, God is not an it so much as an internal desire for a more efficient social system. An emergent awareness inherent in our social reunions - the name we did not realize we gave to the face of our troop; we aren't humans, we are godians. A desire for an all encompassing one, in which every person can be heard and understood, in which every person is catered to. A social system which sublimates individual differences under the scope of a universally accepted abstraction of perfection. Kind of like ants. And maybe we share a genealogical ancestry with them, and bees, and rats - and perhaps rats are the blind cousins who abandoned the cause of God and became bottom feeders. Maybe ants missed the point and got hooked on some warped form of feminism, of deifying their queen.

    Which brings to mind this new point. A lot of your writing is self-important and seated in emotions in this piece. Self-important in the sense similar to the fact that religious people expect me to listen to their cause, without any want to listen to my diatribes about ants, rocks and the death of God. They are saving my soul - a thing to which I lay no claim - meanwhile I am boring them out of their mind with my "arbitrary individual passion". That is, self-important because the importance of the thing dawns once the subject is already devoured. You couldn't say you are not able to let go of God if you weren't already convinced he was this magnificent mystery - and that all things which are unexplained, important, or significant lead back to him.

    I'm sorry if any of this seems like a personal attack. I am just tired of hearing about God. People insist and insist, and I must always reconsider on their account - all the while they do not reconsider my point of view. Which is fine, it is their loss if anything (not that I have a correct view, merely that their mind is all the less open for the act of refusing).

    Maybe I am just upset about other things and bringing it into our conversation.

    Marc.
    | Posted on 2011-08-06 00:00:00 | by Outlaw | [ Reply to This ]
      so then our description/connection/perception of God/s/g/ID are personally relevant? i like the balance you struck in the wording. personally i could care less about the sentence structuring this read like a voice over for a history channel documentary i would love to watch. i actually like how you took this because to project your personal philosophies of God in this would be contradictive to the idea of reassessment. this is your voice really working for me/and i love the topic. i';d go with blue monk if you're looking to have in finalized. there are some sentance structure stuffs/and a few semantical errors.

    re blue monk;
    i think we have free will, but it's subjective. i think God determines the flesh we get. perhaps controls/maintains elements of the universe/keeps the laws of physics working etc. i've always figured we are most likely some part of God. that god is more complex than comparing to an individual beng. God is more like all things that are at once. which i guess does make me a Pantheist. i don't believe in predestination. there being limitation is just the eventuality of having free will.
    | Posted on 2011-03-07 00:00:00 | by cornonthekob | [ Reply to This ]
      It is a daunting task you have undertaken with this particular title but in having read it I expected much better out of you and know you are capable of better. Personally I want better. If this is to be a website for writers commenting on other writers I feel compelled to say something even though I am for the most part humbled by your works.

    Knowing your proficiency with the English language I am surprised to see so many incomplete and/or fragmented sentences. This detracts from the reading regardless of the ideas being expressed. I also suggest keeping any lines of discussion in historical order wherein the Egyptians would come earlier than the Greeks with Romans to follow
    Greeks, etc.

    There are actually strong interrelationships between the gods of various cultures with each posed as a certain archetype. It is therefore easy to propose that these gods are often the same characters but bear different names within different cultures. This can easily be attributed to ancient migrations and trade routes particularly with the Norse set. Marvel comics has done a good job of playing Asgard against Olympus in some of the Thor, God of Thunder stories (He kicked Ares' ass, but Thor was the title character as well as being insane at the time). Stan Lee rules!

    But that all seems to go off track from what I was expecting anyway. I was expecting to hear about "God" as opposed to "gods", meaning the top tier, ultimate expression of whatever it is that created and (to hear some) continually maintains this physical universe that we live in inclusive of any "gods" we might have ended up with (or not). That definition would alone be more than a worthy effort for anyone.

    But let's feel free to point out the various agents and powers such as those early gods that man had visions of (with a small "g") along with angels, demons, titans, frost giants, and jinn, etc. but for the most part our audience consists of those who have a "most high God" in mind when we launch such a boat and where can that lead us if we consider that perhaps we actually are created (or at least now exist) "in His image" regardless of whether we are male or female (which certainly adds a little spice to such an image).

    Just as important is exactly how much interaction or ultimate control does God and/or His agents practice on each of us and why. Do we have any degree of free will or are we fated moment by moment as predestination would dictate. Speculations, anyone? Tell you what, you give us your thoughts and perhaps I'll give you mine.



    | Posted on 2011-03-01 00:00:00 | by Blue Monk | [ Reply to This ]


    Think Feedback more than Compliments :: [ Guidelines ]

    1. Be honest.
    2. Try not to give only compliments.
    3. How did it make you feel?
    4. Why did it make you feel that way?
    5. Which parts?
    6. What distracted from the piece?
    7. What was unclear?
    8. What does it remind you of?
    9. How could it be improved?
    10. What would you have done differently?
    11. What was your interpretation of it?
    12. Does it feel original?



    189639

    Be kind, take a few minutes to review the hard work of others <3
    It means a lot to them, as it does to you.

    whiskey night written by slntfirflm
    Paying the price. written by Narna
    L√ĄPPLE written by Sethesin
    Like A Ghost written by kase
    Monarch Butterflies written by poetotoe
    Cry for Help written by Crestfallenman
    untitled written by jeniecel
    Did I lay in the regolith written by AsiaticFox
    Timorous and Trembling written by AsiaticFox
    Certain (Eyes) written by hyproglo
    Contradicted Me || part 21 written by MyPeriodical
    Sobering written by Jazzy
    A Hand to Hold written by Windigo
    Colette with a C you again written by Narna
    What I Wrote while Bored During Math Class written by dancer-of-words
    The Rose of Roses written by poetotoe
    Razors, punches, and " 'night honey bunc written by TheAirWeBreathe
    Just Smile written by mdsouza
    Flavourless written by kase
    Free ? written by closetpoet
    Woodpecker's Kiss written by AsiaticFox
    Fearless written by Passionbyapathy
    Years Never Die written by Latin King
    Tried written by closetpoet
    On This Day written by mdsouza
    Tamed written by lolaxelmo
    Expessed Love written by jackz
    Whispering Wind written by Swimming Bird
    Empericals written by Daniel Barlow
    PYNCHON AND I ...meeting our match in cyberspace written by Bahaichap1

    Google
     


    poetry

    dotsLogindots

    User Name:

    Password:

    [ Quick Signup ]
    [ Lost Password ]


    January 10 07
    131,497 Poems
    Posted

    I have 14,000+ Subscribers on Youtube. See my Video Tutorials

    [ Angst Poetry ]
    [ Cutters ]
    [ Famous Poetry ]
    [ Poetry Scams ]



    FontSize:
    [ Smaller ] [ Bigger ]
     Poetry