MADPRIEST’S THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

God is “I AM.”

Those who seek to be divine must define themselves
by who they are, not by who they are not.

Comments

MADPRIEST’S THOUGHT FOR THE DAY — 16 Comments

  1. Agreed.

    My learning-challenged students very often attempt to define words by whatever a word is not to which I respond by beginning “The List of Futile Infinity” as I continue with statements regarding what they word was not. Sometimes they get it.

  2. BUT if someone says “I am ….” (insert description there) isn’t that person simultaneously saying “I’m NOT …..” (insert whatever one is not there)?

    If I am A, I am, by definition, not B. Or C. Or D.

    So in establishing that I am A, I can’t avoid saying “I’m not B or C, etc”

  3. Tracie,
    FRom a purley logical point of view I beleive your statement is false. One can be A and B and C or D or whatever depending on what one is talking about. I am proably way off base but I beleive the statement “I am” is a rough translation of pure existence. Since we are human and limited as soon as we put words to the concept we have limited God — which can not be done.
    Sorry, went on too long.

  4. So if we actually do live in an infinite universe (which supposedly the math bears this out) and God is an infinite God…then I was right, back in 1996. Everything we call “religion” that we give names to (like “Christianity” or “Hinduism” or “Buddhism” etc) is all just window-dressing.

    So it doesn’t matter what label you give your spiritual path. The label isn’t the point. Labels can change the way we humsns change our underwear (hopefully).

    Given that I just woke up, this might not be all that coherent, but it makes sense to me. 🙂

  5. I’ve lived most of my life with nothing making sense to me. I’ve stopped worrying about it especially when it involves women.

  6. Sort of feeling lost here. I am an Episcopalian. Yes I suppose at some point that implies I am not a Jain, but the problem with that approach is that I am and Episcopalian not to deny someone else but to affirm the path I choose to God.

    I chose the path in part because I began my life in a devout Christian family surely but also because I actually, you know, believe the Gospels describe what Jesus said and what the kingdom of God is about. I suspect I knew a lot less about the Hindu path and yet I did not choose because I was negating that path, merely because this path seems to be where my life’s journey leads.

    I think the idea that choosing rejects is often a bit over the top.

    FWIW
    jimB

  7. The reason for my post is that I was disappointed recently when I came across a group of transgender folk dissing pangender folk because pangender folk aren’t “real” women like what they are. This seemed a bit rich coming from a group that’s always (rightfully) complaining about gay people dissing them for being freaks. And you know me, I hate it when we break ranks and started fighting amongst ourselves about who is the most persecuted or getting improvements in our lot at the expense of another minority group. i think hierarchies of the oppressed are obscene.

  8. Believe me, there are times when I think the insistence on any kind of “label” at all is the destructive force. I see all these words that seem to have popped up only recently: transgender, pangender, cisgender, gay, straight, bi, genderqueer, etc etc etc….and I think “how about just using your name as a label and be done with it?”

    :sigh: