Has anyone besides I read this book? Neale Donald Walsch takes his Conversations With God to the next level and illustrates a point-by-point description of what will make today’s conceptions of God an obsolete entity in the future.
1. Tomorrow’s God does not require anyone to believe in God. 2. Tomorrow’s God is without gender, size, shape, color, or any of the characteristics of an individual being. 3. Tomorrow’s God talks with everyone all the time. 4. Tomorrow’s God is separate from nothing, but is everywhere present, the All in All, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Sum Total of Everything that ever was, is now, and ever shall be. 5. Tomorrow’s God is not a singular Super Being, but the extraordinary process called Life. 6. Tomorrow’s God is ever changing. 7. Tomorrow’s God is needless. 8. Tomorrow’s God does not ask to be served, but is the servant of all Life. 9. Tomorrow’s God will be unconditionally loving, nonjudgmental, noncondemning, and nonpunishing.
I’ve been praying to a friend of mine, and it’s been far more effective then when I prayed to a “god”.
I can feel the power and the changes.
I pray differently then most do. I do not beg or ask for forgiveness. I invoke positive-change and symbiance. It’s been so good for me… And… what I’m trying to say is… Worship the people around you who are good for you, in the most healthy, reasonable and experimental way.
Trying to find “god” isn’t as good for your existence as it is to try to find a true-friend, here on earth, physically.
Building seals and invokable godforms isn’t so hard… not so hard for me, atleast. All you need to do is psionically build and imprint mannerisms and mind-mechanics upon natural-forces, from the astral-plane onwards.
Invocations are rarely ever vampic. They have to do with the mind passing anything through a structure, then trying to make use of the imprinted version which returns; it is karmic connection to a certain natural process of any kind…
Most people take the gods literally, and do not see the gods as non-literal beings upon forces.
One “god” is not enough. Each “god” should be relative to your current goals for personal change…
I’m not saying anything. I am simply asking if anyone has read that book and what they think of it. From your question, I can surmise that you have not, yes?
The current ‘gods’ species will go extinct. A new ‘god’ species will evolve hopefully better than the current ones. After all, IMO, gods are nothing but human creations.
The more intelligent humans become the better their gods get. Intelligently Designed gods.
funny, I found God a long time ago. looks like you were searching in the wrong place. anyway, good for you. I’m glad that makes you feel better, praying to your friend there. and yeah, one “god” has been good enough for me for a long time as well, sorry to disappoint you.
The eventual comeback of “pagan” worshipping? I like it. Giving certain aspects of human social life to certain aspects of nature seems like a more realistic way to deal with the everyday prayers and hopes.
There are simply way too many human beings alive today with way too advanced technology for anyone to take a strict, hardline monotheistic belief seriously (IMO). It worked well when the earth’s population was 1/4 of what it is now (speculating here).
This is just a wild (and most likely inaccurate and irrelevant to reality) guess here, but maybe the “gods” of tomorrow will be the celebrities and stars that plague the airwaves and the silverscreen. Kind of like the way the ancient Greeks viewed their Parthenon of gods… New groups of gods eventually gave way to newer, more flexible ones (from Kronos and the Titans/River Gods to the Zeus and the Olympians). If the old Greek religion had survived I would venture to say that the next group of gods would have been Herakles (Hercules) and the Heroes (i.e. Jason, Agamemnon, Achilles, etc.)
But “Christianity” as it is known today will probably not vanish from the earth, in its current story. Unless nuclear war plagues the globe and mankind turns its hopes and tears to the forces of nature for love and forgiveness.
Maybe Thirst… then again, maybe that’s exactly what it is. Tomorrow’s Man, eh? Considering overpopulation, extreme poverty, corporate domination of capitalism, (etc.), is it not at all unreasonable to concieve that solving the problems of today can be done by changing how we percieve the world?
The spiritual revivalism of the old religions became an egg timer waiting to go off after monotheism took over the world. It’s only a matter of time before more and more people start looking at the old faiths and see nothing wrong with them…
I don’t know… adding yet another perspective into the world doesn’t seem like it will change things at all. How many ways are the world perceived? How many philosophies, etc. A unifying vision hasn’t worked in the past, why would it work now?
What has God ever done for you?
Can you prove it was God or would you just prefer to believe it was?
Tell me what you think he has done for you and I will tell why it happened, What caused it, and why God is not responsible for the action.
Got a miricle, Hmmm, Just a word to descibe an event considered impossible by the logical mind and your Humans curent understanding (Or lack of) of the Universe.
Overpopulation is an elitist, leftist myth. Even with china’s ENORMOUS population, most of that is near the coast… there’s millions of acres of unused land in china.
LMFAO… Extreme poverty is caused by the lack of corporate domination of capitalism… Anywhere that poverty is extreme we see insane communistic/socialistic dictators ruling with absolute power over what their people can do and even eat. Anywhere that capitalism has taken a foothold life has gotten better.
As for corporate domination? That’s another form of elitism… That will eventually lead to communisms polar opposite… Fascism. I definately agree that we need to get corporations in check and away from government power.
Shouldn’t that be a voluntary thing? If someone wants to change they will.
I’m most interested in how you deal with the contradiction that #6 presents.
And for you present a compelling argument for us to change to be “tomorrows’ man”?
It seems like more elitist bullshit to me… like, “the way that you are living is not good enough, become tommorrow’s man, by following tomorrows god.”
Scythe, you really should do something about that anger problem you have. It’s probably what’s keeping you from researching what you argue against and provide valid evidence, if any (which you haven’t done anyways, but that’s not the topic of this thread so we’re not discussing that). Out of your entire post, which is mostly baseless ranting with no academic goal, you only made two contributions that are almost valid to this thread:
I said almost valid because while these comments have meaning to the topic, they do not apply to me. Allow me to explain. If you had done your research, you would find that in my previous posts on this thread, in no way did I indicate that I endorse, support, or even deny the concept of Tomorrow’s God. Because of your lack of research in this matter, you did what you usually have been doing for a while: you make an assumption or interpretation and then declare, promote, or assume it as fact. (This is something you should also work on, but we’re not going to go into that either because it has no meaning to the topic.)
Does every endeavor need to have an “academic” goal? It’s only smugness that gets me angry sagesound… So I’ll do something about it as soon as I can.
Since you posted no REAL reply to my points, How am I to know what you have issue with? You claim “you have not done your research”, but WHAT research did I miss out on? Please enlighten me oh wise sage.
Then what’s the point Sage? If an idea is nearly almost valid, it must not be meaningful to you… Are you merely posting to enjoy the sight of your own post? Or are you trying to engage in intellectual debate over your opinion of how the world works for you?
IMO, this is a convenient cop out on your part, so you don’t have to deal with the internally in-consistent doctrine. #6 completely and totally invalidates the WHOLE argument.
Another thing I’ve noticed about you Sage, is that you are less impressed with someone’s “opinion” then you are if they back it up with “research” or “quotes” etc…
Like I told you before on this point, you can always find researchers and “studies” that present both sides of any issue as it is true. And in the case of your “tomorrow’s god”, what should I study? Someone’s new age opinion of god? How about you form an opinion about god, and bring that to the table? That way you can’t squirm your way out of an argument against it, with “I don’t really believe that anyways.”
Usually people construct straw men of what someone else believes. Why construct straw men for your own beliefs?
There’s that magic word again, to invalidate someone’s opinion. You just did it to MRN, in the other thread. He didn’t provide enough “proof”. At what point could he sage?
Sounds like a political campaign commercial… “I do not endorse, believe or even deny the following post”
Again sage… What’s the point of posting it then?
ah, good ol’ ad hominem. If you can’t come up with a good counter argument, it’s my fault not yours. It’s because I failed to do the adequate research to see that you don’t even believe what you are posting.
I’m sure I should work on alot of things, as should anyone who is alive. I don’t usually make a point of, pointing out other people’s flaws, supposed or not. It’s impolite. Bad neti-quette…
And let’s say I do make “an assumption” or interpolation of your words. That’s what I read it as, if I’m wrong you can politely tell me I’m off track… But if your going to use it as an excuse not to respond…
Overpopulation does not exist, particularly as you have stipulated its definition, that there is enough “spaceâ€. Clearly, there is enough “space†on Earth. However, this is not how the word “overpopulation†is “stipulatively†defined. Overpopulation refers to the inability of the world’s resources to facilitate the existence of a much larger population of humans. That is, if the human population continues to increase further, the world will be unable to sustain our species for long.
(note: China, suffers from desertification; much of the unused land is simply “unusableâ€.)
You’ve also errored in your reasoning: cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Extreme poverty is most certainly not caused by “the lack of corporate domination of capitalismâ€. First, it would do you well to recognize that extreme poverty has existed throughout history, specifically before Capitalism as a philosophy of economics came to fruition. Second, extreme poverty exists in countries where corporate dominated capitalism is present, such as: the Appalachian Mountains in the Midwest and in some southern states like Louisiana.
Third, there are many countries in the world with existing, extreme poverty that do not have “insane… dictators ruling with absolute power over what their people can do and even eatâ€. I can name immediately Jamaica, South Africa, Mexico and Haiti (the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with comparative poverty to countries like Ethiopia in the 90’s, Somalia et al.).
The statement: “Anywhere that capitalism has taken a foothold life has gotten better†is rather ambiguous. What does “better†mean? How much better is the situation? You should qualify your statements.
And lastly, Sagesound did not attack your character. He made an observation on the fact, which it very much is a fact that you have failed to do research. If you had done research, you would know that China’s mainland is relatively inhospitable to inhabitation, you would most certainly not make a correlation fallacy to support your misunderstanding of overpopulation, and you certainly wouldn’t have to rely on a series of wholly unfounded ipsedixitisms to establish your “pointsâ€.
Scythe, if you did your research (i.e. reading my posts with greater clarity), you wouldn’t have had the need to make these comments:
See scythe? People have given their opinions about Tomorrow’s God, but all you’ve done is rant about meaninglessness. See how unproductive this is for the thread? How unproductive you’re making it?
So just so you know scythe, I don’t reply to many of your comments because they lack relevance, meaning, and/or supportable evidence concerning the topic. However, there are some questions you did ask that do have some relevance to the topic, but ultimately do not apply to me.
Here you make the assumption again that the Tomorrow’s God is mine. I have already explained how it is not. Why did you ignore valid evidence? As to what to study, perhaps you should ask Walsch…it is his god after all.
Being agnostic, I can’t form an opinion about the existence of a god. Though your question has little relevance to this topic, I thought it was important to answer it just so you know where I’m coming from.
