Michael, this (below) really helps me understand what you're speaking about and that equivalency among the concept labels fits my feeling and understanding as well. Thanks for the question, Angela.
Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > I'm just curious, and coming into the discussion some time after it > started. Before arguing about whether or not God exists, did you > establish some consensus on who or what God actually is? > > Angela no we didn't. Thats part of the problem. I usually use the word > God in a very generic and abstract way, and I think thats greatly > misunderstood. In TM we used to have all kinds of substitute words, > like CI, or Being (impersonal God), or unified field, When I left TM I > felt I didn't want to relate to TM lingo anymore, and adopted the more > general word God. For me the word God could comprise any of these > ideas. So, when I say, We are not in control of our thoughts, but God > is, God could mean any cosmic force or intelligence outside of our I > sense. > > > Tubingen is a university famous in Europe for many centuries for its > department of theology. They had a conference not too long ago in > which the existence of God was the topic for discussion. After > learned dudes from all over the world had presented their arguments in > learned papers for three days, an old guy got up and said, "Gentlemen, > the Lord is so great, He doesn't have to exist if He doesn't feel like > it." a > > > Great! >
