Well I think it creates a grand chance for biblical satyrs that are close to allegories ... and to those that are sure they 're right ... that would be the bloody left ... correct ... or is that a corrupted redaction in hysterical recording of the historical false journalling?

 

Is it odd the the Hebrew is excellent at Jaqobean lying in myth? Why perhaps they were excised from the fabled land ... Egypt, or as that Norman Mailer guy called it Ancient Evenings that were  a shade dark ... perfect for abstractions ... and the Shadow crept ... no one knew for they were somnolent to dark goings on like someone being pinned down in tent ... Palls profession before converting to illegal extractions of truths from the powers ... downright Oz eM! Fables thus put the powers in a ð'izzie that later became a tizzy ... and round it always comes ... to the question or scro-i and scro' Eire and who got what!

The most important thing to be is wrong.

 

-from THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING WRONG by Arminius

Seriously, now. The most important theological question is: Does God exist?

 

My answer: Yes and no—seriously!

 

I actually disagree. I would put "What is God?" ahead of this one. You cannot say something exists if you do not know what it is. In fact, "What is God?" actually subsumes the question of God's existence because once you give an answer to "What is God?" you are implicitly stating that, for you at least, that understanding of God exists. Either that, or you end up changing "Does God exist?" to "Does THIS God exist?" and answering it multiple times (for each possible answer to "What is God?").

 

Consider an example. If we are to define God narrowly as the "transcendant, personal Creator, Judge, and Saviour of the Universe", then I cannot accept that definition. At best, I am an agnostic on that definition of God. My answer to "Does God exist?" would be "No". However, I could counter with my own definition of God as the personification of the creativity and beauty of Existence. Now I am saying that God exists, just a different God than the one I denied. The question "Does God exist?" now only matters if one is going to say that nothing to which you could conceivably apply the name "God" exists.

 

Mendalla

 

I wouldn't think the most important question would be "does God exist?". But rather I would start with the supposition that God does exist and ask the question "what is my relationship to God?" The answer may be more telling than a simple "yes" and "no", depending on your definition of what God should be.

“Has is it ever occurred to me that I might be wrong?”
Yes, it has. In fact I'm quite certain that greater truths will supersede what I believe today. I would be disappointed if they didn't.

Has anyone read Jacob Needleman' book "What is God"?  He seems to have come to an understanding of what HE thinks God is.  -- An interesting story.  Needleman is a philospher and was an atheist who turned around the other way, but probably not understanding God as most people do.  He also admits that he would never have arrived at this understanding if he had not been priviledged to have studied under some of the best and most diverse teachers and religious leaders in the world.  --- So much for a simple religious faith!

Neo - those who don't believe that a God exists are hardly likely to be interested in discussing their relationship.

Yes, for them the most important question would be different.

For me, I believe we live and move and have our being within the body of something greater than us, as individuals. Therefore I need to understand that relationship.

Edit: Thanks for telling us about Jacob Needleman, venture111 (sorry, I need to check the generic avatars more closely. At first I though it was SG who posted this. Thank you, nonetheless!)Here's a link to a Q&A that gives a pretty good preview of what he writes about.

http://gurdjieff-internet.com/article_details.php?ID=358&W=72

Yes, Mendalla, whether or not God exists depends on how we define God. We have to define God first, and then answer the question whether or not the God we define exists. Then the most important theological question is, as you say: What is God?

 

However, if we define God broadly enough, as, for instance, the ALL (everything that is known, unknown, not yet known, and unknowable) then God exists absolutely. But everything being God is much the same as no God. That's why this stance is also known as "atheism in the name of God."

 

But I think the most crucial question for us is, as Neo said: What is my relationship with God? And, if God is the Whole and All, what is my relationship with IT?

 

IT is we; we are IT.

We can't comprehend IT without experiencing IT,

But we can experience IT without comprehending IT—

For we are IT.

 

IT reveals everything;

IT explains nothing.

 

The interpretations

Of ITs revelations

Are our creations.

Perhaps "how should I live?" would be a good candidate question.

I may be wrong.

 

 

But if we include what we don't know ... is this ineffable or just the unspeakable portion of the anonymous soul ... the portion of which we don't know that runs contrary to mortal (limited) beliefs ... if you think you have it all in the bag ... you may be in err ... something that even I do not know ... god defied me to know such things; that's the word!

 

Yet many still believe the unconscious sector does not occur even in sects ... alien things that bug yah even if mythologized!

 

This does occur when you free your mind of the alien parts ... it may bust out on the top of a column ... like Shakespeare on a short Ba Sis ... the fleeting part that gains the reputation as ephemeral ... the outer ring of the mind as a'bel ... once known as a deviate character that interfered with the Romantic business of war ... such thoughts became entangled and led to Fer mat's Last Conjecture (Far Mute's?) that can't be proven as the last word on theo-Sis ... my mother! She still thinks she has god in her purse ... something that no one can look into ... to the po' Hebrew this was just I'saac of errs ... Eire as collective? Another mael E Able Air ... that sometimes squeeks as a weal ... things you wouldn't believe unless connected by well roven threads ... akin toa Kable/Kabel? That'd be a spiritual devil as it goes round scattereing thoughts as a deviate ... a learning daemon?

 

These are hated in establishmental churches where things should be left alone ... and they are in space ... a dimension of medi Ta-Scion ... on what the damned spot roven across the page means! Could it be raven mad?---chaos theory with tues IDes (Pall Har Vei)!

 

The understanding thereof depends on your perspective of how it was writ; with L'uv or thought or some balance of deduce that will evolve into deduction ... that dukkha in Hindi ... like duffy ... hei didn't know either!

What's a dukkha ... sort of like dukky lotus flower a blaze with hues even while whetted ... like a sharp mind around the edges ... thus the term recessive jinns!

 

You do know the metamorphus of the gynes in to grey spirits in the bloody chaos? If you encoounter this repetitive impulse ... something will come 've It ... a Classic Fabrication, child fable if you wish as constructive error that isn't what you thought if you believed the constructive criticism is done ... you ain't seen not'n yetii!

 

Hi RAN:

 

"How should I live?" is, perhaps, the most important moral question.

 

This question, of course, arises from: "What is my relationship with God?"

 

If we believe or feel unity with God, then we live as if we were earthly manifestations of God.

 

 

Could "Who/What Am I?" be a theological question? If theology is really about defining ourselves and our relationship to the broader Universe (God or otherwise), then I think it becomes one. If it is, then I would argue it may be the most important since we can't really define our relationships (to God or Existence or whatever) without defining what is doing the relating.

 

 

Wonder where the line comes. Our morality can be defined by our theology, esp. if we define theology broadly as we UUs tend to do (see my first paragraph in this post). I kind of agree with you but I think it can perhaps be a "bridge question" that takes us from theology to ethics/moral philosophy.

 

Mendalla

 

Yes, Mandella, if we are at-one with God, then "Who or what am I?" becomes a theological question. Then theology takes as straight to ethics/morality.

 

The Four Rights of the Buddha are as follows:

 

1.) Right Consciousness

 

2.) Right Thought

 

3.) Right Action

 

4.) Right Livelihood

 

The sequence is important. Right Consciousness comes first, Right Thought arises from Right Consciousness, Right Action from Right Thought, and Right Livelihood from Right Action.

 

The consciousness that is at the root of it all is, of course, the unitive consciousness of at-one-ment with everyone and everything, including the creative power, force or source.

I have long appreciated Snoopy's important question. It offers a key to humility, without which it is impossible to "know" God.
.
Two questions occupy me along my way. First, I ask " Who am I?". Then comes"What am I to do?" These questions persist, requiring a daily examination if I am to steer a true course along the opening way.
.
George

What does the fox say???

How about

 

What are you living for?

 

Hi Mendalla,

 

 

I'm not sure that it is the most important theological question.  It certainly does rank up near the top of theological questions that we should regularly and routinely ask ourselves when we find ourselves getting hot under our respective collars.

 

 

While I'm not sure it deserves top billing all the time I think Schaeffer's "How then should we live?" is a good question that should regularly and routinely be part of theological coversations we have with others or just by our selves.

 

While I don't know that all of Schaeffer's answers still stand I don't think the question is ever out of bounds.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Guys-- I have read all that was posted on this thread . Leav it to me to find it wanting. The Qustion Most Important Theolgical Question?   Lets see some said Jacob  Neelman sum Atheist who wrote a book. A Mr Schaeffers who I believe was also a writer. Or how WE define GOD.Like some how we make of GOD what we think He should be. Not one has gone to GODS word it's self. As a Christain a follower of Christ Jesus . There is but one important  Question . As the Apostles were teaching.  Was the man called Jesus of Nazareth really the Christ? There answer was YES, as is mine. With out Him you can not know or come to GOD the Farther. This by GODS word The Bible. Not some Idea another person who wrote a book can tell you. GOD The Father Has sent you The Holy Spirit to teach you just that. .To know GOD you must know the Christ Jesus. To understand GOD The Father. You must know GODS Holy Spirit whos main job is to lead you to Christ Jesus. Then as now The main thing then is to know Christ Jesus an so be saved.  May God Bless you all. I apologizs if by posting this way I have hurt any feelings. --airclean33

 

No hurt feelings at all (at least from me). It is a good question and, in Christian theology at least, answering it is very important.

 

Mendalla

 

Hey Mendalla,

 

As Wondercafe winds down and I think of all the things | will regret having not said...

 

You are always the classy guy. Respectful, thoughtful and courtious.

"Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong"?

 

Great question that would involve some candid self reflection, which is sometimes very hard to do, especially when we're wrong we usually don't know it.

 

I like Geo's and Revjohns questions too.

 

Another one I would ask, amongst many, would be:

 

"Why Does Heaven Matter?" (Hmmm, maybe I'll post that topic)

--I agree Paul . As have you.

SaulnowPaul & airclean33,

 

I do not (or at least rarely) agree with your theological positions and religious beliefs but that does not mean I cannot respect and learn from them. The UU principles do, in fact, demand that I do so. Whatever conflicts I and others may have with you and your beliefs, your presence here is important. 

 

Thanks for your kind words and I hope to keep seeing both of you here and on the next Wondercafe (don't count us out yet ),

 

Mendalla

 

:)

I know this is off topic but I find it hard to carry on a conversation and follow a conversation on FaceBook or the othe UC apps. So I am with Mandella,"Don't count WonderCafe out Yet".

Many years ago a minister friend of mine said something similar,  "We always have to keep in mind 'they might be right'."   They, in his context, being those whose way of looking at the Bible.

 

He was in a two point charge with two very different congregations - one quite liberal, and the other very conservative.   He tried to respect, honor, and serve both.

 

Good discussion on this thread - one of the many reasons I will miss the WonderCafe if we cannot keep it open in some form.

I can see this point. The words "how then" imply a previous question, likely to do with the what, the how and the where we fit into God, but they may not have been "the" most important questions.


"The" most important question must surely involve service and sacrifice, as this would answer, in the most deepest way, the why and the Who of God. "Closer is He than breathing, nearer than hands and feet", chants the Hindu. "Christ in us, the hope of glory", says St. Paul.


Living in accordance to this Who must truly be the inner path of the Holy.


Cheers

"Could "Who/What Am I?" be a theological question?"

 

Only in theo Rae, that is near conjecture and the institutionalized wouldn't have it as all is created and nothing is new ... just old's tuff ... and thus those stuck in the presence can't see it ... except the aliens and their view doesn't count to the mono lithic sort ... who are still stuck in litigation ... that's an old unchanging law that is limited ... at least in mortal form ...

 

Then something new could be thunk up as a sin to those having difficulties with what's past ... thus impossible to have a vision ... or virtually so as inside there is something unseen to them that they are unconscious to ... allowing for the Unconscious Mind of Everything ... that approximates God (Ma Gogue) but could be human as hymn to could have a dissonant side ... an Eris 'n thing? Like God when waking to wee daemons?

 

Does the bible speak up for reverence for aliens? What of alien thoughts ... as excluded by emotions ... leaves one feeling they're getting close to the fall leading into the wadi ... like goest riders in the skye bringing Reines ... to guide the flowers out of the dark ... an obscure and abtuse power to say least as humble shoving things up from de mire ... ain't chi a butte Lil'ethe that appears as ð ... a wee sprout of the icon of the bulbous emptiness it came from ... a'leiph of fete?

 

Hoo dath unque IT?

You're right, this is not so much a "God-logical" question as it
is a philosophical question of "God-wisdom".

"Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?" I ask myself that all the time!  For me, the two most important questions are 1) Am I learning?  2) Am I teaching?

So what is the most important question, period?

 

I think it is more than one questions. It is a two-fold question, the first leading to the second: Who or what am I?  and: What am I here for?

 

Julian of Norwich answered it as follows:

 

"I am the oneing of love. For it is in this oneing that the life of all people exists."

 

"The love of God creates in us such a oneing that when it is truly seen, no person can separate themselves from another person."

 

"In the sight of God all humans are oned, and one person is all people, and all people are one person." 

 

I agree. United in God is what we are, and to act from the awareness and love of this divine union is the purpose of being.

 

Or, as a German philosopher once said, "I am in everything; everything is in me"

 

The oneness of being is what we are. And acting from the awareness of that oneness is what we are here for.

 

 

Well as it often happens you are all wrong.

 

The most important question is : 

 

Why is everybody not discussing Bishop Spong's biblical insights?

no, it's

 

Why is everybody not rushing to you tube and watching Spong's lectures?

no, it's

 

Why is everybody not congratulating a happy genius for pointing this out?

 

"You're right, this is not so much a "God-logical" question as it
is a philosophical question of "God-wisdom"." ---NEO (Neural, or psychic?).

 

Omega dite's wrong according to John ... he possibly believes we are illogical which is reasonable considering the bible says knowledge and reason are evil in the eye of Love ... the primary ID as an old generation of psyche when chi didn't know Beta ...

 

Is that un-animusly lost to the pious? That forming a collective unknowing, or forgetting by extreme BS ... a belief System based on foregetting ... and don't you forget IT!

 

Some say the unconscious portion does not exist ... a hard thing to examine as they believe they don't know anything (in innocence and ignorance) and yet claim to know god as all there is to it ... a dilema of fleeting conflix? This leaves the world we know in  impossible state of mind ... allowing that reason here and now is imaginary ---QED (or quit "Eð" while you're a head, other-wise chi'll have it)!

 

Perhaps the bible is really as story of Paul Harvey ... about things on the other side of what is presently mythical ... that religion is about man loving his realtive others ... when they don't! Time to flip the pageboy (hoersman, or yeoman) and shed tears on the other side of your cheek ... and you do know laughter would raise a stink in the PEWS! It is a solemn place to be if it weren't for the Saturday night catharsis ... like bathsheba ... an unseen wash? It is the kind of dipping or baptism to lose your thoughts of the week that no one will confess to ... but you can see that in church on Sunday Morn as it comes down ... that on the deis of rest you'll get the rest! This is known as obtuse from which we get the derivation of OBI and obliteration of thoughts ... thus as you fade you won't know you're luce'n your grip in a feint icon ... of things that are surreal! Is this re-aleif or just stroke of fortune?

Who am I?  - I am a minute but important part of the creative love that lives in everything.

What am I to do? - Share creative love with everything to the best of my ability at any given time.

That appears logical ... unless some power talks you into forgetting that ...

 

Power is like that if kept on the power causes loss of rationale ... a sort of negative emotion a love below line as "e" ... or the opposite if you are looking at love as a power from the opposing view ... you see the lesser of the two evils ... a mere bote ...

 

But who without a large code of words would know that (sacred wisdom)? Authorities that encourage you to not know wrong or right when you encounter it? Stew'þ idée is best ... alias the decrees of not knowing the difference ... then you can do as your wiles lead you ... a thorny path to say least ... a prick of conclusion as if there was an end to it. That's the point ... it goes on and on ... darkly like the notorious bo'sun ... you can't know thata thing without some serious knowledge of alchemii ... what Einstein called relativity ... dark connective powers that as unseen ... negative to the flaming emotions ... can't see for the plare ... once called a phore and thus the meta-phor ... sort of a metaphysical thought ... things below the visible horizon!

 

Gives numbiness gods the wiles ...

Having said my bit I'll gladly leave the explanations to you - and give thanks for your abilities in that department.  I haven't quite figured out how I KNOW some things to be true but in some way I seem to..  

It's the intuition Kay, that's how you know. "Knowledge", it's been said, is just information, whereas "Wisdom", on the other hand, comes from the experience of that knowledge. And yet, it's been said, neither knowledge or wisdom alone or together can lead to salvation, e.g. the freedom the soul from the wheels of creation.


"Awareness", in conjunction with knowledge and wisdom does leads to freedom and salvation, as it alone guides the true Self to the intuition of the soul. All three aspects are used in the evolution of consciousness.

Fun thread, Mendalla :3

 

Excerpt from Natural Law 

 

all hail us co(s)mic shmucks...

Those of us out there looking ... by convention of the Romans that think believers should be thunk out of sight ...

 

This even flipped out some Roman tics as Aspergers ... ham bergers in Cyrillic ... they loved a good beef ... as substitute for the þi guise in iron suites ... they get rusty in northern climes! Good raw material for coppertypes ... humourously speaking in script!

 

This is something many are not aware of ... it doesn't speak to the somnolent ... as Jesus said sometime the dead must be awakened ... bi-gods that'll probably have an opposing and oppressive effect to a thinking dais-mon ... caught in the midst and looking both ways ... Jah Sous did you see that one go ... probably not ... outside permutations are not accepted!

 

Hi kay:

 

I think there are two kinds of knowledge, as Neo pointed out. There is analytical knowledge, the peak of which is scientific knowledge, and there is experiential or intuitive knowledge. Women, due to their primary biological role as bearers and nurturers of the species, are said to be naturally pre-disposed to the latter. And men, due to their primary biological role as protectors of the species, are said to be stronger in the former. But both sexes can be equally strong in both, and to achieve a balance between the two types of knowing actually is wisdom.

 

Analytical knowledge alone is intelligent but unholy; intuitive knowledge alone is holy but unintelligent. The union between the two renders analytical knowledge holy and intuition analytically intelligent.

 

"Hear, oh Israel, your Lord, our God, is One!" This is a line from the Kaddish, a famous Jewish prayer. It is, I think, a quote from the Book of Deuteronomy. The oneness which is God, and the godly love that galvanizes the many into one, is at the very root of intuition.

 

Yes, co(s)mic shmucks indeed!

 

Hi Inna:

 

Did you know that "schmuck" is a Yiddish/German word meaning "adornment."

 

Definitely not related to the Hebrew interpretation of this word!

Ironically related, perhaps?

 

(I didn't know that "shmuck" was a Hebraic word. I thought it was German/Yiddish :-)

ARM,

That was a good Cyrillic plug ... like the dutch kids with their fingers in the Wahl? No abba'd whetting allowed ...

 

Or could it be on the other hand ... that we are the Golden myth of the Ass hung in space? Just for chimerii humour to those that are deeply and transmutably lifted by the (w)holy affair ...

 

First one needs to be aware of prohibitive depths in the story ... it could leave you hanging without ends!