Come and share you God-Concepts here:)

[YmirGF]

What is God? A better question would be, "What is not (a part of) God?"
To my demented view God = All That Is. All That Is includes all of physical reality as well as multitudinuous other non-physical realities, each as valid as our own. God has a form, but that form is not only phyical reality, as we perceive it, but also comprises trillions and trillions of non-physical realities as well.

Although god radiates barely fathomable amounts of what we call Love, it is not accurate to say that God is Love, as love is a human emotion. Love is perhaps the most highly prized human emotion and so we ascribe that quality to god with honor. How could a god not want our thoughts and cares? How could a god not love his own creations? It is almost inconceivable to us to think otherwise, even though that is a tiny bit arrogant, if not a purely egotistical perception. Again, it is a tiny bit arrogant for us to ascribe a human emotion to the being of one who is All That Is.

In the largest terms possible, God is not human. God is quite alien to our way of understanding and it would be closer to say that "god" is an experience, an experience we are all a part of. Again God is All That IS. Even the serial rapist is an incarnation of god. You are an incarnation of god and I am an incarnation of God. Even atheists are incarnations of god. All That Is does not allow for anything to be "not god".

In reailty, this amazing precence we call "god" is a psychological energy gestalt that is interwoven within all aspects of creation. Indian thought tells us that life is the endless process of God learning who he is and I tend to agree. Imho, God does not know everything due to the unpredictable nature of probabilities and so IT created us (as well as comparable beings inhabiting other realities) to help "him" understand who and what "he" is. Let's face it, no being likes to be all alone, all the time and I simply cannot conceive of any other reason for creation except "god's" inherent need for companionship. Can it really be any other way?

I could write page after page about this subject and perhaps someday, I shall, but this is a good synopsis.

Oh, one last thing. What human animals refer to as the "soul" is our unfettered link to this abstract consciousness we call "god". :areyoucra When the human animal reaches the stage where they experience their "soul" on a continuous basis then they can begin to understand the reality of God. Any conjecture as to the nature of "god" prior to reaching the "gnosis point" or "enlightenment" is merely speculation. Lastly. it is quite possible for the human animal to catch actual glimpses of "god" in his "native environment" however, that environment is well beyond the descriptive abilities of our limited symbol libraries. In simpler terms, you can "see" god with your inner eyes. but you will never be able to describe "god" as words utterly fail to hit their mark. And yes, I am aware of that simple fact even as I attempt to write about this subject, lol.

 

[~Amin~]

All Praise is to God the soul Creater, Maintainer, Sustainer of the universe,
Peace and Blessings of God Almighty be upon all His prophets and those who
give up there arragonce and follow there way till the day of judgement.

I would like to share one drop in the ocean, one aspect of Amighty God.

1.THE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY.
Following from the ideas of absolute and infinity attributed to God,
there appears the fact of the incomprehensibility as His particular
attribute.
It implies not only human inability as a finite being to form an exaustive
idea or definition of God's nature but also the impossibility of representing
God in the form of a sensuous or material being or likened to any existing
perceptible and concievable being in the literal sense of the word or in the
way of a real analogy.
This involves the danger of either the denial of the absolute perfection
attributed to God or the shirk(associating partners with God).

Thus, as far as human is concieving or referring to God's nature
it can be represented only in the form of a partial description
aquired through the observation of the perceptible world and
reflection or as gained through the knowledge of the revealed
scripture.
As such it stand as sufficient knowledge for human needs,
and since HUMAN PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE MUST BE ALSO
RECOGNISED AS REAL, SO OUR PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD's
NATURE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REAL AND RELIABLE.

The fact of the incomprehensibility is represented by the Qur'an
thus:"VISION COMPREHENDETH HIM NOT, BUT HE COMPREHENDETH
ALL VISION. HE IS THE SUBTLE THE AWARE".6,103.
"THERES NOTHING LIKE UNTO HIM"42,11.
"AND THERES NONE COMPARABLE UNTO HIM"112,4.
This attribute which indicates that God cannot be defined
in His entirety does not stand in the way of referring
to God's nature and God's essential nature for these
are to mean only in their relation to man's ability to
know and to revealed data.
PEACE.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

As such it stand as sufficient knowledge for human needs,
and since HUMAN PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE MUST BE ALSO
RECOGNISED AS REAL, SO OUR PARTIAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD's
NATURE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REAL AND RELIABLE.

Our human knowledge proves itself time and again to be erroneous and unreliable so much of the time. Given that we know this of ourselves it would be prudent to assume a degree of error and unreliability when it comes to what we believe about the nature of God. This would extend to what is interpreted through the scripture of any religion since, in the end, we're the ones making the judgement as to its accuracy in describing the nature of God.

 

[YmirGF]

Our human knowledge proves itself time and again to be erroneous and unreliable so much of the time. Given that we know this of ourselves it would be prudent to assume a degree of error and unreliability when it comes to what we believe about the nature of God. This would extend to what is interpreted through the scripture of any religion since, in the end, we're the ones making the judgement as to its accuracy in describing the nature of God.

Precisely... :bow: ...anything else is simple arrogance.

 

[~Amin~]

Our human knowledge proves itself time and again to be erroneous and unreliable so much of the time. Given that we know this of ourselves it would be prudent to assume a degree of error and unreliability when it comes to what we believe about the nature of God. This would extend to what is interpreted through the scripture of any religion since, in the end, we're the ones making the judgement as to its accuracy in describing the nature of God.

What was intended here is simply that
about 5 years ago the scientists descovered
a new planet called sedna and i have a clipping
of a new species of whales just discovered,
further the scientists explain how the universe
is inconceivable by the human mind ,now if
we cannot even understand the creation of
the Almighty then how can we conceive Him?
so our knowledge is limited and this is a fact
this is what was meant by this quote you have
taken.
But its my error perhaps i didnt print it clear in meaning
enough.
WE ONLY KNOW OF GOD WHAT HE HAS REVEALED OF
HIMSELF WE CANNOT IMAGINE OR MAKE UP IN OUR
MIND WHO GOD IS.

 

[autonomous1one1]

A thread to allow everyone to express and discuss what they actually believe when it comes down to 'God'. From mildly agnostic to literal biblical belief to totally unique, i thought it would be interesting and healthy for the forum's extensive 'God debates' if some foundations were laid down like in this thread
....

Greetings. A noble cause, Alex, and hope my post will bump this thread back to the forefront for more entries. Also wanted to offer my wrinkle.

There are many good thoughts posted that are consistent with my own view and I bow:bow: particularly to the wisdoms and words of Hema, YmirGF, and ayani. My wrinkle is that this God - the foundation of all being, both source and participant - is One with which human union can be realized. From our finite perspective 'below,' a being can realize identity with the source of all being. From 'above,' God reunites through human consciousness. We seemingly-finite beings are not separate from God; it just seems that we are . Union with God is union with all and this gives impetus to the Agape type of love - working for the fulfillment of the 'other' universally.

My being is one that would offer that God is Love as Hema has done. Love in this sense is not a mere human emotion but with consideration to the fundamentality of separation and reunion is part of the very fabric of existence.

Hope more God concepts are shared.
a1

 

[Scuba Pete]

I MOSTLY agree with Hema: God is Love.

But let me clarify as well. All love is of God and God is Spirit. He is not a thing to be seen, felt, heard or perceived by anything but our hearts.

If you believe in Love, then you most assuredly believe in God, whether you admit it or not, for Love comes only from God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In Christianity, God is the only Divine Person who exists self-sufficiently (who has no creator) and created the cosmos. God exists utterly outside of the cosmos, because God created it. Therefore, nothing that is used to identify, classify, or find anything in the known is able to locate God.

That's why Christianity is considered a revealed religion. If a person like God exists, God would have to tell us.

The Christian message is that there is imbalance in the cosmos due to sin (rebellion against God, which for whatever reason God allowed) and God entered the realm of Creation by the Incarnation, becoming a human being, Jesus Christ. As Jesus died and resurrected into a new life, God will correct the imbalance in the cosmos through Him.

 

[lilithu]

A_1 invited me to post my views, so I comply. Tho in truth I find it difficult to simply state my concept of God. It is much easier to share it through a conversation.

God is too big to fit into a one or two paragraph synopsis. And God is too paradoxical to be captured in a neat little description as well. So some of the things that I believe about God will contradict other things that I believe about God. As Emerson said, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

To quote various God-statements with which I agree:
God is love.
God is the Ground of Being.
God is a verb.
Scripture tells us that where two or more are gathered in God's name, there is God. I take that to mean that God is the connection between us, the Holy Spirit moving through us, the interdependent web of existence.

God is everything and yet God is that which is most sacred, most good, most holy. Both are true at the same time.

I am a panentheist. That is, I believe that the Universe is divine. And therefore we are divine. But I believe that God is more than just the universe. God is the ground, the source of the Universe, continually sustaining its existence at every moment. Without God there would be no universe. Without the universe, there would be no way to even fathom God. God does not "exist" per se, like a thing, except through the Universe. Thus, there is no meaningful distinction between "natural" and "supernatural." There is no such thing as supernatural.

God is omnipotent in potentiality but not in actuality. That is, God could "create" an infinite number of different kinds of universes, with different physical laws. But once a universe is created, its physical laws cannot be violated. Not without destroying creation. The universe has its own autonomy, in a manner of speaking, just as we do. Thus, I am not one to believe in miracles per se, tho I do believe that there is more that is possible than what our narrow reductionist worldview currently acknowledges. And I do believe that God continues to interact with us, bidding us to God's will. I am not a Deist.

I believe as Hema does that God is Param-Atman, the Universal Soul. Or as Emerson called it, the Over Soul. And we are jiva-atman, individualized soul, individualized divinity. We are already with God, already divine, but we are separated by the illusion of individuality. The interdependent web of existence is God; we are the interdependent web.

When I am conceptualizing God like this, God is universal and non-anthropomorphic and remote. But when I speak of relationship with God, God is local and intimate and anthropomorphized. And I have no problem with that. God is love. :rainbow1:

 

[lilithu]

In Christianity, God is the only Divine Person who exists self-sufficiently (who has no creator) and created the cosmos. God exists utterly outside of the cosmos, because God created it. Therefore, nothing that is used to identify, classify, or find anything in the known is able to locate God.

That's why Christianity is considered a revealed religion. If a person like God exists, God would have to tell us.

The Christian message is that there is imbalance in the cosmos due to sin (rebellion against God, which for whatever reason God allowed) and God entered the realm of Creation by the Incarnation, becoming a human being, Jesus Christ. As Jesus died and resurrected into a new life, God will correct the imbalance in the cosmos through Him.

AE, if God is completely removed from the cosmos, if there is no possible way to know of God's existence, let alone God's will without God telling us, how is it possible to rebel against God except that God made it so?

 

[michel]

A thread to allow everyone to express and discuss what they actually believe when it comes down to 'God'. From mildly agnostic to literal biblical belief to totally unique, i thought it would be interesting and healthy for the forum's extensive 'God debates' if some foundations were laid down like in this thread

I was brought up in a christian methodist chapel eniviroment, where i would regularly read to the people in services. Luckily my parents had no strict beliefs and encouraged me to think for myself and decide what i believed. As a result my beliefs have evolved over my time growing up, but have never been anything more than agnostic in standard. I generally liked the idea that the universe itself was God, rather than God being a controlling point or being outside of it. I later decided that it was of no benefit to bother using God in the viewpoit, and it more than sufficed to stand in awe at the structure of the world. Terming 'god' with it seemed to now belittle the awsomeness of the whole cosmos.

In a way, I agree with your view of "God". I believe that God is the totality of what we know - but, as a theist, I see God as the "creator"; whilst I am no creationist, I believe that God did allow for the conditions for life to begin - at its most basic level, with the propensity of growth and evolution.

Maybe I see "him" (I hate having to put a label to God) primarily as the Catalyst (if I may steal a scientific term) for life.

I also believe that the universe existed at the same time as God, and that he merely "introduced life" - with the needs to sustain it - here on Earth, and who knows / - maybe in other parts of the universe.

 

[lilithu]

Our human knowledge proves itself time and again to be erroneous and unreliable so much of the time. Given that we know this of ourselves it would be prudent to assume a degree of error and unreliability when it comes to what we believe about the nature of God. This would extend to what is interpreted through the scripture of any religion since, in the end, we're the ones making the judgement as to its accuracy in describing the nature of God.

Yes, it is only reasonable to assume a degree of error and unreliability. Hence, humility. Hence, doubt is not antithetical to faith.

But that doesn't mean that we can't know anything about God and that what we think we know should be thrown out. Our partial knowledge is real, even if it is distorted. That is what I took Amin to be saying. We can use it, as long as we use it cautiously. As long as our partial knowledge does not conflict with the filters of reason and compassion - for example, does not say that one group of people should be denigrated or worse - then I opt for proceeding with a cautious confidence, rather than being paralyzed into inaction by unrestrained doubt.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Yes, it is only reasonable to assume a degree of error and unreliability. Hence, humility. Hence, doubt is not antithetical to faith.

But that doesn't mean that we can't know anything about God and that what we think we know should be thrown out. Our partial knowledge is real, even if it is distorted. That is what I took Amin to be saying. We can use it, as long as we use it cautiously. As long as our partial knowledge does not conflict with the filters of reason and compassion - for example, does not say that one group of people should be denigrated or worse - then I opt for proceeding with a cautious confidence, rather than being paralyzed into inaction by unrestrained doubt.

That is very reasonable. Reasonable doubt can be strong enough to paralyse faith too though.

I find that looking at my own personal history and the history of the wider world the power of faith and religious experience is so great and yet so capricious that it necessitates deep enquiry as a responsible approach to it. I also find that my partial knowledge of it seems more and more incomplete the further I enquire.

Others may find things differently. I know many consider their incomplete but partial knowledge of God(s) as something well enough established to build and rely upon, but to me even the roots of such knowledge are mysterious and mutable.

 

[lilithu]

That is very reasonable. Reasonable doubt can be strong enough to paralyse faith too though.

I find that looking at my own personal history and the history of the wider world the power of faith and religious experience is so great and yet so capricious that it necessitates deep enquiry as a responsible approach to it. I also find that my partial knowledge of it seems more and more incomplete the further I enquire.

Others may find things differently. I know many consider their incomplete but partial knowledge of God(s) as something well enough established to build and rely upon, but to me even the roots of such knowledge are mysterious and mutable.

Yes, reasonable doubt can certainly paralyze faith. :yes:

There is no way that you can know for certain. So you have only two options - to either stand still and do nothing or to move ahead on trust with the full knowledge that you will make mistakes.

I say this not to preach but as someone who knows what this paralysis feels like and still continually grapples with it. For others it may be easy to "know." I do not find it to be easy. I just know that at the end of my life, whenever that is, I would rather look back and see that I devoted myself honestly to a mistaken cause than to see that I didn't devote myself to anything at all. Even if it turns out that there is nothing - that all this faith stuff is just stories that we make up for ourselves - then I'd still rather have made up some meaning. After all, in the absence of the Divine, the only thing we have left is existentialism.

Surely I have told you about the recurring dream I used to have - the one where I am being tested by two Tibetan monks who tell me that I'll be given a gift that can save the world if I pass and then show me a cave entrance and tell me to walk through. I always start off gung ho, walking forward into the dark. But as the scary things get scarier, reasonable doubt always set in. Reasonable doubt tells me: "wait a minute, the monks said you had to pass the test and then showed you the cave, but they didn't explicitly say that walking through it was the test, maybe the test is to see if you're smart enough to know when to turn around. After all, only a crazy person would continue to walk forward in pitch blackness with things screaming at you and wings and claws brushing up against you." And the dream always ended with me stuck in the darkness - paralyzed - unable to know for certain whether to move forward or not. And every time I woke up I was furious with myself for being stuck like that.

I haven't had the dream for years now, ever since I decided to move forward with my life, not at all certain that the path I chose, the path of faith, is the right path. Even now I have moments where I say "You know this could all just be hogwash." But that's ok. At least I don't wake up hating myself at 4am in the morning.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I know why the Zen master laughs.

 

[MoonWater]

My personal belief is in what I like to call "The Infinite Forces" The idea is that rather than one or more divine beings ruling over the cosmos there are instead an infinite number of different forces that permeate and surround every corner of the universe. That's the brief explanation. If you have any questions let me know. I'll be happy to elaborate once I get out of class.

 

[lilithu]

I know why the Zen master laughs.

Do not ask for whom the Zen master laughs; he laughs for you.

 

[Diogenes]

Mysterium Tremendum.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I like the Yiddish saying, "Man thinks, and God laughs."

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Yes, reasonable doubt can certainly paralyze faith. :yes:

There is no way that you can know for certain. So you have only two options - to either stand still and do nothing or to move ahead on trust with the full knowledge that you will make mistakes.

I think there is a third way and it doesn't require certainty either.

I say this not to preach but as someone who knows what this paralysis feels like and still continually grapples with it. For others it may be easy to "know." I do not find it to be easy. I just know that at the end of my life, whenever that is, I would rather look back and see that I devoted myself honestly to a mistaken cause than to see that I didn't devote myself to anything at all. Even if it turns out that there is nothing - that all this faith stuff is just stories that we make up for ourselves - then I'd still rather have made up some meaning. After all, in the absence of the Divine, the only thing we have left is existentialism.

Heh. Without the divine all we have left is existentialism. Yeh, that makes some sense. If someone really digs deep enough without theistic faith as their chariot I suppose there is a strong likelihood that they'll end up experiencing and dealing with existentialist themes. That's what I've found personally at least. Love existentialism. Hate it too.

Surely I have told you about the recurring dream I used to have - the one where I am being tested by two Tibetan monks who tell me that I'll be given a gift that can save the world if I pass and then show me a cave entrance and tell me to walk through. I always start off gung ho, walking forward into the dark. But as the scary things get scarier, reasonable doubt always set in. Reasonable doubt tells me: "wait a minute, the monks said you had to pass the test and then showed you the cave, but they didn't explicitly say that walking through it was the test, maybe the test is to see if you're smart enough to know when to turn around. After all, only a crazy person would continue to walk forward in pitch blackness with things screaming at you and wings and claws brushing up against you." And the dream always ended with me stuck in the darkness - paralyzed - unable to know for certain whether to move forward or not. And every time I woke up I was furious with myself for being stuck like that.

I haven't had the dream for years now, ever since I decided to move forward with my life, not at all certain that the path I chose, the path of faith, is the right path. Even now I have moments where I say "You know this could all just be hogwash." But that's ok. At least I don't wake up hating myself at 4am in the morning.

Your faith seems great to me. Previous forms of faith I had really weren't all that great. Doubt has been a better friend on the whole. Since I had to deal with that the dilemmas I had to deal with, well my general feeling about such things would be different.

Wanna write more and also write more in the Wu Wei thread but am a little drunk and am my concentration is shot. Major celebration going on behind me as I sit here!