-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
define god...
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
Siva is the tree within the seed, Sakti is the tree that comes from the seed.
That which is reality but unmanifested (i.e., all that could possibly exist) is Siva. That which is manifested reality (i.e., all that which currently exists) is Sakti. From both of them is born Ganesha, who is intelligence.
Together, they are Saguna Brahman (Brahman with conceptual form; personal). Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without conceptual form; impoersonal) is that Reality when viewed without bias.
This is based on what I know about the universe, teachings of the Sages, and personal insight.
So, opinion. ^_^ (And a constantly changing one as I read more, learn more, and gain more insights.)
That which is reality but unmanifested (i.e., all that could possibly exist) is Siva. That which is manifested reality (i.e., all that which currently exists) is Sakti. From both of them is born Ganesha, who is intelligence.
Together, they are Saguna Brahman (Brahman with conceptual form; personal). Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without conceptual form; impoersonal) is that Reality when viewed without bias.
This is based on what I know about the universe, teachings of the Sages, and personal insight.
So, opinion. ^_^ (And a constantly changing one as I read more, learn more, and gain more insights.)
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
1+1=2. All else follows. 
Guess that doesn't apply to the Heart Mommy, because I believe in Her, and She's from a different geographical location.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
and what do you have to support that definition?
evidence
opinion
hope
_______ fill in the blank...
Interesting question
For me, "god" can be thought of in four ways, personal, impersonal, pantheistic and chaos/deistic.
The pantheistic version is simply the sum total of reality as it is now, covering both personal and impersonal aspects of reality. To me, the universe is the thing that provides us with life, knowledge and power and is the closest thing to an omnimax god (all knowing, all powerful, everwhere, but NOT all loving).
The personal god/s are the deities of humans with distinctly anthropomorphic traits. As humans, making the gods like us is one of the ways we make them more understandable. A personal god is therefore not the sum total of a deity, but rather a description of one of their aspects.
Impersonal gods are the elements of a particular deity which are beyond our comprehension. I believe that deities are multifaceted and that much of their personality is utterly alien to us.
Chaos is the name I give to whatever came before the big bang (as a nod to Greek Mythology). Whatever that state of existence was would most likely be unimaginable to humans, yet Chaos is still the father and mother of our universe and therefore the parent to many of our gods as well.
That's a very brief overview of my opinions on what deities can be categorized as. What I think they actually are, the way I interact with them and my reasons for believing in them are a little more complicated. Please be patient with me as there's a lot to try and fit into a very small space here, if you want me to go over anything I'm quite happy to
I've already briefly described the pantheistic/deistic notions of god, so I'll try and describe "the gods" (as in, individual deities). The gods can be thought of in several different ways: Sentient beings, forces of nature, imaginary friends/foes and aspects of the human psyche. I personally believe there is some validity to all of these descriptions and that deities exist as much in the imagination as they do outside it.
Each deity is vastly complex, encompassing a range of physical and psychological traits. It's as difficult to describe an individual god as it is to describe an individual person in a single paragraph. There may be some defining features, but these alone can't describe the total nature of a god.
For this reason we have the "personal gods" or "archetypal gods". These gods are largely a human creation used to categorise different aspects of various deities into something more easily understandable. Therefore Amducious is angry and destructive while Verrine is nurturing. In reality, this is as inaccurate as saying "Mr X is angry." It may be that this person has a short temper, but he won't be defined solely by his anger.
Still, as inaccurate as the archetypes may be for describing the sum total of a deity,they remain useful for ritual, discussion and meditation.
Now whether these deities are actual "beings" is largely down to personal experience. I would be inclined to say they are probably actual beings based on my experiences with them. Another person may say that my experiences are more indicative of them being a psychological construct, while a third person may say they are more accurately defined as metaphors for natural phenomena/emotions. I see no problem with considering Amducious a metaphor for natural disasters or diseases for example.
Now, why I believe in these deities is largely due to my attitude towards life. I'm naturally a pragmatist and I find religions and gods to be a useful tool rather than something to be obeyed. It doesn't greatly matter to me whether the gods are real beings or simply metaphors, I've found that when I use them in a ritual setting, I tend to achieve my goal. Again, the rituals themselves can be thought of as either "magic" or placebo/nocebo effect and again, it doesn't matter to me which is the case so long as it works.
Also, I enjoy the element of fantasy these gods bring into my life. While I consider Atheism a significant improvement from certain other religious practices, I also consider it a rather bland view of the world. This is obviously personal taste, I also consider sports boring, but I know a lot of people love them. I also consider Empiricism a valid world view, but not necessarily the "true" world view. I could be wrong of course, but I don't think I'll ever find out either way
Finally (and this fits in largely with the pragmatic element) I'm careful to ensure my religion is something I enjoy and not something I'm governed by. This way, even if I turn out to be wrong, my religious practices won't have been a waste of time any more than a hobby would.
Well, writing all that fried my brain a little, but like I say, I'm happy to go over anything that doesn't make sense
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
"God" is basically an interpretation involving senses and experiences and brought about forthwith as something substantial and instituted through action. The anthropomorphizing of the universe as it presently stands in my view. God "exists" only because of it's origin of which happens to be human beings, so God is essentially human interpretation in the most direct sense.
The supporting proof lies well and in full view among the variety of opinions expressed of which is very easy to see for ones-self as to see where God directly comes from and what God is.
The supporting proof lies well and in full view among the variety of opinions expressed of which is very easy to see for ones-self as to see where God directly comes from and what God is.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Agree with what Shyanekh and RW said. Will try to put in own words, but will probably screw up.define god...
and what do you have to support that definition?
evidence
opinion
hope
_______ fill in the blank...
Formless, beyond all dualities. Transpersonal, transcendent, sapient, pure Consciousness, the All-in-all:
"God" is the ocean, we are the waves - we are all part of God, yet with our own uniqueness (our base-Consciousness, that is, we won't all "cease to be" upon final liberation). It is known by many names in the same way we call water as pāṇī, āp, āb, shui, mizu, maji, vatten, eau, agua, aqua, and tubig.
However, the events attributed to this One are metaphors and stories and should not be taken as historical things, but reflect the culture and society of that group and their gods as people attempting to explain things, from what has been experienced, to what is not understood. These "personal gods" are thoughtforms. From anthromorphising certain aspects of the one, to in some cases, a sort of "ego" that is worshipped - either the person's or the idea put forth from a reading of certain texts in a certain way.
When it comes to prophets, well... no, I don't believe them. "Experiencers" of God, is a definite possibility. Prophets who speak on behalf of a deity? Nah, I don't believe in such a concept.
Opinion. One that is constantly evolving.
...Still not satisfactory.
Last edited:
not yet now
Member
god as
that which gives true definition to all life...
god is the true definer of life
thus to properly be definite in one's definitions
one best be fully attuned to the source..god the father
and when one is then
what one manifests is holy spirit...
aka god the mother...
and one essential to such manifestation
is a discerning compassion
that considers the needs of others before one's own
that which gives true definition to all life...
god is the true definer of life
thus to properly be definite in one's definitions
one best be fully attuned to the source..god the father
and when one is then
what one manifests is holy spirit...
aka god the mother...
and one essential to such manifestation
is a discerning compassion
that considers the needs of others before one's own
blackout
Violet.
interesting question
for me, "god" can be thought of in four ways, personal, impersonal, pantheistic and chaos/deistic.
The pantheistic version is simply the sum total of reality as it is now, covering both personal and impersonal aspects of reality. To me, the universe is the thing that provides us with life, knowledge and power and is the closest thing to an omnimax god (all knowing, all powerful, everwhere, but not all loving).
The personal god/s are the deities of humans with distinctly anthropomorphic traits. As humans, making the gods like us is one of the ways we make them more understandable. A personal god is therefore not the sum total of a deity, but rather a description of one of their aspects.
Impersonal gods are the elements of a particular deity which are beyond our comprehension. I believe that deities are multifaceted and that much of their personality is utterly alien to us.
Chaos is the name i give to whatever came before the big bang (as a nod to greek mythology). Whatever that state of existence was would most likely be unimaginable to humans, yet chaos is still the father and mother of our universe and therefore the parent to many of our gods as well.
That's a very brief overview of my opinions on what deities can be categorized as. What i think they actually are, the way i interact with them and my reasons for believing in them are a little more complicated. Please be patient with me as there's a lot to try and fit into a very small space here, if you want me to go over anything i'm quite happy to
i've already briefly described the pantheistic/deistic notions of god, so i'll try and describe "the gods" (as in, individual deities). The gods can be thought of in several different ways: Sentient beings, forces of nature, imaginary friends/foes and aspects of the human psyche. I personally believe there is some validity to all of these descriptions and that deities exist as much in the imagination as they do outside it.
Each deity is vastly complex, encompassing a range of physical and psychological traits. It's as difficult to describe an individual god as it is to describe an individual person in a single paragraph. There may be some defining features, but these alone can't describe the total nature of a god.
For this reason we have the "personal gods" or "archetypal gods". These gods are largely a human creation used to categorise different aspects of various deities into something more easily understandable. Therefore amducious is angry and destructive while verrine is nurturing. In reality, this is as inaccurate as saying "mr x is angry." it may be that this person has a short temper, but he won't be defined solely by his anger.
Still, as inaccurate as the archetypes may be for describing the sum total of a deity,they remain useful for ritual, discussion and meditation.
Now whether these deities are actual "beings" is largely down to personal experience. I would be inclined to say they are probably actual beings based on my experiences with them. Another person may say that my experiences are more indicative of them being a psychological construct, while a third person may say they are more accurately defined as metaphors for natural phenomena/emotions. I see no problem with considering amducious a metaphor for natural disasters or diseases for example.
Now, why i believe in these deities is largely due to my attitude towards life. I'm naturally a pragmatist and i find religions and gods to be a useful tool rather than something to be obeyed. It doesn't greatly matter to me whether the gods are real beings or simply metaphors, i've found that when i use them in a ritual setting, i tend to achieve my goal. Again, the rituals themselves can be thought of as either "magic" or placebo/nocebo effect and again, it doesn't matter to me which is the case so long as it works.
Also, i enjoy the element of fantasy these gods bring into my life. While i consider atheism a significant improvement from certain other religious practices, i also consider it a rather bland view of the world. This is obviously personal taste, i also consider sports boring, but i know a lot of people love them. I also consider empiricism a valid world view, but not necessarily the "true" world view. I could be wrong of course, but i don't think i'll ever find out either way
finally (and this fits in largely with the pragmatic element) i'm careful to ensure my religion is something i enjoy and not something i'm governed by. This way, even if i turn out to be wrong, my religious practices won't have been a waste of time any more than a hobby would.
Well, writing all that fried my brain a little, but like i say, i'm happy to go over anything that doesn't make sense
That ^^^^^^^^^
No, this is merely the definition of a narrow mind.
chinu
chinu
and what do you have to support that definition?
evidence
opinion
hope
_______ fill in the blank...
Defination: The one who is beyond time, and never comes in cycle of deaths and births.
Truely saying Waitasec, Through out the life, pangs of separation, days and nights with him, are need to support this.
Please beware !, Don't get entangled yourself in this hard game of love.
_/\_
Chinu
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend waitasec,
Words are created by using alphabets.
alphabets belong to a language.
Languages developed: Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What could never be explained but understood and realised was allocated this three words: *god*.
Love & rgds
It is a three letter word.
Words are created by using alphabets.
alphabets belong to a language.
Languages developed: Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What could never be explained but understood and realised was allocated this three words: *god*.
Love & rgds
waitasec
Veteran Member
i want to thank all of you for your input...
for me, in order to define god i first have to define myself. do i consider myself as a god? hardly, because god is everything i am not...
is god actively apathetic towards emotions, sentiments, or desires of other sentient beings? yes
an opinion based on empirical evidence.
is god inferior in quality by lacking in originality? yes
an opinion based on evidence of observation.
is god the hope that leads the way to peace and love? yes
an opinion based on experience...
god is not
therefore, i am
for me, in order to define god i first have to define myself. do i consider myself as a god? hardly, because god is everything i am not...
is god actively apathetic towards emotions, sentiments, or desires of other sentient beings? yes
an opinion based on empirical evidence.
is god inferior in quality by lacking in originality? yes
an opinion based on evidence of observation.
is god the hope that leads the way to peace and love? yes
an opinion based on experience...
god is not
therefore, i am
Uh, first of all, simple observation doesn't really count as evidence because it can only be presented as an anecdote.
Secondly, this part is kinda interesting. The others are understandable, and though I disagree with them, I'm not going to argue them. But lack of originality automatically leads to a lack of quality?
It seems that this definition is dependent on God being completely a man-made concept, which, though I accept is a possibility, as a theist, I don't believe. But even if it were the case, I'd still have to dispute that, because I've experienced many "original" things that are far inferior to the "unoriginal" things.
Not to mention, I don't really believe in "originality", at least in terms of the creative arts (which I am a student of, BTW). Everything is based on something else.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i meant observation through the eyes of history...
my exposure to the concept of god is the promotion of mediocrity...conformity
imo, those qualities do not hold any value...
because you are original
originality cannot be inferior...just different.
true, everything is based on something else fused with an original personality
progression...
Last edited:
Which we can't know for sure, so it's still not that reliable. But I still fail to see how it applies to God, who is described as being the only Originality.
Human nature is conformity. If not to God, then to society, opinions, etc.
It is truly great when someone is able to break free of that conformity. But it doesn't necessarily indicate originality.
A dualistic perspective that I don't think is necessarily true.because you are original
originality cannot be inferior...just different.
What am I?
Am I my hobby? No, that's just what I do. Others do it, too.
Am I my name? No, that's just how people refer to me. Others have that name.
Am I my personality? No, because it's dynamic. Others have it, too.
Am I my body? After all no one else has that. But still no, because it's constantly changing; my body today is not the same body I had a year ago or the year before.
Am I all of these? No, because every one of them is subject to change.
Therefore, if there really is an "I", it must be something that doesn't change throughout my life.
(BTW, I think I'd prefer peaceful conformity to the "originality" of Eric Harris and others like him.)
Not original, but still based on a bunch of things.
While I don't believe in blind conformity("blind" being a key word), I also don't believe the Western myth of "being original."
In regular life, self-identification isn't important; enjoyment of pleasures, working towards some goal (family, wealth, power, etc.) are what's important. Social identification (which doesn't necessarily mean conformity) may be important for most, but that's subject to change, and is really for the sake of others.
waitasec
Veteran Member
the concept of god changes because people change...
and relies on human understanding...
which give the word conformity it's meaning...a leader is not a conformist
jimi hendricks was influenced by the likes of muddy waters, howlin wolfe and bb king...
yes he was a guitar player who made a name for himself by applying his personality
an interesting comment..."i" is a constantly changing existence because "i" am constantly improvising..."i" cannot stay the same...
if survival is what you call conformity...i will concede
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I am curious. How did you reach the conclusion that "i" doesn't change over time?
Something the Sages realized long ago, which is why the wise recognize the difference between God with form, which is based on human understanding and bias, and God without form, which is the only Constant.
How is that related to what I said?
From a philosophical standpoint, I wouldn't call that wholly "original," but a continued evolution of a genre that already existed, and helped influence the emergence of Hard Rock and Metal (and One-Winged Angel
) the former of which is still just a subgenre of rock 'n roll, and the latter has an unclear "origin." (I believe it's debated as to which musician and/or band actually was the official start of metal.) Sure, if you call that original, then yes it is. But it's not how I define "originality."But then "I" didn't exist a few years ago, and won't exist next year. Therefore, that "I" becomes just a small piece of a puzzle: no more or less important than any other piece.
I was refuting your absolute statement that originality cannot be inferior by giving an example of an originality that is certainly inferior to conformity. But breaking out of conformity in a peaceful way is better than blind conformity. But there's nothing wrong with informed conformity to a certain extent to certain subcultures based on shared interest.