Do you Think God has a Self or is God Selfless?

[wizanda]

Which god?

Could have wrote loads to begin, yet left it open for people to answer, based on their own understanding of God.

How is that question naive, since not all religions agree on it?

Exactly my point, i left it open as could define many different religious concepts, could even identify self attributes from different religious texts, yet that wasn't the point in asking....

It was merely to see if people's own understanding of God, is that it is either selfless or has a self.

Yeah, why should we expect that you know what you're talking about? Thanks for confirming that we shouldn't.

That was a deep answer, if something is the opposite of selfless, then it defines a different definition to just the dictionary reference of self....Have a think about it, you might understand what was being asked.

 

[Aiviu]

a self which is selfless.

 

[Skwim]

You do realize that many religions do not subscribe a self to their concept of God, right? How is that question naive, since not all religions agree on it?

Taking the common meaning of "self" to be "a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality," just which "many religions" have a god that doesn't conform to this definition?


.

 

[Quintessence]

Could have wrote loads to begin, yet left it open for people to answer, based on their own understanding of God.

That's fair. Just not sure where you're wanting people to go with this, because my understanding of God (as in the classical monotheist god) is one thing, and my understanding of the gods is entirely something else. It seems to me that the classical monotheist god-concept transcends the notion of ideas like "self." The gods of my theology do not, as they have distinct spirits/essences/selves that define their nature and character and are not some sort of weird omni-thing. That said, I don't find the word "self" to be particularly useful in the context of my theology.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Taking the common meaning of "self" to be "a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality," just which "many religions" have a god that doesn't conform to this definition?

In Hinduism, Brahman is the Supreme Being. Some philosophers (Śaṁkara and the Advaita school) have held that Brahman is impersonal; others (Rāmānuja and, particularly, Madhva) taught that Brahman is a person.

Buddha probably held the non-self position, which is the normal one today.

The ancient Greek philosophers mostly took a non-self position, particularly in later times.

Since belief in a supreme being seems to be based on philosophy rather than religious experience, I'd say that philosophy has to supply the answer. If we argue for a creator on the basis of causation, then that could be an involuntary action, as the Advaita Hindus believe. But the argument from design surely implies a person: you can't have involuntary planning.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's hard to take a question seriously when one doesn't even use the word "selfless" correctly.

 

[Skwim]

In Hinduism, Brahman is the Supreme Being. Some philosophers (Śaṁkara and the Advaita school) have held that Brahman is impersonal; others (Rāmānuja and, particularly, Madhva) taught that Brahman is a person.

Not talking about being impersonal, but self, or non-self, if you wish..

Buddha probably held the non-self position, which is the normal one today.
The ancient Greek philosophers mostly took a non-self position, particularly in later times.

I don't think you understand the definition of "self" I provided: "a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality,"

It's hard to take a question seriously when one doesn't even use the word "selfless" correctly.

I noticed that as well, but ignored it because "self" needed to be cleared up first. That and the fact that I tend to overlook mistakes in English, what with all those to whom English is a second language.


.

 

[1137]

Self.

 

[Liu]

Since my only reason to assume that the divine exists is on basis of myself having/being a consciousness and the divine being an explanation of the existence of that consciousness, and since I equate self with consciousness (and not with personality), I do consider this quite a relevant question. If my own self is part of the divine, then one can say that the divine is made up of selves. But I'm unsure in what way those selves actually form a whole; I'm pretty agnostic on the details.

I wouldn't want to use the term "god" as I hate to usually use it... I might more say "Shiva" to which the answer is neither, technically, since both are dualities.

So in a way it's kind of both in a sense, in that it contains an infinite amount of selfs but itself is selfless as a whole. It isn't a single self, but it also isn't truly selfless because those selfs are real and all equally Shiva at the same time.

That seems to reflect my own view in a way.