"God" is such a nebulous term.

[Falvlun]

I do not worship anything in the exoteric sense.
I do not live in servitude to any 'other'.

I do sometimes "WerShape"
(shape/re'cast mySelf to forms of Personal Worth)
but that would be for another thread.

For me, divinity is everywhere,
waiting to speak. To Me.
Waiting for me, to divine.
Revealing itSelf in this or that.

gOd is the fabric,
the tapestry,
and the weaver.

The UniVerse is Divine.
I Am Divine.
We reflect that in each other
as thread and design
become I'm'age.
Intertwined.

I am engaged in a mysterious relationship
with my surroundings.

I Am-- The I'm-age of gOd, Self Realized.






Video's are not so much evidence that the UniVerse is gOd,
as they are evidence that...

That is a beautiful belief, UV. Thank you for sharing. I do consider that to be a god concept (not that you needed my approval, but just to clarify my own beliefs.)

One more question, for my curiosity's sake. How do you define "divinity"?

 

[Falvlun]

I think the term God represents that Being that is the Origin/Source of all that exists. Both Abrahamic and Dharmic (and other) concepts of divinity have this in common.
Sometimes I don't see the point in using the term, and pantheism is one example.

Just a question: this sounds like the definition of the God in which you believe in. Do you have a "general" god definition that would cover all gods of different faiths? For example, Neptune, the Roman god of the sea, isn't the Origin, but one of many gods that have control over specific areas of the world.

Your last sentence was a little ambiguous. Do you mean that you don't consider pantheism to be a viable definition of god?

 

[Madhuri]

Just a question: this sounds like the definition of the God in which you believe in. Do you have a "general" god definition that would cover all gods of different faiths? For example, Neptune, the Roman god of the sea, isn't the Origin, but one of many gods that have control over specific areas of the world.

Your last sentence was a little ambiguous. Do you mean that you don't consider pantheism to be a viable definition of god?

I distinguish 'God' and 'god'. A 'god' is not the Original. A 'god' is an individual entity representing some force of nature (ie/ the god of the sun, the god of wind, the god of fortune etc.).

So:
'God' = Origin/Source/Creator
'god' = an aspect of God

I don't see the point of placing the label of 'God' in pantheism. Just say 'universe' or 'nature' or 'existence'.

 

[idav]

This topic comes up quite frequently in discussions here and I figured it could use it's own thread. One of the things you get on a forum with so many different religions, philosophies and perspectives is the word "God" used to describe a wide variety of things. Some, like myself, use the word "God" in a pantheistic sense, referring to the sum total of reality. Some people argue that this is not a meaningful application of the word and that it should instead refer to a supernatural being. Another person will then say it's not enough to refer to a supernatural being, it has to refer to an omnimax being. I've even seen a couple of people claim that they don't believe in "God" because their own definition of "God" means that he/she/it would be an impossible entity anyway.

So, in your opinion what definitions of "God" are useful/meaningful? What term would you give to some of the God concepts that don't fit into this view? Do you have a problem with the word God being used for both (as an example) the Abrahamic God and the Dharmic God despite the two being quite different?

Anyway, those questions are just there as food for thought.

Things that we experience are often times beyond words like love for example. God is the same way as everyone has a different way of explaining it and experience it differently. Personal opinions and experiences are usually like that.

 

[idav]

I don't see the point of placing the label of 'God' in pantheism. Just say 'universe' or 'nature' or 'existence'.

I tend to agree that there would need to be something more to the universe for it to deserve the label of God. It is the same as panentheism without God also being outside the universe. Though I'm not one to think god is exactly all powerful which would be a place the God label is debateable.

 

[Falvlun]

Things that we experience are often times beyond words like love for example. God is the same way as everyone has a different way of explaining it and experience it differently. Personal opinions and experiences are usually like that.

I tend to agree that there would need to be something more to the universe for it to deserve the label of God. It is the same as panentheism without God also being outside the universe. Though I'm not one to think god is exactly all powerful which would be a place the God label is debateable.

Based on these two posts, it sounds like you do have some criteria of what constitutes a god and what doesn't-- beyond simply "whatever somebody's experience is". I think these nuances are important, since it supports my contention that we do seem to have a general conception of what a god is-- or at the very least, what a god isn't.