BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
I would say God is definitely a Being--One, Uncreated, All-knowing, and All-beneficent!
Peace,
Bruce
Peace,
Bruce
-
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!
Is God a Being or an Experience?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That is the being, a being, that I'm referring to as "the social construct".
That's the thing, though: the social construct "a being" doesn't convey precise information, either.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
By describing "god" as being an experience doesn't that add substance to the idea?
Me? I have largely abandoned attaching any significance to the primitive "god" concepts of the human animal.
Why limit ourselves with outdated concepts?
You used the phrase, "the experience of being,".
The experience of being is not a being in the same way that, say, Allah, Jesus, or Odin are conscious entities with a personality and a will.
I said from the beginning that even when the definition of a deity is limited to a being, the definition is still loose. I have my own definitions that I think apply, but that's another topic. The point I'm making is that if we agree that the definition is already loose, let's not make it even more loose. Let's keep it referring to something at least a little bit useful. A being, or a conscious entity, with certain qualifiers that make it a deity rather than a mortal. So,
God is not love. Love is love.
God is not an experience. An experience is an experience.
God is not the universe. The universe is the universe.
We already have acceptable words for these things.
Twig pentagram
High Priest
I don't even know if gods exist so I most definetly can't tell you if god is a being or an experience.
Greetings. From a particular perspective one might offer that it would not be said that God is a being nor an experience, only that God is.
If "God" was a valid, defined, supported concept, would there be any doubt whether it was an "experience" or a "being" (edit: or that God simply "is", or that it/he is the "ground of all being", etc.)?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would say god is an experience of which adhering to such beliefs can manifest well enough through a person actions in that it can influence others in a number of ways. In that manner, I can understand and relate this well enough by the generated karma of that persons actions in which their particular concept of god simply translates to be simply a unique form of interpretation in order to explain and address the environment, its unknowns, and its influences.
So yes I can agree there is an experience of "god" which can be felt without requiring any substance and permanence attached to it.
blackout
Violet.
But what is the (acceptable) word that means
"All of these things, any of these things, and/or none of these things"?
No word is needed because that's a nonsensical concept. It doesn't convey useful information.
Not useful, but meaningful. It makes sense to me.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I find it useful.
There's an idea that the focus of psychology should be understanding experience.
I think it's a good idea.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Would you care to define useful?
I'd rather they not understand mine, thank you.
It's both - kinda the same was as the pound is a unit of both force and mass.Depends on whether you think love is a noun or a verb.
However, this does not mean that the kilogram is a unit of force. I'm looking at you, America! :no:
In this context, the ability to convey information that one did not previously possess.
As in, person A has a concept in mind and wishes to communicate this concept to person B, who does not share this concept in mind. So, person A articulates this concept to person B, who now understands this concept.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
If Person C comes along and considers it nonsensical does it remain useful?
Usefulness as a description is continuous rather than discrete. Something can be totally not useful, a little useful, quite useful, extremely useful, etc.
If the information can be transferred from one person to another person of like-mind, but not to people from a very different culture or way of thinking (assuming appropriate intelligence), then it has a little bit of use but not all that much.
Another question would be to ask, if these two people of like-mind feel that they have successfully transmitted the information, how can they even check that this is the case?