Simple nature of god

[Unveiled Artist]

God, in this post, is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Is not Pagan. It's not Hindu. It's not Bahai. It's not... In other words, there is no bias in this post (I should say).

With that said:

Which sounds more powerful according to how you define god regardless if you believe he is real or know him as an idea.

1. God IS life itself.

2. God is the GIVER of life.

In the first, if god is life then who and what we interact with, we are interacting with and in god. The "breathe" (aka god or spirit) of life in us that keeps us moving (or you can term it energy, if you don't like religious terms) is what we call god.

I feel this is stronger statement because it isn't separating spirit from life itself. It's letting us know that we are not divided in parts. Spirituality and "naturality" are all intermingled. Unity.

The second one I understand why that would sound strong to many because the source is much more wise and powerful than its creation. In my view, it's a political thinking. When I write, my art is a part of me. I can't separate my poetry from myself. I am not over or under my poetry. I don't have authority of it. It's part of who I am.

That's why I feel the second one doesn't make sense.

How about you?​

A lot of people don't like polls but I'm just curious whether it makes sense to see god (idea, concept, literal, or spirit, or whatever) as life itself or the creator of life.

Does the art have more value or awe when it is seen as part of the artist or the work of the artist?​

 

[lovesong]

This would be impossible for me to answer, as there is no God as a singular entity anywhere in my beliefs, and nowhere to try to wiggle one in. The closest I could go with is the universe as a whole, or possibly one occultist view of the word God that I use; that is that God is the pinnacle of ultimate power and perfection that a magician can strive to meet where he would then have complete power over the universe. This of course has never been done, but it stands as a sort of philosophers stone of some branches of occultism. Neither of these things could fit into either poll option. The universe is neither life nor the giver of life, it is simply the ocean through which all waves of energy move. It is a medium for life to develop within, but it neither is life nor does it somehow give life, it's nothing more than the glue that holds things together. The other interpretation of God also works with neither, as it is a state magicians hope to achieve, it isn't a thing that exists already.

 

[Twilight Hue]

God, in this post, is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Is not Pagan. It's not Hindu. It's not Bahai. It's not... In other words, there is no bias in this post (I should say).

With that said:

Which sounds more powerful according to how you define god regardless if you believe he is real or know him as an idea.

1. God IS life itself.

2. God is the GIVER of life.

In the first, if god is life then who and what we interact with, we are interacting with and in god. The "breathe" (aka god or spirit) of life in us that keeps us moving (or you can term it energy, if you don't like religious terms) is what we call god.

I feel this is stronger statement because it isn't separating spirit from life itself. It's letting us know that we are not divided in parts. Spirituality and "naturality" are all intermingled. Unity.

The second one I understand why that would sound strong to many because the source is much more wise and powerful than its creation. In my view, it's a political thinking. When I write, my art is a part of me. I can't separate my poetry from myself. I am not over or under my poetry. I don't have authority of it. It's part of who I am.

That's why I feel the second one doesn't make sense.

How about you?​

A lot of people don't like polls but I'm just curious whether it makes sense to see god (idea, concept, literal, or spirit, or whatever) as life itself or the creator of life.

Does the art have more value or awe when it is seen as part of the artist or the work of the artist?​

God. The product of its maker. The person playing with puppets.

 

[psychoslice]

Neither for me, wasn't enough choices.

 

[Jedster]

My concept of God is that it is the 'primal substance of existance' from which everything that exists comes from; including all the god-concepts that the various religions embrace. For me the Hindus have it when they say 'Brahman is everything.'
It's a convenient paradigm for my mind to stop worrying about 'getting it right', so that I can get with exploring and enjoying my own existance & existance in general.
I really like this Creation hymn,

HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

 

[Tumah]

God, in this post, is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish. Is not Pagan. It's not Hindu. It's not Bahai. It's not... In other words, there is no bias in this post (I should say).

With that said:

Which sounds more powerful according to how you define god regardless if you believe he is real or know him as an idea.

1. God IS life itself.

2. God is the GIVER of life.

In the first, if god is life then who and what we interact with, we are interacting with and in god. The "breathe" (aka god or spirit) of life in us that keeps us moving (or you can term it energy, if you don't like religious terms) is what we call god.

I feel this is stronger statement because it isn't separating spirit from life itself. It's letting us know that we are not divided in parts. Spirituality and "naturality" are all intermingled. Unity.

The second one I understand why that would sound strong to many because the source is much more wise and powerful than its creation. In my view, it's a political thinking. When I write, my art is a part of me. I can't separate my poetry from myself. I am not over or under my poetry. I don't have authority of it. It's part of who I am.

That's why I feel the second one doesn't make sense.

How about you?​

A lot of people don't like polls but I'm just curious whether it makes sense to see god (idea, concept, literal, or spirit, or whatever) as life itself or the creator of life.

Does the art have more value or awe when it is seen as part of the artist or the work of the artist?​

Saying the "art is a part of the artist" makes no sense. You can certainly separate your poetry from yourself. Your poetry in written on paper and you are...not written on paper. It isn't attached to you. If you forget your poem, you haven't changed in any discernible way. No different than having forgotten where your keys are.

Its the second option that makes more sense in this respect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God. The product of its maker. The person playing with puppets.

Why so compared to the other? Thank you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Saying the "art is a part of the artist" makes no sense. You can certainly separate your poetry from yourself. Your poetry in written on paper and you are...not written on paper. It isn't attached to you. If you forget your poem, you haven't changed in any discernible way. No different than having forgotten where your keys are.

Its the second option that makes more sense in this respect.

The first one the poetry itself is a part of me. It comes from me. It from my brain and expression. It didnt come from the sky nor is its origin an alien. Its a part of me (different than saying Im a part of ink. I am part of letters.)

Same as the earth. Im part of the earth. Same as my ancestora and the spirits. We are a part of each other.

Being outside to me is t strong enough. A creator can create the earth and it can go disrupt becauae it separated itself from its creation. If the first one, it wont mess up us work as nature should since its part of the creator not seperated from it.

Thats the logic behind why I choose the first. Is the reason you choice the second a reflection of the illogical nature kf the first or is there other reasons in itself that makes sense the other?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Neither for me, wasn't enough choices.

I did that on purpose. I just wanted to know which made more sense not which you believe you find true. You can answer the last question since its not religious.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This would be impossible for me to answer, as there is no God as a singular entity anywhere in my beliefs, and nowhere to try to wiggle one in. The closest I could go with is the universe as a whole, or possibly one occultist view of the word God that I use; that is that God is the pinnacle of ultimate power and perfection that a magician can strive to meet where he would then have complete power over the universe. This of course has never been done, but it stands as a sort of philosophers stone of some branches of occultism. Neither of these things could fit into either poll option. The universe is neither life nor the giver of life, it is simply the ocean through which all waves of energy move. It is a medium for life to develop within, but it neither is life nor does it somehow give life, it's nothing more than the glue that holds things together. The other interpretation of God also works with neither, as it is a state magicians hope to achieve, it isn't a thing that exists already.

Which makes sense though? You dont have to believe it. I dont believe in an alien out in space but I can form opinions about it based on what fictional evidence thata given to me.

Two options was on purpose. Its a logical question not one that questions or asks you to define the nature of your god.

EDIT you can answer the last question. Its universal and not religious.

 

[Tumah]

The first one the poetry itself is a part of me. It comes from me. It from my brain and express. It didnt come from the sky nor is its origin an alian. Its a part of me (different than saying Im a part of ink. I am part of letters.)

Same as the earth. Im part of the earth. Same as my ancestora and the spirits. We are a part of each other.

Being outside to me is t strong enough. A creator can create the earth and it can go disrupt becauae it separated itself from its creation. If the first one, it wont mess up us work as nature should since its part of the creator not seperated from it.

Thats the logic behind why I choose the first. Is the reason you choice the second a reflection of the illogical nature kf the first or is there other reasons in itself that makes sense the other?

I don't understand what definition you are using for the phrase "part of". Things that come from you are not a part of you. Parts of you don't come from you, they are already made out of you. Babies come out of your uterus, but they're not a part of you. Poems come out of your brain and they're not a part of you either.

A person is not made up of a head two arms two legs and a baby. A person is not made up of a head, two arms, two legs and a poem. You produced the baby and the poem. But you are not the baby or the poem. Its not a part of you.

Earth is made up of dirt. A human is made up of flesh and blood. You are not a part of the earth and the earth is not a part of you.
If you would say, "I am a part of the universe" I would agree. But saying "I am a part of the earth" is the same as saying "the heart is a part of the kidney".

I didn't say that the first option doesn't make any sense. I'm only commenting on your understanding of the first option. As much as the second option doesn't make sense to you, your understanding of the first option doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ana.J]

Why can't HE be both?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Tumah let me reword it shorther before you reply

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Carlita; Thats a very interesting assesment...I tend to lean in your direction here, in that my Father is literally ALL-THAT-IS .. and so my poll choice is no 1..He/ It - IS life itself - is EXISTANCE itself..There is nothing in existance that is apart from or seperate from, my Fathers Will..Whatever Soul KNOWS it is "alive" IS a part of my Father always...

I will say here - this "breath" of life we speak of - surely this is MIND itself - MIND and its SELF REALISATION bring about awareness of ALL existance - only Sentient minds contemplate the Divine nature of reality but ALL reality comes FROM the mind itself.. Hence there is nothing seperate from my Father - whatever "exists" it REQUIRES a MIND to comprehend understand and EXPERIENCE that very existance..

if we took the Mind away then EXISTANCE STOPS - literally ceases TO exist any more - for now there is no PRESENCE to know ANYTHING about that existance and so no Presence to EXPERIENCE that existance....Again we see MIND is ESSENTIAL - ALL reality REQUIRES A MIND TO PERCEIVE IT - all existance requires this Conscious Presence of Mind to literally DEFINE what that existance IS....Ergo -this breath of life must surely be the Mind itself...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My concept of God is that it is the 'primal substance of existance' from which everything that exists comes from; including all the god-concepts that the various religions embrace. For me the Hindus have it when they say 'Brahman is everything.'

I see both options here. Everything is from god and the other brahma is everything.

Is it both or is one option more logical than the other? The last question in the OP gives context. Its also non religious so readers respond to what makes sense logically rather than what they believe and definition of their beliefs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Folks..

Carlita; Thats a very interesting assesment...I tend to lean in your direction here, in that my Father is literally ALL-THAT-IS .. and so my poll choice is no 1..He/ It - IS life itself - is EXISTANCE itself..There is nothing in existance that is apart from or seperate from, my Fathers Will..Whatever Soul KNOWS it is "alive" IS a part of my Father always...

Thats exactly how I feel. Replace father with ancestors and were right in track.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why can't HE be both?

Because thats not the point of the question. Its not to see what you guys believe because everyone has "exclusions to the rule" in every single poll I see on RF. Everyone says "Im different." Bothers the mess out of me.

Of course it could be both, if one likes. However, how I see it is if god is life, how can god create it? How can god create itself?

Its like the car example I gave Tumah. The first option is saying the engine is part of what makes a car, a car. Its no difference in importance then the door and the stirring wheel. It's all one car.

In the second option, the engine is not seen as part of the car but separate from it. Complete opposite from the first. Its saying a car cant be a car without the most important part (declaring heirarchy) which is the engine.

If the most important part is the engine, then by default the other parts arent the car unless the engine is there. If there is no important parts but each part are importance in itself then the total of parts together equally is what makes up the car not just the engine.

It cant be both. Either the car is defined by having an engine without reference to the parts (second option) or its defined by all its parts together (first option).

Can a car still be a car if one dismembers its parts but keep the engine? Is a car still a car without the engine?

The former is the answer to the first option. The latter refers to the second option.

Which option would make the car not a car taking out the engine or disabling the parts?

What makes a car a car, the unity of its part or the engine inside it?

Of course it can be both. What Im asking is does it make sense that a car is a car by the unity of its parts or the engine inside the membered parts?

There is always exceptions to the rule but if a math teacher says solve two plus two by writing two twos with a plus sign vertical why would you tell the teacher "but its the same when I write it horizantal. Yes, it's true.

Thats not whats been asked. People get points marked off for not doing the problem correctly not for having the correct answer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God. The product of its maker. The person playing with puppets.

May I ask, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Earth is made up of dirt. A human is made up of flesh and blood. You are not a part of the earth and the earth is not a part of you.

This is a good concrete example. When we die we turn into ashes after loosing all liquid from the body and after decomposition. Like animals and plants we become part of the earth and eventually we go to the sea. You and I will one day continue to make up what we call earth.

In my practice, I give reverence to the earth because I know people I know there are many who died, killed, buried on the grounds we walk on.

Poetry is not words and letters. It is expressions that come from the soul.

If you know about the Deaf community and seen ASL sign language, the language and expression not just hand movement is a part of who they are. The language among other things is a part of their identity.

As a gay woman and identify as a gay woman, my sexual orientation isn't just biological. I share many experiences other people like me have. I have a unique (to some of us) of expressing our sexuality-our body, our mind, our soul with people we love regardless if its romantic or not.

I am a African American by US terms. Although to others they think its skin color ans history, that is not all that identifies us.

These separate entities makes up WHO we are. In creation, god is creation. Creation and its identities makes up definition or identity of the "creator". God is no more separate than all I mentioned above.

"A part of" is just differentiating that I am Not a poem (words on a page). The poem is an expression of who I am not what I am.

 

[Twilight Hue]

May I ask, how did you come to that conclusion?

Stay silent. Sitting.

When your quiet, God is quiet.