Sneaky Stealth Thread About God Posing as Yet Another Political Thread....

[Sunstone]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

I think it's nonsense, personally. I think it's an attempt to slap the label "God" on something that doesn't apply in order to keep theism relevant.

 

[Kirran]

Trump is going to save America and all will be fantastic. OK, that nod to politics out of the way, yes, it does make sense to me. As I understand things, all phenomena are impermanent and subjective. Only the observing non-dual universal consciousness within which these phenomena rise and fall is real. That is God in his true nature as the indescribable and ineffable witness. Everything else is pictures on that canvas. And all the pictures are the canvas, there's only God!

Now, if you read that a couple times it'll hopefully start to make sense.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How positively deceitful of you!

As an animist, I will assert that there is nothing that is supernatural: even if we don't currently understand it, it's all natural...at least until demonstrated otherwise....

Any deities or spirits or "entities" are kin who also exist in this universe...whatever it is...I really can't comprehend something as vast and varied as what appears to be "our" universe, so even if it is a deity, I find it somewhat silly to assert anything about it beyond what our senses and science can show--which clearly is not enough to understand it. So, I wouldn't call "the ground upon which all beings exist" a or the God.

 

[Skwim]

I

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

Without having read the source piece above and trying to recall as much as I can about the guy, I think Tillich became extremely disenchanted with the Christian god and all its attendant problems, and looked for a safer, more rational (in his mind anyway) god. A deity with such a nebulous character that little fault could be found with it. An entity whose truth of existence, lacking any evidence or convincing argument, comes down to, "Because that's the way I see it."

If I'm wrong here I welcome any enlightenment at hand.

.


.

 

[Kemosloby]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

Well I have been reading that Christ is the stone that was "hewed out of the mountain", hewed meaning chiseled out of. So I'm thinking God is the mountain, Christ The Son is the stone or chip off the old block, And us people are as sand in the sea.

 

[Quintessence]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

Of course it does. Recognizing gods need not be supernatural is par for the course outside of classical monotheism. The idea of the gods being something apart from nature is something particular to classical monotheism, where they see a separation between "creator" and "creation." This was not the case in historical polytheisms. That said, I'm not sure those theologies would frame things as "the ground upon which all beings exist" as that still implies a separation. It's more like the gods are the things that exist. As an example, the goddess Eos is the dawn, and unless you believe the dawn is "supernatural" somehow, Eos isn't supernatural.

Also, shame on you for putting this thread in the wrong forum.

 

[LuisDantas]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

It makes sense in its own terms. It is an appeal for the belief in a Creator God, and perhaps a lampshade that such an entity is not what is traditionaly understood by "God" and in fact fulfills a distinct purpose - arguably a non-religious one.

 

[Kirran]

It makes sense in its own terms. It is an appeal for the belief in a Creator God, and perhaps a lampshade that such an entity is not what is traditionaly understood by "God" and in fact fulfills a distinct purpose - arguably a non-religious one.

What would you say makes a purpose religious?

 

[YmirGF]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

Given that the statement can neither be proven nor disproven one wonders why he would even bother to mention it. To heck with proof, actually, it's not like he can even generate any kind of meaningful evidence on which to base his claim.

 

[George-ananda]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

It makes perfect sense to me and a very well said quote. It sounds like Advaita Hinduism or non-dualism (God and creation are not-two). God/Brahman is not a separate entity as in Abrahamic and dualistic beliefs. God/Brahman is pure Consciousness and the universe is all a thought within God/Brahman (or as Tillich put it, the ground of all existence).

And thanks for getting us on track gain. I'm burned out on Trump/Clinton.

 

[Brickjectivity]

He's saying people are mixed being and non-being. It is analogous to an imperfect person seeking perfection. He takes it further, suggesting its a matter of existence. That is actually not new thinking, although he may be reinventing the wheel with his own semantics. The concept of becoming more real is present in Christian thought, and I think this man may be subconsciously borrowing the idea from his alma mater.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would you say makes a purpose religious?

In a nutshell, applicability for moral and social reflection.

Religion is supposed to have practical significance. Perhaps counter-intuitively for some, a Creator God lacks such. Both the entity itself and the belief in same.

I suppose one could argue that some people feel that belief to be somehow very significant - a necessary answer, perhaps.

I strongly disagree. The case has been made, and quite often and emphatically at that - but ultimately it is IMO just a deviation from proper religious doctrine.

 

[Kemosloby]

In a nutshell, applicability for moral and social reflection.

Religion is supposed to have practical significance. Perhaps counter-intuitively for some, a Creator God lacks such. Both the entity itself and the belief in same.

I suppose one could argue that some people feel that belief to be somehow very significant - a necessary answer, perhaps.

I strongly disagree. The case has been made, and quite often and emphatically at that - but ultimately it is IMO just a deviation from proper religious doctrine.

The practical significance of Christian religion is to gain everlasting life. So in a nutshell, you don't get paid until the next life. But the pay is good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only the observing non-dual universal consciousness within which these phenomena rise and fall is real. That is God in his true nature as the indescribable and ineffable witness.

- what makes you think there's a "universal consciousness"?
- what makes this "universal consciousness" God?

 

[sun rise]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

First we should note that God has a plan to deal with the current political disaster and leave it to others to speculate about how and when.

To the misleading OP, to me God is both immanent and transcendent but not separate in a dualistic sense.

 

[idav]

Now that I've got your attention by posting this sneaky stealth thread under the false flag of "North American Politics", what do you make of Paul Tillich's notion that "God is not a supernatural entity among other entities. Instead, God is the ground upon which all beings exist."? Does it make any sense to you? Why or why not?

Yes. A question you can ask is if existing is a miracle, whatever the answer I think life, procreation, is the closest to showing something from nothing.

 

[LuisDantas]

The practical significance of Christian religion is to gain everlasting life. So in a nutshell, you don't get paid until the next life. But the pay is good.

Sorry. Far as I am concerned, that means that according to you Christianity is neither a religion nor particularly worth pursuing even on its own terms.

 

[Kirran]

In a nutshell, applicability for moral and social reflection.

Religion is supposed to have practical significance. Perhaps counter-intuitively for some, a Creator God lacks such. Both the entity itself and the belief in same.

I suppose one could argue that some people feel that belief to be somehow very significant - a necessary answer, perhaps.

I strongly disagree. The case has been made, and quite often and emphatically at that - but ultimately it is IMO just a deviation from proper religious doctrine.

Interesting! I thought you'd say something along the lines of a religion's practical use. There is of course no agreeing or disagreeing with you, religion is a slippery term and is largely what we make of it. I tend to use it more along the lines of 'spirituality' than 'dogmatic organisation' but if one uses it in the latter sense then certainly it's not referring to something particularly conducive to our progression as a global society.

In my own faith, experience rather trumps belief.

As for Creator Gods, you are referring to the more vacuous forms of the Abrahamic faiths, so I can't comment!

 

[LuisDantas]

As for Creator Gods, you are referring to the more vacuous forms of the Abrahamic faiths, so I can't comment!

Do you often feel that we spend too much time debating the exact meanings of words that can't help but be interpreted in deeply personal terms anyway?