No, The Christian God is, like you say, people's imagined aspect of the One True God (I like that you have trademarked that. LOL)
-
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!
The One True God™
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
It seems to me that some people believe that you only have to want to be led by Jesus Christ (not his real name imo) and he will lead you and guard you. I don't believe that.
His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. Revelation 19:12
I believe that one.
I believe that one.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I was thinking if you take out the "god language" then maybe, not saracastic, I can get your points a bit clearer. If god is "All matter and energy is a manifestation of God", why can we just say god is matter and energy personified? Or just leave out god and say everything is made out of matter and energy and there is no such thing as more than one "nature" of matter and energy?
As for the example, you gave, here is one that is clearer to my point. We have thousands of different nationalities and even more than that cultures in the world. Each culture-the group of people, religion, languages, and lifestyles-are all unique to that culture and cannot be compared to the culture beside it. Yes, we are all humans, we share the need for food, shelter, and bonding. However, these necessities are not what makes up each culture as a unique and diverse unit.
To say in analogy that every culture is part of one cultural unit is depriving that one culture in one part of, say Africa and another in a different part of Africa the unique and diverse difference they have that makes both what they are to themselves as two separate cultures. There are overlaps, given the same country and so forth; but, like in religion, they have their own gods, own foods, language, and own lifestyles based on the environment they live.
It's western thinking to think "everyone should be one" and even if everyone was "one" whose One is these unique cultures part of? Are they one with the christian god? The Muslim god? The pagan god? Your view and definition of god? Or can you have your version, a Pagan, Muslim, and Christian have their versions as well without needing to have manifestations of each view as one view? Yes, we can respect cultural differences but that's totally different than saying how I see god is a manifestation of how you see god. It's somewhat of an insult to some people and to many communities as a whole regardless if its religious in nature.
Here is a nice quote from Reading Between the Signs. I'm studying ASL Interpretation; and, we are learning about Deaf and hearing cultures and how they see each other. We are also looking at how hearing culture wants to make Deaf culture part of hearing culture as if the only difference between the two is the ability to hear. It's a direct mirror of how "western culture" does with cultures:
Yep. God-religions are directly from our minds and how some of us (not all of us and no core foundation of how we all think), but some of us see the world. Pretend that all god-religious believers are gone and only Buddhists exist. Does that mean god will come down and be angry that his believers all died or is he the thoughts, reflections, and so forth from god believers and because there are no believers, there is no god?
Why do we make god independent of ourselves?
On the other hand, why do we make everyone a part of one god?
There isn't an it. That's doing what everyone else is doing by using a pronoun to define an object, person, or place that can be called "god." If energy and matter is a manifestation of god, who or what is god (what is the source of this manifestation?) In some religions, one has to go through the manifestation to get to the source (Jesus, Orishas, Prophets, and so forth).
Can you define the source without referring to its manifestation and title?
As for the example, you gave, here is one that is clearer to my point. We have thousands of different nationalities and even more than that cultures in the world. Each culture-the group of people, religion, languages, and lifestyles-are all unique to that culture and cannot be compared to the culture beside it. Yes, we are all humans, we share the need for food, shelter, and bonding. However, these necessities are not what makes up each culture as a unique and diverse unit.
To say in analogy that every culture is part of one cultural unit is depriving that one culture in one part of, say Africa and another in a different part of Africa the unique and diverse difference they have that makes both what they are to themselves as two separate cultures. There are overlaps, given the same country and so forth; but, like in religion, they have their own gods, own foods, language, and own lifestyles based on the environment they live.
It's western thinking to think "everyone should be one" and even if everyone was "one" whose One is these unique cultures part of? Are they one with the christian god? The Muslim god? The pagan god? Your view and definition of god? Or can you have your version, a Pagan, Muslim, and Christian have their versions as well without needing to have manifestations of each view as one view? Yes, we can respect cultural differences but that's totally different than saying how I see god is a manifestation of how you see god. It's somewhat of an insult to some people and to many communities as a whole regardless if its religious in nature.
Here is a nice quote from Reading Between the Signs. I'm studying ASL Interpretation; and, we are learning about Deaf and hearing cultures and how they see each other. We are also looking at how hearing culture wants to make Deaf culture part of hearing culture as if the only difference between the two is the ability to hear. It's a direct mirror of how "western culture" does with cultures:
"If we can accept the paradox that the real humanity of people is understood through cultural differences rather than cultural similarities then we can make profound sense of our differences. It is possible that there is not one truth, but many; not one real experience, but many realities; not one history, but many different and valid ways of looking at events." ~Jamake Highwater The Primal Mind
Yep. God-religions are directly from our minds and how some of us (not all of us and no core foundation of how we all think), but some of us see the world. Pretend that all god-religious believers are gone and only Buddhists exist. Does that mean god will come down and be angry that his believers all died or is he the thoughts, reflections, and so forth from god believers and because there are no believers, there is no god?
Why do we make god independent of ourselves?
On the other hand, why do we make everyone a part of one god?
There isn't an it. That's doing what everyone else is doing by using a pronoun to define an object, person, or place that can be called "god." If energy and matter is a manifestation of god, who or what is god (what is the source of this manifestation?) In some religions, one has to go through the manifestation to get to the source (Jesus, Orishas, Prophets, and so forth).
Can you define the source without referring to its manifestation and title?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Why does it have to be personified?
Because "God" has less syllables?
But seriously, it's seems that you are stuck on personification when I've already stipulated that God is formless.
Yet their own food still falls under the category of "food", their own language still falls under the category of "word", and their lifestyle still falls under the category of "lifestyle". They are subsets of a whole. Example more supports my opinion rather than diminishing it.
You're missing the point of the thread entirely. I'm in no way claiming that my vision of God is the One True God™. I'm submitting that gods of religions are aspects of a whole, whether you call It God, the Universe, "everything is made out of matter and energy and there is no such thing as more than one "nature" of matter and energy", or whatever. I'm not disqualifying anyone's beliefs ITT.
I don't understand your analogy. Unless you are confusing "god-religious" with "Abrahamic religion". Even so, why would Buddhists remain after humans are extinct?
We?
Again, we? But -I- do because -I- believe we are part of a whole.
Fixed.
For me there is. An no, it's not. I am placing this pronoun on manifestations that are tangible or have been proven or scientifically theorized to exist. "Everyone else" is using a pronoun to describe manifestations intangible manifestations of faith.
Not yet. Can you?
That's a stretch.
Please elaborate.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I was thinking that it would be easier for me to understand what you're saying if we take out the god-language (explaining god by using god-concepts and words) and explain what you actually mean (if this is the case). For example, you said god is a manifestation of energy. To me, that sounds like you are personifying god. You are making something that isn't an it (nor he or she) into something/a noun. You are making something that can't be explained, and trying to explain it by using manifestations of it.
If that be the case, my question is,
Yes, I can. I will explain god not as a manifestation but an actual noun. God is life not a representation, manifestation, nor mirror image of. You say energy and matter are manifestations of god; I disagree. God is the energy and matter because we cannot exist without it. We are energy and matter and created by energy a matter and die (or call ourselves dead) because we have changed from one form of energy and manner to another.
Take out the god-language, and just say "life" and if you want to be technical, say "energy and matter." Life doesn't need to be described in a religious manner nor does it need metaphors to describe it. As a poet, I love to describe different aspects of life (god if you like) but if I'm talking technical, I'd just say what it is.
It's all personal preference. I let the abrahamic people slide because I understand their language, but sometimes god-language blocks understanding what some other people say because it sounds like new age or making something simple into a "matrix like" phenomena.
Yeah, I'm stuck with personification because personifying a formless idea or concept sounds more like poetry. When you make it real, it confuses the mess out of me.
But if you prefer the word god, I kind of understand but you're saying energy and matter is a manifestation of god. With that, unless god is a mirror of energy and matter, what is god?
It's not subsets of a whole. These cultures are distinct. If you called it a whole, then that is calling a Deaf person part of hearing culture all because both have ears, are human, and both have separate cultures under one umbrella-culture. We try to put people in a box; it doesn't work. It's like calling homosexual culture/experience under the same umbrella as the heterosexual culture/experience all because they are under the word sexual orientation. However, they are very distinct cultures (or have very different ways of viewing the world) one as a minority, shared likes, support, orientation, and experiences while the other is so diverse that the only thing they share is that they are all straight.
There are many examples of being distinct regardless if you want to collect us under one label. I have a polytheistic worldview and can't put people all under one label nor can I make one foundation (greater or not) that all people share. Given life is general collective term for convenience (how you use god), there are many different aspects in and of themselves. But these separate things are not a manifestation of one life. They are life as individuals. The differences and distinctions that are not a whole makes up what life is not a reflection of what it manefests.
I never said you did nor are. I said that god is not a manifestation of energy and matter. I said god (if you'd like the term) is energy and matter. God is life itself. Each god-religion is not under one umbrella. They are distinct and unique unto themselves. Using collective nouns makes it easier to speak but if you are using it literally, then that's where I fault in understanding.
You said "Ultimately, humans will become extinct just like practically every other species has. What happens to each god-religion then? Do they simply blink out of existence? What remains after the extinction of the human race. Does the system just fall apart for all remaining species because there is no greater God?"
They simply blink out of existence. If there are only Buddhists left and no one else who believes in god-religions, there would be no god. What remains the earth and everything you see now. If your friend Joe passes away, that doesn't mean everything disappears; in turn, just because you (and the rest of the planet goes), doesn't mean everything disappears. The earth etc is not dependent on the our existence. Life goes on without us. Many religions are made because it is hard to accept the reality of this.
What do you mean by system? Nothing falls a part just because we no longer exist. If everyone but myself died, that doesn't change matter and energy won't exist anymore. When I die, it still exists. A tree still makes a sound when it falls even though we don't hear it. Unless the laws of physics etc cease to work unless we are present to perceive it.
Why does this manifestation of god (or energy and matter) need to be greater?
Why do we as humans either make god independent or separate from ourselves or why do we as humans make everyone a part of one god?
You answered the question only the "manefistation" part is throwing me off. If you said god is energy and matter, then I'd say "I get that. God is life." (though I wouldn't use god). ... but you are saying that this god manifests from something so I'd ask, what is god. If you know where it comes from or what it represents, can you use these things to define what the source and what it represents. (Rethorical question. Periods intentional; I know you said no.)
Now this is confusing. Energy and matter exists without naming it god.
But its your personal preference to use the word god. I was just wondering what god is given it's greater and a manifestation of something and that is foreign to me. Gods, to me, if I used the term, is life. Life is multifaceted. It isn't part of a greater whole. Each individual part makes up a puzzle but that puzzle is an illusion of a "greater goal" because there are still individual pieces regardless of how those pieces are put together to make a picture. While all puzzles in this case are made up of cardboard, the characteristics and shape make it distinctively different. It's not defined by the cardboard, but the characteristics that make it one shape as opposed to another. So, it's not a greater whole.
I personally feel that's an illusion. The puzzle example is the best I can come up with.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Is a thunderstorm the same as the ocean?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Just so, are the Gods distinct.
Technically, yes. There have been thunderstorms seen on Mars, where there is no water.
Actually your post supported my opinion by demonstrating that a thunderstorm is an aspect of the ocean.
You're reaching. If you're going to make a terrestrial argument, then let's stay terrestrial.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
No, a thunderstorm is not an aspect of the ocean.
Not really, and thunderstorms are not limited to Earth. Evidently so. Sorry (not really) that I've shattered a monotheistic outlook.
I think that usually "A thunderstorm" is usually pictured with wind and rain.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
And yet what is "usually pictured" is not always what is.
Of course! Volcanic eruptions sometimes produce lightning in the ash cloud.
While I appreciate the post, I don't believe for a minute that the intent of the Ragin Pagan's post was to compare and contrast dirty thunderstorms, which is a separate phenomenon than traditional thunderstorms. However, these storms do include ice particles, which come from the ocean.
Okey dokey. Then explain where the cloud formations and precipitation come from.
Oh, don't worry, you didn't. Provide evidence of where else thunderstorms exist.
Protip: Lightning =/= Thunderstorm
Nor is what we wish to hold true.