The Word of God

[dfnj]

The language we use to describe God is anthropomorphic, but God is not actually anthropomorphic. We are the most complex things that we know of in the universe, so it makes sense that we'd use ourselves as references to describe something so complex it's beyond comprehension.

And us existing in God's image is simply a poetic way of saying that God gave us intellects and free will, which nothing in the universe has except him.

I think God is the ground of all being. As such, God is perfect, whole, and complete without any needs or desires. Every type of anthropomorphic quality or motive implies God is incomplete or lacking. Since God is absolute perfection I would argue God is beyond anthropomorphic qualities and motives. God needs nothing. God desires nothing. God just exists without judgment or participation.

When it comes to God being described in some anthropomorphic way people are worshiping a lesser god. I prefer the one that is absolute perfection.

 

[izzy88]

You make a lot of very helpful points. The only one I'd disagree with is this:

When it comes to God being described in some anthropomorphic way people are worshiping a lesser god.

That's only true when the people don't understand that the language is metaphorical, and instead they mistakenly take it literally. Simply using anthropomorphic language to talk about God isn't a problem, so long as everybody understands that it's not meant literally.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't know who you've been talking to, but they evidently don't know what they're talking about. God didn't "choose to limit himself" except when he became human in Jesus Christ. Aside from that, God has no limits. The only thing God cannot do is go against his own nature, but that's because it's logically impossible. God committing evil, for example, is impossible simply because God is synonymous with goodness and evil is, by definition, the absence of good - and so the absence of God. And if you have a problem with God being unable to commit logical contradictions, it just means you don't have an accurate understanding of logic.



Much of what's understood about God has been deduced through logical reasoning, and the rest has come from divine revelation (aka. scripture).

As you've demonstrated, though, there are plenty of people who think they know things about God that are actually untrue, illogical, etc. That's the thing about truth: there's only one right answer, so if two people disagree one has to be wrong. How do we know what's right? What's true? Simple: what's true is what's real, what corresponds with reality. Of course, figuring that out is often anything but simple.

Okay, how about making a human claim for once.

O God the stone planet exists without space. It is mass and its owned body.

Because it is without space it is whole. Atmosphere by human awareness takes up space....so a human who thinks upon God in their own human state of being consciousness, then says and So God created...for the gases came from stone and so God then takes up space...for that is what spirit does, the atmosphere.

No human, no God quotes, yet animals would be living without speaking and owning conceptual thoughts, conditioned for thinking on behalf of science.

For the story of our humanity says, original higher superior and spiritual eternal manifested human being males invented science.

The story of spirit said, Garden Nature manifested proving that the eternal spirit is androgynous. Then the males, then females, females left de manifested for memory says so...then most males. The reason science was invented was to have God removed, stone so that you were not longer held to incarnation.

Fact of natural history. Owns no other reason or purpose for why males claiming I know good and am spiritual and innocent and know right from wrong, to have caused an act of evil that they regretted...for they did.

To know means you have to be involved, and if we were originally just an evil being then we would own no concept of evil, we would just be evil.

A concept is a condition of a thought and a study. Humans as spiritual intelligent natural selves think.

What you do not want to believe is that the human spiritual form, is the highest presence in creation, for then you would not be enabled to falsify science against us.

When we are.

God was only ever the stone. Burnt hot stone gases evolved into cold gases.

We are not a cold gas. We are closest in form to water. You would then ask so where did the chemical portion of our life come from, it was because radiation passed through our spirit bodies as we took on water, and converted our eternal spirit into bodies and chemicals...as a contradiction to radiation in burning gas light.

We are the highest spirit. We however were from the Father and Mother who were not the scientist and the scientist factually owns the highest natural spiritual human form/recordings in natural history.

Why you believe in God the scientist.

 

[dfnj]

How does the clockwork of the universe mean there is a god?

Wow! How you came to this question is amazing. I said I think God exists and is the ground of all being. I then made the comment we will always need God to exists. God is a word that represents the mystery of our existence.

In the middle of this statement, I said unless physicists can demonstrate we live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism, meaning our understanding of how nature works is perfect, and the physicists also came up with an explanation of how all the energy and matter in the Universe came into existence in first place, then we would not need the word God. Assuming nothingness existed at some point, the fact that somethingness exists is a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

Now how you took these two ideas and combined into the statement having a clockwork Universe proves the existence of God really strengthens my argument. What you did was completely unpredictable and certainly not within the laws of physics to predict you would have voiced this conclusion.

We can make intelligent assumptions. We always do. Though, I'm a skeptic in life. If there isn't an immediate connection I can see, I observe it first. For example, this coronavirus keep jumping the chart in deaths but we didn't have this big of a reaction with SARS, that I know of (at least remember). And people are panic buying. The connection between that and the nature of the disease I'm at a lost.

But people assume god "must have" but that doesn't mean god di.

I do not believe God has any motives. God is beyond our comprehension and does not think in human terms. If God thought in human terms then it would imply God has limitations. I believe God is perfect, whole, and complete without any needs or desires. Therefore, even though God is the ground of all being, God does not interfere in a conscious way as projected by people pretending to speak or think for God.

How did you connect the two?

I was responding to this statement, "Which is interesting. No one has told me how they know what god thinks, does, acts, wonders, indecisiveness, etc. They talk as if he told them personally just an hour ago. What's up with the language?"

I agree with this statement. No one knows the mind of God. God is beyond our comprehension. God just exists and like nature is completely indifferent to viruses and the death it is causing. It seems to me God never interferes in the affairs of man. If God has a conscious mind and is thinking about the well being of man then it seems to me God is always dropping the ball with short-term unnecessary evil in favor of His long-term plan (which no one knows what it is).

If I believed in god, it would be how Unitarian Universalist see it. The spirit of life and mover/or the moving of all things. Some people say they have a personal relationship with it. I never got that. But if it's love (well, I'd say freedom and creativity not love), it should be equal and lived through all people.

I've changed my way of thinking about God over the last year. I like taking into account Apophatic theology:

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

I think God is not a thing but an experience. God is absolute perfection. When we experience greatness in ourselves and in others we experience a tiny sliver that is the perfection of God. I organize my life in pursing experiences of greatness. Not at the expense of other which not greatness. But just greatness in ideas, expressions of ideas, nature, sport performance, relationships, whatever. It just feels like when I experience greatness it means something much bigger than my mundane life although I can't quite pin in down perfectly with words.

I agree. Authoritativeness creates division. It should be equal.

If you see the Buddha on the road kill him!

I believe absolute authority comes from within. Anyone who tells you differently is either trying to sell you something or get you to join the power structure of their cult.

"God cannot go against his own nature" is a limitation. God is god. He can do anything.

This is the nature of the word omnipotence. Omnipotence means without limitations. So there's a little cloud algebra going on here where 1 + 1 = 1. By being omnipotent, God is not subject to the laws of logic or the laws of physics. So God can be in all places at once. God could be both male and female at the same time. Now you might argue then God is not a thing. And I would say "yes", that is what I have been saying all along. God is not a object in reality like the way you and I would a share an experience of an "apple" resting on my palm.

Do you know everything about god?
The rest I don't understand. How do you know the nature of god?

The purpose of religion is to answer the four great existential questions about our lives:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die.
In some ways these questions are unanswerable questions. So people invent religions so they can pretend they have concrete answers to these uncomfortable questions.

I am no different. I am no better. No, I do not know everything about God. I don't directly know God's nature. I make some assumptions about God. And based on those assumptions I draw conclusions about the nature of God.

I'd say god is a mystery. Scripture, Dharma, so have you tries to understand god via it's authors experiences, etc. That's fine. I think believers in the former tend to depend more on scripture than their own experiences.

I am not saying God is a mystery. I am saying the word God is used to represent the mystery of us not knowing how energy and matter came into existence in the first place. God is not an object. God is not a thing.

God confirms the bible not the bible confirms god.

The Bible was written by men.

There are plenty of people me, you, and every other person who has some interpretation of god. There is no right answer.

Each of us having a different interpretation is the nature of human language. Each person has their own dogma or belief system. Each belief system is built on a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. And based on these assumptions each person will make statements in language that perfectly align with these assumptions. It's the way language works. If someone does not share in closely the same set of assumptions then things they say you will think are insane.

For example, I choose to have faith in an omnipotent God of unconditional love. Unconditional means no conditions. So I believe when people die they go into the light without judgment. When you go into the light you experience God's infinite beauty. This is our last experience as our soul melts back into God. I do not believe in a God of judgment. I choose to believe in a God of unconditional love who allows everyone to enter the gates of Heaven to experience eternal bliss regardless of our Earthly sins or how we practice or not practiced our religion. Everyone is saved. Everyone gets to experience eternal bliss.

So you can imagine there are many people who think I am insane. This is because they do not share the same assumptions I do or they do not choose to have faith in God the way I do.

Assuming there is one is highly political (one king, one race, one president, one spouse, etc..). It's not the truth in a diverse world. That's just how people see it to control the masses.

I choose to have faith in an omnipotent God of unconditional love. This has implications. The idea God is "Lord" and the people who worship God are obedient slaves is offensive to me. I just do not believe an omnipotent God of unconditional love would have any need or desire to be worship by subjects. Men, on the hand, pretending to be God on Earth very much desire to be worshiped as if they were the one true God on Earth. Yes, I agree, it is used to control the masses of knee bending fearful sheeple who have very little trust in their own inner authority on matters of spirituality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

Wow! How you came to this question is amazing. I said I think God exists and is the ground of all being. I then made the comment we will always need God to exists. God is a word that represents the mystery of our existence.

I understand the mystery. I don't see the inherent necessity to call it god. Probably because I haven't really thought about the mystery of our existence. If it's too complicated to know or I won't get an benefit of searching for something that's by definition a mystery, I won't give it any attention. What would happen to people if they didn't have "god" in their lives and accept what they don't know?

In the middle of this statement, I said unless physicists can demonstrate we live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism, meaning our understanding of how nature works is perfect, and the physicists also came up with an explanation....

Thanks. We really don't need god to accept what we don't understand without labeling it. (Assuming that by labeling, means you have a lot of traditions, questions, and language that goes with it rather than just the word)

If scientist do figure out the nature of the universe, than I'd consider that god just the same. If we appreciate, grateful, and see nature and all physical universe, mundane, seen, as "god", we'd connect with it better. In other words, if god is actually personal rather than just mystical, by knowing the workings of the universe, we know more about god.

Now how you took these two ideas and combined into the statement having a clockwork Universe proves the existence of God really strengthens my argument.

That last part threw me off. I think I addressed this confusion above?

I do not believe God has any motives. God is beyond our comprehension and does not think in human terms. If God thought in human terms then it would imply God has limitations.

Deism? If god is just a mystery, how would you know god is perfect and whole?

Can we say a mystery is a mystery without attributes to describe it?

I agree with this statement. No one knows the mind of God. God is beyond our comprehension. God just exists and like nature is completely indifferent to viruses and the death it is causing. It seems to me God never interferes in the affairs of man.

Even though you don't see god as a person, it seems you're still giving characteristics to it-what it is and what it is not. If god is a mystery without authoritative attributes, we can just say "it just is."

I've changed my way of thinking about God over the last year. I like taking into account Apophatic theology:

I had to look up a different source. I don't know too much about these types of thinking. Does this sound right?

-In negative theology, it is maintained that we can never truly define God in words. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we will inevitably fall short.

I think the reason people know god (their interpretation of it), from a believes view, is to build a relationship with the mystery. It's a way to understand what they don't know in terms of what they know.

Either way is none the better.

I think God is not a thing but an experience. God is absolute perfection. When we experience greatness in ourselves and in others we experience a tiny sliver that is the perfection of God. I organize my life in pursing experiences of greatness. Not at the expense of other which not greatness.

I usually say god is an experience. When people talk about god regardless their worldview, it always comes back to their experiences.

There's a UU sermon I watch every sunday morning. The minister talked about god in more mundane terms (UU isn't christian). In other words, terms that even atheists can understand it. Without much of the mysteries, he says that god is the whole of the physical universe. What keeps the universe going, the energy of everything. He latter says what word would we go to if we had no where else to turn? What feeling would you want when you're at the end of your rope? What would it take for you to heal?

His god is justice and love. Mine is creativity and freedom. Yours is greatness and perfection.

We call out to these things when (from the sermon) we have no where else to go. This experience and expression thereof is, god.

That's the closest I can understand it. So, I can see greatness and perfection as god though it still assumes god is or has something. Negative theology is quite the opposite, no?

If you see the Buddha on the road kill him!

I believe absolute authority comes from within. Anyone who tells you differently is either trying to sell you something or get you to join the power structure of their cult.

Eh. I see benefits in both sides. I'm more of a freedom type but I've practiced with authority. I guess it depends on the person. I saw nothing negative in authority helping with a person in faith. A cult? That's powerful.

This is the nature of the word omnipotence. Omnipotence means without limitations. So there's a little cloud algebra going on here where 1 + 1 = 1. By being omnipotent, God is not subject to the laws of logic or the laws of physics. So God can be in all places at once. God could be both male and female at the same time.

Wouldn't the theology you relate to assume that god can't be described in what he is but what he is not?

"Negative Theology is to gain a glimpse of God (divinity) by articulating what God is not (apophasis), rather than by describing what God is." https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Negative_Theology_(Apophatic_Theology) Another interesting clear way to explain it for me.

For me, if I used the word god, I'd say it is not a Mystery and Not bigger than oneself. We don't need to go into a meditative practice to experience it. We don't need mystics to make it more grand than what it is. It's like finding out who you are-your values, vision, mission, ethics, beliefs, etc and living them. When one is one by living these things, they are living god.

I like this by Rainer Maria Wilke:

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

If you've never read Letters to a Young Poet, it's a great book. One of my spiritual outlets.

The purpose of religion is to answer the four great existential questions about our lives:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die.
In some ways these questions are unanswerable questions. So people invent religions so they can pretend they have concrete answers to these uncomfortable questions.

Pretty much.

I am no different. I am no better. No, I do not know everything about God. I don't directly know God's nature. I make some assumptions about God. And based on those assumptions I draw conclusions about the nature of God.

Wouldn't negative theology assume that the opposite of that method? Drawing conclusions of the nature of god would probably be positive theology.

In what way do you believe in Apophatic Theology?

I am not saying God is a mystery. I am saying the word God is used to represent the mystery of us not knowing how energy and matter came into existence in the first place. God is not an object. God is not a thing.

Oh. Rats. I spoke to soon. Too late to go back.

You can replace this definition with Mystery as an isolated noun or object. The idea functions basically the same way of not knowing whether it be of life itself or part of you that brings you into being.

The Bible was written by men.

Inspired by god?

Each of us having a different interpretation is the nature of human language. Each person has their own dogma or belief system. Each belief system is built on a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. .

For example, I choose to have faith in an omnipotent God of unconditional love. Unconditional means no conditions. So I believe when people die they go into the light without judgment.

I'm not following your first half with this half. I kind of get the first have of your post. Unconditional love-maybe that's like my creativity and freedom, and another justice, and another healing?

Now that I think of it, look up Unitarian Universalist view of god. These are the different interpretations of god

Unitarian Universalist Views of God
Unitarian Universalist Kids Say: God Is...

Maybe apophatic theology isn't a good comparison??

So you can imagine there are many people who think I am insane. This is because they do not share the same assumptions I do or they do not choose to have faith in God the way I do.

If I choose between your view and the average christian, I'd say their view is insane. Only because I can't imagine judgement, resurrections, and depravity of sin in real life. It's not in my concept in reality. I understand the different concepts of god from a mystic perspective since experiences are subjective. But judgement? Resurrection? etc... They got me.

I choose to have faith in an omnipotent God of unconditional love. This has implications. The idea God is "Lord" and the people who worship God are obedient slaves is offensive to me.

I agree with that view. That's one of the biggest things that turned me off of the god "bigger than oneself." Submission has never been my thing.

 

[rational experiences]

Human reality, to state human purpose.

God can never be human purpose.

Reason. How long have I been in creation?

The real human teachings for 100 years only.

We were only ever visiting.

A very simple human explanation. If all humans said to self, I no longer want this experience. They would all have to agree to stop having sex. Allow life to age and all die.

That would be the end of all stories.

Rationally why would a human seek what conditions they never belonged to as a human?

If you live and claim that I need to be a human world community family, then make correct choices to be that family without the need to claim anything other than each self is purposeful, a born life equal and should be treated with the same respect that you expect for your own self.

 

[Thief]

In one dimension it holds. In another dimension Trump is president and everything is chaos. God has not limitations. There are plenty of space-time dimensions and alternate realities for God to be whatever you claim Him to be. Once you include the attribute "omnipotent" all the laws of logic and physics get thrown out the window.

I suspect.....one reality

universe

one word

 

[Ponder This]

If there is no tree, there is no sound. If there is no sound, why would we assume there is a tree?

What is a tree?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is a tree?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

You'd have to tell me. I just asked can god exist without his words.

 

[dfnj]

You make a lot of very helpful points. The only one I'd disagree with is this:
That's only true when the people don't understand that the language is metaphorical, and instead they mistakenly take it literally. Simply using anthropomorphic language to talk about God isn't a problem, so long as everybody understands that it's not meant literally.

Am I supposed to read this literally or metaphorical for any type of language?

 

[izzy88]

Am I supposed to read this literally or metaphorical for any type of language?

Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[dfnj]

I understand the mystery. I don't see the inherent necessity to call it god. Probably because I haven't really thought about the mystery of our existence. If it's too complicated to know or I won't get an benefit of searching for something that's by definition a mystery, I won't give it any attention. What would happen to people if they didn't have "god" in their lives and accept what they don't know?

I did not say God was a mystery. You are laboring hard for no reason.

Thanks. We really don't need god to accept what we don't understand without labeling it. (Assuming that by labeling, means you have a lot of traditions, questions, and language that goes with it rather than just the word)

If you say God doesn't exist for you then I believe you.

If scientist do figure out the nature of the universe, than I'd consider that god just the same. If we appreciate, grateful, and see nature and all physical universe, mundane, seen, as "god", we'd connect with it better. In other words, if god is actually personal rather than just mystical, by knowing the workings of the universe, we know more about god.

Everything we know occurs within a well defined context. What I am talking about is speculation of what exists outside the box of your closed mindedness. I'm not saying anything I am saying is absolute truth. If I hold up and apple in my hand and we both look at it, and I say "apple" I think you and I can at least agree on the idea apples exist.

I am not trying to sell you anything. My belief in God is choice not based on any reasons. If it were based on reasons it would be a decision. I choose to believe in God in spite of the lack of evidence of the apple in the palm experience. Again, I am okay with your choice. I am not trying to sell you anything.

Deism? If god is just a mystery, how would you know god is perfect and whole?

Ideas are like song in music. You have resonate with an idea over time until it because a familiar song. Lately I've been resonating with the ideas of Apophatic theology:

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

I really like this quote from the wiki page:

"Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God"

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only"

"[t]hat which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions – our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown.[49]"

Can we say a mystery is a mystery without attributes to describe it?

I think of God as the ground of all being. The ultimate source of existence but purely from a Unity of opposites way of thinking:

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

Up has no meaning without Down. Our existence doesn't have any meaning without God as its ground of being. Objects in reality are the words of God. The laws of physics are the breath of God. You need the trinity of all three for the language of reality to have any subjective meaning.

 

[dfnj]

Even though you don't see god as a person, it seems you're still giving characteristics to it-what it is and what it is not. If god is a mystery without authoritative attributes, we can just say "it just is."

Yes, I agree, God just exists without purpose. Many people worship a lesser god of judgment because they have been trained to be obedient to a single authority or king. The king is pretending to be God in order to rule his subjects effectively. Here's list of all the people over the centuries who have claimed to be God almighty walking the Earth or at least not an imperfect human:

List of people who have been considered deities - Wikipedia

I had to look up a different source. I don't know too much about these types of thinking. Does this sound right?
-In negative theology, it is maintained that we can never truly define God in words. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we will inevitably fall short.
I think the reason people know god (their interpretation of it), from a believes view, is to build a relationship with the mystery. It's a way to understand what they don't know in terms of what they know.
Either way is none the better.
I usually say god is an experience. When people talk about god regardless their worldview, it always comes back to their experiences.

I don't agree. The word God is a representation for a type of experience. God is not the old man with a beard passing judgment on human beings for having imperfections he created them with. I believe more in a transcendent God just as much as the one we can experience with immanence of God. It's more than just deism because I believe God is a type of experience we have in the present.

This video has really changed my way of thinking about God. I was probably more into Taoism and Zen Buddhism for many years. But Sheldrake's way of thinking about God has warmed me up to a more Western way of thinking about God. I'm not ready to join club-Jesus but I do like his ideas. The questions people ask at the end are really good:

And this one:

There's a UU sermon I watch every sunday morning. The minister talked about god in more mundane terms (UU isn't christian). In other words, terms that even atheists can understand it. Without much of the mysteries, he says that god is the whole of the physical universe. What keeps the universe going, the energy of everything. He latter says what word would we go to if we had no where else to turn? What feeling would you want when you're at the end of your rope? What would it take for you to heal?

Lately I've been reading a lot of about Panpsychism. There are different levels to which people believe in Panpsychism. Some extreme views on Panpsychism hold the view God is the source of all our thoughts. Absolute authority comes from within. But what happens is we misinterpret what God is telling us from within based on our character flaws and imperfections.

Panpsychism - Wikipedia

https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-...ian-Conception-ebook/dp/B008SQL6NS/ref=sr_1_1

His god is justice and love. Mine is creativity and freedom. Yours is greatness and perfection.

My God cannot be describe as "is [this]". My point is our experiences or feeling of greatness brings us closer to what the experience of the absolute perfection of God would be like. I'm not worshiping a god of perfection as in a god of war.

For me, if I used the word god, I'd say it is not a Mystery and Not bigger than oneself. We don't need to go into a meditative practice to experience it. We don't need mystics to make it more grand than what it is. It's like finding out who you are-your values, vision, mission, ethics, beliefs, etc and living them. When one is one by living these things, they are living god.
Wouldn't negative theology assume that the opposite of that method? Drawing conclusions of the nature of god would probably be positive theology.
In what way do you believe in Apophatic Theology?

I think of God as a transcendent presence existing beyond my mind but participating in it.

You can replace this definition with Mystery as an isolated noun or object. The idea functions basically the same way of not knowing whether it be of life itself or part of you that brings you into being.

You are really focusing on the idea of the mystery of existence. I didn't mean anything more than "first cause".

Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

I've heard many atheists over the years have such a diversion to the word God they make the argument the idea of First Cause has no meaning. This is because non-existence has never been proven to have ever existed. The argument being there is no evidence nothingness ever existed. Since somethingness exists, somethingness has always existed. It's a really strong argument but leaves me feeling it's somehow a bit contrived as is just a feature of language like a self-referential statement. Something like the next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false type chain of semantics. However, I am a big fan of self-referential thought and strange loops of semantics. I really like idea our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

Now that I think of it, look up Unitarian Universalist view of god. These are the different interpretations of god
Unitarian Universalist Views of God
Unitarian Universalist Kids Say: God Is...
Maybe apophatic theology isn't a good comparison??

I'm a Trinitarian. Again, without a Unity of opposites none of our thoughts would have any meaning.

If I choose between your view and the average christian, I'd say their view is insane. Only because I can't imagine judgement, resurrections, and depravity of sin in real life. It's not in my concept in reality. I understand the different concepts of god from a mystic perspective since experiences are subjective. But judgement? Resurrection? etc... They got me.

My favorite thing to say to people who treat Jesus like an idol is if Jesus rose from the dead then he did not really die in the first place. Jesus did not really die for our sins because you can't kill God. So no harm no foul! But I don't think they like me when I say this. One time I really pissed off a born-again "biblicist" whatever that means and the guy started talking about eternal damnation and where my soul was going to go when I died. I replied back by saying, "How bad can it be it can't be worse than living in New Jersey!" The guy did not crack a smile. His lips were as tight as a drum. I then said to him, "I can't listen to anyone a pulpit tell me their opinions about God. I believe absolute authority comes from within." He said, "Who told you that?" I had an epiphany moment and realized there is nothing I am ever going to say that would ever get this guy to think for himself. So I became bored talking with him.

I agree with that view. That's one of the biggest things that turned me off of the god "bigger than oneself." Submission has never been my thing.

A god who requires us to fear him is not worth worshiping. But some people believe subjugation is our "natural state":

"[to crowd] Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."

You can choose to be a follower. Or you can choose to author your own religion. Base on your answers and your posts I don't think you are a follower.

 

[dfnj]

I suspect.....one reality

universe

one word

You need to expand your mind outside the square box of your close mindedness.

Multiverse - Wikipedia

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What is a tree?

Odd. Most 2 year olds know what a tree is.

 

[Thief]

You need to expand your mind outside the square box of your close mindedness.

Multiverse - Wikipedia

mmmmm...……..no

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Everything we know occurs within a well defined context. What I am talking about is speculation of what exists outside the box of your closed mindedness.

I did have interest in reading your post, but stopped here. I'm usually philosophical and usually talk about my own point of view rather than put my view in others mouths (and that's my wording).

Oh well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When I usually talk about what I believe, that's pretty much what I mean directly and indirectly. It's not meant to challenge what you (and others) believe unless I asked a direct question or without an " I " to express it.

Yes, I agree, God just exists without purpose. Many people worship a lesser god of judgment because they have been trained to be obedient to a single authority or king. The king is pretending to be God in order to rule his subjects effectively. Here's list of all the people over the centuries who have claimed to be God almighty walking the Earth or at least not an imperfect human:

I don't agree. The word God is a representation for a type of experience. God is not the old man with a beard passing judgment on human beings for having imperfections he created them with. I believe more in a transcendent God just as much as the one we can experience with immanence of God. It's more than just deism because I believe God is a type of experience we have in the present.

I'm not understanding. I mentioned god is an experience and you've mentioned a type of experience we have the present.

What is the difference between the two given your disagreement?

This video has really changed my way of thinking about God. I was probably more into Taoism and Zen Buddhism for many years. But Sheldrake's way of thinking about God has warmed me up to a more Western way of thinking about God. I'm not ready to join club-Jesus but I do like his ideas. The questions people ask at the end are really good:

I didn't realize the videos were over an hour long. I'd have to watch them later.

Can you sum it up?

Lately I've been reading a lot of about Panpsychism. There are different levels to which people believe in Panpsychism. Some extreme views on Panpsychism hold the view God is the source of all our thoughts. Absolute authority comes from within. But what happens is we misinterpret what God is telling us from within based on our character flaws and imperfections.

Is this a good summary of panpsychism: the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. ?

Panpsychism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

or

"the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness."

I'm not familiar with individual consciousness. The word is too mystic for me to comprehend. If it can't be described in mundane words, it's highly interpretative and depends on the person to provide the definition (and I mean this in a general sense rather than at you specifically).

Why do we need to see ourselves in the eyes of character flaws and imperfections?

Instead of misinterpretation, can we just receive what god tells us and however we express it has less to do with flaws in our character but blessings in our character and lessons we learn from external actions?

For example, if I murdered someone, that's not a flaw in my character. I'm perfect and blessed in and of itself. I just made a screwed up decision to end someone's life. Legal consequences aside, it's still a learning experience and I can take my mistake as an external decision or make it a character flaw. To me, making a character flaw as a cause for action is belittling the heart of human nature. That, or depriving it of its perfection because we don't see ourselves in the way we hope to.

My God cannot be describe as "is [this]". My point is our experiences or feeling of greatness brings us closer to what the experience of the absolute perfection of God would be like. I'm not worshiping a god of perfection as in a god of war.

What is an "absolute perfection" of god? That end result?

It's just English the English language. I know god for you (and I'm just reinterpreting what I read not putting words in your mouth) isn't a thing or person. I'd have to treat it as a noun in order to talk about it whether it be a experience, a result of that experience, an idea, or deity.

I think of God as a transcendent presence existing beyond my mind but participating in it.

Can you describe this?

If it can't be described, how do you know this transcendent presence?
If you can describe it, can you do so in a less mystic way while keeping its nature?

You are really focusing on the idea of the mystery of existence. I didn't mean anything more than "first cause".

I use mystery in one interpretation because we describe there is a first cause, based on our links, but then can't describe what that first cause is (the nature of it's "being" I guess one can say).

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/First_Cause

This was a bit easier for me to read. I'm more for there is no first cause but everything is based on cause and affect. Since nothing disappears and nothing comes out of thin air, everything in one form or another has always existed. They form, change, etc long before and after humans are here, but never disappear.

What's the significance of a first cause?
Why is it needed?

I've heard many atheists over the years have such a diversion to the word God they make the argument the idea of First Cause has no meaning. This is because non-existence has never been proven to have ever existed. The argument being there is no evidence nothingness ever existed. Since somethingness exists, somethingness has always existed. It's a really strong argument but leaves me feeling it's somehow a bit contrived as is just a feature of language like a self-referential statement. Something like the next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false type chain of semantics. However, I am a big fan of self-referential thought and strange loops of semantics. I really like idea our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

I'd personally see there is a meaning for people who believe in it. In and of itself, I'm not sure. I see life as one big motion and change without need for a noun/cause to start it in motion. As for describing that motion, I'm not sure.

I'm a Trinitarian. Again, without a Unity of opposites none of our thoughts would have any meaning.

Trinitarian in what sense?

I'm confused. If your view of god is transcendence and trinitarian views are either deity oriented or "someone" that does something, how do they relate?

My favorite thing to say to people who treat Jesus like an idol is if Jesus rose from the dead then he did not really die in the first place. Jesus did not really die for our sins because you can't kill God. So no harm no foul! But I don't think they like me when I say this. One time I really pissed off a born-again "biblicist" whatever that means and the guy started talking about eternal damnation and where my soul was going to go when I died. I replied back by saying, "How bad can it be it can't be worse than living in New Jersey!" The guy did not crack a smile. His lips were as tight as a drum. I then said to him, "I can't listen to anyone a pulpit tell me their opinions about God. I believe absolute authority comes from within." He said, "Who told you that?" I had an epiphany moment and realized there is nothing I am ever going to say that would ever get this guy to think for himself. So I became bored talking with him.

I guess every other has their interpretation of jesus.

"[to crowd] Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."

I've never had that experience in christianity when I practiced. We usually knelled down because we wanted to not because we had to. (Meaning in my experience not that you're indirectly wrong)

You can choose to be a follower. Or you can choose to author your own religion. Base on your answers and your posts I don't think you are a follower.

I'm not, you're right. I wasn't raised and deeply influenced by christianity; so, most of what I read on RF is educational. I learned a lot about people's different concepts of the abrahamic god. Some I respect, others, well....

Does that matter, though?

 

[dfnj]

I did have interest in reading your post, but stopped here. I'm usually philosophical and usually talk about my own point of view rather than put my view in others mouths (and that's my wording).

Oh well.

Yeah, it is sad how you are.

 

[dfnj]

I didn't realize the videos were over an hour long. I'd have to watch them later.

God is not an old man with a white beard who judges people after we die.