Why call the great mystery 'God'?

[JoStories]

Why call the great mystery 'God'?
I'm not sure who refers to any mystery as God, except maybe those who don;t know or understand the true God of the universe. In fact the Bible refers to mystery in 1 Cor., No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God--his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began. And also when talking about the parables of Jesus, I use parables to teach the others so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled: 'When they look, they won't really see. When they hear, they won't understand.' There is no mystery about God or His creation, He says that if we search with our whole hearts, we will find Him. And He will give us wisdom and understanding if we only ask! His mystery of our salvation has been revealed in his Words to us.

ronandcarol

Yet the question remains of how you know that this God, as you call it, is a "He". There was female deities long before any faith had a male deity. Were they all wrong and how do you know they were? Are you basing this arbitrary concept on a book written by men because I can quote many sacred texts that would challenge what you believe. Furthermore, your quote is that of Paul, a man who never knew Christ, unless we are supposed to believe his hallucination and the rest of the diatribes he writes of with regard to women and so on. His works are often in direct opposition to what Christ wrote. How do you qualify that?

 

[JoStories]

There's a G-d. He tells people what to do. A lot of people mess up a lot. Some don't. The end.

How so? Is your view of G-d (in honor of your view) any different than my view based on Buddhism? And if it is different, why is it different? Neither of us can prove the concept either way as its all based on belief. What makes your's any different or better than mine?

 

[JoStories]

So here's what the Dao De Jing is about:
it's more of a book of meditations and reflections
The end.

How is that different from your sacred text? Is it not a book that you meditate in the form of prayer and that you reflect upon through intense study? How does that make it any better or worse? Whether you want to admit it or not, both books are books of reflection and thought. Neither can be proven right or wrong or more correct than the other.

 

[Tumah]

How so? Is your view of G-d (in honor of your view) any different than my view based on Buddhism? And if it is different, why is it different? Neither of us can prove the concept either way as its all based on belief. What makes your's any different or better than mine?

I think you should read the context in which that statement was made.

 

[Tumah]

How is that different from your sacred text? Is it not a book that you meditate in the form of prayer and that you reflect upon through intense study? How does that make it any better or worse? Whether you want to admit it or not, both books are books of reflection and thought. Neither can be proven right or wrong or more correct than the other.

That is not the discussion of this thread and you are missing the point. You should go back to the OP and start the train of posts again.

 

[Lyndon]

I am pleasantly surprised that I am not the only one that thinks the True God, and the Tao might be similar or the same thing.

 

[Kueid]

You inferred that you knew what the OP means by ''great mystery''? /I don't

I have an idea of what the OP mean by "great mystery" as much as of what you mean by "knew". /I do

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I really don't know much of anything about Taoism, but the sense of awe is a response like any other emotion, not God Himself.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I really don't know much of anything about Taoism, but the sense of awe is a response like any other emotion, not God Himself.

Yes, there is the sense of awe, then there are beliefs about something "behind" or "beyond" the natural world. The two things are often conflated, but are in fact quite separate.

 

[Desert Snake]

..............................

I have an idea of what the OP mean by "great mystery" as much as of what you mean by "knew". /I do

Ok, so it is totally contextual to a specific dialogue, and agreement to what is meant by 'god'. That is hardly 'mutual understanding', without other explanations/specifics.

good day.

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps, but the act of naming does seem to result in mental baggage, beliefs and assumptions.

Always. Even for other things. Anything we name carries baggage, but we don't stop because of it. Language is vague and inexact. It's very informal. It gives us directions and ideas, but never full pictures of anything. Talking about things and naming them is not a matter of mathematical precision, but rather a painting of a landscape. We use words like God, mystery, magic, Tao, only to show the way to where we're going with our thoughts. Maybe that's why Tao was chosen because it means "way"? What's interesting is that the word "God" isn't in the Bible or Quran. It's a Germanic word most likely, and it has the same root as good (gott). Perhaps it comes from Goth, which was a name of a group of people, not a word of a deity. Places like Gottland and Götaland in Sweden stems from the same (if I understand it right). So what's in a name? God means Goth? Or God means what we make it to mean? Do all people use the word "God" the same way and mean the same thing? Don't think so. That's something I learned as a Christian (which I'm not anymore), that we all have different ideas of what we think of God. The same goes for the mystery of existence. We don't think of it the same way. We don't have the same images. Words and names only give hints to what we think.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Right.

Okay. Earlier, you said that 'With G-d, everything is possible.' That sounds like you are saying something about God to me.

 

[Tumah]

Okay. Earlier, you said that 'With G-d, everything is possible.' That sounds like you are saying something about God to me.

There is nothing that G-d can't do (I think that is the correct apophatic expression of the concept)
Its the universe that limits what can be accomplished.

 

[Kueid]

Ok, so it is totally contextual to a specific dialogue, and agreement to what is meant by 'god'

The word 'god' doesn't have any special atribute that the others words don't have and also the same limitations, like context and agreement.

That is hardly 'mutual understanding', without other explanations/specifics.

I didn't get this.. how come MY use of the word aiming "easier mutual understanding" is something unlikely to be?!? (I noted that you suppressed the 'easier'. What was your intent by doing so?)

good day.

good

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

OK. But why do you assume there IS such a thing? What is the need for it? What purpose does such a belief serve?

I don't assume there is such a thing, as though it were a thing I were talking about. I know people find the ambiguity of the Tao hard to appreciate. All I can tell you about my personal 'belief' in it, is that I hold it is the unknown, subtle unity of all life, and that when I practice meditation and so forth- I get something from it. It helps me relate to everything in the universe. I don't really know though if the Tao is a 'thing' believed in. You really gotta appreciate paradox and ambiguity to appreciate Taoism.

The Tao te Ching says about it that it is void, and when utilized, is not filled up.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

Would it be far-fetched to say that if it was not logical then there would be no use studying it?

Logical is so confined to human understanding, no? Is the Tanakh always 'logical'?

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

The thing that we can't give a name to, we try to give a name to anyway, Tao, God, ground of all being. the great mystery, and so on. It's just a word to represent that "thing" that we can't explain or give name to. God is just another name for it, just like Tao.

If God were just another name for it, wouldn't that make it subject to all the questions concerning 'God'? I mean, I know pantheists don't really believe 'God' is a being or entity, but many people do.

 

[Tumah]

Logical is so confined to human understanding, no? Is the Tanakh always 'logical'?

We are a product of logic. So it would be more accurate to say that it confines us. If there were no Laws governing how things work, we could not exist.

Yes the Tanach is logical because it is always understandable, whether one disagrees with its content or not.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

I am pleasantly surprised that I am not the only one that thinks the True God, and the Tao might be similar or the same thing.

If I thought it were, I'd still want to safeguard the Tao from the myriad baggage that comes with the usage 'God'. I don't deny you could be right, but are we speaking of a god as typically understood? An entity, a being?

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

We are a product of logic. So it would be more accurate to say that it confines us. If there were no Laws governing how things work, we could not exist.

Yes the Tanach is logical because it is always understandable, whether one disagrees with its content or not.

You take the laws of existence to come from a being you call G-d then? Even though laws doesn't mean that in a scientific sense? Also, I'm sure plenty of people would debate if the Tanakh is logical. Just bear in mind that science would have no use if human logic were enough by itself.