Your God is Not God

[arthra]

"Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

Well I think there might be something to the statement made above...

"Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)."

Baha'is have long believed that the essence of God is unknowable and that

"All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.

"Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.

"That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccessible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven -- but the condition is unknown."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 381

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hindus hear this from all corners. 'Your God is not God, at best he is a messenger whom my God sent to your land.'

Why should the essence of God be unknowable? He has sent his son, his messenger, his prophets, his manifestation, his messiah (Mahdi) and more. He keeps on sending these and none of them know God. Hindus clearly are better placed to know Gods and Goddesses because they themselves come to us. There is nothing that we do not know about them.

 

[Prestor John]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

I disagree because this statement negates the idea of receiving direct revelation from God.

If your God can speak, then He is God.

 

[Quintessence]

What were you trying to get at here, @Sunstone ?

 

[Acim]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

What is this rationale not true for? Your body is not your body, but is at best an approach to thinking about the body in which you appear in. Not really yours though.

IOW, what does it mean to have anything, while also conceiving of it through a mind that entertains doubt(s) of any sort?

 

[savagewind]

I'm sorry but I do not understand your question? If I am happy and content believing in a Goddess or God why should I be concerned if a person tends to agree or disagree with my beliefs? Each person has to decide for themselves on whether or not to believe in a Divine force or not, as for me, I am content and prepared to meet my Divine when it is my time to cross over to the other side. I am not a divine creature myself and accept that my view of my Divine maybe distorted yet I have faith that my Creator will undetrstand any mis informed perceptions I had for my Creator when I was alive, hope what I wrote helps!

member: 499"]Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

Oh good! Someone else didn't understand the question as written.

 

[Sunstone]

What were you trying to get at here, @Sunstone ?

Just wanted to find out how folks would respond to the statement in the OP. Not much more than that.

 

[Quintessence]

Just wanted to find out how folks would respond to the statement in the OP. Not much more than that.

Well, we already know the Quintessence would be prone to respond with a bunch of overly-thought out drivel that makes the question more complicated than it was probably supposed to be.

I did have a response written up. Deleted it in favor of a question instead. Seems to me it was intending to get at the entire map/territory thing, but the phrasing I have issues with. Mostly because when one's theology takes the gods as various aspects of reality, you end up with "your trees are not trees" and other nonsense that is only passable as a Zen proverb.

 

[RedDragon94]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

I think that God is reality/nature. God created all, or we could say created himself or herself. There is only one God because there is only one reality. Reality is natural and axiomatic. Humanity is a part of nature. So yes, God is within because all is God. At the same time, reality is not idealistic, but real.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If your God can speak, then He is God.

Many Hindus consider Brahman to be the Supreme God. It does not speak. It does not need to. He is not a salesman.

 

[Prestor John]

Many Hindus consider Brahman to be the Supreme God. It does not speak. It does not need to. He is not a salesman.

Anything that speaks is a salesman?

Would you mind clarifying?

 

[Riders]

Christians are salesman they cant just be a member of their own religion they have to go around and sell it. At leaste Hindus don't have too.

 

[Prestor John]

Christians are salesman they cant just be a member of their own religion they have to go around and sell it. At leaste Hindus don't have too.

If you believe that what you know is right and will make anyone happy and you have a love for others who do not know what you know - you're going to want to share it.

 

[Riders]

No its not sharing to force it down others throats, who are you to tell others what will make them happy?

 

[Riders]

It reminds me of some drug dealers Ive met and a few sex addicts trying to get me off the wagon.

 

[Prestor John]

No its not sharing to force it down others throats, who are you to tell others what will make them happy?

I don't remember forcing anything on anyone.

I am a person who has found happiness in this life which qualifies me to share what makes me happy with others.

 

[Prestor John]

It reminds me of some drug dealers Ive met and a few sex addicts trying to get me off the wagon.

I promise you'll be happier if you stop hanging out with drug dealers and sex addicts.

 

[viole]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

If God can have at the same time a Son and no Son, or be one and three and more at the same time, or being resurrected and not resurrected at the same time, then I disagree.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Onyx]

Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Your god is not god. Your god (or gods) is, at best, an approach to thinking about god (or to thinking about the gods)." If you agree with the statement, why do you agree? If you do not agree, why not?

I solved the whole problem a long time ago by considering myself to be the only god I can rely upon. That said, I don't believe I'm entirely responsible for my own existence, but the future is in my trusted hands now. No grace or salvation in my religion.

 

[Riders]

I promise you'll be happier if you stop hanging out with drug dealers and sex addicts.

Nice try, that was my old days.