What do you think God is?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

jupiviv wrote:I'm sure this question has been asked countless times here before, but bear with me. :)

What I think is if God can be described, he takes on a form and therefore, becomes finite. Therefore, to give a description of God is to destroy his infinitude("God is dead" - Nietzsche). It follows, then, that he cannot be rendered higher than any of us finite beings.

Hence, the only description of God is that he cannot be described.
When God takes on a form, that is only a manifestation of God, not the whole of God.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Talking Ass »

From Wikipedia, Gospel of Thomas:

The introduction also says, "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke..." By using the word "secret" the author is telling you that these sayings are not for everyone's ears. These are the secret teachings that are only for a special chosen few — the solitary elect or monachos in Greek (from which the word "Monk" is derived). Furthermore, they are the "secret" teachings of the "living Jesus". The term living Jesus is to distinguish the dualism of the mortal man — Jesus of Nazareth — and the immortal divine being living inside him. The living Jesus would be a pre-existent godly being conceptually similar to the Logos in the Gospel of John.[citation needed]

The theological framework for the Gospel of Thomas is determined by its cosmological outlook. The cosmology of the Gospel of Thomas is extremely dualistic. For Thomas there are only two realms of existence: the material realm and the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is a blissful reality of goodness, life, and light; it is the "Kingdom of the Father". The material realm is a reality of evil, death, and darkness. From Thomas' point of view, the material world is the world of death ruled over by the Lion (possibly a reference to the lion-headed Yaldabaoth in classically Gnostic literature) and his minions or rulers.[citation needed]

While most people in this material world, according to this ancient belief, are lifeless, soulless beings (little more than animated corpses) created to serve the Lion and his rulers; a few people are actually spiritual beings in disguise.[citation needed] These chosen few — though clothed in a mortal body — are actually immortal pre-existent beings of light and "Children of the Living Father" who have become intoxicated and fallen asleep under the weight of the material world and its vices. These solitary elect, upon hearing the words of the Living Jesus, will then shake off their slumber and — upon the death of the material body — will return to the Kingdom of the Father.
fiat mihi
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by David Quinn »

That is a very poor summary of the Gospel of Thomas. For example, its cosmology is actually non-dualistic in nature, not dualistic. And the whole summary reeks of a new age spirituality (or if you like, a primitive cartoonish spirituality) that is not found in the gospel.

The "solitary elect" are simply those who have the mentality and drive to understand the subtle wisdom of non-duality. It goes over the heads of everyone else.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote: Hi David,
The trouble is, you are reaching this conclusion on the basis of describing God to be infinite.
I thought that was the universal definition of God? :)

Many cultures and individuals conceive of God in a finite way - as a personal being, as a loving "grandfather" in the sky, as an alien from another planet, etc. So it is far from universal.

And even if it were universal and everyone in the universe subscribed to it, it would still remain a definition regardless.

jupiviv wrote:
In other words, you are positing a reason for why God cannot be described - namely, that it is infinite. On what basis have you concluded that it is infinite? Is it based on your own understanding of what God is? If so, then you are utilizing a kind of inward description that your mind has managed to access, which makes the notion that God cannot be described rather misleading.
God/Tao/the All is infinite because he has no beginning or end. Anything which does not have a beginning or end cannot be described. As you said, one can only reach a purely abstract understanding of him.

Well, all understanding is abstract in nature. The difference with the abstract understanding of God is that it automatically paves the way for direct experience and understanding, provided that the abstract understanding is flawless. The abstraction eliminates all other abstractions and then promptly disappears of its own accord, leaving pure reality behind.

jupiviv wrote:
The key to understanding God's nature is knowing how to determine what it must be, logically speaking. Once that occurs, the next step of directly realizing its nature becomes obvious.
Yes, and also what he must not be, logically speaking.
Yes, the two go hand in hand.


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Lao Tzu made that statement to tell the readers that the following was only a gesture in the general direction of God. One can point at God, but one can not put their finger on God, so to speak.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "put their finger on God", but one can only point to God when one understands specifically what God is and what God is not. So Lao Tzu was very specific in his pointing, even though he knew that he could only direct and help people along this path a little way. The rest they would have to do for themselves.

It's like pointing directly at Mt Everest and then leaving it up to people to do the work necessary to climb it themselves.

-
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by jupiviv »

David wrote:Many cultures and individuals conceive of God in a finite way - as a personal being, as a loving "grandfather" in the sky, as an alien from another planet, etc. So it is far from universal.

And even if it were universal and everyone in the universe subscribed to it, it would still remain a definition regardless.
Yes, but the power of that supreme being is almost always considered infinite, thereby it can be deduced that the being itself is considered infinite. The perceptions are, of course, flawed, as are most perceptions of anything that can be thought of.
Well, all understanding is abstract in nature. The difference with the abstract understanding of God is that it automatically paves the way for direct experience and understanding, provided that the abstract understanding is flawless. The abstraction eliminates all other abstractions and then promptly disappears of its own accord, leaving pure reality behind.

Yes, that's why I said that it should be purely abstract. We are able to understand something either by the merit of it being present inside us, or due to some external influence. While both of them are abstract, the former is infinitely more so. Understanding God, however, requires us to introspect, both at what is inside us, and what could possibly be outside us - to do that requires a flawless understanding.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by jupiviv »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
jupiviv wrote:I'm sure this question has been asked countless times here before, but bear with me. :)

What I think is if God can be described, he takes on a form and therefore, becomes finite. Therefore, to give a description of God is to destroy his infinitude("God is dead" - Nietzsche). It follows, then, that he cannot be rendered higher than any of us finite beings.

Hence, the only description of God is that he cannot be described.
When God takes on a form, that is only a manifestation of God, not the whole of God.
You are considering God to be a 'whole'. That implies that he has a form.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

David Quinn wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "put their finger on God", but one can only point to God when one understands specifically what God is and what God is not. So Lao Tzu was very specific in his pointing, even though he knew that he could only direct and help people along this path a little way. The rest they would have to do for themselves.

It's like pointing directly at Mt Everest and then leaving it up to people to do the work necessary to climb it themselves.
That's essentially what I meant. By "general direction" and using your analogy, if one is close enough to Mount Everest, they can not point to the whole thing at once - and if they are far enough away to point directly at the whole thing (although still just the side facing them) there would still be many things in between the pointer and Mount Everest that the really stupid could find something along the way and think that that's Mount Everest even before getting to the foot of the mountain.
jupiviv wrote: You are considering God to be a 'whole'. That implies that he has a form.
No, it doesn't. The Infinite does not have boundaries except the boundaries within it because it is infinite. Saying "the whole of the Infinite" is redundant, but I used the word "whole" to try to point out where you missed a concept about God.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by jupiviv »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:No, it doesn't. The Infinite does not have boundaries except the boundaries within it because it is infinite.
If the infinite has boundaries within it, then it also follows that the infinite itself must have a boundary.
Saying "the whole of the Infinite" is redundant, but I used the word "whole" to try to point out where you missed a concept about God.
Where did I miss a concept about God? And the very fact that you used the word 'whole' to describe the Infinite would lead me to think that you do not know what it is.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Talking Ass wrote:From Wikipedia, Gospel of Thomas:

While most people in this material world, according to this ancient belief, are lifeless, soulless beings (little more than animated corpses) created to serve the Lion and his rulers; a few people are actually spiritual beings in disguise.[citation needed] These chosen few — though clothed in a mortal body — are actually immortal pre-existent beings of light and "Children of the Living Father" who have become intoxicated and fallen asleep under the weight of the material world and its vices. These solitary elect, upon hearing the words of the Living Jesus, will then shake off their slumber and — upon the death of the material body — will return to the Kingdom of the Father.[/i]
Whoever added this to Wikipedia seems to me to be largely talking from his own ass. Simply because the text was valued by Mani (founder of Manichaeism), does nothing to illustrate either the meaning of Jesus' words nor to offer a definite consensus view of those who read the text. The above excerpt was copied from the section titled "Theology of The Gospel of Thomas," when there is no dogma or theological predilection indicated beyond a message of personal responsibility for ones spiritual advance and relying on oneself to know right from left.

This idiot is describing Manichaeism and not the meaning behind the aphorisms and parables in the Gospel of Thomas. I say this because it is typical academic muddling with truly spiritual writings. Everyone has a commentary to add, or an opinion to classify something, putting it in place in its own time. But the writings contained in the Gospel of Thomas are so far from the childish religion and superstition of Manichaeism that it does the Gospel a disservice to that one truth seeker who is deterred from the writings because of this faulty identification. It at least needs to be put in perspective as a historical interpretation, not a philosophical classification.

The emphasis in the Gospel of Thomas is for each man to emulate Jesus' life and teachings and so to know Ultimate Reality on one's own and so to return to the Kingdom of Heaven here and now, not waiting for some magical death to deliver us up into the stainless heights, being launched from these awful, defiled depths.

Note: edited wording and added text several times.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Talking Ass »

BMcGilly07 wrote:Whoever added this to Wikipedia seems to me to be largely talking from his own ass.
And I grant you---from my own experiencilism---this is NOT a desirable outcome. If you have it in your power to avoid being an ass, do so. Some are constitutionally predispossessed to the asinine, a lamentable state of affairs to be sure, yet "we make the best of a bad deal". Neverthelesstically, in mulling what you wrote, and for which I am grateful, it occurs to me that, quite possibly, we are all "talking from our ass". How can we definitively know if our interpretation is the "right" one? To what do we compare it to? I live in a stable so do not have egress to a library, but the stable-boy is a bit of a Christian and reads outloud, haltingly, from the Gospels from time to time, to himself since there are none else here but we stable-critters. For example, just last night he was reading from 1 Corinthinians and I adnit to be a little expressed when the author, Paul, spoke rather depreciatingly of the knowledge of the wise, or the worldly-wise, or a certain kind of clever knowledge that was not---and this is what he said---timbered by "love". We all know, and we know so well, that "love" is a disease, an afflictionism of the mind, something akin to a Satanic possession, to be avoided at all costs. And yet he seemed to speak of this "love" as superior to knowledge, wordly-wisdom, or "clever knowing". I admit---I am after all an ass---to being confused by these issues. I ask: Is there a kind of "spiritual love" of which we are ignorant and yet is the one' desired goal? I ask; If there are texts (say the Gospel of Thomas) that are true and worthy, what do we do with all the other texts that also claim to be so?
BMcGilly07 wrote:Everyone has a commentary to add, or an opinion to classify something, putting it in place in its own time.
Isn't this unavoidable? Isn't this what each of us does---indeed, must do?
BMcGilly07 wrote:The emphasis in the Gospel of Thomas is for each man to emulate Jesus' life and teachings and so to know Ultimate Reality on one's own and so to return to the Kingdom of Heaven here and now, not waiting for some magical death to deliver us up into the stainless heights, being launched from these awful, defiled depths.
I am actively, and not a little desperatedly, trying to arrive at a solid definition of just exactly what WAS the "life of Jesus". When you refer to it, where have you derived this prototype? And, I would also like to know, what exactly happens when we die? I fear you may say something like "we just dissolve back into physical matter" and, I for one, do not want to dissolve back into physical matter! I do not just to turn back into just dust. I really think I am something more! I tell you truthfully, and yet in confessionalistic tonalism, that I long for a magical feat of God, a mysterious and unbelievable MIRACLE, and that when I die it will be like waking from a dream! And instead of just a dried up and grime-ridden sunflower by the railyard of a dead world, I will appear in splendourous form, a radient sunflower-person in the light of a gleaming new day! And the sun shall be shining and all my friends will be there, and the pastures of the Lord shall spread out before me and there'll be wild asparaguses galore and other good things to eat! Yes! And my Jinny will be there too!
fiat mihi
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

jupiviv wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:No, it doesn't. The Infinite does not have boundaries except the boundaries within it because it is infinite.
If the infinite has boundaries within it, then it also follows that the infinite itself must have a boundary.
Saying "the whole of the Infinite" is redundant, but I used the word "whole" to try to point out where you missed a concept about God.
Where did I miss a concept about God? And the very fact that you used the word 'whole' to describe the Infinite would lead me to think that you do not know what it is.
Okay, I get it now. You are taking on an internet persona of a talking ass, and intend to remain as obstinate as an ass. I will not play your game.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Shahrazad »

Play it, E, play it!
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Animus »

God is Is
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by jupiviv »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:No, it doesn't. The Infinite does not have boundaries except the boundaries within it because it is infinite.
If the infinite has boundaries within it, then it also follows that the infinite itself must have a boundary.
Saying "the whole of the Infinite" is redundant, but I used the word "whole" to try to point out where you missed a concept about God.
Where did I miss a concept about God? And the very fact that you used the word 'whole' to describe the Infinite would lead me to think that you do not know what it is.
Okay, I get it now. You are taking on an internet persona of a talking ass, and intend to remain as obstinate as an ass. I will not play your game.
I don't get it...
Animus wrote:God is Is
That doesn't make sense. "God is" is sufficient.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by brokenhead »

jupiviv wrote:That doesn't make sense. "God is" is sufficient.
"God" is sufficient.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by jupiviv »

brokenhead wrote:
jupiviv wrote:That doesn't make sense. "God is" is sufficient.
"God" is sufficient.

This reminds me of:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com ... e_ages.jpg




[edited D.R. text only if you don't mind]
iame
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:25 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by iame »

energy is god.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by Carl G »

As is celery.
iame
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 4:25 am

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by iame »

exactly. if god is infinite, then god is everywhere and everything and everything is energy. or god could just be a being with abstract thoughts easy answer to questions that seem impossible to answer. which came first, faith or science?
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by brokenhead »

iame wrote:exactly. if god is infinite, then god is everywhere and everything and everything is energy. or god could just be a being with abstract thoughts easy answer to questions that seem impossible to answer. which came first, faith or science?
Superstition came first.
paco
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by paco »

DHodges wrote:A word without a definition does not refer to anything in particular.

Perhaps you should consider using "the Infinite" (or something like that) instead of "God," which has so much religious baggage attached to it.

When you say "God," people are likely to have some particular god in mind (e.g., Jehovah or Allah).
Clearly, a more defined purpose would be to ask ourselves "How is it God exists?" There are many gods but the christian faith insinuates that there can't possibly be more than one outside of his presence. So, I think, a better way to go about it would be to determine what "God" has a say-so in the infinite.
I am illiterate
dysfunctionalgenius

Re: What do you think God is?

Post by dysfunctionalgenius »

If there is a God or if everything 'IS' God, God then transcends any attempted human description

But I guess its human to need to ask. Maybe its because that our level of consciousness at the moment is limited and that keeps us on our toes because as we investigate our consciousness evolves and grows we continue to survive.

I wonder if we would survive as a species if we had a limited animal instict?

I believe that the biggest problem humans have is the conflict between the animal and the moral/righteous mind and that this is the reason why we ask the questions that have no or only relative answers

I sometimes feel that there is a notion by philosophers that investigation is paramount for all the whole of their lives and i agree with that sometimes only because i can't help being a thinker and someone who has always searched and asked questions.

But it is exausting at times and then i start to envy the shepard amongst the nature with the limit of absolute futile stimuli that we modern city dwellers are exposed and subjected to all day long.

I am sure some of you would agree that you can only tune out so much. I realise I am starting to sound cinycal please forgive me.

So I guess i am starting to question whether knowledge helps or hinders? If anybody has a simple answer to this or one that is easy enough to understand i would welcome it as i am not an academic or super intellectual
Locked