GØD IS ? ... IMO, the verb 'to be' is the only verb I can use when I write about absolute being., GØD and the verb 'to be'. Options

[lgking]

NOTE: Because this OLD thread has some relevance to one of the discussions I am currently having with J, about the theological concepts we all do, or do not, hold, I bring it forward to now. Please, ignore it if you feel bored. I WILL be doing some revisions.

The old thread carried the title, interesting perhaps only to me: G�˜D is the matrix of ALL that is, physically, mentally and spiritually speaking

CURIOUS AND POSITIVE, THEISTS, ATHEISTS, PANTHEISTS, PANENTHEISTS, DEISTS, WHATEVER AND AGNOSTICS ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF METAPHYSICS--the kind I feel who love to dialogue about all creative ideas--TAKE NOTE:

In the 1950's, it was recommended to all theological students at the seminary, which I attended, that we read the book, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, by The Rev. James S. Whale, then President of Cheshunt College, Cambridge, England. He was a well-respected liberal evangelical Congregational minister and teacher. I still have his book.

Chapter one is entitled THE LIVING GOD (1941). It is about, "the reality, nature and purpose of the living God."

IS THERE A GOD?
Then, interestingly, he asks: "But is there a God?"

Amazingly, he answers his question by saying, "Apparently not. God is not apparent to our senses. Nor is he indubitably apparent to human reason."

He goes on to point out that the so-called philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God are not proofs, they are arguments. He admits that, "...it is not compellingly apparent that God is the only explanation of human history", otherwise why would we have the problem of evil? Interesting.

J.S. WHALE PUTS A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON FAITH AND GRACE
=====================================================
"Nevertheless" he continues, "belief in the reality of God is the alpha and omega (THE BEGINNING AND THE END) of the Christian religion. Christian doctrines presuppose and illustrate the fundamental doctrine that God is, and that man's chief end is to know him."

THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION
Beginning with this--1, the Christian doctrine of Creation-- he writes about other doctrines: There are 2, the Christine doctrine of Sin, 3, of History, 4, of the Atonement (life, death and resurrection of Jesus), 5, of the Trinity and the Incarnation, 6, of the Church, of the Word and the Sacraments, and 7, the doctrine of Last Things--life Eternal.

Reading Whale, today, I now realize why--while I still respect the point of view of theism--I need this new perspective which I call unitheism, or panentheism. It sure avoids having to speak of G�˜D as being any kind of separate human-like being.

GØD. Note what my 'puter does with this spelling, at times. It changes it to
G�˜D, IMO, is whatever infinity and eternity are. It does not change in my title or in my signature--when I write as Lindsay.

G�˜D AND THE VERB TO BE
========================
BTW, the verb 'to be' is the only verb which I am comfortable using in conjunction with 'G�˜D'.

IMO, G�˜D is not, in any way an objective human-like being who does, or even wills, this, that, or whatever. For me, G�˜D does not will, or exist; G�˜D is will, or existence. This is why Orthodox Jews write about G-d, not about God. G-d, for them--and I agree--cannot be made into a three-dimensional and objective, even subjective, being.

==========================================
Currently, ' G�˜D', or GOD, is the acronym I choose to use for what I once use to symbolized as 'God'. Feel free to use any word with which you are comfortable. Some agnostics--ones who are not comfortable with theism or atheist--like to speak of Nature
when referring to the ultimate reality--what the theologian Paul Tillich called, "the ground of all being"

I think of G�˜D as the highest good. That is, that which points to all present and potential GOODNESS, all ORDER and laws as uncovered by the sciences, and DESIGN and beauty as created by the arts.

IMO, each of us has the opportunity to be at one with G�˜D

But this will only happen if we consciously choose be at one with what is. The human ability to have FAITH, HOPE, and to be LOVING, indicates that G�˜D is within us. This brings us to the concept of LOVE.

LOVE and WILL are closely related. To understand the spirit of love, at it highest level, please read Paul's great poem on love. It is found in I Corinthians 13. It is in this spirit that I begin this dialogue. And, BTW, I want to think of this exercise as a dialogue--the sharing of mutually valuable ideas--not a debate in which one poster tries to prove that the other is wrong.

Of course, often there is no absolute agreement about what is, or is not, the truth. Therefore, for now, when I run into people with concepts with which I strongly disagree, I will simply say: I beg to disagree, agreeably, and lovingly.

Much of what I say will be prefaced with the phrase, in my opinion. IMO, is a phrase I will probably use often. On with the dialogue.

This post has been edited by Lindsay: May 08, 2008, 07:03 PM

[Rick]

It's good to see you here too.
===========================
LGK: I hope you are serious about feeling good to know I am still here. Don't worry, I have learned to handle rejectionBTW, Rick, did you win that game of chess?

Question: How come you, a Supreme God, appear to be bored with, or afraid of talking about GØD, or GOD? Are you still an agnostic? Or have the prominent atheists--Where have they gone?--converted you?

BTW, notice that I use the acronym 'GOD' because my 'puter keeps playing tricks on me. It takes my preferred acronym, GØD, and displays it as G?D, or G ' D. Not all the time. But when it feels like it.

What happened to TLID, who signs: I'll be back.

[lgking]

It's good to see you here too.

Rick. I presume you are a still your positive and good-living, agnostic-humanist self. Did I get that right?

I am not sure if I have ever mentioned this, but I have a friendship, which I have cultivated with a poster from Paducah, Kentucky. My friend is Warren Farr, a starving artist. I am looking for a way to encourage and even to help him.

Way back when, he and I, independently of one another, and of others, developed the word 'unitheism'--G-D is that which is in and through all that IS, including us. I use it as a doublet for pan-en-theism. I also use it to avoid confusion with pantheism--God is all things. The process philosophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead, mathematician behind the new physics, is very pan-en-theist.

Here is a link to Warren's bio:
http://www.warrenfarr.com/aboutme/biography.html
Here is a linke to something I wrote for him on my take on unitheism:
http://www.unitheist.org/whatis.html
===========================
Rick, Warren and I--and one or two others--while attempting to work out what it means to be rational and non-traditional theists, without advocating out and out "a"theism, have been busy building a rational and open theology, which respect positive agnosticism, including atheism, and does not accept the god-in-the-sky-looking-after-us theory.

If you look at the site you will see that it includes dealing with a couple of anti-thinking and, apparently, anti-clerical yahoos, who prefer to slag and knock. BTW, it is made up of quite a few threads, which the yahoos want to dominate:

http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=19

If you have time, give it a look see.

I am not suggesting that you waste your time, but it would be interesting for them to hear from a "guest" from CA. Guests can post at the BODY and SOUL section, without having to register.

I would love to see several "guests" challenging the arch-yahoo JDF and his several clones to "think", if they are capable of doing so.

BTW, I found out that JDF--formerly known as Alberta Jon--is from Pincer Creek, the wind-capital of Canada. I have been there. The winds flow in from the mountains of Montana.

[Rick]

Rick. I presume you are a still your positive and good-living, agnostic-humanist self. Did I get that right?

Everything but the agnostic. I oscillate between gnosticism and antitheism. I have a sense of the divine, but can we prove it's not an illusion? I think the history of religion shows we would probably be better off in the future without it, hence the antitheism.

By the philosophic principle of Occam's Razor (the simpler explanation is the better), it's not clear that any description of divinity in the universe adds anything to an explanation of anything. Before adding that element to my model of reality, I need some evidence of its necessity.

Your friend Warren sounds like an interesting fellow, born in the same year as I.

[lgking]

Rick, I offer the following correction:
LGK: "I presume you are still your positive and good-living, gnostic and humanist self."

" Did I get that right this time?" I ask.

Rick: "...but can we prove it's not an illusion?"

LGK: "You mention Occam's Razor. Okay, but what about Pascal's wager? Is it not GOOD to believe the best until the worst is proved? Check out:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm
================================
Rick: "I think the history of religion shows we would probably be better off in the future without it, hence the antitheism."

LGK: "Are you saying that all religion, including the benevolent kind, is evil?"

Rick: "By the philosophic principle of Occam's Razor (the simpler explanation is the better)"

LGK: "What is simpler than saying, "G-D is the oneness of what IS? G-D unites us. Interestingly, the literal meaning of 'devil' (diabolic) is that which splits, or separates, us."
=====================================
Rick: "Before adding that element (G-D) to my model of reality, I need some evidence of its necessity."

LGK: "What is more necessary than the whole of which we are a part? If G-D is the whole, how can we say: We are not a part of the whole?"
=====================================================
Rick: "Your friend Warren sounds like an interesting fellow, born in the same year as I."

LGK: "Feel free to get in touch with and encourage Warren. He is an artist, and an intellect. He also needs to sell his art. I am trying to figure out some way that our Family Life Foundation can be of some help to him. If we can get our hands on some money, we could buy some of his art. This would help him financially, and personally, while helping him feel good about who he is.

"I know what he is going through. I have a daughter and a son-in-law, both artists, living on a floating house, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Tofino. My wife, using some of our pension income, and I are helping them, by buying some of their art. Quite a story."