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

[Lindsay]

You might be interested in the following dialogue I had, recently, at another site:
0JDF, Nov 23 2005, 09:33 PM

...I am not questioning the sincerity of your belief in G-d. I just wonder how you think you could, scientifically, prove anything about your G-d. What you seem to be suggesting--correct me if I am wrong--is that it is possible to have objective, verifiable evidence for G-d. As I noted above, I am a relativist when it comes to God talk. I think God language is necessarily subjective not objective. Subjective, objective.

NOTE: My responses, below, were given before I started using GØD for the divine name. I responded:
Why not both? For me, G-d is also abstract and concrete, absolute and relative, near and far, the microcosm and the macrocosm, the chaos and the cosmos, whatever.

BTW, I like your attitude, JDF. It looks like we can agree to disagree agreeably. BTW 2, have you changed your name? And when did you join?

I don't want to sound more sceptical than I am. I am a believer in a Universe that remains mysterious, wonderous, awesome, beyond comprehension even. I am a believer in a Spiritual Realm. But I doubt that I or anyone else could ever scientifically prove any of my beliefs about the Universe. They are simply the way I order my response to existence.

No argument here, from me.

Keep in mind that much of what I write will be a repeat of what I have written before. It is hard to believe that I have been writing to this forum--How long noe? Is it since 1999? Or before? I can't recall.

If you will allow me to describe what I mean by G-d, or GOD (goodness, order and design), here is my take on things:

There are, in my humble opinion certain things--physical, mental and spiritual--which are self-evident.

Like the American constitution begins: "We hold these truths to be self evident " therefore, it is self-evident to me that I exist, and I exist within a vast and, as you say, mysterious universe.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH
I happen to think that Rene Descartes (1596-1650), the philosopher, mathematician and inventor of analytic geometry got it right when he began with the idea that the only thing he was certain of was that of his own existence. Thus he wrote: "Je pense, donc je suis"--I think, therefore, I am.

From this point on, he went on to say that the idea of "a" perfect being cannot arise in the mind of a doubting and imperfect (incomplete?) creature like man." Then he added: "A perfect idea must have a perfect cause, and this is God."

DESCARTES' CONCEPT OF GOD
Keep in mind that Descartes was a mind-body dualist. It seems that Descartes' concept of God was as follows: God, for Descartes, was the originator of the perfect and the complete idea of all that is. As indicated, he was, a dualist, and a great mathematician. For an over-all view of the ideas of Descartes the dualist, check out:

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~histor.../Descartes.html
for a closer look at his philosophy, check out:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/Table.html

In my humble opinion, Descartes--and I do not blame him for this, in any way--ommitted what I think of as the third factor as to how we operate as human and thinking beings. I call this third factor, the pneuma factor--that which makes us more than just a body and a mind.

In my humble opinion, we are more than just a body-mind dualism; we are a spirit-mind-body trialism--a new word which, thanks to Rene, I just coined. Yes, I do accept that, pneumatologically speaking, we can be in touch with all great pneumas.

Now, getting in touch with Hebrew thinking, keep in mind that: The Hebrew alphabet is made up of 22 consonants. The vowels--AEIOU--were, originally assumed without being written. Later, in the Middle Ages, symbols, in the form of dots and dashes were added to the consonants.

For example, the Hebrew for the personal name of God is, YHWH--all consonants. In English, we translate this as, Jehovah--by adding e,o, and a. For us, the word literally means, I am who I am.

Out of the same Hebrew root comes Jehovah-shuah, which contracts to Josuah, which means: the iamness within us is what brings us physical, mental and spiritual healing, or, holistically speaking, salvation.

In the Greek, the Hebrew, Joshua, is Ieasau. From this, by adding a hard verskion of "J", we get our word, Jesus. The Greek and Hebrew words literally mean: I am is the healing power within us which brings health and salvation. In other words, the healing power within you is your consciousness of you own self and well being. In my humble opinion, this can be used to heal or to destroy. Power is neutral. How we use it is up to us.

BACK TO DESCARTES
Back to Descartes and his comment: I think, therefore, I am.

One can just as easily say: I touch the universe with my senses. Therefore, the universe IS. If G-d is infinity and eternity, then G-d is in and through the things that are near--that is, the local part of that infinity--as well as in and through the things that are beyond what I can experiences with my senses.

I love travelling to the east coast. When I go there, I can scoop up handfuls, and more, of the Atlantic ocean. When I do this, I have a very positive feeling and evidence that the Atlantic ocean,even though I do not have the time to explore it all of it, is vaster than it seems.

Using science and reason, if I choose, I can certainly explore what I experience as the Atlantic ocean, near to me. Furthermore, by faith--the kind of faith that does not need to go contrary to science and reason--I have a strong feeling that, if I were willing to take the time, there is much more to explore.

Take note: I am not trying to prove that there is "a" God who exists in an objective form separate and apart from all things, small or large. Any god who can be encapsulated in an objective form is too small, for my way of thinking. But, meanwhile, I can experience that part of G-d which is close enough to me to experience. For example, every breath that I take convinces me that I am physically dependent on that part of G-d we call air. The same is true for every glass of water I drink and food that I eat.

Looking back I am glad that since I was a student I have always been deeply interested in the natural and social sciences. Over the years, as I read more and more about the new physics, genetics and the work of scientists like Alfred North Whitehead, etc., I am becoming more and more interested is the practical application of faith, imagination, and intuition. I have experienced the saving of health and lives, including that of my daughter.

BTW, having studied under several great teachers, I am qualified in the art of hypnosis. My basic undergraduate education was in philosophy/psychology, which were in the same university department in my day. Psychology grew out of philosophy.

I think I know something about how faith healing works, when it does work. It is related to the hypnotic trance--often present when people practice deep prayer/meditation. And just like medicine and surgery, it has it share of failures. Knowing this, one can almost predict when an attempt to use faith will fail.

LET'S RESURRECT THE SERIOUS STUDY OF THE SPIRIT
Under the general heading, pneumatology, I call what I do, pneumatherapy--hypnosis without the hype and the hocus pocus. Physiologically speaking, I believe it can be used to direct genes and hormones to do their thing.
================00000000000000=====================

[Enki]

.

For example, the Hebrew for the personal name of God is, YHWH--all consonants. In English, we translate this as, Jehovah--by adding e,o, and a. For us, the word literally means, I am who I am.

I heard that YHVA is used as well. Is not it? The God has many names. YHVH is frequent too, as well as YHWA, YHWH etc.

I think if it is a signature it should has very simple explanation.

[Lindsay]

......I heard that YHVA is used as well. Is not it? The God has many names. YHVH is frequent too, as well as YHWA, YHWH etc.
I think, if it is a signature, it should has very simple explanation.

As I understand it: It is related to the Hebrew verb for 'to be'. This fits in with what I am saying in my signature, below. GØD--the highest good, as LOVE, is BEING, not a being.
How do you understand it? Give us your thoughts.