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

[maximus242]

Intresting stuff, coinicidences or truths? Can one even define what it means to be omnipotent? I think prehaps instead of trying to decipher words and cryptic means we could try another route. What is omnipotence really? I mean to be all powerful, is an almost lacking of power. Because even if you posses all this power, you lack the power with which to not be powerful. So prehaps omnipotence is much more a perspective and a state of mind than a physical substance? Truely, are we not gods to the dust mites who float around? Do the ants not look up and see us, see a great towering being just as when we look to the stars and see a great towering light? What of the cells that live in ones body? we can influence them, and change them with enough communication, they are within us, are we not gods to them? Maybe instead of looking up to the largest and most earthshattering phenominon to find god, we should look to the tiniest creature, the simpilist proton and prehaps then, gain some insight to what a god really is?

[Lindsay]

...Can one even define what it means to be omnipotent?...What is omnipotence really?

In answer to these important questions, I will offer the only thing I have the right to offer, my personal opinion.

BASICS PRINCIPLES FOR A CREATIVE DIALOGUE
But, before I do this, I need to state some basic principles I always try to keep in mind whenever I get involved having a dialogue about serious matters with people I do not know all that well. And, by the way, I prefer dialoguing to debating. With this in mind, I
1) try to keep a sense of humour, even about serious matters.
2) I would like for all discussants involved to agree that there is no one among us who is infallible.
3) I would like to think that if there is any dispute about the meaning of words we agree to consult a standard dictionary.
4) I would like to think that we would be willing to do the same regarding generally accepted facts. Let us, generally speaking, agree to accepts facts as reported in a standard encyclopaedia, or, as provided by accepted experts in the field under discussion.
5) Finally, if after a fair discussion of the topic at hand, we still find ourselves in disagreement, let us, even before we start, agree to disagree, agreeably. In this way it is to be hoped that we can learn to accept all enriching differences and rejoice in all satisfying similarities.
===============================000000000==================================
Max asks

...What of the cells that live in ones body? we can influence them, and change them with enough communication, they are within us, are we not gods to them?...

IMO, GØD—note the way I spell the divine name—is not A human-like and personal being who happens to be omnipotent. I like to think of GØD as being omnipotence itself—whatever omnipotence is. Not being omniscient, I do not pretend to know. I use words like 'omniscient', 'omnipresent' and 'all loving' in the same way.

This question is raised: Do atomic particles, atoms, viruses, bacteria, cells, insects, fish, birds, animals, whatever, think feel and act like human beings and look upon us as their "God"? I have no way of knowing, but I do not think of it as plausible, or possible. Therefore, at this point, in the same way that I refuse to think of GØD, anthropomorphically—that is, I refuse to think of GØD as having a body, mind and spirit like we do. In the same way, I refuse to think of atoms, etc., as being human-like beings. However, if anyone can arrange for me to meet a Mr. Atom, I am always ready and willing to be convinced otherwise.

Meanwhile, because I think of mice as sentient beings I treat them with respect. But they are not human beings. Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse cartoons, which give human-like voices and spirit-like emotions to caricatures remotely resembling people and mice, make for good entertainment for the child-like mind in all of us, but surely that is all they are, entertainment. Disney himself called cartooning doing the “plausible impossible”.

[Guest]

3) I would like to think that if there is any dispute about the meaning of words we agree to consult a standard dictionary.

Golden words Mr. Lindsay!

But what if the mind decrypts (translates into its own language of associations and secondary associations within the neurons network in the brain) the words in quite different ways and accepts variations not implying to human Free Will and Knowledge and dictionary.
I mean that in some cases, when the brain decrypts (meaning cited above) words, while eyes read the words, then it automatically, like a ‘machine’, makes decryption (meaning like above) not following the dictionary or common sense?

The usage of word God by itself is quite questionable.

Look, e.g. you yourself use this “GØD�. How can you be sure that the true God likes this “Ø� letter? If I would be the God I did not.

E.g. Where, Why, Who, Whom, Whose, What they look similar, they all start by Wh. It is like a terminal. By choosing the terminals we predispose everything, at least it presets conditions. It is like a spell.

Another example: word Hello differs from word Hell by one letter. So when we say hello to each other does it mean that each time the word Hell (and info associated with terminal Hell) gets in some way activated in our brain? Does it mean that that each time when we meet another person and welcome him by this word we activate the terminal Hell? The same is with word Help. So when people say Help, then does it mean that the terminal Hell may get activated with some probability? So does it mean that when people look for Help they call Hell? Magic? Or what? Percolation of meanings in brain?

The human freedom is confined by the language they speak. But there are languages on our planet which have other very interesting properties. E.g. Lord Byron once named a language (I forgot which one) designed to speak with God. Maybe there are languages which are free from such a magic?

Your five points are excellent indeed. But I guess that each should have option.

[Lindsay]

...But what if the mind decrypts (translates into its own language of associations and secondary associations within the neurons network in the brain) the words in quite different ways and accepts variations not implying to human Free Will and Knowledge and dictionary?

This is why, IMO, it is so important to keep the dialogue ongoing. People of good will will seek to understand without, necessarily, having to agree.

The usage of word God by itself is quite questionable. Look, e.g. you yourself use this “GØD�. How can you be sure that the true God likes this “Ø� letter? If I would be the God I did not.

If there is a personal 'God' I would love to hear from "him" about this. Yes, indeed, semantics is a very interesting subject. It requires dialogue mixed with lots of love and understanding.

As you point out

The human freedom is confined by the language they speak. But there are languages on our planet which have other very interesting properties. E.g. Lord Byron once named a language (I forgot which one) designed to speak with God.

Was it Welsh?

Your five points are excellent indeed. But I guess that each should have option.

Dialogue allows for this. What options do you wish to offer?