• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God, undefined:

S

swamplizard

Human
Greetings within this Friday morning gentle folk,

Paul/Saul gave to the Greeks his interpretation of their unnamed God.
Swampy offers for consideration that God, as is, simply is and other than that, is undefined within the concepts of our mental constructions.

Do not religions attempt to package God within parameters of what God must be and cannot be? This endeavor to paint God with the mind includes the desires and the dismays of God, according to the minds of those who would present portraits of God. Can any person(s), with any accuracy, partially, much less fully, define God?

When definitions clash between people as to their interpretation of God, do they not often result in antagonism? Is this the God that one serves, or is this the individual serving one's own determination and thus one's own ego?

Just some boggy rambling before the weekend. As always, my best, and....

dance a bunch !!! :danana:


swampy
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
swamplizard said:
When definitions clash between people as to their interpretation of God, do they not often result in antagonism?
Click to expand...
Ah the joys of selling out in order to keep the peace. Sounds like an attempt to twist definitions to something more "politically correct".
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
You mentioned the word definition...are we going there first?

He is the Almighty.
biggest, fastest strongest, most intelligent, greatly experienced....
the one and only creator.

Stacked deck.
 
S

swamplizard

Human
Thief said:
You mentioned the word definition...are we going there first?

He is the Almighty.
biggest, fastest strongest, most intelligent, greatly experienced....
the one and only creator.

Stacked deck.
Click to expand...

Mornin' Thief,

Perhaps our words are meaningless when it comes to such a definition as pertains to that of God?

bestest,
swampy
 
O

Onkara

Well-Known Member
Interesting post, Swampy :)
Ultimately what is not God or God's? Even the ego or our apparently man made definitions of God are all due to our existence which is due to Him.

When the blood boils in anger from all the intolerance and hate in the world, I have to accept my own limitations as the cause for my own ignorance and negativity. Take a step back and I must again accept my limitations as His divine will; afterall I didn't choose any of this myself. At this point all the parts and diversity appear to have a place in His Divine plan.

:)
 
S

swamplizard

Human
Onkara said:
Interesting post, Swampy :)
Ultimately what is not God or God's? Even the ego or our apparently man made definitions of God are all due to our existence which is due to Him.

When the blood boils in anger from all the intolerance and hate in the world, I have to accept my own limitations as the cause for my own ignorance and negativity. Take a step back and I must again accept my limitations as His divine will; afterall I didn't choose any of this myself. At this point all the parts and diversity appear to have a place in His Divine plan.

:)
Click to expand...

Good morning Onkara,

Very nicely stated with the serenity of acceptance fluid throughout. Thanks.

best,
swampy
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Swampy has a point.....for something undetectable, to define it is to risk limiting our understanding of it could actually be. We often give
our stories & definitions too much weight, & try to make reality conform to them. (Personally, I ignore the whole existence of God thingie.)

As the great philosopher/artist/scientist, Buckaroo Banzai, said.....
"Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is."
 
A

Awoon

Well-Known Member
"God" is just a language symbol that points to a greater reality that is beyond words.

"Tree" is just a word, it is not the "tree."
 
doppelganger

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
It seems there are times when "God" has to be a thing, with attributes and whatnot (e.g. "God is almighty", "God is a skilled baker", "God wears crotchless panties"). At those moments, is "God" as thing there to meet a psychological need? Is the thingly "God" of religion in any way related to the "God" pointed at by mystics and spiritual visionaries?

The Tao that is spoken is not the Eternal Tao. So when mystics and "theists" talk about "God" some thing gets lost in the translation.
 
S

swamplizard

Human
doppelgänger;2620218 said:
It seems there are times when "God" has to be a thing, with attributes and whatnot (e.g. "God is almighty", "God is a skilled baker", "God wears crotchless panties"). At those moments, is "God" as thing there to meet a psychological need? Is the thingly "God" of religion in any way related to the "God" pointed at by mystics and spiritual visionaries?

The Tao that is spoken is not the Eternal Tao. So when mystics and "theists" talk about "God" some thing gets lost in the translation.
Click to expand...

"The Nameless is the boundary of heaven and earth"

Mornin' Dopp,

best,
swampy
 
doppelganger

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
swamplizard said:
"The Nameless is the boundary of heaven and earth"

Mornin' Dopp,

best,
swampy
Click to expand...

And "only the hand that erases can write the true thing."

I think it was Jung who wrote: "Religion is a defense against the experience of God."

What do you think of that idea?

G'morning, swampy.
 
S

swamplizard

Human
doppelgänger;2620228 said:
And "only the hand that erases can write the true thing."

I think it was Jung who wrote: "Religion is a defense against the experience of God."

What do you think of that idea?

G'morning, swampy.
Click to expand...

Hey Dopp,

This morning I think that all external sources are inadequate for completeness, yet any may provide the first trickle of sand for the eternal container.

More ramblings from the bogs,
best,
swampy
 
Walkntune

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
All of existence is within the concepts of or mental construction in various frequencies.Truth is not what we define but its what defines us.To try and find truth or God through observance or the five senses is to be separate from truth and from there can never be discovered. It can only be discovered from within as we are part of truth so must stay one with it to see it.
 
Last edited:
A

Awoon

Well-Known Member
doppelgänger;2620218 said:
It seems there are times when "God" has to be a thing, with attributes and whatnot (e.g. "God is almighty", "God is a skilled baker", "God wears crotchless panties"). At those moments, is "God" as thing there to meet a psychological need? Is the thingly "God" of religion in any way related to the "God" pointed at by mystics and spiritual visionaries?

The Tao that is spoken is not the Eternal Tao. So when mystics and "theists" talk about "God" some thing gets lost in the translation.
Click to expand...



Words or thoughts can not define the "profound" and "sacred."
 
DreadFish

DreadFish

Cosmic Vagabond
This is why I lean more towards negative theology, which states that one can only define what God is not, rather than what God is. So by saying God is loving and compassionate, one would be saying that God is not hateful, careless, and cold.

So, by saying God is formless, limitless, and beyond definition and understanding (which itself is a conceptual statement) one would be implying that God is not restricted by form, not limited, not definable, and ultimately not within the bounds of rational understanding.

It could also be applied to the very concept of "God," meaning that by conceptualizing "God" we are addressing something that is not human, and not within the bounds of the conditioned causal plane

I think this is the best way to approach the concept of God.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
DreadFish said:
This is why I lean more towards negative theology, which states that one can only define what God is not, rather than what God is. So by saying God is loving and compassionate, one would be saying that God is not hateful, careless, and cold.

So, by saying God is formless, limitless, and beyond definition and understanding (which itself is a conceptual statement) one would be implying that God is not restricted by form, not limited, not definable, and ultimately not within the bounds of rational understanding.

It could also be applied to the very concept of "God," meaning that by conceptualizing "God" we are addressing something that is not human, and not within the bounds of the conditioned causal plane

I think this is the best way to approach the concept of God.
Click to expand...

But approaching a concept of God, is not the same as being approached
BY God.

And this will happen at some point.
You are not your own handiwork.
And someday, Someone will come around to see what came of the dust.

The only way to avoid this, is to simple not stand up when you die.
Follow your body into the grave, and eternal darkness.

In the meantime, say of God whatever you will....
and be prepared to meet your expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top