Can you describe God? What are his qualities? To what degree is God ineffable?
-
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!
What Can You Tell Me About God?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
The God Most High within my NDE appeared like a man on a throne, surrounded by rainbows floating on a cloud, from my perceptions to begin; yet this was an expectation, thus it becomes manifest in a place of pure consciousness...
When asking what God really was, it is like a dynamically evolving CPU, with its core and database going down to the pits of Hell; where it uses all the negative energies to transduce them back into light.
It is the center of all reality, where everything is processed through a single point.
Can describe God in so many ways; so a more direct question can make it less ineffable?
Since the CPU is beyond dimensions of unconditional love and wisdom, its logic supersedes everything we know, and more.
Depends on the experience or if someone is reading about it.
In my opinion.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
1. Life/spirit/transformation
2. Moving. Gratitude. Peace. Holistic.
Qualities that define god in relation to people
3. We still don't know what is the motor behind this life or energy or the spark. It's infalliable to many because they connect what they won't understand as sacred and label that concept of a mystery or something Greater one can't understand by human thinking etc.
Last edited:
Many people think about God (or the gods) as a noun...a thing...using many adjectives, prepositions, and interjections to describe it...
I rather think of God as a verb...
I rather think of God as a verb...
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I always liked that view. Remember you said that years ago (years
) and I'd say that's the best way to discribe god.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think of God as being an intermediary born from the mind of its owner that is projected outwards. A mental bunraku puppet that lives and moves along with its operator.
I marked "I know a few of [the gods] qualities based on my experience, but for the most part, [the gods are] ineffable," though that doesn't quite reflect my thinking.
I would say all things are ineffable or indescribable in that the map is not the territory. That is, any human understanding of some aspect of reality is not that aspect of reality. All organisms create maps or tell stories about the territory based on the senses and cognitive processes they have available. None of that actually is the territory because organisms are limited in their capabilities (aka, they are incontrovertibly biased). As all things are worthy of worship to me - thus all things are gods - the gods follow that same rule for me. The stories we tell about the gods are not the gods. The painting is not the landscape. But these stories and paintings are expressions of what artists experience and what they know through those experiences. That wisdom should not be discounted, but it should also be put in its proper context (that is, no tales are "The Truth").
Personally, I'm often not as interested in other people's stories about the gods as I am in my own experiences of the gods. However, I think a lot of that has to do with not being in a polytheistic culture. The stories about gods I hear are less about gods and more about God, who I am not interested in. When I'm fortunate enough to hear stories about the gods, I do enjoy them. I suppose it's a genre appeal thing? Even then, though, direct experience is better than a story. A good bard can take you on a journey to experience things yourself, though.
I would say all things are ineffable or indescribable in that the map is not the territory. That is, any human understanding of some aspect of reality is not that aspect of reality. All organisms create maps or tell stories about the territory based on the senses and cognitive processes they have available. None of that actually is the territory because organisms are limited in their capabilities (aka, they are incontrovertibly biased). As all things are worthy of worship to me - thus all things are gods - the gods follow that same rule for me. The stories we tell about the gods are not the gods. The painting is not the landscape. But these stories and paintings are expressions of what artists experience and what they know through those experiences. That wisdom should not be discounted, but it should also be put in its proper context (that is, no tales are "The Truth").
Personally, I'm often not as interested in other people's stories about the gods as I am in my own experiences of the gods. However, I think a lot of that has to do with not being in a polytheistic culture. The stories about gods I hear are less about gods and more about God, who I am not interested in. When I'm fortunate enough to hear stories about the gods, I do enjoy them. I suppose it's a genre appeal thing? Even then, though, direct experience is better than a story. A good bard can take you on a journey to experience things yourself, though.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Strong atheist. No proof, no possibility of existence of God as well.
I think that is beautiful, Quintessence.
Last edited:
WalterTrull
Godfella
Just look around.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
In Vedic philosophy, God is impersonally stated to be Nirguna Brahman , and Saguna Brahman in a personal sense.
The Vedas declare thus...
Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
Brahman is thus considered to be pure consciousness, that pervades everything and not bound to any limitation.
Jehovah states thus ...
“I am that I am” [Exodus 3:14].
Here 'I am' implies the state of pure consciousness or awareness.
Ramana Maharshi states in this regard...
Ramana Maharshi on Judaism
Pure consciousness is also pure love. And this is why Jesus stated that "God is love." John 4:8
"Pure consciousness is pure love, and love is the highest healer on the planet - you can say, it is your natural Self." - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
The Vedas declare thus...
Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
Brahman is thus considered to be pure consciousness, that pervades everything and not bound to any limitation.
Jehovah states thus ...
“I am that I am” [Exodus 3:14].
Here 'I am' implies the state of pure consciousness or awareness.
Ramana Maharshi states in this regard...
Ramana Maharshi on Judaism
Pure consciousness is also pure love. And this is why Jesus stated that "God is love." John 4:8
"Pure consciousness is pure love, and love is the highest healer on the planet - you can say, it is your natural Self." - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
You proceed by thinking about what God is not rather than what God is. In this way you rationally eliminate all of the gods from being God. None of them can be the one, and therefore none of them can hold sway over all people. Whatever is left is God.
The "Who" of God or the "What" of God?
In terms of the 'What,' I can affirm nothing. In His Essence God is unknowable, ineffable and beyond human cognition, comparison or imagination. As St. John of Damascus explained: "It is impossible to portray one who is without body: invisible, uncircumscribed and without form."
Although, the ever-ambitious Gustave Dore had a bash at painting the unpaintable in the 19th century, when painting Dante's vision of the Highest Good (Beatific Vision) in his Divine Comedy:
The Divine Essence is that weird, formless orb thingy in the middle (surrounded by all the choirs of angels, themselves immaterial beings without form in point of fact but depicted here as traditionally rendered with wings).
In terms of 'Who,' I can describe Him by referring to the revealed qualities of the Three Persons.
The Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. No one has ever seen Him, He is transcendent, we know Him only through the Son. Tends to be depicted by artists using either the anthropomorphizing image of a Hand, an enthroned, grandfatherly old man (by the second millennium) or as an unapproachable light but in fact He is pure, formless, bodiless spirit. For about a thousand years, owing to this reason, no attempt was made to portray God the Father in human form, because early Christians believed that the words of Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see Me and live" and of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time" forbade it.
The Son, the Word of God, light from light, true God from true God, through whom all things were made. He became incarnate in human form, preached the gospel, died on the cross etc. We all know how traditional art is prone to depicting Jesus and his character is described in detail in the gospels, so I won't labour the point.
The Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, the Advocate who dwells within the temple of the human body by grace and guides us into all the ways of truth. Tends to be depicted either as dove or as tongues of fire. Like God the Father, he possesses no bodily form.
Here's a painting from 1452 depicting all Three Divine Persons of the Godhead:
The pair of hands at the top symbolize the Father as transcendent, the Dove symbolizes the Holy Spirit as immanent, while the Son is of course depicted in human form as Jesus Christ. That's "Who" God Is.
Last edited:
No doubt inspired by the Nicene Creed. Having recited it so many countless times in my youth, I'd recognize it anywhere.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
It looks to me like “God,” in Christian and Baha’i scriptures and possibly others, is a word that is substituted in the place of a person, in analogies that compare some of our experiences and possibilities in life with experiences and possibilities with a person. The nature, personality, character, motives and intentions of that person vary widely from one analogy to another, possibly enough to encompass all the different ways that people who believe in Him think of Him. I’ve always thought of Him as a being outside of space and time who can’t be truly imagined or described in any other way than to say that He created the universe. Now I’m not even sure about that.
syo
Well-Known Member
The following is the Holy Trinity of the Christian Orthodox, as I understand it. if I have mistakes, it's because I misunderstood.
The Father. - male, doesn't have a face, he is invisible, he is the creator of everything, he created the World (which world is female), he is light, eternal.
The Son. - male, he was born (not created) from father beyond time, he is light, he is god's only son, his task is to carry out the creation of the world of his Father. he carries out the creation with Hagia Sophia (holy wisdom) it's a female quality. he took a human form (Jesus).
The Holy Spirit. - neutral, it gives life to matter, it comes from Father alone, it appeared on earth as dove (female) and as parakletos (male). the HS guides the church.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Hmmm. Ineffable probably can't be used to describe "the only".
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, Napoleon Bonaparte, considered as the world's greatest general ever, have made an interesting and insightful observation about consciousness and love as well...
The extent of your consciousness is limited only by your ability to love and to embrace with your love the space around you, and all it contains. - Napoleon Bonaparte
Could it have been possible that Napoleon could have been a great sage or enlightened being if he had not pursued the military career ! We never know.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Why does this focus on ineffable. While ineffable (unnameable) is one of the traits of God, it it hardly how everyone sees God. In theology we learned that while God is numinous (greatly beyond the world and awe-inspiring), God is also immanent (referring to things always close or within, that is, highly personal). If you've encountered God personally, it is unlikely that you will still consider God ineffable. Unless God came to you like Moses, but people today generally don't cope with that level of awe without winding up in the mental institute.
God comes to us today, typically in the person of Jesus, unless we're Jews. Or Hindus (Brahman).
Or if you're one of those people from that other belief, your god is always beyond understanding and everything is fate. Lazy theology. Fate is an excuse to do misdeeds. In Doris Day's movie she sings Que Sera, Sera but notice the context. She is actively working to distract the bad guy. When you act, you are not in accord with fate, it is only when you just let things happen. You cannot do evil, and call it fate. Fatalism is to have your life be a mess because you let things happen to you.
In short, many religions have different concepts of the divine. Buddhists see the self as more important, and breaking illusions. Shintos believe in kami or spirits, which are omnipresent in the natural world. Taoists believe in stuff like qi. Jains believe life itself is sacred, inspiring many of the nonviolence ideas for Buddhism.
As for me, having had a relationship with God, the idea of an ineffable God is completely anathema to me. I believe in passages of the Bible that describe us as the Body of Christ, and others that describe the Church as the Bride of Christ.
God comes to us today, typically in the person of Jesus, unless we're Jews. Or Hindus (Brahman).
Or if you're one of those people from that other belief, your god is always beyond understanding and everything is fate. Lazy theology. Fate is an excuse to do misdeeds. In Doris Day's movie she sings Que Sera, Sera but notice the context. She is actively working to distract the bad guy. When you act, you are not in accord with fate, it is only when you just let things happen. You cannot do evil, and call it fate. Fatalism is to have your life be a mess because you let things happen to you.
In short, many religions have different concepts of the divine. Buddhists see the self as more important, and breaking illusions. Shintos believe in kami or spirits, which are omnipresent in the natural world. Taoists believe in stuff like qi. Jains believe life itself is sacred, inspiring many of the nonviolence ideas for Buddhism.
As for me, having had a relationship with God, the idea of an ineffable God is completely anathema to me. I believe in passages of the Bible that describe us as the Body of Christ, and others that describe the Church as the Bride of Christ.
Last edited:
At times I've thought I experienced God, mainly as a sense of peace experienced during prayer or church services or while reading the Bible, or through happy coincidences and seeming answers to prayer. I now recognize that I don't have good reasons to believe those experiences were from a god. So my current answer is that I have not experienced God, nor do I see any good reason to think anyone else has.
In the poll I chose "other" because while I have not experienced God, I dont know if "I cannot know or describe him," so that didn't fit. Some versions of God I think are unfalsifiable, so it would be impossible to ever be sure we were experiencing such a God. With other versions of God, I can imagine ways I could experience her/him/it, but I just haven't.
In the poll I chose "other" because while I have not experienced God, I dont know if "I cannot know or describe him," so that didn't fit. Some versions of God I think are unfalsifiable, so it would be impossible to ever be sure we were experiencing such a God. With other versions of God, I can imagine ways I could experience her/him/it, but I just haven't.