Would this be considered God?

[Sand Dancer]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

 

[George-ananda]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

I call it Brahman as a Hindu/eastern influenced pantheist myself,, but when I am talking to people of western orientation I will sometimes call it God. I guess we need to ask people to explain their beliefs in a sentence or two as nowadays one-word terms are often not clear enough.

 

[savagewind]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

I hope so.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

There is no central authority. You will have to decide which conceptions you consider valid and which you do not.

 

[psychoslice]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

Yes God most certainly isn't a man in the sky, so yes, your idea would be much closer to whatever God is.

 

[savagewind]

Yes God most certainly isn't a man in the sky, so yes, your idea would be much closer to whatever God is.

It was what I was thinking but I did not know how to write it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I call it Brahman as a Hindu/eastern influenced pantheist myself,, but when I am talking to people of western orientation I will sometimes call it God. I guess we need to ask people to explain their beliefs in a sentence or two as nowadays one-word terms are often not clear enough.

True.

 

[Bunyip]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

People freely apply the term 'God' to a suite of different concepts, there appears to be no rules. So yes, you can label anything 'god'.

 

[Quintessence]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

Why wouldn't it be? Anthropomorphic gods seem to be very uncommon, actually. When gods are anthropomorphized, it's mythopoetic (a "literary device" of storytelling so to speak).

 

[JRMcC]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

I try to avoid the term because I think it can confuse people. But how you describe the great spirit is personal preference.

 

[psychoslice]

I try to avoid the term because I think it can confuse people. But how you describe the great spirit is personal preference.

If only it was a personal preference, but its not to a lot of people, each religion believing they know what god is and even how he looks, which of course is pure ignorance.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

If I was to label anything as god, It would be the overall universe and my relationship with it. It's natural mysteries and the mysterious manner by how everything works suffices enough to equate and surpass anything an anthropomorphic version brings to the table.

 

[Thief]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

I believe the Almighty is Spirit.
First in Spirit...mind and heart....

So the physical appearance isn't there.
We speak of God's Face, His Hand, His Voice....
but we do so for lack of description quickly said.
It would be difficult to talk about Him without everyday common nouns.

I do believe He has the qualities of 'person'....
He simply doesn't have that appearance.

 

[Thief]

People freely apply the term 'God' to a suite of different concepts, there appears to be no rules. So yes, you can label anything 'god'.

no you can't.....go look in the mirror.....
say it to yourself.

 

[Thief]

There is no central authority. You will have to decide which conceptions you consider valid and which you do not.

No hierarchy?

 

[Tumah]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

I believe in G-d and it seems my belief is panentheistic.
So I don't see why not.

 

[LuisDantas]

No hierarchy?

There are many hierarchies, some of which apply to religion.

What there is not is an objective definition of deity. It is really a free-for-all. Anything can be called god by whoever feels like it. No need to be reasonable or even consistent about it.

 

[Bunyip]

no you can't.....go look in the mirror.....
say it to yourself.

Why not? People here have sure done so, so that proves that it can be done.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I have been wondering lately that if someone does not adhere to an anthropomorphic view of God, i.e., traditional theistic, but more like a panentheistic, "God is a pervading spirit or force" view, is that considered God? Trying to pin down my particular view.

I always thought an anthropomorphic image for God was merely for symbolic reasons. God is a very complex being, and to find out more about him you can't just look out, you must also look in yourself.

God's nature is so complex we cannot comprehend descriptions of him such as "God is a pervading spirit or force," more than words. To understand this conceptually is near, if not completely, impossible. If we can understand God in detail, would it be right to consider that God - it'd mean God is able to fit in a person's mind, thus lesser than humans. Usually people expect God to be beyond us.

So if someone seeks to have a connection with God, they are going to have to limit him to their understandings. God's form as a human in monotheistic or polytheistic religions are just there to relate to the God easier

 

[Thief]

There are many hierarchies, some of which apply to religion.

What there is not is an objective definition of deity. It is really a free-for-all. Anything can be called god by whoever feels like it. No need to be reasonable or even consistent about it.

you know me.....for years I've been posting....
Almighty...the term is self explanatory.
Creator...the Cause for all of this.

true I don't have a religion.
I think ritual and recital get in the way.

I think this scheme of things plays in a reasonable manner.