What is God?

[evangelicalhumanist]

At the root of many of the conversations we have on this board is the question of "who or what is God?" I've discovered, here and elsewhere, that there are a tremendous number of different views on the subject, and some are so flexible that it would be possible to find "god" wherever one might choose to look. I've heard it said that "God is the ultimate," or "God is the sum total of all there is," or "God is energy," or "God is the all-pervading consciousness." And of course, there are the more traditional views of a personal God in the Abrahamic traditions.

But if "God is the universe," then why do we need two names, unless it is so that we can deliberately have a god, as well as the universe, even though they are coincident entities. If "God is energy," then it seems to me that we can find god in a teaspoon of gasoline. That's got energy to burn.

Really, to use the word "god" in the sense of energy or all or the universe etc. doesn't make the concept of god wrong as much as it makes it unimportant.

And who wants an unimportant god?

I don't think that many of those senses are how the word "god" has been used historically, and if words are to have any meaning at all, I think it behooves us not to invent new definitions willy-nilly. If I'm talking about god and I mean the universe, and you are talking about god and you mean the father-son-holyghost trinity of creation, judgement, reward and punishment, then we're not really having a conversation at all.

And of course there are polytheists (true polytheists who believe in multiple gods, or those who believe in many manifestations of a single godhead).

So maybe, when we talk of god or gods, we really should have some idea of what that means, and I rather think that, for the notion of god to have any real meaning at all, it must be taken to mean -- at the very, very minimum -- an entity of power, who has established the universe and its laws, the moral right and wrong for the inhabitants of said universe, and is interested in the universe. Even for polytheists, I think, for the gods to have any meaning at all, they must have some active interest in those who believe in them.

So, for anyone who cares to address the question, when you use the name "god," what exactly is it that you mean?

[Lightkeeper]

This is where I think Ken Wilber's work comes in. There are different stages of consciousness and God would be thought of or experienced differently in each stage.

Here is an Altitude color chart.
Scroll down to find the chart.

I personally think what we think of as God is formless, nameless and beyond opposites. It's within us and we can find it if we transcend ego and the thinking mind. When we experience this within us we than see it it everything and everyone.

[sendy47]

But if "God is the universe," then why do we need two names, unless it is so that we can deliberately have a god, as well as the universe, even though they are coincident entities. If "God is energy," then it seems to me that we can find god in a teaspoon of gasoline. That's got energy to burn.

Really, to use the word "god" in the sense of energy or all or the universe etc. doesn't make the concept of god wrong as much as it makes it unimportant

I 'am uncertain why one would feel if all as any and all is of this energy that some refer to as God in all and of all that is...i for one think least at this moment reading this and thinking about it...and or untill something else is shown or gives reason to believe something different...I am not 100 % anywhere just continueing to grow learn and take in ....anyhow..reason for post...why then if it is but the teaspoon of gas...or blade of grass or whaterver human or earth what ever...if it is but energy that is the real of us...why would any one thing be of greater importance then another...we are taught from birth that this is important...and then there becomes this personal scale in family or society's that we kinda use to make judgment of what is of importance and to what degree of importance....it would probably anger many to think a human would think he was no more no less then anything else in exsistance...but that is our need i think to feel more powerful more in control...i dont have the answer to the ins and outs...i will continue to mow grass or kill a bee that is about to sting me...but having done so...i still will have respect for the place all anything has in life.........

[Lightkeeper]

I don't think you are being ignored. I think your messages are on a very deep level and make a lot of sense. As I recall English is your second language. Many of us only understand one language, so you are ahead of us. A lot of book learning can stand in the way of the depth of being we are. Many times it's the earthy people who have a handle on basic truths. I value your posts and the depth you bring to the forum.

I agree with you on having a reverence for all life and doing what has been set in front of us to do. And yes, it's for each of us to decide what is and what isn't important and not live by the dictates of family or society. I see and relate to your beauty, because you are not disguising it.

[Eolas Pellor]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

But if "God is the universe," then why do we need two names, unless it is so that we can deliberately have a god, as well as the universe, even though they are coincident entities. If "God is energy," then it seems to me that we can find god in a teaspoon of gasoline. That's got energy to burn.

Well, we seem to be confusing several things here.

I would never say that "god is the universe". In fact, I would go so far as to say that the modern idea of the universe was pretty much inconceivable in ancient times, and really has very little to do with how people traditionally viewed the gods. It was only astronomy in the first part of the 20th century that opened up the vista of a universe measured not in miles, but in billions of light years.

Assuming one god in charge of all of that seems, to me, to be a stretch. I'm not even sure a galactic god would work for me. Such a being might exist, of course, but a universe ruling deity would be so distant and remote, I cannot concieve of how he could be involved with human history, much less how he could know when every sparrow falls.

I like my gods far closer and smaller-scale than that, even the greatest gods.

As for god "being energy", I can honestly say I do not know what that means. A lightning bolt is energy, but does not seem, to me, to be a god. I think EH's teaspoon of gasoline point is well taken. I suspect that people mean, when they say things like this, that the concieve god to be some sort of organized energy, a bit like one of those glittering cloud creatures in the old Star Trek.

I think that's scarecly a tenable concept, however. If you really have a universe-spanning monodeity, then beause it is energy it would totally limit such a being to acting within the limits imposed by Einstein's math. In other words, if you address a prayer to such a god, and he is busy attending to a pulsar on the far side of the universe, then it may take him a little while (28 billion years or so) for him to get back to you on that.

However, quite a few people use "energy" as an imprecise synonym for "spirit". I do not like the usage, myself. If they mean it in that way, then I suppose they may feel they have transcended the problem. I am not so sure, however.

Really, to use the word "god" in the sense of energy or all or the universe etc. doesn't make the concept of god wrong as much as it makes it unimportant.

And who wants an unimportant god?

I am not sure I follow your point? Are you saying that synonyms are unimportant because having one term we do not need another? I think that is false, surely. Different terms for the same thing usually mean that there is more than one way of thinking about something. I suggest that is a good thing; we should not be limited to a single way of expressing an idea, or a single way of looking at (or discussing) something.

I don't think that many of those senses are how the word "god" has been used historically, and if words are to have any meaning at all, I think it behooves us not to invent new definitions willy-nilly. If I'm talking about god and I mean the universe, and you are talking about god and you mean the father-son-holyghost trinity of creation, judgement, reward and punishment, then we're not really having a conversation at all.

I totaly agree with both points you make in the first sentence. Many people are struggling to fit traditional ideas into new terms. But, to borrow a Christain metaphor, you should not put new wine into old wineskins, for both will be ruined.

As for your second point, I suspect a very large percentage of the time, people are talking at cross purposes.

And of course there are polytheists (true polytheists who believe in multiple gods, or those who believe in many manifestations of a single godhead).

I would be one of the former. I am very uncomfortable with the "All-the-gods-are-One-god" approaches, as much as I am with honest straightforward monotheism. I do not deny that some people find monotheism absolutely necessary; I think it is a crock, beset by so many inherent contradicitions and logical lapses that it is untenable and void.

I rather think that, for the notion of god to have any real meaning at all, it must be taken to mean -- at the very, very minimum -- an entity of power, who has established the universe and its laws, the moral right and wrong for the inhabitants of said universe, and is interested in the universe.

I do not accept the "established the universe" part, not in the way I think you mean it, and while I would say the gods established the laws of the cosmos, I do not mean the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Gravity. I do mean the laws of ethics and morality, but something rather more than that as well.

The gods are interested in the World, but their interest and involvement is not limited too, nor even necssarily primarily, humans and their activities.

I am not sure what you mean by "power"; too many people think of dvine power in terms of the Parting of the Red Sea scene in C.B. DeMille's "Ten Commandments". I do not think of the pwer of deities in that way; in fact, I would say that such a demonstration flies in the face of what real divine power must be.

Even for polytheists, I think, for the gods to have any meaning at all, they must have some active interest in those who believe in them.

I can only answer this with a resounding "maybe". I think it depends on how one concieves of relationships between both deity and human, and deity and deity.

So, for anyone who cares to address the question, when you use the name "god," what exactly is it that you mean?

You do realize they executed Socrates for asking questions like that, don't you?

[Tonyamendola]

Hi EH

When I use the name GOD it is really only used only as a universal "idea"
It is not anything at all to do with Religions



The name I used during the expereince of God was "LOVE" but this should not be taken as a Worldy love because it is greater in every way

I will list a selection of words below that define that "LOVE" but in truth no words get close - they all fall completely short of the experience
It must also be said that you are not only expereincing God but also BEING a part of the same and hence the term Son of God is appropriate


Infinite
Grace
Everything
Formless
All knowing
Eternal
One
Complete
Absolute thought

There is absolutely nothing other than thoughts of LOVE

To try and go further the experience is in thought and shows that everything that is happening is in thought - and only in thought
Everything we think other that Love is irrelevant - It simply does not nor has ever existed

It is also important to say that this is not a new expereince - It is a remebering of SELF - SELF in caps because it is complete - as ONE with all parts or if you like the sons of God become the SON OF GOD

So God to me is ALL Life and is in every one of us because we are all in truth the SON

Despite some Religious Ideas the only thing I would add to that is this

Gods loves us all equally and simply waits for us to put the toys away and come home - We are the prodigal sons

I remember you spoke about the Bible section talking about the rushing winds as God reveals himself - I note you said it didnt sound very pleasant
I assure you that the description is accurate - however the expereince is not at all unpleasant - it is the winds of perfect Love rushing through YOU - and this is where you remember eternity and infinity and indeed LOVE in its Truth


Simply God is LOVE but if I used Love rather than God that would not be very clear at all - as presently many still have a perspective of Love rather than the "expereince" of LOVE which is why the TRUTH will set you free

[sendy47]

Thank you LK.....

[ShyLady]

I mean the Jewish God. The God who has made me feel Himself for sure, and the rest I am totally confused about. God is what I have clung to though, because He is the one I know better than anything else. He has been my comforter when I called on Him as God. He sends His HolySpirit which is like a part of Him.

How I have no Idea and I began to think in the way people and books have influenced me. Because God is all that I have felt, and I think of God as literally a Great Spirit. My fantasy as a child was like the Native American's use of the Great Spirit, but now I have learned about their Great Spirit and found its not the God I have known and felt.

The God of the Bible (which I'm not sure was even translated correctly by men) which actually I'm not even sure anymore if he is God the Father, God the Son, and God the HolySpirit all in one!

I've come to think and believe that God the Father is seperate from God the Son, and the HolySpirit which I'm not really sure of anymore, if it is part of God the Father and the Son together or what. Yeshuah (The Messiah) called it the comforter but He said it was going to be sent by God the Father.

[Rev. Kelly]

God...EH, you are asking for the impossible, a concrete definition of what God is. God is many things to many people, just look at the different religions around the world. Some have a very concrete sounding definition of what God is, and others are more fluid with their ideas. Nailing down something that will suit all is about as difficult as getting all people to agree on their favorite flavor of ice cream, unless you give them but one choice.

I honestly think that God is enough of a mystery to us that if we took everything we think we know about God, from every religious viewpoint, we would still not know the whole of God.

The question you asked EH, is one that people have been asking since the beginning of time. And one that we will probably still be asking at the end of time too.

[Harvey1]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

So, for anyone who cares to address the question, when you use the name "god," what exactly is it that you mean?

Well, there isn't an exact definition which is to be expected since there are different ways in which God interacts with the world (e.g., as a source or creator or "complexifier," as a transforming agent, as a spiritual presence, etc.). However, usually I refer to God as source having mind, intent, etc. But, it would depend on the context.