Complex views of God
- Thread starter Pit
- Start date
Yazata
When we use the term ''God'' we refer to aspects, and descriptions, etc, of a being. There can (logically) only be ONE being that fits this description.
The names, such as Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, and others, are the varying personal aspects of this one being.
That is the meaning of the word ''God'', which differs from the term ''god(s)''.
''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'' do not belong in that line up, as they are different aspects of the one God.
That's fine, but at least try and understand what is ''God''.
Who knows? Your decision to be atheist may be made on a misconception.
''Religious devotion"" may not be something that you have a choice over.
If something is true, then as an independant being of good intelligence you are required to act in relation to it. We can either embrace it, or ignore it. That is the freewill we have been given.
If you look at the scriptures from that perspective accepting (not necessarily believing) the concept of God, it is quite possible you may see things differently.
jan.a
When we use the term ''God'' we refer to aspects, and descriptions, etc, of a being. There can (logically) only be ONE being that fits this description.
The names, such as Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, and others, are the varying personal aspects of this one being.
.
That is the meaning of the word ''God'', which differs from the term ''god(s)''.
''Allah'' and ''Vishnu'' do not belong in that line up, as they are different aspects of the one God.
That's fine, but at least try and understand what is ''God''.
Who knows? Your decision to be atheist may be made on a misconception.
''Religious devotion"" may not be something that you have a choice over.
If something is true, then as an independant being of good intelligence you are required to act in relation to it. We can either embrace it, or ignore it. That is the freewill we have been given.
If you look at the scriptures from that perspective accepting (not necessarily believing) the concept of God, it is quite possible you may see things differently.
jan.a
Erm, no!
It means you have the ability to apreciate such things.
All you've done is take a natural ability, and put your spin on it.
Typical.
I'm sure Yazata understood where I was coming from, and since my comment was directed at him, that's all that matters.
What does a link that details different ideas about what God is have to do with the definition of God? Are you serious?
No, it's more than that.
If anything is worthy of being elevated to the same ontological status as a deity, it is the universe itself. Why? Because 1) we know that it actually exists, 2) we know that in at least some sense it is infinite, 3) there are good reasons to believe that it is eternal and 4) it is now, and may always in some sense be, beyond our comprehension.
Most atheists miss this, and most theists see the universe as a lesser manifestation of some greater reality (in other words, the universe gets demoted).
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The first sentence speaks of "descriptions" plural, the second speaks of "this description" singular.
It's certainly possible to create a universalist theology in which all or some of the traditional religious divinities are collapsed together so as to become aspects of just one super-divinity. The Hindus are famous for making that move. The ancient Greco-Roman 'pagans' sometimes thought that way too. I don't think that most Christians, Jews and Muslims would be quite so comfortable with it.
If that kind of universalism is your personal belief, then that's fine with me. I have no objections. But I don't share it.
My point was simply that the meaning of the English word 'God' has been strongly influenced over many centuries by Christianity. When people in most English speaking countries (the US, Canada, UK, NZ, Australia and so on, but perhaps not English-speaking Indians quite so much) use the word 'God', they kind of unconsciously import many of the historical Judeo-Christian presuppositions into what they understand the word to mean. Even self-styled atheists do that.
Then I proceeded to contrast the religious-tradition-derived family of meanings of the English word 'God' with another family of meanings derived from the philosophical tradition. This one reduces the meaning of 'God' to a set of abstract philosophical functions: first cause, ground of being, designer, ultimate goal, and so on.
Of course, we can't really separate the traditional/religious meaning from the philosophical meaning completely, because the Western philosophical tradition was strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, particularly during the high-medieval period. But it's also true that a lot of this philosophical theology is derived from pre-Christian Greek philosophical sources such as Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics.
The problem with that is that it kind of reduces 'God' to whatever the answers are to a bunch of philosophical questions.
My agnosticism at this point is due to the fact that we don't seem to know what the answers to those questions are. It isn't clear that human beings will ever be in a position to know the answers. It's just a leap to assume that all the questions will have one single answer.
And assuming that the answers are something worthy of religious devotion, that all/some of the divinities of the historical religious traditions are indeed 'aspects' of the hypothetical answer, and that whatever the answers are will turn out to be a "person", that is aware of us, cares about us, reveals "himself" to us in our religious traditions, has plans for us, and wants to save us from some fallen condition or something, seems to be totally out in front of any possible evidence.
Again, it's obviously possible to adopt that kind of theology as a matter of personal religious faith. I have no objections to doing that, but I don't share that faith myself.
And the others aren't? How exactly do you know this?
I am. I'm exploring the differing meanings and connotations of the English word 'God'. Then I'm expressing my own varying opinions about the heterogeneous collection of meanings that exploration reveals.
Last edited:
The universe created us. The universe created everything we see.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.
How did the universe create us?
And how did it create consciousness?
Do you accept the big bang theory as the begining point of the universe?
If yes, how did the universe create itself?
jan.
Yazata,
Yes, the first defines the meaning of God, the second defines who the meaning belongs to.
It's possible to create anything we can imagine, such as ''God is the universe''.
But taking the scriptures into account, basic logic, God as defined (even by dictionaries),
God can only be one being.
Nothing else (IMO) makes sense.
If you are refering to the vedas, or the central point, sanatana-dharma, I
think you may be mistaken.
Bhagavad Gita,
Chapter 7, Verse 6.
Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both its origin and dissolution.
Chapter 7, Verse 10.
O son of Prtha, know that I am the original seed of all existences, the intelligence of the intelligent, and the prowess of all powerful men.
Bhagavata-Purana,
He is the Supersoul and the Supreme Lord of all self-realized souls. He is the personification of the Vedas, religious scriptures and austerities. He is worshiped by Lord Brahmā and Śiva and all those who are transcendental to all pretensions. Being so revered with awe and veneration, may that Supreme Absolute be pleased with me.
SB 2.6.13-16: Beginning from me [Brahmā] down to you and Bhava [Śiva], all the great sages who were born before you, the demigods, the demons, the Nāgas, the human beings, the birds, the beasts, as well as the reptiles, etc., and all phenomenal manifestations of the universes, namely the planets, stars, asteroids, luminaries, lightning, thunder, and the inhabitants of the different planetary systems, namely the Gandharvas, Apsarās, Yakṣas, Rakṣas, Bhūtagaṇas, Uragas, Paśus, Pitās, Siddhas, Vidyādharas, Cāraṇas, and all other different varieties of living entities, including the birds, beasts, trees and everything that be, are all covered by the universal form of the Lord at all times, namely past, present and future, although He is transcendental to all of them, eternally existing in a form not exceeding nine inches.
Am I right in saying that the ancient Greeks got their religion from the Egyptians and the Indians?
The Christians and Muslims would not be happy with anything other than their
own religion.
They do, however acknowledge that there is only one God, that there can only be one God.
It's not a personal belief.
There can only be one God, by definition.
There cannot be two first causes, neither can there be two Supreme Beings.
Do can you deny that?
And no doubt, if the likes of Rav and gmilliam get their way, it will be strongly influenced by ''pantheism''. Whoever has the power, will stamp their religious authority on everything. To me, it's obvious, judging by the world situation, that religious institutes don't have God at the center, although the followers may. It is deteriorating, and will soon come to the point where they will accept that God does not exist, that nature is all there is, and the human being the strongest animal can be called God. Already the church leader accept the theory of evolution despite their scripture telling them something else.
That's because Christianity has been the dominant religion throughout the world for centuries.
It has destroyed or suppressed other religious scriptures, and traditions, replacing them with it's own doctrine.
But now we are begining to see the true face of this institute, and it's reign is coming to an end.
Out with the old, in with the new (secular humanism).
I can see the change already occuring.
''God'' was always meant to be a function, even from the Christian era.
The (greek I assume) philosophical tradition was IMO, a major effort to come away from the concept of God by attempting to prove He does not exist, or at the very least pointless, unimportant, and/or unecessary. The begining of this new era (secular humanism)
They got their knowledge from the eastern tradition (if i'm not mistaken)
No doubt this is you field.
How so?
Can you give an example of the type of questions?
I think I understand where you're coming from, and if I'm correct, you've made
it more comlicated than it needs to be. And I think that is a problem with philosophy (greek).
At present it seems your perception is that of an observer. A person standing
on the outside looking in and taking notes. But not fully aware that they are also a part of that which they observe.
I doubt that we have the choices most of us think we have, while at the same time are ignorant of the choice that we have.
It needn't be on faith. We can analyse what ''God'' is, just from the basic definition. If we cannot accept ''Supreme Being'' as the meaning of God, then we'l never find out what God is. I'd go as far as to say anything without that as the initial meaning is atheism in it's true sense, as it will only lead to that.
And we can see that result taking place in this time.
Because they say so, and the others don't.
How else would I know?
Good luck.
jan.
Yes, the first defines the meaning of God, the second defines who the meaning belongs to.
It's possible to create anything we can imagine, such as ''God is the universe''.
But taking the scriptures into account, basic logic, God as defined (even by dictionaries),
God can only be one being.
Nothing else (IMO) makes sense.
If you are refering to the vedas, or the central point, sanatana-dharma, I
think you may be mistaken.
Bhagavad Gita,
Chapter 7, Verse 6.
Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both its origin and dissolution.
Chapter 7, Verse 10.
O son of Prtha, know that I am the original seed of all existences, the intelligence of the intelligent, and the prowess of all powerful men.
Bhagavata-Purana,
He is the Supersoul and the Supreme Lord of all self-realized souls. He is the personification of the Vedas, religious scriptures and austerities. He is worshiped by Lord Brahmā and Śiva and all those who are transcendental to all pretensions. Being so revered with awe and veneration, may that Supreme Absolute be pleased with me.
SB 2.6.13-16: Beginning from me [Brahmā] down to you and Bhava [Śiva], all the great sages who were born before you, the demigods, the demons, the Nāgas, the human beings, the birds, the beasts, as well as the reptiles, etc., and all phenomenal manifestations of the universes, namely the planets, stars, asteroids, luminaries, lightning, thunder, and the inhabitants of the different planetary systems, namely the Gandharvas, Apsarās, Yakṣas, Rakṣas, Bhūtagaṇas, Uragas, Paśus, Pitās, Siddhas, Vidyādharas, Cāraṇas, and all other different varieties of living entities, including the birds, beasts, trees and everything that be, are all covered by the universal form of the Lord at all times, namely past, present and future, although He is transcendental to all of them, eternally existing in a form not exceeding nine inches.
Am I right in saying that the ancient Greeks got their religion from the Egyptians and the Indians?
The Christians and Muslims would not be happy with anything other than their
own religion.
They do, however acknowledge that there is only one God, that there can only be one God.
It's not a personal belief.
There can only be one God, by definition.
There cannot be two first causes, neither can there be two Supreme Beings.
Do can you deny that?
And no doubt, if the likes of Rav and gmilliam get their way, it will be strongly influenced by ''pantheism''. Whoever has the power, will stamp their religious authority on everything. To me, it's obvious, judging by the world situation, that religious institutes don't have God at the center, although the followers may. It is deteriorating, and will soon come to the point where they will accept that God does not exist, that nature is all there is, and the human being the strongest animal can be called God. Already the church leader accept the theory of evolution despite their scripture telling them something else.
That's because Christianity has been the dominant religion throughout the world for centuries.
It has destroyed or suppressed other religious scriptures, and traditions, replacing them with it's own doctrine.
But now we are begining to see the true face of this institute, and it's reign is coming to an end.
Out with the old, in with the new (secular humanism).
I can see the change already occuring.
''God'' was always meant to be a function, even from the Christian era.
The (greek I assume) philosophical tradition was IMO, a major effort to come away from the concept of God by attempting to prove He does not exist, or at the very least pointless, unimportant, and/or unecessary. The begining of this new era (secular humanism)
They got their knowledge from the eastern tradition (if i'm not mistaken)
No doubt this is you field.
How so?
Can you give an example of the type of questions?
I think I understand where you're coming from, and if I'm correct, you've made
it more comlicated than it needs to be. And I think that is a problem with philosophy (greek).
At present it seems your perception is that of an observer. A person standing
on the outside looking in and taking notes. But not fully aware that they are also a part of that which they observe.
I doubt that we have the choices most of us think we have, while at the same time are ignorant of the choice that we have.
It needn't be on faith. We can analyse what ''God'' is, just from the basic definition. If we cannot accept ''Supreme Being'' as the meaning of God, then we'l never find out what God is. I'd go as far as to say anything without that as the initial meaning is atheism in it's true sense, as it will only lead to that.
And we can see that result taking place in this time.
Because they say so, and the others don't.
How else would I know?
Good luck.
jan.
Last edited:
Unknown. Where do you think God came from? What created God's consciousness?
No. I suspect the universe is eternal. Has always been - will always be. It may go through cycles, like a giant sine wave
If it's unknown, why did you claim ''the universe created us....''?
Judging from the information contained within all scriptures, I think God is an
eternal being, meaning He doesn't come from anywhere, nor was He or any part of Him created.
Why do you ''suspect'' the universe is eternal?
jan.